What if there was no Holy Bible at all?

[Jeremiahcp]

"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

There is no such thing as true Christianity. It is just a phrase people use to criticize either other.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

That's perfectly ok.

If I was a still a Christian, I would have said pretty much the same thing to my self as well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

Probably through Church politics rather than theology. Since christianity is an oral teaching, I'd assume the Church would still talk for Peter and Peter for christ and christ for god without needing anything written.

Most protestant denominations that aren't liturgical would probably not survive. Since they believe the book rather than the body, if they had no book, and they don't trust the body, I think they'd be stuck.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

That is a very limited experience of Christianity, and three decades are a drop in the bucket. The last three decades are not representative of Christianity of the three decades previous to that. It changes rapidly.

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.

That is wishful thinking. If people read the Bible and if it were a literary cult, things would be much different. As it is some Christians act like they are in Vishnaivism. Others like they are Muslims. Christians today easily get Noah and Moses confused. The focus is on family building, working etc.

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.

All you are doing is finding an odd way of saying you don't believe in Christianity or in Catholicism. I have pointed out that Christians in various groups almost cannot be compared despite sharing a common Bible. How do you reconcile that with your claim that they are literary cultists? Sure some might be literary cultists, but that isn't generally the case. Its a rarity, and usually its a tragic existence I think.

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.

While I'm not a Buddhist, I recognize its based in natural principles and does not need scripture to continue. Christianity is, too; but as in Buddhism most people are not focused on natural principles and just want to live, be happy and have babies. Like Buddhism, Christianity can be reconstructed from zero, with no Bible and probably in all of its forms. Ever heard of Krishna? Look how similar he is to the modern interpretation of Jesus the personal lord and savior, yet there is no Biblical connection. I don't suppose you think Hare Krishnas are a Bible cult, and yet they are extremely comparable to many modern Christians. Many varieties of Christianity also appear to have counterparts in other branches of other religions. Mahayana Buddhism surely does seem a lot like certain brands of Christianity, yet you say Christianity is a literary cult though Christians don't read Buddhist texts.

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.

Like I said, all you've done is restate that you are not a Christian. You have not made a good argument that Christians are literary cultists who would disappear without the Bible. I on the other hand have shown that even without the Bible, Christianity seems to appear (or Christian-like religious groups); and I have shown that claiming the Bible has not kept Christian groups the same.

 

[newone]

"There is no such thing as true Christianity. It is just a phrase people use to criticize either other"
And that is just your opinion.

 

[sayak83]

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.

The Hindu vedic texts are tied to actual practice of the worship (yajna) and is preserved with the various actions associated with the worship. But more than this, linguists have determined from the phonetics that the vedic chants have been preserved unchanged since 1000 BCE and is a gold mine for understanding the linguistic evolution of Indo-European language group.
Vedic chant - Wikipedia

The various pathas or recitation styles are designed to allow the complete and perfect memorization of the text and its pronunciation, including the Vedic pitch accent. Eleven such ways of reciting the Vedas were designed - Samhita, Pada, Krama, Jata, Maalaa, Sikha, Rekha, Dhwaja, Danda, Rathaa, Ghana, of which Ghana is usually considered the most difficult.[3]

Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat summarizes this as follows:[7]

• Samhita-patha: continuous recitation of Sanskrit words bound by the phonetic rules of euphonic combination;
• Pada-patha: a recitation marked by a conscious pause after every word, and after any special grammatical codes embedded inside the text; this method suppresses euphonic combination and restores each word in its original intended form;
• Krama-patha: a step-by-step recitation where euphonically-combined words are paired successively and sequentially and then recited; for example, a hymn "word1 word2 word3 word4 ...", would be recited as "word1word2 word2word3 word3word4 ..."; this method to verify accuracy is credited to Vedic sages Gargya and Sakalya in the Hindu tradition and mentioned by the ancient Sanskrit grammarian Panini (dated to pre-Buddhism period);
• Krama-patha modified: the same step-by-step recitation as above, but without euphonic-combinations (or free form of each word); this method to verify accuracy is credited to Vedic sages Babhravya and Galava in the Hindu tradition, and is also mentioned by the ancient Sanskrit grammarian Panini;
• Jata-pāṭha, dhvaja-pāṭha and ghana-pāṭha are methods of recitation of a text and its oral transmission that developed after 5th century BCE, that is after the start of Buddhism and Jainism; these methods use more complicated rules of combination and were less used.

