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

[rjs330]

No, the Bible is very clear. Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not any book.

When we give the Bible magical properties, like infallibility, we engage in Idolatry, not Christian worship.

Amen

You would not know that Jesus was the word if the bible didn't tell you that. And if there are parts of the scripture that are fiction perhaps that is too.

You are getting hung up on the word "word". It's a common phrase used to describe scripture. It does not mean that scripture is the word in the same sense that Jesus is. We are not proclaiming that the scriptures are "the word" spoken of in John. We are saying scripture is scripture written by men who were inspired by God and the scripture carries the authority of God with innerrancy. Otherwise we could not say with absolute assurance that Jesus is the word, because that could be in error or a fictional representation.

 

[rjs330]

It's not hard if you've learned literature. For the Bible, you'll need to know allegory, legend, myth, hyperbole, the vassal suzerainty treaty, wisdom, Hebrew poetry, Hebrew parallelism, Hebrew prophecy, Hebrew acrostic, apocalypse, parable, the epistle, Greek polemic, the sermon, and for the gospels, ancient bios narrative. I suspect outright fiction is rare.

Didn't answer my question. And for the record I know and understand all those things.

I still want to know what books in the OT are fictional. What stories about the people in those books are fictional and how do you know?

 

[Historical Christianity]

That absolutely ridiculous. What did Jesus do when teaching in the temple? Did he not teach from scripture? What did Jesus use to defeat the enemy? Was it not scripture. Jesus blasted the Pharisies for failing to follow scripture and adding their own traditions. Paul told Timothy that scripture is the way we reprove rebuke and exhort one another. When Paul taught the people studied the scriptures to see if his teaching was accurate. No it is not idolatry. That is just a foolish statement. What did David say, that he meditated on day and night. What did God tell his people to do with the scriptures. Was it not to learn it and hear it and write it in their door posts?

What kind of nonsense poo poos the authority of scripture? We worship God. We have proper reverence for the written word.

Only the author of Matthew shows Jesus teaching in the temple. From the others, he is seldom even in Jerusalem. All the arguments shown in the synoptic gospels are typical rabbinic debate topics. All were about interpretation of Torah. Does observation of Sabbath require doing (or not doing) this?

Only the author of John attributes that 'search the scriptures' saying to Jesus. The synoptic authors all knew better.

Psalm 1 is the introduction to the wisdom literature collection of Psalms. It's not David. And it's the law (Torah), not scripture. Much of their body of wisdom literature predates their use of writing.

 

[rjs330]

Thus only Evangelical Christians. They are the only ones who insist on that unbiblical language. Paul was not so restrictive.

Didn't Peter say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved? Didn't Jesus say that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Didn't Jesus say that only those who do the will of the father will get in? Tell me please where Paul countered this and made it more liberal? How can this be unbiblical language?

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. - Acts 8:37 Bible Gateway passage: Acts 8:37 - King James Version

Or this?

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. - Romans 8:1 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:1 - King James Version

I could keep going. But it is NOT unbiblical.

 

[rjs330]

Only the author of Matthew shows Jesus teaching in the temple. From the others, he is seldom even in Jerusalem. All the arguments shown in the synoptic gospels are typical rabbinic debate topics. All were about interpretation of Torah. Does observation of Sabbath require doing (or not doing) this?

Only the author of John attributes that 'search the scriptures' saying to Jesus. The synoptic authors all knew better.

Psalm 1 is the introduction to the wisdom literature collection of Psalms. It's not David. And it's the law (Torah), not scripture. Much of their body of wisdom literature predates their use of writing.

The law was scripture and it was the authority. It doesn't matter a wit that John is the only book that mentions search the scriptures. Does not the bible state that Jesus said a lot more than is written down? Would we not expect there to be things contained in one book that are not contained in another? John is also the only book that states in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God and the word became flesh. The gospels were not meant to be mirror images of each other. Otherwise we wouldn't need four if them we could just do with one. And Paul's writings are called scripture, so they are equal to OT Scripture in authority and inspiration.

 

[Historical Christianity]

You would not know that Jesus was the word if the bible didn't tell you that.

That's a misunderstanding. The Johannine community believed that Jesus was the Logos, a very well-known idea of Greek philosophy. It had nothing to do with any writing.

 

[Historical Christianity]

believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved

Acts 8:37 is not in most manuscripts. But Acts 16:31 portrays Paul and Silas saying that. Their requirement was only to believe. No requirement to 'walk in the spirit' or accepting or even the idea of a savior. Believe in Jesus as the universal sacrifice.

