How or why?

[PJM]

After reading **Eph. 2: 19-20 and or Eph. 4: 4-8, **I am compelled to ask:

How can there be more than ONLY one Chuch an One Faith? I’m not being sarcastastic here. I really struggle in understanding the proliferation of churches and differnt faith beliefs as having a actual biblical foundation. PLEASE help us out here.

God’s continued Blesings,
Pat

 

[nhylan]

After reading **Eph. 2: 19-20 and or Eph. 4: 4-8, **I am compelled to ask:

How can there be more than ONLY one Chuch an One Faith? I’m not being sarcastastic here. I really struggle in understanding the proliferation of churches and differnt faith beliefs as having a actual biblical foundation. PLEASE help us out here.

God’s continued Blesings,
Pat

I always find this sort of threads funny because people who start them like to act incredulous that just because Roman Catholics don’t feel that other mainstream denominations (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Orthodoxy etc) aren’t members of “The Church” that that actually is the truth. We are on the same team here friend whether you wish to believe it or not.

 

[JeanMichel]

After reading **Eph. 2: 19-20 and or Eph. 4: 4-8, **I am compelled to ask:

How can there be more than ONLY one Chuch an One Faith? I’m not being sarcastastic here. I really struggle in understanding the proliferation of churches and differnt faith beliefs as having a actual biblical foundation. PLEASE help us out here.

God’s continued Blesings,
Pat

As I have thought about this I have concluded that there have been several reasons for this development. First, the Church has been THE church for hundreds of years. As such, it has had the misfortune of having members, monarchs, and leaders that acted poorly. Their behavior conflicted so drastically with what people thought was appropriate that instead of doubting God, they doubted the church. Second, scripture is open to interpretation. As poor behavior continued, men found reasons to support their beliefs and they left the church to what they thought was a more pure gospel that would produce better people. Sadly, all that happened is that the same cycle reoccurred and new denominations began again. This is just meant to be a brief summary, but it suffices for a short statement.

When the Church is perceived as having done evil, it is very difficult for some members to sit still.

 

[Scoobyshme]

After reading **Eph. 2: 19-20 and or Eph. 4: 4-8, **I am compelled to ask:

How can there be more than ONLY one Chuch an One Faith? I’m not being sarcastastic here. I really struggle in understanding the proliferation of churches and differnt faith beliefs as having a actual biblical foundation. PLEASE help us out here.

God’s continued Blesings,
Pat

Clearly, there cannot be. The “Truth” is not a personal viewpoint, or an abstract. The Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. He is unified and cannot be divided up onto separate parts. And, wherever we find Jesus, we find the Father and the Holy Spirit, by way of the divine mystery of unity. Wherever we find One Person of the Blessed Trinity, we necessarily find the other two.

All who are saved are saved “through” the Catholic Church, which is the instrument of salvation created by Christ here on earth. All who make it to heaven will be Catholic, whether they were here on earth or not. The Church is not only universal, but it is eternal.

The further we stray from the truths of Christ faithfully handed on the the Apostles and their successors through the centuries, the further we stray from Christ, Who is the Truth.

 

[tester]

After reading **Eph. 2: 19-20 and or Eph. 4: 4-8, **I am compelled to ask:

How can there be more than ONLY one Chuch an One Faith? I’m not being sarcastastic here. I really struggle in understanding the proliferation of churches and differnt faith beliefs as having a actual biblical foundation. PLEASE help us out here.

God’s continued Blesings,
Pat

for the discussion to continue: please define “church”

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I always find this sort of threads funny because people who start them like to act incredulous that just because Roman Catholics don’t feel that other mainstream denominations (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Orthodoxy etc) aren’t members of “The Church” that that actually is the truth. We are on the same team here friend whether you wish to believe it or not.

