Can I be Christian and Not Believe the Bible?

[Albion]

And how did Messiah walk? In full obedience to the Torah.

I'm surprised that you'd say this since the Bible says he favored a Honda. We are to be in one Accord, you know.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

My latest book, The Christian Faith: A Quick Guide To Understanding Its Inter-Workings, may answer many of your questions. There are several concepts you should come to understand. As an example I state it this way:

"The Old Testament in the Bible is a collection of 39 books which were written in Hebrew and Aramaic; the languages of the authors. The New Testament comprises of 27 books, all written in Greek. Christianity’s heritage has its beginnings within Hebrew culture and history, which start with the Old Testament. To understand Christianity, you must understand what the Old Testament reveals to us; for Christianity is a by-product of the covenant God made with Abraham – around 2,000 B.C. – through which Judaism and then Christianity were born. It’s a long story, but I hope to make all this clearer as we move forward." (p.8)

Without understanding the O.T. and its history you will not totally understand the person of Jesus Christ. Three key statements Jesus made that should cause us to rethink the concepts of the Old Testament.

1. We read in Matthew 5:13-20 the following: "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven."

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (NASB)

What is Jesus saying? Simply this: His mission in life is to glorify his Father and to fulfill his Father's plan revealed to us through the revelation of the O.T. Jesus did not come to nullify his Father's words, wishes or will. (Read: Luke 24:27; Matt. 7:21; John 10:29, 37; John Chapters 14 and 15) What this fulfillment really means, is a whole different discussion.

2. Jesus said in John 17:17: “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.” A prayer made to his Father in heaven. Meaning what? Everything the Father says is truth. And what has the Father said? To know that you will have to read the O.T., for the Father spoke through the Law and the Prophets.

3. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." (NASB) And how do we know the Father's will? Through the knowledge we gain through the O.T. and through the continued revelation of we gain through the N.T.

In the end, even though the Mosaic law no longer applies to the New Testament saints the Ten Commandments or the LAW Jesus was referencing still applies to the world today, holding it accountable to God. (Romans 3:19-20) If the mission of Jesus was to glorify His Father and to do His will, and both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pointing us to the Father, then for myself I would want to know not just who Jesus is, but who the Father is as well, meaning I will be reading the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

Of course Jesus referenced the bible in his teachings.
Nobody would have listened to him otherwise.He was a pragmatist as well as an idealist.
He also wanted to survive for long enough to allow his teachings to be heard.

Whether he literally believed the OT is debatable however.He was also very selective in which parts of it he referenced.

 

[Albion]

Some of you take yourselves a bit to seriously, if the humor was lost on you then so be it.

Maybe if you'd said the point was lost on us I could appreciate your thinking. Insisting that there was any humor in it is the sticking point.

 

[Catherineanne]

Yes I realize that author attributions are often suspect, which is why I said "apparently", since it's often taken at face value generally speaking, that it's John the Apostle (yes ?). Regardless, most major Christian denoms/branches/etc consider it canon AKAIK, yes ?

Certainly it is canonical, in the West at least. I am not sure about the East. It would be even if it were found to be written by Steve the Gardener, because authorship is irrelevant. Generally speaking, content and relevance was used to determine canonicity.

I mentioned this example specifically because it was before the schism. I thought this was obvious. I also didn't say they were different denominations, I pointed out they were several churches being addressed. These churches were identified via different locations, and had their own unique issues which were apparently different from each other, etc. It seems you would agree with this much, yes ?

I think I already said that.

It seems to me there was more than one church. On what do you base they were all "one" church ? I may guess at your train of thought, but I don't want to assume.

We may be saying the same thing. I mean church in the sense of believing pretty much the same as one another, and capable of reaching consensus when disagreement happened. When a very real division happened, very often that was because of a heretical belief; one that simply could not be reconciled with the central church, and which was too far from what had been revealed to the early apostles. Then there would still only be one church and a heretical cult.

