If you want to ask a question

Elegran no worries as they say, easy to do.

Gerente and I hope you have someone who can share your troubles

Gerente, no answers, but and love to you both.

Sorry, rosequartz I misread it.

Gerente. We can see your love and heartache from that poem.

I and other Christians can pray for you and your wife too. For the situation and for peace for you both.

I am not sure I would trust the site you quote rosequartz and Elegran any more than I would trust Wikipedia.

Gracesgran

I suppose you could say that of any site I quote, that it could be reliable or unreliable, including the Bible.

rosequartz You said you would not trust that source.

Elegran I think it was Gracesgran who said that, not me. Tue 13-Jan-15 18:12:55 I am not sure I would trust the site you quote rosequartz and Elegran any more than I would trust Wikipedia.

Gerente hope this is just a poem to verbalise how you observe the plight of mankind, and that you're not actually facing a situation that you look at thro' a "vale of tears" ?

Gerente - a poem from the heart. I hope that you can be the comfort for your wife that you wish to be.

Gerente, I don't know what is happening in yours and your wife's life just now, but it sounds from your post as if you are feeling very sad. Up there, in my mind too, is only sky. I hope you and your wife can gain comfort from each other. Gransnet is a good place to come as well, even if it's just to join a discussion or to have a look through the threads. to you and your wife.

A compassionate God? That’s a rotten joke
To play upon a hard pressed bloke.
But what if I’m wrong, and He’s really there?
Would he, I wonder, hear my prayer?

Would this listening God it please
To see me here upon my knees?
And may He then grant me my plea
To set my wife, my dear love, free?

I don’t expect that there’ll be a reply,
For above us, up there, is only sky.
And it’s me alone who’ll soothe her fears.
We’re on our own in this vale of tears.

rosequartz You said you would not trust that source. I wondered if that was because it was a secular source and therefore could be biased? A religious source could be biased too.

Is that because it is not a religious source, rosequartz ?
Sorry, a bit Elegran
I don't know why you asked me that question so can't reply to it. Perhaps I am being a bit slow tonight (more than usual I mean).

Who knows that what was taught about Constantine over the years is strictly true anyway? The more people research the more we learn, and sometimes what we think is a given is proved to be a falsehood, or at least a manipulation of the truth.

Three, not four, synoptic gospels.

Is that because it is not a religious source, rosequartz ? It is looking from outside the circle of the convinced- at the same evidence that is available to everyone.

If we only examine the thoughts of those who have already accepted the doctrines, we could miss sources and insights that the faithful have rejected.

I am not sure I would trust the site you quote rosequartz and Elegran any more than I would trust Wikipedia.

I had certainly been taught about Constantine and his political aims long before I knew of Dan Brown. I shall go off and do some more research.

@Soon - "The bible says that all scripture is inspired by God."

Well - it would say that, wouldn't it? Doesn't wash, I'm afraid - circular reasoning and all that. In fact I think it would qualify as begging the question.

Thank you Elegran, the first time I've ever seen the extract and certainly clears up the confusion I felt reading this thread!

Elegran

Well, that's killed that thread - and a few more today. Now how can I spend the rest of the day?

X post, written before I saw Elegran's post

I think The books to go in the New Testament were chosen at the Council of Nicaea in ... 325AD. is not strictly true.

This has been widely reported as a fact and perpetuated in books such as The Da Vinci Code

michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize-8-the-nt-canon-was-not-decided-at-nicea-nor-any-other-church-council/

Perhaps another poster has more information.

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."

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.

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

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.