The problem with this analysis is that it glossed over the Old Testament Apocrypha being canonized far earlier than the Council of Trent. The Early Church listed 7 Second Temple Writings as canon at three regional councils: Rome in 383, Hippo 393 and Carthage in 397. These same councils also set the canon for the New Testament.
There is an Ethiopian Bible in English with 105 Books for you to read and study it you think you know everything you need to know about the 66 or the 29 or however many books you have left after the purge like for instance, 'The Queen James Bible' that has been sanitized for Sodomites.
If your argument is basically that a text should not be considered part of your holy book if doesn't agree with whatever you have already decided should be in, you are just following your own preferences, aren't you?
Excellent video. Thoughtful and nuanced.
Deep dives can be really nice, but I also appreciate this more short-form content as well. Great work!
Interesting!
The problem with this analysis is that it glossed over the Old Testament Apocrypha being canonized far earlier than the Council of Trent. The Early Church listed 7 Second Temple Writings as canon at three regional councils: Rome in 383, Hippo 393 and Carthage in 397. These same councils also set the canon for the New Testament.
Luther thought James was an epistle of straw. How do we know he was wrong?
There is an Ethiopian Bible in English with 105 Books for you to read and study it you think you know everything you need to know about the 66 or the 29 or however many books you have left after the purge like for instance, 'The Queen James Bible' that has been sanitized for Sodomites.
If your argument is basically that a text should not be considered part of your holy book if doesn't agree with whatever you have already decided should be in, you are just following your own preferences, aren't you?