Why were ''Gospels'' omitted from the Bible?

[outhouse]

. The various acceptance of books became the choice of the most powerful clergy.

No. No powerful clergy made this decision. Or we would know his name and specifics in detail.

Marcion was one of the first we know about to put together a personal collection that was found popular by many people. Even if he was viewed as heretical for his half collection.

It was not until after 325 BC that talk was starting on what would become the canon.

Constantine may have discussed his 50 bibles shortly after the Nicean council or even during but that is unknown with certainty. But having many bishops who were forced to unify the religion, there is no reason why what would be read would not be talked about in the few months they debated.

But in all, Paul and the gospels won out due to popularity, not one mans decision or a group, the group that survived used the text that lasted.

It won the test of time.

 

[Deidre]

Who said it is the word of a deity, who carries any credibility ?



The canon was not created because some were gods words and some were not. The canon was created due to a popularity contest more then anything.

What was popular and stayed popular is the only reason we have certain text.

Had Gnosticism become more popular we would have different text now.




Since none of it is gods word in my opinion, there was no tampering.

Very well said, this is along my thinking, too.
Interestingly, the Gnostic Gospels were becoming popular, and that troubled Constantine, who played a large role in the Bible we view today.
I'm a former Christian, and read the Bible regularly....what caused me to depart from the faith, was that I could no longer reconcile the volatile history and contradictory assertions (lies?) throughout the Bible starting with Genesis, with a supposed message of love. If there exists a god, and I'm open to the possibility ....would he/it wish to hand his creation such a cryptic message that no two believers can even agree upon? lol

IMHO, I don't think so...but, that's just me.

 

[Deidre]

Deidre, the Truth is seen in the beginning. Was Eve wise to listen to the serpent? He spoke knowingly "about the subject"---but was it accurate?
Jim Jones gave false messages and even poisoned laced "kool-aid". Believe what you want; but there are vast numbers of false teachings out there and their end results are not pleasant.

Well, the RCC teaches that Genesis can be viewed as a mere metaphor, and not taken literally. So, what does this mean? What happens to the idea of ''original sin'' that the Church has taught over the years? When I was a Christian, I believed Jesus died for my sins, but also for the original sin of mankind...but if Genesis is not to be taken literally...where does that position the NT?

See, when you take one card out of a house of cards...the entire house falls. This is why I no longer support the Bible nor Christianity.

 

[outhouse]

I could no longer reconcile the volatile history and contradictory assertions (lies?)

Don't let that stop you

These need to be taken as groups of opinions that have little historical credibility. It is theology not history, and should not be used for history per say.

Remember you don't heal the bible, it heals you

throughout the Bible starting with Genesis, with a supposed message of love.

Read as allegory and metaphor, takes the sting away from the violence that people lived in the past. These text were written to and for primitive barbaric men who needed extreme guidance to know right and wrong, and todays context needs to be adjusted to recognize that was then, this is now. We are taught and raised with morals and laws these people never knew.

would he/it wish to hand his creation such a cryptic message that no two believers can even agree upon?

That is the followers mistake. Don't let it influence you.

Each person can get what he needs, it is not a vague guide that applies to all equally .

 

[outhouse]

Well, the RCC teaches that Genesis can be viewed as a mere metaphor, and not taken literally. So, what does this mean?

That is how it was written. It was written to be sort of a fantasy tale told to teach morals and lessons to primitive people that needed guidance.

It was never intended as literal history. That came later.

What happens to the idea of ''original sin'' that the Church has taught over the years?

depends on what you want to make out of it.

See, when you take one card out of a house of cards...the entire house falls. This is why I no longer support the Bible nor Christianity.

If one book of 20 of a good guide that has helped people for thousands of years, because one person does not need it, do we throw it all away?

 

[McBell]

If it is all the 'word of God,' why would those who supposedly compiled the Bible, omit those texts? How can anyone be certain then of the Bible's validity, if not all of ''God's word'' was included? Who is man to omit certain books out of the Bible--isn't that ''tampering'' with God's word?

Omitting some texts from the Bible does not make the omitted texts not the word of God.
Unless, of course, you are one of those who believe that the Bible is all God has ever said or ever will say.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It would be absurd to assume that all the texts generated by a myriad of apologists were of equal quality and credibility. A selection process was perfectly appropriate. The conspiracy theories are infantile.

 

[Deidre]

Don't let that stop you

These need to be taken as groups of opinions that have little historical credibility. It is theology not history, and should not be used for history per say.

