Why Bible-based Christianity is illogical

[1213]

That's because it's a theological concept that attempts to mesh numerous verses that deal with Jesus' relationship with God.

And I think it fails in that, because it is not in line with the teachings of Jesus.

 

[1213]

Why?

Because it has good message and only hope for better. Also, I think it has shown to be correct in many issues, therefore I trust it is correct also in things that I can’t confirm yet.

So, in your view, what is the nature of Jesus Christ? What is the nature of the Holy Spirit?

I think it is well said in these:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

When the Counselor [Greek Parakletos: Counselor, Helper, Advocate, Intercessor, and Comfortor.] has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 15:26

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

However, I recommend to read the whole Bible, if you want to know well them.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not here to prove that Christianity is true, so please don't derail the thread with arguments about that. The point I'm going to make is that Bible-based Christianity cannot be true, and that the only forms of Christianity that can possibly be true are the ones which still have apostolic succession (The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy).

So, Bible-based Christians:
You believe that the Bible is the word of God, that the books in the Bible were divinely inspired, and you do not believe that any of the dozens of other books that were around back then are divinely inspired.

Here's a list of many of them:

(♦ = attributed to the Apostolic Fathers)

• The Protevangelion
• The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
• The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
• The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa
• The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate)
• The Apostles' Creed (throughout history)
• The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans
• The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca's to Paul
• The Acts of Paul and Thecla
• ♦ The Epistles of Clement (The First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians)
• ♦ The Epistle of Barnabas
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
• ♦ The Shepherd of Hermas (Visions, Commands, and Similitudes)
• Letter of Herod To Pilate the Governor
• Letter of Pilate to Herod
• The Lost Gospel of Peter
• ♦ The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

• The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (The First and Second Book of Adam and Eve)
• The Secrets of Enoch (also known as the Slavonic Enoch or Second Enoch)
• The Psalms of Solomon
• The Odes of Solomon
• The Letter of Aristeas
• The Fourth Book of Maccabees
• The Story of Ahikar
• Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

Now, do you know who it was that decided that none of these books were divinely inspired, and that the ones we now have in the biblical canon were?

The Catholic Church (though, back then, it was just The Church)

So, if you accept that the books in the Bible are indeed divinely inspired, you necessarily implicitly accept that the Catholic Church herself is the one true Church guided by the Holy Spirit - otherwise how could they have possibly decided which books were divinely inspired? Do you think they just got really really lucky?

To believe that the Bible has divine authority is necessarily to believe that the Catholic Church has divine authority. You simply cannot accept the authority of the Bible without implicitly accepting the authority of the Church.

Catholicism is not based on the Bible - the Bible is a product of Catholicism. The Catholic religion is based on what we call Sacred Tradition, overseen by the Magisterium - which is simply the term for all of the bishops who lead the Church. The bishops all have an unbroken line of succession back to the original twelve Apostles, and this line of succession is well-documented.

The Church was around for hundreds of years before the Bible was assembled, which happened in 382 at the Council of Rome, where the 73 books were canonized. This canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

Now, I'm presenting this as an argument, but if there are any non-Catholic Christians who want to argue against it, I am of course open to hearing what you have to say. This is simply how I see it, and I cannot see any possible way to accept the divine authority of the Bible without accepting the divine authority of the Church.

If you eliminate the Bible, what is there left of Christianity to believe?

 

[The Anointed]

If you eliminate the Bible, what is there left of Christianity to believe?

If you eliminate the bible, you eliminate Christ, if you eliminate Christ, there is no such thing as Christianity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you eliminate the Bible, what is there left of Christianity to believe?

Well, you CAN choose to keep the Bible, but just acknowledge the problems with the Christian scriptures, that they contradict the Tanakh, misquote the Tanakh, make up verses from the Tanakh, contradict each other, are not historically accurate etc. But you can still choose to accept, i.e. a Historical Jesus and try to embrace his teachings. I've met liberal Christians who do this.

 

[izzy88]

If you eliminate the Bible, what is there left of Christianity to believe?

