Can you be a Christian and reject certain parts of the Bible?

[Rev. Thomas]

Fiction does not mean false, it means that the lesson is important thing, not the facts, or the actual happenings.

For example, the story of the Samaritan as told by Jesus, is widely seen as fiction. That does not reduce it's importance one bit.

 

[Tina W]

But if you for example look at a catholic bible, they have added books that were not part of the original texts. BTW not saying this to start a debate with anyone catholic, just answering the OPs questions.

LOL Actually it's the exact opposite. The original Bible had all of those extra books, they were removed by Martin Luther during the reformation.

 

[daleksteve]

LOL Actually it's the exact opposite. The original Bible had all of those extra books, they were removed by Martin Luther during the reformation.

Trouble with those extra catholic books is that they conflict with pretty much the rest of scripture.

The idea of purgatory ujndermines the whole basis of salvation itself so in a way in glad they were removed.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Trouble with those extra catholic books is that they conflict with pretty much the rest of scripture.

The idea of purgatory undermines the whole basis of salvation itself so in a way in glad they were removed.

Purgatory isn't even in the deuterocanonical texts. Some folks point to Maccabees 12:39-46, but that’s simply an account of soldiers praying for their dead comrades whom they assumed died for the sin of carrying idols. It’s a story of people asking God to change his mind (like Abraham did for Sodom and Moses did twice for the Isrealites). It’s not fodder for some concept of temporary punishment from which the RCC springs you early in exchange for “charitable donations.”

And what did Jesus say to the criminal who was crucified next to him and asked, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”? (Luke 23:42)

It’s in the next verse, “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.’”

TODAY, not after spending time in purgatory…TODAY.

Besides, in order for one to believe in purgatory one must believe that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was insufficient to achieve salvation. And if one truly believes that, why exactly do they think Jesus died on the cross at all?

 

[Thedictator]

Yes and I agree Sacred Scripture is very important, but future generations, that is those in the 2nd and 3rd centuries did not have a Bible. Most Christians up until Guttenberg invented the printing press in the 15th century didn't have a personal copy of the Bible but they learned of God, Christ and salvation. Moreover, we forget that Christ established His Church, not a book. And He promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church. We who believe in and follow Christ are the Mystical Body of Christ, we are the Church. You could burn every Bible tomorrow but Christ's Church will prevail. The Bible contains a description of God's Word, but Christ is the Word made flesh. He is the Living Word. As Saint Francis proclaimed, "Teach the Gospel always, and when necessary, use words." Peace.

The problem is you can't teach the Gospel if you don't know what it is. That is where the Bible comes in, Just because one does not have a Bible, does not mean they are not taught from it. We do not have a direct source from God himself giving us instruction on how to be saved so the only way we could possibly get that information is from the Bible or someone who has read it. There has to be a way for God's Word to be passed down from one generation to another the Bible is that way.

 

[The Times]

The Bible is a library of spiritual books. Some books are historic, some are fiction, most have a lesson to teach, when we are ready to listen.

Is the ones Jesus referred to fiction?

For example like the Noah's days, in the beginning he created them male and female, Moses, Daniel, the scriptures that testify of him.... hmmmmmm....well?

 

[The Times]

Fiction does not mean false, it means that the lesson is important thing, not the facts, or the actual happenings.

For example, the story of the Samaritan as told by Jesus, is widely seen as fiction. That does not reduce it's importance one bit.

Now why would that be fiction?
Your claim that it is widely seen as fiction is fake, false and phoney, so why make such outlandish and unsubstantiated claim?

This is a historical account that is absent of a parable and this points to a real event. If you stated a parable was a lesson to be learnt then I would agree, like the prodigical Son, which symbolises many and not specifically a historical event.

You set yourself up!

 

[JoeP222w]

Can you be a Christian and only believe some parts of the Bible? For example, can you reject a global Noah's Flood, a six-day creation, a literal exodus, etc.? Could you reject other parts as well, like Christ walking on water? Discuss.

The Bible is the inerrant and all sufficient word of God. If you deny even the tiniest part of the Bible, how can you say you know God if you doubt His truth?

