H2Andy:hey, you're happy with the answers you have, who am i to say?
just trying to point out a different reading.
Don't get me wrong Andy, I think the other reading is good. It never hurts to question and the more I question and the further I look, the more convinced I am that I was on the right track in the first place. However, the whole subject is difficult to discuss from so many completely different perspectives.
From my perspective...What we know as the church was started by the opostles of Jesus. NT scripture is what was written by them personally or written from what they directly taught to others who wrote it. Those opostles weren't all that sharp and had some trouble catching on so they probably weren't very competant until they were further prepared by the Holly Spirit (pentecost). It's the doctrin that they brought into the church that has been held on to regardless of what physical archeological traces remain.
To get this far there needs to be a God, Jesus, Holly Spirit and 12 opostles that were really there or no one involved has any credibility including, and especially, other doctrines whether signed with an opostles name or not. We may just as well accept what Msilvia writes. LOL
The point is that without being able to agree on a starting point there is no common frame of reference on which to base a discussion.