Don't let the Bible get in the way of your Christian beliefs

I heard this the other day. A Christian speaking of his Denomination, responding to a question about why they don't believe in the gift of tongues.

Response:

"Well, there's a lot of things in the Bible we don't believe."

Now, doesn't beat all?

 

They think if they can discredit one part of the bible then ultimately they can discredit the divinity and salvation of Christ.

 

Nah, it only beats some statements about believing things in the Bible. It doesn't beat travelling by airplane, for example. Or eating yoghourt. Or ozone production. Or earthworms.

 

Ignoring the inconvenient bits?

LOL

Huh. Should I be surprised?

 

what is devine about a 'christ'?

einstein, darwin, confucius and even mohammad did bunches for mankind; are they 'christ' too?

ie... if jesus was 'christ' as many want to believe, then liars would no longer be allowed to live.


As a teacher, which is what is true, then many are 'christlike' (giving for others to understand)

 

Giving what? Kool-aide?

 

So your congregation believes and follows everything in the Bible? Do you frequently sacrifice doves? And do women in your congregation cover their hair? Unlike that vain 'God Channel' Wendy Alec woman who frequently broadcasts herself speaking in tongues while showing off that rather expensive looking craftsmanship of her coiffeur Ts!

If your congregation does indeed follow the Bible in every single letter finding a way past all its contradictions probably by clever interpretation and evaluation you should tell A.J. Jacobs. In his quite educating whilst entertaining book "The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible" he didn't find any sect that actually does.

As for speaking in tongues do so if you must, but remember Paul's advice in 1. Corinthians 14:

 

No church follows the NT in all aspects, that goes without saying. However my point was not the following but the not believing. Man has corrupted the church, but the Word stands. It was not about tongues either so don't go all getting hung up on the example I cited. After all, the Christian is not under the Law nor did Paul in totality refer to all churches in every situation. He wrote to a variety of churches that were experiencing problems in certain areas and he addressed those issues. To consider that he wrote everything for churches to follow in every regard is a bit much. Today our churches have issues of the 1st Century churches had so not much was learned and retained so it appears.

Sacrifice doves? Which church of the 1st Century did that? Jesus is the only sacrifice that suffices for all mankind.

I asked before in another thread, never received a response. If Peter started the Catholic Church (very questionable), what part did the other Apostles have in starting other churches. Certainly no one is going to suggest they were all Catholics, bad enough that they claim Paul as well.

 

I don't believe that people who writhe around the floor spewing out nonsense are "speaking in tongues."

Speaking in tongues means that the audience hears the speaker in his own language. That is a miracle that happened one time, but I don't think it ever happened again.

 

I may be splitting hairs here, but I should think that one tries to follow ones beliefs. Otherwise the beliefs would be an empty lip service. It is indeed astonishing though how many Christians have no problems at all to do exactly the opposite of what I personally and my church in general would expect a Christian to do - I suppose it's because even though we all claim to derive our beliefs from the bible, obviously we interpret it in different ways.

Interestingly enough we seem to have very similar ideas on how to interpret the bible here. A lot of it was indeed written at a certain time for certain purposes that may have been important and valuable for people back then, but can't be purported 1 to 1 into our situation today. I would assume that's what the person you criticized in your OP meant when he said that his congregation does not believe in everything in the Bible. It may have been a poor choice of words, but nothing to get hung up about.

I would assume that a lot of early Judaeo-Christian congregations did indeed still sacrifice doves as was Jewish custom/religious law in those days. As you've indicated above you are aware about the resulting conflicts between the early Jewish and Gentile Christians which are an important topic in Pauls letters.

Not being Catholic but Protestant I'm probably not the right person to answer that question. But the Bible does indeed state that Jesus said to Peter that he was the rock on which He would build his church. So we may probably assume that Peter was indeed the mentor of all other apostles. And we can see in the bible that all the early congregations tried to stay in contact with each other no matter who founded them, a unity that was soon to break up. The Catholic Church sees itself in the tradition of that Christian unity rooting back to Peter. Wether its following doctrines of Papal Primacy or the Roman Catholic Church as the only true one are justified or not is something you ought to discuss with a Catholic. The question is but one other example how different groups of people can found their beliefs on one and the same holy book and still arrive at different conclusions and belief-sets.

 

But if they believe in God, and have the Bible as their Holy book, doesn't it make sense that they would believe everything written in it?

 

I'm guessing this was a common sense preacher.

Such as - There are Religious Scholars that read that section differently. They believe these "gifts" are language ability, and translation, not babbel.

Or that the Noah's Ark story, since the given size of the ship obviously can't hold the animals, is probably a teaching story, etc.

They take a common sense aproach to unlikely things in the Bible.

 

Oh it has. It doesn't happen the often though.

Where the problem comes in is mention in acts about how, after being blessed with the spirit the Apostles ran out into the street. What many Pentacosts believe is that you HAVE to be Baptised in the spirit and in so doing you then HAVE to be able to speak in tongues.
What they miss is the next line, that everyone understood everyone. So if you're babbling away and no one understands you? You're babbling not speaking tongues.

 

That, like Noah and the fish, appear to be metaphors.

But you are right. I am no theologian, but I have read enough to know that if you are quoting one simple line, you are probably out of context.

The problem with Christian haters is that they seize on one line and insist this is an inconsistency that proves God does not exist.

I knew an atheist once, a very intelligent man. I challenged him to read the whole Bible so that he understood it enough not to misquote it. He did. He started with the Old Testament and then started over at Genesis.

Then he started a monitoring program of both testaments.

Then he was ordained and he and his wife took off for the arctic to seed church.

I thought that was really funny. So, maybe there's a reason Christian haters don't read it.....

 

You can't assume everyone that challenges a translation is a "Christian hater." Or that they haven't read the Bible.

And why in the world did they head for the Arctic?

 

No, why would they? There is nothing anywhere that says every word is gospel , pardon the pun.


How then could anyone explain away the fact that Liviticus tells us that if you get mildew in your house you have to burn it down.

The practice of the time was to tell stories in parables and metaphors and the authors of the time were no different.

Did Jesus rise from the dead. Yep. Was the stone hat had to be rolled away by four men? No idea, as it doesn't say.

The work of the bible, as in the work that has to be applied TO the bible,is ours....as the desire and effort to fully comprehend the message proves the love for God.

Go ahead, hate Christians. Call us whatever names you life. We don't follow him because ere are pure and free of sin and misdeed, better than others, bu because we are not and that we need His divine guidance to turn the other cheek. I still can't do that. I ever come across a child molester, nope, no churning of cheeks then, the misfits going down and hard. We'll try for forgiveness later.

We're supposed to be "reviled in His name.", Lately I figure I have been a very good Christian as no one's attacked me because of my beliefs.

 

I get why people want to look up to and be like Jesus. He was a good person. But wanting to be like Jesus doesn't mean you have to follow the Bible, or even believe in God.

 

wow.............

anyone ever read on confucius?

 

It's his holy book - so he can do whatever he likes to do with his holy book - even if "he" is only an idea in the brain of an atheist who likes to attack the christian religion by "demonstrating" that Christians are idiots. No one in this world - also not if he's onyl existing in the fantasy of an antichristian - is forced to believe in anything - wether it is written in a holy book or not - wether it are words from an angel or not - wether it ... or not ... But normally we are convinced: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: 'For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.' No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. http://youtu.be/YaqQnhBtxaI

http://youtu.be/AJVQ1KtbySg

 

I've never seen one who spoke in tongues "writhe around the floor". Tongues can be in public or private. In public, there should be an interpreter. I think you have a misconception about the gift of tongues.

Your religion teaches you "a miracle that happened one time", the Word teaches otherwise and the proof is in the continued use of tongues and yes indeed miracles still do happen.

Compare your religiosity with the Word, you may find revelation and the truth.

 

how about 'holey'?

Most cases, the people who are against TRUTH.

ie.... The best example of antichrist can be found by observing christian!

WHY, because they break the commands just by claiming the 'creed'.

(lying to themselves)

 

There is much conjecture about the actual statement that Jesus said and also the intent of what He said. Jesus is actually the rock, the cornerstone of our Faith. For a good study on this view the following link:

http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-examination-matthew-1618

 

Matt 16:20 Then did he charge his disciples that they may say to no one that he is Jesus the Christ


For the look at that FACT

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16&version=YLT

 

Actually your link sais: "Exegetically, it seems least probable that Jesus is referring to himself as the pevtra."

However it is indeed a good study to show that one sentence in the Bible can entail multiple opinions on what it may mean.

 

An Antichristian speaks about the Antichrist? What's your own religion or is something existing what you would call "holy" in your own mind?

http://youtu.be/5WD3DncRK3c