Remember you don't heal the bible, it heals you



Read as allegory and metaphor, takes the sting away from the violence that people lived in the past. These text were written to and for primitive barbaric men who needed extreme guidance to know right and wrong, and todays context needs to be adjusted to recognize that was then, this is now. We are taught and raised with morals and laws these people never knew.



That is the followers mistake. Don't let it influence you.

Each person can get what he needs, it is not a vague guide that applies to all equally .

I read your words and I used to state similar things, when I was a Bible-believing Christian. A lot of excuses as to why this or that is the way it is in the Bible. Genesis is simply not true, for if it were...the RCC would say it is. But if you look back in history, the RCC DID teach Genesis to be literal, so what changed? Perhaps a man named Charles Darwin changed things...and the RCC was like...oh crap, now how do we explain Genesis? Oh wait, we'll say it's ok to view it as a metaphor.

How does the Church decide as to when God's word should be taken literally or not? If it weren't so funny, it might be scary.

I will say that I do like your views ...as I'm not a Bible basher, (even though for the sake of this thread, I'm picking apart some things)...so, there are some timeless truths contained in it that I wouldn't toss away. The stories by which we obtain those truths, I'm not so sure have any historical or objectively truthful merit. When I was a Christian, I was careful to not promote the Bible as anything other than what I believed to be true, but it isn't proof of a deity.

Faith doesn't require proof, which is why we call it faith. I really appreciate your comments.

Omitting some texts from the Bible does not make the omitted texts not the word of God.

It makes the Bible as we have come to view it, not quite credible, at least in my eyes.

Unless, of course, you are one of those who believe that the Bible is all God has ever said or ever will say.

Why are we limited to what the Bible states about 'god?'
Why is it any more or less valid than the Qur'an? Than any other holy book? The Qur'an has also been taught to be the word of God, which directly opposes the NT...so...maybe there is more than one, true god? Or could it be that man just doesn't know, and we have all these religions to 'help us' know...or make us feel better as to what we don't know.

I don't believe that the Abrahamic faiths are any closer to knowing who or what a god might be, than those religions that fall outside of them.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
Deidre, the Truth is seen in the beginning. Was Eve wise to listen to the serpent? He spoke knowingly "about the subject"---but was it accurate?
Jim Jones gave false messages and even poisoned laced "kool-aid". Believe what you want; but there are vast numbers of false teachings out there and their end results are not pleasant.
Click to expand...

Well, the RCC teaches that Genesis can be viewed as a mere metaphor, and not taken literally. So, what does this mean? What happens to the idea of ''original sin'' that the Church has taught over the years? When I was a Christian, I believed Jesus died for my sins, but also for the original sin of mankind...but if Genesis is not to be taken literally...where does that position the NT?

Deidre, Dan.7:25., prophesied an ecclesiastical power that would "think to change times and laws". Paul warned of that same power in 2Thess.2:3-4, " Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

That power is still in force and for 1260 years did persecute the people of GOD. It is about to re-assert itself.
When I look at the outside world, It is Real--nothing "metaphorical" about it. The Creator GOD is, also, Real.
Jesus Christ came just as the Scriptures tell ---to save one from Sin. A condition which mankind can not rid one's self from and continue to live.
That is the good news of the NT. Jesus Christ paid that debt which sets one free to live in repentance and submission to the Father's Will.

See, when you take one card out of a house of cards...the entire house falls. This is why I no longer support the Bible nor Christianity.

One isn't taking out a card from the truths of GOD, but all the false doctrines. The One is strengthened in so doing.---and able to stand in the presence of the Creator GOD--in love.

 

[roger1440]

I read your words and I used to state similar things, when I was a Bible-believing Christian. A lot of excuses as to why this or that is the way it is in the Bible. Genesis is simply not true, for if it were...the RCC would say it is. But if you look back in history, the RCC DID teach Genesis to be literal, so what changed? Perhaps a man named Charles Darwin changed things...and the RCC was like...oh crap, now how do we explain Genesis? Oh wait, we'll say it's ok to view it as a metaphor.

How does the Church decide as to when God's word should be taken literally or not? If it weren't so funny, it might be scary.

I will say that I do like your views ...as I'm not a Bible basher, (even though for the sake of this thread, I'm picking apart some things)...so, there are some timeless truths contained in it that I wouldn't toss away. The stories by which we obtain those truths, I'm not so sure have any historical or objectively truthful merit. When I was a Christian, I was careful to not promote the Bible as anything other than what I believed to be true, but it isn't proof of a deity.

