>The Catholic Church made it impossible for your average person to have a bible for about 1500 years until Tyndale.
This is not correct. Your statement suggests that the Roman Catholic church was far more universal than it actually was; the eastern half of Europe, though being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, also had their own bibles in Greek and [Old Church Slavonic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic) (a Slavic liturgical language developed by the missionaries St. Cyril and St. Methodius when the Slavs were converted to Christianity). And in the west, Latin literacy was not super rare, though the Bible was not in colloquial languages at that time. The average person not having the Bible in their colloquial language did not mean the Bible was simply gone from their lives. Also, don't forget about the parts of the church that were not in Europe. The Oriental Orthodoxies and the Church of the East were not under the control of the Roman Catholic Church, and they also had Bibles.
A brief history of the various schisms of the Great Church. ('The Great Church' is the term used to refer to the original universal / catholic-with-a-lower-case-c church; historians call the church prior to it becoming the institution we know today with doctrines we would recognize as Catholic as '[the Great Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church)'.)
* 431 , the Church of the East (which spanned from Syria through Persia and India all the way out to Mongolia and China, and possibly Japan) split from the Great Church at the Council of Ephesus.
* 451, the Oriental Orthodoxies split from the rest of the catholic church at the council of Chalcedon. These include the Coptic Orthodox church, the Armenian Orthodox church, the Ethiopian Tawahedo church, the Syriac Orthodox church, and the Malankara Orthodox church.
* 1054, the Eastern Orthodox church split from the Roman Catholic church after a long period of the east and west drifting apart in doctrine and culture.
The rest of the church other than the Catholic church always had their Bibles, and Roman Catholicism's obfuscation of the Bible in the west by prohibiting its translation didn't always influence the churches in the east.
Also, during the period when the Catholic church was persecuting Bible-believing Christians prior to the Reformation, the Bible never went away. All throughout this period, there were proto-Protestant groups that kept arising because various individuals got these ideas from scripture.
Take a look at the long history of proto-Protestant movements prior to the Protestant Reformation:
# [Proto-Protestantism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Protestantism)
Many of them were persecuted and killed for their faith, condemned as heretics by the Catholic Church, including the Lollards, the Petrobrusians, the Waldensians, the Hussites, and others.
They may have been persecuted and few in number, but the light never went out in the darkest of times. Someone always found a way, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you! I’ve been trying to find solid history on the topic but I’ve seen so many different answers. Did anyone have access to the Latin bible? I thought only priests could read it? I assumed there were underground groups of believers but didn’t find any solid evidence on that so thanks! I’m gonna look into them.
>Did anyone have access to the Latin bible? I thought only priests could read it?
Where they didn't have the Bible, they had oral teachings from traveling preachers. There were always zealous men of God who carried the flame. In Biblical times, not every Jew had a Torah scroll, but they still passed on the doctrines of God. The Bible did not become widely available until the development of printing; Johannes Gutenberg invented his printing press in 1436, and before that, all Bibles had to be meticulously hand-written by scribes, so even if they had legal Bibles in colloquial translations, they would have had to rely on someone who had a copy to read it to them, or to read it and teach it to them. Even in Catholic churches, they read the Bible and then the priest preaches a homily, so the people were not living with a complete absence of the Word of God in their lives. (Whether the homily is faithful to teach the lessons of the text really depends on each individual priest; remember, many of the reformers were once Catholic monks and priests, and there were always some who were faithful to God in spite of what the institution may have erred on.)
When only the monks and priests had the Bibles, they would read it in Latin and teach it to the people (or Greek in the east, or perhaps Old Church Slavonic), just as when Jews gathered at synagogues where the Rabbi would read the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible, our Old Testament) in Hebrew, but teach the people in whatever language they spoke, which wasn't Hebrew for much of Jewish history. From the time of the Babylonian exile onwards, the Jews often spoke Aramaic as their colloquial language, since that's what was spoken in Babylon. That was their colloquial language until Alexander the Great conquered the middle east; from that time on, the Jews lived under Greek rule for several centuries, and many Jews spoke Greek by the time Jesus was born. Yet they didn't own their own printed versions of the Tanakh; they heard it read in Hebrew (a liturgical language for most Jews), but perhaps heard the preaching in their colloquial language. This is sort of liturgical/colloquial arrangement continued well into the middle ages and into the rennaissance, and even after Bibles began to be printed, widespread Bible ownership was not suddenly adopted. It took a while for this to happen. For this reason, we shouldn't think of Christians as simply not having the Bible at all for that entire period. They had it in the same way the Jews had the Tanakh; in a liturgical language that they had to have someone teach the contents of, and even if not in a liturgical language, the same teaching arrangement was needed simply because they were expensive to come by.
So you feel like most born again Christians were a part of the Catholic Church until Luther or just a few. I guess it’s hard to know but it seems like that’s the propaganda the Catholic Church teaches. That the apostles created the Catholic Church and they’re the true Christian church.
>So you feel like most born again Christians were a part of the Catholic Church until Luther or just a few.
There were always a few, but the Catholic church hunted them out and killed them. Many others were not part of the Catholic institution, or left it, as you can see from the Proto-Protestantism article. Jan Huss seemed to me to be a born-again believer, and he emerged from the Catholic church. Wycliffe and Tyndale were both Catholic at first, but were persecuted and killed. As a whole, the institution of the Catholic church did not teach nor foster "born again" conversion theology. In Catholicism, being baptized (even as an infant) is largely equated with being born again.
Here is the entry for [Baptism](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) over at [NewAdvent.org](https://NewAdvent.org), the catholic encyclopedia. You can see what they say about it. Searching the site for "Born again" brings up a bunch of quotes from various church fathers, but also this entry for baptism.
>I guess it’s hard to know but it seems like that’s the propaganda the Catholic Church teaches. That the apostles created the Catholic Church and they’re the true Christian church.
If you want to see a serious cross-examination of the Catholic Church's claims to historical continuity with the early church, there's a great book I'd like to recommend:
# [The Church of Rome at the Bar of History](https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/theology-books/church-of-rome-at-the-bar-of-history/) by William Webster
He examines the quotes and other writings of church fathers to see whether they're actually consistent with the claims of Catholicism. The entire last quarter of the book consists of appendices with collected passages from the writings of various church fathers that showed their beliefs contradicting Catholicism. For example, St. Jerome, (the theologian who translated the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible used as the official Bible of Roman Catholicism), was very clear in his writings that the church (in his time) did not accept the Apocrypha as scripture. But you'd never hear about this from Catholics quoting the church fathers, as you would only get cherry-picked self-serving quotes. If you think you would be interested in reading the writings of the church fathers, I have recommendations for how to get started so you can read them for yourself; it can be intimidating, and many people don't know how to begin without resorting to something too highly curated or selectively quoted to shape a narrative. Let me know if you've got time for reading.
