Yes, the churches read the same books. There are five books in the NT canon which some churches disputed: 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Besides that there was a consensus. Look up "antilegomena".
The implication is wrong; a basic reading of history teaches this, and a basic reading of the Bible confirms what is evident to reason. All cultures have grasped the basic contours of the moral law, but people nevertheless violate it. Which is the point St. Paul makes in Romans: "No one is righteous, no, not one."
There was a consensus on all of the books now regarded as NT canon–all the churches accepted the 4 gospels, Romans, acts, Corinthians, etc. There was dispute about 6 books. The later lists of canonical books did not create a canon out of whole cloth. They affirmed what the churches had already received as Scripture. The idea that a council or a pope determines what is and what isn't God's Word is blasphemous. Not even an apostle or an angel from heaven can do that: Galatians 1:8-9.
I agree, there are a lot of stupid people on here. But I don't think this papist is stupid. He just didn't read what I typed because it was too threatening for him.
With God it's a binary: righteous or not righteous. Humanly speaking we can talk about grey areas. But God, being 100 percent righteous, doesn't deal in grey areas. A person is righteous or he isn't. That's why I said you missed the whole point of the bible, because this really is the whole point of it. If you aren't righteous before God, you need forgiveness. The bible is about our need for forgiveness and where that forgiveness is found.
>Just love God, live a life of love and integrity.
Religions are going to argue until the world ends, anon, precisely because "love God, live a life of love and integrity" needs clarification. Which God? How exactly do you love God? What is love in the first place? How do you show love to God and to other people?
Your Masonic simplification raises more problems than it solves.
There were a variety of councils and proposed biblical canons, obviously. They were primarily aimed at discrediting gnostic gospels and so forth. In doing this they affirmed the books the churches had been using in the liturgy since the days of the apostles. The idea that the churches were all over the place reading all kinds of books and then the church stepped in and cleared it all up is just not historical.
>Do unto others as you would have them do unto you would solve every problem on this earth.
I agree. The problem is that people have never done it. Can they? If so, why haven't they?
Any answer you give will be a religious answer.
No arguments are necessary because we are discussing facts. Familiarize yourself with them and then we can discuss what they mean.
There was no formalized canon because the churches, in practice, received the same books as Scripture. Just like, before the Apostles' Creed was written, all the churches believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and called Jesus "Lord." Or do you think that none of the churches believed that Jesus is Lord and that God is Triune until there was a council to declare it?
Deafening papist silence….