Can I be Christian and Not Believe the Bible?

[Alawishis]

I can believe in the writings about Jesus within the bible. The entire bible is not about Jesus. And the old testament is pretty evident it is not intended for us.

I think you are making a great choice in deciding to follow Jesus. However, on this point you could not be more wrong. I hope you don't mind if I use the bible to prove my point. If you want to learn about Jesus it really the only place to go. Jesus in the road to Damascus spoke to two of His followers:

And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
~ Luke 24:25-27 ESV.
​

He also said on an earlier occasion:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
~ John 5:39-40 ESV.​

They didn't have the New Testament during the time of the Jesus and even Paul used the Old Testament to show others and teach them about Jesus. The Old Testament is about Jesus, Jesus said it Himself.

Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for there lack of understanding of the Old Testament:

But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
~ Matthew 22:29 ESV.
​

Jesus in his ministry did not diminish the Old Testament teachings in fact he elevated them to a higher understanding:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
~ Matthew 5:17-22 ESV.​

Jesus as our example continually quoted what we now call the Old Testament.

But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"
~ Matthew 4:4,7,10 ESV.​

You may say well Jesus was talking to the Jews of course he would quote the Old Testament. Read His words again and the scriptures He quotes, do you really think these are matters only concerning the Jews. Did Jesus come to save the Jews or did he come to save all mankind? The OT is the foundation of the teachings of Jesus. You would not build a house without a foundation. In the New Testament when you see the phrase "It is written" or "The Scripture saith" they were referencing the OT. Jesus didn't so much as give them something new, but rather opened their eyes to what was right in front of them all along. Peter said:

To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
~ Acts 10:43 ESV.​

I made a reference about having a house without a foundation. To that end there are many keys to understanding the NT that are found in the OT. Case in point; when Martin Luther translated the bible into common language he started at the back, Revelation, and worked forward. When he completed his translation of Revelation came to the conclusion that nobody could ever understand the mysteries it contained. All of the symbolic prophetic language, he was completely baffled. As he worked backward he eventually hit the book of Daniel. When he finished Daniel it was like a light switch had been turned on. Suddenly Revelation started to make sense. Daniel contains the keys that unlock Revelation. The whole bible is like this. You use the entire collection of 66 book to give interpretation. The bible interprets itself. You can gain a lot bu reading the NT and if you read that alone, with the Holy Spirit you be a better person for it. However, you miss out on a larger and deeper understanding buy not including the OT. I'm not sure what parts of it frighten you but I assure you all of it was written and is pertinent for us today, however it's not always lying on the surface. Sometimes you have to look a little deeper.

If you really want to get on board with the bible I suggest you start buy studying prophecy. It was prophecy that convinced me. I read all the predictions made and how every single one was fulfilled exactly to the letter. I said to myself, "Wow! this is all true. God is real." May God bless you.

 

[Catherineanne]

The bible interprets itself.

No it doesn't. Really not.

If you really want to get on board with the bible I suggest you start buy studying prophecy. It was prophecy that convinced me. I read all the predictions made and how every single one was fulfilled exactly to the letter. I said to myself, "Wow! this is all true. God is real." May God bless you.

I would advise you not to interpret the Bible as simply prophecy; that is a very shallow foundation for anyone's faith.
The Bible contains prophecy, but it contains much more. Including warnings against attempting prognostication.

 

[Catherineanne]

Jesus was a pragmatist in the same way that Mahatma Gandhi was.

Not at all, then. Fine by me.

 

[single eye]

As of right now, I have decided to become Christian. The reason I can be this is because I believe the message of Jesus was a wondrous and beautiful message indeed. And I would like to follow it. So as a Christian, my first goal is to understand Jesus more than ever before. Is that not what all the disciples did? I would like to become more like them. And so to better understand Jesus I would like to see things more from his point of view. Now the new testament offers a pretty good view of this. So when I hear that Jesus said that the old laws are still in effect I see who he was talking to. He was talking primarily to Jews and not me. And that is good for me to know so I can now forget about the old testament and focus on the new. The old is just there to be viewed from an historical perspective. So am I not now a Christian but perhaps of a different denomination? Now I am beginning to wonder if this denomination already exists?