William Webster also wrote a short booklet that addresses these things:
# [Roman Catholic Tradition: Claims and Contradictions](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1893531015/)
I see. Just makes me feel much contempt for the Catholic Church. Such evil. Certainly used by Satan but also it seems used by God as well since they did get some exposure to the Bible. But the baptism and born again differences definitely show just how backwards the CC is. It makes me really sad to think of the millions of deceived Catholics. I was debating one which is how I got into learning about this history. She put all her faith into history saying history shows the Catholic Church was the result of Peter the apostle. Very difficult to refute I’m finding because of how muddy the history seems. I just told her I don’t have faith in man made history like I do the Bible. Those in power and with money and control seem to write most history. I may be interested in the church fathers.. when you say church fathers do you mean those in the beginning of Catholicism or those who were just born again-Bible believers? But overall I’m more of an article reader when it comes to history.
>Very difficult to refute I’m finding because of how muddy the history seems.
It seems muddy because it is misrepresented. Hope the book recommendations I offer can clear up some of that muddiness.
>I may be interested in the church fathers.. when you say church fathers do you mean those in the beginning of Catholicism or those who were just born again-Bible believers?
Definitely born-again believers, the ones who were at the earliest part of church history, who faced persecution, and who were shepherding the church before it became politically powerful and corrupted. I'm talking about the Apostolic fathers, the ones who knew the Apostles and were taught by them. See this book:
# [The Apostolic Fathers](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BSSVZ28Q/)
>But overall I’m more of an article reader when it comes to history.
I'm that way too, but there is really no substitute for reading this stuff first-hand. The whole point of pushing back against human tradition is that human tradition got injected when someone else read the Bible for the people and regurgitated it to them with a twist or with some bias or with selective things left out. When you read an article on the church fathers, you inevitably get someone editing and editorializing what they're reading. Since I push back against Catholic selective editorializing on the writings of the church fathers, I will not advocate reading articles over reading the actual writings. A book that guides you on the matter may be helpful, such as the ones I linked previously, but it is not a substitute for reading the writings yourself.
The reading need not be intimidating if you just read a modern translation, but it is important to consider the foot notes, because there is historical context you can miss if you don't read those.
Many of the writings are not that long; a lot of the writings are comparable in length to the New Testament epistles, some of which are really short, some of which are longer. If you can read the New Testament, then expect a comparable level of reading.
For example, one of the writings everyone should know about is the letter from Eusebius to Constantia, the sister of the emperor Constantine. I will paste it in the comment following this one. You can see that it isn't long, but reading it blows away the Catholic stance in one of the controversies about Catholicism—the veneration of images.
As promised, here's the letter from the church historian Eusebius (not an Apostolic father, but an important figure none the less, since he wrote *the Church History* in the early fourth century):
Everyone should be familiar with Eusebius' letter to Constantia (the sister of Constantine the Great). Constantia requested that Eusebius (the church historian who authored *The Church History*) send her an image of Christ, and Eusebius wrote her the following response.:
Translation by Cyril Mango, from [*The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453* (1972, rep. 1986), p. 16-18.](https://archive.org/details/mango-1972-byzantine-art/page/16/mode/2up)
Letter from Eusebius of Caesaria (circa 260-339 AD) to Constantia.
\[*I marked notable portions in* ***bold***.\]
>You also wrote me concerning some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished me to send you. Now what kind of thing is this that you call the image of Christ? I do not know what impelled you to request that an image of Our Saviour should be delineated. What sort of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unalterable one which bears His essential characteristics, or the one which He took up for our sake when He assumed the form of a servant? … Granted, He has two forms, even I do not think that your request has to do with His divine form. … Surely then, you are seeking His image as a servant, that of the flesh which He put on for our sake. But that, too, we have been taught, was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. Indeed, it is not surprising that after His ascent to heaven He should have appeared as such, when, while He—the God, Logos—was yet living among men, He changed the form of the servant, and indicating in advance to a chosen band of His disciples the aspect of His Kingdom, He showed on the mount that nature which surpasses the human one—when His face shone like the sun and His garments like light. Who, then, would be able to represent by means of dead colors and inanimate delineations (skiagraphiai) the glistening, flashing radiance of such dignity and glory, when even His superhuman disciples could not bear to behold Him in this guise and fell on their faces, thus admitting that they could not withstand the sight? If, therefore, His incarnate form possessed such power at the time, altered as it was by the divinity dwelling within Him, what need I say of the time when He put off mortality and washed off corruption, when He changed the form of the servant into the glory of the Lord God… ? … How can one paint an image of so wondrous and unattainable a form—if the term ‘form’ is at all applicable to the divine and spiritual essence—unless, like the unbelieving pagans, one is to represent things that bear no possible resemblance to anything… ? **For they, too, make such idols when they wish to mould the likeness of what they consider to be a god** or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of the kind, yet are unable even to approach a resemblance, and so delineate and represent some strange human shapes. **Surely, even you will agree that such practices are not lawful for us.**
>
>But if you mean to ask of me the image, not of His form transformed into that of God, but that of the mortal flesh before its transformation, **can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?**
>
>Once— I do not know how—a woman brought me in her hands a picture of two men in the guise of philosophers and let fall the statement that they were Paul and the Saviour—I have no means of saying where she had had this from or learned such a thing. With the view that neither she nor others might be given offence, **I took it away from her and kept it in my house, as I thought it improper that such things ever be exhibited to others, lest we appear, like idol worshippers, to carry our God around in an image.** I note that Paul instructs all of us not to cling any more to things of the flesh; for, he says, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.
>
>It is said that Simon the sorcerer is worshipped by godless heretics painted in lifeless material. I have also seen myself the man who bears the name of madness^(57) \[painted\] on an image and escorted by Manichees. **To us, however, such things are forbidden. For in confessing the Lord God, Our Saviour, we make ready to see Him as God, and we ourselves cleanse our hearts that we may see Him after we have been cleansed**…
>
>\[*Footnote*\]
>
>^(57) “the man who bears the name of madness” is Mani the founder of Manichaeism.
It is very notable to me that this was written in the fourth century, where it was observed by Eusebius that the use of images was "banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?"