Understanding the word of God is completely different. In an eternity of eternities, no one will ever fully comprehend and understand the word of the God, but that does not make it untrue.

Denying any one part of the truth of the Bible leads to all sorts of error and even heresies. I don't see how one can claim to be a Christian and believe that God is incapable to not telling the whole truth through His word of the Bible. It is simply not possible.

 

[JoeP222w]

But at what point in time does a "different interpretation" really become rejecting the Bible itself?

The doctrines of inerrancy are not based in the translations, but in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

 

[Achilles6129]

The Jews do not consider the New Testament Sacred Scripture either, are you going to throw it out? the Septugint which was a Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Jews around the Mediterranean Sea from the 3rd century BC which included the books you accuse Catholics of adding.

Of course the Jews don't consider the NT Scripture! Else they wouldn't be "Jews" in the religious sense of the word! The point is that they consider the Protestant OT Scripture, and we're following what they believe about the OT because "unto them was committed the oracles of God":

"Then what [a]advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." Rom. 3:1-2 (NASB)

Early Christians and Jews from the 3rd-2nd century used the Septuagint which is a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated in stages between the 3rd to 2nd century BCE in Alexandria, Egypt. According to Michael Barber, in the Septuagint, the Torah and Nevi'im are established as canonical, but the Ketuvim appear not to have been definitively canonized yet. The translation work might have been done by seventy or seventy-two elders who translated the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek.

Philo and Josephus (both associated with first century Hellenistic Judaism) ascribed divine inspiration to its translators, and the primary ancient account of the process is the circa 2nd century BCE Letter of Aristeas. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text (24 books of the Hebrew Bible and Protestant OT) was based; in some cases, these newly found texts accord with the Septuagint version. Strong evidence exists that the Septuagint was the canon in place in first century Palestine. Authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint.

So these Sacred Books have been there since Christ founded His Church. It's a historical fact. The Jews revised their canon somewhere around the 2nd century. By then Christianity had become its own religion. Why would the Christian Church go back and revise its canon because the Jews, who rejected Christ, changed their canon?

The deutero-canonical books that the Catholics recognize as Scripture were never, ever, accepted by Jews as Scripture. Hence they never made it into the canon. You can check Josephus (1st cent. Jewish historian) on the books the Jews hold to be inspired:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/29/29-1/29-1-pp037-046_JETS.pdf

Josephus: Historical Evidence of the Old Testament Canon

 

[A Freeman]

I don't know what Bible you are reading, but the God of the Old Testament is clearly the same God as in the New Testament. He was perhaps harsh in His judgments on unbelievers (as opposed to this period of grace that was initiated with the first advent of the Messiah) but He was no more harsh than He will be when He comes to rule the earth. All unbelievers will be summarily executed at that point (read the Book of Revelation). Jesus Himself said that, "the Scriptures cannot be broken" ["altered"] (John 10:35) and I assure you--He was not speaking of the New Testament (which, of course, had not yet been written). I cannot imagine how you can arrive at the conclusion that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was "dark, jealous and evil"! Judging God to be "evil" is treading very dangerous ground. I would advise you to repent and seek Him.

Agreed. Christ said the following as well:

Matthew 5:17-20
5:17 Think NOT that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least COMMANDments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall EXCEED [the righteousness] of the lawyers and politicians, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven.

Which means The Law, found in the first five books of the Bible, is still in effect today.

 

[Rev. Thomas]

Now why would that be fiction?
Your claim that it is widely seen as fiction is fake, false and phoney, so why make such outlandish and unsubstantiated claim?

This is a historical account that is absent of a parable and this points to a real event. If you stated a parable was a lesson to be learnt then I would agree, like the prodigical Son, which symbolises many and not specifically a historical event.

You set yourself up!

The Bible is full of fictional stories, if that challenges your faith, good.

 

[Rev. Thomas]

The Bible is the inerrant and all sufficient word of God. If you deny even the tiniest part of the Bible, how can you say you know God if you doubt His truth?

