Need the bible?

[The7thGuest]

During a recent conversation it was brought to my attention that someone else is of the opinoin that I can't call myself a Christian unless I believe in the bible.

So here goes, I believe in God, I believe his Son came to Earth and was crucified. I also believe the big bang theory, although that being said I believe that God intitiated the big bang. I believe that by what you do every day you will be a good man, or not and depending on this you will go to Heaven or Hell.

I also believe that everything is constantly changing, we call this process evolution.

Does this mean that I am not a Christian? Or can I call myself a Christian? Make no mistake, I know what I believe, I am simply asking if the labelled name for it is incorrect?

[Spectre557]

I'm interested to know exactly why you believe what you do. If you recognise that there's a lack of truth in the Bible, just where do you get your ideas of a "God", "Jesus", a "Holy Spirit", "Heaven", "Hell", or anything else from?

[godofcereal]

Im interested to know why someone would have an opinion with someone elses belief.

[Spectre557]

Im interested to know why someone would have an opinion with someone elses belief.

Do you mean why I'm concerned with what anyone else's belief is?

Well people's belief has an impact on the world, so I guess it (very) indirectly affects me. Plus, the subject interests me, and I'm nosy too.

[Schiz0id]

It seems to me you are filling the gaps that you don't understand with "God". Not to knock what you believe, it's fine. It's just that the particular beliefs that you have don't really fit together.

As for you being a christian, I don't know. I know many christians, that all have different beliefs. I think christianity is a terrible religion and I wouldn't want that label personally. I would say though, that your beliefs don't fit in with the fundamentalist christian beliefs that I know. You are just confusing faith with religion, many people do it.

[The_Computer_Wizard]

i see no problem with it
science and god do not have to be opposites
there is only so much science will EVER be able to explain
take the creation of the universe for example (and im overly simplifying this down) everything in the universe was made by the big bang, the big bang was a giant ball of matter that exploded... well what made the giant ball? one theory is that there is an even larger picture of think of them like membranes floating next to each other that when they collide it makes a big bang... well what made the membranes?

now a lot of the bible i take with a grain of salt
thats because many people believe it to be god's definitive word. It's not, it was written by man, not by god and then went through an editorial process at the council of niciea (spelling?) (also thus where you get the niciean creed in the catholic church)

everyone has their own beliefs and if someone tells you you are not christian/catholic or whatever, it doesnt matter what they believe. It always comes down to what you believe. You may be the only one but if it works for you who cares?

[Defience]

The7thGuest: I know people who believe in God and Jesus but couldn't really tell you the first thing about the bible, but they are still Christians. The bible is not only a history book, it's a guide for every aspect of life, and of course prophecies. The New Testament books were largely written by the disciples of Jesus and people close to them. Jesus instructed them, they followed, then taught and also wrote. If you believe that Jesus was real and so were his disciples then I don't know why you wouldn't at least take to heart the New Testament. Here's an interesting link regarding those books:
http://www.layhands.com/WhoWroteTheNewTestament.htm
The Old Testament. Here's an excerpt from wiki:
It is believed the Old Testament was composed and compiled between the 12th and the 2nd century BC. Jesus and his disciples referenced it when discussing Jesus's newer teachings, referring to it as "the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms ... the scriptures". (Luke 24:44–45) The accounts of Jesus and his disciples are recorded in the New Testament.
If you believe in Jesus, and it's written that he quoted 'The Old Testament' and was found studying the scrolls at an early age, wouldn't you think he would want us to follow it?
It is God's word, not written with a pen by his hand, but by him through men.
I hope this post doesn't come off sounding the wrong way, it's not meant to force anything or offend, just invoke some thoughts.

[The7thGuest]

First off, I must apologize for starting the thread and then running off, that's just bad style. Life seems to have caught up with me on yet another day.

Getting back to the topic at hand:

I do not question my faith, if I take into account the history of the world (not from the bible but from history) and consider the choices people made and why they made them, it seems very likely that Christianity is not just a myth.
The following might need a bit of explaining afterwards, but it goes something like this.

The bible was not written at the same time.
The bible was not written by one man.

The bible is actually just a compilation of differents letters and writings.

But this raised a few questions in my mind... Who decided what went where? If it's just a compilation why doesn't this compilation change or get added to?

To answer this question we need to take a look at how, when, by whom and why the bible was compiled (from here on I'll refer to the bible as being compiled and not written, since the texts were already written when the bible was compiled)

Here I suggest you take a look at the council of nicea as well as Rome's position both economically and politically.The bible continued to change after the initial compilation, I speak under correction, but to my knowledge the earliest reference we have to the compilation changing was in the 1500's.

Now that is quite some time, and a few questions come with it. Rome still had political power and for quite some time is was illegal to translate scripture, here take a look at the names John Wycliffe, John Hus, Martin Luther, Johann Gutenberg and Thomas Linacre.These names have greatly influenced my view on the matter, and as I'm sure you've noted, none of these names are ever mentioned in the bible.

Another interesting fact here is the similarities between the Jewish faith and Christianity. Where the split between them came and why, here take a look at the approximate 400 year gap between the old and new testament, take into account what happened, what the prophets had promised and what came to pass.

The next interesting split is the Roman Church after the translation by Martin Luther. This is roughly the same time as King Henry VIII, so there are quite a few references to what happened here.

The last point I would like to make is the lives of the 12 disciples and more interestingly, their deaths. As well as the followers of Jesus at that time, the most screwed up of all of them, who crucified Christ again?

Don't get me wrong, this is by no means a bulletproof "The bible is the truth" in fact I'm pretty sure I would have raised more questions in a lot of the really religious folks, but the events that took place, taking actual history into account, tells me that something major happened.

And so I open the floor, since I am sure there will be a lot of counter arguments, a lot of criticism and possibly a bit of flaming, which if done intelligently with a logic argument I'll take with no problem. But if someone is about to flame simply based on their hatred for organized religion, write me a pm and I'll be sure to delete it.

@ Defience : "If you believe in Jesus, and it's written that he quoted 'The Old Testament' and was found studying the scrolls at an early age, wouldn't you think he would want us to follow it?"

I would if I believed that the scrolls Jesus was studying and the old testament we have today was the same thing...

[Possumdude0]

So basically what you're saying is that you think the Bible is true, but that the copy we have of it today is not the same as the original? That you thin alterations have been made to the Bible in the past that made it become not-true in large sections of the text? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm having about three conversations right now so I may have totally misunderstood your point.

[The7thGuest]

So basically what you're saying is that you think the Bible is true, but that the copy we have of it today is not the same as the original? That you thin alterations have been made to the Bible in the past that made it become not-true in large sections of the text? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm having about three conversations right now so I may have totally misunderstood your point.

I don't think that alterations have been made, I know, I have recently "acquired" a 1539 edition of the bible, things HAVE changed.

But yes, that is pretty much what I'm saying. But even more importantly is my point that I feel no need to actually even own a bible to be considered a Christian, in fact, until the bible was translated, first by Wycliffe and later by Luther, nobody had a bible, the scripture was considered holy relics and the translation was strictly forbidden!