Do Protestants just lie when they say they know what happened 1,000 years ago?

[Heath_K]

Well i went to a huge non denominational church for a college group thing. and the speaker said that 1,000 years ago, the way they studied the scriptures, is that there was only one ‘bible’ in a community, so the community would come together, and read it, and discuss what they thot it meant… is that true?
as he said that the first thing that came to my mind was, well the Catholic Church is more than 1,000 years old. so maybe this guy doesn’t know what he is talking about…
So when protestant ministers talk like this, do they actually know?? Can they research somewhere about this sorta stuff? Or are the just lying to take up time??

Heath K

 

[Tarwater]

I figure it usually gets passed on word-of-mouth. A person hears that the early Christians did such-and-such from some authority they respect who in turn heard it from someone else. The person that originally came up with that kind of stuff is what I wonder about. How do they justify just making stuff up?

 

[Erich]

1,000 years ago, there may very well have been only one Bible in a community – the one in the local Catholic church – but that would have been due almost entirely to the fact that the printing press wouldn’t be invented for another 500 years or so. Of course, that one Bible would have been painstakingly hand-copied onto parchment or velum and hand-bound; it would certainly not have been inexpensive enough for everyone in the community (or even just every family in the community) to own a copy.

Yet, even if everyone (or every family) had been fortunate enough to own a copy, I wonder how many of them would have been able to read it. Near-universal higher eduction and corresponding near-universal fluency in Latin (i.e. the language that Bible would have been written in) were unheard of 1,000 years ago.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

I go to a non-denom church and I would think they are going by the book of Acts. I cant speak for that church or the ministers, but read the book of Acts because that is the history of the begining of the church. It does say in there that people would gather together (in their homes)and read Scripture together and break bread and pray.
Just my:twocents: since I wasnt there.

 

[Rolltide]

1,000 years ago, there may very well have been only one Bible in a community – the one in the local Catholic church – but that would have been due almost entirely to the fact that the printing press wouldn’t be invented for another 500 years or so. Of course, that one Bible would have been painstakingly hand-copied onto parchment or velum and hand-bound; it would certainly not have been inexpensive enough for everyone in the community (or even just every family in the community) to own a copy.

Yet, even if everyone (or every family) had been fortunate enough to own a copy, I wonder how many of them would have been able to read it. Near-universal higher eduction and corresponding near-universal fluency in Latin (i.e. the language that Bible would have been written in) were unheard of 1,000 years ago.

Yes, but those who were lucky enough to receive an education, and thus, knew how to read, would have learned to do so in Latin. So, virtually anyone who could read would have been capable of reading the Bible.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Heath K, I am protestant and a history student. There are books written that present an ignorant propraganda version of chirstian history. They usually start with constantine the great forcing the catholic church on christians. They move onto view cultic groups as being the “true christians”. They see those “true christians” as being the one’s “discussing” the Bible. The fact is before the printing press bibles were too expensive for the average joe. And, depending on the culture, some average people could not read while in other cultures people were well educated. Education tended to follow trade routes. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches basically taught their understanding of scripture. And, those cultic groups taught their understanding of scripture. Some of those books are even comic books. So, likely that pastor is simply repeating something he read in a “history” book.

Basically, those books lack employing primary sources, but are simply opinion.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Hi,

I go to a non-denom church and I would think they are going by the book of Acts. I cant speak for that church or the ministers, but read the book of Acts because that is the history of the begining of the church. It does say in there that people would gather together (in their homes)and read Scripture together and break bread and pray.
Just my:twocents: since I wasnt there.

We now call that bible study…a rather good idea for those who can make the time!

 

[Erich]

"Erich:

Yet, even if everyone (or every family) had been fortunate enough to own a copy, I wonder how many of them would have been able to read it.

Yes, but those who were lucky enough to receive an education, and thus, knew how to read, would have learned to do so in Latin. So, virtually anyone who could read would have been capable of reading the Bible.

Hmm, poorly worded on my part… What I was picturing in my mind when I wrote that was more along the lines of someone back then owning a Bible only because they liked the ornate illustrations/illuminations (e.g. Book of Kells). Much like folks today who collect Japanese/Chinese prints but who do not read/understand Japanese/Chinese calligraphy. We can certainly get together and discuss what we think it means, but more than likely it would be pure speculation on our part.

Of course, 1,000 years ago people didn’t have nearly as much “stuff” as most of us have today, so that really isn’t a valid comparison.

 

[Della]

Hi,

I go to a non-denom church and I would think they are going by the book of Acts. I cant speak for that church or the ministers, but read the book of Acts because that is the history of the begining of the church. It does say in there that people would gather together (in their homes)and read Scripture together and break bread and pray.
Just my:twocents: since I wasnt there.

What Acts is describing is the community coming together to read the OT and to celebrate the Eucharist, which is what the “breaking of bread” refers to. Those very early Jewish Christians who read were all men who had been taught to read in the synagogue schools. Most women would not have been taught to read but would have listened to the readings each Sabbath and learned the more important one that way.

What those Jewish Christians did is what the Catholic Church does in the Mass. There are 2 readings, the singing of a Psalm, the reading of the Gospel and a homily. Then the Eucharist is celebrated just as Jesus established it. Nothing has changed in the fundamental way in which the early Church met and in what they did together.

Bible study done through the ages has depended on literacy. Most Christians converted from paganism couldn’t read or write in any language let alone in Hebrew or even Greek. They heard the word of God when they met together in what developed quite naturally into the Mass we know today. As time went by people learned Bible lessons through hearing them read in church and by the artwork, such as statues, stained glass windows, paintings, mosaics, etc.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Heath

Well i went to a huge non denominational church for a college group thing. and the speaker said that 1,000 years ago, the way they studied the scriptures, is that there was only one ‘bible’ in a community, so the community would come together, and read it, and discuss what they thot it meant… is that true?

1,000 years ago the only Bible in existence was the Catholic Bible. There were no Protestants of the type we know today. All modern Protestant groups began and evolved from Martin Luther, 500 years ago.

The notion that 1,000 years ago the mass of people could all stand around reading from one Latin Bible is fairly laughable. The speaker you heard seems to know nothing of church history before he was born.

 

[Cardinalsong]

So when protestant ministers talk like this, do they actually know?? Can they research somewhere about this sorta stuff? Or are the just lying to take up time??

Heath K

I don’t think they actually know this. They are going by what they were told at some time (sounds kinda like some sort of…tradition…doesn’t it?).

Yes, this can easily be reasearched either on CA or some other good Catholic websites (I don’t know off the top of my head but someone here can probably help you with some good links).

I don’t think they are lying or intentionally trying to deceive you. Again they are going by something someone said.

 

[Reuben_J]

1,000 years ago the only Bible in existence was the Catholic Bible. There were no Protestants of the type we know today. All modern Protestant groups began and evolved from Martin Luther, 500 years ago.

The notion that 1,000 years ago the mass of people could all stand around reading from one Latin Bible is fairly laughable. The speaker you heard seems to know nothing of church history before he was born.

What about the Orthodox?