Facing the Morally Bad Future

[FallentoReason]

I disagree, it is relevant, they would not be there if they were considered a contamination, they would have been thrown out, they remain because they do not disagree with the rest of scripture.

Then my previous point some posts ago still stands. Let's add your thoughts to the Bible. Surely the Holy Spirit in you won't make you go astray from what doesn't line up with scripture.

Let's actually take this one further. Knowing that the beliefs of early Christians ranged from a spiritual Messiah to a human Messiah, what can be said about the addition to the end of Mark? It's not original and clearly from a different school of thought because they force Mark's Gospel to make it seem like Jesus was actually human and divine. Why didn't Mark include resurrection accounts?

Those that did not stand up to the scrutiny of scriptures, that were contradictions, those books were not used, like the books written by the many cults of Christianity you named earlier in this discussion.

Naturally the ones that were in line with the OT made it into the canon. I conpletely forgot about the OT by the way and I see what you mean by 'scripture'. The question, though, is do you know why they line up with scripture? Mark didn't because there was no resurrected Messiah until the addition. Maybe during this free-for-all within early Christians the Catholics got their way just like Eusebus got his way with Josephus. Maybe the Gospels are said to line up with the OT perfectly but not for the reasons you wish.

Mark used the OT as a basis for his work. It will line up.

The OT holds many reasons, there are many prophecies in them about Christ, they were the scriptures the Apostles used to preach about Christ. There were many men who took many books read and studied them and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit included the books we have today.

The sorts of men living at the time were Greek philosophers. Thanks to them you now have Mark, the first book written, which interprets the OT allegorically and blends the events Josephus talks about into an interesting book about the time of the Jews AND the superstitions of the cults of the time. Did Jesus come to earth? No, Mark never asserts that but merely uses the 'Son of God'/saviour myth as a vehicle for telling the stories of the time.

I trust they did their work well, we have found no reason to go back and add any of the rejected books over nearly two thousand years. This is strong evidence they did exactly as they were lead.

I also trust they did their job well. They clearly chose those books that engaged the OT elegantly, even if Matthew and Luke are confused interpretations of Mark.. it's the best there was.