Being christian while rejecting important OT figures?

reply to post by nenothtu

I'm not a christian myself, but having studied some of the stuff, are you sure you're not getting it backwards?

As far as I understand the Catechism of the Catholic church, it seems to me they believe that all of mankind inherited their sinful and fallen nature, with the inclination towards evil, from Adam (although they also assert that baptism is for the remission of sins, so I'm not sure what, exactly they mean).
It is the Protestant/Calvinist idea that along with this inclination towards sinning, mankind inherited the actual GUILT of adam as well, no? A couple of Protestant branches (7th Day adventists and methodists at least, I think) differ on this point (they too say it is only the sinful nature that is inherited), but the rest, deriving their theology more exactly from Martin Luther and Calvin (who got it from Augustine) have it that the guilt is inherited as well.
Surely that counts as mainstream? I don't quite see "Original sin" as a categorisation of sins as such (I don't think most people do, either?), more as a concept, but even if either as JUST the idea that humanity inherited its sinful nature from Adam, or that they inherited his guilt as well, most Christians believe in the Original Sin, no?

reply to post by nenothtu

That may be part of the problem in the misunderstanding - Christians don't recognize Adam as a "prophet". Only Muslims have that association.

I also said "OT figures" in that part which you quoted. My point still stands.

I didn't rephrase it, I contradicted it.

Then you also contradict the Bible, which teaches that Adam had something to do with "original sin".... something that Jesus' "sin sacrifice" tried to fix.

There is no problem of "original sin".

Tell that to Christian who believe in the doctrine of "original sin"

The actual names and existence of Old testament characters is immaterial

I'm just going by the names I read in the Bible. Most Christians know who I am talking about when I say "Ezekiel" or "Jonah" or "Isaiah".

Christian doctrine does NOT rest of "original sin"

Then there was no reason for Jesus to become a "sin sacrifice".... and Paul was in error the whole time... Jesus' "sin sacrifice" took place for no reason.

nenothtu
The actual names and existence of Old testament characters is immaterial - the lessons to be drawn from the accounts is what is of importance. Whether the accounts themselves are factual or fanciful is not important theologically.

For that matter, most of the NT characters could be fictitious, and Christianity would still work - the only one wh has to have been literally real for Christian theology to work is Jesus himself. The rest could ALL be stories and object lessons without affecting Christianity.

That is all what I said before.
But then you came up with this ...

nenothtu
Riddle me this - how can he have died as the Christ if the entire foundation for his messiahship was made up? How can a Christian believe in a Christ that never was one?

You are contradicting yourself. I think you just want to argue with someone.
The first quote of yours on this post agrees with what I was saying.
Jesus can stand alone. He has no need of fictional OT characters who were invented
like bedtime childrens stories that are just passing on moral lessons and not to be
taken literally.

THIS is the topic of the thread -

sk0rpi0n
Christians, is such a thing even possible in your belief system? Can one really call himself a 'christian' if he/she dismisses key Biblical characters such as Adam, Melchizedek and Noah as myths...while speaking ill of the prophets Abraham and Moses?

THIS is the information that answers that 'question' -
It was answered all the way back at the beginning of the thread.

Can a person be Christian and not take the Old Testament literally?
Answer ... ABSOLUTELY. Large numbers of Christians do not take it literally
and they are still very much Christians.

It is NOT a requirement to literally believe in the Noahs Ark myth; the Adam and Eve creation myth; Jonah being swallowed by a whale and living for three days; the Exodus ... etc.
In America about 60% on Average believe in Noahs Ark and the other Old Testament fables ... which means %40 of Christians DO NOT and are still Christian.

80% of Catholics do not take the bible myths literally .. and they are still Christians

40% of Evangelical Christians do not believe in Adam and Eve and they are still Christians
That ticks off the evangelical scholars .. that these Christians understand the truth of Adam and Eve and yet they are still good Christians. But there it is. And many theologians at Christian universities have had to accept the truth that Adam and Eve didn't exist. And yet, those Christian theologians are still Christians.

