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.
Actually, the 'Canon' was formed quite early by the Church.
It was the 'Alexandrian' churches that continued to hold on to the false Apocrypha Books as found in the manuscripts A,B and Aleph.
The same manuscripts that contained the false LXX.
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.
The Founder of the religion is not alive in those religions.
Moreover, Christianity is the only faith that claims its founder is God.
No Resurrection-no Christianity-(1Cor.15).
Well, there are no errors or inconsistencies in the Bible
Fundamentalism is the same no matter what color or creed.
And the Fundamentals may not be wrong as is the case when your Church accepts them in the various Creeds-such as the Trinity.
What God gave, He preserved as well
Except human beings. He allowed us to fall into error.
But He still can overcome those errors, as He did when He gave the Originals, and preserved them.
The Catholic Church was not following the Bible, it was following Aristole
Oh, I see...LOL!
Yes, that is true, it wasn't the Bible that was at issue, but the Thomist philosophy of the of the RCC.
The Creation occured exactly as God described it in Genesis 1
Don't be silly. Dark Ages are over.
Wow, that was a great argument.
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.
You are so misinformed it is laughable.
Did you know that the Dark Ages are over?
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.
F.F. Bruce is not a Fundamentalist.
Your argument is just nonsense.
We have more evidence of the Bible than any other ancient books because God preserved them, not because there were more of them.
In the Greek Texts, Critical and TR, the authors are named in the headings
Show me the oldest copies.
Those headings are in the oldest copies, that is why they are in every Greek text, critical and TR.
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?
Simple, because people were getting away from knowing scripture so the authors had to be cited.
Just like today.
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.
2nd Peter was written by Peter-stop the nonsense.
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.
It is you who is making things up, Churches accepted books based on authorship and that along with other critera, alllowed them to be accepted or rejected as canonical.
False books were circulating even in the 1st century and Paul warned the church about them (2Thess.)
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 historical evidence shows that the churches would only accept a book from an apostle or someone close to an apostle, such as Mark and Luke.
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.
No, he was going by the names on the Gospel headings, according to...
Note the comment made by F.F.Bruce.