No the weren't considered scripture until they passed the Canon test, authored by an Apostle or someone with a close association with an apostle.
Other religions can make any claims they want, but they do not worship a risen saviour-which is what makes Christianity different and our fruit different as well That is a flawed argument. Difference doesn't change the essence. We are all different, yet essentially human. All religions claim 'changed lives' and those that are apocalyptic claim also salvation.
Well, this difference does since we are the only 'religion' to claim our founder is still alive.
Don't you mean 'alleged' inconsistencies? You have no facts, just a clear hatred for the Bible and its truth No, I mean inconsistencies. There is no hatred of the Bible or its truth. Nonetheless, human hands and minds have changed it over and over again.
Well, there are no errors or inconsistencies in the Bible.
What God gave, He preserved as well.
And you are going to tell me you believe in evolution? The Vatican told Galileo that the craters on the Moon they could see with his telescope were an 'optical illusion' created by the devil who wants us to believe that celestial bodies are not perfect, as all things in heaven [!] are. Well, there are craters on the moon, and the 'heaven' is not the sky above and 'celestial spheres' are not perfect. If you want to wager on a myth, that's fine with me. God did create this world, but not as we imagine.
The Catholic Church was not following the Bible, it was following Aristole.
The Creation occured exactly as God described it in Genesis 1.
No, according to your reasoning, any ancient document you read cannot be held to be true due to the fact that we do not have the originals to check with the copies Ancient documents usually have other corroborating evidence. If they don't, no one is expected to accept them on faith.
Ancient docutments have far less evidence than to the Bible manuscripts.
The Bible manuscripts number in the thousands and are corroborated by the Church Fathers's writings, who quote them as well, and by church lectionaries that used them.
My Greek NT does have Kata and the name of the author. Show me the original, or even the oldest copy of the original, and then quote one author who before 150 AD credits anything quoted from the gospels to any of the authros we claim.
In the Greek Texts, Critical and TR, the authors are named in the headings.
Those headings were in the Greek texts before 150 as the text.
Take, for instance 1 Clement 13 (c 96 AD), "let us remember what the Lord Jesus Christ said..." and proceeds with quotes found in Matthew 5, 6, and 7 without mentioning the author.
That was a common practice among church fathers, who quoted scripture without naming who they were quoting.
They assumed that the scriptures were so well known that everyone would know who they were citing.
+Ignatius, likewise, in his First Letter to the Smyrnians (about 110 AD) quotes from Mat 3:15 without giving the author.
Again, that was a common practice.
Christ did not name Isaiah whom he read from in Luke 4.
Even today people will quote scripture without naming the source 'judge not, lest ye be judged'.
The first to make vague (namless) refrences to Apostolic authors was +Justin the Martyr (c. 150 AD), mentioning their "memoirs."
It was well known who wrote the books since that was the reason they were accepted as part of the Canon, their authorship.
Peter states in 2Pe.3 that Paul had written scripture.
It was +Irenaeus (c. end of 2nd century) who for the first time mentiones authors by name, SS. Luke, Mark, John, and Matthew in that order in his , 10.1, 10.5, 11.1, and 16.2). After +Irenaeus it becomes common to reference Gospel authors.
No, the Gospel authors were already well known before Ireaneanus mentions them by name.
What do you think he did, make the names up?
+Irenaeus referrs to the books by quoting the first sentence in them. That was the standard method in the ancient world, Hebrew or Greek.
So?
The heading in the Gospels would not be the first sentence, they would be the heading, as they are in the Greek Text today.
Obviously you don't know that there were many books read in churches as 'scripture" that were later thrown out. The Epistle of Barnabas is the most glaring one (which actually forms part of the 'canon' of Codex Sinaiticus). So much for the 'canon' test.
Well, this difference does since we are the only 'religion' to claim our founder is still alive
God is alive in all religions. He is the founder of all of them.
Well, there are no errors or inconsistencies in the Bible
Fundamentalism is the same no matter what color or creed.
What God gave, He preserved as well
Except human beings. He allowed us to fall into error.
The Catholic Church was not following the Bible, it was following Aristole
Oh, I see...LOL!
The Creation occured exactly as God described it in Genesis 1
Don't be silly. Dark Ages are over.
Ancient docutments have far less evidence than to the Bible manuscripts
The Bible has no evidence whatsoever. There is not a trace of historical evidence of anything that is described in the NT. Even the authors of the four Gospels are anonymous.
The Bible manuscripts number in the thousands and are corroborated by the Church Fathers's writings, who quote them as well, and by church lectionaries that used them
That is a banal argument that only fundamentalists find "rational." Individual books are actually fewer than the copies of Homer's works (works of one author). Of course, we know that there ARE dozens if not hundreds of different authors of the Bible, so naturally there will be more books that Homer's work.
In the Greek Texts, Critical and TR, the authors are named in the headings
Show me the oldest copies.
That was a common practice among church fathers, who quoted scripture without naming who they were quoting
Well, the 'common' practice became uncommon suddenly in 180 when +Irenaeus started using authors as reference. Why did he do that? And why did all other subsequently acquire the practice?
Peter states in 2Pe.3 that Paul had written scripture
2 Peter was not written by Saint Peter. Neither was 1 Peter. 2 Peter was written specifically to bridge the animosity between +Peter and +Paul as evidenced in 1 Clement.
It was well known who wrote the books since that was the reason they were accepted as part of the Canon, their authorship
Don't make things up. The writers before +Justin the Martyr speak of the Gospel (singular), that is the Good News of Christ. They did not refer to any particular book. There were different scrolls in different churches and they were considered "the Gospel" regardless who wrote them. As it turns out, a lot of these scolls later on 'became' uncanonical.
That's why your "canon test" is a joke. There is no evidence of any fail-proof canon test being applied. The only criterion that applied was that a scroll was read in the church. It was presumed to be 'canonical.'
No, the Gospel authors were already well known before Ireaneanus mentions them by name. What do you think he did, make the names up?
No, he was going by the established tradition of the Church. That's right, tradition of men, lacking any material proof, accepted on faith. You seem to subscribe tot he same.