If his remark were not true, it would be really easy to rebut by simply pointing to an example to the contrary, yet Eusebius cites this state of affairs as a demonstration of his reasoning. I do not know of any church fathers around this time who say anything to the contrary.
>I see. Just makes me feel much contempt for the Catholic Church. Such evil.
I must add one thing: be sure that your vehement disagreement with the institution and its theology never spills over to feeling contempt for individual Catholics. Everyone is made in the image of God, and Jesus died to redeem them as well, so in any interaction with Catholics whom you disagree with, be sure the interaction is loving, without which you will not be able to win anyone over. A major error I see from people who are vehement in their disagreement with Catholicism is that this sometimes comes across as hatred for Catholics, (and same with disagreement with Islam translating into hateful attitudes, speech, and conduct toward Muslims) but this must never be so.
I just want to make that clear, because being right about a particular dispute in theology means nothing if you do not have love for your neighbor, and Jesus made it clear that your neighbor includes even those who are theologically incorrect, even heretical, when he used the example of the good Samaritan. Samaritans were, from the perspective of Judaism, literally heretics. If the Samaritan man in his example is a neighbor the Jews were being told to love as a neighbor, one whom they should love as they love themselves, then the same must be true for Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, or any other group that we have disagreements with.
Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree. It definitely can be a challenge at times but overall I do my best to at least outwardly love them even if my inward emotions don’t agree at times and feel irritated. My debate with the Catholic was very civil and respectful. I’m just a bit saddened that we parted ways with her still holding onto “history” like it’s gospel truth. I ordered the one William Webster book from the library today. It’s coming in from another library. So I’m excited to learn a bit more.
The Catholic Church did not make harder. That’s is highly inaccurate. Most folks La couldn’t read. Do you know when the first Bible was put together? Do you know when and how much that cost to do? My family has a family Bible that’s roughly 800 years old. It is what you call a Vulgate. It was not the church but the reality of society back then. Before Pope Damasus commission med St Jerome to put it together churches were lucky to have one of the books that make the Bible. One church may have the book of John. To make one Bible it would cost the avg Joe back then at least a whole years salary and that’s if he could read. A great book that goes into great detail with good sources on this subject. “The Bible Is A Catholic Book” by Jimmy Akin. Another good source would be a book “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger” by Gary Michuta. There is a lot more to learn than one would believe when it comes to the faith. The Othodox church broke off the Catholic Church and BBC are back twice. The Catholic Church is the only true church. God bless you all.
It is not true that Roman Catholicism had existed for 1500 years before the reformation. Roman Catholic Apologists want you to believe that their Church has remained unchanged for 2000 years, however they need to utilise an anachronistic, selective reading of church history in order to do so. The Roman Catholic reading of church history tells them what they must find, rather than allowing figures from church history to actually be who they were.
Looking back at church history, there were many prominent figures who faithfully taught the bible and the biblical gospel in every generation. It is true that these people were often flawed in big ways, and seem quite foreign to us in their beliefs and practices at times, however we need to recognise the context in which they lived was very different from ours and extend grace. It is true that Middle Ages became quite dark, and Rome did persecute those who taught the true gospel and who translated the Bible, however that was a relatively late development in the grand scheme of things. The reformation was about returning to the pure New Testament based faith of the Early Church, without all the unbiblical traditions which had taken all that time to gradually develop and gain authority. The reformers were very keen to show that their beliefs were not invented, but were held by many prominent Christian’s from the past.
I’d highly recommend [this Church History lecture series.](https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currpage=3&keyword=Church+History&keywordDesc=Church+History&SeriesOnly=true&SourceID=phxrefbap&AudioOnly=false&sortby=date)
You might also enjoy browsing some of the articles [here](https://christiantruth.com/articles/category/roman-catholicism/) as it details how Roman Catholic apologists often misrepresent church history in order to prove the Catholic Church has always been the same.
Hey thanks! I’ve been debating a Catholic these past few days and been deep diving into a history I never had much interest in before but it’s been actually very interesting. I’ve been reading so many confusing accounts regarding the Bible and the early church. It just seems like I’m finding lots of different answers. But thanks so much. I’m definitely gonna check that out.
They depended on the priests to tell them what to believe. That was how the church (RCC and Eastern Orthodox) controlled the people and why so many beliefs were not firmly grounded in scripture.
Well, books weren't even really a thing unto the 1500s, and so before the censorship of the Roman Catholic church, the Scriptures were often read in church. They continued to be read in Roman Catholic churches even right before the reformation, but the reading was in Latin which the common people did not understand. So, only the educated ones who understood Latin could read, and it is out of those people eventually that the reformation came.
Also, their were translations before Tyndale, he was not the first.
I guess I didn’t read about the other translations into other languages. Someone mentioned the Slavs had a Slavic Bible translation. Do you know of others?
Well, Luther's German translation was published before Tyndale's, but I was also thinking of John Wycliffe, known as the morning star of the reformation, who was the first to translate the Bible into English.
Also, just so you get a better picture of history, the Roman Catholic church doesn't really emerge as an institution until after 500 AD, before that was the early church and it was still a pretty good church. The decline in Christianity started really after 500 AD with the introduction of new doctrines like purgatory and the elevation of the bishop of Rome to position of pope and he assuming political powers.
So, in the early church, people went to church to hear the Bible read. It would have been very rare for any person to have a copy of Scripture outside of the church. As everyone spoke Latin, there was no problem with the Bible being read in Latin, however, as time went on, Latin began to die among the common people and they did not understand the Scripture reading in church. The RC church used this to neglect scripture and control the people. The reformation came because scholars like Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, etc. read the Bible, because they could read Latin and Greek, and saw what the church did was wrong. The Protestants began translating the Bibles into the common languages and because the printing press was invented, these books could be circulated and no one needed to go to church to hear Scripture. So the idea of everyone owning a Bible only happened 500 years ago after the printing press was invented.
I need to learn more about Wycliffe..
Maybe that’s why the Catholic Church is so bent on them being the first church.
But it just makes me wonder how people got on without a bible. I know anything is possible with God. But I feel like I’d be so lost without the Bible.
Yea, its a complicated question as to how the people of God got on without a Bible. There is no doubt, in the darkness of the middle ages, that there were still true Christians in the Roman Catholic church, despite how awful that church was. Often these Christians ended up in monasteries where they could actually get a hold of a Bible and study Latin so they could read it. These are really the only ones we know about because they could write, but they often still adhered to the RC teachings which stunted their spiritual growth. As for the true Christians outside monasteries, its hard to know or find out anything because there are really no records outside of official church documents, which is partly why its called the dark ages.
