Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[Pegg]

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"

gospel literally means 'good news'

it is good news from a definite source about a specific subject....the source is from God and the subject is about his Kingdom. So the 'gospel' means the 'good news about Gods Kingdom'

 

[Pegg]

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.

im such a dag sometimes


what i mean is that the difference between the NT writings is that they were written by those men were given authority by Christ. But the later writers of the church such as Jerome, Clement of Alexandria and other chruch 'fathers' did not have direct authority by Christ .

So why should they be trusted in terms of theology? Sure, their writings are beneficial in learning how the church grew in those early years and its history, but that does not mean that they were divinely inspired writings from God as the NT writings are.

Some of the church fathers were deviating completely from Jesus own teachings...so what makes you think they are writing under Christs direction???

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I'm sorry, but I doubt you. Well, unless you're defining 'biblical scholar' as 'a scholar with a secular view of the Bible'. In that case, I'd have to agree with you that most biblical scholars are not biblicists, by definition. But I define 'biblical scholar' as 'a scholar who studies the Bible,' and I'm pretty sure that most of those who study the Bible are people with a vested interest in the Bible.

But you're welcome to make your case otherwise.

That is fine; however, if you want to ignore the general consensus, you have to explain why they are wrong.

I'm always happy to do that, but I'm not much of a preacher. Basically they're wrong, in my view, because they are seduced by our culture into giving the Bible credence before they ever start studying it. It's amazing to me how so many folks seem unable to distance themselves from Bible-respect... even secular folks. Also, some scholars don't seem to understand human psychology as well as they might. I'll be glad to go on and on, but I don't like to lecture. Do you have any specific questions?

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.

Really? How do you know that? I'll be glad to hear your evidence. (And what date are you giving for the first gospels?)

Keep in mind that the writers could have knowingly written them as fiction but held them out to the world as fact. Yes? That seems most likely to me. So the gospels might be put into your 'non-fiction' genre, yet still have been 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.

I write a little. Trust me, it's easy for me to write a fictional story in which the first line reads, "Hey, this account is not fiction. Every bit of it is actually and really true."

Would you consider that to be evidence that my work is non-fiction? My own (or my narrator's) claim about it would be evidence that it's all truth rather than fiction?

 

[fallingblood]

I'm sorry, but I doubt you. Well, unless you're defining 'biblical scholar' as 'a scholar with a secular view of the Bible'. In that case, I'd have to agree with you that most biblical scholars are not biblicists, by definition. But I define 'biblical scholar' as 'a scholar who studies the Bible,' and I'm pretty sure that most of those who study the Bible are people with a vested interest in the Bible.

But you're welcome to make your case otherwise.

That really isn't the case. There are various Bible scholars who are atheist or agnostic (a popular one is Bart Ehrman). There are Jewish Bible scholars as well, who really have little invested in the NT. Even when you get to Christian scholarship, the general consensus is that the Bible is not meant to be read literally, that it is not infallible. Any mainstream scholar would agree with this.

A great example is the New Jerome Bible Commentary. It is a piece of great Catholic biblical scholarship. If you read it, it becomes very clear that they do not take the Bible as the literal, infallible word of God.

The fact is, when talking about Bible scholars, we are not dealing with just Bible literalists. We are dealing with a whole spectrum of scholars who hold the general consensus that the Bible is not the literal infallible word of God.

I'm always happy to do that, but I'm not much of a preacher. Basically they're wrong, in my view, because they are seduced by our culture into giving the Bible credence before they ever start studying it. It's amazing to me how so many folks seem unable to distance themselves from Bible-respect... even secular folks. Also, some scholars don't seem to understand human psychology as well as they might. I'll be glad to go on and on, but I don't like to lecture. Do you have any specific questions?

I'm guessing you are not familiar with the majority of modern critical scholarship. Even mainstream seminaries make one study the Bible in depth. And that includes discussing the fact that there are contradictions in the Bible. That includes realizing that the Bible is not infallible. That includes teaching that the Bible is a piece of literature that has to be studied critically.

