idnoble135:
But he is saying the truth. None of you guys have admitted that there was a flaw with the write up. Even the OP practically refuse to agree that he was wrong on the highlighted point.

If actually you followed the thread well, not even the op undermined the bible, we are only saying that the bible alone is not all you need to be a christian simple.

Sal C: If actually you followed the thread well, not even the op undermined the bible, we are only saying that the bible alone is not all you need to be a christian simple.

If you follow the thread, you'd see the heresy pointed out in the write up. I'm surprised every one is turning a blind eye to it. No one will admit it?

idnoble135:
If you follow the thread, you'd see the heresy pointed out in the write up. I'm surprised every one is turning a blind eye to it. No one will admit it?

That one person said a thing and another shouted heresy without proof doesn't make the former wrong.

Sal C: That one person said a thing and another shouted heresy without proof doesn't make the former wrong.

Nice twist.
How is the point brought forth wrong. Here is an excerpt of the OP.

A Bible does not define who a Christian is
or what they believe. Just because it is in the Bible,
does not mean that a Christian must follow it, or has
to be defined by it.

Do you still say this is right?

idnoble135:
Nice twist.
How is the point brought forth wrong. Here is an excerpt of the OP.

Do you still say this is right?

I gave a good explanation to this when I said there are teachings in the bible today that are no longer applicable to christian and the authenticity of one christianity is not subject to such teachings. Therefore the fact that they are found in the bible does no mean a christian must practice them.

The op gave you an example which you smartly dodged.

Old testament said "an eye for an eye"
New testament said "turn the other cheek"
Both of them are in the bible but a christian is no longer expected to practice the former, therefore he is not judged by the former practise even though it is in the bible.

Sal C: I gave a good explanation to this when I said there are teachings in the bible today that are no longer applicable to christian and the authenticity of one christianity is not subject to such teachings. Therefore the fact that they are found in the bible does no mean a christian must practice them.

The op gave you an example which you smartly dodged.

Old testament said "an eye for an eye"
New testament said "turn the other cheek"
Both of them are in the bible but a christian is no longer expected to practice the former, therefore he is not judged by the former practise even though it is in the bible.

Your explanation is a good attempt to salvage original post.
The issue here, is a play on words.
I'm quite aware that some laws in the bible are no longer operational and are not the basis for us to live. Like the ones you stated. That does not make the bible totally invalid. Its like throwing away the baby and the dirty water. And besides, we already lear that:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16
God gave all the scriptures. Why would some one say that a christian should not follow the word?

idnoble135:
Your explanation is a good attempt to salvage original post.
The issue here, is a play on words.
I'm quite aware that some laws in the bible are no longer operational and are not the basis for us to live. Like the ones you stated. That does not make the bible totally invalid. Its like throwing away the baby and the dirty water. And besides, we already lear that:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16
God gave all the scriptures. Why would some one say that a christian should not follow the word?

I am not here to salvage anything because it is glaring from the onset and nobody said anything about throwing away the bible.

Italo asked a question which am yet to see an answer to it.
Did the people who became christians on the penticost day read the bible before then?

Again I don't want to go into the issue of "All scripture" because "all scripture does not mean the bible alone"
You might need to check the definition of scripture.

In general speech or in general English language, "scripture" has a wider meaning.

In a Christian context, "scripture" does indeed mean "Bible" or the authoritative books accepted by Christians at the relevant time.

By the way, in general English even "Bible" has a wider meaning than that which is understood by Christians.

^ ^ ^
And address the above

Sal C: I am not here to salvage anything because it is glaring from the onset and nobody said anything about throwing away the bible.

Italo asked a question which am yet to see an answer to it.
Did the people who became christians on the penticost day read the bible before then?

Again I don't want to go into the issue of "All scripture" because "all scripture does not mean the bible alone"
You might need to check the definition of scripture.

You chose not to see the answer because i answered him. Go back and verify facts in the previous page to verify.

idnoble135: ^ ^ ^
And address the above

You chose not to see the answer because i answered him. Go back and verify facts in the previous page to verify.

You simply said "The Former" which though I find it tricky but if applied to what we have been saying, it means they became christians before reading the bible.
If that is so, what are we still dragging?

It's well. God is your strength.

^^^ Let me expand on that my last post a little bit.

In the Bible, you will see Jesus Christ say, 'today this scripture is fulfilled in your sight'.

Clearly, by 'scripture' the Lord did not mean just any "writing"; He was referring to something more; at least something authoritative on matters of faith; that is at the minimum because you can go as far as 'sacred' or 'divine' etc.

The apostle Paul wrote 2 Timothy which is where he referred to all 'scriptures' is given etc; you can see very clearly that he did not mean just any writing but again, like the Lord, something at least authoritative.

Now check this: the apostle Paul had earlier written the epistle to the Colossians; in that epistle he quoted the Gospel of Luke --- apparently as 'scripture'. (This suggests of course that the Gospel of Luke was written even earlier)

The key point is this: we can conclude reasonably that when the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy referred to all 'scriptures', he was referring to the Hebrew Bible aka the Christian Old Testament and at least the Gospel of Luke and the Epistle to the Colossians.

We can even reasonably argue that he might have contemplated future authoritative scriptures ---- because for example we read the apostle Peter hinting that the Christians will have something else (beyond his oral words) to remind them; many believe that something to be the Gospel of Mark (and even maybe other 'scriptures').



EDITED for typos and little things

idnoble135: It's well. God is your strength.

You too Bro.

Enigma: ^^^ Let me expand on that my last post a little bit.

In the Bible, you will see Jesus Christ say, 'today this scripture is fulfilled in your sight'.

Clearly, by 'scripture' the Lord did not mean just any "writing"; He was referring to something more; at least something authoritative on matters of faith; that is at the minimum because you can go as far as 'sacred' or 'divine' etc.

The apostle Paul wrote 2 Timothy which is where he referred to all 'scriptures' is given etc; you can see very clearly that he did not mean just any writing but again, like the Lord, something at least authoritative.

Now check this: the apostle Paul had earlier written the epistle to the Colossians; in that epistle he quoted the gospel of Luke --- which means that the gospel o Luke, apparently as 'scripture'. (This means of course that the gospel of Luke was written even earlier)

The key point is this: we can conclude reasonably that when the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy referred to all 'scriptures', he was referring to the Hebrew Bible aka the Christian Old Testament and at least the Gospel of Luke and the epistle to the Colossians.

We can even reasonably argue that he might have contemplated future authoritative scriptures ---- because for example we read the apostle Peter hinting that the Christians will have something else (beyond his oral words) to remind them; many believe that something to be the Gospel of Mark (and even maybe other 'scriptures').

I get you. Thank you.

Sal C: I will" partially" agree with you that he did not add to the bible rather he removed from it, so in a general sense, he altered the bible.

What did he remove?

chukwudi44:

Martin luther did not translate any bible.He rather tried to remove somany books from the bible not just the deuterocanons but also books like James which he called the epistle of straws because it taught that faith without works is dead.even the books of Revelation and Jude were not spared from is onslaught

he try to remove so many books? please enlighten me. I read he translate that part about justification by grace. How did he try to remove any part

Mee234:
he try to remove so many books? please enlighten me. I read he translate that part about justification by grace. How did he try to remove any part

Martin luther removed not just the 7 deuterocanonical books of the bible but also NT books like James,Jude,Hebrews and Revelation.He was particularly pissed off with the epistle of James because e beleived he taught about good works.He even condescended to describe the epistle "as the epistle of straws"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon

Martin Luther is being accused of removing/trying to remove books from the Bible!

Here are just a few Roman Catholics who also "removed" at least 7 books from the Bible

Jerome, Erasmus, "pope" Gregory I, "Cardinal Cajetan (the same Luther's opponent)

Oh, meanwhile the Roman Catholics only voted to add the 7 books in 1546 by: 25 for, 15 against and 16 abstained --- they couldn't even get a clear majority!

Oh, and here is something from the Roman Catholic organisation's own encyclopaedia http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm lol

"38. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not "Canonical" but "Ecclesiastical:" that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named "Apocrypha." These they would not have read in the Churches.

These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken."

The Roman Catholic Bible of 25 for, 15 against and 16 abstained is even contrary to tradition.

tobechi20: Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible. That in fact, a Christian never even has to have read the Bible in order to be a Christian. That a Christian can still be a Christian even though they may pick and choose what they believe in the Bible, because it is not a demand that they follow the Bible .




My evidence: When Christianity first began, there was not a such thing as a Bible. When Paul was preaching his message, the New Testament had just began loosely forming in the aspect that he was writing letters (which were not scripture). Even the OT canon was not closed until after Paul was dead. And during the time of Paul, different groups subscribed to different works of Hebrew scripture.

On the red ^, it can only be due to ignorance.

Why ? the writers of the bible were around when christianity started, hence, they provided the instruction then and we continue to make use of those instructions today also.

Always make sure befor you post next time. Smh.

italo:

The people who were converted at Pentecost...

1. When did they become Christians, before reading the Bible or not?

But Peter an apostle of christ preached to them Naw !

This same people remained with the apostles for some times to be taught the more.

Why are you catholics doing this to people naw ?

italo:

Sorry, I decide to correct what I feel needs correction.

One can remain a Christian without the Bible. All the apostles and their companions never saw a Bible...and they remained Christians.

The word christianity means follower of christ.

The apostles followed christ.

The apostles taught later christians the way of christ and how to follow christ.

Those writings of the apostles are what is written in the NT.

So, today, without the apostles bein around in person, we need the scriptures written by the apostles to know how and what is involve in following christ.

@ OP what is Christianity? Study the Scripture my friend ....

chukwudi44:

Martin luther removed not just the 7 deuterocanonical books of the bible but also NT books like James,Jude,Hebrews and Revelation.He was particularly pissed off with the epistle of James because e beleived he taught about good works.He even condescended to describe the epistle "as the epistle of straws"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon

He did commit some mistakes, some very unchristlike but he does contribute to the spread of the gosple

^^^ Whatever mistakes he might have made he did not remove books from the Bible. That is Roman Catholic propaganda which even includes manipulating web sources, Wikipedia and the like.

If Luther "removed" books, then so did the Roman Catholics like the "church father" Jerome, like the "pope" Gregory I etc etc etc

idnoble135:
Nothing is glaring. You are just trying to desperately make a point that is invalid. No one said Bible was in existence during the era of the saints. You brought that up for a reason i still don't know. And i did not object. Even the basic point i made here, you chose to turn a blind eye on it.
By the way, did Peter call Paul's letters scriptures or not?

pls look at d topic again

vickyO:
Isn't it through the Bible the church got it knowledge of Christ??
Read Alwaystrue's post

the church couldnt have got its knowledge from d bible because d church wrote d bible. just like moses n d earlly prophets didnt know about God from d old testament because they wrote it. jesus tot d church n commissioned dem to teach d people in mat.28, He told dem"i will b wit u till d end of time"

it should also be noted that the bible did not come into existence not until 300yrs after the death of christ. So then, on what then did the christians of that time believe in, the teachings of the church. The church definitely gave birth to the bible. Without the church there will be no bible.

For a start Jesus and the early Christians had a Bible --- it is called the Hebrew Bible or what Christians call Old Testament.

Jesus preached the gospel from it. The apostles and early Christians preached the gospel from it. A clear example is Philip preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch.

It is simply false to say that the Bible did not come into existence until 300 years after the death of Christ. It is a very bad lie!

The New testament was completed and in circulation by the end of the 1st century. There is clear evidence of this.

Christians already had and were using the Bible by the end of the 1st century.

Yep, I know people could raise issues about canonicity but those have already been addressed on several other threads.

EDIT And which "church" "gave birth" to the Old Testament?

Mee234:
He did commit some mistakes, some very unchristlike but he does contribute to the spread of the gosple

Gospel of cherry picking of scriptures!! He has already decided within him to believe on sola fide irrespective of what scripture says.Anyother scripture contrary to what he beleived in is to be yanked off.

lacum:
the church couldnt have got its knowledge from d bible because d church wrote d bible. just like moses n d earlly prophets didnt know about God from d old testament because they wrote it. jesus tot d church n commissioned dem to teach d people in mat.28, He told dem"i will b wit u till d end of time"

How did you know Christ? Knowing Christ in this context is deeper than knowing him as a Saviour who died for our sins. As Christians, we are the church, it's the Bible through the Holy Spirit that gives us insight into the plans of God for us.

vickyO:
How did you know Christ? Knowing Christ in this context is deeper than knowing him as a Saviour who died for our sins. As Christians, we are the church, it's the Bible through the Holy Spirit that gives us insight into the plans of God for us.

The church existed befoe the bible .That is a fact .NB: Church here does mean mushroom business centres

vickyO:
How did you know Christ? Knowing Christ in this context is deeper than knowing him as a Saviour who died for our sins. As Christians, we are the church, it's the Bible through the Holy Spirit that gives us insight into the plans of God for us.

the topic we are treating is trying to give d bible its proper place in christendom. d bible is not a manual or textbook or history book for xtians. we should know that its a gift from God to d church to further God's kingdom on earth. it canneva take d place of church which is d primary source of truth for xtians.