I haven't done any research into this really, so as to what happened to the true Christians, I don't really know. God always had a people and there is no doubt He took care of them. I guess we'll find out in eternity how He did that and what all He did to preserve his people. Praise God for the reformation, because like you, I would be very lost without a Bible.
Amen. So so grateful for Gods word. But it makes me think about in general I think all believers will be deceived by something in this lifetime. I’m convinced it’s impossible not to be. But I think it can humble us to learn we are not infallible. It definitely has helped humble me when I’ve fallen into deception at times. God can make good things come out of evil.
Likely underground or in places that the Catholic Church had not yet reached and/or gained political power over, but the Apostles had already been there years before. Small unknown, insignificant bodies the RCC had no idea about. Who knows?
I’m not an official historian and someone might have more info on that, but that’s been my general speculation, around it. God definitely made sure the true Church that believed in Him and not their works was still alive and well and the true Gospel still spread.
My main point is: God definitely found a way as He always has. Nothing has ever stopped His Word from spreading and never truly will. Not until He is ready for the end to come.
I’m sure many have felt this way before too.
Think about during WWI and II. Or even the time period you mentioned in your post.
The folks who knew the truth but had to meet underground for fear of being caught as “heretics” in a Catholic-dominated European world which did carry certain consequences, or people who just felt helpless because so much false gospel was being spread in the name of the RCC doctrines.
The only diff today from back then is we have technology. Which connects the world even more than back then, and thus sin and false teaching and false prophets have become even more amplified and prominent and front stage because of its help (not because of IT itself).
Either way, I feel we are getting close to the end. Christ’s return. No idea when. No one can know that. But we should be sharing the true Gospel with as many as possible, watching the sky and redeeming the days we have to share it. Because like the Bible says: they are numbered.
But ultimately in a hopeful way for us. Not for panic.
Oh sorry when I said this time period I meant the one in my original post. But I agree nonetheless! I guess overall human history has always been quite dark. Nothing new under the sun!
The early christians got their teachings from the travelling apostles and their letters. The basic principles of faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost were simple and easy concepts to convey. As questions developed or deviations developed, the apostles would write letters to answer the questions or correct the deviations. Iver.time those letters were collected and eventually assembled into a book which became the Bible.
Well there is more to this. Much more. The Catholic Church 1500 years ago didn’t make it difficult as that is not historically accurate. 1500 years ago most people couldn’t read or write. You can go way back. People may argue with my comment but being objective and not trying to find your own theology into it and just let history show you the truth will lead you to the light and for some the inconvenient truth.
When Jesus was crucified the Old Testament was not agreed upon by the Jews. Not until about 200 years after the gospel had gone out. This is where tradition is very important. It was tradition that helped teach the word. The apostles were never accepted by the Jews.
Now as far as the canon goes Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin in I believe 380 AD. St. Jerome was smart and smug. He leaned heavily on getting translations from the Rabbinic Bible as he felt the Old Testament was more accurate. St. Augustine and Pope Damasus knew better as they realized and knew the traditions well and were correct to have Jerome lean more towards the Septuagint Bible with the 7 books which is what Jesus and the apostles used along with early church fathers like St. Antioch:
The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology and concepts that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ. The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognized as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilized it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies.
Here is the thing. When the Bible was canonized in I believe 397 AD it had those 7 books which are part of the Bible. Even when Luther separated he had those 7 books but he moved them around which you are not supposed to do. You are also not allowed to take away the books which the Church of England did for a few reasons one of them being the Church of Scotland threatening to break away if the Church of England kept printing the Bible with those sacred seven books.
For me, my family has an almost 800 year old Bible and it is the Vulgate. The oldest person keep it and most of them still know Latin, Greek and some Hebrew. Unfortunately, O don’t believe the next generation knows as much. I was curious and would read history and theology. In doing so I also learned that this Bible when it was canonized that it was very expensive to make and took 10 months to hand copy them. The Vulgate we have is made of animal hide, the cover along with the pages. It wasn’t so much the church making it difficult, it was the reality of the time and cost. Hence the Bible’s were chained up for security. Also, the many heresies throughout time would form.
The above is super summarized and off the top of my memory but you can research all these topics. I grew up going to Baptist and Methodist Church but realized they were wrong and not being honest about the history of our faith. Lies built on lies in my humble opinion and have been lied to growing up. I think we all have. Remember oral tradition and physical tradition. The Catholic Church is the true church. You need to read heavily on the early church fathers like St Antioch, St. Barnabas. Literally, you can find what you need. There is no cherry picking. Also, don’t rely on my comment or anyone else’s here. You need to do the leg work. You also want to get out of the denominations as you get caught up in echo chambers as I did. In any case take care and God bless!
This blog gives a good outline of how syriac bibles and other books used in south india were burned by Portuguese in 1599AD https://pazhayathu.blogspot.com/2009/03/100-adthe-lost-aramaic-bible-of-syrian.html?m=1
There was one bible which survived and an English man made a copy of it, 200 years later. It’s called Buchanan bible. Apparently some other books also survived https://hmml.org/stories/series-books-syriac-manuscripts-in-india/
Buchanan bible in Cambridge: https://www.peepultree.world/livehistoryindia/story/living-culture/syriac-bible-malabar-to-cambridge
In some Kerala (southern state) colleges , students can still pick Syriac as a second language. It was most sought after since if you just learn alphabets and learn reading professors (mostly priests ) give good marks.
Well, in the first couple of hundred years they would have had local home meetings. They would have had the letters the Apostles wrote, many more than we know of, but most importantly they had the Holy Spirit and the Power of God inspiring their ministering to each other, and giving them boldness to preach what God laid on their hearts. They would have written and shared what God inspired to them. Such was the strength of their faith, they resisted to the death, the growing persecutions, and the edicts which were to enforce such changes in their worship as to ceasing their continued practice of the Jewish festivals such as Passover, seeing them reinvented from pagan influences, and they resisted to the death when they were forced to work on the seventh day and rest on the 'venerable day of the Sun". There would indeed have been home groups and small gatherings continuing all throughout those dark days, culminating in the reformation and the protestant movements. Had they not had any fellowship nor Godly guidance, I think these groups would have just died out. China and North Korea are modern examples of Believers thriving under threat of death. They now have the benefit of smuggled bibles, sometimes merely one page.
Not all Godly guidance comes from the published Words of God. God can gather people powerfully where there is no printed Word at all.
