Thanks Earnest,
Each time I went through the editing process, I picked things up, so I will not be at all surprised that I have still missed some things.
My main aim, as I set out at the start, is to make people do their own research and to own their own conclusions. I simply want to provide a trigger.
Yes, I could have expanded on Constantine, and that could be a subject people should pursue. I saw an excellent online animation which illustrated the wars fought by Constantine and his conflict with Lucinius but I can't locate the URL. Nor did I did not want to enter into the area of Emperor versus Augustus or the regional conflicts between those Generals and other such matters. There had to be a cutting off point where the context becomes too much of a distraction and not directly relevant to the overall subject.
Constantine came from the Spanish Court which was Trinitarian; if I give the impression that it was he who forced that decision on the Christian Church, I apologise. The decision was made by a successor of his - Athanasius (381) - but even then he had to convene in 383 another Council. Even after that the matter needed to be enforced in the Western part of the Church, in which Ambrose played the major role. From memory, Ambrose became a Bishop before he was baptised, much to the chagrin of certain Church fathers.
I agree that it would be nigh impossible for the church today to amend its NT Canon. Some Bible scholars say that this is one of the biggest problems facing today's Church. Administrators and managers would be totally distraught at the turmoil this would cause in the pews.
Not that the NT Canon is universally accepted throughout the Church, and scholars do toy with the idea. But just as the mass of the proto-orthodox (Pauline) Church of the 2nd century (the WTS's apostate church) slowly arrived at its decision, that mass decision would prevail today - and Bible scholars recognise this. My argument is that the body which originally decided on the Canon did not represent to views of all of Christianity at the time. It took hundreds of years of arguing. One that continues and should continue.
I hope you do not think I was "cherry-picking". To the contrary, I feel that I took a big paint brush approach. I did not intend to interpret any verses
I would like you to take up the cudgel and write a study on the subject - but please do not start with the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God" or that you are trying to defend some kind of "message".
Thanks,
Doug
