I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book would never have been written because no Christian would have existed before the book was written to write the book!"
I understand the meaning behind the statment that Christians base their beliefs on the new testament however the new testament was written by people who believed before there was a book constructed and added to the old testament.
In what way does a Christian need the bible to be a believer?
You're partially right. The Old Testament portion of the Bible, which the Jews follow, has been around much longer than the New Testament. The New Testament is composed of the "gospels"--eyewitness accounts of Christ-- and letters from the disciples.
Christians are followers of Christ. The people who penned the New Testament were Christians. They had more than just the written Bible then. It was much more of an oral religion. The people who knew Jesus traveled to spread the word, and they only wrote letters when they couldn't talk with people in person.
Today there is no one living who was actually there 2,000 years ago. All we have now is the Bible. So modern-day Christianity is based off of the Bible, whereas 1st century Christianity was based more off of the life of Christ himself.
Personally, I believe that it is possible to be a Christian without reading the Bible. What about people who can't read or who don't have access to a Bible because it's illegal in their country? (That's not to detract from the importance of the Bible. These Christians would absolutely love to have a copy of the Bible for themselves. )
Kate-Olsen! Never seen you in the forums before, your last paragraph is at the heart of the matter here. Christ and God transcend the bible and exist outside of its binding. Very happy to have someone on the thread that read the OP!
Up until about the early 3rd century, the Bibie consisted of loosly written and oral stories that contained ideas based on the Ancient Eqyptian religions and Jewish faiths and traditions. Emperor Constantine Legalized Christianity in 312 AD and comissioned these collections into one book, the Bible, as we know it, was written. The basic ideas of Christianity was preached by John the Baptist who passed his ideas on to Jesus who apparently took it a step further. The Bible was never meant to be a history book. It was a guide and offered hope geared to life under Roman occupation of Judea in the 1st century.
We would be lost.. The Bible is like a manual, you need it to guide you, you rely on it's instruction, you base your judgement on it's directions, you understand better with it..
The lord has always made a way.. Even the devil quoted the Bible, so even if God is going to send an angel, or any other means, the Bible will be refer to, it is God instruction to us.
You understand that the Bible is a good thing to have but it is NOT God, if you put the bible in a fire it burns, water will ruin the pages and it is only the Spirit of the Lord which lasts forever, cuts into the hearts of men and speaks truth for all to hear. What did those people do for the hundreds of years before all the books were compiled together do I wonder?
I would test you sir to go a month and not read the bible. Pray daily as you always have, I am assuming, and see if you have a relationship with God outside this book. Because if you don't....you don't have one at all.
No doubt, praying draws us near to God, no doubt also, the Bible is not God. But remember, it is from the Bible that we learnt how to pray. Jesus was God, but He still quoted from the Bible. Now tell me, what use will it be if we ignore that which convey how our Savior was slain and how our life restore. Without the Bible, we be like Adam and Eve. We will go astray..
The Bible was inspired by God.. For a reason you will agree.. Every invention has is significant use.
Jesus quoted the Old Testament. Not the new, there was not the new testament to quote from, that is the point of this post.
You are not entirely wrong, His world was sealed in our heart when He came. But even then, In His words, from the Bible we read.. These things wish you see me do, these do after me.. We weren't there to see. The Bible show us what to do.. How can we not read. When the Bible says, Study to show thy self approve.
Beside it was the Bible.
Jesus die before the disciples was call Christians..
And during Jesus time here on earth.. He quote from the great book of Old. The Bible.
Ok, your right. The bible was first before anything else. I guess the thousands of years before the mass production of the book was just kind of a big FU from God to the rest of mankind right? Because there was no way for anyone to come to Christ or to God for that matter before the book was in their hands.
In the time of Old God spoke to men face to face.
Men felt God's wrath not yesterday. The very instance the deed is done..
The Bible is more than just written notes, it is God's inspire words.
God's word's has always being even before any Life was formed.
The Hebrews, who are not Christian, wrote the Bible.
The Christians use the Hebrew's old testament translated incorrectly and added the new testament.
