The new teachings of Jesus

1) Iraneaus in Against Heresis detailed the existing cannon of the bible at the beginning of the second century and Iraneus was directly taught by an apostle, the cannon of which was supported by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.2) Nothing has ever been lost from the Bible. We have over 24 manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts and whenever there was a question any info like notes in the margin were included in the text when being copied. It ends up that there are only addit'l variations on words included in sentences. The Bible is 99.5% word perfect and the variations are simply extra word variations that were in the margin that copiests were afraid to leave out and included. And none of the variations were in significant passages. And experts (Nestle/Aland text) believe they know in each and every case how the word variation occured making the Bible word perfect. so no reason to doubt the wording of the Bible.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

The very fact that you are aware of the different cannons is evidence that nothing is lost. We know what the books are. Just because some group includes or excludes books from their cannon doesnt mean the excluded books are lost.And Higher and Lower criticism gives us a degree of accuracy for the manuscrips. There are over 24,000 manuscripts and pieces of the New Testament and over 30,000 for the old. We simply contrast and compare. Like the Babylonian Talmud vs the Alexandrian Talmud. And it comes out to 99.5% word accuracy.And copiests would insert margin notes into the text thinking it too important to lose. The problem is too much text not loss of text. And in every case where there is a variation, it is trivial and does not affect the meaning of the text.And in the New Testament's case, Kurt Aland starting with the 26 edition of the Nestle/Aland Text believes they can explain how each and every variation in the New Testament occured and what the original text is. I Believe he is now on the 32nd Edition of his work.

Hey Ringo!Glad you could make it. Your droll wit is greatly appreciated. No one else here seems to have a sense of humor and debates quickly degenerate into the ad hominem which I must confess to occasionally as well. And how is this an argument? Possibility doesnt = reality. If something has been lost or even left out when it shouldnt be, then it should be demonstrated or the reasonabilty of the possibility at least presented. Go head, blast away with your canon!

And quit strip-quoting me! I said 'demonstrate it or at least present why the possibility is reasonable.' Let's see, we have 66 books written by 40 authors over a period of a little over 1300 years and you cant find any evidence to back your assertion? That's your problem. Your telling me that you can make an assertion and it's silly for me to expect you to be responsible and fulfill your burdens of argumentation? When someone cannot fulfill their burden of proof it just means that their assertion is not to be acceptedEdited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

What I was saying is that you have quite a data set to work with. and you answered yourself with the dead sea scrolls.Every supposed lost book of the bible like the gnostic gospels has serious problems that preclude a serious claim that it is a lost book of the bible. The most recent being the 'Lost Gospel of Judas'. The evidence against the gnostic gospels, the Judas gospel and the scrolls found at the dead sea that are not part of the canon is clear.I think the better question to address here is the one proposed earlier by Ramoss i think. How did we come to have the books in the bible or canon that we do?

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Now we are getting somewhere but it's not just a lost chapter but could include a lost book as well.A simple examination of the evidence with proper methodology. The Higher Critical School and Lower Critical Schools of Literature do just this. You look at the internal evidence, external evidence and bbibliographic evidence (Chauncey Saunders, military historian) to determine authenticity and attribution.

I do deny it. I was merely qualifying the topic.And the tests I have mentioned have been applied many times to authenticate the canon and text we have in the Bible today.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

The bible with 66 books, 40 authors, no apocrypha.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

There is no credible evidence to suppose otherwise. Only conjecture

Not mine...the one whose authenticity and attribution has been responsibly verified.Nice ad hoc/ad hominem attempt though

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Wow you refute the weight of history and biblical scholarship in one grandious sentence.I suppose the ongoing 200+ year old debate in the schools of Higher Criticism have no application then and are useless?Thank God we have you to clear this up for us with one sentence!or could it be that your are ignorance of the evidence?

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

yeah you're right, the cannon I speak of hasnt been in existence since Iranaeus spoke of it in the 2nd century, the council of Nicea didnt speak of it in 325 AD. The council of Trent didnt add to it in the 14th century.What I said is obviously an obscure minority view that has not been scrutinized for 1800+ years.