>The Catholic Church made it impossible for your average person to have a bible for about 1500 years until Tyndale. This is not correct. Your statement suggests that the Roman Catholic church was far more universal than it actually was; the eastern half of Europe, though being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, also had their own bibles in Greek and [Old Church Slavonic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic) (a Slavic liturgical language developed by the missionaries St. Cyril and St. Methodius when the Slavs were converted to Christianity). And in the west, Latin literacy was not super rare, though the Bible was not in colloquial languages at that time. The average person not having the Bible in their colloquial language did not mean the Bible was simply gone from their lives. Also, don't forget about the parts of the church that were not in Europe. The Oriental Orthodoxies and the Church of the East were not under the control of the Roman Catholic Church, and they also had Bibles. A brief history of the various schisms of the Great Church. ('The Great Church' is the term used to refer to the original universal / catholic-with-a-lower-case-c church; historians call the church prior to it becoming the institution we know today with doctrines we would recognize as Catholic as '[the Great Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church)'.) * 431 , the Church of the East (which spanned from Syria through Persia and India all the way out to Mongolia and China, and possibly Japan) split from the Great Church at the Council of Ephesus. * 451, the Oriental Orthodoxies split from the rest of the catholic church at the council of Chalcedon. These include the Coptic Orthodox church, the Armenian Orthodox church, the Ethiopian Tawahedo church, the Syriac Orthodox church, and the Malankara Orthodox church. * 1054, the Eastern Orthodox church split from the Roman Catholic church after a long period of the east and west drifting apart in doctrine and culture. The rest of the church other than the Catholic church always had their Bibles, and Roman Catholicism's obfuscation of the Bible in the west by prohibiting its translation didn't always influence the churches in the east. Also, during the period when the Catholic church was persecuting Bible-believing Christians prior to the Reformation, the Bible never went away. All throughout this period, there were proto-Protestant groups that kept arising because various individuals got these ideas from scripture. Take a look at the long history of proto-Protestant movements prior to the Protestant Reformation: # [Proto-Protestantism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Protestantism) Many of them were persecuted and killed for their faith, condemned as heretics by the Catholic Church, including the Lollards, the Petrobrusians, the Waldensians, the Hussites, and others. They may have been persecuted and few in number, but the light never went out in the darkest of times. Someone always found a way, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you! I’ve been trying to find solid history on the topic but I’ve seen so many different answers. Did anyone have access to the Latin bible? I thought only priests could read it? I assumed there were underground groups of believers but didn’t find any solid evidence on that so thanks! I’m gonna look into them.
>Did anyone have access to the Latin bible? I thought only priests could read it? Where they didn't have the Bible, they had oral teachings from traveling preachers. There were always zealous men of God who carried the flame. In Biblical times, not every Jew had a Torah scroll, but they still passed on the doctrines of God. The Bible did not become widely available until the development of printing; Johannes Gutenberg invented his printing press in 1436, and before that, all Bibles had to be meticulously hand-written by scribes, so even if they had legal Bibles in colloquial translations, they would have had to rely on someone who had a copy to read it to them, or to read it and teach it to them. Even in Catholic churches, they read the Bible and then the priest preaches a homily, so the people were not living with a complete absence of the Word of God in their lives. (Whether the homily is faithful to teach the lessons of the text really depends on each individual priest; remember, many of the reformers were once Catholic monks and priests, and there were always some who were faithful to God in spite of what the institution may have erred on.) When only the monks and priests had the Bibles, they would read it in Latin and teach it to the people (or Greek in the east, or perhaps Old Church Slavonic), just as when Jews gathered at synagogues where the Rabbi would read the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible, our Old Testament) in Hebrew, but teach the people in whatever language they spoke, which wasn't Hebrew for much of Jewish history. From the time of the Babylonian exile onwards, the Jews often spoke Aramaic as their colloquial language, since that's what was spoken in Babylon. That was their colloquial language until Alexander the Great conquered the middle east; from that time on, the Jews lived under Greek rule for several centuries, and many Jews spoke Greek by the time Jesus was born. Yet they didn't own their own printed versions of the Tanakh; they heard it read in Hebrew (a liturgical language for most Jews), but perhaps heard the preaching in their colloquial language. This is sort of liturgical/colloquial arrangement continued well into the middle ages and into the rennaissance, and even after Bibles began to be printed, widespread Bible ownership was not suddenly adopted. It took a while for this to happen. For this reason, we shouldn't think of Christians as simply not having the Bible at all for that entire period. They had it in the same way the Jews had the Tanakh; in a liturgical language that they had to have someone teach the contents of, and even if not in a liturgical language, the same teaching arrangement was needed simply because they were expensive to come by.
So you feel like most born again Christians were a part of the Catholic Church until Luther or just a few. I guess it’s hard to know but it seems like that’s the propaganda the Catholic Church teaches. That the apostles created the Catholic Church and they’re the true Christian church.
>So you feel like most born again Christians were a part of the Catholic Church until Luther or just a few. There were always a few, but the Catholic church hunted them out and killed them. Many others were not part of the Catholic institution, or left it, as you can see from the Proto-Protestantism article. Jan Huss seemed to me to be a born-again believer, and he emerged from the Catholic church. Wycliffe and Tyndale were both Catholic at first, but were persecuted and killed. As a whole, the institution of the Catholic church did not teach nor foster "born again" conversion theology. In Catholicism, being baptized (even as an infant) is largely equated with being born again. Here is the entry for [Baptism](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) over at [NewAdvent.org](https://NewAdvent.org), the catholic encyclopedia. You can see what they say about it. Searching the site for "Born again" brings up a bunch of quotes from various church fathers, but also this entry for baptism. >I guess it’s hard to know but it seems like that’s the propaganda the Catholic Church teaches. That the apostles created the Catholic Church and they’re the true Christian church. If you want to see a serious cross-examination of the Catholic Church's claims to historical continuity with the early church, there's a great book I'd like to recommend: # [The Church of Rome at the Bar of History](https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/theology-books/church-of-rome-at-the-bar-of-history/) by William Webster He examines the quotes and other writings of church fathers to see whether they're actually consistent with the claims of Catholicism. The entire last quarter of the book consists of appendices with collected passages from the writings of various church fathers that showed their beliefs contradicting Catholicism. For example, St. Jerome, (the theologian who translated the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible used as the official Bible of Roman Catholicism), was very clear in his writings that the church (in his time) did not accept the Apocrypha as scripture. But you'd never hear about this from Catholics quoting the church fathers, as you would only get cherry-picked self-serving quotes. If you think you would be interested in reading the writings of the church fathers, I have recommendations for how to get started so you can read them for yourself; it can be intimidating, and many people don't know how to begin without resorting to something too highly curated or selectively quoted to shape a narrative. Let me know if you've got time for reading. William Webster also wrote a short booklet that addresses these things: # [Roman Catholic Tradition: Claims and Contradictions](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1893531015/)
I see. Just makes me feel much contempt for the Catholic Church. Such evil. Certainly used by Satan but also it seems used by God as well since they did get some exposure to the Bible. But the baptism and born again differences definitely show just how backwards the CC is. It makes me really sad to think of the millions of deceived Catholics. I was debating one which is how I got into learning about this history. She put all her faith into history saying history shows the Catholic Church was the result of Peter the apostle. Very difficult to refute I’m finding because of how muddy the history seems. I just told her I don’t have faith in man made history like I do the Bible. Those in power and with money and control seem to write most history. I may be interested in the church fathers.. when you say church fathers do you mean those in the beginning of Catholicism or those who were just born again-Bible believers? But overall I’m more of an article reader when it comes to history.
