Can I be Christian and Not Believe the Bible?

Givemeareason said:

I like that point of view but I have not read where Jesus said that. So if the old testament is simply not our primary source of guidance why do so many Christians seem to be using it that way?

Click to expand...

Because Jesus himself quotes many times from the Old testament. To believe in Jesus but not the Old Testament would be calling Jesus a liar. He said Have I not done all the things recorded in the books of Moses and the Prophets?

lesliedellow said:

And you get your information about Jesus Christ from where? Oh, I forgot, the Pope has got a magic time machine, which enables him to bring back "traditions" when he makes one of his regular trips into the past.

Click to expand...

Guess someone struck a nerve somewhere, eh?

So are you saying that Christianity is not based on Christ?
I thought that was why it was called "Christianity".
I've never heard of anything like "Biblianity".
Though there is such a thing as "Bibliolatry", which
is why perhaps the following words of Jesus bear
repeating, here:

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you
think that in them you have eternal life. These are
the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you
refuse to come to me to have life." (emphasis mine)
(John 5:39-40)


-

chaela said:

Guess someone struck a nerve somewhere, eh?

So are you saying that Christianity is not based on Christ?

Click to expand...

Like I said, the Bible is our only source of information about Christ, and doubts about whether the Pope actually possesses a magic time machine is one of the things which sparked the Reformation.

chaela said:

Guess someone struck a nerve somewhere, eh?

So are you saying that Christianity is not based on Christ?
I thought that was why it was called "Christianity".
I've never heard of anything like "Biblianity".
Though there is such a thing as "Bibliolatry", which
is why perhaps the following words of Jesus bear
repeating, here:

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you
think that in them you have eternal life. These are
the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you
refuse to come to me to have life." (emphasis mine)
(John 5:39-40)


-

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you agree though, people get their basis of information about Christ, from the bible?

lesliedellow said:

And you get your information about Jesus Christ from where? Oh, I forgot, the Pope has got a magic time machine, which enables him to bring back "traditions" when he makes one of his regular trips into the past.

Click to expand...

Not sure what the anger, and the swipes at the Bishop of Rome are all about. I'm sorry that you're so upset. Have you ever stopped and considered in prayer that the Bible was essentially used only by Synagogues and Temples up until the incarnation, and then the Church in liturgical readings, and by Bishops as reference and basis in the writing of Episcopal documents, encyclicals, apologetics, etc. until at least 1300. But lay people really didn't get into the Bible until the invention of the printing press in the 1,500's. And even then, of course, only the literate, whose number didn't used to be nearly so prevalent as they are today. So, for One Thousand, Five hundred some odd years, you didn't go to your book shelf and grab your Zodervan printed NKJV Bible in order to argue with your neighbor about what a "work" is. You heard about Jesus and His Church AT Church from clerics. So what held the followers together from Pentacost to Luther was scripture IN PART, but primarily, the gifts of the sacraments, and of those, primarily the gift of the Holy Eucharist wherein the real presence of Jesus Christ is made available to His followers as He promised. This imparts sanctifying grace, strengthens our faith, and then we are "sent" (missa) out into the world to preach the living Christ, and practice His ways in the world. Many, if not most of those ways are certainly available in the Holy Scriptures. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't thank the Lord for access to the scriptures in this day and time, and the wisdom to turn to the Church for clarity when I get stuck. The scriptures are quite useful. They're beautiful in fact. They are sanctified and Holy. They have been used for teaching by all the Bishops, Priests, Popes, Doctors and Saints of the Church for 2,000 years. It shouldn't be considered an attack or that I denigrate the Holy Scriptures in any way when I say to you, or anybody else, that the Way, the Truth, and the Life is Jesus Christ HIMSELF, however, and NOT a collection of books ABOUT Him, which are useful, perhaps in coming to know Him, for some. But even then, unless an inspired human person makes contact with another human person to pass on the knowledge and wonder of Jesus Christ to begin with, that person is never going to think to even pick up a Bible. Most people who DO pick up a Bible without first having Christian instruction from a living breathing Christian, put it down quickly as they don't have the first clue how to read it. If they make it through the begats, which is rare, then they're surely still going to miss the point about the various covenants and the building relationship with God and man. They'll miss the beautiful prayers of David. They'll miss the philosophical dialog of Job. They'll miss all the prophecies about Christ coming to live, die, and be resurrected on Earth, and among men. And mostly, even if they make it through the the ancient Jewish history, the philosophies, the prayers, and songs, and most off-putting the pre-incarnational laws and customs, they're still not going to find Jesus until they Get to the Gospels without Christian direction from the Holy Spirit. Most who undertake the Bible without interaction with a Christian through oral tradition are going to end up agnostic, (at best), and militant anti-Judeo Christian at worst.

