What if there was no Holy Bible at all?

[Twilight Hue]

Would Christianity have had survived or been remembered as an instututed religion if no Holy Bible ever was made?

My personal answer is definitely not. As it's a religion based solely upon its literature, and its solvency remains dependent on the continuation of its distribution of literature. Things like oral tradition can only carry things so far.

It's a critical reason why I don't believe in a central guiding force or dieity like Jehovah, Jesus, Mary, or angels and whatnot directing and preserving any religion that thinks it's deification is the sole foundation by which it survives, grows, and spreads. It's simply not. It's books and physical record that are essential by which a religion is recognized and preserved. Theistic or not.

I've been thinking about literary dependency and it's apparently true for any religion out there to remain established and relevant for the long term it requires it's books or any form of written record.

Without them, no instituted religion will survive.

Agree, disagree?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Jewish faith existed right up to the destruction of the first temple without having a written scripture. It was only after that that their two oral tradidions of Judah and Israel,were written down.
Which accounts amongst other things for the two creation stories.

However in Christianity it was some time before the individual writings epistles and
Scriptures were compiled into what we call the Bible.

While such a library in the form of a single authoritative book was almost inevitable, religions have survived far longer than Christianity whithout ever considering it necessary to establish all their texts in to a single volume.

It certainly was not essential that christianity did so, but it did help to create a very limited and authoritative stucture for the church. And made it easier to eliminate early competing branches of the faith.

 

[Kemosloby]

Writing things down so that people can remember is sort of normal...Think 10 commandments chiseled in stone etc. But if it's not already written in your heart you'd probably not agree with it unless you had some sort of system of authority teaching it. So perhaps Jeremiah 31:33 is a prophecy fulfilled.

A New Covenant
…not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,"declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more

 

[bobhikes]

Would Christianity have had survived or been remembered as an instututed religion if no Holy Bible ever was made?

My personal answer is definitely not. As it's a religion based solely upon its literature, and its solvency remains dependent on the continuation of its distribution of literature. Things like oral tradition can only carry things so far.

It's a critical reason why I don't believe in a central guiding force or dieity like Jehovah, Jesus, Mary, or angels and whatnot directing and preserving any religion that thinks it's deification is the sole foundation by which it survives, grows, and spreads. It's simply not. It's books and physical record that are essential by which a religion is recognized and preserved. Theistic or not.

I've been thinking about literary dependency and it's apparently true for any religion out there to remain established and relevant for the long term it requires it's books or any form of written record.

Without them, no instituted religion will survive.

Agree, disagree?

The same is true for all things and even science any thing without a referable history will not survive. It why inventing and creating didn't really get started until the written page was available to all.

 

[Rival]

Oral tradition kept things alive far longer than organised, written religion has been around.

 

[newone]

In His wisdom God made sure that we have His Word available to us...
Because if we had to rely on things carried on through generations (word of mouth) then we would be totally lost today

 

[Kenny]

Would Christianity have had survived or been remembered as an instututed religion if no Holy Bible ever was made?

e?

Absolutely! Abraham came with no Holy Bible. Moses existed before a Holy Bible was created.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...As it's a religion based solely upon its literature, and its solvency remains dependent on the continuation of its distribution of literature....

You are assuming far too much. All you are doing is putting forward your own unhappy yet limited experience as if your experience were the only one. Perhaps you don't believe other people exist? I believe other people exist, and you are one of them. I have seen a much broader range of Christians than you perhaps. We've got all kinds of Christians using the same literature both now and throughout christian history, so how can you derive that its a religion based solely upon its literature? I have been in more than one church that believed it was Bible-based, but that was not the sum of all churches or of all Christians. Maybe your unhappy experience is that you were told that was the case, but that is not everyone's experience. What the literature does show is that Christianity has been changing, reverting, changing, dividing, duplicating, dying, etc.

Would Christianity have had survived or been remembered as an instututed religion if no Holy Bible ever was made?

Some form of it would probably have survived and if not, then some form of it would have spontaneously reoccurred perhaps under another name. What the literature does show I think is that early Christianity and later Christianity, too, has a lot in common with Buddhism, and what it shows is that the Christianity can range far from the literature as well. I wouldn't call modern churches truly Bible-based. I cannot even call them Bible-obsessed, because they no longer are encouraging children (and hence not adults) to read the Bible. I have yet to see a Christianity that is derived from the Bible except partially. Its SO not a literature based religion, so very not. Maybe people like to think that it is sometimes, but in reality absolutely not.