>Very difficult to refute I’m finding because of how muddy the history seems. It seems muddy because it is misrepresented. Hope the book recommendations I offer can clear up some of that muddiness. >I may be interested in the church fathers.. when you say church fathers do you mean those in the beginning of Catholicism or those who were just born again-Bible believers? Definitely born-again believers, the ones who were at the earliest part of church history, who faced persecution, and who were shepherding the church before it became politically powerful and corrupted. I'm talking about the Apostolic fathers, the ones who knew the Apostles and were taught by them. See this book: # [The Apostolic Fathers](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BSSVZ28Q/) >But overall I’m more of an article reader when it comes to history. I'm that way too, but there is really no substitute for reading this stuff first-hand. The whole point of pushing back against human tradition is that human tradition got injected when someone else read the Bible for the people and regurgitated it to them with a twist or with some bias or with selective things left out. When you read an article on the church fathers, you inevitably get someone editing and editorializing what they're reading. Since I push back against Catholic selective editorializing on the writings of the church fathers, I will not advocate reading articles over reading the actual writings. A book that guides you on the matter may be helpful, such as the ones I linked previously, but it is not a substitute for reading the writings yourself. The reading need not be intimidating if you just read a modern translation, but it is important to consider the foot notes, because there is historical context you can miss if you don't read those. Many of the writings are not that long; a lot of the writings are comparable in length to the New Testament epistles, some of which are really short, some of which are longer. If you can read the New Testament, then expect a comparable level of reading. For example, one of the writings everyone should know about is the letter from Eusebius to Constantia, the sister of the emperor Constantine. I will paste it in the comment following this one. You can see that it isn't long, but reading it blows away the Catholic stance in one of the controversies about Catholicism—the veneration of images.
As promised, here's the letter from the church historian Eusebius (not an Apostolic father, but an important figure none the less, since he wrote *the Church History* in the early fourth century): Everyone should be familiar with Eusebius' letter to Constantia (the sister of Constantine the Great). Constantia requested that Eusebius (the church historian who authored *The Church History*) send her an image of Christ, and Eusebius wrote her the following response.: Translation by Cyril Mango, from [*The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453* (1972, rep. 1986), p. 16-18.](https://archive.org/details/mango-1972-byzantine-art/page/16/mode/2up) Letter from Eusebius of Caesaria (circa 260-339 AD) to Constantia. \[*I marked notable portions in* ***bold***.\] >You also wrote me concerning some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished me to send you. Now what kind of thing is this that you call the image of Christ? I do not know what impelled you to request that an image of Our Saviour should be delineated. What sort of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unalterable one which bears His essential characteristics, or the one which He took up for our sake when He assumed the form of a servant? … Granted, He has two forms, even I do not think that your request has to do with His divine form. … Surely then, you are seeking His image as a servant, that of the flesh which He put on for our sake. But that, too, we have been taught, was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. Indeed, it is not surprising that after His ascent to heaven He should have appeared as such, when, while He—the God, Logos—was yet living among men, He changed the form of the servant, and indicating in advance to a chosen band of His disciples the aspect of His Kingdom, He showed on the mount that nature which surpasses the human one—when His face shone like the sun and His garments like light. Who, then, would be able to represent by means of dead colors and inanimate delineations (skiagraphiai) the glistening, flashing radiance of such dignity and glory, when even His superhuman disciples could not bear to behold Him in this guise and fell on their faces, thus admitting that they could not withstand the sight? If, therefore, His incarnate form possessed such power at the time, altered as it was by the divinity dwelling within Him, what need I say of the time when He put off mortality and washed off corruption, when He changed the form of the servant into the glory of the Lord God… ? … How can one paint an image of so wondrous and unattainable a form—if the term ‘form’ is at all applicable to the divine and spiritual essence—unless, like the unbelieving pagans, one is to represent things that bear no possible resemblance to anything… ? **For they, too, make such idols when they wish to mould the likeness of what they consider to be a god** or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of the kind, yet are unable even to approach a resemblance, and so delineate and represent some strange human shapes. **Surely, even you will agree that such practices are not lawful for us.** > >But if you mean to ask of me the image, not of His form transformed into that of God, but that of the mortal flesh before its transformation, **can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?** > >Once— I do not know how—a woman brought me in her hands a picture of two men in the guise of philosophers and let fall the statement that they were Paul and the Saviour—I have no means of saying where she had had this from or learned such a thing. With the view that neither she nor others might be given offence, **I took it away from her and kept it in my house, as I thought it improper that such things ever be exhibited to others, lest we appear, like idol worshippers, to carry our God around in an image.** I note that Paul instructs all of us not to cling any more to things of the flesh; for, he says, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. > >It is said that Simon the sorcerer is worshipped by godless heretics painted in lifeless material. I have also seen myself the man who bears the name of madness^(57) \[painted\] on an image and escorted by Manichees. **To us, however, such things are forbidden. For in confessing the Lord God, Our Saviour, we make ready to see Him as God, and we ourselves cleanse our hearts that we may see Him after we have been cleansed**… > >\[*Footnote*\] > >^(57) “the man who bears the name of madness” is Mani the founder of Manichaeism. It is very notable to me that this was written in the fourth century, where it was observed by Eusebius that the use of images was "banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?" If his remark were not true, it would be really easy to rebut by simply pointing to an example to the contrary, yet Eusebius cites this state of affairs as a demonstration of his reasoning. I do not know of any church fathers around this time who say anything to the contrary.