It's an important and dangerous set of books without a guide. This is why, early on, Jesus prescribed a Church founded on Apostles to carry His message forward, and bring His Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to the world. He didn't say, at any point, write about me, and hand out the books about me to all you meet, baptizing them in the name of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He taught His Apostles how to confect His Body and Blood. How to heal in His name. He sent down the Holy Spirit to guide them, even in the writing of the New Testament Books themselves, so that they could be distinguished by His Church as authentic among the glut of gnostic and uninspired literature which circulated around 2nd and 3rd century Roman and Grecian circles.

Sorry for the long winded answer. And if any of it seems to be unkind, I appologize in all sincerity. I will pray for you. Please pray for me as well. This is what Christian brothers should do in order to help each other through disagreement. The Holy Spirit will sure intervene to bring clarity to open hearts. Our hearts have become so hardened. I see so many disrespectful arguments. Hear so much slander these days. It can be disheartening. Yet, I am filled with hope by Christ, and am pleased to be able to share this blessed hope, wherever and however I may, at His service.

God bless, Steve

stevenfrancis said:

Not sure what the anger, and the swipes at the Bishop of Rome are all about. I'm sorry that you're so upset. Have you ever stopped and considered in prayer that the Bible was essentially used only by Synagogues and Temples up until the incarnation, and then the Church in liturgical readings, and by Bishops as reference and basis in the writing of Episcopal documents, encyclicals, apologetics, etc. until at least 1300. But lay people really didn't get into the Bible until the invention of the printing press in the 1,500's. And even then, of course, only the literate, whose number didn't used to be nearly so prevalent as they are today. So, for One Thousand, Five hundred some odd years, you didn't go to your book shelf and grab your Zodervan printed NKJV Bible in order to argue with your neighbor about what a "work" is. You heard about Jesus and His Church AT Church from clerics.

Click to expand...

Quite, so it still comes back to the Bible, doesn't it? And having the clerical monopoly broken was no bad thing, but "Mother Church" certainly didn't see it that way.

It shouldn't be considered an attack or that I denigrate the Holy Scriptures in any way when I say to you, or anybody else, that the Way, the Truth, and the Life is Jesus Christ HIMSELF, however, and NOT a collection of books ABOUT Him, which are useful, perhaps in coming to know Him, for some.

Click to expand...

Without those books you are free to create Christ, if fact God, in your own image, and that is idolatry. The Church is also free to create a "God" which is best suited to the maintenance of its own power, and please don't try to tell me that the Catholic Church is exempt from the dictum that power tends to corrupt.

But even then, unless an inspired human person makes contact with another human person to pass on the knowledge and of Jesus Christ to begin with, that person is never going to think to even pick up a Bible. Most people who DO pick uwonderp a Bible without first having Christian instruction from a living breathing Christian, put it down quickly as they don't have the first clue how to read it. If they make it through the begats, which is rare

Click to expand...

I must be one of your rarities then. It was about a year before I got around to talking to a university chaplain.

be distinguished by His Church as authentic among the glut of gnostic and uninspired literature which circulated around 2nd and 3rd century Roman and Grecian circles.

Click to expand...

Given that the Canon was more or less in place by the end of the second century, the only thing they needed was a knowledge of what had recently been written. It was about 150 before Rome was accorded any special status, as being capital of the Roman Empire. As Acts makes clear, Jerusalem was the centre of the action during the first decades of Christianity.

lesliedellow said:

Yeah sure. The one and only council atheists have ever heard of. I have long since come to realise that everything which ever happened during the first five centuries of Christianity happened between 20 May and 19 June 325.

