Its functionally not available the way you make it out.
The Protestant bible that most are familiar with has fewer books than the Catholic bible. The Catholic bible was shorter than the jewish and greek texts that preceeded it.
You can find, with some effort, an 'original bible', but most people have access only to the books and translations deemed "good" somewhere along the way.
I have read extensively on what was culled from the bible, and I disagree. There was an entire book that detailed the life of young Jesus, for instance, that was far more than 'a few hundred letters'.
Whether you agree with its discard or no, its not as you are portraying it. Its also not going into how different comparing translations can make the Word come out.
Its functionally not available the way you make it out. The Protestant bible that most are familiar with has fewer books than the Catholic bible. The Catholic bible was shorter than the jewish and greek texts that preceeded it.
You can find, with some effort, an 'original bible', but most people have access only to the books and translations deemed "good" somewhere along the way.
I have read extensively on what was culled from the bible, and I disagree. There was an entire book that detailed the life of young Jesus, for instance, that was far more than 'a few hundred letters'.
Whether you agree with its discard or no, its not as you are portraying it. Its also not going into how different comparing translations can make the Word come out.
...and it wasn't considered authoritative scripture by the early Christian community (the time of the Apostles).
What was the substance of the arguments for those advocating inclusion with canon?
Mainly because Jesus kills a boy out of spite.
Splinters and eyes. You first.