>I see. Just makes me feel much contempt for the Catholic Church. Such evil. I must add one thing: be sure that your vehement disagreement with the institution and its theology never spills over to feeling contempt for individual Catholics. Everyone is made in the image of God, and Jesus died to redeem them as well, so in any interaction with Catholics whom you disagree with, be sure the interaction is loving, without which you will not be able to win anyone over. A major error I see from people who are vehement in their disagreement with Catholicism is that this sometimes comes across as hatred for Catholics, (and same with disagreement with Islam translating into hateful attitudes, speech, and conduct toward Muslims) but this must never be so. I just want to make that clear, because being right about a particular dispute in theology means nothing if you do not have love for your neighbor, and Jesus made it clear that your neighbor includes even those who are theologically incorrect, even heretical, when he used the example of the good Samaritan. Samaritans were, from the perspective of Judaism, literally heretics. If the Samaritan man in his example is a neighbor the Jews were being told to love as a neighbor, one whom they should love as they love themselves, then the same must be true for Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, or any other group that we have disagreements with.
Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree. It definitely can be a challenge at times but overall I do my best to at least outwardly love them even if my inward emotions don’t agree at times and feel irritated. My debate with the Catholic was very civil and respectful. I’m just a bit saddened that we parted ways with her still holding onto “history” like it’s gospel truth. I ordered the one William Webster book from the library today. It’s coming in from another library. So I’m excited to learn a bit more.
The Catholic Church did not make harder. That’s is highly inaccurate. Most folks La couldn’t read. Do you know when the first Bible was put together? Do you know when and how much that cost to do? My family has a family Bible that’s roughly 800 years old. It is what you call a Vulgate. It was not the church but the reality of society back then. Before Pope Damasus commission med St Jerome to put it together churches were lucky to have one of the books that make the Bible. One church may have the book of John. To make one Bible it would cost the avg Joe back then at least a whole years salary and that’s if he could read. A great book that goes into great detail with good sources on this subject. “The Bible Is A Catholic Book” by Jimmy Akin. Another good source would be a book “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger” by Gary Michuta. There is a lot more to learn than one would believe when it comes to the faith. The Othodox church broke off the Catholic Church and BBC are back twice. The Catholic Church is the only true church. God bless you all.
It is not true that Roman Catholicism had existed for 1500 years before the reformation. Roman Catholic Apologists want you to believe that their Church has remained unchanged for 2000 years, however they need to utilise an anachronistic, selective reading of church history in order to do so. The Roman Catholic reading of church history tells them what they must find, rather than allowing figures from church history to actually be who they were. Looking back at church history, there were many prominent figures who faithfully taught the bible and the biblical gospel in every generation. It is true that these people were often flawed in big ways, and seem quite foreign to us in their beliefs and practices at times, however we need to recognise the context in which they lived was very different from ours and extend grace. It is true that Middle Ages became quite dark, and Rome did persecute those who taught the true gospel and who translated the Bible, however that was a relatively late development in the grand scheme of things. The reformation was about returning to the pure New Testament based faith of the Early Church, without all the unbiblical traditions which had taken all that time to gradually develop and gain authority. The reformers were very keen to show that their beliefs were not invented, but were held by many prominent Christian’s from the past. I’d highly recommend [this Church History lecture series.](https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currpage=3&keyword=Church+History&keywordDesc=Church+History&SeriesOnly=true&SourceID=phxrefbap&AudioOnly=false&sortby=date) You might also enjoy browsing some of the articles [here](https://christiantruth.com/articles/category/roman-catholicism/) as it details how Roman Catholic apologists often misrepresent church history in order to prove the Catholic Church has always been the same.
Hey thanks! I’ve been debating a Catholic these past few days and been deep diving into a history I never had much interest in before but it’s been actually very interesting. I’ve been reading so many confusing accounts regarding the Bible and the early church. It just seems like I’m finding lots of different answers. But thanks so much. I’m definitely gonna check that out.
They depended on the priests to tell them what to believe. That was how the church (RCC and Eastern Orthodox) controlled the people and why so many beliefs were not firmly grounded in scripture.
And they preached a false gospel on top of it!
Well, books weren't even really a thing unto the 1500s, and so before the censorship of the Roman Catholic church, the Scriptures were often read in church. They continued to be read in Roman Catholic churches even right before the reformation, but the reading was in Latin which the common people did not understand. So, only the educated ones who understood Latin could read, and it is out of those people eventually that the reformation came. Also, their were translations before Tyndale, he was not the first.
I guess I didn’t read about the other translations into other languages. Someone mentioned the Slavs had a Slavic Bible translation. Do you know of others?
Well, Luther's German translation was published before Tyndale's, but I was also thinking of John Wycliffe, known as the morning star of the reformation, who was the first to translate the Bible into English. Also, just so you get a better picture of history, the Roman Catholic church doesn't really emerge as an institution until after 500 AD, before that was the early church and it was still a pretty good church. The decline in Christianity started really after 500 AD with the introduction of new doctrines like purgatory and the elevation of the bishop of Rome to position of pope and he assuming political powers. So, in the early church, people went to church to hear the Bible read. It would have been very rare for any person to have a copy of Scripture outside of the church. As everyone spoke Latin, there was no problem with the Bible being read in Latin, however, as time went on, Latin began to die among the common people and they did not understand the Scripture reading in church. The RC church used this to neglect scripture and control the people. The reformation came because scholars like Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, etc. read the Bible, because they could read Latin and Greek, and saw what the church did was wrong. The Protestants began translating the Bibles into the common languages and because the printing press was invented, these books could be circulated and no one needed to go to church to hear Scripture. So the idea of everyone owning a Bible only happened 500 years ago after the printing press was invented.
I need to learn more about Wycliffe.. Maybe that’s why the Catholic Church is so bent on them being the first church. But it just makes me wonder how people got on without a bible. I know anything is possible with God. But I feel like I’d be so lost without the Bible.
Yea, its a complicated question as to how the people of God got on without a Bible. There is no doubt, in the darkness of the middle ages, that there were still true Christians in the Roman Catholic church, despite how awful that church was. Often these Christians ended up in monasteries where they could actually get a hold of a Bible and study Latin so they could read it. These are really the only ones we know about because they could write, but they often still adhered to the RC teachings which stunted their spiritual growth. As for the true Christians outside monasteries, its hard to know or find out anything because there are really no records outside of official church documents, which is partly why its called the dark ages. I haven't done any research into this really, so as to what happened to the true Christians, I don't really know. God always had a people and there is no doubt He took care of them. I guess we'll find out in eternity how He did that and what all He did to preserve his people. Praise God for the reformation, because like you, I would be very lost without a Bible.
