You Don't Need a Bible to be a Christian?

The Reverend Bob said:

Exegesis fun time, my friends. Let us examine the scripture below and see if we do need a Bible or not in order to be a Christian. Many religions require a holy book as a revelation of God but in my opinion and of others that I have read, a Christian does not need a Bible to be a Christian, that there is another source of revelation that Christians can and do rely on. Let us take a gander:

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. - Acts of the Apostles 2

Click to expand...

You do know, that this of Acts shall happen again during the tribulation with God's elect people. When they to shall speak in different languages than their own language.

As Jesus Christ foretold about this happening in the book of Mark 13.

The Reverend Bob said:

Exegesis fun time, my friends. Let us examine the scripture below and see if we do need a Bible or not in order to be a Christian. Many religions require a holy book as a revelation of God but in my opinion and of others that I have read, a Christian does not need a Bible to be a Christian, that there is another source of revelation that Christians can and do rely on. Let us take a gander:

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. - Acts of the Apostles 2

Click to expand...

Your premise is undermined by the fact that, at that time, they had Scripture as now found in the Old Testament. Jesus, and the apostles, all referenced this Scripture as an authoritative foundation for proving what they said was true.

If they had no need to do that, then why would they have bothered?

Because God is truth, and God doesn't change, God will not communicate anything to you by the Holy Spirit that contradicts that which he has already spoken to others and recorded in the past via the Bible.

We see the NT is replete with examples where that initial infilling of the Holy Spirit did not suddenly make them free of the possibility of future error, as Paul had to confront Peter on his behavior, and Paul plus the other apostles are routinely writing to believers who are said to have the Spirit of God yet are still in need of instruction and correction because they aren't being taught and led by the Spirit as they could or should be.

The Bible serves as a necessary basis for checking whether or not what you think you getting from the Holy Spirit is in error or true.

And, although Jesus did not need to be told that what he taught was not in error, being God, He references it for the sake of those who lack spiritual discernment and need to be reminded that what he is saying and doing is what the Scriptures talked about.

If anyone thinks they are above such error they are deceived, as Jesus and His apostles routinely are seen bringing correction to people who thought they knew what was right but were actually in grave error. People routinely believe with utter conviction that which is wrong and satanic, and are in need of either the Bible or a genuine apostle/prophet of God to point out the error of their ways. But no apostle or prophet, if genuine, will tell you anything that contradicts what God has already revealed, because if they did so then God would be a liar or God would be changing what is true.

David T said:

Justin martyr said heraclitus was a christian.

Click to expand...

That's three things I now know about Justin Martyr. 1. He was a huge playboy. 2. Converted, became a hermit and wrote that sex was evil. 3. Said heraclitus was a christian. That's some sort of trinity of knowledge I now have, except they are not one but three separate facts. Thanks, man.

The Reverend Bob said:

Exegesis fun time, my friends. Let us examine the scripture below and see if we do need a Bible or not in order to be a Christian. Many religions require a holy book as a revelation of God but in my opinion and of others that I have read, a Christian does not need a Bible to be a Christian, that there is another source of revelation that Christians can and do rely on. Let us take a gander:

Click to expand...

I'd like to know where you are going with this so that I may decide if I am going to the same place.

Metis said:

I've seen estimates that 90% of all people in the early Church were illiterate, plus one simply did not personally own a Bible back 2000 years ago as they were very expensive and hard to get. Even a church might only have a copy of a few letters or so, and that's if they were lucky.

Click to expand...

I suspect they had public readings by cantors, but I am guessing. Do you know?

1213 said:

I don’t think you would even know what it means to be a Christian, a disciple of Jesus, without the Bible.

"If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

Person is a disciple of Jesus, if he remains in his words. That can be difficult without the Bible message.

Click to expand...

People were poor and there wasn't moveable type. The rare educated probably had access sometimes to parts of Jewish canon, but most people would have listened as a form of entertainment. No TV. No radio. Best guess they would have had campfire skits and tons of fun chewing the cud, mostly at night when they couldn't work.

@The Reverend Bob

Brickjectivity said:

Its gambling to rest an argument upon a translation. Romans 10 is preceded by 9 difficult chapters. Bringing it into the conversation does not nail down a meaning but shatters it into many possibilities.

On a different subject and the fact that this thread doesn't seem to be about translations look at Romans 10:15 "...And how can they preach unless they are sent?..." It implies to me not just anyone can preach or should. From where would they be sent if not from heaven? Nevertheless the writer contradicts me "But who has ascended into heaven?" and "...the word is near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart..." which is the Stone that the builders rejected I suggest. The author of Romans essentially says we must preach to ourselves. "If you declare with your mouth..." Thus we are our own preachers, and we must be sent from heaven to ourselves. The Logos idea is present here as it is throughout the NT.

