I appreciate your concise summary of church history. I've said previously that I admire the Orthodox church for its careful preservation of the facts of church history. But despite your obvious familiarity with history, your final conclusion makes no sense. You do an excellent job of describing the divisions between the Eastern and Western church. You even say, "The two sides of the Church see everything from Genesis onward in a different light." But then you accuse me of having no idea of what I'm talking about before you state the ridiculous conclusion that the Christian canon was closed in 390 AD. Kosta, the largest Christian church on Earth doesn't even share the same canon as the Orthodox church today. Neither does the Protestant Bible, the Syrian Bible, or the Ethiopian Bible. What do all these churches have in common? They are Christian! 23 years before you claim the Canon was closed, Athanasius says this about the Apocryphal books that the Orthodox church added to its canon.."As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine." In 397AD, the Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed Athanasius' canon. Eight years later, Jerome had to be ordered to include the Apocryphal books in his Vulgate translation despite the fact that he did not consider them canonical. The Codex Alexandrinus was prepared in the 5th Century and includes I and II Clement as part of its "Canon". I just can't understand how someone with a grasp of historical fact can keep making statements that are not supported by fact. I may not know as much about Biblical Canon as I would like to know, but I know enough to know when you are pulling things out of a dark hole and trying to pass them off as indisputable fact. Give it a rest.
"That final form was established at or shortly after the meeting, college, "council" whatever you wish to call the gathering of the rabbis, at Jamnia at the end of the first century AD."
Yet you are unable to provide a shred of evidence that the Hebrew Bible after Jamnia was any different than the Hebrew Bible before Jamnia, or even before it was translated into Greek several centuries before.
"What is it exactly that you are arguing about?"
I am telling you that you are doing exactly what the Orthodox church has avoided doing for well over 1000 years. You are revising history to support your opinion. I am telling you that there is no evidence Hebrew Canon was changed as a result of anything that happened at Jamnia. None. I am telling you that your claims that the Christian Canon was closed in 390 AD are false. I am asking you to just stick to historic fact. If you would simply do that, there would be nothing to argue about.
"Who is comparing Joseph Smith to the Apostles? You have drawn the analogy between Mormons and Christians -- the former being to the Christians what the latter are to the Jews. That is pathetic."
You might have some success revising ancient history. But you will have no success revising history that exists entirely in the confines of this thread. I am going to quote below the only two comments I have made on this thread concerning Mormons.
"1. But Hellenic Jews adding books to a Hebrew Canon does not necessarily imply the Hebrew Canon wasn't closed. The fact that the Mormon Church has added books to the Bible does not imply the New Testament Canon is open.
2. Apparently you are unaware of who/what "inspired" the Book of Mormon. Rather then describe them here, it may be an interesting study for you to compare Joseph Smith to the Apostles. There is NO comparison."
Now tell me again what analogy I've drawn? You are better than this.
"As for God you claim you know, can you recognize Him? Have you seen Him? What is He like? Can you describe Him? What are His habits?"
Yes, yes, awesome, and amazing patience, eternal consistency, and genuine love. Someday, I hope you meet Him as well.
You are shooting from the hip. The largest Christian church on earth (Roman Catholic) did not exist as a separate Church for 1,000 years of Christianity. There was one, undivided Church of five patriarchs. For the first four centuries Greek was the language of the Church. Jerome was ordered to add Apocrypha because the Church Bible, canonized in Carthage, contained it, and the entire Church accepted it. It was Jerome who personally found disagreement with the Septuagint, but not to the extent that Protestants claim.
Which books did Athanasius call apocryphal? Please list the books of the Bible of 397 AD. The debate what is canon and what is not stretched for three hundred years plus -- in 200 AD Rome considered the Revelation of Peter to be canon. The undivided Church set the Canon in Carthage. That same canon was actually reiterated in 360-something and in 393 (at Hippo I believe). The Athanasian canon contained the "Apocryphal" books -- Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Psalms of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, and two books of Maccabees, to name just some.
Codex Alexandrinus was discovered in the fifth century (after Carthage), and it contains 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees, the OT and the NT, and Psalm 151, all the books still currently in the Orthodox Bible. The scribe considered 1 and 2 Clement canonical and appended them to the NT.
Yet you are unable to provide a shred of evidence that the Hebrew Bible after Jamnia was any different than the Hebrew Bible before Jamnia, or even before it was translated into Greek several centuries before
The Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Samaritan text all differ as much as they have much in common. If there was some mystical Jewish canon accepted by all Jews, then why did rabbis feel there was a need for the Masoretic Text?
You have seen God? So, God is visible? Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live." 1 John 4:12 ""No man hath seen God at any time." 1 Tim 6:16 "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." 1 Tim 1:17 ""Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever." John 1:18 ""No man hath seen God at any time." So, you must be special.
So far you have presented nothing but fluff and very poor understanding of Church history, drawing from out-of-context Google searches without proper understanding and making naive and erroneous conclusions. And, to top it off, you claim you have seen God, know Him, and can describe Him. Special, indeed.