Is the Bible Necessary, (to Christians)

Nakosis said:

Is having read the Bible necessary to being a Christian?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Nakosis said:

Before saying yes, weren't their Christians before the Bible was written?

Click to expand...

Oops.
True, there were no Christians before the Hebrew Bible Canon was completed, but Christians in the first century A.D. didn't need more than that, since they had Jesus' teachings, through the apostles, and the only needed to use the Hebrew scriptures to prove that Jesus was the foretold Messiah.
After the Christian Church was established the Greek scriptures were added to the Hebrew scriptures - that is, the writings of the apostles, formed the complete message of God's purpose.

Hence, all Christians living during the time of, and after the apostle John, needed to rely on these writings.
(Revelation 1:3) Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near.

It is a must - vitally important. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:21

Nakosis said:

From my experience, Christianity is very Bible centric. However it would seem the Bible is unnecessary.

Can one set aside the Bible and still be a Christian?

Click to expand...

No. Not based on scripture.
Joshua 1:8; Psalms 1; Psalms 119:97; Psalms 119:105; John 17:17; 1 Timothy 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 4:12

74x12 said:

Of course many Christians don't even know how to read so no it's not necessary to read the Bible.

Click to expand...

Don't you think they can learn, and it would be beneficial for them to do so?

nPeace said:

Don't you think they can learn, and it would be beneficial for them to do so?

Click to expand...

Yes they hopefully can learn. Not everyone can though.

ChristineM said:

I don't know of many christians who have read the bible. They have had selective bits of it read to them but never actually sat down an read it.


So yes, generally, they can set aside the bible.

Click to expand...

Wildswanderer said:

You must not know many Christians.

Click to expand...

ChristineM said:

I do love the way you try to define me to fit your narrow view of life

Click to expand...

This appears to be a classic case of the cast-iron kettle calling the cast-iron pot, "Black".

ChristineM said:

I know plenty of Christians, actually far more christians than any other faith or non faith.
Sorry if that pops you bubble

Click to expand...

My anecdotal experience is the opposite, I have been the member of several congregations, and most members at least claimed to have read from cover to cover, the book they guide their life with. I also seem to meet more and more atheist or indifferent individuals and fewer and fewer individuals willing to proclaim their faith when inquired. I live in rural Michigan, USA... perhaps it's a geographical thing, that our experiences are different.

Nakosis said:

Is having read the Bible necessary to being a Christian?

Before saying yes, weren't their Christians before the Bible was written?

From my experience, Christianity is very Bible centric. However it would seem the Bible is unnecessary.

Can one set aside the Bible and still be a Christian?

Click to expand...

One needs the teaching about and of Christ to be Christian. The Bible is the most universally accepted system for this. I met many who ascribe supernatural powers to the text itself. I personally don’t but into that.

ChristineM said:

I don't know of many christians who have read the bible. They have had selective bits of it read to them but never actually sat down an read it.


So yes, generally, they can set aside the bible.

Click to expand...

I’ve run into the same problem. Reading a few pages and there and being most unhappy if you mention biblical teachings outside of their favorite spots.

74x12 said:

Yes they hopefully can learn. Not everyone can though.

Click to expand...

Why not... except they have a severe brain disorder?

Nakosis said:

Is having read the Bible necessary to being a Christian?

Before saying yes, weren't their Christians before the Bible was written?

From my experience, Christianity is very Bible centric. However it would seem the Bible is unnecessary.

Can one set aside the Bible and still be a Christian?

Click to expand...

It isn’t necessary for a person to have read the Bible to be saved by Jesus Christ. One may have heard scriptures shared in a sermon or from a friend or read a tract or book with the gospel and felt conviction of the Holy Spirit to call upon Christ for forgiveness. Afterwards, though I don’t think a believer can mature in Christ or gain wisdom, discernment, and the fruits of the Spirit without either reading or hearing God’s Word. Those that ignore the scriptures are in danger of being deceived by false teachers and/or living in the desires of their own flesh, rather than the Spirit and being transformed into the likeness of Christ.
Just my thoughts.

paradox said:

What is needed is autorative word of the God, which without new testament requires someone who doesn't preach heresy but rather truth.
Problem why the bible is needed is to fight heresies which are present and occurring since Jesus.

Click to expand...

How is 'truth' defined in this context? Is it entirely subjective, as it appears to be? Or is there some test that, say, I could use and get the same the result as you?

blü 2 said:

How is 'truth' defined in this context? Is it entirely subjective, as it appears to be? Or is there some test that, say, I could use and get the same the result as you?

Click to expand...

Assuming there is no bible, what is needed is Jesus or apostles who learned directly from Jesus, but since they are dead the only choice is to ask their descendants who keep the tradition of word all this time, which are Catholic bishops and patriarchs of Eastern church.
But obviously first apostles wrote NT therefore we don't depend as much on church fathers, except for interpretation.

nPeace said:

the[y] only needed to use the Hebrew scriptures to prove that Jesus was the foretold Messiah.

Click to expand...

In what sense did Jesus qualify as a Jewish messiah?

For a start, 'messiah' (like 'Khristos') means 'anointed one' as in 'anointed by the high Jewish priesthood as a recognized leader of the Jews'.

But Jesus was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, nor did he carry out the messiah's principal task as at the first century CE of restoring the Jewish nation's political independence.