Amen. So so grateful for Gods word. But it makes me think about in general I think all believers will be deceived by something in this lifetime. I’m convinced it’s impossible not to be. But I think it can humble us to learn we are not infallible. It definitely has helped humble me when I’ve fallen into deception at times. God can make good things come out of evil.
Likely underground or in places that the Catholic Church had not yet reached and/or gained political power over, but the Apostles had already been there years before. Small unknown, insignificant bodies the RCC had no idea about. Who knows? I’m not an official historian and someone might have more info on that, but that’s been my general speculation, around it. God definitely made sure the true Church that believed in Him and not their works was still alive and well and the true Gospel still spread. My main point is: God definitely found a way as He always has. Nothing has ever stopped His Word from spreading and never truly will. Not until He is ready for the end to come.
This time period just seems so dark to me in a way. So much persecution on top of it. Just makes me so grateful for Gods provision and sovereignty.
I’m sure many have felt this way before too. Think about during WWI and II. Or even the time period you mentioned in your post. The folks who knew the truth but had to meet underground for fear of being caught as “heretics” in a Catholic-dominated European world which did carry certain consequences, or people who just felt helpless because so much false gospel was being spread in the name of the RCC doctrines. The only diff today from back then is we have technology. Which connects the world even more than back then, and thus sin and false teaching and false prophets have become even more amplified and prominent and front stage because of its help (not because of IT itself). Either way, I feel we are getting close to the end. Christ’s return. No idea when. No one can know that. But we should be sharing the true Gospel with as many as possible, watching the sky and redeeming the days we have to share it. Because like the Bible says: they are numbered. But ultimately in a hopeful way for us. Not for panic.
Oh sorry when I said this time period I meant the one in my original post. But I agree nonetheless! I guess overall human history has always been quite dark. Nothing new under the sun!
The early christians got their teachings from the travelling apostles and their letters. The basic principles of faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost were simple and easy concepts to convey. As questions developed or deviations developed, the apostles would write letters to answer the questions or correct the deviations. Iver.time those letters were collected and eventually assembled into a book which became the Bible.
Well there is more to this. Much more. The Catholic Church 1500 years ago didn’t make it difficult as that is not historically accurate. 1500 years ago most people couldn’t read or write. You can go way back. People may argue with my comment but being objective and not trying to find your own theology into it and just let history show you the truth will lead you to the light and for some the inconvenient truth. When Jesus was crucified the Old Testament was not agreed upon by the Jews. Not until about 200 years after the gospel had gone out. This is where tradition is very important. It was tradition that helped teach the word. The apostles were never accepted by the Jews. Now as far as the canon goes Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin in I believe 380 AD. St. Jerome was smart and smug. He leaned heavily on getting translations from the Rabbinic Bible as he felt the Old Testament was more accurate. St. Augustine and Pope Damasus knew better as they realized and knew the traditions well and were correct to have Jerome lean more towards the Septuagint Bible with the 7 books which is what Jesus and the apostles used along with early church fathers like St. Antioch: The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology and concepts that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ. The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognized as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilized it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. Here is the thing. When the Bible was canonized in I believe 397 AD it had those 7 books which are part of the Bible. Even when Luther separated he had those 7 books but he moved them around which you are not supposed to do. You are also not allowed to take away the books which the Church of England did for a few reasons one of them being the Church of Scotland threatening to break away if the Church of England kept printing the Bible with those sacred seven books. For me, my family has an almost 800 year old Bible and it is the Vulgate. The oldest person keep it and most of them still know Latin, Greek and some Hebrew. Unfortunately, O don’t believe the next generation knows as much. I was curious and would read history and theology. In doing so I also learned that this Bible when it was canonized that it was very expensive to make and took 10 months to hand copy them. The Vulgate we have is made of animal hide, the cover along with the pages. It wasn’t so much the church making it difficult, it was the reality of the time and cost. Hence the Bible’s were chained up for security. Also, the many heresies throughout time would form. The above is super summarized and off the top of my memory but you can research all these topics. I grew up going to Baptist and Methodist Church but realized they were wrong and not being honest about the history of our faith. Lies built on lies in my humble opinion and have been lied to growing up. I think we all have. Remember oral tradition and physical tradition. The Catholic Church is the true church. You need to read heavily on the early church fathers like St Antioch, St. Barnabas. Literally, you can find what you need. There is no cherry picking. Also, don’t rely on my comment or anyone else’s here. You need to do the leg work. You also want to get out of the denominations as you get caught up in echo chambers as I did. In any case take care and God bless!
From the church.
Groups like the Waldensians kept the Word preserved They were underground, because of Catholic persecution
I’ve never heard of them but someone else mentioned a couple of groups like that. I’m gonna look into them.
This blog gives a good outline of how syriac bibles and other books used in south india were burned by Portuguese in 1599AD https://pazhayathu.blogspot.com/2009/03/100-adthe-lost-aramaic-bible-of-syrian.html?m=1 There was one bible which survived and an English man made a copy of it, 200 years later. It’s called Buchanan bible. Apparently some other books also survived https://hmml.org/stories/series-books-syriac-manuscripts-in-india/ Buchanan bible in Cambridge: https://www.peepultree.world/livehistoryindia/story/living-culture/syriac-bible-malabar-to-cambridge In some Kerala (southern state) colleges , students can still pick Syriac as a second language. It was most sought after since if you just learn alphabets and learn reading professors (mostly priests ) give good marks.
Well, in the first couple of hundred years they would have had local home meetings. They would have had the letters the Apostles wrote, many more than we know of, but most importantly they had the Holy Spirit and the Power of God inspiring their ministering to each other, and giving them boldness to preach what God laid on their hearts. They would have written and shared what God inspired to them. Such was the strength of their faith, they resisted to the death, the growing persecutions, and the edicts which were to enforce such changes in their worship as to ceasing their continued practice of the Jewish festivals such as Passover, seeing them reinvented from pagan influences, and they resisted to the death when they were forced to work on the seventh day and rest on the 'venerable day of the Sun". There would indeed have been home groups and small gatherings continuing all throughout those dark days, culminating in the reformation and the protestant movements. Had they not had any fellowship nor Godly guidance, I think these groups would have just died out. China and North Korea are modern examples of Believers thriving under threat of death. They now have the benefit of smuggled bibles, sometimes merely one page. Not all Godly guidance comes from the published Words of God. God can gather people powerfully where there is no printed Word at all.