Evangelical Christian Theologians Who Defend Evolution

Only 30% of Americans Take the Bible Literally

Also of note may be the clear majority of Catholics (65 percent) who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God but should not be taken literally word for word,

Gallup Polls on Christians
41% of Protestant Americans believe the bible is to be taken literally.
Less than one third of Catholics believe the bible is to be taken literally.

Like I said ... the 'question' was definitively answered.
THE END.

OpinionatedB
Some Christian you are.

Pathetic straw man insults.
It's not evil to say things aren't from God when they obviously aren't from God. Get real.


The question was asked if Christians can be Christians and not believe in the Old Testament stories as literally true. I have shown that MANY do not take the stories literally and they are still Christians. So your venom is misplaced.

The OP was wrong. Case closed.

reply to post by nenothtu

Just because something has been around since the bronze age, or even before that, does not automatically make it not true or "nonsense".

Of course it doesn't.

I was just reading about Hindu belief. They have been (since centuries before Christ's story) promoters of "religious pluralism", and reincarnation, and still are. I may start a thread about it...
they are particularly opposed to "predatory proselytization", and in my view, have the most 'accepting' view of the various major religions. They believe that ALL PATHS lead to the divine.

Perhaps I used 'bronze age' hastily, though. It's a time frame that spans thousands and thousands of years...
I believe reincarnation predates the "bronze age"; but I'll have to look into it some more. It certainly predates Christ, and the Greek philosophers as well as the pre-Jesus "Jews" believed it as well.

In any case, it's off topic here.
Sorry I missed this post before, neno.

Carry on then, everyone. Remember, NONE OF US 'know' the 'absolute truth'. As for me, I don't think the stories in the OT are meant to be taken literally, and certainly our modern understanding of science is nowhere NEAR the "absolute truth." Which is one reason it's so exciting to be alive right now.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Repeating the same things over and over ad infinitum doesn't make them any truer, especially when you ignore responses to your "facts".
Again, "not taking the Bible literally" is not the same as "not believing in the OT figures".
The ONLY link from your linkdump that actually specifically addressed belief in the existence of OT figures was the one about Adam and Eve...except it didn't. The article you linked has been about the web alot, but it references a gallup poll that doesn't have anything to do with Adam and Eve (and the article itself admits that, albeit in an oblique way). The poll questioned the Genesis account of creation vs Evolution- not the existence of Adam and Eve (except insofar as their position as the first human beings ever).

babloyi
Repeating the same things over and over ad infinitum doesn't make them any truer, especially when you ignore responses to your "facts".

I am having to repeat the facts over and over because they ARE true and certain posters refuse to listen. The only responses to the facts that have been posted are just pathetic attempts at insults and people arguing theology (which no one will ever agree on).

Again, "not taking the Bible literally" is not the same as "not believing in the OT figures".

Again, in this case, it is.

The ONLY link from your linkdump that actually specifically addressed belief in the existence of OT figures was the one about Adam and Eve...

Wrong. And providing statistical information is not a 'linkdump'.

REMINDER of what the thread question was -

sk0rpi0n
Can one really call himself a 'christian' if he/she dismisses key Biblical characters such as Adam, Melchizedek and Noah as myths...while speaking ill of the prophets Abraham and Moses?

The answer was provided. I gave the statistics showing that hundreds of millions of Christians don't take the figures and/or the stories as being literal, and yet they are still very much Christians.

The 'question' to the OP was answered back in the first two pages of this thread.

sk0rpi0n
Most Christians believe in the OT whereas you don't...
conclusion : you aren't a Christian.

As I've shown with the statistics ... Hundreds of millions of Christians do not believe in sections of the OT as literally having happened as written, and they are still Christians.
conclusion: I'm a Christian just as those hundreds of millions are.
conclusion: You should stop trying to tell Christians what they should believe. You have no clue.

sk0rpi0n
FF's spiritual beliefs is derived from Christian scriptures yet contradicts the beliefs and doctrines of main-stream Christians,

Dead wrong. As I have shown by the statistics provided.

a so called "Christian".

Grow up and stop obsessing about me. I"m just as much a christian as the hundreds of millions of other christians who read much of the Old Testament as folklore, myth, and allegory.

