Reading the Bible may be the best cure against Christianity there is.
If it’s a cure against biblical literalism, it’s just the proof that you’re intelligent. But reading the Bible alone doesn’t give you a lot of clues about Christianity, which is not reducible to the Bible.
That’s what I said when I spoke about superficial knowing. In most of Christian denominations, the Bible is not the Word of God in the strict sense: when we call the Bible the Word of God, it’s a metonymy (with, again, the notable exception of the American evangelicals and those, in other traditions, which are unfortunately inspired by them). The Word of God is Jesus-Christ (John 1:1), and the Bible is the only certain way (but not the only way) to hear it. That’s why Luther translated the Bible: the Word of God is heard when someone read the Bible accompanied by their community, in prayer. Then, God speaks through the words of the Bible. But God’s free, he can speak outside of it.
So not even the so called prophets are reliable. And John is a 3rd hand account, neither he nor his sources are known.
So what exactly is the source for the belief?
Where did I say that they are not reliable? I just say that, even if you believe that the Bible is a sacred text, you should read it critically. Our work, as Christians, is to search in the human words of these texts the message of life that God wants us to read. And he gave us tools to do that, our reason is one of them.
But you never answered that since The Bible is not, what then is the source for the belief?
Also you contradict yourself, because earlier you stated that a Lutheran must follow scripture.
if someone calls themselves “Christian” they have to abide by the teaching of Jesus Christ,
And later you write:
reading the Bible alone doesn’t give you a lot of clues about Christianity,
So I ask again, if the Bible isn’t the source to learn about Christianity, then what is?
Read a book about Christianity if you want to learn the teachings of Christianity. To read the Bible directly without being accompanied by someone knowledgeable (or a good book) is like reading Plato without having any idea of what philosophy is. You’ll misunderstand, not because you’re not smart, but because you have to have keys that you can’t discover by yourself.
If it’s a cure against biblical literalism, it’s just the proof that you’re intelligent. But reading the Bible alone doesn’t give you a lot of clues about Christianity, which is not reducible to the Bible.
Funny because it’s gods word, so one would think everything came from the bible. What other source trump what the alleged prophets wrote?
I also thought the whole point of Luther translating the bible, was to give people access to the word of god.
That’s what I said when I spoke about superficial knowing. In most of Christian denominations, the Bible is not the Word of God in the strict sense: when we call the Bible the Word of God, it’s a metonymy (with, again, the notable exception of the American evangelicals and those, in other traditions, which are unfortunately inspired by them). The Word of God is Jesus-Christ (John 1:1), and the Bible is the only certain way (but not the only way) to hear it. That’s why Luther translated the Bible: the Word of God is heard when someone read the Bible accompanied by their community, in prayer. Then, God speaks through the words of the Bible. But God’s free, he can speak outside of it.
So not even the so called prophets are reliable. And John is a 3rd hand account, neither he nor his sources are known.
So what exactly is the source for the belief?
Where did I say that they are not reliable? I just say that, even if you believe that the Bible is a sacred text, you should read it critically. Our work, as Christians, is to search in the human words of these texts the message of life that God wants us to read. And he gave us tools to do that, our reason is one of them.
I thought it was supposed to have been written by prophets that were inspired by god. Obviously it’s not the literal word of god.
My bank account is not the Word of God, but it’s a quite reliable document.
But you never answered that since The Bible is not, what then is the source for the belief?
Also you contradict yourself, because earlier you stated that a Lutheran must follow scripture.
And later you write:
So I ask again, if the Bible isn’t the source to learn about Christianity, then what is?
Read a book about Christianity if you want to learn the teachings of Christianity. To read the Bible directly without being accompanied by someone knowledgeable (or a good book) is like reading Plato without having any idea of what philosophy is. You’ll misunderstand, not because you’re not smart, but because you have to have keys that you can’t discover by yourself.