Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[Kathryn]

I understand that completely. The majority of the church have put the bible aside in favor of the writings of men... i totally agree with that.

Don't know that this is true, either.

Sola Scriptura was not even considered as a concept till the Reformation. That being said, most mainstream church teaching up till that time balanced Holy Scripture WITH Tradition - the two go hand in hand and one is not more important than the other. In fact, that is still the teaching of the RCC and some other Christian sects.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Jesus Christ is either what He claimed to be or else He's a huge fraud. There is no middle ground on that.

Personally, I don't believe that Jesus Christ ever existed -- certainly not in any form which a modern person would recognize.

And since I don't believe that he is quoted in the gospels, I don't see any reason to think of him as either God or fraud.

 

[Katzpur]

Personally, I don't believe that Jesus Christ ever existed -- certainly not in any form which a modern person would recognize.

And since I don't believe that he is quoted in the gospels, I don't see any reason to think of him as either God or fraud.

Well, that's pretty much a no-brainer. If He didn't ever exist, it's a non-issue. My statement was obviously directed towards people who do believe He existed.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, that's pretty much a no-brainer. If He didn't ever exist, it's a non-issue. My statement was obviously directed towards people who do believe He existed.

Well, OK. I guess I was just trying to point out that the gospel writers may have been frauds -- not Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, OK. I guess I was just trying to point out that the gospel writers may have been frauds -- not Jesus.

If the Gospel writers truly believed in what they were saying, they weren't frauds.

 

[Pegg]

Don't know that this is true, either.

Sola Scriptura was not even considered as a concept till the Reformation. That being said, most mainstream church teaching up till that time balanced Holy Scripture WITH Tradition - the two go hand in hand and one is not more important than the other. In fact, that is still the teaching of the RCC and some other Christian sects.

but the trinity wasnt a christian tradition...Jesus never mentioned it, the apostles never mentioned it...it was introduced by other people, not the ones Jesus gave his authority to.

the whole point of sola scriptura was, as it literally means 'scripture alone'. People recognized that some teachings were not based on scripture...this is why there has always been such debate.

 

[fallingblood]

but the trinity wasnt a christian tradition...Jesus never mentioned it, the apostles never mentioned it...it was introduced by other people, not the ones Jesus gave his authority to.

the whole point of sola scriptura was, as it literally means 'scripture alone'. People recognized that some teachings were not based on scripture...this is why there has always been such debate.

If you go back to the idea of the trinity, those who argue for it use scripture. It is based on the tradition that Jesus is God.

And there is such a debate not simply because some beliefs are not found in scripture, but because people interpret scripture differently.

 

[Pegg]

If you go back to the idea of the trinity, those who argue for it use scripture. It is based on the tradition that Jesus is God.

but that tradition doesnt come out of scripture. If we look at what comes out of scripture we can look at Jesus own words about his identity

"I said I am Gods son"
"I am ascending to my Father and Your Father"
"The Father is greater then I am"

The 'tradition' that you are speaking of did not come from those who wrote the NT because if it did, then they surely would have written it there.

 

[sojourner]

I understand that completely. The majority of the church have put the bible aside in favor of the writings of men... i totally agree with that.

No they haven't. Since the Biblical texts are writings of human beings -- and have always been considered as such until the fundamentalist movement, I don't see that there's a way to differentiate the texts as anything other than what they are. That being said, the Biblical texts are afforded greater authority (with the caveat that we use a proper exegetical hermeneutic) than non-canonical writings.

 

[sojourner]

but the trinity wasnt a christian tradition...Jesus never mentioned it, the apostles never mentioned it...it was introduced by other people, not the ones Jesus gave his authority to.

the whole point of sola scriptura was, as it literally means 'scripture alone'. People recognized that some teachings were not based on scripture...this is why there has always been such debate.

Sure it is! Just because Jesus didn't mention it is no reason to label it as "unchristian." Since the bishops have carried apostolic authority (even since Biblical times) since Matthias was elected to replace Judas, to the present day, and since it was bishops who formulated the doctrine, I'd have to say that the Trinity is eminently Christian.

 

[sojourner]

but that tradition doesnt come out of scripture. If we look at what comes out of scripture we can look at Jesus own words about his identity

"I said I am Gods son"
"I am ascending to my Father and Your Father"
"The Father is greater then I am"

The 'tradition' that you are speaking of did not come from those who wrote the NT because if it did, then they surely would have written it there.

