Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[outhouse]

None of what you said though shows that Christianity evolved based on the Bible. The Bible evolved out of Christianity. Various pieces of work developed, but Christians were not solely dependent on them. Instead, it was the beliefs and practices of the movement that created the need for such writings.

Much of these writings were just to supplement what Christians already knew and practiced. So really, the Bible is a byproduct of Christianity.

again the gospel was carried in oral tradition from the start, or they were not and a complete fabrication. I'm running with the first

I understand your point but jesus story floated christianity, not the other way around. christianity revolved around jesus story after his death.

its like putting the cart before the horse

I agree they knew and practiced the gospel before it was written, but that didnt make it come later, and it doesnt mean through oral tradition it wasnt there.

much of the gospel was written already written before christainity even took off.

christianity took off after constantine pulled everyone together.

the gospels were already written for hundreds of years before the movement gained any strength.

the 4 gospels at 100BC were probably finished with john just being finished. yet at 100BC christianity was a very small unnoticed movement.

Pauls earliest forgerys on his letters were probably already being touched up.

 

[fallingblood]

Even though one can be a Christian without every reading the Bible, the Bible does define how you became a Christian so I disagree with the OP. Everything about God and how to become a Christian and what to do after that is defined in the Bible, only.

How do you explain the fact that there were Christians before the Bible? Or that there were different canons used by different Christians?

 

[sojourner]

much of the gospel was written already written before christainity even took off.

No it wasn't. Matthew wasn't written until about 80,and John until just around 100 c.e. That gives Xy at least a 30 year head start.

christianity took off after constantine pulled everyone together.

It took off as an imperialized, standardized religion. As a spiritual movement, it was doing just fine before then.

the gospels were already written for hundreds of years before the movement gained any strength.

Not true. Xy was already established outside Israel before then.

the 4 gospels at 100BC were probably finished with john just being finished. yet at 100BC christianity was a very small unnoticed movement.

??? Jesus is commonly thought to have been crucified in the 30s C.E. The first written gospel was not completed until post 70 C.E.

 

[fallingblood]

again the gospel was carried in oral tradition from the start, or they were not and a complete fabrication. I'm running with the first

I understand your point but jesus story floated christianity, not the other way around. christianity revolved around jesus story after his death.

its like putting the cart before the horse

I agree they knew and practiced the gospel before it was written, but that didnt make it come later, and it doesnt mean through oral tradition it wasnt there.

much of the gospel was written already written before christainity even took off.

christianity took off after constantine pulled everyone together.

the gospels were already written for hundreds of years before the movement gained any strength.

the 4 gospels at 100BC were probably finished with john just being finished. yet at 100BC christianity was a very small unnoticed movement.

Pauls earliest forgerys on his letters were probably already being touched up.

It was the Jesus movement and later Christianity though that caused the evolution of the Gospels though. Yes, there was an oral tradition, but that oral tradition evolved over time. We can see this just by looking at the Synoptic Gospels. Or even comparing the canonical Gospels to the extra-canonical Gospels.

Even more though, the interpretation of the Gospels, as well as all of the books of the Bible have evolved. And it has greatly expanded as well. It is this interpretation that has really created the Bible, as in picking which "scripture" ended in it.

So even though there was the oral tradition, as well as a written tradition, they only formed by the Bible because of an already established Christian thought. There were many different books that could have been placed in the Bible. Yet, we have only 27 that made it in to the NT. And even those 27 were debated for centuries. The Bible we have evolved out of Christianity. Christianity existed first, and only later was the NT put together.

 

[Man of Faith]

How do you explain the fact that there were Christians before the Bible? Or that there were different canons used by different Christians?

It doesn't matter that there are were Christians before the Bible, the Bible details out and defines the Christian faith and experience.

Christians can use whatever canon they want or information that they want and that doesn't discount that the Bible details out and defines the Christian faith and experience. No other book does that.

 

[outhouse]

but that oral tradition evolved over time.

so did christianity.

im just trying to figure out how to put one before the other to make sense of it all. if it can even be done

they only formed by the Bible because of an already established Christian thought.

See I think they formed the bible from fables of jesus life that were passed down. People heard these tales and fables by oral tradition. With such high illiteracy rates I can see a group of people with a speaker in front preaching the gospels to win people over to their way of thinking.

strangers were exposed to the gospel and word of jesus to follow the movement. jesus and his storys were not common knowledge everyone knew about. nothing was established before 100AD

we have only 27 that made it in to the NT

yes added much later after the gospels had been in circulation for a long time.

for our purpose we need work with only the 4 canonical gospels and paul at this point.


My proof so to speak is what came first the gospels or christianity. We know the gospels came first

without books to follow christianity had no bearing, before 325AD it was a mess with different sects and different beliefs in every different city. There was no uniformity at all until 325 and the canonized gospel pulled it all together into one central theme. [with constantines help]

And even those 27 were debated for centuries.

true it took a while for everyone to follow one theme as many different beliefs existed

The Bible we have evolved out of Christianity

i find the opposite true ,, the bible evolved because of jesus teaching, and christianity evolved from the gospels that taught the jesus way.

only later was the NT put together

again the gospels came before christianity was wide spread

 

[fallingblood]

It doesn't matter that there are were Christians before the Bible, the Bible details out and defines the Christian faith and experience.

Christians can use whatever canon they want or information that they want and that doesn't discount that the Bible details out and defines the Christian faith and experience. No other book does that.

Many other books do that. The Pope has done that. Countless religious leaders have written books on the subject.

More so, different canons have stated different ways in which to be Christian. So since you believe that there are various ways to be Christian (since different canons throughout history have done just such), why do they need the Bible?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I would say that the Bible has little to do with Christianity.