 

[Historical Christianity]

The law was scripture and it was the authority. It doesn't matter a wit that John is the only book that mentions search the scriptures. Does not the bible state that Jesus said a lot more than is written down? Would we not expect there to be things contained in one book that are not contained in another? John is also the only book that states in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God and the word became flesh. The gospels were not meant to be mirror images of each other. Otherwise we wouldn't need four if them we could just do with one. And Paul's writings are called scripture, so they are equal to OT Scripture in authority and inspiration.

No, the law was Torah. It was oral for probably at least 5 centuries before it was written. It helps to facilitate understanding to recognize that the Johannine community produced late writings (starting in the last decade of the first century) and had their own unique ideas. Paul argued against some of those ideas.

2 Peter is a pseudoepigraphical text, written probably in the first half of the second century. To use an isolated verse from this text to justify calling all NT texts scripture is at best a circular argument. A text is scripture only to someone who considers it to be a sacred text of his religion. Origin and Eusebius doubted Petrine authorship. No early apostolic father quotes from it.

Christians do not regard Tanakh as authoritative for them. If they did, they would obey Torah.

 

[Historical Christianity]

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

You are including words not found in the earliest manuscripts. Most ms have only "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (ESV) Unfortunately, Paul never explains what he means by being 'in' Christ.

 

[Historical Christianity]

The story of the Good Samaritan is fiction and was told by Jesus Christ.

Wrong. It's a parable.

 

[Armoured]

disagree

Sorry to be the bearer of inconvenient truth

 

[JLB777]

Psalm 1 is the introduction to the wisdom literature collection of Psalms. It's not David. And it's the law (Torah), not scripture.

Could you explain what you mean by; "it's the law not scripture"?

The OT is made up of the Law [Torah], the Prophets, and the Psalms.

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Luke 24:44


These are referred to as the scriptures:

32 And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” Luke 24:33



JLB

 

[JoeP222w]

If you reject the absolute and complete and all sufficient word of God of the Bible, you are basically believing that God can not speak to His creation His truth, and/or that He lied about some things.

How can you truthfully say that you are a Christian, and yet call God a liar?

I see this as completely contradictory and hypocritical.

This is not to say that there are many things in the Bible that are hard to understand. That is not the same thing as calling God a liar.

 

[JoeP222w]

I think that point happens when a Christian becomes someone like Bart Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman has declared himself apostate. So he admits he is not a Christian.

 

[JLB777]

Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you. 1 Timothy 4:16

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Didn't answer my question. And for the record I know and understand all those things.
I still want to know what books in the OT are fictional. What stories about the people in those books are fictional and how do you know?

Remember that scholarly, traditional, historical, social, and educated -ional,
life routes
may (as it so happens today) all use different criteria
for determining or accepting or believing anything,
especially
the BIBLE, since
the enemy of Christ attacks the BIBLE in all of those segments of society and often succeeded in obscuring the truth from just a little bit to a whole log.// er... lot...

So based on all the different authorities people choose from,
you have/ will/ already have/
get lots of different answers as to what they think is fiction.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

32 And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” Luke 24:33

REPEAT ! REPEAT !
GLORY TO GOD !

i.e. let HIM open the Scriptures, as only He does and only He can!

 

[rjs330]

You are including words not found in the earliest manuscripts. Most ms have only "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (ESV) Unfortunately, Paul never explains what he means by being 'in' Christ.

That's true, but there are plenty of other scriptures that speak about walking in the spirit. So it still fits even if questionable.

 

[rjs330]

No, the law was Torah. It was oral for probably at least 5 centuries before it was written. It helps to facilitate understanding to recognize that the Johannine community produced late writings (starting in the last decade of the first century) and had their own unique ideas. Paul argued against some of those ideas.

2 Peter is a pseudoepigraphical text, written probably in the first half of the second century. To use an isolated verse from this text to justify calling all NT texts scripture is at best a circular argument. A text is scripture only to someone who considers it to be a sacred text of his religion. Origin and Eusebius doubted Petrine authorship. No early apostolic father quotes from it.

Christians do not regard Tanakh as authoritative for them. If they did, they would obey Torah.

You missed the point didn't you. Jesus called it scripture. And Peter stated Paul's writings were scripture. So if you want to doubt that's up to you.

As far as Peter writing the book is concerned there really is no definitive answer to that. You can believe one side over the other if you wish. However it doesn't change that when the cannon was made Peter was included as recognized authoritative scripture. We may have somewhere down the line lost who actually wrote it, but that really is a matter of historical inaccuracy and not scriptural if cannon inaccuracy. As you know cannon was not created simply because of a specific author. They didn't say, "well Paul wrote this or Peter wrote that therefore it's in."
The NT is scripture. End of story. As is the OT.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus called it scripture

YHWH did too. HE said/says in OT, etc, that HIS TORAH is what separates HIS people from the heathen pagan nations peoples who had not TORAH.