The Council was called to settle a row which erupted when an Egyptian priest called Arius stepped out of line over the Trinity, and whilst they were at it they also decided how the date of Easter was to be calculated. Nothing about the canon, or anything else atheists have them "fixing" there.

Click to expand...

Other texts hint at the council discussing which books were in and which weren't.

" In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[68] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which suggests that the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the sacred scriptures."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Biblical_canon

As for Mormons, the only people who think they are Christians are Mormons. Muslims are closer to being Christians than they are - at least Muslims are monotheists.

Click to expand...

Jews said the same of early Christians.

Loudmouth said:

Other texts hint at the council discussing which books were in and which weren't.

" In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[68] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which suggests that the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the sacred scriptures."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Biblical_canon

Click to expand...

It is entirely possible that there were passing references to biblical books at Nicea, but the Canon was not discussed. In the first place, if it had been discussed, there would have been a document isued, along with the Nicene Creed, which set out the decisions which had been arrived at. In the second place, the Canon was discussed at the Council of Carthage in 397, and their concern was to try and define the Canon of scripture. In the third place, find me a historian who thinks the Canon was discussed at Nicea.

Jews said the same of early Christians.

Click to expand...

The early decades of Christianity present a complicated picture, but the Jews would certainly have regarded the very first Christians as heretics, and, by the standards of first century Judaism they would have been right. Paul might have been upset by their attitude, because he regarded himself as a Pharisee right up until the end, but the Gentile Christians wouldn't have been able to care less. They didn't think of themselves as orthodox Jews, heretical Jews, or any other kind of Jew.

Jews today don't bother calling Christians heretics, because it has become an entirely separate religion. Maybe one day Mormons will split off, and stop calling themselves Christians - their ideas are certainly wacky enough - and then they wouldn't be heretical Christians; they would be orthodox Mormons.

Another double post.

lesliedellow said:

It is entirely possible that there were passing references to biblical books at Nicea, but the Canon was not discussed. In the first place, if it had been discussed, there would have been a document isued, along with the Nicene Creed, which set out the decisions which had been arrived at. In the second place, the Canon was discussed at the Council of Carthage in 397, and their concern was to try and define the Canon of scripture.

Click to expand...

Which is partially my point. In the early church, the Bible was in flux, yet there were still Christians. It seems to me that Christianity is something other than being a slave to what the accepted Bible says.

The early decades of Christianity present a complicated picture, but the Jews would certainly have regarded the very first Christians as heretics, and, by the standards of first century Judaism they would have been right. Paul might have been upset by their attitude, because he regarded himself as a Pharisee right up until the end, but the Gentile Christians wouldn't have been able to care less. They didn't think of themselves as orthodox Jews, heretical Jews or any other kind of Jew.

Click to expand...

There was also a movement whereby someone had to convert to Judaism before becoming a Christian, which is interesting on its own. It even evoked discussions about whether Christians should be circumcised, of all things. The basics of Christianity was certainly in flux, as shown by the Pauline epistles.

Jews today don't bother calling Christians heretics, because it has become an entirely separate religion. Maybe one day Mormons will split off, and stop calling themselves Christians - their ideas are certainly wacky enough - and then they wouldn't be heretical Christians; they would be orthodox Mormons.

Click to expand...

Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all considered Abrahamic religions. In the end, what really matters is what people believe of their own beliefs, heresy or no.

Loudmouth said:

Which is partially my point. In the early church, the Bible was in flux, yet there were still Christians. It seems to me that Christianity is something other than being a slave to what the accepted Bible says.

Click to expand...

Although there was no "official" Canon in place until much later, an unofficial one was in existence by the end of the second century. There had to be, because the eye witnesses were long since dead, and so was the generation following them. Therefore there had to be written texts. We know from 2 Peter that the Pauline Corpus had come to be considered scriptural very early on.

