What if the bible did not exist?

[TonyBS]

So the apostles couldn’t preach Christ till they had written about it?

The recorded word is always a testimony to the prophet. It always forms part of the Revelation. Thus one could say if the Bible did not exist, then Christ would have not been Revealed.

Regards Tony

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Yes, but the bible took some time.

So did preaching. Also if you played the game telephone in school you can see how fast a verbal message gets distorted. That’s why scripture was also necessary. And why it was necessary for the church to recognize it.

Is this like the Immaculate Conception, which was not a required belief in past ages, but now is?

I believe that particular doctrine is a false belief and not worthy of any belief much less a “required” belief.

 

[friardchips]

Yes, but the bible took some time.

St. Luke wrote for St. Paul as his documenter.

Is this like the Immaculate Conception, which was not a required belief in past ages, but now is?

The Immaculate Conception was required, because she was and is real, and so is a requirement, and it is only that her motherly role had not been understood in the greater fullness of faithful reasoning that The Immaculate Conception was not understood before (probably for good reason).

 

[Peter_J]

So did preaching. Also if you played the game telephone in school you can see how fast a verbal message gets distorted. That’s why scripture was also necessary. And why it was necessary for the church to recognize it.

I believe you have only demonstrated that putting things into written form made sense, not that it was necessary.

I believe that particular doctrine is a false belief and not worthy of any belief much less a “required” belief.

Well I am shocked … well, okay maybe not shocked, but you can see my point anyhow: one objection that “non-Catholics” raise to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (among other dogmas) is the fact that Christians were not required to believe it in the early church but Catholics are now required to.

 

[friardchips]

I believe that particular doctrine is a false belief and not worthy of any belief much less a “required” belief.

The Immaculate Conception is a certified, divinely-revealed DOGMA i.e:- unchangeable.

Fortunately, Truth is not relative and so not dependent upon the individual’s own ideas, only in that they understand and/or accept it, or not. Truth is Eternal. If one has difficulty in understanding any Dogma then the individual needs to pray for understanding in that area of their faith-life (if a practicing Christian).

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No they did both.

They did both but it seems one is of more infinite value that in your mind God could not have allowed the world to exist without, that is a text of almost Quranic like properties. I don’t see why that is the case however, why there absolutely needs to be a Bible if the truth can be spread within the community of the faithful, as it was long before there was a bible. The only reason would be if the contents of the orally presented Gospel are insufficient and perhaps when presented by certain people it is, but not by trained or ordained people, like the apostles. Surely they had the fullness of the faith and passed it down in the manner they saw fit. If the Gospel could be spread first among the apostles by their speaking and the apostles themselves didn’t seem to consider writing the bible one of their main tasks (rather their main task seems to have been establishing church communities), why think the bible is so necessary?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The recorded word is always a testimony to the prophet. It always forms part of the Revelation. Thus one could say if the Bible did not exist, then Christ would have not been Revealed.

Regards Tony

Christ was always going to be revealed ever since God created man. God intended that Christ would perfect humanity even if man did not fall from grace. The prophets only revealed what God’s plan was from eternity, they did not cause God to reveal Christ.

 

[Tommy999]

Do you think if the bible did not exist, then the only Church would be the Catholic Church today, as when the bible did not exist??

Here is my two cents. I’m not a Biblical scholar or anything but just a Christian like you who loves our Lord.

I believe the Bible was God-ordained and God-breathed. It has many purposes, including teaching and training in righteousness.

2 Timothy 3:5-17
15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work

Also, it is good to be used as a guidebook to check out the validity of others, even as the Bereans did with St Paul.

Act 17:11
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

In short, I believe the Bible was part of God’s plan to spread the Word of God near and far, even where there is no clergy. It wasn’t just meant for a select few to read but for everyone. I believe that God inspired its writers and inspired those leaders of the Church who compiled the books of the Bible back in the 300s or whenever they did it. .

 

[SalusaSecondus]

They did both but it seems one is of more infinite value that in your mind God could not have allowed the world to exist without, that is a text of almost Quranic like properties. I don’t see why that is the case however, why there absolutely needs to be a Bible if the truth can be spread within the community of the faithful, as it was long before there was a bible. The only reason would be if the contents of the orally presented Gospel are insufficient and perhaps when presented by certain people it is, but not by trained or ordained people, like the apostles. Surely they had the fullness of the faith and passed it down in the manner they saw fit. If the Gospel could be spread first among the apostles by their speaking and the apostles themselves didn’t seem to consider writing the bible one of their main tasks (rather their main task seems to have been establishing church communities), why think the bible is so necessary?

Even ordained people got it wrong. We see that even in scripture. The lack of a bible had disastrous effects on the church of the first few centuries and tons of error crept in. That’s why the church confirmed and recognized the scriptures.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

The Immaculate Conception is a certified, divinely-revealed DOGMA i.e:- unchangeable.

