“It is true that house, church, and pillar and foundation do not have articles. While in the case of house the article might have been incorporated into the preposition, the others are predicate nominatives and normally would not receive the article in any case.”
In which case the construction is neutral. You can’t simply assume that it should be rendered “the” church.
“These terms are generics that indicate what the object is, not the object itself…Therefore these generic terms cannot be reduced to the local church at Ephesus.”
True, since generic terms can designate many things beside a church. A Greek temple has pillars. Therefore, is a Greek temple a pillar of truth?
A private residence is also a “house.” Therefore, is a private residence a pillar of truth?
Your argument either proves too much or too little.
“They rather designate the genus to which Ehesus is a species. This is elementary greek logic which Paul would have learned in Tarsus which was a university town only second to Alexandria.”
As we’ve just seen, that inference doesn’t follow from your own argument. I trust that Paul was a better logician than you are.
“Since this is instruction to Timothy and Paul sends him to work in many churches, e.g. 1Thess.3:2, it must be applicable in every place he goes to minister. Ephesus is not the only church so we cannot restrict this terminology to a description of Ephesus alone. I conclude that the pillar is the church as such.”
You’re not paying attention to what I’ve said. I made the point that the referent of 1 Tim 3:15 is the church of Ephesus.
Did I deny that Paul’s imagery is applicable to other local churches? No. But you can’t simply pluck 1 Tim 3:15 out of context and reassign it to the modern church of Rome. That isn’t exegeting the text.
“The church is that body of which Christ is the head (Col.1:18,24) and all baptized people are members (1Cor.6:11,15; 12:13,27).”
Are baptized apostates members of the church?
“This body is one body (1Cor.12:13; Col.3:15; Eph.4:4) and all are members one of another (Rom.12:5). Christ and His Church are thus one whole Christ (see 1Cor12:12-13).”
One of your problems is that you equate the meaning of a word with the meaning of a concept. The “church” has acquired many connotations over the last two millennia. But Paul is using ekklesia as a synonym for the OT congregation (or assembly) of the Lord.
“This body is visible because the sacraments by which it is constituted are visible.”
Even if I accepted your Catholic sacramentology, that has absolutely nothing to do with the exegesis of 1 Tim 3:15.
“The local churches are all parts of one visible church because the bread which they all bless and break is a participation of the Body of Christ, and all who partake of that one bread become one bread and one body.”
Not only is that acontextual, but it’s counter to the text. You’ve now defined the church in sacramental terms rather than alethic terms. Paul said a pillar of truth, not a pillar of the Mass.
“Thus all the churches are one visible catholic church and Timothy is to conduct himself in this way in all the churches that are the church of the living God which is the pillar and foundation ofthe truth.”
Paul says nothing about “one visible catholic church,” so your gloss is superimposed on the text rather than derived from the text.
BTW, why should anyone care how you interpret 1 Tim 3:15? Do you speak for the Magisterium? Did the Vatican appoint you to be its point man?