Non-Catholics: Would you still be Christian...

[Pjs2ejs]

Non-Catholics,

If the bible had never been compiled by the early Catholic Church, would you still be Christian? If yes, elaborate on what would convince you. Remember there was no Bible for almost three hundred years after Jesus ascended.

 

[O.S.Luke]

What in the world is the purpose of this thread? It’s an irrelevent question. It’s similar, at least to me, to this question:

If a frog had wings, would it bump its butt when it hops?

 

[sandusky]

Non-Catholics,

If the bible had never been compiled by the early Catholic Church, would you still be Christian? If yes, elaborate on what would convince you. Remember there was no Bible for almost three hundred years after Jesus ascended.

No canon ≠ no manuscripts/writings/scripture.

 

[homewardbound]

How could anyone know??

If there were no Bible there would be no Protestants. Also, IMHO, if there was no Scipture Christianity wouldn’t have survived anywhere near as long as it has. God had great purpose in giving it to us.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Christianity survived for almost 300 years without a Bible and the Christian Church survived a millenium and a half without mass production of them. Many Christians cannot read and in the past most of them couldn’t. I don’t think it is a dumb question. I think it is an interesting question.

O.S. Luke: Could you be a Christian without your Bible? What would you do if you didn’t have access to one?

Christianity is not about reading the Bible. Christianity is about the Beatitudes, loving your neighbor, spreading the good news, worshiping God, receiving Christ in the Eucharist, forgiving others, praying, etc. I don’t need the Bible for any of them. They were around long before the Bible was compiled or readily available.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Bible. But it’s not the be all end all of Christianity.

 

[sandusky]

Christianity survived for almost 300 years without a Bible and the Christian Church survived a millenium and a half without mass production of them.

A second time: No canon ≠ no manuscripts/writings/scripture.

Pjs2ejs:

Many Christians cannot read and in the past most of them couldn’t.

Assumes a great deal; besides, one who could read, to those who could not read, could read.

 

[patrickhs]

if the Catholic Church did not canonise the bible,the protestants would have not known what books of the Bible (particularly the New Testament) are Inspired, and since considering the Catholic Church to be full of error then they would be in the same boat,even worse, of sharing the same error with the Catholic Churvch. as the saying goes if a blind leads another blind man they would both fall on the pit. But as we know the Catholic Church is the only true Church founded by Jesus Christ it cannot lead anyone astray,unless if someone (reformers) chooses to go the other way without any guidance he’d surely fall on the pit.

 

[Valke2]

Non-Catholics,

If the bible had never been compiled by the early Catholic Church, would you still be Christian? If yes, elaborate on what would convince you. Remember there was no Bible for almost three hundred years after Jesus ascended.

No. I don’t think so.

ALthough the bible hadn’t been finalized for 300 years, that doesn’t mean that tehre were not different gospels making their way around the circuit.

 

[BrianH]

The whole premise is faulty. From the beginning, Christianity had 2/3 of the Bible. I believe Paul’s letters were quickly assembled and passed around. While they may have not had all of the books until later, they had access.
I also hope you realize that Carthage and Hippo did not result in massive changes in how things were done…unless you can point me to some specific historical evidence that it did…I had heard that those regional African synods confirmed what the early church was doing as opposed to changing the common practice. But like I said, I am open to evidence otherwise.
So you are asking if NO ONE had written anything Jesus said down and instead relied upon memory for 2000 years…the church relied on writings, they used the books in the Bible, the early church is full of other letters that talked about Christ…no I do not think I would have heard of it.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Christianity survived for almost 300 years without a Bible and the Christian Church survived a millenium and a half without mass production of them. Many Christians cannot read and in the past most of them couldn’t. I don’t think it is a dumb question. I think it is an interesting question.

It’s an irrelevent question. We do have one. And in your church, and in mine, we will read four readings on Sunday.

O.S. Luke: Could you be a Christian without your Bible? What would you do if you didn’t have access to one?

My tradition sees the Christian faith as a balance between scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. If you’re trying to make me a idolizer of the Bible, you need to fish elsewhere.

Christianity is not about reading the Bible. Christianity is about the Beatitudes, loving your neighbor, spreading the good news, worshiping God, receiving Christ in the Eucharist, forgiving others, praying, etc. I don’t need the Bible for any of them. They were around long before the Bible was compiled or readily available.

Some faulty logic here. Christianity is about Christ and his Incarnation. Christ is the logos, the living Word. Do you need a bible present to do all of those things you mention? No. But it does contain all of the things you mention above. It’s not the end-all of Christianity. But Christianity would be severly lacking without it.

Again, we read four readings per Sunday/mass out of it. It seems awfully important to the Church.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Christianity survived for almost 300 years without a Bible and the Christian Church survived a millenium and a half without mass production of them.

That’s not true. There was no canon, but there were certainly books that were considered by most local churches as having authority. The bible didn’t just pop out of the ground in the 4th century.

 

[stbruno]

Even if there were no bible, which is a mute point, there still was apostolic succession and sacraments, particularly baptism and Eucharist and definitely tradition. We still have tradition along with the bible. Yes, I would be Christian. No doubt about it. Just the fact that we have so many witnesses to the faith…like our Saints is enough for me. Also the promise given to us by Jesus that the Holy Spirit would be with our church until the end of time.

Thank you Jesus.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Christianity survived for almost 300 years without a Bible

That is utter:​

• balderdash
• bilge
• piffle
• tosh
• bosh
• tripe &
• garbage

• as the quotations of the Bible in the Fathers show. Some don’t quote them that much - Arnobius, for instance: but the Apostolic Fathers (to name only them) are a different story. If the Fathers before 350 (say) did not quote the NT books, why are their writings used as witnesses to the text of the NT ? Two minutes with a Greek NT would blow this myth out of the water. Irenaeus of Lyons quotes the NT alone over a thousand times.

ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml

e-Catena: Compiled Allusions to the NT in the Ante-Nicene Fathers

• IOW, the second link will show which Fathers (writing before 325) quoted which passages of each chapter of the NT. “There are** 12,517** cross-references.”

What was Jesus quoting, if not the Tanakh (the OT, as we call it) ? He doesn’t quote Tradition, or traditions - He quotes Scripture: nothing else ##

and the Christian Church survived a millenium and a half without mass production of them. Many Christians cannot read and in the past most of them couldn’t. I don’t think it is a dumb question. I think it is an interesting question.

O.S. Luke: Could you be a Christian without your Bible? What would you do if you didn’t have access to one?

Christianity is not about reading the Bible.

Neither is it about the BVM, the sacraments, the rosary, indulgences, or a thousand other Catholic things - but don’t tell anyone​

Christianity is about the Beatitudes, loving your neighbor, spreading the good news, worshiping God, receiving Christ in the Eucharist, forgiving others, praying, etc. I don’t need the Bible for any of them. They were around long before the Bible was compiled or readily available.

And how much of this would we know, without the Bible ? If the Bible is such a monumental irrelevance, why did the Apostles & the Church after them have such great respect for these books ?​

Not only do we need the Bible for every single one of those things - without the NT, there would be no way of seeing how they fit together. Without the NT, we would not be able to see what is specifically Christian about any of them. If the Bible is accessible to the clergy, so that they know such things: what possible justification - all things being equal - can there be for refusing the laity the same knowledge ? ##

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Bible. But it’s not the be all end all of Christianity.

But that’s not what most of the post says: most of the post is devoted to saying why the Bible is - to put it bluntly - a waste of time & an irrelevance. Who needs the Bible ? Certainly not the Church. Or so it would seem. As its behaviour has so often shown.​

 

[Pjs2ejs]

To all of the magnificent historians of the first three centuries, tell me what publishing company distributed all of the mass amounts of letters and what not. The FACT is that for almost 1500 years, there was NO way a Christian could get his or her hands on their own “personal bible”. Bibles were maybe owned by a church but that’s it. There were no Bible studies.

 

[Valke2]

This ignores the fact that Jews were studying their scriptures at and before that time. So it was possible.

 

[sandusky]

To all of the magnificent historians of the first three centuries, tell me what publishing company distributed all of the mass amounts of letters and what not. The FACT is that for almost 1500 years, there was NO way a Christian could get his or her hands on their own “personal bible”. Bibles were maybe owned by a church but that’s it. There were no Bible studies.

You response is sour grapes; so is your OP.

 

[rr1213]

Non-Catholics,

If the bible had never been compiled by the early Catholic Church, would you still be Christian? If yes, elaborate on what would convince you. Remember there was no Bible for almost three hundred years after Jesus ascended.

If the English had not founded the settlement at Jamestown, would I still be a Virginian today? If Magna Charta had not been asserted, would we have the right to due process and trial by jury? If the Spartans had not defended Thermopylae so well, would Western Civilization have survived? Who the dickens knows.

 

[Rocky]

**

Stated by Gottle of Geer:

What was Jesus quoting, if not the Tanakh (the OT, as we call it) ? He doesn’t quote Tradition, or traditions - He quotes Scripture: nothing else ##

The King James Bible states in Matthew 23:1-2: “[Jesus] saying, the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat…”

Please answer where in the Old Testament do we read about “Moses’ seat”? And if you cannot find the term “Moses’ seat” in the Old Testament, would you not conclude that Jesus was quoting from Jewish tradition and not Scripture?

**

 

[Pjs2ejs]

If the English had not founded the settlement at Jamestown, would I still be a Virginian today? If Magna Charta had not been asserted, would we have the right to due process and trial by jury? If the Spartans had not defended Thermopylae so well, would Western Civilization have survived? Who the dickens knows.

Christianity did not come from the Bible. The Catholic church gave the Bible to Christianity.

I did not mean for this to be a mean question. I am getting back so many sarcastic answers. I simply wanted to have Bible Alone Christians to think about why they have decided that the Bible is their sole authority.

Gottle of Geer:
Your comments seem to indicate a real dislike for the Catholic Church. In no way do I imply the Bible is a waste of time. I am simply saying one can be a Christian without it. And if you would be honest with my post, you would admit that Christians did not have access to Bibles for hundreds of years.

Could you survive without a personal Bible? It just seems like an interesting question. No malice towards the Bible or you is intended. If you don’t like the question, then don’t answer it.

 

[Zirconia]

As to the original question, I can’t really say.

However, I do believe that being able to read the Bible is very important to Christianity.

So did St. Ulfilas, who invented the Gothic alphabet, taught it to the previously non-literate Visigoths, and then translated the Bible into written Gothic so that they could read it. The Gothic Bible is considered the earliest written literature in any Teutonic language, and dates from the fourth century.

But if it was not really necessary for the Visigoths to be able to read the Bible in the first place, why would St. Ulfilas have gone to all the trouble?

Also, someone brought up another point in this thread about divisions in the church, and how without the Bible there wouldn’t be any Protestants.

In response, I would like to point out that a church that relied solely on institutional memory, with no written records at all, could become just as fractured as it is now, if not even more.
If this sounds improbable, just imagine 2000 years of “Oh yeah? Well, that’s not what we remember being told about it!” or, “Well, that wasn’t what they taught us about doctrine X!”

Long enough of this and you are virtually guaranteed at least one really major quarrel, perhaps culminating with both parties storming off to denounce each other as heretics…

Zirconia