Fortunately, Truth is not relative and so not dependent upon the individual’s own ideas, only in that they understand and/or accept it, or not. Truth is Eternal. If one has difficulty in understanding any Dogma then the individual needs to pray for understanding in that area of their faith-life (if a practicing Christian).

So the folks that reject this dogma simply don’t understand it? Seems like a silly rationalization and an arrogant one.

But that’s beside the point.

The point is that skylit the scriptures, doctrine and tradition simply becomes the worlds longest game of telephone. That’s why there are new and invented doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Michael1978]

Even ordained people got it wrong. We see that even in scripture. The lack of a bible had disastrous effects on the church of the first few centuries and tons of error crept in. That’s why the church confirmed and recognized the scriptures.

Which church?

 

[TonyBS]

Christ was always going to be revealed ever since God created man. God intended that Christ would perfect humanity even if man did not fall from grace. The prophets only revealed what God’s plan was from eternity, they did not cause God to reveal Christ.

So was the Bible, as said above it is all part of Gods Plan

Note how the Interpretation of the Words contained in the Holy Books have becomes Mans ongoing Test of accepting the One/s Promised within it. Interestingly they use it as the basis of rejecting the one/s it foretells of.

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Even ordained people got it wrong. We see that even in scripture. The lack of a bible had disastrous effects on the church of the first few centuries and tons of error crept in. That’s why the church confirmed and recognized the scriptures.

It’s interesting that you say errors crept in the first few centuries when there was a lack of a bible, yet it could be argued that just as many errors crept in later on when the Bible was more easily accessible. Look at the modern age, the bible is available for literally free in most languages, yet it hasn’t stopped error from occurring or people being mislead (from a Lutheran perspective most Christians would be in error).

I don’t think the point works in your favour.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Which church?

The mother church of all denominations, the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe you have only demonstrated that putting things into written form made sense, not that it was necessary.

They did both but it seems one is of more infinite value that in your mind God could not have allowed the world to exist without,

Well, that’s a rather strong way of putting, but essentially what I’m driving at as well.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

It’s interesting that you say errors crept in the first few centuries when there was a lack of a bible, yet it could be argued that just as many errors crept in later on when the Bible was more easily accessible. Look at the modern age, the bible is available for literally free in most languages, yet it hasn’t stopped error from occurring or people being mislead (from a Lutheran perspective most Christians would be in error).

I don’t think the point works in your favour.

No I think the error was much greater then.

 

[eddie_too]

i am curious as to when it was first taught and who first taught us that the immaculate conception is a “… new and invented doctrine …”.

I have never encountered such teaching before.

if the apostles and their successors did not teach that the immaculate conception is a “new and invented doctrine”, who else would have the authority to teach that?

 

[SalusaSecondus]

i am curious as to when it was first taught and who first taught us that the immaculate conception is a “… new and invented doctrine …”.

I have never encountered such teaching before.

if the apostles and their successors did not teach that the immaculate conception is a “new and invented doctrine”, who else would have the authority to teach that?

The apostles didn’t teach the doctrine at all.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No I think the error was much greater then.

How do you quantify that? Some errors seem universal and they weren’t independent of the bible. Take gnosticism which seems to rear its ugly head up every century in some form or another. Modern gnosticism doesn’t use the bible, its a new age religion with emphasis on personal experience. Ancient gnostic also acted personally but did so with the biblical text, distorting it and making Jesus into a Puppet who taught gnostic principles.

We could also consider groups like the Jehovah’s witnesses who claim to be the ones truely reading the bible. Dispensationalists, Messianics, Bahai and the like all use the bible and their ideas didn’t exist before their movements. Mormons while having additional revelation also use the bible. I will agree there was lots of error in the period of the early church, but by whom? By the church? Not on such a scale as to accuse the church of dilluting the gospel or the essential message which saves, namely Christ and him crucified. When we compare the errors of those the early church faced to the numerous sects of Protestantism whose theology is at best flawed and at worst apostate and usually relies on the bible, I don’t think one can say it was worse in the earlier centuries.

So how do you determine that a lack of a bible makes things worse when it seems that when the bible is widely available things are worse still as a result?

 

[spedteacherita]

i am curious as to when it was first taught and who first taught us that the immaculate conception is a “… new and invented doctrine …”.

I have never encountered such teaching before.

if the apostles and their successors did not teach that the immaculate conception is a “new and invented doctrine”, who else would have the authority to teach that?

I have asked this question many times and never have gotten a solid answer. When “tradition” is used as an explanation somehow there has to be a beginning and a person who actually taught it.

I don’t know…Marian doctrines confuse me and are the major reason I could not join the Catholic Church…

But, I digress from the topic. Sorry all…

Blessings!!!

Rita