Captain: In answer to your original question of which came first A Christian or The Bible the answer is quite simple and straight-forward. Christians and Christianity were first. There was no Bible during the time of Jesus it didn't exist. All there was at that time was the scrolls of what we refer to as the "OLD TESTAMENT" the 5 writings from Genesis to Deuteronomy now recognized as today's modern day Hebrew Torah along with the scrolls of writings from the Hebrew Prophets,and the recordings of Israel's kings and judges. These were all existing on hand written papyrus scrolls there was no Bible.
Today's Christian sees the Holy Bible 66 books from Genesis to Revelations, as God's Holy Word, inspired by God through God's Holy Spirit written at the hand of man. The "Old Testament" books teach us about God under the covenant made between God and Noah after the Flood. The "New Testament" teaches us about Jesus who he was and how we should live in love and peace under Jesus New Covenant. The new testament also teaches man what is required for man to return to heaven after man dies physically.
Christianity bit off Greek Mythology god ideas are far older than the bible or Christians.
Oratory tradition lead to writing and writing lead to religion. Religion is the result therefor, of people talking to one another. The premise then predates the tradition by no one knows how many years, for there were no records of the time before written forms of communication.
This is a very good and reasonable question, and introduces several very keen ideas Christians ought to well consider.
Part of the issue here, I think, has to do with terms (but, I almost always think things have to do with, and start with, the terms we use and how we use them. There are two kinds of people in the world; those who are God's people and those who reject Him. Those who are God's are God's because and through the means of Him adopting them as His own. We are all born creatures and God is an eternal Spirit, so something needs to happen for us to be able to unite with Him and be His child. The Bible says this 'something' is that we must be born of the Spirit (often haphazardly translated 'born again'). Jesus was clear; first you were born of the flesh, of your parents, a creature - to know and love God you must be born a second birth, born of the Spirit, born of God.
This new birth (Jesus say we become "new creatures") was experienced by many before the entire Bible was complete, and happens now to many without opening a Bible. So, in a sense, there were Christians before there was the Bible - but again, it's the terms that become the issue. The Bible tells us that "Believers were first called 'Christians' in Antioch", and there is not an unreasonable argument to distinguish between any and all who were united to God before there was a Bible and those who, after Pentecost and after the completion of the Bible came to be identified as "Christians".
Christianity is not what most people (even Christians) think it to be. It is not a religion, it's not a way to live your life, the Bible is not our instruction book for daily living, etc, etc - very basically and at it's core Christianity is simply an acknowledgment and the announcement of a historic event. Christianity is simply God's people pointing to the fulfillment of the promise, the coming of the Messiah, Christianity is reporting the historic event of the incarnation and the accomplishment of the atonement.
However, in doing this, since Pentecost and the completion of the text of Scripture we meet together, we have facilities, we worship Him together, we do His work in the world, etc - we organize and have structure. That, I suppose, is the 'Christian' part of being a child of God and that is the part that has very directly to do with aligning ourselves with the truth God reveals in His word, the Bible. So there were people of God, believers, His children, etc, before there was the completed Bible - but the organized efforts (teaching and work) of those people after Pentecost and the completion of the Bible came to be called 'Christianity', hence, we are Christians.
Christianity is defined as a follower of Christ. How can Christianity predate the bible before Jesus was on earth? I support the idea that over the years it was drastically changed. Also, reading the bible or any other text doesn't make me a believer - or follower of anything. I read and believe tons of books, but that doesn't make me a follower of the author of said books. As far as the bible "stealing" from earlier "religions" ALL religions are fallible - any "recollection" of information given by a person whether it's a scroll, hieroglyphic, atheistic book, or any other type of writing - is just someone's point of view as to who God is (or isn't) I personally belief the bible to be true as I have proof. I used to dream things from the bible as a kid - long before I picked it up to read it. I have had visions of things come to pass. No book can tell you who God is. It is an answer that is only found by those who are really wanting to know.
first came christ...once he was gone ...came the legend...once legend came , it was documented...and that document was called bible...to precisely answer your question christians came first and then came bible...
Which came first, Christians or the Bible?
They both have nothing to do with Jesus and his character and teachings.
The Bible existed hundreds of years before the Christians did.
The bible was the Bible regardless as to whether it was bound or not.