As no doubt you realise (although some seem not to), the early church was not ruled by Scripture but by the early apostles and Paul; it was only when the apostles started to die that the church realised that a written account of the life of Jesus would be needed for future generations. This was not wanted sooner, because they had first hand accounts. When those first hand accounts began to disappear, the gospels began to be written down from those accounts.

A written Scripture simply was not a priority for the early church, and it really should not be for us either. What matters is to love one another as Christ first loved us, and to follow his example and path. We learn to do that from meeting other Christians who are already doing this; the Bible comes afterwards, imo.

 

[rkl1963]

That being the case, I can't imagine why you would take issue with what Catherineanne has written here. Would you say that your study has turned you into something of a revisionist when it comes to Church history??

Because what she has written is not factual

 

[Catherineanne]

Of course Jesus referenced the bible in his teachings.
Nobody would have listened to him otherwise.He was a pragmatist as well as an idealist.
He also wanted to survive for long enough to allow his teachings to be heard.

Whether he literally believed the OT is debatable however.He was also very selective in which parts of it he referenced.

Selective? Hardly. The Lord quotes from 24 books of the OT.

I disagree that the Lord was a pragmatist. Nothing like it; an idealist through and through.

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm

 

[BukiRob]

Of course Jesus referenced the bible in his teachings.
Nobody would have listened to him otherwise.He was a pragmatist as well as an idealist.
He also wanted to survive for long enough to allow his teachings to be heard.

Whether he literally believed the OT is debatable however.He was also very selective in which parts of it he referenced.

Much of the NT is OT scripture being either directly cited, taught about or expounded upon...Paul consistently is found quoting OT scripture in his letters. Yeshua cites scripture repeatedly

 

[Winken]

Good point. So can I be athiest and still be christian? Is it really all about believing or could it really be just about following?

No. Read the scriptures I provided.

 

[Catherineanne]

Much of the NT is OT scripture being either directly cited, taught about or expounded upon...Paul consistently is found quoting OT scripture in his letters. Yeshua cites scripture repeatedly

The name is Jesus.

If you read Josephus you will see that the names Joshua and Jesus both existed in first century Judea, but were not interchangeable. The Bible says Jesus, and we have no authority to change it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course Jesus referenced the bible in his teachings.
Nobody would have listened to him otherwise.He was a pragmatist as well as an idealist.
He also wanted to survive for long enough to allow his teachings to be heard.

Whether he literally believed the OT is debatable however.He was also very selective in which parts of it he referenced.

I disagree. I think this is completely against the Scriptures.

 

[BukiRob]

The name is Jesus.

If you read Josephus you will see that the names Joshua and Jesus both existed in first century Judea, but were not interchangeable. The Bible says Jesus, and we have no authority to change it.

No, his JEWISH name is Yeshua... antiquity of the Jews was not written until 93-94 AD Jesus is not Aramaic or Hebrew in its origin and it is preposterous for you to suggest that it is or was his name at the time he walked on earth

 

[TillICollapse]

Aka the East-West Schism. Same thing. For the first 1000 years of its history, there was only one church; one denomination. There may have been disagreements, but there was truly indeed only one faith, one church and one Lord. Happy days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism

I thought there were various sects that existed by the time of the Edict of Thessalonica ? According to the Wiki, for example ... you have Arianism as being widespread in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, while the west was mostly Nicene. The Edict which was issued helped to establish what would be viewed as heretical and recognized as "Catholic Christian", and those deemed heretical were not recognized as "churches", however that didn't erase the sects from existing and still maintaining their own beliefs. Amongst the Arians, Anomoeans, Novations, and others ... the Novations were apparently still allowed to meet, even though they had been labeled schismatics.

So there were apparently more than just disagreements ... they were recognized sects, schismatics, heretics (who arguably still viewed themselves as "Christian" and some, like the Novations, even viewed themselves as the purists and the Catholics as corrupt), etc. Arianism from what I understand, went back and forth before being condemned as heresy.