Number one, the Orthodox are part of the Church, i believe that Ven. Pope John Paul II said they were the right lung of the Church and the Latin rite the left. When it comes to mainstream Protestantism, it is impossible that they are part of the same Church as Catholics, due to major theological differences such as Sola Scriptora, in the Epistles we are warned to never make private interpritations unless guided and approved by the Apostles and their sucessors, the Reformation was due (in large part) to private interpretation. Also as there is only one God with one Will, there can be only one True Church as all denominations have different theologies. While there are many points where we agree those major ones where we do not are enough to prove that we are seperate. Otherwise we would have to coclude that God cantradicts Himself and frankly as this would be a form of lying (which God cannot do) we must then find that there is only One Church surely as there is only One God.

 

[Jimdandy]

number one, the when it comes to mainstream protestantism, it is impossible that they are part of the same church as catholics,

Not true! No wonder Catholics are misunderstood!
Read the catechism of the church!

 

[tester]

Equivocation
is classified as both a formal and informal logical** fallacy**.
It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

So at the “particular time” that the Bible was written; what was the meaning of the word “church”?
**The term Church in Greek εκκλησια, occurs for the first time in Matthew 16:18. The word simply means an assembly or congregation, the nature of which is to be understood from connecting circumstances; for the word εκκλησια, as well as the terms congregation and assembly, may be applied to any concourse of people, good or bad; gathered together for lawful or unlawful purposes. **

Hence, it is used, Acts 19:32, for the mob, or confused rabble, gathered together against Paul, εκκλησια συγκεχυμενη, which the town-clerk distinguished, Acts 19:39, from a lawful assembly, εννομω εκκλεσια.

**The Greek word εκκλησια seems to be derived from εκκαλεω, to call out of, or from, i.e. an assembly gathered out of a multitude; and must have some other word joined to it, to determine its nature: viz. the Church of God; the congregation collected by God, and devoted to his service. **

The Church of Christ: the whole company of Christians wheresoever found; because, by the preaching of the Gospel, they are called out of the spirit and maxims of the world, to live according to the precepts of the Christian religion. This is sometimes called the Catholic or universal Church, because constituted of all the professors of Christianity in the world, to whatever sects or parties they may belong: and hence the absurdity of applying the term Catholic, which signifies universal, to that very small portion of it, the Church of Rome.

In primitive times, before Christians had any stated buildings, they worshipped in private houses; the people that had been converted to God meeting together in some one dwelling-house of a fellow-convert, more convenient and capacious than the rest; hence the Church that was in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, Romans 16:3, Romans 16:5, and 1 Corinthians 16:19, and the Church that was in the house of Nymphas, Colossians 4:15.

Now, as these houses were dedicated to the worship of God, each was termed κυριου οικος kuriou oikos, the house of the Lord; which word, in process of time, became contracted into κυριοικ kurioik, and κυριακη, kuriake; and hence the kirk of our northern neighbors, and kirik of our Saxon ancestors, from which, by corruption, changing the hard Saxon c into ch, we have made the word church. This term, though it be generally used to signify the people worshipping in a particular place, yet by a metonymy, the container being put for the contained, we apply it, as it was originally, to the building which contains the worshipping people.

In the proper use of this word there can be no such thing as The church, exclusively; there may be A church, and the Churches, signifying a particular congregation, or the different assemblies of religious people: and hence, the Church of Rome, by applying it exclusively to itself, abuses the term.*

bible.cc/matthew/16-28.htm

 

[Nicea325]

I always find this sort of threads funny because people who start them like to act incredulous that just because Roman Catholics don’t feel that other mainstream denominations (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Orthodoxy etc) aren’t members of “The Church” that that actually is the truth. We are on the same team here friend whether you wish to believe it or not.

Key word Feel. Faith is not about ‘feelings’ or ‘warm fuzzies’ but about the TRUTH. The historical facts cannot be any clearer all other churches have a human founder or founders. BTW: The Orthodox are not considered as outsiders.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

crusading canuk;7345469:

number one, the when it comes to mainstream protestantism, it is impossible that they are part of the same church as catholics,

Not true! No wonder Catholics are misunderstood!
Read the catechism of the church!