But read Luke 4:17
17.. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
We open books, we unroll scrolls
Deborah: Granted the accounting of scripture states that the book of the prophet was delivered to Jesus, but one book, is not the entire Holy Bible, but it is a true portion of it, from the Hebrew books of "Faith". The "Bible" was not compiled and put together until well after Christ Dies and returns to heaven.
And aside from that, what do you do about the other books that have been taken out over the centuries? Don't they count as the word of God anymore? What about the other Gospels not chosen to be but into the canonized bible?
They were later compiled as the apochripha, though I still think that no book will show me God. I believe that is souly up to me and all I have to do is be aware, of myself and the possibillity of something greater than myself. The books don't matter and I'm not even sure if they apply to us anymore.
What do you think? and no verse spouting, I've heard it for thirty some odd years and it's getting tiresome.
I would definitely love to see all of the missing Gospels entered into the Holy Bible. That said, for now I will make do with the 66 books of the Holy Bible that exists today.
There are no 'missing' gospels - there are other books that have been written, like the Gospel Thomas, Bel and the Dragon, 1 & 2 Esdras, The City Of God, The Bondage Of The Will, Gone With The Wind, etc, but these were never a part of Scripture and removed or lost. The Bible we have today is the Bible the 1st century church had - it's the Bible it's supposed to be.
And you believe that it is the concrete will of God that we have it? I think we have the bible through the sheer will of the church and clergy. That is how I feel about it and if I go to "hell" for it, at least I learned to enjoy life and what it has to offer.
Correct me if I am wrong but the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not follow the Protestant revisions, and they continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than most Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.
Everything points me to believe that it is absolutely God's will that we have an accurate and complete documentation of His inspired word;
First, if we believe in a god that we can discover or figure-out, then that to me is no god at all. God is the infinite, eternal Spirit - if we are going to know anything of and about Him He is going to have to reveal it to us.
Secondly, the historic record of the writing and collecting together of the various books that make-up the Bible evidences their divine origin - eventually church councils 'officially' announced what had long been recognized as the canon of Scripture, but no church body or official(s) had anything to do with determining what believers had already counted to be the Bible.
And thirdly, I've read the Bible and simply personally have no doubt of it's other-worldly origin.
As to "if I go to "hell" for it, at least I learned to enjoy life and what it has to offer", I'm not at all sure what you mean - are you suggesting that the Bible hinders you from experiencing a full and rich life, and that (supposing by "hell" you mean some manner of eternal punishment) you would rather have some momentary experience you think the Bible prohibits and spend an endlessness in some manner of torture pit than live according to the precepts of Scripture?
I am speeking of how the christian would categorize me by the statement. I don't think that what I believe is important enough to get me into heaven or likewise, any other place. I do not think that the bible is the end all of the spiritual path. I think it may be a beginning, but for me, it is not absolute.
Here you go, and you can look these up.
Instructions: Turn to the scripture given and see where it mentions the books given. Notice that they have been omitted from the English Bible.
Lost Sources in the Old Testament
Numbers 21:14 The book of the wars of the LORD
“Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did
in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon”
Joshua 10:13 The book of Jasher
“And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book
of Jasher? So, the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted
not to go down about a whole day”
2 Samuel 1:18 The book of Jasher
“(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow;
behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)”
I Chronicles 9.1 The book of the Kings of Israel and Judah
“so all Israel were reckoned by geneologies; and behold, they were
written in the book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried
away to Babylon for their transgressions.”
I Chronicles 29:29 The book of Nathan the prophet
The book of Gad the seer
“Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are
written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the
prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer”
I Kings 11:41 The book of the acts of Solomon
“And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his
wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?”
II Chronicles 9:29 The records of Nathan the Prophet
The prophecy of Ahijah the
The visions of Iddo the Seer
“As for the other events of Solomon's reign, from beginning to end, are
they not written in the records of Nathan the prophet, in the prophecy
of Ahijah the Shilonite and in the visions of Iddo the seer”
II Chronicles 12:15 The book of Shemaiah the Prophet
The book of Iddo the Seer concerning
“Now the Acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the
book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning
II Chronicles 13:22 The story of the prophet Iddo
“And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are
written in the story of the prophet Iddo”
II Chronicles 20:34 The book of Jehu, son of Hanani
The book of the kings of Israel
“Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they
are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in
the book of the kings of Israel.”
