Of the more than 1,000 works brought forward for inclusion in the canon, only 27 were selected and only an additional four others were ever under serious consideration: 1) The Shepherd of Hermas; 2) 1 Clement; 3) The Epistle of Barnabas; and 4) The Didache. They were ultimately rejected because of the uncertainty of their inspiration.
The gospels and epistles were simply added to the reading of the Tanakh (the "Law and the Prophets and the Psalms") and were recognized as being inspired by the Holy Spirit immediately--thus, Scripture. Eventually, as the Holy Spirit added to them, the early Jewish-Christians recognized the need for them to have their own section (just as the Torah was one section and the Prophets and Psalms were in sections in the Tanakh). The New Testament is properly grouped with the Old Testament--as indeed it is in the Holy Bible.
Yes. You must remember that Jewish-Christians were in danger of extreme punishment (ex. Stephen's execution) here on earth and even in the afterlife, were they to lie about something so important. If they did not truly believe that God spoke through them, by the Holy Spirit, why would they have risked their lives? Before they would go out on that limb, they must have very strongly believed that they were well-representing Jesus and His ministry--that He was, in fact, God in human flesh. They also had the assistance of the abiding and indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Others also recognized that the Holy Spirit spoke through those closest to Jesus in life.
He was very wrong to deny Jesus because of his cowardice--even in spite of Jesus' warnings that he would. Why do you think that Peter wept bitterly at the last crowing of the rooster? The Apostle Paul tells of the hypocrisy incident in Galatians 2:11-13. It was another case of cowardice on Peter's part. But he was forgiven and strengthened to face his own martyrdom. By the way, foolishness and cowardice are condemned in the New Testament. (Mark 7:22 and Revelation 21:8 respectively).
No, they did not--I don't care what you have been told. The New Testament was written right along with the founding of the Church--within a few decades after the Resurrection. How do you think that the "early fathers" were able to quote so extensively and well from the New Testament writings, unless it was because they already had them in their possession? It has been said that if even our New Testaments were destroyed, we could piece them back together from the quotations in the writings of the early Christian writers.
To the contrary, even Mary would be offended, as it is blasphemous--and she was a devout Jewish (and then, Jewish-Christian) woman.
Ah--then I'm guessing that you are either evangelical Episcopalian or conservative Lutheran. Of those two, I would think the latter rather than the former. Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans are being courted by the leadership of the RCC--who are quite apostate of course. These are perilous times.