Biblical scholarship requires a vast amount of time and effort studying the Bible, it's history, and the historical context. For the most part, it does require relearning nearly everything that one believed they knew about the Bible.

Really? How do you know that? I'll be glad to hear your evidence. (And what date are you giving for the first gospels?)

Keep in mind that the writers could have knowingly written them as fiction but held them out to the world as fact. Yes? That seems most likely to me. So the gospels might be put into your 'non-fiction' genre, yet still have been fiction.

The first Gospel was written around 70 C.E. It was based on oral tradition, some of which we are already seeing in the Epistles of Paul.

There is little evidence that the Bibles were written as fiction. We can compare the Gospels to ancient biographies. There are many similarities that will be seen. We can compare them to various religious propaganda, which it has many similarities to the genre during it's time. We can look at the fact that Luke states that he is writing non-fiction.

What support do you have that they were written as fiction?

I write a little. Trust me, it's easy for me to write a fictional story in which the first line reads, "Hey, this account is not fiction. Every bit of it is actually and really true."

Would you consider that to be evidence that my work is non-fiction? My own (or my narrator's) claim about it would be evidence that it's all truth rather than fiction?

What evidence do you have that these Gospels were written as fiction?

Before the Gospels, we have Paul, who was writing letters. They were not fictional. They were letters addressing certain problems that had arisen. That is where we see the earliest Jesus tradition (and this tradition goes back further than Paul. It starts in an oral tradition, that we see signs of even in Paul). Next, we have Mark building on this oral tradition. The oral tradition was not meant to be fictional (as there is no evidence to such), so we have little to no reason to assume Mark is writing fiction. Especially since we can compare Mark to other ancient biographies and see many similarities. That, and it doesn't fit into the category of ancient fiction. It simply does not fit.

Matthew and Luke base their Gospels partially off of Mark, which again, we have no evidence that it was meant to be fiction. More so, we have Luke specifically telling us the purpose of his account. In a piece of ancient fiction, that simply doesn't fit. Again, there is no reason to assume that the Gospels are meant to be fiction.

Finally, we have John, based on more tradition. And once again, there is no evidence that the author was writing a piece of fiction. It doesn't fit into the genre of ancient fiction.

So really, in order to get the Gospels to be fiction, and meant to be such, one has to ignore all of the evidence, and make up something else.

 

[Wombat]

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.

:clapWell said.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Before I answer your message in detail, I have to make a complaint.

I asked you a very direct question about Luke's claim that he was narrating true events. You have ignored my question. I need to know whether you'll be answering direct questions as we try to work our way through this issue and whether you'll answer that one.

If my fictional narrator claims that his story is true... is that evidence that his story is true?

If so, I think you misunderstand the writing process.

If not, then why do you consider Luke's similar claim to be evidence of the non-fictional nature of the gospels?

 

[Koldo]

Before I answer your message in detail, I have to make a complaint.

I asked you a very direct question about Luke's claim that he was narrating true events. You have ignored my question. I need to know whether you'll be answering direct questions as we try to work our way through this issue and whether you'll answer that one.

If my fictional narrator claims that his story is true... is that evidence that his story is true?

If so, I think you misunderstand the writing process.

If not, then why do you consider Luke's similar claim to be evidence of the non-fictional nature of the gospels?

It is circumstancial evidence.
It adds up with others and makes a strong case for the NT being non-fiction.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is circumstancial evidence.
It adds up with others and makes a strong case for the NT being non-fiction.

Hi, Koldo. Thanks for answering. How do you feel about the Book of Mormon? Since Joseph Smith presented it as non-fiction, does that push you toward a belief in the accuracy of its claims?

 

[fallingblood]

Before I answer your message in detail, I have to make a complaint.

I asked you a very direct question about Luke's claim that he was narrating true events. You have ignored my question. I need to know whether you'll be answering direct questions as we try to work our way through this issue and whether you'll answer that one.

If my fictional narrator claims that his story is true... is that evidence that his story is true?

If so, I think you misunderstand the writing process.

If not, then why do you consider Luke's similar claim to be evidence of the non-fictional nature of the gospels?