These extraordinary retention techniques guaranteed the most perfect canon not just in terms of unaltered word order but also in terms of sound.[8] That these methods have been effective, is testified to by the preservation of the most ancient Indian religious text, the Ṛgveda (ca. 1500 BCE).[7]

The effort to preserve the Vedas exactly leads to a very early development of linguistics and grammar in India.
Vyākaraṇa - Wikipedia

Pāṇini - Wikipedia

In conclusion, one can preserve oral tradition exactly for thousands of years if a significant fraction of a civilizations religious, cultural and technological resources are invested in such an endeavor.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

"There is no such thing as true Christianity. It is just a phrase people use to criticize either other"
And that is just your opinion.

An opinion which also happens to be correct.

Also, you might want to try using the quote feature or at least attach the name of the person you are quoting.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I think progressive, non traditional, or "free" religions fare much better when it is self reliant and adaptable.

Fundamental based religions like Christianity clearly have a much harder time dealing with changes or omissions made to scripture and traditions that deviate in directions not familiar with the Biblical accounts. It's a very static religion as it stands now by all accounts.

I would actually like to see a Bible- less , scripture-less form of Christianity emerge, and then critically examine how it could work out in terms of its surviability, duration, and feasibility by way it's received and accepted by other Christians without the use of scriptures or record.

It would be very telling as to wether I'm correct or not if written records do play a critical role concerning a religions identity and substance as well as it's duration.

 

[newone]

An opinion which also happens to be correct.

Also, you might want to try using the quote feature or at least attach the name of the person you are quoting.

If you say so then i guess it has to be so...

 

[Jeremiahcp]

If you say so then i guess it has to be so...

I am always right about everything, except for when I am not.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Without a doubt the bible, a written record, is so important for the mainstream Evangelical Protestant wing of the church, if you don't have a "text book" you have no frame of reference correct? However, I'd agree with Rival that the trend to make the written record "infallible" is a recent concept, it puts too much stress on what are ancient documents born out of an oral tradition.

Would Christianity have survived as a purely oral tradition? Hard to say, religions have survived without holy writ, and religions have disappeared that had holy writ. In our culture, however, a written record is very important, we recognise that oral tradition is fraught with difficulties. I see where Bricky is coming from, the modern Evangelical church pretends to follow the literature faithfully, when of course in actuality they don't. We don't kill 'witches', we don't worry about eating shellfish, we don't worry about wearing garments of mixed fibres etc.

I think the Christian religion may well have morphed into something very different without the written records, even with the written records when people announce themselves as "Christian", you need to drill down to find out what that means.

 

[newone]

I am always right about everything, except for when I am not.

We are told by God that not every faith is "true"...

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.

 

[Rival]

We don't kill 'witches', we don't worry about eating shellfish, we don't worry about wearing garments of mixed fibres etc.

That is because these mitzvot never applied to Christians. The Torah itself states that these rules are only for Jews, and Christians are, so says their Tradition, only to follow moral laws. They believe Jesus rendered all foods clean and Paul called Torah a curse and bondage, and that anyone who kept Torah would benefit nothing from Jesus.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

That is because these mitzvot never applied to Christians. The Torah itself states that these rules are only for Jews, and Christians are, so says their Tradition, only to follow moral laws. They believe Jesus rendered all foods clean and Paul called Torah a curse and bondage, and that anyone who kept Torah would benefit nothing from Jesus.

JWs adhere to the ingesting of blood thing though? That is what I mean about drilling down into what someone says when they say they are Christian! Is the blood thing not part of the Torah?

 

[newone]

The "blood thing" is also mentioned in the NT....would you like to know where?

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is a very limited experience of Christianity, and three decades are a drop in the bucket. The last three decades are not representative of Christianity of the three decades previous to that. It changes rapidly.

That is wishful thinking. If people read the Bible and if it were a literary cult, things would be much different. As it is some Christians act like they are in Vishnaivism. Others like they are Muslims. Christians today easily get Noah and Moses confused. The focus is on family building, working etc.

All you are doing is finding an odd way of saying you don't believe in Christianity or in Catholicism. I have pointed out that Christians in various groups almost cannot be compared despite sharing a common Bible. How do you reconcile that with your claim that they are literary cultists? Sure some might be literary cultists, but that isn't generally the case. Its a rarity, and usually its a tragic existence I think.

While I'm not a Buddhist, I recognize its based in natural principles and does not need scripture to continue. Christianity is, too; but as in Buddhism most people are not focused on natural principles and just want to live, be happy and have babies. Like Buddhism, Christianity can be reconstructed from zero, with no Bible and probably in all of its forms. Ever heard of Krishna? Look how similar he is to the modern interpretation of Jesus the personal lord and savior, yet there is no Biblical connection. I don't suppose you think Hare Krishnas are a Bible cult, and yet they are extremely comparable to many modern Christians. Many varieties of Christianity also appear to have counterparts in other branches of other religions. Mahayana Buddhism surely does seem a lot like certain brands of Christianity, yet you say Christianity is a literary cult though Christians don't read Buddhist texts.