All of that to say, even before the East-West Schism ... to say the first 1000 years of church history had only one "denomination" seems misleading, if not wrong. Am I missing something here ?

 

[rkl1963]

Nice attitude. Did you learn that from the Church Fathers?

If attitude could come from a multitude then maybe it could affect my attitude but probably developed it on my own

 

[rkl1963]

Catherineanne said: ↑
The name is Jesus.

If you read Josephus you will see that the names Joshua and Jesus both existed in first century Judea, but were not interchangeable. The Bible says Jesus, and we have no authority to change it.

Actually both were the same name in Greek ,even the english translators of KJV could not distinguish the difference when translating Hebrews 4

 

[BukiRob]

Catherineanne said: ↑
The name is Jesus.

If you read Josephus you will see that the names Joshua and Jesus both existed in first century Judea, but were not interchangeable. The Bible says Jesus, and we have no authority to change it.

Actually both were the same name in Greek ,even the english translators of KJV could not distinguish the difference when translating Hebrews $

Hence his JEWISH name is YESHUA

 

[hiphopopotomus]

Of course Jesus referenced the bible in his teachings.
Nobody would have listened to him otherwise.He was a pragmatist as well as an idealist.
He also wanted to survive for long enough to allow his teachings to be heard.

Whether he literally believed the OT is debatable however.He was also very selective in which parts of it he referenced.

Jesus was a pragmatist in the same way that Mahatma Gandhi was.He new he had to work within the confines of the society and political system in which he was living.Both had to tread a very fine line between inspiring progress and not upsetting the establishment too much.Nelson Mandella overstepped that line and ended up in prison where his effectiveness as an agent for change was emasculated.

Of course Jesus quoted the bible.He was a Jew .He left out the toxic bits though.

 

[TillICollapse]

We may be saying the same thing. I mean church in the sense of believing pretty much the same as one another, and capable of reaching consensus when disagreement happened.

It seems they did not believe the same as one another, however. Some held to the practice of the Nicolaitans, as well as the "teaching of Balaam", others did not. Some forsook their "first love", others did not. Some were following a false prophetess apparently, leading into sexual immorality. Etc and so forth. IOW, I'm not sure I'm seeing where they believed pretty much the same as one another.

When a very real division happened, very often that was because of a heretical belief; one that simply could not be reconciled with the central church, and which was too far from what had been revealed to the early apostles. Then there would still only be one church and a heretical cult.

As no doubt you realise (although some seem not to), the early church was not ruled by Scripture but by the early apostles and Paul; it was only when the apostles started to die that the church realised that a written account of the life of Jesus would be needed for future generations. This was not wanted sooner, because they had first hand accounts. When those first hand accounts began to disappear, the gospels began to be written down from those accounts.

A written Scripture simply was not a priority for the early church, and it really should not be for us either. What matters is to love one another as Christ first loved us, and to follow his example and path. We learn to do that from meeting other Christians who are already doing this; the Bible comes afterwards, imo.

Focusing on the first paragraph in this quote, what was the first real division ... in the history recorded in the scriptures ... to where you had what was recognized as a heretical cult that had branched off from the "central church" ?

 

[BukiRob]

Jesus was a pragmatist in the same way that Mahatma Gandhi was.He new he had to work within the confines of the society and political system he was living in.Both had to tread a very fine line between inspiring progress and not upsetting the establishment too much.Nelson Mandella overstepped that line and ended up in prison where his effectiveness as an agent for change was emasculated.

Of course Jesus quoted the bible.He was a Jew .He left out the toxic bits though.

No he was the WORD become Flesh.... Gd does not bend to man, man bends to Gd. He more than upset the status quo... they on several occasions wanted to kill him for what he said to them. Eventually, when Gd's timing and plan was for that to happen it did.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm surprised that you'd say this since the Bible says he favored a Honda. We are to be in one Accord, you know.

 

[Architeuthus]

Different brands of Christians existed well before the Nicene creed.

The Nicene Creed formalised existing orthodox belief.