The problem with your question is that it doesn't exist in the first century. Luke isn't simply saying that he is writing true events. He tells us that he has researched the issue, read the written accounts, and heard the oral accounts, and is now putting them together in a more organized account. You don't see that in ancient fiction.

Then we see Luke writing another piece of work called Acts that fits into an ancient historical account. If you would do all of that, there is no reason to assume what you wrote was non-fiction.

For the most part anyway, when someone says that their narrative is true, one assumes that it is true unless otherwise specified. If you are writing somewhat of a biography of someone, and say that it is true, and based on other accounts, there is no reason to assume that you are writing fiction. Especially when the work doesn't appear to be fiction, and doesn't fall into that category.

I didn't ignore your question though. I simply didn't give you a yes or no answer. Instead, I tried to explain what I just did here.

 

[fallingblood]

Hi, Koldo. Thanks for answering. How do you feel about the Book of Mormon? Since Joseph Smith presented it as non-fiction, does that push you toward a belief in the accuracy of its claims?

One doesn't have to believe that a work of non-fiction is accurate. The two do not go hand in hand.

 

[Koldo]

Hi, Koldo. Thanks for answering. How do you feel about the Book of Mormon? Since Joseph Smith presented it as non-fiction, does that push you toward a belief in the accuracy of its claims?

No, it doesn't.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The fact is, when talking about Bible scholars, we are not dealing with just Bible literalists. We are dealing with a whole spectrum of scholars who hold the general consensus that the Bible is not the literal infallible word of God.

Well, OK, but I have no idea why you've made such an assertion. Do you think I'm unaware that many Biblical scholars are secularists? I realize that I'm new here, but it may save us a bit of time if you'll go ahead and assume that this isn't my first debate rodeo.

Anyway, I think I'll stick with my own position for awhile -- which is that most Biblical scholars have a vested interest in the Bible. If you have evidence otherwise, though, please present it, and I'll listen.

The first Gospel was written around 70 C.E. It was based on oral tradition, some of which we are already seeing in the Epistles of Paul.

Yes, I'm aware that's the consensus. I was just wondering what date you personally accepted.

Now let me ask you about the oral tradition. Jesus does not come down to us as a Jewish messiah but rather as one of the God-men so common in ancient story-telling. You know... born of a virgin, crucified, resurrected-after-3-days, etc. So why do you think a real man, living in Judea, would be presented in that way rather than as a Jewish messiah?

At least forty years after his supposed death, men sat down to pen stories about Jesus. And those stories contained fantastic claims about a guy whom they probably never had met. Why would you assume that such stories were non-fiction?

Another question: Why did they wait forty years? If Jesus was real, wouldn’t people have been writing about him during his actual life? Why did they wait at least forty years?

There is little evidence that the Bibles were written as fiction.

And yet more evidence for fiction than non-fiction. (Just a little fun counter-assertion to your assertion.)

What support do you have that they were written as fiction?

Since our minds seem so out of joint right now, I’m going to start by presenting the One Big Piece of evidence which pushes me toward a belief in fictional gospels. After we’ve focused on it, ask me again and I’ll expand.

My One Big Piece of Evidence: The existence of the synoptic gospels.

As I mentioned to you earlier, I write a little bit. Mostly fiction. And I have boxes in which I keep earlier manuscripts of the same story. If you examine those old manuscripts, you’ll see a thing which is unique to fiction-writing. You’ll see lines of text which are precisely the same as later versions of the same story. Like the synoptic gospels.

Now consider a different case, in which four eyewitnesses are recounting the same event. In the text of each witness, you won’t find strings of words which are precisely the same among all four texts.

The only times I’ve seen such exact text-tracking has been with fiction-writing and with plagiarism. In either case, it seems we must discard Matthew and Luke before we even begin to consider the larger argument. Yes? No?

And, of course, John is theology – written years after the purported events. I can’t see how anyone could think of John as writing non-fiction.

So we’re left with Mark, aren’t we?

Before the Gospels, we have Paul, who was writing letters. They were not fictional.

I agree that Paul’s letters seemed non-fictional – although clearly theological. I think Paul created Christianity. He is the reason we have a god-man rather than a Jewish messiah. Since Paul never met Jesus, he was free to concoct him as he pleased... growing the story as he went.

