The common people and the Bible - literalists?

When the Bible was first put together in the hundreds AD, when no one could read but the priests, what did the common people - the peasants, who’d never been to school - think of it?

Did they believe it all literally, or did they think - or have it explained to them - that it was allegories and not to be taken as actual stories?

Likely literally. Darwin’s Origin of species didnt come out until the late 19th century. Not much before that people were executed and shunned for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun.

I saw the above today and thought of this thread

That was actually pretty interesting. I’m on part 2 right now.


When the bible was put together there were dozens of gospels floating around. Where are they know?

I have many of them recorded in the The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. The reason most of the books did not make Canon is that because they appear to have been written much later or come from Gnostic, not Christian backgrounds. Others (The Epistles of Barnabas I think is an example) appear to be authentic and do not seem to have been tainted with Gnosticism, and (to me) inspiring; yet for some reason weren’t included.

Keep in mind, just because a book does not make Canon does not mean that it is forbidden, or that they do not contain wisdom and even some historical facts.

Are you speaking of people following the Christian faith or the Jewish faith? The New Testament was probably presented as fact–and Christians to this day believe most of it is. The Old Testament, or the Tanach, have pretty much always followed the concept that it should be studied, not read. As such, it would probably be the lessons and wisdom that were the primary focus. This is just a guess, but what I am relatively certain of, is that it varied (just as things do today).

I think back in the day they were probably forbidden, and likely a good way to get you burned at the stake as a heretic.

It would be nice to see what the Vatican is keeping hidden away in it’s archives. They are the master deceivers.

Apparently not. It seems that the “forbidden” books simply did not gain the Vatican’s stamp of approval, and Catholics were cautioned to use care when reading them as not all information was accurate (or favorable) to the Church. This practice didn’t start until the mid fifteen hundreds and was discontinued four hundred years later.

I recall being told many years ago that the Vatican “secret” archives simply means that they are private, the property of the current pope. While not open to the general public on a general basis, scholars can gain access to the material their. It is not being hidden.

It was going on a lot earlier than the mid 1500’s. The Spanish Inquisition (Inquisición española), was established in 1478 and the church’s deadly desire of maintaining ‘‘Christian purity of thought’’ had been going on long before that.

Yeah, as long as you’re on the approved list, and your research is ‘‘approved.’’

I believe I still hasn’t released some of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I’m sure if it had gotten it’s hands on the famous Gospel of Judas first, it never would have seen the light of day.

I was really hoping for an army of darkness boomstick moment


1 Like

That would have been far too much for them to take in.

Imagine showing them an oozie or a large pizza

Reading a book is much different from going out preaching something that Christianity does not teach. And, yes, in the first century Paul warned against this. Cautioning people about something does not indicate they will be burned at the stake if they disagree.

Did you seriously just say oozie? Tell me that your phone wrote that or something. Who doesn’t know how to spell that word?

Hay you kant noe the awl

My uzi of oozing. BRB.

The trybe woont kno how spyell it