Click to expand...

What I abstract from the post I make here is according to canon one cannot preach unless they are sent from heaven, yet no one ascends into heaven but the Son according to the above reasoning. Then it reasons "the word is near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart" which is claiming fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:34 I mean..they're interpreting this to be the case. Many times NT authors claim this and allude to it, so that it is inescapable, not just from this one passage. So no to the OP, in contrast to what X said and what Y said and what various others said when they bopped you on the nose with their rude comments, no. Now...you could...if you were not allied with Replacement Theology say that Jeremiah 31:34 applies only to Jews not to we Christians and try to get some kind of a half brained argument going, but it probably wouldn't work. No, you can't say people need a Bible to be a Christian and still be even a little bit concordant with it.

You don't technically need a Bible to be a Christian and to say so smacks of absolutely criminal scriptural ignorance in a teacher. Nevertheless a lot of ministers do insist upon it adding more to their already impressive stack of **** that they say to secure their jobs.

While a book itself is not in error for mankind’s ridiculous behavior, it’d be better if it never existed ~ or at least was only made available to those who pass a strict psychiatric, maturity, and character evaluation.

The indoctrinated, and those who use it to control others, incite fear in others would disagree ~ because most of them have no idea what they’re even doing in the first place. And those that do have an idea of what they’re doing, they’d oppose this violently as most of their system and wealth would come crashing down.

No book required to have a “Christened” character.

Uncommon Sense said:

While a book itself is not in error for mankind’s ridiculous behavior, it’d be better if it never existed ~ or at least was only made available to those who pass a strict psychiatric, maturity, and character evaluation.

The indoctrinated, and those who use it to control others, incite fear in others would disagree ~ because most of them have no idea what they’re even doing in the first place. And those that do have an idea of what they’re doing, they’d oppose this violently as most of their system and wealth would come crashing down.

No book required to have a “Christened” character.

Click to expand...

We have new religious books these days. Read Derrida, Marx and Foucault.
They make statements about truth, meaning and reasons for living. Certainly
a few hundred millions died or were impoverished for these secular causes.

The Reverend Bob said:

Exegesis fun time, my friends. Let us examine the scripture below and see if we do need a Bible or not in order to be a Christian. Many religions require a holy book as a revelation of God but in my opinion and of others that I have read, a Christian does not need a Bible to be a Christian, that there is another source of revelation that Christians can and do rely on. Let us take a gander:

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. - Acts of the Apostles 2

Click to expand...

I’d say unequivocally “no.” There were no written stories of Jesus for the first 70 years of the movement. And yet there were Christians.

sojourner said:

I’d say unequivocally “no.” There were no written stories of Jesus for the first 70 years of the movement. And yet there were Christians.

Click to expand...

The four Gospels and most of the epistles were written before the fall of the temple.
Luke was with Paul on that last trip to Rome - under Nero. Luke wrote Gospel of
Luke and the Acts.
It doesn't matter who wrote these books, but it seems credible they were written
by the names ascribed to them.

PruePhillip said:

The four Gospels and most of the epistles were written before the fall of the temple.
Luke was with Paul on that last trip to Rome - under Nero. Luke wrote Gospel of
Luke and the Acts.
It doesn't matter who wrote these books, but it seems credible they were written
by the names ascribed to them.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. Mark is the first gospel, written just post -70 CE. Matthew circa 85 CE and Luke-Acts around 90. John was written later. Paul was writing between about 48-60 or so.

The gospel writers are all anonymous; there’s no reason to believe they were written by the people ascribed to them.

sojourner said:

Uh, no. Mark is the first gospel, written just post -70 CE. Matthew circa 85 CE and Luke-Acts around 90. John was written later. Paul was writing between about 48-60 or so.

The gospel writers are all anonymous; there’s no reason to believe they were written by the people ascribed to them.

Click to expand...

No reason huh?
Some "scholar" comes up with a POV and it winds up in a million books.

Luke never met Jesus, he was the "physician." Probably in the Ministry. He
collated accounts and read documents and wrote Gospel of Luke. He gave
us the history of the first church, up to the beginnings of the persecutions.
His account ends suddenly when he was in Rome with Paul, ca 66.

John was Jesus favorite disciple. He wasn't an intellectual man, didn't
know or care much about the history or the law. He wrote Gospel of John.
We read the same writer in John's epistles.

Matthew was an educated, rich man. He was a tax collector and knew
the law. His writing Gospel of Matthew shows his legal shorthand.

Mark I haven't looked into. Don't think much is written of Mark. Must
check.