The writers of the o.t., Paul and his followers, and the people who selected the books of the bible, all used the book of Genesis as their context for their blood atonement doctrine. The saints used The Apocryphon of John as their context for their grace doctrine. You will not find this being taught in any denomination that I know of.

 

[Alawishis]

There is no doubt that the Torah Commands has not been abolished for the Children Of God only the ceremonial commands of the Priesthood Covenant were superseded by a better Priesthood Covenant mediated by a perfect High Priest.
Nowhere in the Greek NT does it state Jesus rose After the Sabbath only that he rose MIA TON SABBATON which Means One of The Sabbaths(plural) which was the first sabbath in the count of seven to pentecost. Not even as late as Eusebius who states Jesus Rose at first light on the Sabbath in his letter Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions. Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum. Read YLT or a few other literal translations and you will find first day of week does not exist in the resurection accounts

Be careful of accepting someone's beliefs as your own without carefully and prayerfully comparing with scripture, and if necessary authorized external sources. I found this easily with a little bit of looking:

According to R.C.H. Lenski, since “[t]he Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” . Thus, mia ton sabbaton means “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., the first (day) following the Sabbath , or, as we would say in 21st century English, “the first day of the week.”
(p. 1143, 1148) Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

"FIRST OF THE WEEKS": [mia = first] + [ton = of the] + [sabbaton (plural) = weeks]
"MIA TON SABBATON" is the common expression for "First day of the Week".

Any Greek lexicon will back this up.

 

[Catherineanne]

The writers of the o.t., Paul and his followers, and the people who selected the books of the bible, all used the book of Genesis as their context for their blood atonement doctrine. The saints used The Apocryphon of John as their context for their grace doctrine. You will not find this being taught in any denomination that I know of.

Atonement and Grace are taught just about everywhere in the Christian world, but those headings are not generally used.

I do hope that helps.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

Not at all, then. Fine by me.

He was pragmatic enough to embrace and be inspired by the teachings of Jesus despite being a devout Hindu.

 

[Alawishis]

No it doesn't. Really not.



I would advise you not to interpret the Bible as simply prophecy; that is a very shallow foundation for anyone's faith.
The Bible contains prophecy, but it contains much more. Including warnings against attempting prognostication.

Maybe I should clarify what i mean by it interpreting itself. 3 Peter 1:20 is pretty clear about us not formulating private interpretations of scripture. The understanding of a particular scripture can be found by looking
1) The context of the verse. How it fits in the passage it is written, its harmony with other verses.
2) How the passage fits into the greater narrative of what the speaker conveying.
3) The previous usage in other parts of scripture.

For a simplified example, we would not know what "the lamb of God" was without putting it together from other scriptures. Not doing so we may think a particular verse is talking about a literal lamb. I'm sure you agree with me.

On the second point; again me not being clear. I in now way am saying, "the Bible as[is] simply prophecy". I agree with you completely and wholeheartedly. The bible is so much more. Forgive me if it seemed like I was saying that was all there was to it. My point was that if the OP would like to look into the bible and see if it can be trusted, prophecy is a good place to start. Reading the NT is another good way. Again in both instances your not getting the whole and you are missing out on some. A start is better than no start and once you get started more will be revealed to as you go. Prophecy is where I started and it lead me into discovering all of the other wonders you mention. I just want to help if I can by the grace of God.

 

[Catherineanne]

My point was that if the OP would like to look into the bible and see if it can be trusted, prophecy is a good place to start. Reading the NT is another good way. Again in both instances your not getting the whole and you are missing out on some. A start is better than no start and once you get started more will be revealed to as you go. Prophecy is where I started and it lead me into discovering all of the other wonders you mention. I just want to help if I can by the grace of God.

Fair enough. However, I think sounder advice would be to look into the Bible to see whether Christ can be trusted. He is the cornerstone of our faith, not prophecy. I would go further; I would say having got this far it is time to forget the prophecy and get to know the Master. Pick up your cross and follow him, regardless of the future.

I wish you well.

 

[Catherineanne]

He was pragmatic enough to embrace and be inspired by the teachings of Jesus despite being a devout Hindu.

