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
Well, as a Reformer, I didn't "pick" Christianity, God picked me! :) And, I don't need to know the practices of the early Christians (e.g. sign of the cross, altar calls), I need to know the correct theology. I believe the Bible alone provides that, regardless of how many or how few of the first Christians had it right. Christians need to know the theology of the Gospel of Christ. We don't need Tradition for that, the Bible gives it to us.
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?
We both have faith that it happens. Yours is in the men of your Church, and mine is directly in God Himself. I guess to you that is special pleading? :)
If you discount Christian history, you have tossed aside any claim that Christianity has in its historical truths.
I don't "discount" Christian history. I just know that there are different historians who come to different conclusions, especially on this. Even on this thread we have seen multiple examples of differing historical views as to how the Bible came into being and what the first Christians believed theologically and practiced. I don't think it is by any means "settled". To me, logically, if it WAS settled, then we wouldn't be here having this debate. :)