Please tell me where this is in the Catechism. If you mean “those who do not know Christ through no fault of their own” that does not mean non Catholics are really Catholics without knowing it. In order for a group (such as a rite or parish) to be Catholic they must follow the four Marks of the Church:

-One they must have visible unity with the Church

-Holy they must be set aside or sanctified by God, as the Church was when Jesus made St Peter His Rock.

-Catholic this means universal, the Church is open to all peoples but pnly in context of the other Three Marks

-Apostolic, this means that their clergy have legetimate decent from the Apostles by the laying of hands and appropriate words of ordination. The Protestants have a different understanding of their “orders” and the words of ordination have been different since the Reformation. This means their Apostolic Decent was destroyed in the early stages of their Reformation. Also ordination of women breaks Apostolic Descent just look at all the women ministers.

 

[cooterhein]

After reading **Eph. 2: 19-20 and or Eph. 4: 4-8, **I am compelled to ask:

How can there be more than ONLY one Chuch an One Faith? I’m not being sarcastastic here. I really struggle in understanding the proliferation of churches and differnt faith beliefs as having a actual biblical foundation. PLEASE help us out here.

God’s continued Blesings,
Pat

There is only one Church and one Faith. In some sense. God tells us this is true, so in some sense, it must be.

However, there is a proliferation of denominations, various beliefs beyond core doctrine (both within and outside of Catholicism), and there’s a variety of leadership structures that vary from place to place.

I think we must conclude that in whatever sense there’s just one Church and one Faith, it doesn’t have anything to do with one united system of church governance, one single hierarchy that all Christians submit to, or a complete set of religious beliefs that’s exactly identical from the East to the West and the North to the South. (Just picking random directions here).

If there is one Faith (and there is), it’s not in a system of church governance. If there’s one Church (and there is), it doesn’t consist of a hierarchy that you can point at and say “There is the Church.” And if there’s a set of beliefs that all Christians must have, the list cannot be all that long. The list should be short enough that it could (if you so chose) encompass it in a brief statement of the Christian faith and call it a creed. If different people in different places make slightly different creeds that all express the same basic sets of beliefs, that’s fine, too. It’s not like all Christians must align themselves to a certain creed, right? There are slightly different creeds that express the same Christian truth, so while they’re not identical, there is a sense in which they are One (in Christ).

Not the creeds, of course. Creeds do not become “one in Christ.” They’re identical, slightly different from each other, or very different. That’s it. Even the structures that accommodate leaders in these different churches- for similar reasons- don’t become “one in Christ.” A system of leadership is not something that gets united to Christ’s Body, the Church. It’s the people that are one, in a sense that is, at best, imperfectly linked to the creeds and not at all related to the leadership structures, unless the people occupying each of these structures truly submit themselves to Christ as their Head. Even then, it’s an indirect sort of relationship where people within structures are united to Christ, people beneath the structures are united to Christ, and the structures themselves are not united to Christ- any more than a creed on a piece of paper can be united to Christ.

 

[Sufjon]

There is only one Church and one Faith. In some sense. God tells us this is true, so in some sense, it must be.

However, there is a proliferation of denominations, various beliefs beyond core doctrine (both within and outside of Catholicism), and there’s a variety of leadership structures that vary from place to place.

I think we must conclude that in whatever sense there’s just one Church and one Faith, it doesn’t have anything to do with one united system of church governance, one single hierarchy that all Christians submit to, or a complete set of religious beliefs that’s exactly identical from the East to the West and the North to the South. (Just picking random directions here).

If there is one Faith (and there is), it’s not in a system of church governance. If there’s one Church (and there is), it doesn’t consist of a hierarchy that you can point at and say “There is the Church.” And if there’s a set of beliefs that all Christians must have, the list cannot be all that long. The list should be short enough that it could (if you so chose) encompass it in a brief statement of the Christian faith and call it a creed. If different people in different places make slightly different creeds that all express the same basic sets of beliefs, that’s fine, too. It’s not like all Christians must align themselves to a certain creed, right? There are slightly different creeds that express the same Christian truth, so while they’re not identical, there is a sense in which they are One (in Christ).