Double post, sorry

reply to post by FlyersFan

Again, "not taking the Bible literally" is not the same as "not believing in the OT figures".

FlyersFan
Again, in this case, it is.

AGAIN, NO, it is not.
Read your links yourself. They are articles about statistics (in fact, you seem to have posted 3 separate articles that all refer to the same poll, and then linked that poll as well- so, redundant information) on percentages of Christians who take the Bible literally. NONE of your links, NOR the Gallup poll mentioned refer in ANY WAY AT ALL to the question of the historicity of OT figures, only in the stories attached to them.

The ONLY link from your linkdump that actually specifically addressed belief in the existence of OT figures was the one about Adam and Eve...

FlyersFan
Wrong. And providing statistical information is not a 'linkdump'.

Wrong? How is it wrong? Belief in evolution is not disbelief in Adam and Eve. In fact, many christians (nenothetu right here, for example, I think) accept the existence of Adam and Eve, just not as the first humans ever. Again, your links talk about the belief in literal truth of the Bible, NOT OT figures.

As I provided in my earlier post in this thread, it'd be like me linking to statistics about the Anglican Church not believing the virgin birth, or the resurrection, or the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus, and using that to claim that "The majority of the Anglican Church does not believe that Jesus existed".

reply to post by babloyi

Oh stop it.
You know very well what Skorpions 'question' was ... (and the agenda he had behind it).

The bible stories are rejected as they are written by hundreds of millions of Christians. They are accepted as myth, folklore and allegory. There may or may not have been a Moses. But it's IRRELEVANT to being a Christian. Same with Adam and Eve. Same with Abraham. Those hundreds of millions of people who view the OT as myth, folklore and allegory are still Christians. For Skorpion to claim that you can't be a Christian and still reject the O.T. stories/people is NONSENSE.

All that is required to be a Christian - Believe that Jesus came to save souls .. and try to live out His commandments of Love God and Love Neighbor. That's it.

Skorpion is just trying to attach other requirements onto being a Christian.
He's acting like a pre-vatican II Catholic.

Definition of Christian -
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
THAT IS IT.

reply to post by FlyersFan

FlyersFan
Oh stop it.
You know very well what Skorpions 'question' was ... (and the agenda he had behind it).

Indeed. And yours as well!

FlyersFan
The bible stories are rejected as they are written by hundreds of millions of Christians.

And accepted by hundreds of millions more. Yes.

FlyersFan
They are accepted as myth, folklore and allegory.

By a significant minority, yes, not the majority (according to your linked poll).

FlyersFan
There may or may not have been a Moses. But it's IRRELEVANT to being a Christian. Same with Adam and Eve. Same with Abraham.

To you perhaps, but it hasn't been verified so for the majority of Christians, EVEN if we accepted the links you provided.
If I asked a random christian if they believed that Moses parted the Red sea, or turned his staff into a serpent, or if Abraham's wife was literally turned into a pillar of salt, or if he lived to be several hundred years old, it isn't unlikely I'd get "No" as an answer. If asked a random christian if they believed that Moses or Abraham existed, I think that "No" would be a lot less likely. (and if not, please provide evidence that specifically addresses that).

FlyersFan
Those hundreds of millions of people who view the OT as myth, folklore and allegory are still Christians. For Skorpion to claim that you can't be a Christian and still reject the O.T. stories/people is NONSENSE.

Eh? sk0rpi0n didn't mention anything about stories, at least in the OP. He mentioned PEOPLE, and again, your links and "proofs" and so on have done nothing at all to dismiss that.

Do you believe that belief in a historical Jesus would be necessary to be a christian?
Do you believe that belief that a historical Jesus was born of a virgin, was resurrected after dying, and is the only way to God, is necessary to being a christian?
Do you comprehend the difference between the two?

babloyi
By a significant minority, yes, not the majority (according to your linked poll).

Again ... just stop it.
Hundreds of millions of Christians see the stories and the people as literal.
Hundreds of millions of Christians see the stories as folklore, myth, and allegory.
It's a matter of differences in theology.
But all of them .. those that see it literally and those who don't .. are all Christians.

To you perhaps, but it hasn't been verified so for the majority of Christians, EVEN if we accepted the links you provided.

To me .. and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS. It's pretty evenly split.

sk0rpi0n didn't mention anything about stories, at least in the OP. He mentioned PEOPLE, and again, your links and "proofs" and so on have done nothing at all to dismiss that.

Don't be obtuse. You know very well that the stories and the people are intertwined.

Do you believe ....

My beliefs in different Christian interpretations are IRRELEVANT.
What is relevant - is the Definition of Christian -
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
THAT IS IT.

Believe that Jesus came to save souls from their sins.
Try to live his commands of love God and neighbor.

For some Muslim to come on here and try to claim that I stand alone and am not a christian because I see the OT as myth, folklore and allegory is absurd. Hundreds of millions of Christians don't take the O.T. literally. They don't have to.

reply to post by FlyersFan


How can I stop it? You CONTINUOUSLY attempt to muddy the waters and be vague in an attempt to win a pointless argument.
When I (and as far as I can see, sk0rpi0n as well) am specifically and exclusively talking about the people, you need to hedge your statements with "stories/people", "stories and people", and then you provide arguments that are relevant ONLY to the stories, and not to the people at all.

How about you forget about the specifics of the stories, and focus ONLY on the people, not "stories/people" and "stories and people" and "folktales and myths and legends"?

To you perhaps, but it hasn't been verified so for the majority of Christians, EVEN if we accepted the links you provided.

FlyersFan
To me .. and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS. It's pretty evenly split.

If it is so, I am willing to accept that, but you have not proven that yet. And no, your previous links talk about bible literalism, NOT about belief in the OT figures. So they don't count.

Do you believe ....

FlyersFan
My beliefs in different Christian interpretations are IRRELEVANT.
What is relevant - is the Definition of Christian -
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

You kinda completely dodged the main point of my question. I don't care what you personally believe at all, I wanted to make sure you understood the difference between accepting literally the specific incidents in the Bible (virgin birth, resurrection, rising of the dead, exclusive salvation through Christ), and accepting the existence of Biblical figures (like Jesus).
Still, I find it a little humourous that by your definition, muslims are Christians .

babloyi
How about you forget about the specifics of the stories, and focus ONLY on the people,

You can't separate the people from the stories. That's the whole point of the stories.

but you have not proven that yet.

Yes I have. That's just the way it is. Mostly only the Fundamentalists take the O.T. as literal.
And like I said ... it doesn't matter if someone does or not. The definition of a Christian - accepting Jesus as coming from Heaven to save people from their sins; and trying to practice what Jesus taught about love God and Neighbor.

You kinda completely dodged the main point of my question. I don't care what you personally believe at all,

Sure sounded like it ... 'do you believe....' ... sounds like you wanted to know what I personally believe.

Still, I find it a little humourous that by your definition, muslims are Christians

If a Muslim believes that Jesus came from Heaven to save people from their sins ... if they try to follow Jesus teachings of Love God and Love Neighbor ... then they are in contention for being Christian. But if a Muslim believes that, I'd think they'd then leave Islam anyways. They'd see no need for it.

babloyi
You CONTINUOUSLY attempt to muddy the waters and be vague in an attempt to win a pointless argument.

- Stating statistical information that hundreds of millions of Christians do not take the O.T. stories literally is NOT muddying the waters.

- This whole thread is pointless. Take that up with Skorpion. He was given the answer to his 'question' in the first two or three pages. Answer - YES ... people can dismiss the O.T. stories, and/or people, and still be Christians. Hundreds of millions of Christians do ... and they are still Christians.

The stats were given.
The definitions were given.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Again with the "stories and/or people" thing .
Never mind. This is pointless.

babloyi
Again with the "stories and/or people" thing

.
Never mind. This is pointless.

Again ... they can't be separated.
Never mind. You don't want to listen.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You take the entire religion of Jesus as false not just a few stories as allegorical rather than literal. He was a Jew you know. He was a Rabbi. Taught those books you don't even believe in - to a people you believe spread lies about history. He was the Messiah that was prophesied by those prophets you don't believe existed.

You cant believe in a Messiah if you don't believe in the books and the Prophets.