Should we Follow The Bible Only?

[huajiro]

The bible is directly inspired by God so therefore we should only trust the bible.

"The Bible"? Don't you mean the Christian Bible? Please keep in mind that their are others.

 

[huajiro]

Some of the questions that I have had to explore throughout my life were:

Why does GOD require a book?

Why does GOD require that we follow THE BIBLE?

Is THE BIBLE complete?

Can we actually K(NOW) GOD in the NOW from reading THE BIBLE?

Why did people stop writing about their relationships with GOD?

Why did people stop going directly to GOD for their concerns and questions?

What if the answers to their questions were different from THE BIBLE’s? Who are we to believe?

As I had mentioned in other posts, the "Bible" is a sort of "owner's manual" for your soul.
I honestly believe it/they started out with the truth. Most of the problems between religion and "Man" can be associated to the greed of some men, who distorted the "Bible" to their benefit. This lead to "Man's" distrust of the Church, and a kind of vicious circle people like you and myself find ourselves battling against daily. The only answer I can give is you....you really do know. No one can tell you what is right for you, your heart will guide you.

Patrickism is a very good start

 

[Dadball]

[QUOTE=Linus]SOGFPP, what other writings do you follow? As a christian, how do you justify using writings outside the Bible as a basis for serving God?[/QUOTE]

Linus,

I believe the "Christian" Bible is inspired by God. God speaks to me through these words. With that said, don't limit yourself the Bible alone. There are the writings of St. Augustine and Thomas More. If you want contemporary, read Spritual Classic by Richard Foster or my favorite, Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis.or Dedrick Bonhoeffer. These are writings that can help you have a greater understand of the Bible and the teaching of Jesus.

 

[Linus]

I think you misunderstood my question, Dadball. I realize that there are books out there that will help you understand the Bible better. I have read a few commentaries and such, but that was not the focus of my question. My point was that there is no justification for replacing God's word with any other doctrine. It is important to find your own faith and not just blindly follow the teachings of the church. The church says so? What if the church is wrong? Are you just going to accept their teaching without any personal investigation? It is good to agree with your brethren, but that should be your own decisions, not the decision of someone else made for you.

 

[Dadball]

Linus,

Thank you for correcting me.

I believe each of us has a personal relationship with Christ. I try to follow early Christain practices, and study of scripture is part of being a disciple of Christ. To me, there is no other doctrine or authority other than God's and his inspired word.

 

[Linus]

Linus,

Thank you for correcting me.

No problem Dadball. Perhaps I should have spoken more claerly in the fisrt place. I actually originally intended this thread to be a discussion for christians only (that's why I put in in the Biblical debates section, but now that I think about it, I probably should have put it under same faith debates. oh well), but since everyone else was having fun talking about it, i decided to let it go.

I believe each of us has a personal relationship with Christ. I try to follow early Christain practices, and study of scripture is part of being a disciple of Christ. To me, there is no other doctrine or authority other than God's and his inspired word

Amen. Are you Church of Christ by any chance?

 

[jewscout]

In Judaism we have the Tanach which is made up of the Torah, the first five books given to Moses by G-d on Mt. Sinai, the prophets, and then the Writings, which include, psalms, job, and proverb among other books.
But that is not all, there is also the Talmud which is HUGE. The Talmud is made up of writings and commentary that is very very extensive.
In Judaism the Tanach is very important but we are tought to question and contemplate it's words and use the Talmud and the halacha (jewish law) to interpret the text of the Torah.

There's an old saying, ask 3 rabbis a question you'll get 5 answers.

 

[Linus]

The Talmud is made up of writings and commentary that is very very extensive.

Just curious, but who wrote all those commentaries and such?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In Judaism we ... the Torah... given to Moses by G-d on Mt. Sinai, the ...

That statement is absurd on multiple levels: it conflates the protocols (the 'commandments' storied to have been given on Mount Sinai) with the books (Genesis through Deuteronomy); it ignoes the numerous biblical anachronisms and philological markers pointing to multiple authors operating over a period of time; it sidesteps the difference between Masoretic, Septuagint, and Samaritan Torahs; it fails to take into account the plurifomity of texts comprising the DSS; etc. Basically, it reflects uninformed and naive orthodoxy long since discarded by most biblical scholars.

 

[jewscout]

That statement is absurd on multiple levels: it conflates the protocols (the 'commandments' storied to have been given on Mount Sinai) with the books (Genesis through Deuteronomy); it ignoes the numerous biblical anachronisms and philological markers pointing to multiple authors operating over a period of time; it sidesteps the difference between Masoretic, Septuagint, and Samaritan Torahs; it fails to take into account the plurifomity of texts comprising the DSS; etc. Basically, it reflects uninformed and naive orthodoxy long since discarded by most biblical scholars.