Not the creeds, of course. Creeds do not become “one in Christ.” They’re identical, slightly different from each other, or very different. That’s it. Even the structures that accommodate leaders in these different churches- for similar reasons- don’t become “one in Christ.” A system of leadership is not something that gets united to Christ’s Body, the Church. It’s the people that are one, in a sense that is, at best, imperfectly linked to the creeds and not at all related to the leadership structures, unless the people occupying each of these structures truly submit themselves to Christ as their Head. Even then, it’s an indirect sort of relationship where people within structures are united to Christ, people beneath the structures are united to Christ, and the structures themselves are not united to Christ- any more than a creed on a piece of paper can be united to Christ.

Wow - this answer makes a lot of sense to me at least. Very well explained.

Thanks
Your friend
Sufjon

 

[elvisman]

for the discussion to continue: please define “church”

The Church was instituted by Christ himself (Matt. 16:16-19).

It was given supreme authority on earth and its edicts would be ratified in heaven as well as on earth (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23).

Jesus felt so strongly about this that he prayed that it remain united as ONE - as he and the Father are one (John 17:20-23).

Jesus equated the Church with his very self (Acts 9:4-5).

Finally, the Holy Spirit describes it as being the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) and the very “fullness of the one who fills ALL things”, Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

**THAT’S what the Church is. There IS no other. Jesus, in his wisdom, established only ONE Church and NEVER told his followers to leave the Church to start others when they disagreed.
Denominations are simply man’s prideful rebellion against God.

Hope that helps.

 

[Roy5]

Personally, I don’t find it difficult to view others Christians as members of the body of Christ. That they may have different interpretations of scripture seems almost inevitable in that many passages in the Bible are confusing at best.

I mean, what do we do with Exodus 22:18, for example? "Suffer not a witch to live." Or, Exodus 22:20? "He who sacrifices to any god save unto the Lord shall be utterly destroyed." Um! Think of all the atrocities justified by such texts. 

Or, what about the words of Jesus: "Judge not that ye be not judged." We seem to do a lot of judging here on CAF. Or: "Agree with thine adversary quickly!" Wow! Do any of us pay any attention to this advice. What about: "Swear not at all, neither by heaven...." We do that in courts all the time, let alone profanity which seems to be rampant among many Christians.

And we could go on.

My point would be that many verses of scripture can be interpreted in different ways. Now, the Catholic Church maintains that it alone provides the correct interpretation, which many accept as fact, but others have different ideas. I think we should be free to differ on many such matters, respect one another regardless, and think of Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Nazarenes, Quakers, Mennonites etc etc as fellow Christians seeking to follow the same Christ and worshipping the one God. I'm sure that God honors differing opinions among dedicated Christians who seek to do his will.

 As one concrete example, many Quakers and Mennonites (and others) are strict pacifists who will not fight in a war (many serve as medics, etc). I certainly respect that view and even admire it enormously. And there are many other examples we might cite.

 God bless all of his children, of every color, creed, and country. May religion become more of a bridge and less of a barrier. This practice of demeaning the faith of fellow Christians, in my mind at least, contradicts the gospel of love that Christ gave us. Open discussion, fine. Claiming to drink from the one and only fountain of pure water (correct theology). Not good. Brilliant men and women over the centuries - since the earliest days of Christianity - have come to different conclusions and I think we should respect their creative thinking. Have I been too influenced by democracy? I don't think so. I love the freedom to think 'outside the box' now and again.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

Personally, I don’t find it difficult to view others Christians as members of the body of Christ. That they may have different interpretations of scripture seems almost inevitable in that many passages in the Bible are confusing at best.

