Thread 18145654

Were people back in the early days of Christianity able to understand the Bible and the scriptures better than us? We have people who go to university for years and spend their whole lives trying to decipher the bible. Was a layman really expected to just sit down with a new copy or have it read outloud and just know about the complexities and the allusions and the symbolism Paul or whoever was talking about? Because I read through it and even with a guide I get confused. Bob the metalworker could just sit down and understand what the hell something like Revelation or Hebrews is trying to tell him?

Only clergymen red the Bible, common folk couldn't read, let alone read in Latin.

>>18145654 (OP)
Yes and no. The two centuries (and a half?) of Christianity was still have the afterglow of 2nd temple Judaism and as such they were into the Old Testament than their successors. The book of Revelation was generally accepted and embraced initially because Christians understood it in light of the Old Testament but after the development of the allegorical method, and especially after Eusebius (he also largely responsible for the rejection of the book fo Hebrews too) commentaries, it's understanding & acceptance in the general assembly diminished until the reformation where most of Christian world cared about it again but they still lost the understanding of 2nd temple Judaism.

>>18145654 (OP)
In the very earliest days, they didn't have the complete Bible yet. While some Gospels were written much earlier (according to Church tradition 40AD for the earliest one) John's Gospel was written by 95AD.

They had some advantages over us in terms of knowledge. Same language, same culture and same "philosophical views" (if you know what I mean) as the Apostles. And at the time, they mostly learned in person from the Apostles (and Paul) themselves, rather than via writing.

For example, in one of the letters by John, he said
>Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete.

So, they had pretty good guides to understand Christianity. The Apostles themselves.

>>18145654 (OP)
The average golem was never supposed to understand the deep mysteries of religion. The reason religion exists is for a priestly class to hold spiritual authority over their stupid retard followers and do whatever they tell them because God says so. That's the reason for the whole sheep/flock/shepherd rhetoric and dynamic.

So no, Bobbius the laborer/slave, who couldn't even read, would not have understood anything other than "God loves you and you get to go to heaven if you do what I say, if you don't do what I say then you go to the bad place to burn in hellfire forever. Now pay your tithes." And if Bobbius questioned too much, they could always revert to "God works in mysterious ways." Which is a nice way of saying "Shut the fuck up and stop questioning me, taxgolem."

>>18145654 (OP)
haha OP I love froggo XD

>>18145654 (OP)
>Were people back in the early days of Christianity able to understand the Bible and the scriptures better than us?
I think the decisive factor is whether or not a person is saved and has the Holy Spirit to guide them into understanding or not.

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
(John 16:13-14)

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
(1 Corinthians 2:11-13)

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
(1 John 2:27)

Obviously, if you have help from the Lord God of the Bible to understand the scripture inspired by the same God, you will be able to understand since God will give you the insight.

Otherwise, without God, I don't think even the most intellectually skilled person who lived at the time, who knew all the original languages and who already knew the cultural context in which the Bible was written, would be able to understand it.

>>18145654 (OP)
>Was a layman really expected to just sit down with a new copy or have it read outloud and just know about the complexities and the allusions and the symbolism Paul or whoever was talking about?
No, in fact it was considered impossible without a guide who was in communion with the Holy Spirit, which reveals all truths to those who are able to receive it.

>>18145654 (OP)
The less prior assumptions you have about a text, the easier it will be for you to honestly analyze it.
I mean this is just true for any text, the Bible included.
If, prior to reading the Bible, you've already assented to Roman Catholic eisegetics, then of course you won't REALLY get the Bible. At least not as well as you would have if you just read it "blank"
Prior assumptions about the Bible can also take the form of atheistic pseudo-doctrines. Like "OMG WERE THEY LIKE, STUPID, OR SOMETHING??" and any allegory will go straight over your head.