On what basis could any Jew have recognized him as a messiah?

paradox said:

Assuming there is no bible, what is needed is Jesus or apostles who learned directly from Jesus, but since they are dead the only choice is to ask their descendants who keep the tradition of word all this time, which are Catholic bishops and patriarchs of Eastern church.
But obviously first apostles wrote NT therefore we don't depend as much on church fathers, except for interpretation.

Click to expand...

But what definition of 'truth' were you using when you contrasted 'truth' to 'heresy'?

blü 2 said:

But what definition of 'truth' were you using when you contrasted 'truth' to 'heresy'?

Click to expand...

by truth I meant non false teachings of Jesus and non false mission of Jesus.
heresies are about distorting that in various ways.

paradox said:

by truth I meant non false teachings of Jesus and non false mission of Jesus.
heresies are about distorting that in various ways.

Click to expand...

So by 'truth' you mean 'accurate accounts of statements attributed to Jesus in the NT'?

blü 2 said:

So by 'truth' you mean 'accurate accounts of statements attributed to Jesus in the NT'?

Click to expand...

yes, without the bible it would be difficult to know the truth because we would depend on descendants of his disciples only to distinquish true from false.

blü 2 said:

So by 'truth' you mean 'accurate accounts of statements attributed to Jesus in the NT'?

Click to expand...

It would seem, at least to myself, that he meant the teachings of Jesus that are endorsed by the orthodoxy of the Catholic church and thus canonical in nature.

Nakosis said:

Is having read the Bible necessary to being a Christian?

Before saying yes, weren't their Christians before the Bible was written?

From my experience, Christianity is very Bible centric. However it would seem the Bible is unnecessary.


Can one set aside the Bible and still be a Christian?

Click to expand...

My personal opinion is Christianity would be much better off and have a far better reputation if the Bible wasn't even around at all.

That's my take as an ex-Christian , unless your op is meant for active Christians.

Mark Charles Compton said:

This appears to be a classic case of the cast-iron kettle calling the cast-iron pot, "Black".



My anecdotal experience is the opposite, I have been the member of several congregations, and most members at least claimed to have read from cover to cover, the book they guide their life with. I also seem to meet more and more atheist or indifferent individuals and fewer and fewer individuals willing to proclaim their faith when inquired. I live in rural Michigan, USA... perhaps it's a geographical thing, that our experiences are different.

Click to expand...

You think? He knows nothing about my life, my circle of friends and acquaintances, he does however make wide assumptions that suit his own helief.



I have read 3 different bibles from cover to cover, the first to learn, the following 2 for comparison with the first (and yes they contain both minor and major differences)
Whenever i have mentioned this to a Christian (only last week on this forum wasbthe last time) i have been castigated for reading it that way. You should note that the majority of times this happens it is an American who tells me.

That is my experience of most christians, they only want the bits of the bible that suite them. Only the bits their preacher picks out for them.

On the othere hand most atheists i know have read the bible from cover to cover, the consistent theme is to leaen what all the fuss is about and so they can respond with knowledge.

Even on this thread i am not alone. There are others who post agreement

Nakosis said:

Is having read the Bible necessary to being a Christian?

Before saying yes, weren't their Christians before the Bible was written?

From my experience, Christianity is very Bible centric. However it would seem the Bible is unnecessary.

Can one set aside the Bible and still be a Christian?

Click to expand...

Christians have lived with the bible from the get go. First they had to Tanakh. And they had notes, letters, manuscripts
from the very beginning of the Apostolic Church.

ChristineM said:

You think? He knows nothing about my life, my circle of friends and acquaintances, he does however make wide assumptions that suit his own helief.

Click to expand...

You likewise made a wide assumption regarding a rather large population, of which he would seem to consider himself a member. He apparently found it disagreeable that he and his peers were accused of possessing undesirable traits, he then retorted with the wide assumptions which you seem to find disagreeable.

ChristineM said:

I have read 3 different bibles from cover to cover, the first to learn, the following 2 for comparison with the first (and yes they contain both minor and major differences)
Whenever i have mentioned this to a Christian (only last week on this forum wasbthe last time) i have been castigated for reading it that way. You should note that the majority of times this happens it is an American who tells me.

That is my experience of most christians, they only want the bits of the bible that suite them. Only the bits their preacher picks out for them.

On the othere hand most atheists i know have read the bible from cover to cover, the consistent theme is to leaen what all the fuss is about and so they can respond with knowledge.

Even on this thread i am not alone. There are others who post agreement

Click to expand...

I wonder if the inclination to read the work for oneself differs from denomination to denomination... I for one, was raised Seventh Day Adventist.

Perhaps it's a sign of the individual straying from the congregation and/or its dogmas. I say this because even though I had read it cover to cover previously, it was after I strayed from the SDA church that I found myself reading it for more depth of meaning (I was gathering ammo for arguing against theists, primarily family) and actually read it several more times. It makes sense to me, if you had an unwavering and high-walled faith, you wouldn't need to read it for yourself... right?

As is often the case, it's likely a nuanced collage of reasons...

I am to this day surprised how many Christians admit to never having read it cover to cover, but they still represent a minority of my personal experience. In contrast I would agree that it would seem common for atheists to have read the works, or at least the OT... Peculiar.