 

[whirlingmerc]

We would know a glimpse of God's power in the Universe and his creativity in creation and yet would not know a great deal about God's love and mercy or hope of redemption. We would just make caricatures of God and worship wrongly, going our own way

Malachi's didactic diagnosis of strong and weak loves with prognosi…

 

[icehorse]

My sense is that scripture is a sort of flywheel that keeps a set of ideas moving forward - in a fairly stable way - from generation to generation.

 

[Rival]

The OC and the RCC actually state that 'The Bible is a product of the Church' not 'The Church is a product of the Bible', because the Church came first. Christianity is Biblically described as the 'traditions handed down from the Apostles' and there were no written gospels prior to about 75 C.E. That gives us nearly 100 years of a Church based on Christian tradition. Even all of Paul's letters wouldn't have been there because about half of them are fakes from a later time. The 'Church' is literally translated as 'congregation' and just meant the gathering of the believers to worship together according to the dictates of their tradition. So if the Church survived 100 years, probably more, without a written Christian scripture then yes, it is entirely possible. The Protestant idea of 'sola scriptura' is very modern and only enters common thought in about the 16th century.

Likewise with Islam, the ahadith were compiled some 200 years after Muhammad's death. This gave the proto-Muslims some time to come up with many traditions that were then codified into a huge, voluminous narrative with many contradictory stories and outright myths, such as Muhammad splitting the Moon in half. But, again, Islam persisted for 200 years without those written volumes.

 

[JJ50]

Would Christianity have had survived or been remembered as an instututed religion if no Holy Bible ever was made?

My personal answer is definitely not. As it's a religion based solely upon its literature, and its solvency remains dependent on the continuation of its distribution of literature. Things like oral tradition can only carry things so far.

It's a critical reason why I don't believe in a central guiding force or dieity like Jehovah, Jesus, Mary, or angels and whatnot directing and preserving any religion that thinks it's deification is the sole foundation by which it survives, grows, and spreads. It's simply not. It's books and physical record that are essential by which a religion is recognized and preserved. Theistic or not.

I've been thinking about literary dependency and it's apparently true for any religion out there to remain established and relevant for the long term it requires it's books or any form of written record.

Without them, no instituted religion will survive.

Agree, disagree?

A world without religion would be a better place, imo.

 

[Mister Emu]

As it's a religion based solely upon its literature

Where did you come across this idea?

No part of the ancient Church (Catholic or any of the orthodoxies) relies solely upon the scripture.

 

[sayak83]

Would Christianity have had survived or been remembered as an instututed religion if no Holy Bible ever was made?

My personal answer is definitely not. As it's a religion based solely upon its literature, and its solvency remains dependent on the continuation of its distribution of literature. Things like oral tradition can only carry things so far.

It's a critical reason why I don't believe in a central guiding force or dieity like Jehovah, Jesus, Mary, or angels and whatnot directing and preserving any religion that thinks it's deification is the sole foundation by which it survives, grows, and spreads. It's simply not. It's books and physical record that are essential by which a religion is recognized and preserved. Theistic or not.

I've been thinking about literary dependency and it's apparently true for any religion out there to remain established and relevant for the long term it requires it's books or any form of written record.

Without them, no instituted religion will survive.

Agree, disagree?

Hinduism was primarily oral for thousands of years and still is so to a large extent.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Likewise with Islam, the ahadith were compiled some 200 years after Muhammad's death. This gave the proto-Muslims some time to come up with many traditions that were then codified into a huge, voluminous narrative with many contradictory stories and outright myths, such as Muhammad splitting the Moon in half. But, again, Islam persisted for 200 years without those written volumes.

There were hundreds of Hadiths collected together in the 7th Century during the life of the Prophet pbuh. Later Scholars as you say collected the wider collection of Hadiths putting them into several collections.

People who say the Hadiths were compiled from nothing 200 years later are misinformed. Obviously some of those who narrated Hadiths, were simply recalling stories from their previous way of life before coming to Islam. The Moon splitting Hadith is 100% genuine though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You are assuming far too much. All you are doing is putting forward your own unhappy yet limited experience as if your experience were the only one. Perhaps you don't believe other people exist? I believe other people exist, and you are one of them. I have seen a much broader range of Christians than you perhaps. We've got all kinds of Christians using the same literature both now and throughout christian history, so how can you derive that its a religion based solely upon its literature? I have been in more than one church that believed it was Bible-based, but that was not the sum of all churches or of all Christians. Maybe your unhappy experience is that you were told that was the case, but that is not everyone's experience. What the literature does show is that Christianity has been changing, reverting, changing, dividing, duplicating, dying, etc.


