Not quite true, Vulcan....
First, just for the sake of argument -- if you accept the NT as being what it claims to be, and THEN assess Christianity on its own foundations, its fair to say that what many criticise about christians has little or nothing to do with Christianity itself.
From that perspective, what I posted is completely relevant and applicable. Nothing's ruined at all....
Second comes the question of the canon's historicity, and thats another question entirely. Your perception is common enough, but it tends to overlook the limitations inherent in documentary researcch in the first century CE.
As I recall, there are only 2 or 3 references to Jesus and Christianity in the first century outside the bible at all -- BUT that shouldnt be take n to mean that they didnt exist at the time. The surviving referenceswere in Roman governmental documents, almost as asides. There jsut isnt much else in the original for the very good reason that the kind of documents common people made in the 1st century simply didnt last and werent institutionally preserved.
The canonical councils didnt pick and choose arbitrarily; they codified consensus. The non-canonical documents people wave about now are, frankly, either obviously VERY different from biblical texts and teachings or downright silly.
In fact, do an internet search right now on "the gospel of Thomas" or the "gospel of mary" that I've seen refernces to as religious texts that have been "lost" after having been arbitrarily rejected by the councils. Translations of these from origianl documents sound more like "new age" drivel from the 20th century, although their really Gnostic influenced.
The canon's origins are not an area of expertise for me, but I can dig around some and make an intelligent discussion of it. If you want to plunge into it, why dont we make a new thread and see if a really capable discussant like Seagoon would show up....
