Is Evangelical Bible Only Christianity what Jesus truly had in mind?

[Rainbow Mage]

Well, is it? I notice that the far more loving Christians seem to come from churches that don't believe the Bible alone. All I see from Bible alone churches is people who think they're better then me because they're saved by grace, and therefore it's ok for them to do things I can't do. It seems the only sin they care about is homosexuality. They claim that Jesus' teachings don't apply because Jesus spoke under the law, we should follow Paul instead. Is this really what Jesus had in mind?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would have to say simply:

Absolutely not.

 

[ChristineES]

I agree with AA. When people get exclusive, they get really, well, conceited. Conceit is totally against any of Jesus teachings. Jesus was kind to hookers, tax collectors, etc., and I don't see a lot of Christians following suit with that. A lot of them are like the men who called Jesus a glutton and chastised Him for eating with "undesirables" aka sinners.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yeah see, and I'm pretty sure Jesus said something about judge not, and love even your enemies. I'm pretty sure the Bible also speaks of tradition, so there is no Bible alone even biblically. Paul said: "hold fast to the traditions you recieved from us, rather by word of mouth or epistle".

 

[Apollonius]

Perhaps its time to write a new bible.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

*bump

 

[Smoke]

Not even close.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I know Smoke. It amazes me how some Christians can just ignore history and the tradition leading up to the NT's canonization.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

They claim that Jesus' teachings don't apply because Jesus spoke under the law, we should follow Paul instead. Is this really what Jesus had in mind?

Well that would be impossible since Paul teachings follows, Jesus teaching.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Are you asking should we be evangelizing?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I'm asking should Christianity be based solely on the Bible alone, and if so, a literal or spiritual view of the Bible?

 

[fallingblood]

I think you are very over generalizing here. I've been to other Bible only churches that the topic of homosexuality never arose. Simply because there were many more important things to discuss. But I do get the point that you are making.

In my experience though, I find that most Christians that have a problem with homosexuality usually do so besides what is said in the Bible. They have a problem simply because they dislike homosexuals for whatever reason.

Anyway, to your question. No, Jesus did not have in mind Bible only Christians. The reason is actually quite simple. First, the Bible did not exist in his time. None of the books of the New Testament were even around.

More so, Jesus never intended to create a new religion. He was a Jew, teaching a Jewish message. The message was later translated and taken for a Christian community. Personally, I don't think Christianity was anything that Jesus was thinking of. I do not believe he was trying to create a new religion, or even wanted a new religion created. So there is no Christianity that Jesus truly had in mind.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Falling blood when did I bring up homosexuality in this thread? This thread isn't about homosexuality, it's about rather Christianity should be built on Bible literalism and sola scriptura or not.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

I'm asking should Christianity be based solely on the Bible alone, and if so, a literal or spiritual view of the Bible?

Yes and a mixture of both.

 

[fallingblood]

It seems the only sin they care about is homosexuality.

Falling blood when did I bring up homosexuality in this thread?

As I stated in my original post though, this wasn't relating to the question you asked. It was just something I wanted to point out.