Is that an observation or a doctrine?

 

[Man of Faith]

Many other books do that. The Pope has done that. Countless religious leaders have written books on the subject.

More so, different canons have stated different ways in which to be Christian. So since you believe that there are various ways to be Christian (since different canons throughout history have done just such), why do they need the Bible?

The Pope gets his information from the Bible as do others that write books. People were first called Christians that were follows of Christ. I don't know of any other way to become a Christian.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

My argument is that Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible. That in fact, a Christian never even has to have read the Bible in order to be a Christian. That a Christian can still be a Christian even though they may pick and choose what they believe in the Bible, because it is not a demand that they follow the Bible to the T.

My evidence: When Christianity first began, there was not a such thing as a Bible. When Paul was preaching his message, the New Testament had just began loosely forming in the aspect that he was writing letters (which were not scripture). Even the OT canon was not closed until after Paul was dead. And during the time of Paul, different groups subscribed to different works of Hebrew scripture.

The Christian canon was not even fully closed until many centuries later. The canon had not even started to be put together until around a century later. This means the the first Christians did not have a Bible. They may have had works that they believed to be scripture, but various groups subscribed to different scripture. Even today, we see various scripture being held above others.

So obviously something else defined individuals who claimed to be Christians. And the same is true for today. A Bible does not define who a Christian is or what they believe. Just because it is in the Bible, does not mean that a Christian must follow it, or has to be defined by it. I think this has to be understood.

Too many people criticize Christians because they "pick and choose" what they want to believe. However, they have every right to do so as they are not defined by the Bible. Christianity evolved without the Bible. It began without the Bible. And for centuries, it existed without the Bible. In fact, for the vast majority of the history of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians have not had the chance to even read the Bible.

You are right. According to the bible, belief in jesus Christ and His acceptance of your belief are all that is required to become a Christian. lLving life as a Christian and understanding God is where the Bible plays it's greatst role. Also, don't forget prophesy.

 

[fallingblood]

The Pope gets his information from the Bible as do others that write books. People were first called Christians that were follows of Christ. I don't know of any other way to become a Christian.

So baby baptism, which is never mentioned in the Bible, yet practiced by various denominations, comes from the Bible? Forbidding the use of condoms, which is not in the Bible, yet sponsored by various denominations, comes from the Bible? Persecuting non-believers, which isn't in the Bible, is some how in the Bible?

And what about Christianity? The term is never found in the Bible. Jesus himself says not to go to Gentiles but only to Jews. Yet, Christianity is not a Jewish religion.

 

[Man of Faith]

So baby baptism, which is never mentioned in the Bible, yet practiced by various denominations, comes from the Bible? Forbidding the use of condoms, which is not in the Bible, yet sponsored by various denominations, comes from the Bible? Persecuting non-believers, which isn't in the Bible, is some how in the Bible?

And what about Christianity? The term is never found in the Bible. Jesus himself says not to go to Gentiles but only to Jews. Yet, Christianity is not a Jewish religion.

Those are extra-Christian church activities and considered works and has nothing to do with becoming a Christian. Some of those might be good or not. As a christian I can pay for a poor person's shoes in Jesus' name and that is not mentioned in the Bible to do that, that doesn't mean that I have added to the scriptures.

Yes Christianity is mentioned in the Bible. Acts 11:26 "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Jesus sent Paul to spread the good news to the gentiles. Also Peter had a vision that showed that everyone should receive Jesus and then went to tell Cornelius and his family how to get saved. They received the holy spirit and they were gentiles. That happened in Acts 10.

 

[sojourner]

So baby baptism, which is never mentioned in the Bible

it is alluded to, though. In those days, the man of the house was the one responsible for the faith of his household. I can't put my finger on it right now, but there is a story of a man who was baptized, "and all his house with him." One would suspect that included children. Remember, circumcision was performed at eight days, whether the baby was a "believer" or not. There seems to have been more emphasis on what the head of household believed.

 

[fallingblood]

Those are extra-Christian church activities and considered works and has nothing to do with becoming a Christian. Some of those might be good or not. As a christian I can pay for a poor person's shoes in Jesus' name and that is not mentioned in the Bible to do that, that doesn't mean that I have added to the scriptures.

Yes Christianity is mentioned in the Bible. Acts 11:26 "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Jesus sent Paul to spread the good news to the gentiles. Also Peter had a vision that showed that everyone should receive Jesus and then went to tell Cornelius and his family how to get saved. They received the holy spirit and they were gentiles. That happened in Acts 10.

Christian doesn't equal Christianity.

 

[Koldo]

How do you define what is part of Christianity and what is not?

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Followers of the path pointed by Christ are labelled Christians!
any ambiguity??

Love & rgds

 

[Pegg]

How do you define what is part of Christianity and what is not?

the bible defines what is and is not a part of christianity.

 

[fallingblood]

the bible defines what is and is not a part of christianity.

And than man interprets exactly what that means. If it was so simple, there wouldn't be so much debate among Christians.

 

[Pegg]

And than man interprets exactly what that means. If it was so simple, there wouldn't be so much debate among Christians.

the debate only comes into the picture because what we read iin the bible is different to what we hear being preached

thats why we should stop listening and start reading


If harold camping was 'reading' the bible, he'd know that 'no one knows the day or the hour'
If the catholic church were 'reading' they'd know that celibacy is not a requirement by God.

 

[Mister Emu]

the bible defines what is and is not a part of christianity.

What defines the Bible?

If the catholic church were 'reading' they'd know that celibacy is not a requirement by God.

The Catholic Church does not teach that celibacy is required by God.