Mindia, what the *FUCK* does my growing up catholic have *ANYTHING* to do with the fact that those bibles EXIST? /boggle. You also conveniently ignore the fact that I am *NOT* Catholic now. Hell, I'm not even a Christian any more, nor even a monotheist.
I again refer you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
Actually, interestingly enough from that link on the Codex Vatanicus, some researchers believe it may actually be one of the 50 bibles that Constantine ordered Eusebius of Caesarea to produce, though there is some dispute on this. What isn't in dispute is that it dates from about the TIME of Constantine.
Now, some facts:
1) The Codex Sinaiticus was written in the early-mid 300s AD.
2) The Codex Vatanicus was ALSO written in the early-mid 300s AD.
3) Both of them are bibles in Greek.
4) Both of them are transcribed from earlier works, likely Papyrus scrolls in the case of the Sinaiticus, which may go back to the mid 1st century AD.
5) Both are products of early Christianity, before there were ANY sects (so before Catholicism was anything codified), and it was all still one big forming religion, and were from right around the time Constantine adopted it as the Roman state religion.
6) The Codex Sinaiticus contains ALL of the books of the modern Catholic bible, plus 2.
7) The Codex Vatanicus contains ALL of the books of the modern Catholic bible, without the 2 extra in the Codex Sinaiticus, all of which are in agreement with the books in the Codex Sinaiticus, allowing for transcription errors, etc.
Now, those 7 things are all absolute, hard, incontrovertable, researchable, supportable, and verifiable fact. To deny them is to divorce yourself from reality. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself. I've provided links to an encyclopedia reference already.
So, with those facts established, lets look at what you're claiming:
1) Your splinter sect of Christianity claims that several of the books that exist in those 2 earliest bibles are not valid books that should be in the bible.
2) Those Bibles were put together by people who lived barely 300 years after Christ, and were transcribed from older works, that likely dated back to the 1st century, when there were still people who had known or heard Christ in person.
3) Therefore, given that those bibles have those books, and your sect says they shouldn't be there, your sect is claiming greater knowledge of what should and should not be in the bible than people at the very founding of Christianity itself.
How is this NOT hubris? By what means do you claim to come by such knowledge of Christ, Christianity and the proper construction of the Bible than those that FOUNDED the religion? Remember, we're not talking about bibles produced by the later-evolved Roman Catholic church of the Middle Ages, we're discussing the very beginnings of Christianity as a major religion, within just a couple decades of some of the biggest Roman persecutions of Christians. How exactly do you claim to know more than THEY do?
Now, again, what religion *I* am has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Answer the ARGUMENT instead of attacking my personal religious leanings. I mean, we all already know you're utterly ignorant and incapable of answering reasoned arguments with actual counter-arguments, and are a complete and total coward when it comes to such things, but at LEAST try for ONCE.
-Arlos
emoticon and ignore it.