II Chronicles 33:18&19 The book of the kings of Israel
The Sayings of the Seers
Add one of my faves to that list. The Gospel of Thomas!
Ok, let's get one thing clear. There was a canonized Bible before the Protestant Reformation that everyone agreed upon. After the Reformation, the Roman Catholics were looking for any scriptural basis for some of their teachings, like purgatory. The Roman Catholic church decided to add a few of the Apocryphal books into the Bible in 1545. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent) Before that, these books were considered substandard and not reliable as the rest of the canon.
It's not a question of why books were taken out, it's a question of why books were added.
That's a major whatever. The original question is whether the Bible came first , or Christianity.The Old Testament was written well before Jesus and Christianity was ever conceived. Jesus, a Jew who was brought up on the Old Testament, was born, died, and some 50+ years later guys started writing the Gospels. If you are talking about the Bible, the majority of it is way older than Christianity. Should you be speaking of the New Testament ONLY, then the Christians were gathering in small groups secretly (so as not to be thrown before the lions, if you recall...) before the books were either written, canonized, butchered or agreed upon to satisfy the greed of the Church at the time. Thus, the infancy of Christianity was formed shortly after His death, and before the New Testament was acknowledged. So many books were banned from the text that it is amazing that anyone can say they know diddly. We were not there, we were not drunk monks that interpreted and added the books, nor were we part of the church that sought personal gain and centuries of power to bring such text into "immortality". That, of course, ultimately led to the seed which later blossomed into of the United States.
Funny...there is soooo much goodness in the books, yet its history is so tainted.
Let's get real and give just a few facts here. Jesus was not a Christian. The Bibles old testament was 100% Jewish, of which Jesus was born. The NEW Testament was his sayings and interpretations from his followers. THIS is Christianity---NOT JESUS, NOT JEWS, but followers that thought it might be a monumental idea to create a church around a Jew who tried to enlighten the world. Goofy to say the least, but historically accurate. Ignorance is bliss. Jesus was NEVER and I mean NEVER a Christian. If anything, he was agnostic. Look it up before you reply.
A Christian never needs a canoe to walk the water. One believes. If thee have the faith as a grain of mustard seed you may say to this mountain : "Move!" and it shall move.
So, in closing for all ye god fearers, axe murderers, bank robbers, bankers, wall street swindlers, and general ne'er do wells, bless you for keeping my insurance rates lower, which, ironically makes THEM even more money than the church. How does one even cope in an environment such as this?
Yep, we write from our hearts, drink, and speak with authority or at least intrigue,hoping that tomorrow is a paycheck in waiting.
Youa re a silly person. Levity is the key to a long and fufilling life, with or without religion and the stuffiness of a church.
I certainly think your remark was not aimed at me...this venue can be somewhat confusing and ultimately non-productive. Any retort or input would be appreciated as I see this site as non communicative at best. Thanks
I'll clarify my understanding upon your reply should you wish to do a private bantering.
I agree with everything except the agnostic part. But you are much closer than any Christian I know
Ahh, young lady, what part of agnostic do you not understand?
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. It is not as an atheist may believe, nor as a devout Jew nor Christian may profess. Jesus was but a prophet of what he considered truth, and his words sank beneath our wisdom like a stone. Knowing the seemingly unknowable, he spoke in parables as an agnostic relaying in such a delicate manner the ways he saw the values of humankind. He never talked of truth, as a true agnostic would not, but at his own sentencing, asked Pilate, "What is truth?" OK, I was not alive in 33BC, but cannot refute his tendencies toward the agnostic and Essene points of view at the time. I can, and will apogize here for any insinuation of his preference in philosophy. I'm a simple egg with a head. If it is hard boiled at times, forgive me.
That Jesus may have disappeared for 10 years to what many think is India, or that he was actually raised in a community 15 miles from what is considered his hometown, or that he had a chance to meet with others who were at the time his contemporaries and gave him insight to what may, may not or possibly could be, is all conjecture, based on thin facts.