Next, we have Mark building on this oral tradition.

Yes. As Bram Stoker built on the Dracula oral tradition. It happens all the time. Twain did the same with the Jumping Frog story.

....so we have little to no reason to assume Mark is writing fiction.

Well, you obviously have little reason. But maybe your position will begin to shift a bit as we examine the evidence and engage in rational argumentation.

Matthew and Luke base their Gospels partially off of Mark, which again, we have no evidence that it was meant to be fiction.

Synoptic gospels. Tell me why you accept obvious revisions of the same text as eyewitness accounts. To me, it looks like special pleading – like you yourself may be a bit enslaved by the cultural respect for the Bible which I mentioned earlier. Do you accept other obvious revisions of the same story as independent eyewitness accounts?

So really, in order to get the Gospels to be fiction, and meant to be such, one has to ignore all of the evidence, and make up something else.

Thanks for re-stating your opinion, but I'm pretty clear on your position already.

 

[sojourner]

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"

"Gospel" is generally referred to as the narrative stories of Jesus' life. "Gospel" is also used to denote the message Jesus preached, which is, "Turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near."

 

[sojourner]

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

all indications do not point to fictional stories, though. Literary criticism points to myth (which is not the same thing as "fiction.")

 

[Godwilling]

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.

I like the logic you used to support your statement. It is cogent and well organized, and it invites the reader to agree with your statement. It is unfortunate that in other threads you often stop short of using your logical thinking to test your own beliefs.
Oh well, no one is perfect!

 

[sojourner]

what i mean is that the difference between the NT writings is that they were written by those men were given authority by Christ. But the later writers of the church such as Jerome, Clement of Alexandria and other chruch 'fathers' did not have direct authority by Christ .

Ok. that's a little clearer -- and much easier to defend. The main difference between canonical and non-canonical literature is the "authority" issue. I don't think it's correct to say that they were "given authority by Christ," since no NT writings were written by people who knew Jesus. The earliest we have are some of Paul's letters, and Paul didn't know Jesus.

So why should they be trusted in terms of theology? Sure, their writings are beneficial in learning how the church grew in those early years and its history, but that does not mean that they were divinely inspired writings from God as the NT writings are.

the whole medium of revelation is Tradition. some of that Tradition is praxis, some is theology, some is literature. The Bible is part of the literary Tradition (and it is the most "authoritative"). But in the end, all we have to rely on is what the Body of Christ -- the Church -- says.

Some of the church fathers were deviating completely from Jesus own teachings...so what makes you think they are writing under Christs direction???

those were largely ferreted out as heretics. But Xy thrives on multivalency. I'm willing to concede that orthodox Xy is not the only valid Xy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I like the logic you used to support your statement. It is cogent and well organized, and it invites the reader to agree with your statement. It is unfortunate that in other threads you often stop short of using your logical thinking to test your own beliefs.
Oh well, no one is perfect!

Well, fallingblood, you're in a world of ****!

If Godwilling says it, then it must be true.

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry, but I doubt you. Well, unless you're defining 'biblical scholar' as 'a scholar with a secular view of the Bible'. In that case, I'd have to agree with you that most biblical scholars are not biblicists, by definition. But I define 'biblical scholar' as 'a scholar who studies the Bible,' and I'm pretty sure that most of those who study the Bible are people with a vested interest in the Bible.

But you're welcome to make your case otherwise.

If you read any reputable scholars, you will find that he's correct and you're incorrect here. It's apparent that you're unfamiliar with the Biblical scholarship community.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm ready to say that Christianity has little, if nothing to do with the Bible.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

all indications do not point to fictional stories, though. Literary criticism points to myth (which is not the same thing as "fiction.")

Hi, Soujourner. I feel slightly different about labeling the Jesus Story as myth vs. labeling the Garden of Eden Story as myth -- mostly because I think there could have been a preacher named Jesus some 50-100 years before the gospels were written, whereas Adam and Eve were more probably created from whole cloth, as with the Creation Stories of other cultures.