I mean, what do we do with Exodus 22:18, for example? "Suffer not a witch to live." Or, Exodus 22:20? "He who sacrifices to any god save unto the Lord shall be utterly destroyed." Um! Think of all the atrocities justified by such texts. 

Or, what about the words of Jesus: "Judge not that ye be not judged." We seem to do a lot of judging here on CAF. Or: "Agree with thine adversary quickly!" Wow! Do any of us pay any attention to this advice. What about: "Swear not at all, neither by heaven...." We do that in courts all the time, let alone profanity which seems to be rampant among many Christians.

And we could go on.

My point would be that many verses of scripture can be interpreted in different ways. Now, the Catholic Church maintains that it alone provides the correct interpretation, which many accept as fact, but others have different ideas. I think we should be free to differ on many such matters, respect one another regardless, and think of Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Nazarenes, Quakers, Mennonites etc etc as fellow Christians seeking to follow the same Christ and worshipping the one God. I'm sure that God honors differing opinions among dedicated Christians who seek to do his will.

 As one concrete example, many Quakers and Mennonites (and others) are strict pacifists who will not fight in a war (many serve as medics, etc). I certainly respect that view and even admire it enormously. And there are many other examples we might cite.

 God bless all of his children, of every color, creed, and country. May religion become more of a bridge and less of a barrier. This practice of demeaning the faith of fellow Christians, in my mind at least, contradicts the gospel of love that Christ gave us. Open discussion, fine. Claiming to drink from the one and only fountain of pure water (correct theology). Not good. Brilliant men and women over the centuries - since the earliest days of Christianity - have come to different conclusions and I think we should respect their creative thinking. Have I been too influenced by democracy? I don't think so. I love the freedom to think 'outside the box' now and again.

Ok, then why do the Epistles by St. Paul, and St. John constantly warn against “finding new teachers.”? I think Christians can work together on matters such as pro life politics but the only dialogue between denominations should end in conversion.

 

[Bluegoat]

Tell me PJM - how do you understand the it when Paul talks about the Church at Ephasus, or in Rome? Or how do you understand that there is a Latin Church and an Eastern Church? Do they mean the Church is not unified?

Of course not. The question is - what is meant by unity?

Catholics define unity as being in communion with the Pope.

The Orthodox and Protestants define it differently. THe Otrthodox might say the important things are unity in belief and communion with others in the Church, in a sort of web of communion.

There would be some variation among the main types of Protestants. But a common idea would be that we are unified by our faith in Christ, and that every individual that has faith in Christ is in the Body of Christ, that is the Church.

This makes perfect sense for those who do not believe in apostolic succession. If that is true, then the visible Church would have to be congregationalist in structure.

I am always surprised when people say they don’t understand it. It is not so different from the Catholic understanding of the Church Triumphant which will contain people who were not visibly in the Church to us, and may not contain some her were. If you can get that concept, you can get the Protestant idea.

 

[tester]

The Church was instituted by Christ himself (Matt. 16:16-19).

…
***THAT’S ***what the Church is. There IS no other. Jesus, in his wisdom, established only ONE Church and NEVER told his followers to leave the Church to start others when they disagreed.
Denominations are simply man’s prideful rebellion against God.

Hope that helps.

not really
**Matthew 16:18 **Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

καγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

biblos.com/matthew/16-18.htm see post #8

What does ἐκκλησίαν ( ekklēsian ) mean ?

remember
Equivocation:is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy.
It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

So at the “particular time” that the Bible was written; what was the meaning of the word “ekklēsian”?

If you are going to use Matt 16:18 what does ekklēsian mean?

Word Origin:from ek and kaleó
Definition: an assembly, a (religious) congregation

Breaking news:
All believers are part of the One Church(aka ekklēsian, aka an assembly, a (religious) congregation, aka body of believers) founded by Jesus.
In the proper use of this word there can be no such thing as The church, exclusively; there may be A church, and the Churches, signifying a particular congregation, or the different assemblies of religious people: and hence, the Church of Rome, by applying it exclusively to itself, abuses the term.