As is well known, Paul won the argument over whether Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised. As for the gnostics, you only have read their productions to know that they are products of the Greco-Roman world, and totally unconnected with the Judaism which was Jesus' milleu

chaela said:

So are you saying that Christianity is not based on Christ?
I thought that was why it was called "Christianity".
I've never heard of anything like "Biblianity".
Though there is such a thing as "Bibliolatry", which
is why perhaps the following words of Jesus bear
repeating, here:

-

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm one who does not believe that Christianity is based on Christ. If it were I have no doubt that the world would be a lot friendlier place than it is now with little or no war, zero hunger, medical access and clean water for all, all human beings would have a roof over their heads, the earth would not have been desecrated by the pollutions and poisons we have pumped into her and people the world over would feel happy and safe.

lesliedellow said:

Like I said, the Bible is our only source of information about Christ,

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

Wouldn't you agree though, people get their basis of information about Christ, from the bible?

Click to expand...

Yes, nowadays, people do get their information
about Christ from the bible, but, as I said
previously, there wasn't always a "the-bible" from
which to get such information. First came Christianity,
then came a "the-bible".

Steven's post (#1299) wasn't questioning where
information about Christ can be found, but rather
explaining upon what—or rather, upon whom—
Christianity itself is based. Christianity is not based on
"the-bible", but on Christ, hence the term
"Christianity". "The-bible" wasn't even around when
Christianity first took off, so it would be hard for it
to be based upon that.

Interestingly enough, the confusing of these two
things (the emphasis upon information about Jesus
rather than upon Jesus Himself) is pretty much along
the same lines as what Jesus was addressing in John
5:39-40. The bible has the information, but Christ
has the Life.

lesliedellow said:

doubts about whether the Pope actually possesses a magic time machine is one of the things which sparked the Reformation

Click to expand...

I must confess I had never heard of the notion of a
magic time machine playing a part in the Reformation.
Maybe I'm Googling it wrong—do you have a source
for that intriguing little tidbit that I can look further
into?


-

lesliedellow said:

Like I said, the Bible is our only source of information about Christ, ...

Click to expand...

There are some who say that Christ Himself also provides information about Christ. But that comes from a mystical communion with Christ. They talk about seeing from the perspective of the Heart of Christ.

dlamberth said:

There are some who say that Christ Himself also provides information about Christ. But that comes from a mystical communion with Christ. They talk about seeing from the perspective of the Heart of Christ.

Click to expand...

Yes, well they are very probably mistaking their own fancies for a mystical experience. It is said of one genuine mystic, by the name of St John of the Cross, that he was never seen without a Bible in his hand.

Givemeareason said:

Jesus referred to the old testament because he he was talking to the people then. Two thousand years later it is still clear he was still talking to them. Our challenge is how does that apply to us. And considering the morality of the old testament much of it obviously does not.

Click to expand...

"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Matt 13.14-15)

That is a direct quote from the Old Testament, and today it is as relevant to how Jesus understood his ministry as it was the day he uttered it.

lesliedellow said:

Although there was no "official" Canon in place until much later, an unofficial one was in existence by the end of the second century.

Click to expand...

That's 200 years without the bible, proving that a
Christocentric existence could be carried out apart
from it.

dlamberth said:

Personally, I'm one who does not believe that Christianity is based on Christ. If it were I have no doubt that the world would be a lot friendlier place than it is now with little or no war, zero hunger, medical access and clean water for all, all human beings would have a roof over their heads, the earth would not have been desecrated by the pollutions and poisons we have pumped into her and people the world over would feel happy and safe.

Click to expand...

Well yes, there is that.

However, let's just say that it was Christ (rather
than the bible) from whom Christianity originally
got its name.

dlamberth said:

There are some who say that Christ Himself also provides information about Christ. But that comes from a mystical communion with Christ. They talk about seeing from the perspective of the Heart of Christ.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about that, too. Jesus did say that the
Spirit would guide us into all truth. I'm pretty sure
the Spirit isn't constrained by the availability of any
sacred texts—or the lack thereof.


-

chaela said:

That's 200 years without the bible, proving that a
Christocentric existence could be carried out apart from it.

Click to expand...

Firstly the texts which make up the Bible existed by the end of the first century, with the possible exception of the Pastoral Epistles. Secondly, how very careful you are to ignore the special circumstances which obtained at the time.

chaela said:

That's 200 years without the bible, proving that a
Christocentric existence could be carried out apart from it.

Click to expand...

Or that a Christocentric existence could be experienced as the essence of Creation including all matter and every bit of the cosmos, the biosphere, consciousness and the evolution that the universe is.




-





[/QUOTE]