[CynicalBear]

>>The New Testament was entrusted to the Church.<<

The fact that the Catholic Church tries to usurp the position of the apostles is simply fantasy. The lineage of popes is built on fallacy. The Catholic Church leadership doesn't even qualify per Paul's criteria for becoming bishops. How Catholics fall for the lies of the Catholic Church is beyond me. For those truly wanting to follow Christ it is paramount that they leave that religion.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I have already noted your opinion.

Would you like to define the identifying "marks" of the True Ekklesia, according to your view? Would you maintain that it would have to have no Sacraments, no Eucharist/Mass/Liturgy, no hierarchical structure, no regard for Sacred Tradition, no reliance upon a chain of Apostolic Succession, and having exclusive reliance on a 66-book "Bible"?

Is that about it? Anything else that would be a mark of the true "ekklesia"?? I need you to clarify and define this by your own point of view.

And then: would you care to name one ekklesia (identified by city or bishop) which existed in, say, the first millennium A.D., which meets these criteria?

[verga]

And of course being a prot you don't carry it back far enough. The rest of the etymology puts your argument to shame.

1300-50; Middle English bible, bibel < Old French bible < Medieval Latin biblia (feminine singular) < Greek, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy books; biblíon, byblíon papyrus roll, strip of papyrus, equivalent to býbl(os) papyrus (after Býblos, a Phoenician port where papyrus was prepared and exported) + -ion noun suffix

Oooo look the Septuagint is in there.

OOO look it began from a Phoenician port, not books.WOW the prots really screw it up don't they!