Understanding the word of God is completely different. In an eternity of eternities, no one will ever fully comprehend and understand the word of the God, but that does not make it untrue.

Denying any one part of the truth of the Bible leads to all sorts of error and even heresies. I don't see how one can claim to be a Christian and believe that God is incapable to not telling the whole truth through His word of the Bible. It is simply not possible.

Is the ones Jesus referred to fiction?

For example like the Noah's days, in the beginning he created them male and female, Moses, Daniel, the scriptures that testify of him.... hmmmmmm....well?

Jesus himself, God in the flesh used fiction, just like his Father in heaven uses it. Those who need a perfect Bible have traded a book for God.

 

[The Times]

The Bible is full of fictional stories, if that challenges your faith, good.

On the contrary, it doesn't challenge my faith, I believe in the birth, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, do you?

I celebrated palm Sunday and also will do for Easter.

 

[The Times]

Jesus himself, God in the flesh used fiction, just like his Father in heaven uses it. Those who need a perfect Bible have traded a book for God.

You call it a book. I repeat you call it a book, instead of THE book. Do you know why?

Well to Christians what THE Holy book to them is the Biography of the Living God, inspired by God himself and for this matter it trumpts any other book that is written by man.

To you it may be a book, but to a Christian it is THE Holy Book, the sacred book that is THE Biography of God who was made flesh for the redemption of mankind and revealed himself to his created creatures.

 

[Rev. Thomas]

You call it a book. I repeat you call it a book, instead of THE book. Do you know why?

Well to Christians what THE Holy book to them is the Biography of the Living God, inspired by God himself and for this matter it trumpts any other book that is written by man.

To you it may be a book, but to a Christian it is THE Holy Book, the sacred book that is THE Biography of God who was made flesh for the redemption of mankind and revealed himself to his created creatures.

You don't speak for all Christians. There are over 20,000 denominations because of that kind of thinking.

 

[Rev. Thomas]

On the contrary, it doesn't challenge my faith, I believe in the birth, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, do you?

I celebrated palm Sunday and also will do for Easter.

It's funny to see the various "tests" people use to decide if someone is Christian. Do you believe this fact? Or that fact about Jesus? It's not facts that will help us, it's trust in Christ. Not trust in theology.

 

[JoeP222w]

Jesus himself, God in the flesh used fiction, just like his Father in heaven uses it. Those who need a perfect Bible have traded a book for God.

Where, specifically, does Jesus use "fiction" (chapter and verse reference)? Or where the Father uses "fiction"? And do you mean by "fiction" that God has lied to us? If that is what you believe, you know not God or His truth.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God. Knowing this to be true in no way means the Christian worships the Bible. If you believe that God cannot provide a perfect revelation to His children, you have a very low view of God, perhaps you have even created an idol to suit your needs.

If you believe the word of God to contain errors or lies from God, then there is no way you can know truth from God, because God has not revealed His truth through any other book, so knowing God becomes completely subjective.

 

[Historical Christianity]

One need not 'reject' things like the creation narratives. They are genuine records of traditions and legends of ancient Israel. They are generally written in a style of allegory, like Everyman. It's not a coincidence that the name given to the character Adam means, literally, man. Both the northern and southern tribes believed their god was the creator god, so they naturally have a legendary tradition elaborating on that. The only real point was that God was the creator.

In a more modern style, the gospels were ancient bios narratives, telling stories to show what kind of person they believed their protagonist to be. Do you ever see Paul incorporating Jesus walking on water, or any other miracles, into any of his doctrines? Paul said practically nothing about anything Jesus said or did while alive on earth. To Paul, the only important thing was his sacrificial death. Oh, and people should behave themselves.

 

[Aldebaran]

In a more modern style, the gospels were ancient bios narratives, telling stories to show what kind of person they believed their protagonist to be. Do you ever see Paul incorporating Jesus walking on water, or any other miracles, into any of his doctrines? Paul said practically nothing about anything Jesus said or did while alive on earth. To Paul, the only important thing was his sacrificial death. Oh, and people should behave themselves.

This might be because Paul was the only apostle that was not physically with Jesus when these things happened.