Some form of it would probably have survived and if not, then some form of it would have spontaneously reoccurred perhaps under another name. What the literature does show I think is that early Christianity and later Christianity, too, has a lot in common with Buddhism, and what it shows is that the Christianity can range far from the literature as well. I wouldn't call modern churches truly Bible-based. I cannot even call them Bible-obsessed, because they no longer are encouraging children (and hence not adults) to read the Bible. I have yet to see a Christianity that is derived from the Bible except partially. Its SO not a literature based religion, so very not. Maybe people like to think that it is sometimes, but in reality absolutely not.

I've been around the block enough to see Christianity for what it is. My "limited" experience with Christianity spanned over three decades until my decision to leave, all which involved elements of Catholicism, Protestant, and Pentecostal denominations.

It's primarily a literary cult and completely dependent upon the Bible for it's entire identity and structure including how people are influenced and behave on the basis of the Bible itself and it's laws and directive's contained.

If the Bible didn't exist, Christianity would be mostly forgotten, and lost as most ancient mythologies are which are dependent upon written records. It's the only reason we know such religions existed.

Buddhism, or any other religion for that matter is no different, by which if no written record existed, the religion wouldn't either. That's something that Christianity and Buddhism has in common.

My argument is in actuality, there is no dieity or divine influence at play that preserves religions, as some claims are made, but rather it's preservation and structure depends solely upon written records and text which is what makes it for what it is.

Even with oral traditions and redaction taken into account, any religion of significant age will doubtfully be reminiscent of its inception and origin.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hinduism was primarily oral for thousands of years and still is so to a large extent.

The thing about oral tradition is its proven unreliability over long periods of time.

If we could go backwards in time, I would suspect it's original practices and identity would starkly contrast with what is identified as Hinduism today or any other religion for that matter. Even oral or written, I think a lot still gets lost in retelling and translation.

I am really curious if there is any known religion today that has no true dependency upon texts for it's viability and structure whatsoever.

Even Zen Buddhism, without dependency upon texts for it's viability,. still nonetheless relies upon a written record in attempts for preservation, by which future practitioners can adapt and revise their own version of practice and ritual.

 

[Rival]

The thing about oral tradition is its proven unreliability over long periods of time.

If we could go backwards in time, I would suspect it's original practices and identity would starkly contrast with what is identified as Hinduism today or any other religion for that matter. Even oral or written, I think a lot still gets lost in retelling and translation.

This isn't really the point of religion though. They weren't meant to remain static forever. We can see this just by looking at the literature and how stories have changed. People weren't averse to changing, emphasising or deleting parts of oral narratives. It was always about the meaning of the story, not its historicity or its beginnings. Cultures change stories little by little to fit current trends and themes, to relate to present moral issues and happenings. The idea that religious practice has to be 100% now what it was 2,000 years ago is complete nonsense.

 

[newone]

"I've been around the block enough to see Christianity for what it is. My "limited" experience with Christianity spanned over three decades until my decision to leave, all which involved elements of Catholicism, Protestant, and Pentecostal denominations"

Sadly then you have not experienced true Christianity....just my opinion

 

[Twilight Hue]

Where did you come across this idea?

No part of the ancient Church (Catholic or any of the orthodoxies) relies solely upon the scripture.

It would have to be imv.

How else could/would people know in modern times if not for a written record to form and base beliefs upon that accurately mirrored it's originators ?

Reliance on oral tradition would not be anywhere near as accurate , nor as long lasting as a written account by which ancient religions are identified and adopted into practices and worship.

Even then, versions will vary as they are being adjusted and revised today losing an aspect of originality each time which is what I'm driving at here.

If we tested this by stopping any written, or recorded account for a very long period of time, what do you think will happen to the cohesiveness and identity of any givin religion no matter how well received it is today if it relied solely upon oral tradition alone?

I would strongly suspect it would summarily branch out and go in completely different directions by which it's originality would be permanently lost, even if it's given identity remained inclusive.