 

[zarthan]

Much of it can be explained by either rebellious sheep under good shepherds, or bad shepherds who scatter the flocks.

“Hear, O ye bishops; and hear, O ye of the laity, how God speaks: “I will judge between ram an ram, and between sheep and sheep.” And He says to the shepherds: “You shall be judged for your unskilfulness, and for destroying the sheep.” That is, I will judge between one bishop and another, and between one lay person and another, and between one ruler and another (for these sheep and these rams are not irrational, but rational creatures): lest at any time a lay person should say, I am a sheep and not a shepherd, and I am not concerned fro myself; let the shepherd look to that, for he alone will be required to give an account for me. For as that sheep that will not follow its good shepherd is exposed to the wolves, to its destruction; so that which follows a bad shepherd is also exposed to unavoidable death, since his shepherd will devour him. Wherefore care must be had to avoid destructive shepherds.”

Constitutions of the Apostles, Book II, chapter XIX, Vol. VII, Ante-Nicene Church Fathers

 

[elvisman]

not really
**Matthew 16:18 **Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

καγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

biblos.com/matthew/16-18.htm see post #8

What does ἐκκλησίαν ( ekklēsian ) mean ?

remember
Equivocation:is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy.
It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

So at the “particular time” that the Bible was written; what was the meaning of the word “ekklēsian”?

If you are going to use Matt 16:18 what does ekklēsian mean?

Word Origin:from ek and kaleó
Definition: an assembly, a (religious) congregation

Breaking news:
All believers are part of the One Church(aka ekklēsian, aka an assembly, a (religious) congregation, aka body of believers) founded by Jesus.
In the proper use of this word there can be no such thing as The church, exclusively; there may be A church, and the Churches, signifying a particular congregation, or the different assemblies of religious people: and hence, the Church of Rome, by applying it exclusively to itself, abuses the term.

Thank you for that clinically sterile and unmistakably Protestant definition of the word “church”. I can also give you multiple meanings for words like spine, belly, foot, screen, etc.
**
Unfortunately for you – and anybody else who espouses this false line of thinking - Jesus was much more specific.
You see – in Matt. 16:18, he called it HIS Church that HE was building:**
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church***, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”***

---

---

In Eph. 1:22-23, Paul was also specific when he said:
“And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church*, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.”***

---

Paul also tells Timothy (1 Tim. 3:15) that there is only ONE Church when he says
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God***, the pillar and foundation of truth*.”**

---

Additionally, Jesus didn’t speak Greek to his Apostles. He spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic word for church is kehala. In Hebrew, it’s gahal.

---

Finally, Tester – this is why Jesus, in his wisdom, established only ONE Church and NEVER told his followers to leave the Church to start others* when they disagreed.*****

 

[tester]

Thank you for that clinically sterile and unmistakably Protestant definition of the word “church”. I can also give you multiple meanings for words like spine, belly, foot, screen, etc.
**
Unfortunately for you – and anybody else who espouses this false line of thinking - Jesus was much more specific.
You see – in Matt. 16:18, he called it HIS Church that HE was building:
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church*, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”***

---

---

In Eph. 1:22-23, Paul was also specific when he said:
“And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church*, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.”***

---

Paul also tells Timothy (1 Tim. 3:15) that there is only ONE Church when he says
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God***, the pillar and foundation of truth***.”

---

Additionally, Jesus didn’t speak Greek to his Apostles. He spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic word for church is kehala. In Hebrew, it’s gahal.

---

Finally, Tester – this is why Jesus, in his wisdom, established only ONE Church and NEVER told his followers to leave the Church to start others*** when they disagreed.***

“clinically sterile” aka factual?
‘One of the greatest tragedies in life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts’. -Ben Franklin

so in Acts 7:38 what does the word “ekklēsia” mean in regard to Moses?

“He was in the ekklēsia (assembly or church) in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us.”

what CHURCH was Moses in while in the desert?