bible canon?

[miseretur]

why modern arianism claim that, the bible what we read is wrong?
And if I am right, what i read, this arian church want´s to break, allmost 2000 years tradition?
claim that things what we found today are right and bible canon is corrupted by church fathers in 300 when bible texts canonize 325 in nicea.

scriptures what we read today are advanced long timeline, not in nicea consil 325, some of scriptures where used 100ad.
there wasn´t some guys or evil bishops who just say what are the real texts.
these conspiracy plans not belong at modern day christian movement.

I think that bible canon is Holy and God is protect that in history, these prove dead sea scrolls, what give us allmost 900years old new tradition,
when these scrolss founded, oldest text where about 1000ad.
And now we have real prove that, bible is´nt changed in history.

[Hermes]

Which canon do you mean? The Ethiopian, the Roman Catholic, or the Protestant? Because there isn't just one canon. It has changed with time and with different churches. And the truth is that there are variations in the manuscripts in some places. I don't believe in conspiracies really, and I also don't view the canon in the strict "sola scriptura" sense, even though I have respect for what's written. Rather I see different levels in each book. Some is true, some is not. There are some real puzzles in the scriptures. How many people went to Jesus' grave? Was John the Baptist Elijah? etc. The truth isn't fully explained in any book in existence, yet the message of the scriptures can be summed up pretty briefly.

[miseretur]

Old catholic canon, whitout old testament apogryphs texts,
all protestant churches use it, why I dont belive that the apogryphs writtings are part of holy scriptures are so that they are so diffrent than the old testament writtings and new testamen apogryphs are to so diffrent like revelation of peter, there are topicks whichs are conflicit whit message of new testament canon.

I belive that bible canon is right what we read today, there are some interested read teutero canon text like old testament apogryphs but I belive that this text are not Holy. we can learn other things that but not message from the God, it is good all so read ignatius letters wrom 100ad and didaghe because these text are old, and we can learn christian life style this letters.

bible study teach us that, there are no other so old scriptures than new testament at the time of antique, why we other so called holy text are not so many? like sheppard of hermas, synoptic gosbels and part of these manuscript have hundred of copye´s

book of enoch, what is the place that in the bible?
that book is more like gnostig text.

When christians fight back heresy like gnostic peoples (markion)
there where good reason study the text what are Holy and what are bad.
If I read right at these web sites what is the arian catholic bible canon, then I must say that, we are very wrong that question.

It is very dangerous ghange Holy text,
it is Ok to read many types of stories but now we are talking about bible.

[Postulare42]

You know, sometimes I am inclined to confess my canon to be a Mark 88 breachloader. It is well reputed to make the sound of a roaring freaight train just before it . . .

I think it nicely exemplifies the nature of the true canon of historical christendom.

[LeviathanNI]

Brother, you are a smart man.. too smart as I had to think about that for a few minutes

Made me smile on an otherwise dull day however

[Postulare42]

All too frequently, I've found myself praying " Lord, save me from your followers! " and wanted to cry, "Incoming!"