Protesant ?s What would your Church service be like if you had no bible or would you even have a Chruch if you didnt have a bible?


I think it is a logical question im just curious of how your service would go if you had no bible what would it be like?

also if you did not have a bible would YOUR Church be in exestence today? I think this is also important because many people just pick up the bible and decide they want to become preachers but yet dont read scripture the way the early Christians did like the early Church and therfore have a different Church than the early Christians. tell me logicaly how this make sense the Church exestided before the bible why would you come up with a new Church with new doctrine based own an individuals interpritation suposed to the Chruchs who exested before the bible was put together.

And please answer the question would your church be in exestence today if there was no bibles? And what are your fellings own that.



The church did not exist before the first 2/3 of the Bible.
Trying to speculate what anything would be like without writing something down seems impossible to me. From the very beginning, the Christians were writing things down.


They were, really? I thought the majority of Christians at the time were using oral tradition.


Well Paul started writing in the 40’s. James wrote very early as well. I am one of those who do not think the majority of the NT was written after 70 AD.


I have a even more logical question for you, Odell..

How well was Israel doing when they found their “bible” accidentally when the Temple was being repaired?

Guess what, NOT-VERY-GOOD!

Check out 2 Kings 22. :thumbsup:


sorry but im confused:confused:


Paul was also persecuting the Chruch before he wrote one book:thumbsup:


Why…are you happy about Paul persecuting the church?


oh yeah im thrilled man you read my emotions right threw the page.

let me help you this :thumbsup: was showing you that Paul persecuted the Church before he wrote anything down. the Chruch exested before any letter was written do you not have anything to say about that :thumbsup: and that again is showing that I proved my point. That the Church did exest before the bible.

sorry you missunderstood me hope I made my self clear this time:D


Actually, the :thumbsup: is throwing me off as well.

I am assuming that you meant: Paul was persecuting the Church before his conversion, therefore, the Church existed before his letters, thereby proving that oral tradition was used over written letters.


It is not really necessary to answer this question as we do in fact have the Bible.

Also, reversing the question, what would tradition be like if there was no Bible. The Church Fathers are full of biblical quotations and say very little without scripture. To them Scripture was basically the oral tradition in writing. How would they have disputed heresy if they did not have the Scriptures to support them?

It is not true either to say that the earliest Christians did not have the Bible. They may not have had the New Testament but they did have the Old Testament. The New Testament was written by the death of John and end of the period of new revelation.


I am not saying they did not use oral tradition. :confused:


The church existed before 1/3 of the Bible was written down. Let us be accurate :wink:


I wasn’t saying you said they weren’t. I was attempting to interpret the :thumbsup:
Don’t worry, I am now throughly confused. I wish I could go to bed.


Welcome to my life:D
Anyway, I agree with Sy Carl the question is rathe pointless but I am also saying that the church has ALWAYS had some of the Bible, heck, the MAJORITY of the Bible. Just trying to keep things accurate:o


Gotcha (sans thumbie smiley)


In Acts 15 we have a Church council and they descussed rather or not circumcison should or should not be as it was in the Old testament. If they used scripture at this Church council Circumcision would still me an everlasting covenant

Gen Ch 17
13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

The bible says it is an everlasting coventnant

What authority did the apostles have where they can change the covenant of God?

Did they go by scripture alone?

Again how jwould your Church exest if there was no bible?


some not majority Paul wrote MAJORITY and Paul persecuted the Chruch


The church had 2/3(the majority) of the Bible, the Old Testament.


=Odell;2988977]In Acts 15 we have a Church council and they descussed rather or not circumcison should or should not be as it was in the Old testament. If they used scripture at this Church council Circumcision would still me an everlasting covenant

They did, in fact, use scripture to determine their answer.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit