Simple please this subject line has already been abused and I am trying to get to the bottom of this.

1. Do you worship your God as you understand him from reading the Bible and consider the book a tool for the message being passed on by man, or do you consider the bible to be a divine cornerstone of Christianity. If you think it's holy in some way that is fine, but the distinction is do you hold it as a holy symbol, or an idol to worship and follow?

2. Do you believe that the bible contains the only valid passages about the teachings of Jesus, the world he lived in, and the people he loved written during his times?

Um, is there an option #3, none of the above?

Sure, if you are Christian or follow Christ, what is it you think? By simple I meant let's avoid going to completely different subjects.

1. No, the bible is not to be "worshipped" It is the word of God. It is a tool to live by NOT worship.

2. No, because it has been reinterpreted so many times by so many men some of it has been misconstrued. The oldest version is the book to read by. But really no one knows where or who wrote the first words.... If you read the words and know in your heart what is right and wrong, then you know the love of Jesus.

1. Bible is a tool written by man

2. Somethings aren't always valid.

I was raised Catholic, and I guess I would say I could technically be considered Christian. I believe in God, but I don't read the Bible or trust its writings are truly from Jesus.

I'm more spiritual than religious. And skeptical about the actual "materials" the three religions are based upon.

That's all. I asked for #3 as the Bible was mentioned in both one and two.

2 Timothy 3:16-17


The Bible explains to us what God wants us to know about him and teaches lessons about life and spirituality. Nobody worships the Bible, but all Christians give it different levels of reverence. I think the Bible is very important as it is the foundation of Christianity.



The Bible is the only source of the teachings of Jesus. There are the Apocrypha, but they are rejected by almost all scholars as not authentic. They were written largely by Gnostics who had adopted Jesus as a figure in their religion, which predated Jesus' birth.

Glad you finally admited what you think we can now assume the rest of the world will always be invalid by your view. Thank you for saying it publicly this time.

Being raised a strict Roman Catholic I was taught that the Bible is the Word of God. It (the Bible) contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. The bible was what I was raided to read from, study from, praise from, and sing from. I don't think it is the only valid passages about the teachings of Jesus, the world he lived, and the people he loved. There are so many versions and words can be misconstrued and left out or added. I believe it all comes down to what the person believes in most and how to feel with their own connection to the Lord.

"the rest of the world will always be invalid by your view"...when did I say that? What does that even mean?

I was scratching my head at this too?????????

It's very simple Spidercmb stated "he Bible is the only source of the teachings of Jesus. There are the Apocrypha, but they are rejected by almost all scholars as not authentic. They were written largely by Gnostics who had adopted Jesus as a figure in their religion, which predated Jesus' birth. "

your first question can be answered by saying that the bible is the word of God. It can therefore not be bent, broken or changed by anyone but God himself. To follow it is life and to not follow it is death. However, the interpretation is what is causing so much division. In order to understand its full meaning one must understand that it is divided into 8 different dispensations, or eras and that each of these time frames has a different message for salvation and often targets a different set of people. In era one, inhabitants of the garden had the first message, "dont eat the fruit". In era two the inhabitants outside the garden had the second message, "repent and come into Noah's arc." In era 3, Abrahm the father of 3 religions (christianity, Jews and Muslims) had the third message, "faith in God." In era 4, Moses presented the law to the Jews. In era 5, this present era, Peter presented the 3 keys to the church, repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost. In era 6, yet to come, the 7 years of trouble mark the appearance of the antichrist and global warfare and hunger where the message is dual, one to the jews to "fear god and keep his commandmants and one to those not raptured in era 5. the message to those remaining is "be beheaded and dont take the mark of the beast. At the end the devil is bound. In era 7, 1000 years of peace and the message, dont be decieved when the devil is once again set free. In era 8, heaven and earth are dissolved and a new heaven created where only those written in the book of life can enter

1. I believe that the Bible was written by man as the inspired word of God. Meaning that man wrote down what God told them to (for lack of a better way to put it). As such I do believe the teachings in the Bible. Were things get fuzzy for me is the interpretation of the Bible. I believe that some things are to be taken literally and some things are metephorical. When I read the Bible, I try to understand what the authors intent was in the message and try not to get hung up in the details. This can be very difficult because I can't call up any of them and say "Hey dude, what did you mean by that?" Because we are all imperfect humans, have our own vantage points in life and can't call said dude on the phone, we/I often get his/her meaning wrong. Hince, the differant denominations and opintions within the denomonations. I do believe that it is "Holy" but I do not worship it. I also do not believe that it is the ONLY God inspired text.

2. I have not read any other books that have passages about Jesus. My understanding is that other Holy books refer to him as a Prophet. I believe that these passages are also most likely valid depending on the text.

As to your second question, there are over 236 gospels at present count and rising. Many are genuine, some are not. All the 12 apostles and many of those who grew up with Jesus had gospels obviously but only four gospels are in the present bible. Also, there are other prophets in the Hebrew bible who were omitted by senior rabbis who wielded the power to to do even though it was pretty clear to other more prominant and faithful scholars that they were genuine prophets. In any event, the 8 dispensations I mentioned above are adaquately described in the 66 books of the bible that have survived the chopping block.

Thank you for your very thoughtful and interesting reply :)

Your point still is not clear. So I believe that only the Bible is an accurate source of Jesus' teachings...how does that mean "the rest of the world will always be invalid [in my] view"?

I suppose you think that is wrong???

Word!

I'm not an authority but according to authorities there are a lot more books or "texts" covering his teachings, life in general, and the times he lived in including key figures in the whole biblical story.

When I was a Christian I was taught that the bible contains a valid description of the history of Jesus.

I realize now that they have no basis for their claim.

You ask if the bible contains the only valid passages about the teachings of Jesus.

I ask, "Who can give any evidence that these teachings are historically valid?"

The answer is clear that there is no such evidence. So the church is lying to people when they claim that they are valid descriptions of history because no one can know this.

Even the church should own up to the fact that no one can know if what they are worshiping has any truth or accuracy behind it. In fact, reason dictates that it is more likely to be false than true.

The entire doctrine taken as a whole basically denies its very own proclamations. It contradicts itself radically.

Here is a crystal clear contradiction in the overall doctrine. And we must look at the overall doctrine because the New Testament stands firmly on the shoulders of the Old Testament and is totally meaningless without it. The story of Jesus cannot stand along. Jesus cannot stand on his own two feet by the Bible's own proclamation. It demands that Jesus stand on the shoulder of the God of Abraham. The virgin birth demands it (not to mention a myriad of other things)

But here's the contradiction,...

The bible says that God is unchanging. This is a must because a God who changes is undependable and therefore cannot be relied upon to be the same tomorrow as he was today. So God must be unchanging.

Yet, the Old Testament has God hating the world so much that he drowns out all human civilization save for a hand full of people.

But then the New Testament has God loving the world so much that he gives his only begotten son to be crucified on a cross to save it.

So which is it? Does God love the world or hate it?

The doctrine is self-inconsistent. And therefore it must be discarded as untrue. The church should be ashamed of themselves for not reporting this truth to the people. But then again, does anyone really expect the clergy of such an organized and profitable institution to give up their pointy hats and expensive jewelry?