None of the epistles or Gospels make any mention of the Roman war.
That started same time as Paul and Peter were killed in Rome.

PruePhillip said:

No reason huh?
Some "scholar" comes up with a POV and it winds up in a million books.

Luke never met Jesus, he was the "physician." Probably in the Ministry. He
collated accounts and read documents and wrote Gospel of Luke. He gave
us the history of the first church, up to the beginnings of the persecutions.
His account ends suddenly when he was in Rome with Paul, ca 66.

John was Jesus favorite disciple. He wasn't an intellectual man, didn't
know or care much about the history or the law. He wrote Gospel of John.
We read the same writer in John's epistles.

Matthew was an educated, rich man. He was a tax collector and knew
the law. His writing Gospel of Matthew shows his legal shorthand.

Mark I haven't looked into. Don't think much is written of Mark. Must
check.

None of the epistles or Gospels make any mention of the Roman war.
That started same time as Paul and Peter were killed in Rome.

Click to expand...

Mark: "The writer does not identify himself in he gospel text, and scholars, unable to verify the late second-century tradition of Markan authorship, regard the work as anonymous."
Stephen Harris, The New Testament: A Student's Introduction, 4th edition, P. 119

To all intents and purposes we must study the Gospel as if it were anonymous, like most of the books of the Bible -- a "traditional book," that is, a book basedon a common tradition, not a product of personal literary authorship. There is a decided advantage in this: the Gospel is far more broadly and securely based if it rests upon a widespread social tradition than if one individual's recollections … provide the sole support."
ed. Geroge A. Buttrick, The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 7, P. 632

The last chapter indicates that the gospel genre is not that of an eyewitness account, because the gospel was probably not written by Matthew, on e of the twelve disciples. The apologetic nature and late date of these claims, the gopel's likely date of origin in the 80s, and its use of Mark as a source indicate that such a designation is inappropriate."
Warren Carter, Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist, P. 30

"As in Mark's case, the author does not identify himself, suggesting to most historians that the Gospel originated and circulated anonymously. The tradition that the author is the "publican" … mentioned in Matthew … dates from the late second century CE and cannot be verified. The main problem with accepting Matthew's authorship is that the writer relies heavily on Mark as a source. It is extremely unlikely that one of the original Twelve would depend on the work of Mark, who was not an eyewitness to the events he describes.

Date: the 80's CE, at least a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem."
Stephen Harris, Pp. 148,149, 152

"The question is hotly debated whether the attribution of this Gospel to Luke is accurate information or a secondary development resulting from the early church's desire to attribute the Gospels either to apostles or followers of apostles. This question cannot be answered with certainty."
Robert Tannehill, Luke, Pp. 20-21

"...Scholars think it unlikely that [the author] was an intimate of [Paul]. Luke-Acts is anonymous.
Date: about 85-90 CE, significantly after the destruction of Jerusalem and the church's transformation into a primarily Gentile movement."
Stephen Harris, P. 179

You see, it's not just "some 'scholar.'" It's the consensus of recognized, peer-reviewed, bible scholars. I don't know where you're getting your information -- you don't cite your sources, but it's certainly not in the mainstream of biblical scholasticism.

The Reverend Bob said:

Exegesis fun time, my friends. Let us examine the scripture below and see if we do need a Bible or not in order to be a Christian. Many religions require a holy book as a revelation of God but in my opinion and of others that I have read, a Christian does not need a Bible to be a Christian, that there is another source of revelation that Christians can and do rely on. Let us take a gander:

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. - Acts of the Apostles 2

Click to expand...

I believe one does not need the Bible to be one but I believe one needs the Bible to become one. Perhaps that Bible is through the words of another believer but the Bible is still where the information comes from.

David T said:

Thats an interesting question. Justin martyr said heraclitus was a christian. So yes based on that. Of course no one else in greece was at the time according to heraclitus. Apparently the bible is needed for those kind of folk.!!! So its a yes no. If in doubt yes.... If you dont think you do double yes. Very very few are like heraclitus.

Click to expand...

Paul, I would suppose. For lack of knowledge (there was no NT) he opposed Jesus. It took a direct experience with Jesus to change that and the words of a disciple to help with information and that information came from Jesus directly.

Hubert Farnsworth said:

A Christian can read the gospels that are not in the bible--like the Gospel of Thomas.

Click to expand...

I believe that would be a waste of time and lead to misinformation.

Muffled said:

I believe that would be a waste of time and lead to misinformation.

Click to expand...

There is a large overlap between the gospel of Thomas and the gospels in the bible. I don't know the exact percentage, but probably around 50-75% of the gospel of Thomas is found in either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. So I can't see why a Christian would see this as a waste.