The Bible

[opinterph]

… without the bible you do not have a framework that informs [personal] experiences as relating to Christianity.

The early Christians didn’t have a Bible. The message was transmitted by word of mouth. They gathered in homes, rather than temples or church buildings. Over time various letters and writings became circulated and later still were brought together as a collection. Throughout the history that followed, religious authority figures have worked to perfect the inclusion or exclusion of the available written documents and to update the writings to make them more readable and comprehensible. From the perspective of most Protestants, the Christian “church” is comprised of the body of all believers. What they “believe” is the message.

 

[SeaCore]

I'm sorry opinterph but I'm not sure I understand why you're telling me this?
Like I understand what you're saying and this matches my understanding of the history but I don't really get why we're talking about it?

 

[opinterph]

I'm not sure I understand

Is it possible to be a Christian without the Bible?

I've tried talking about this at church and all I get is basically just "shut up and don't ask questions"

 

[SeaCore]

Is it possible to be a Christian without the Bible?

I don't get to define that so the answer has to be a yes.

Is it possible to be a Christian and have no awareness of Jesus?

 

[Rickrock]

Sure, although I'm referring specifically to modern day practices.


Do they read from the deuterocanon? I'm not quite familiar with the bible the catholic church actively uses.

So. I find it a little confusing that you trust the Catholic Church so much because I recall you being a bit on the disillusioned side and being upset with the organization even if you still supported the tradition outside of that. What fosters that trust?

I don't mean to be repetitive but I find it concerning that the people of the congregation don't investigate the foundational text for their beliefs more fully. Do you at least see why from an outside perspective that looks like a bad practice? Or even more directly, do you consider it a bad practice to not study the bible more thoroughly?

I have no idea what form of the bible the Catholic Church uses. As opinterph said, the church is based on more than just the bible. I don't have much interest in spending a lot of time studying the bible and am not sure how much it would clarify anything for me. One hundred people can read the bible and come up with one hundred variations. At this time I am okay with some more learned than I to interpret the bible. I don't much doubt the basic doctrine of the Catholic Church. What bothers me is when some church leaders dabble in politics and other fields outside of the church, such as pick one injustice that we should vote against and ignore other injustices in our system. It also bothers me about the sexual abuse some clergy have perpetrated. Some church leaders leading the faithful astray isn't new. The church opposed Galileo's theory that the earth rotated around the sun and the Inquisition was way wrong. I'm not sure studying the bible would have changed those things in those times.

 

[SeaCore]

I have no idea what form of the bible the Catholic Church uses. As opinterph said, the church is based on more than just the bible. I don't have much interest in spending a lot of time studying the bible and am not sure how much it would clarify anything for me. One hundred people can read the bible and come up with one hundred variations. At this time I am okay with some more learned than I to interpret the bible. I don't much doubt the basic doctrine of the Catholic Church. What bothers me is when some church leaders dabble in politics and other fields outside of the church, such as pick one injustice that we should vote against and ignore other injustices in our system. It also bothers me about the sexual abuse some clergy have perpetrated. Some church leaders leading the faithful astray isn't new. The church opposed Galileo's theory that the earth rotated around the sun and the Inquisition was way wrong. I'm not sure studying the bible would have changed those things in those times.

I guess my thing is, the Catholic Church has demonstrably done dubious things as a way to maintain power so what makes you feel safe that the doctrine hasn't been altered to suit the needs of the time. Why grant them that benefit of the doubt?

I agree the church is more than just the bible, but could you give some specific examples of what else it is?

 

[Rickrock]

I know at one time I heard that it is based on three things, including the bible, and I think tradition, and I don't remember what the third thing was.

 

[SeaCore]

I'd encourage you to get some confirmation and report back what you find out! It seems like info that would come in handy.

 

[seven2go]

I guess my thing is, the Catholic Church has demonstrably done dubious things as a way to maintain power so what makes you feel safe that the doctrine hasn't been altered to suit the needs of the time. Why grant them that benefit of the doubt?

