Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[fallingblood]

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.

 

[Skwim]

Heck, with 38,000 Christian denominations in the world* I figure that by default any definition of Christianity will be too messy to pin down.




*World Christian Encyclopedia (2001)

 

[Witch9]

Heck, with 38,000 Christian denominations in the world I figure that by default any definition of Christianity will be too messy to pin down.

Yes and no, I think. Yes because most religions have some degree of variability from one believer to another. And no because born-again Christians have pretty clear criteria - accepting the Bible as literal truth, God as your master, Jesus as your saviour, etc - and readily dismiss most Christians as not being "real" Christians.

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.

"Real Christians", of course, wouldn't even bother arguing with you; they'd just tell you you're wrong, tell you which Bible passages you need to read, and warn you that if you don't accept God as your master you'll end up in the Lake of Fire. :yes:

You won't get an argument out of me, either, because I agree that there are many sources of Christian philosophy besides the Bible, which was created in 325 by the Council of Nicaea using only a small fraction of the religious writings that were available at that time.

The Gnostic gospels, for example, give Christology a significantly different hue, including references to the Goddess that were eagerly ignored by the bishops assembled in Nicaea by Constantine to develop his state-sponsored, homogenous religion.

And the essential principles echo the philosophies of many religions. I have met many people who pretty much live in right relationship, as if they were following the teachings of Jesus, without ever having considered themselves to be Christian.

So perhaps they don't fit the OP's definition of what a Christian is. Can one be a Christian, i.e. living life as if they were guided by the Sermon on the Mount, without accepting God as the one and only supernatural Creator, believing in the LoF, etc?

When Christianity first began, there was not a such thing as a Bible.

In fact, the first Christians were Jewish Christians, and the first Christian churches were Gnostic churches, although Gnosticism actually predate the reputed life of Joshua, a.k.a. Jesus. I say reputed because there is a significant school of thought that the stories about Jesus were in fact a retelling of ancient ideas and that Jesus was effectively a composite.

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). ... And during the time of Paul, different groups subscribed to different works of Hebrew scripture.

Some have suggested that Paul's preaching and writing had many purposes, including to:

1. establish a common ground that would bring the different factions together
2. offer a more-widely held philosophy that could compete successfully against the Mithraists, Gnostics and other sects.
3. develop a church that would be more acceptable to the Roman masters, partly by distancing itself from and denying its Jewish roots

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.

Again, that depends on who is doing the defining, complicated by the fact that Christians cannot agree among themselves as to what a Christian is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

 

[beholdapalehorse]

"Real Christians", of course, wouldn't even bother arguing with you; they'd just tell you you're wrong, tell you which Bible passages you need to read, and warn you that if you don't accept God as your master you'll end up in the Lake of Fire. :yes:

WOW, that sounds like the new age judgmental christian we have all come to know and love. You would think that as a christian you would actually "bother" arguing with somebody if it meant saving their sould but i guess that doesnt matter much does it?

 

[Gloone]

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.

Yup - there is no real need for religion or Holy books.

 

[Rosalina]

I would define a Christian as someone who believes in Jesus. I will add that one can believe in Jesus, as a great man with a great message, without believing all the hocus-pocus magical miracles of the bible.

 

[Madhuri]

I would define a Christian as someone who believes in Jesus. I will add that one can believe in Jesus, as a great man with a great message, without believing all the hocus-pocus magical miracles of the bible.

To be more accurate, I think that a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour.

 

[Pegg]

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.

thats very true.

There are some very obvious customs that are quite opposed to christianity, yet they are widely practiced by Christians. There are aspects of christianity which is completely ignored by christians, and there are churchs who openly admit they do not follow the teachings of the bible.

I just wish they would stop using "Christian" as their label. They have more in common with paganism then christianity.

 

[Koldo]

To be more accurate, I think that a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour.

Not all christians do.
I don't think that is a must.

 

[Koldo]

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.

I tend to agree with you.
However, without the bible, the christian is left with nothing but wishful thinking.

 

[Katzpur]

Not all christians do.
I don't think that is a must.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to drawing the line as to who's a Christian and who's not, but I'd say a belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah is pretty much a must. Why do you disagree?

 

[Koldo]

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to drawing the line as to who's a Christian and who's not, but I'd say a belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah is pretty much a must. Why do you disagree?

I know plenty of christians who don't think of Jesus as a savior.
There are way too many ways to frame Jesus and still be a christian.
As for example: the master and/or the teacher.

 

[sojourner]

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.

My argument is that Xy is not remotely defined by the Bible. Since God is not revealed in Xy through doctrine, but through the Person of Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

Christianity evolved without the Bible.

I dont buy that at all


christianity was a movement centered around jesus and his preachings which the gospels are made of. Just because they were not written down early on doesnt mean they were there and not in use. They were in oral tradition. You know as well as I do the word was floating around and the story grew from there.

yes marcion had a bible at 150AD even if it was just luke and paul with marcions own tone.

you and I know without constantine pulling everyone together christianity would not be what it is today if government had not got behind it and made christianity.

I do agree much of christianity is not %100 gospel and man had his way with the religion

 

[outhouse]

To be more accurate, I think that a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour.

cant really argue that one at all.

add me LOL


+1

 

[fallingblood]

I dont buy that at all


christianity was a movement centered around jesus and his preachings which the gospels are made of. Just because they were not written down early on doesnt mean they were there and not in use. They were in oral tradition. You know as well as I do the word was floating around and the story grew from there.

yes marcion had a bible at 150AD even if it was just luke and paul with marcions own tone.

you and I know without constantine pulling everyone together christianity would not be what it is today if government had not got behind it and made christianity.

I do agree much of christianity is not %100 gospel and man had his way with the religion

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.

 

[Man of Faith]

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.

 

[Katzpur]

I know plenty of christians who don't think of Jesus as a savior.
There are way too many ways to frame Jesus and still be a christian.
As for example: the master and/or the teacher.

So they think He was a good teacher, but lied about being the only way a person could be reconciled to our Father in Heaven? Why would they follow or even admire someone who misrepresented Himself to such a enormous degree?

 

[Koldo]

So they think He was a good teacher, but lied about being the only way a person could be reconciled to our Father in Heaven? Why would they follow or even admire someone who misrepresented Himself to such a enormous degree?

He did not lie, he was just wrong on his assumption. Or maybe he meant that people would be able to reconcile with God through his teachings. Or maybe the bible is inaccurate as to how it portrays some of Jesus speechs, so it can't it be taken to the word. Or maybe...

Got it?

Those are examples as to how a christian may think of Jesus, and there are many more.