That is a non standard use of the term 'pragmatic.'

 

[hiphopopotomus]

That is a non standard use of the term 'pragmatic.'

Your posts are excellent.
I do not understand the prayer to Mary quote though.

As I understand it praying to saints is a carry over from Roman religions in which the Roman Gods were substituted for saints and hence more of a Roman Catholic thing?
Do you also believe in the Assumption of Mary?

 

[Albion]

I disagree. For example, the Arians were a force to be reckoned with during that time, as well as others. The political/religious system was instituted during the hundreds of counsels, with the council of Nicaea only being one of them. The 'believe this or you die' for a few hundred years pretty well drove the dissidents underground, with their writings and beliefs destroyed. The main reason we know about the Arians for instance are the writings of the political/religious system which was in power and which opposed them

It's true in the case of the Arians (which I thought about as I was writing that but decided not to complicate the issue and probably should have), but it's also not true that there was nothing like a mainline church at that time, either.

 

[rkl1963]

Actually μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων = mia tōn sabbatōn (Luke 24:1, John 20:1, John 20:19, Acts 20:7, etc.) is a standard phrase meaning "the first day of the week" -- Sunday.

Be careful of accepting someone's beliefs as your own without carefully and prayerfully comparing with scripture, and if necessary authorized external sources. I found this easily with a little bit of looking:

According to R.C.H. Lenski, since “[t]he Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” . Thus, mia ton sabbaton means “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., the first (day) following the Sabbath , or, as we would say in 21st century English, “the first day of the week.”
(p. 1143, 1148) Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

"FIRST OF THE WEEKS": [mia = first] + [ton = of the] + [sabbaton (plural) = weeks]
"MIA TON SABBATON" is the common expression for "First day of the Week".

Any Greek lexicon will back this up.

All Greek lexicons were developed with the doctrine of the author . In these cases they were all Sun worshipers as was the founder and protector of their Faith ,Constantine
Why is weeks plural if it meant first day of week(sing)? why isnt the word day in it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1952159/posts?page=137

 

[Colter]

Back to the topic, one can have a relationship with God quite apart from the religious institutions and writings about God. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

I would say that today the institution and it's writings have become the greatest obstacles for young educated people for finding God.

 

[sandpiper22]

As of right now, I have decided to become Christian. The reason I can be this is because I believe the message of Jesus was a wondrous and beautiful message indeed. And I would like to follow it. So as a Christian, my first goal is to understand Jesus more than ever before. Is that not what all the disciples did? I would like to become more like them. And so to better understand Jesus I would like to see things more from his point of view. Now the new testament offers a pretty good view of this. So when I hear that Jesus said that the old laws are still in effect I see who he was talking to. He was talking primarily to Jews and not me. And that is good for me to know so I can now forget about the old testament and focus on the new. The old is just there to be viewed from an historical perspective. So am I not now a Christian but perhaps of a different denomination? Now I am beginning to wonder if this denomination already exists?

The plain and simple fact is that NOBODY (excuse the caps) decides to become a Christian, because one simply cannot become a Christian of his own volition.
Now I do not want to confuse you, and I am sure that a lot of taggers will tag me as hyper-Calvinist and all that, which I am not, but, the one who decides who is a Christian and who is not, is the Creator Himself.
A Christian is somebody who belongs to Christ, both as a matter of timely allegiance (here in time) and as a matter of eternal choice by the Father Himself, who did the choosing. (Read Revelation 13:8, and 20 and when you come to that verse about a book of life, pause, and as in food, roll it in your palate to get the taste and ingredients of it).
A lot of people think they had something to do with being a Christian (repented, walked the aisle, prayed "that" prayer, had himself baptized, joined the church, won souls, etc) but the fact is no one would decide, by himself, to come to Christ, unless the Spirit raise his sin-dead spirit first, or what is known theologically as, being regenerated. Then, they begin to think of spiritual things.
Again, I do not want to confuse you, or anybody else, but, truth must be stated from the get go.

 

[sandpiper22]

Back to the topic, one can have a relationship with God quite apart from the religious institutions and writings about God. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

I would say that today the institution and it's writings have become the greatest obstacles for young educated people for finding God.

