Are there any parts of the Bible we should ignore?

Question

Christians, do you think there are any parts of the Bible that should be outright disregarded?

Answer 1

Some already ignore the 7 books Luther removed.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).


Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 "extra." The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the "Apocryphal" ( Deuterocanonical) Books.




The 7 books removed from Protestant Bibles are known by Catholics as the "Deuterocanonical Books" (as opposed to the "Protocanonical Books" that are not in dispute), and by Protestants as the "Apocrypha."




The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters.


Our Lord founded a Church (Matthew 16:18-19), not a book, which was to be the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). We can know what this Church teaches by looking not only at Sacred Scripture, but into History and by reading what the earliest Christians have written, what those who've sat on the Chair of Peter have spoken consistently with Scripture and Tradition, and what they've solemnly defined. To believe that the Bible is our only source of Christian Truth is unbiblical and illogical.

Answer 2

I feel I must respond to this as you responded to mine. My answer is a little different, but I think our principles are essentially the same. You be the judge, O Questioner.

All of it should be ignored. The good rules and ideas it provides are not unique to it; those of us who understand the consequences, i.e. those of us who actually grasp the concepts, do not require a book to dictate them to us. I would say this even if the Bible had never existed, but it is all the more true in our current circumstances where, because it was established in the first place, we now have a civilization built on ideals of how to treat other people. Most people have moved away from a large part of the text anyway, including the Christians.

Not all knowledge is important. For example, a person knowing what I wrote down on the piece of paper beside me is no better off than not knowing. Some of it is fluff, and this is exactly what I consider the Bible to be, with one modifier: dangerous. Yes... dangerous fluff. It is a despicable thing that contradicts itself and encourages in practice what it discourages in theory.

I wish people would understand that we inevitably seek civilization and that, because of this, we inevitably seek principles by which we can co-exist. Holy texts carry no weight except their promise of reward or punishment after death, but the LAW is here and now, thus making it able to control people far more effectively. We do not need them.

If there is some higher truth, I fail to see how these self-glorifying novels are necessary in the pursuit of it, since:
1.) there are so many of them without evidence of their God - indeed, without evidence of any God at all - and
2.) they place limits on the search itself.

Do not misunderstand - I do value the teachings of love that are widespread among religions. It is that with which they come packaged that bothers me.

We would do well to lift this weight off our shoulders, as it is the only way for humanity to move forward, to live in the moment rather than the past or future.

Answer 3

Some Christian faiths have already disregarded books in the Bible.


The 7 books removed from Protestant Bibles are known by Catholics as the "Deuterocanonical Books" (as opposed to the "Protocanonical Books" that are not in dispute), and by Protestants as the "Apocrypha."

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).

Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical".

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters.




Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

Answer 4

No. Although many people claim that parts of the old testament are irrelevant to our lives today it is vitally important to have a firm foundation based upon scripture both old and new testament. We can totally miss out on some of the beautiful symbolism of our faith if we disregard the old testament. For instance in reading through the description of the Tabernacle in Exodus we are able to see a glimpse of heaven, the tabernacle is a model of heaven.... check out the pod casts on Exodus at www.ccmodesto.com the symbolic imagery is so beautiful and increases my awe of God. Also I believe that God has preserved the entirety of the Bible so that we may learn about Him our Divine Prince. We can always learn something new about our precious Lord, even from the typical Sunday school stories. From the life of David we learn what characteristics God desires in our own lives, we see His grace and faithfulness in the way He lifts David back up after he sins and disobeys God. If we ardently desire to know the heart of our Prince we can find beauty in any part of the scriptures. God chose to write us a love letter because it affords us the opportunity to read and reread it, thus accustoming ourselves to His beautiful loving heart. Each time we open the word we are able to get to know our Divine Lover a little more, we are given the opportunity to experience a little heaven on earth.

God Bless!

Answer 5

‘Christ according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the holy Ghost the third. Each of these three persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost proceeded form the Father and Son, but was an equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.’

- Col. Robert G. Ingersoll



God is not the author of confusion. (1 Corinthians 14:33)



///

Answer 6

No

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Answer 7

no longer all and sundry who has a itemizing of policies or policies to bypass via follows it to the letter. although if it is a typical working technique, or the Bible. some do, you be responsive to the term "via the e book" Others locate the policies that healthy them suitable.

Answer 8

The fact it was written by humans it is subject to error. Therefore I suggest it is the same as FOX news, ignore most of it.

Answer 9

Everything written by Paul.

The only people who acknowledged him as an authority were (firstly) himself, his traveling partner and best bud luke, and the churches that he started. He had it out for Christianity, he just changed his tactics.

Answer 10

No, why would it be written if it were to be ignored. Even the stories all have morals to it. Like Noah's Ark...