I didn't say anything about eliminating the Bible - it's clearly an integral part of the Christian faith. What I'm saying is that it cannot possibly be the foundation of the Christian faith, since it is, in reality, a product of the faith.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I didn't say anything about eliminating the Bible - it's clearly an integral part of the Christian faith. What I'm saying is that it cannot possibly be the foundation of the Christian faith, since it is, in reality, a product of the faith.

Makes sense to me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

@BilliardsBall ,

Here, per my last post:

Five of the most violent moments of the Reformation

Protestant Inquisitions: "Reformation" Intolerance & Persecution

European wars of religion - Wikipedia

Great, now all we have to do IMHO is parse which of these Catholic and Protestant murderers were born again...

...None! "We know no murderer has the Spirit of Christ." - I John

 

[metis]

Great, now all we have to do IMHO is parse which of these Catholic and Protestant murderers were born again...

...None! "We know no murderer has the Spirit of Christ." - I John

That's not the point that was under discussion.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I'm not here to prove that Christianity is true, so please don't derail the thread with arguments about that. The point I'm going to make is that Bible-based Christianity cannot be true, and that the only forms of Christianity that can possibly be true are the ones which still have apostolic succession (The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy).

So, Bible-based Christians:
You believe that the Bible is the word of God, that the books in the Bible were divinely inspired, and you do not believe that any of the dozens of other books that were around back then are divinely inspired.

Here's a list of many of them:

(♦ = attributed to the Apostolic Fathers)

• The Protevangelion
• The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
• The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
• The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa
• The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate)
• The Apostles' Creed (throughout history)
• The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans
• The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca's to Paul
• The Acts of Paul and Thecla
• ♦ The Epistles of Clement (The First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians)
• ♦ The Epistle of Barnabas
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
• ♦ The Shepherd of Hermas (Visions, Commands, and Similitudes)
• Letter of Herod To Pilate the Governor
• Letter of Pilate to Herod
• The Lost Gospel of Peter
• ♦ The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

• The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (The First and Second Book of Adam and Eve)
• The Secrets of Enoch (also known as the Slavonic Enoch or Second Enoch)
• The Psalms of Solomon
• The Odes of Solomon
• The Letter of Aristeas
• The Fourth Book of Maccabees
• The Story of Ahikar
• Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

Now, do you know who it was that decided that none of these books were divinely inspired, and that the ones we now have in the biblical canon were?

The Catholic Church (though, back then, it was just The Church)

So, if you accept that the books in the Bible are indeed divinely inspired, you necessarily implicitly accept that the Catholic Church herself is the one true Church guided by the Holy Spirit - otherwise how could they have possibly decided which books were divinely inspired? Do you think they just got really really lucky?

To believe that the Bible has divine authority is necessarily to believe that the Catholic Church has divine authority. You simply cannot accept the authority of the Bible without implicitly accepting the authority of the Church.

Catholicism is not based on the Bible - the Bible is a product of Catholicism. The Catholic religion is based on what we call Sacred Tradition, overseen by the Magisterium - which is simply the term for all of the bishops who lead the Church. The bishops all have an unbroken line of succession back to the original twelve Apostles, and this line of succession is well-documented.

The Church was around for hundreds of years before the Bible was assembled, which happened in 382 at the Council of Rome, where the 73 books were canonized. This canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

Now, I'm presenting this as an argument, but if there are any non-Catholic Christians who want to argue against it, I am of course open to hearing what you have to say. This is simply how I see it, and I cannot see any possible way to accept the divine authority of the Bible without accepting the divine authority of the Church.

If you have books A-K that were inspired, and false books L-Z that were being introduced as time went by. Just because the Catholic Church decided books A-K were legit, because it was obvious, but also included books L-P in the canon. And later, others were able to tell that books L-P were false. Why should the Catholic Church get credit for books A-K in my Bible?
They didn't write them. Is it just because they included the obvious books in the canon? If they were really inspired, why would they include any false books?