Wow!
ok then allow me to rephrase, in Jewish tradition the Torah was given to Moses by G-d.
That is the story isn't it? Whether it's factually true or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is the tradition.

 

[jewscout]

Just curious, but who wrote all those commentaries and such?

The Talmud, from orthodox tradition, is believed to have been given at Sinai with the Torah and passed down Orally until the 2nd Century. However there exists 2 main Talmud versions, the Jerusalem and the Babylonian. It is a collection of commentaries from Torah scholars that has continued to grow. One of the most famous commentators is Rashi whose commentary you can find in most Torahs in use today.
The idea was that G-d gave us the instructions, like, get married, but the instructions on how it is to be carried out were given by these scholars who wrote the Talmud because G-d left no detailed instructions in the Torah.

 

[Linus]

Thanks for clarifying, Jewscout.

 

[Scott1]

Do you ever disagree with the Church's teachings? If you do, how do you go about dealing with it?

I have in the past.... I would not say I disagree, but let's just say I needed a better explaination.

Understanding is required to be in agreement with something.... on a few issues, I don't completely understand the teaching of the Church, but I pray that the Holy Spirit will show me the way.

Thanks for the questions, Linus.

Peace,
Scott

 

[Linus]

I would strongly encourage you to try and understand the teaching of the Bible and form you own opinions and interpretations before you delve into the teachings of the catholic church. Learn some Greek and Hebrew or at least get a dictionary. that way you can better understand the meanings behind the words before you start following someone's teachings.

 

[Scott1]

Linus,

Up until know, I have enjoyed your posts..... but...... I find this last one to be a bit of the Christian arrogance that seems to turn non-Christians off so much.

How incredibly silly to assume that my knowledge of the Bible is somehow less than yours or that I have not yet studied Greek or Hebrew.... sheesh.

 

[Scott1]

Hence the "confusion" that is evangelical Christianity cannot be of God!

That was kinda my point....

 

[Simon the Cat]

As the Bible was written quite some time ago, to only follow the Bible might not always give guidance on things one may want guidance on. The other thing, is that even if one believes that God wrote the Bible, God was understandbly writing it for an audience with a different cultural need - somethings may be a little outdated? The question then becomes if one is not going to follow only the Bible, what else is acceptable to follow.

 

[precept]

As the Bible was written quite some time ago, to only follow the Bible might not always give guidance on things one may want guidance on. The other thing, is that even if one believes that God wrote the Bible, God was understandbly writing it for an audience with a different cultural need - somethings may be a little outdated? The question then becomes if one is not going to follow only the Bible, what else is acceptable to follow.

Simon-the-C.......God, by His own definition is "All knowing". This definition makes God unable to err in any judgement; whether past, present or future. Presuming that the bible was written by God; or presuming that God inspired humans as to his wishes by having His wishes put in words, we call the Bible; then either God desires different words[wishes] for each of humanity's different cultures or His words[wishes] are the same for each of humanity's different cultures. [If God deems it good for one human culture; why wouldn't He deem it good for another?] Is it right to wrong another member of whatever culture? Is it right to serve another god other than the God who rules over said culture, who wrote His instructions in a Bible? These questions make the God of the Bible Supreme in His being accepted by whichever culture who voluntarily follows His instructions as written in the bible.

If the bible, God's [wishes] words for humanity is followed deligently by any and or all of humanity's cultures; then the revising of His words[wishes] would be unnecessary for any and or all subsequent human cultures because the deligence of complicity would be the heritage of successive generations of these human cultures.


precept

 

[cardero]

Simon the Cat writes: The question then becomes if one is not going to follow only the Bible, what else is acceptable to follow.

What is wrong with going right to the Source?
One of the reasons that I followed through with my REALationship with GOD was because I believed that some parts of THE BIBLE may be somewhat outdated for my present personal lifestyle. I had no interest to construct arks or tabernacles or even to lead whole nations out of enslavement. My existence was simple but still unique and there were some questions that I had that were not covered in THE BIBLE.



As huajiro so profoundly posted on this thread:

the "Bible" is a sort of "owner's manual" for your soul.

So through my interviews with GOD I was able to obtain my own “handbook” that was catered to my interests, my questions on life and my very existence. It won’t replace THE BIBLE that I have but it does make an authoritative companion to it. I believe everyone has a Bible in and around them.