Faith doesn't require proof, which is why we call it faith. I really appreciate your comments.



It makes the Bible as we have come to view it, not quite credible, at least in my eyes.




Why are we limited to what the Bible states about 'god?'
Why is it any more or less valid than the Qur'an? Than any other holy book? The Qur'an has also been taught to be the word of God, which directly opposes the NT...so...maybe there is more than one, true god? Or could it be that man just doesn't know, and we have all these religions to 'help us' know...or make us feel better as to what we don't know.

I don't believe that the Abrahamic faiths are any closer to knowing who or what a god might be, than those religions that fall outside of them.

Can you bee more specific? What in Genesis isn't true?

 

[Deidre]

Can you bee more specific? What in Genesis isn't true?

How the world was created, and the origin of man.

 

[roger1440]

How the world was created, and the origin of man.

I don’t think those stories are meant to be taken literal. Not literal does not mean not true.

 

[nazz]

If it is all the 'word of God,' why would those who supposedly compiled the Bible, omit those texts? How can anyone be certain then of the Bible's validity, if not all of ''God's word'' was included? Who is man to omit certain books out of the Bible--isn't that ''tampering'' with God's word?

The early church fathers accepted books they felt to be genuine and rejected others. They followed a certain criteria that the works had to be penned by an original apostle and contain what they considered orthodox teaching.

 

[Sunstone]

I rather like Pagel's explanation in her book for why the Gnostic gospels didn't make it into the canon -- they were too favorable to women, among other things.

 

[nazz]

Okay, thank you for that.
Well, of what I do know, Constantine had a lot to do with the Bible as we see it today. The question becomes...how can anyone trust the Bible to be the word of God, if some Gospels were omitted? Doesn't it sound like then, that the Bible is a product of men?

Well it most definitely is the work of men. The claim is that those men were inspired to write what they did by the Holy Spirit.

By the way Constantine had nothing to do with compiling the canon. That's an urban myth.

 

[Deidre]

I don’t think those stories are meant to be taken literal. Not literal does not mean not true.

Well, I don't believe it to be true because there are actual scientific facts that counter it. Which is why the RCC stopped teaching it as literal truth. If you believe in a god, didn't he provide you with critical thinking skills to decipher fact from fiction? I happen to think so.

The current Pope seems to be doing a lot of back peddling these days...but, alas. He can change the word of god into whatever he wises it to be, I guess...and his flock should just accept it.

The word of god would never ever change, if it were really the word of god. That is my problem with the Bible, the RCC, and mere mortals who try to sweep a lot of the Bible's questionable history under the rug.

 

[Deidre]

I rather like Pagel's explanation in her book for why the Gnostic gospels didn't make it into the canon -- they were too favorable to women, among other things.

Ahhhh...yes. Funny how mankind seems to know what God would want to share with his creation, and what he'd want to omit . lol

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If it is all the 'word of God,' why would those who supposedly compiled the Bible, omit those texts?

The bible was "compiled" over many centuries. The reason that many books were left out was because they weren't even around until the 3rd or 4th centuries.

 

[nazz]

What texts were omitted though? Those texts that contradict the Gospels that were included. So, how can the NT be an accurate or complete representation of the word of God?

I say it isn't, and that perhaps most or all of it was fabricated, which is why the other writings were omitted.

I don't believe in conspiracies but......... lol

What exactly do you mean by "fabricated"? Mainstream scholars believe the gospels were based on earlier orally transmitted stories of Jesus' life and teachings. Some may have been written down quite early like the hypothetical Q document. The idea that someone created these stories out of full cloth years later does not hold water because if so they would not contain all the inconsistencies and contradictions that they do. Multiple attestation especially of the independent variety adds credence to their authenticity.

Scholars agree that the authentic letters of Paul were the first to be written (before the gospels). There is dispute over some of his letters being pseudopigraphic, that is written by someone else but using his name. Mainstream scholars reject that the epistles of Peter, John or James were written by the Apostles.

 

[nazz]

Well, the RCC teaches that Genesis can be viewed as a mere metaphor, and not taken literally. So, what does this mean? What happens to the idea of ''original sin'' that the Church has taught over the years? When I was a Christian, I believed Jesus died for my sins, but also for the original sin of mankind...but if Genesis is not to be taken literally...where does that position the NT?

See, when you take one card out of a house of cards...the entire house falls. This is why I no longer support the Bible nor Christianity.

You may want to check this out. The Penal Substitution theory of Atonement was not the original and there were and are many different theories:

Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia