score:11
The Bible isn't Christianity. Christianity is about believing in Jesus (and all that it entails). We learn about Christianity from the Bible, but we really learn about Christianity from other Christians. This is the primary mode of the transmission for the faith.
John 13:35 (NASB)
By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.
Christianity was around for decades before any of the books of the New Testament were written. Christianity existed before them, and would exist even if they had never been written, because Christianity is all about the work of God through Jesus to redeem us. Christianity doesn't depend on the Bible, nor is it defined by the Bible, because Christianity is defined by Jesus.
The Bible was compiled by early Christians as a reliable reference that was sufficient for our needs. They were not cherry picking based on their whims. They chose books based on reasonable criteria, and most Christians since have accepted their decision because they were in a far better position to know about authorship and doctrinal coherency than we are hundreds and thousands of years later. Most Christians that place emphasis on the Bible accept their decision (or one that came much closer to it than it came to us) and do not really consider altering the canon. The original group that established the canon chose documents that were consistent with Christian doctrine as they knew it. In a sense, Christianity established the Bible, though it still claims divine origin for the material in it.
All this said, you could conceivably reject (all or part of) the Bible and still be a Christian because Christianity does not hang on the Bible itself. It hangs on belief in Jesus.
However, how would you know what Christianity actually is? Who was Jesus? What did he teach? What did the early church believe and practice? All these things are recorded in the Bible and have been preserved for our benefit. The vast majority of Christians from whom you would learn about Christianity use the Bible as an authoritative reference. On what basis would you reject what they assert to be true? I don't know what in the Bible you would have good reason to reject. How would you be certain that you were correct about such a rejection? What is your source of authority for such a conclusion? It seems like it would be very difficult to make a good logical argument for modifying the canon.
Upvote:0
It is not so much as believing in the accounts of the Bible, as it is not living in denial. For the stages of Grief teach us that from denial we enter into anger and depression, yet with acceptance we return to peace. Also it is hard to understand how Genesis is true, So I suggest watching "The Genesis Code" It shows how both Science and Genesis are in agreement.
Our all-knowing God needs to test our Faith, even though all-knowing implies he already knows what the outcome of any test would be, because we have the knowledge of Good and Evil and therefore fall to pride and anxiety.
Hell translated from the old testament meant grave, and in the new testament, meant grave / crematory with the exception of the term Tartarus which was to be viewed from a spiritual angle. The fact that the death penalty is in existence is proof that bad people go the grave / crematory.
It is hard to believe that Jesus actually resurrected. It only took one cell in your body to make all of you (research reproduction).
Sin separates us from reality (Now = an instance of God) and we miss truths that are occurring around us that cause us condemnation. Example a wife saying, I just told you about this yesterday. Or crossing a street without knowing the truth about where the cars are and how fast they are going. Ever watch "Dumb Ways to Die"?
So the teachings of Jesus completely ends all family arguments. An amazing value all to itself.
For a fun study Google mental health problems with the word anxiety. For all anxiety is a lack of faith, and that is why faith is so precious and is demanded of us now.
Therefore life has been given to use through the Holy Attitude.
Upvote:0
If you renounce a part of the Bible, just because you don't like or understand that part, and continue in this manner, you'll be left with no Bible and made up beliefs about a Jesus you don't know.
¹⁹And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. ²⁰He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. - Revelation 22 NIV
If you'd want to argue that this only pertains the scroll of Revelation, make sure that you don't take away any other scriptures that resonates together with it.
A reminder:
"Did God really say?" - satan - from Genesis 3: 2 NIV
Upvote:1
This is a simple (but I hope, profound) answer:
No - being a Christian necessarily means following Christ - He becomes your great exemplar for life practices - and since he didn't renounce any part of the Bible, a 'Christian' shouldn't either.
Upvote:2
On what basis would someone answer this question? You say that you don't want to get into debating specific issues on logic or documentary or historical evidence. And you don't accept the whole Bible as inspired.
So on what basis can we discuss the question? I could quote a Bible verse that says that you should believe the whole Bible -- like 2 Tim 3:16 -- but then you could just say that you don't believe that verse. I could point to historical or documentary evidence that backs up the traditional canon -- but you rule out that conversation.
I don't see how you can rule out any discussion of evidence or logic or inspiration, and then expect to get an answer that means anything.
OF COURSE the canon of scripture excludes some books. As opposed to what? Declaring that every book ever written is inspired scripture? Sorry, but I don't accept Greek myths or Harry Potter as inspired scripture. Just because some books were included and others not doesn't of itself prove that the councils that selected these books "cherry-picked" those that they considered "not dangerous". That would be one possible theory of how they made their selections. But in fact a look at the historical record finds no evidence to support such a theory. They selected books based primarily on the authority of the authors -- where they written by apostles or people associated with the apostles? You could fairly debate any given selection. Like, you might say that they dismissed book X as probably not being written by the claimed author while you think it really was. But they didn't pick books based on what had teachings they agreed with. That's just not how it happened.
How much of traditional, orthodox Christianity can you reject and still be a Christian? By any criteria that's a hard question to answer. How much of Karl Marx can you reject and still be a communist? If you said you agreed with 99% of what Karl Marx wrote, I suppose communists would still consider you one of them. What if you only agreed with 5%? I'd say probably not. But what if it was the most crucial 5%, a few key teachings?
I think the most important question is, How wrong can you be and God still decide that you meet the requirements to be saved?
It might be more productive to discuss these issues on which you think that the Bible is wrong. Maybe it's you who is mistaken and God who is right after all. But I suppose that discussion isn't allowed on this site.
Upvote:2
Revelation 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Your salvation, as a believer, does not come from man or what he may think of you. It comes from the God of the bible, whose promises are from Genesis to Revelation.