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.
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, written by an Apostle (eyewitness of the risen Christ).
So, the argument FOR inclusion with canon was that the story of young Jesus was written by an eye witness of the resurrection?
Mainly because Jesus kills a boy out of spite.
Splinters and eyes. You first.