So? Once again, the canonical texts are not (never have been) the be-all-end-all of revelation. The whole Trinity argument is, in fact, based on "what the Bible says." No, it isn't stated explicitly, but it is implied in several places. It is that implication that was the impetus for formulating the doctrine in the first place, and it is that same implication that supports our continued understanding of it.

 

[fallingblood]

but that tradition doesnt come out of scripture. If we look at what comes out of scripture we can look at Jesus own words about his identity

"I said I am Gods son"
"I am ascending to my Father and Your Father"
"The Father is greater then I am"

The 'tradition' that you are speaking of did not come from those who wrote the NT because if it did, then they surely would have written it there.

Just because you can take a couple of texts that say one thing, doesn't mean the other claim is wrong.

The Gospel of John makes a case that Jesus is God. For instance, John 10:30; John 14:11; one could even just the intro to John as a suggestion that Jesus is God. That was even the charges in John that was held against Jesus.

So yes, this tradition is in the NT.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

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.

Please can you explain what did jesus mean by "Gospel".

Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,​

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.



Does it mean the "the new testament" or teachings and belief which is orally spread among people.

does the Gospel means "glad tiding" or "revelations"

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If the Gospel writers truly believed in what they were saying, they weren't frauds.

I think the gospels were most probably written as fiction and later taken seriously. That's my best guess.

 

[Kathryn]

but the trinity wasnt a christian tradition...Jesus never mentioned it, the apostles never mentioned it...it was introduced by other people, not the ones Jesus gave his authority to.

the whole point of sola scriptura was, as it literally means 'scripture alone'. People recognized that some teachings were not based on scripture...this is why there has always been such debate.

What you're saying doesn't contradict what I said at all. Most mainstream Christian sects balance Sola Scriptura with Tradition.

I do disagree however with your assertion that Jesus didn't give anyone else authority to expound upon the basics of truth outlined in the Bible. But of course, I believe in apostolic succession.

I don't believe that God gave us the Bible and then just shut up and said, "OK guys, that's it. That's all I'm saying. The rest is up to you." Do you really think that God gave that much authority (to basically determine when He was supposed to quit talking) to a group of bishops in 398 AD?

I believe that God continues to reveal Himself to His people. He will not contradict Himself but His revelation is not limited to man's determination of the canon of scripture.

 

[fallingblood]

Please can you explain what did jesus mean by "Gospel".

Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,​

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.



Does it mean the "the new testament" or teachings and belief which is orally spread among people.

does the Gospel means "glad tiding" or "revelations"

Jesus was speaking about the good news. Gospel means good news.

 

[fallingblood]

I think the gospels were most probably written as fiction and later taken seriously. That's my best guess.

Most scholarship would disagree. There is basically no evidence that the Gospels were written as fiction.

 

[doppelganger]

Well, it's axiomatic that if you are claiming the books collected as the Bible as the sole source of religious authority, you are acknowledging at least in part the authority of the social institution that compiled those books for you. If they were God-inspired enough to come up with the Bible, what else might they have been right about that you are rejecting?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Most scholarship would disagree. There is basically no evidence that the Gospels were written as fiction.

Most biblical scholars believe that the gospels were writ directly by the finger of God. (Most biblical scholars being biblicists.)

But I try not to bow too low to majority opinion -- preferring my own rational musings and especially direct argumentation on the issues.

By the way, there is no evidence that the gospels were written as non-fiction, so I'm no sure why you've mentioned that there's no evidence that they were written as fiction.

 

[fallingblood]

Most biblical scholars believe that the gospels were writ directly by the finger of God. (Most biblical scholars being biblicists.)

That isn't true. Most Biblical scholars believe that the Gospels were written by later Christians after destruction of the Temple, and were not connected to Jesus. Most scholars are not Biblicists.

But I try not to bow too low to majority opinion -- preferring my own rational musings and especially direct argumentation on the issues.

That is fine; however, if you want to ignore the general consensus, you have to explain why they are wrong. There is a reason why the Gospels are not seen to have first been written as fiction. They fit into different genres of that time, those not being fictional.

By the way, there is no evidence that the gospels were written as non-fiction, so I'm no sure why you've mentioned that there's no evidence that they were written as fiction.

Actually, there is a ton of evidence to show that the Gospels were written as non-fiction. Luke is the clearest on this, stating clearly that he was writing non-fiction.