That's part of the faith. I have faith that God preserved His word as He wanted us to know it. Otherwise, as you imply, there would be no point. I don't feel it is warranted to thank men for this, all glory from me goes to God.
It is reasonable to say that we have an historical continuity between the Bible and second century of belief and practice.
That is likely true, but not necessarily to the full degree. Different churches had different practices and we know for sure that churches Paul visited personally were having serious problems.
Do you have a problem with the physical world? Do you believe that God no longer acts through His creation?
No, I believe that God acts through all believers, not just the select, unelected few.
The Hindus have sacred scripture, the Muslims have sacred scripture, and so forth. There are books that, interestingly enough, compile all of these books and there is a similarity that runs through them. While the names are different, I find it interesting that the philosophy of loving others runs through them all. With that said, why would you decide to pick Christianity, since you have such doubt on whether we have all the information that we need to determine what the Christians practiced...? You are special pleading - you claim that God guards the contents of the Christian Scriptures, but really, how true is that and what evidence do you have of that? If you discount Christian history, you have tossed aside any claim that Christianity has in its historical truths.
We don't need to discard reason to believe that Christianity is linked to history, real history. We don't need to imagine that there is some ulter-uber-"Christianity" that existed silently and behind the scenes. You are setting the bar WAY higher than historians would when analyzing historical events.
That is likely true, but not necessarily to the full degree. Different churches had different practices and we know for sure that churches Paul visited personally were having serious problems.
And they STILL do. Even parishes in my town have different practices of liturgy. One distributes the Eucharistic Wine, while the other does not... Practices are not dogmatic parts of our faith. Catholicism is universal, but that doesn't mean we give up our diversity. Each culture brings its own practices to the table when accessing what we do and practice as being Catholic. There is an inculturation that takes place - especially now that the Mass is said in the vernacular, rather than Latin. I see this as a confusion between disciplines and practices vs. articles of the faith. We Catholics share ONE faith. But we may practice is differently in the Liturgy or what we emphasize, or our daily practices, or the Church calendar holidays, and so forth.
As to the problems that Paul writes about, that is going to be part of the Incarnate Church until the end of time. The Church is human and divine. This doesn't change the oneness of the faith. The faith is one - it is up to the individual to accept or reject God's Word through the Church. In our sojourning state, we continue to be made into the image and likeness of Christ.
Regards
You responded: No, I believe that God acts through all believers, not just the select, unelected few.
You still have not given me a verse that says that the individual believer is guided by the Spirit to interpret the Scriptures with uncanny accuracy! Remember, God has given His Church apostles, preachers, evangelists and so forth. Everyone is NOT an apostles, preacher, evangelist, and so forth. Is it surprising that God would leave an authoritative body to interpret His Word? He had been doing it for hundreds of years before the Incarnation, and has continued to provide the Church with this for hundreds of years after.
Regards