[QUOTE][B]Please explain how your example is an proof of a lack of consistency. I am not aware of any Scripture which is contradicted by the salvation of the said thief.[/QUOTE]
Mark 15:32, "They that were crucified with him reviled him".
[QUOTE][B]That is incorrect. Constantine established what was to become known as the Catholic Church, but the teachings of Christianity were established long before his rise to power.[/QUOTE]
The teachings of mainstream Christianity are (supposedly) in the Bible (though not everything in the Bible is taught or practiced by mainline Christianity). The Bible was compiled by Constantine. Constantine is not infallible. Therefore the Bible is not necessarily infallible.
[QUOTE][B]They agree that those teachings were in existence even before his birth.[/QUOTE]
By the time of Constantine those teachings had begun to change and Christianity was split into sects. He chose a particular sect and founded the universal Christian Church upon the notions that suited his purposes. Some things were lost. Other unnecessary practices
(baptism for infants) were adopted. Another problem we have here is the lack of prophecy in the Christian religion for 2000 years. Teachings are interpreted by man, they inevitably turn from the Godly into the work of man unless they are being regularly renewed through prophecy. Mainline Christianity is almost a dead faith, circulated by men according to the principles and logic as they see fit with no prophecy and very few works, and certainly none like unto old. First it was Constantine, then Martin Luther and hundreds of other people who took it upon themselves to further alter the doctrine of the Christian church to fit their own personal ideals.
This is true apostasy, and it is almost everywhere.
[QUOTE][B]The early Christians were most likely aware of each portion of Scripture upon its completion. This is evidenced by II Peter 3:15-16.[/QUOTE]
The Scripture cite only mentions the epistles of Paul. I would expect that the Christian church would indeed be aware of a letter addressed to it. I'm concerned about other books that were lost, such as the ones mentioned in the Bible but are absent. I'm also concerned, that if everyone is so sure about the Bible being perfect and inerrant, why there has ever been uncertainty regarding the Apocrypha.
[QUOTE][B]The complete canon of the 66 books was known to and mentioned by the church fathers of the first, second, and third centuries.[/QUOTE]
That's incorrect, because the "complete canon" consists of more than 66 books. The modern canon of mainline Christianity, as of AD 300, has 66 books. As I have pointed out, there are books referenced in the OT that were lost. Also, unless some verse in the NT actually lists the entire contents of the Holy Bible, how do you know this? Finally, if the list were known, there would have been no need for the Council of Nicea to compile the Bible in the first place.
(You realize of course that there was a time when you could just ask a prophet and not have to debate things like this.)