If you want to ask a question

The concepts of god and devil are representations of good and evil - they do not actually exist. They are metaphors.

Soon - I am sorry but I do not find your answers have any logic at all, and do not think they actually answer the questions.

Now, it may be, and probably is, that these questions have no answers and are just part of our search for some sort of understanding; but, to be honest - and I hope that this does not sound harsh - I do not think you should invite questions by starting such a thread if you do not know the answers.

I respect your faith and your right to your belief.

No Christian knows all the answers Mishap.

The bible itself doesnt give all the answers by a long way.

I know a lot of posters dont like links, but in this case I will give one

biblehub.com/romans/11-33.htm

Of course they do not know all the answers, but in the main they do not set themselves up to answer them. Enjoy your private faith soon - I respect your genuinely held beliefs.

Gransnet HQ were happy for me to answer questions.
And I hope that some posters have derived some benefit from the thread.

ethel it sounds as though you've unfortunately come across some odd people. I've heard of Christian organisations refusing to rent space to Yoga teachers who also taught Hindu beliefs and to crystal healers who appeared to be using magic but I've never heard of opposition to reiki. I'm no expert on East Asian cultures but I do have access to experts and my understanding is that reiki was invented in the last century as one of a whole range of healing practices, often from the mysterious East via California, that appear to have no scientific or historic foundation. I do believe that people can gain benefit from a whole range of healing practices which don't respond to any kind of rational analysis. But many posters on GN would say the same of Christianity so who am I to criticise?

If anyone is not interested in the thread, may I politely suggest that they stay off of the thread.

#obviousreally

Wow! All those different bible translations! I had no idea. Like the good old King James one best.

Good link there soon. Thank you.

@Soon - "There are eye witness accounts, and writers writing."

What eye-witness accounts? Certainly there are none for the stories about 'Jesus' - and as for writers - we have no idea who cobbled together most of the documents found in the NT. It was common practice to append a well-known name to your document, as a sort of 'come-on' to the reader , as in the case of the four synoptic gospels.

Faye, I asked soon if she was vegetarian because she said she was methodist. Wesley did not eat meat, but did not make it an ideological issue for all methodists. I just wondered because many methodists I know are vegetarian.

durhamjen - I dont think I know any methodists that are vegetarians. But like all things in life, things can be done differently across the country.

feetlebaum - I agree to differ on that.
The bible says that all scripture is inspired by God.
I cant believe that He would let His own bible be wrong. That would be rather a ridiculous thing to do.

But many of the books which were written were discarded. The ones chosen were chosen for particular reasons by men - who is to say they had any more right to say that is God's word than another believer?

Blimey! I would regard myself as more Methodist than anything. Never heard that about vegetarianism. There used to be, years ago now, a sign outside our Methodist church which said some thing like, "Alcohol is a poison man puts on his mouth to take away his brain". Long gone now. Praise the Lord.

In his mouth. Not on

Isn't it the other way round, durhamjen That some of the vegetarians you know are also Methodists?

I think the four gospels we can safely say were written very close to the time it all happened. Probably not by the disciples themselves, but hey!

I wish we could easily read some of the books of the bible that were discarded (by humans, not rejected by God) In some cases they describe the same things as the books that were kept in, but from a different perspective and with different details.

I shall have a look on the internet for them (I have certainly seen some transcribed there) and post links if I find anything interesting.

A very short time afterwards if one is looking at it from 2, 000 years on, but long enough afterwards for the facts to be embellished, romanticised and added to to spread the word.

Dates gospels were written -

Mark - probably written c.66–70 AD, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.

Luke - Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis", that the authors of Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 AD)

Matthew - The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century.This makes it a work of the second generation of Christians, for whom the defining event was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD in the course of the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73 AD)

John - apparently written near the end of the 1st century. The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel supports AD 96 or one of the years immediately following as to the time of its writing. Scholars set a range of about 90–100AD

^From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels^ That page also mentions MANY other gospels.

Rosequartz you might be interested in this- The Lost Books of the Bible and the forgotten books of Eden: Banned Books from the Bible. By JB Lightfoot. Its on a well known site beginning with A.
Alex

Thank you Alex I will take a look. I have a voucher to spend on a certain website!

I think someone recommended something similar on another thread and I have been reading a book about Mary Magdalene.

Who banned them and why? Did God disapprove of some of them, or was it a more political agenda in the 3rd/4th century?

Too many questions for anyone to answer on here.

I bet Elegran could. (answer the lot of them)

The books to go in the New Testament were chosen at the Council of Nicaea in ... 325AD. This is almost 300 years after the death of Christ. Can you imagine trying to decide what was true about someone who lived 300 years ago?

At this council they also debated whether Christ was divine - the strands of Christianity that had grown up did not even all agree about this. It certainly suited the political side of things to agree that he was as it was to almost paint any reality about Mary Magdalene out of the picture - can't have women having any equal leadership can we. In fact is the RCs only admitted that there was absolutely no reason why MM was the "women taken in adultery" in the 1960s. The "Gospel According to Mary" was certainly not included.

The books found at Nag Hammadi showed how much material was excluded when men made a choice about which books contained the word of God.

This doesn't stop God being God (whatever that means to you) nor does it stop Jesus being important although it would make me doubt whether his message really got through in the established religions.

There is an article about the biblical canon (the books of the Bible) at infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html

The bold text in the quotes below is mine:-

" It has been observed by some Christians that fundamentalists do not so much worship Jesus as worship a book; thus, they are bibliolaters."

"the choice of the books largely depended not only whether a book concerned the things of God, but that it had to describe *the right kind of God, and the right kind of Jesus.*"

"In Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell warns us, "One thing to keep in mind is that the church did not create the canon or books included in what we call Scripture. Instead, the church recognized the books that were inspired from their inception. They were inspired by God when written." Despite attempting to sever the Bible from any authority based on history or tradition, McDowell nevertheless argues for evidence of their historical support.

Furthermore, the following assertions cannot be supported by the evidence: (1) that the church did not create the canon; and, (2) that the church recognized these books as inspired from their inception. Instead, Christians of the first century recognized the written Old Testament as scripture, but honored an oral tradition of the teaching of Jesus and his apostles, a "living and abiding voice,"[10] and did not regard their written books -- when finally created -- as an inspired, fixed canon.

Indeed, inspiration seems to have little to do with the selection. As Gamble notes after a detailed discussion, "The NT writings did not become canonical because they were believed to be uniquely inspired; rather, they were judged to be inspired because they had previously commended themselves to the church for other, more particular and practical reasons."

In the second century after the birth of Jesus, a core of what we know as the New Testament began to take shape. Many works that are now no longer regarded as scripture were used and included with now canonical works from time to time and place to place. Finally, the specific group of 27 books that are now printed in Christian New Testaments came together in the fourth century CE. Christians still do not agree which books belong in the Old Testament, and there is no prospect of agreement."