Actually, education seems to be one great obstacle for young people today.
And God need not be found, He was never lost.

 

[Colter]

Actually, education seems to be one great obstacle for young people today.
And God need not be found, He was never lost.

Education could be if it were false but what education has more of an affect on superstition and the false teachings of the Church that lives in a kind of bubble world.

Yes, the true God isn't lost, but young people who might otherwise desire to know him are blocked by inconsistent presentations of him.

 

[rkl1963]

Commentary on the Psalms 92 by Eusebius of Caesarea
Wherefore as they rejected it the Word, by the New Covenant, Translated and transferred the feast of the sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true rest, viz. The Saving Lord’s Day, the first of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after all his labours among men, obtained the victory over death, and passed the portals of heaven, having achieved a work superior to the six-days’ creation on this day, which is the first of light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, And do those things according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the sabbath; for we make spiritual offerings and sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise and rejoicing; we make incense of a good odour to ascend, as it is said, ‘Let my prayer come up before thee as incense.’ Yea, we also present the shewbread, reviving the remembrance of our salvation, the blood of sprinkling, which is of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, and which purifies our souls. . . . Moreover we are diligent to do zealously, on that day, the things enjoined in this Psalm; by word and work making confession to the Lord, and singing in the name of the Most High. In the morning, also, with the first rising of our light, we proclaim the mercy of God toward us; also his truth by night, exhibiting a sober and chaste demeanour; And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the sabbath [Jewish seventh day,] these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank and more honourable than the Jewish sabbath. For on that day, in making the world, God said, Let there be light, and there was light; and on the same day, the Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls. Wherefore it is delivered to us [paradodotai, it is handed down by tradition,] that we should meet together on this day ; and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in this Psalm.

 

[rkl1963]

Below is the contents of a letter found in Quaestiones ad Stephanum et
Marinum wrote by Eusebius of Caesarea(

Και δη τουδε του μερους συγχωρουμενου ειναι αληθους, προσηκει τον νουν
διερμηνευειν του αναγνωσματος· ει γουν διελοιμην την του λογου διανοιαν, ουκ
αν ευροιμεν αυτην εναντιαν τοις παρα του Ματθαιου· Οψε σαββατων εγηγερθαι
τον σωτηρα, λελεγμενοις· το γαρ· Αναστας δε πρωι τη μια του σαββατου, κατα
τον Μαρκον, μετα διαστολης αναγνωσομεθα· και μετα το· Αναστας δε,
υποστιξομεν· και την διανοιαν αφορισομεν των εξης επιλεγομενων· ειτα το μεν·
Αναστας, αν, επι την παρα τω Ματθαιω· Οψε σαββατων· τοτε γαρ εγηγερτο. το δε
εξης ετερας ον διανοιας υποστατικον συναψωμεν τοις επιλεγομενοις· πρωι γαρ
τη μια του σαββατου εφανη Μαρια τη Μαγδαληνη.

And indeed, this part granted to be true, it is fitting to interpret the
mind of the reading. If I at least grasp the meaning of the word, we should
not find that it is opposite to the things said by Matthew: Late on the
sabbath the savior was raised. For the [statement]: And having risen up
early on one of the Sabbaths, according to Mark, we will read with a
pause. And after the [statement]: And having risen up, we will place a
comma. And we will divide the meaning of those things that are said
following. Then, on the one hand, the [statement]: Having risen up, might be
upon that of Matthew: Late on the sabbath, for then he was raised. On the
other hand, that which follows we might join together with the things said
after that, which gives rise to other meanings: For early on the one of the
sabbaths he appeared to Mary Magdalene

 

[Kirsten]

There is no historical evidence whatever for that. The Lord lived in a Hellenised society, and had a Hellenic name, which was not at all uncommon even for Jewish people in first century Judea. If you read Josephus you will find that this is true; he gives the name Jesus (in Greek form).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Meanwhile, what is preposterous is to ignore the evidence of the Bible, which says his name is Jesus, and which also says that Jesus is the only name by which we may be saved.

In my view Jeshua/Yehshua is the most ridiculous modern affectation. And worst of all, it is not Scriptural. Not a bit.

Good luck with that.

Why so snarky?