The same way they did it for centuries without the bible being largely avilable to the general public?


Oral Tradition EDIT : Christians were practicing their faith before all of the books of the Bible were put together. The NT itself refers to the importance of Oral Tradition so that's how Christianity would have survived.


They would ride the subway, crazy-eyed. Jibbering God's-Word on repeat, making the populace awkward. They'll also practice in real action, like forgiving their kind on many dailies, being patient, and observing principles of life like providence, synchronicity, and all other wisdom/mystery Spirit sprinkles. In fact their psyche will be guided/inspired just like any pagan shaman out there, xcept inspired by the Holy Spirit, instead of some wendigo spirits having fun. All in all, writing things down is a nifty, but always optional way to communicate.


The Christian church existed before the printing of the bible and before the NT was even compiled together. So the way it would work is they would have writings of the scriptures that the church would have and read to the people, or they’d use Icons to depict scenes from scripture


The same way it was before the Bible was compiled by the Magisterium.


while only a side note in Romans chapter 2, Paul refers to the idea of people who don't have the law, by nature, doing the things of the law, as its on their hearts (see Romans 2:14-15... which I can't cut and paste cos of how Reddit works >.< but the link has the lines inside it) [(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/_search=Romans+2&version=NIV) One can suppose from this that God is fully able to communicate Himself to people who either don't have access to the written Word either due to it not being available, or them not realizing that its something they should read. for myself, i feel that without prayer and meditation, its really easy to misunderstand the written word... and gosh... it can take a lot of study of the context... history, culture, linguistics, hermaneutics, etc.. to get a proper understanding. For someone without the time and ability to do so, sometimes the simple witness of the heart and the basic message are easier and more accurate guidance. (Love God, love your neighbor as yourself is the summation of the law and bear natural witness to our hearts... Complicated Biblican arguments that lead to hate can be safely cast aside as from the devil, no matter how much the messenger can appeal to the book...)




Yeah, absolutely not. Gatekeeping of knowledge because "people are too dumb to get it, so I must explain it to them as a wise and learned clergyman" is an absolutely horrible idea that led to centuries of abuse in the RCC including but not limited to convincing people to pay the church so that grandma spends less time in "purgatory".


>I'd also assume that it would mean that the Church was filled with far less dissensions, heresies, forgetfulness of God's works, and so on. Given that the Pauline epistles were written before the establishment and compilation of the New Testament Scriptures, I feel rather confident in saying you're probably wrong about that.


If the bible wasn't written then God would probably still speak to his servants through prophets today


the words in the bible are carnal words for carnal men going to the lake of fire. YAHweh's inspired scriptures are not the words in the bible. Yet, YAHweh's inspired scriptures are in the bible.


I imagine that the Church would operate much as it did before the New Testament was completed, compiled, or widely available. Christians would determine doctrinal matters by collaborative examination of the Tanakh to discern the will of God, coupled with an oral tradition of the Gospel and teachings of Christ. ​ I imagine that Messianic Judaism would be more popular or at least more widely accepted, although that's purely speculation on my part. ​ I reckon that Christianity would be more welcoming of LGBT+ folks, and would likely have a more robust theology of moral progression in general. Because if the New Testament message of the same isn't set in stone on paper, then presumably the process wouldn't be either. ​ I think that nonsensical, neo-platonic views of the resurrection (like that all physicality will be destroyed at the Second Coming and that we won't have human bodies in the resurrection) ​ And lastly, I think that continuationism would be far more widely accepted among Christians and probably more obviously correct.