Are Rejecting the 'Bible' and Rejecting 'Christianity' the Same Thing?

I was reading The Reason for God and came across an excellent point and a helpful one as we discuss issues with our non Christian friends.

"You may appeal, "But I can't accept the Bible if what it says about Gender is outmoded." I would respond to that with this question--are you saying that because you don't like what the Bible says about sex that Jesus couldn't have been raised from the dead? I'm sure you wouldn't insist on a non-sequitor. If Jesus is the Son of God, then we have to take his teaching seriously, including his confidence in the authority of the whole bible. If he is not who he says he is, why should we care what the Bible says about anything else?"

"Think of it like this. If you dive into the shallow end of the Biblical pool, where there are many controversies over interpretation, you may get scraped up. But if you dive into the center of the Biblical pool, where there is consensus--about the deity of Christ, his death and resurrection--you will be safe. It is therefore important to consider the Bible's core claims about who Jesus is and whether he rose from the dead before you reject it for less central and more controversial teachings."--Timothy Keller

I think this helps us keep the main thing, the main thing--Jesus.

(Just so I am clear on my position, I affirm the inspiration, authority, and innerancy of the Bible; but do not think it is necessary for someone to accept before trusting in Christ. The New Testament is historically reliable and there is much we can learn from it regarding the origins of and central claims of Christianity without first having to affirm its supernatural composition or origins).