Like I said, all you've done is restate that you are not a Christian. You have not made a good argument that Christians are literary cultists who would disappear without the Bible. I on the other hand have shown that even without the Bible, Christianity seems to appear (or Christian-like religious groups); and I have shown that claiming the Bible has not kept Christian groups the same.

If you notice in each case the fundamental reliance still lays upon the Holy Bible as a core element upon which the entirety of Christianity is based. It's just different interpretations that have been made, and changes that revolve around the Bible which is why I view it as being a literary cult with the Bible itself as the lynch pin, upon which those variations and changes are noted.

A dependency upon the Holy Bible still exists upon which the whole of Christianity is based. Without it, instituted Christianity would not be around.

If you could find or are aware if any Bible-less or scripture-less forms of instituted Christianity, I would be happy to examine any examples provided.

Just supply a name or designation, I can do the research myself. Otherwise I still maintain that Christianity cannot do without its Holy Bible omitted in It's entirety hence its cultist appeal.

I will say this, that commonalities can be made and compared in context with mulitfaith religions, but I'm not speaking of comparisons or similarity that occurs, but rather dependency upon a specific element by which it's based upon from its oral to its written form. The Holy Bible.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Hindu vedic texts are tied to actual practice of the worship (yajna) and is preserved with the various actions associated with the worship. But more than this, linguists have determined from the phonetics that the vedic chants have been preserved unchanged since 1000 BCE and is a gold mine for understanding the linguistic evolution of Indo-European language group.
Vedic chant - Wikipedia

The various pathas or recitation styles are designed to allow the complete and perfect memorization of the text and its pronunciation, including the Vedic pitch accent. Eleven such ways of reciting the Vedas were designed - Samhita, Pada, Krama, Jata, Maalaa, Sikha, Rekha, Dhwaja, Danda, Rathaa, Ghana, of which Ghana is usually considered the most difficult.[3]

Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat summarizes this as follows:[7]

• Samhita-patha: continuous recitation of Sanskrit words bound by the phonetic rules of euphonic combination;
• Pada-patha: a recitation marked by a conscious pause after every word, and after any special grammatical codes embedded inside the text; this method suppresses euphonic combination and restores each word in its original intended form;
• Krama-patha: a step-by-step recitation where euphonically-combined words are paired successively and sequentially and then recited; for example, a hymn "word1 word2 word3 word4 ...", would be recited as "word1word2 word2word3 word3word4 ..."; this method to verify accuracy is credited to Vedic sages Gargya and Sakalya in the Hindu tradition and mentioned by the ancient Sanskrit grammarian Panini (dated to pre-Buddhism period);
• Krama-patha modified: the same step-by-step recitation as above, but without euphonic-combinations (or free form of each word); this method to verify accuracy is credited to Vedic sages Babhravya and Galava in the Hindu tradition, and is also mentioned by the ancient Sanskrit grammarian Panini;
• Jata-pāṭha, dhvaja-pāṭha and ghana-pāṭha are methods of recitation of a text and its oral transmission that developed after 5th century BCE, that is after the start of Buddhism and Jainism; these methods use more complicated rules of combination and were less used.

These extraordinary retention techniques guaranteed the most perfect canon not just in terms of unaltered word order but also in terms of sound.[8] That these methods have been effective, is testified to by the preservation of the most ancient Indian religious text, the Ṛgveda (ca. 1500 BCE).[7]

The effort to preserve the Vedas exactly leads to a very early development of linguistics and grammar in India.
Vyākaraṇa - Wikipedia

Pāṇini - Wikipedia

In conclusion, one can preserve oral tradition exactly for thousands of years if a significant fraction of a civilizations religious, cultural and technological resources are invested in such an endeavor.

It is also true that an ancient Faith based solely on an Oral tradition, can be destroyed in only a few years.
The Druids are an example who were destroyed by the Romans in a single generation. bu only hunting and killing the Druid leaders who kept the oral tradition.

 

[Rival]

JWs adhere to the ingesting of blood thing though? That is what I mean about drilling down into what someone says when they say they are Christian! Is the blood thing not part of the Torah?

Eating blood is forbidden by the Apostles in The Book of Acts, along with fornication, eating things strangled and eating food offered to idols iirc. Eating blood is also forbidden by Torah.

 

[newone]

Acts 15:28,29

28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

 

[Muslim-UK]

We are told by God that not every faith is "true"...

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.

Isn't that exactly what happened to Paul when he was in the wilderness en route to Damascus?