Bibles are Bibles.
If it's a Bible the words are the same or meant to be the same as there are several versions ranging from the King James version to much modernized versions however the meanings are the same.
The Roman Catholic (all Christian religions are catholic though I have severe doubts about, so called, Evangelicals) Bible has several more books about which other sects argue are not the "inspired word of God".
>>> Many Christians are surprised to learn that the Catholic Bible is different from the Bible used by Protestants. ... The Catholic Bible contains a total of 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament (Protestant Bibles have 39) and 27 in the New Testament (the same as Protestant Bibles). <<<

I am not Roman Catholic but have been associated with the Catholic church long enough to know that Bible study has been encouraged more and more over the years.
There are even multi sect agreements which establish that all sects use the same lectionary through the church years so the lesson and gospel texts are in agreement most of the time.

Doctrine is law that does not come from the Bible.
Doctrines are man made rules that, sadly, may have nothing to do with the core religion.

 

[opinterph]

I think [the Bible] started out as some sort of guide to living … for heath and social cohesion.

Is it fair to assume that something has replaced the Bible as a guide to living for health and social cohesion in contemporary western societies?

 

[opinterph]

… wouldn't you expect a book created with a god's influence to be unambiguously understood to be figurative or unambiguously literal?

The Bible suggests that Jesus often spoke in parables.

 

[opinterph]

(as I interpret it).

That’s sensible.

 

[Telstra]

So I consider myself to be a Christian but I've always had issue with the Bible
Like how to we know the Bible right? When it was all made into one book it was tampered with by people in power and books were taken out because some didn't agree and translated so many times. There so many branches of Christianity and it's all because they all disagree with each other. All because of a book so how do we know the Bible is right.

I've tried talking about this at church and all I get is basically just "shut up and don't ask questions"

Thats when you keep asking questions in your mind
and time to get out of there

 

[SeaCore]

The Bible suggests that Jesus often spoke in parables.

Sure but those instances are clearly delineated as parables. And Jesus clarifies how the parable maps to reality afterwards. Why wouldn't the rest of the Bible do that? Especially in the Old Testament where if it's taken literally the results are brutal. I don't even know how you could take some of the parts figuratively.

 

[Gros Morne Guy]

Sure but those instances are clearly delineated as parables. And Jesus clarifies how the parable maps to reality afterwards. Why wouldn't the rest of the Bible do that? Especially in the Old Testament where if it's taken literally the results are brutal. I don't even know how you could take some of the parts figuratively.

The Bible has always been read metaphorically or allegorically. The literalism that is common in fundamentalist and evangelical churches is for the most part a product of the 19th century (though literalism was also popular in medieval times, particularly in the passion plays and other popular forms of religion). Augustine, John Chrysostom and other great preachers and theologians of the early church never took the Bible literally. Of course, Augustine also used an allegorical interpretation to avoid the very overt, almost pornographic, sexuality of the Song of Songs.

The Episcopal Church a few years ago had a great advertizing slogan,"We take the Bible too seriously to take it literally". I would define a serious approach to the Bible as containg the following elements. (1) reading the Bible in the light of textual criticism (understanding how the text was written and edited to its present form), historical criticism (the historical context of its writing and editing), literary or form criticism (the various literary forms used, narrative, parable, polemic, etc) (2) seeing the Bible as an attempt of different people over several centuries to understand God and their relationship with God (3) using the Bible as a starting point for asking questions about how we understand God and our relationship with God, using not just the scriptures, but the tradition of 2000 years of further Christian explorations of those questions, our own experience, and human reason (including science).

If your church does not do that but discourages questions, your church is very insecure in its faith and worried more about controlling its members rather than seeking God.

 

[SeaCore]

Does the bible have no parts that are literal?

 

[opinterph]

Is it possible to be a Christian and have no awareness of Jesus?

I suppose it is possible that a person’s worldview and resulting behavior could closely resemble Christian, but that person would probably refer to it by a different name.

Does the bible have no parts that are literal?

I imagine the answer probably varies from person to person.

 

[opinterph]

I know at one time I heard that [the Catholic Church] is based on three things, including the bible, and I think tradition, and I don't remember what the third thing was.

Does the link below provide the missing ingredient?

The true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

Scripture and Tradition (Catholic Answers)

 

[SeaCore]

I suppose it is possible that a person’s worldview and resulting behavior could closely resemble Christian, but that person would probably refer to it by a different name.

Is it fair to count that as a 'no'?

I imagine the answer probably varies from person to person.

Why does it vary?

 

[opinterph]

Is it fair to count that as a 'no'?

Yes. It is more than fair.