Let's face it, the more we study the man/christ, the less we really know. Before 1949, they didn't even know about the dead sea scrolls. Now all of a sudden, the Bible itself is in question. In 1955, the human form was believed to be no more than 500,000 years old, beginning with Peking Man. Of course we all know that to be ancient history and our species to be ove a million years young. You can honestly say that you believe it to be even older. Good for you, and I totally agree.
Jesus, on the other hand, has been studied, researched and scrutinized as long as I and your great great grandparents have been considered. Nothing has come verifying his death, his actual date of birth, his 20 years of seclusion not spoken of in the gospels, and his actual belief, except that they professed him to be a Jew. That, by the way, was only his birthright, not his philosophy nor teaching, as we found out by the time he was 33.
Those who say he studied with agnostics may not be too far off base. Look at what he said. His "father" was never a person, but more a figure of speech in his parables. His "hell" was not any of the kind, as gehenna was merely a pit outside the gates of Jeusalem for dead bodies, thus he used it as a figure of speech-- there was never a mention of the devil until Dante 1000 years later, so what exactly is out of line with his agnostic approach?
The Mystics were quite the group in his time, so they might have had an influence, as may have the Essenes, a group most influential in his immediate area at the time.
With all due respect, I would put more eggs in the basket of the Essenes.
You raised a very valid question, but I hope after a bit more research and my input, you may see things more clearly soon.
There is no part I don't understand.
As far as God, agnostic means you feel it can not be known if God exists, therefore you are not sure.
Yahshua was sure God existed
So what is your problem?
How about showing respect and don't call me young lady. I am not as young as I look, just take good care of myself. Which you should do too
Actually, one of the missing describes how a giant talking cross came out of the tomb, followed by a giant Jesus. Another, which is as genuine as any other gospel is called the Gospel of Judas, which exonerates Iscariot. They were all excluded for obvious reasons.
I would say both. The bible was being established the same time as the people were becoming believers and christians. The whole New testament books were written before the gospels were written. Meaning the Gospels were written after the rest of the New Testament was written. Now when you say which came first, do you mean was the bible was officially published before Christiains? Or people who gave themselves the official Title "Christians" were established before the book was published? Because people did not start calling themselves Christians until after the death of Christ. If there was no Christ then there would be no Christians.
So you could say that people who call themselves Christians were established before the bible was officially published it says in Acts 11:26, " And when he had found him , he brought him unto Antioch . And it came to pass , that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people . And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." So there you go! Hope this helps!
The first time the disciples were called Christians was at Antioch in the Book of Acts 11:26.
Christian Bible theologians and scholars agree that the most accurate English translation is the King James Bible. My favorite translation has some errors in it but I know what they are.
The reason many people believe the rapture is pre-apocalypse is because of the Scofield Bible which is erroneous. There were thousands of those Bibles distributed to young unknowledgeable pastors and teachers who read them, then went out to taught the false doctrines that Scofield wrote.
So! Then, you have many other translations with glaring errors. Its no wonder there are so many different beliefs about the truth because of all the errors.
by Julie Grimes17 months ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual...
by Peeples2 years ago
Can someone explain to me if most Christians follow Leviticus.It is my minimally informed belief that most Christians do not follow Leviticus because it was either A) part of the old testament or B) Was not written for...
by Chaplain Bernell Wesley5 years ago
If Jesus never wrote anything why is the New Testament the basis of Christianity?If Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament is Christianity not a Pauline invention since Jesus wrote none of it?
by JimLow5 years ago
This list of beliefs I wrote about 5 years ago, came from an approximate 20-year study of the Statements of Beliefs by many different Christian denominations. These were the beliefs I found that were of most common...
by marty19687 years ago
Topic: Difference Between Christianity and Religion Christianity is unique in the fact that it is the ONLY faith which is not a religion- as a 'religion'- by definition means "to be bound"...
by charlie11 months ago
Why does it seem most Christians are immature.It seems most people professing to be Christian do not have a proper grounding in the scriptures. They drink the milk but do not seem to be able ( or maybe no desire?)...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.