>>18145654 (OP)
It was easier for them because it was in their own language and the cultural references were to things they were familiar with. I mean Paul wasn't intentionally writing letters nobody could understand. It just becomes harder to understand any text the farther you get into the future.

it's jewish fairytales

they literally believed heaven was up in a dome in the sky lmao

>>18145981
Doesnt first peter already talk about how confusing pauls letters were
I think after the initial context they quickly lost their intended meaning until recently rediscovered
Its like all the textual variants in galatians with his parable of hagar and sarah because none of the medieval scribes knew what bro was talking about there so they all copied it differently

>>18145981
>>18146005
>>18146023
More atheist spam ITT I see. Two problems with this. First you have no reason to care, and second just because you fail to understand the Bible that's your problem.

>>18146046
Ok bro

Stop talking to me and fly up to heaven like your rabbi

>>18146046
Why does this retard think im an atheist
Ive actually read the new testament enough to know that even peter in the scripture says pauls letters are hard to understand which is the topic of this thread on 4chans history and humanities board

>>18146023
>I think after the initial context they quickly lost their intended meaning until recently rediscovered
Lol, come on.
Modern atheist scholars dont understand the message of the Gospels better than the students of the Apostles.

>>18146204
>assuming orthodoxy actually has an apostolic lineage and they didn't just make it up some time later from the faintest rumors.

>>18145654 (OP)
No. Not really. A lot of it was peer pressure. Many probably just feigned interest also.

>>18146204
Modern scholars dont have to be atheists, a lot of the best ones are christians

>>18147433
You need to be delusional to think modern scholars, living in an unfaithful, low piety era understood the real message of the Gospels while for over 1,900 years people were wrong about it.
Including people who spoke the same language, lived in the same culture and who knew the Apostles personally.

And notice that modern scholars respect people who make stupid theories without any kind of evidence such as claiming Jesus wanted to create a dynastic earthly dynasty like the Carolingean one. Or claiming that Simon Magus was Paul.

It is not because someone put on airs and has an Academic title that they know what they are doing and modern Bible scholarship is trash.

But then, go on, believe that some Mormon who claims Paul was a modern liberal and arsenokoitai was about abuse.

>>18145654 (OP)
>Were people back in the early days of Christianity able to understand the Bible and the scriptures better than us?
Great question. Yes, they were.
>Was a layman really expected to just sit down with a new copy or have it read outloud and just know about the complexities and the allusions and the symbolism
Not exactly. It was rarely "a" layman. It was a congregation of people who mostly lived similarly to the Apostles, so they had the same perspective as the apostles.

Cognitive science points out that, statements don't include rules for their application. Every time you read a proposition, especially a rule or a teaching, you have to already have developed a skill of interpretation to apply it properly. And if your perspective is different from that of the author, your skill will be miscalibrated. If you live in a materialist paradigm and spend most of your days indoors on your ass, consuming and producing re-presentations, you have a near zero chance of having developed the same perspective on life (and consequently the interpretations) as the Apostles did. Early Christians didn't have this problem. And those few who did, would get corrected by just paying attention in a group.
It's not until the middle ages when reading and understanding the Bible becomes a question of systemic philology and philosophical education.

>>18145654 (OP)
>Were people back in the early days of Christianity able to understand the Bible and the scriptures better than us?
No. We have access to better preaching at the press of a button and bible translations in our own language.
>Because I read through it and even with a guide I get confused.
You probably aren't saved. You can't understand the Bible without the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

>>18147453
What are you ranting about schizo
Anyone trying to say paul was a modern liberal would get laughed out of any academic bible publication

>>18145654 (OP)
>The First Council of Nicaea, a gathering of over 300 bishops in 325 AD, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great. It was the first ecumenical council of the Christian church and established the initial formulation of the Nicene Creed, a fundamental statement of Christian belief, to address disputes like Arianism and to promote unity within the church. The council also reached decisions on church discipline and the date for celebrating Easter.

>Constantine walks in and chimes
>I DON'T HEAR ANY UNIFICATION GOING ON IN HERE
:/

>>18145710
>ecclesial power good, it would never be abused
>muh Shepard and sheep