I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[joe370]

Phreeque That’s a false question, Nicaea: Jesus is the AUTHOR of the Bible, and yet when He came on earth in our human frame, over and over He appealed to it as His authority. (Since He is the King, He could have just said, “I say…” or “I have spoken! Amen!”) Does that not speak volumes D) for the primacy of the Bible?

Of course Jesus appealed to the Prophets, the Law and the Psalms.

Some questions I asked myself as a former protestant:

Where in scripture, does Jesus appeal to scripture to prove that scripture is the Christians final authority?

Why doesn’t the bible tell us that the bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

Why does the bible say: tell it to the church and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector?

Show me a place where Jesus appeals to, say, the Talmud (on the contrary, He often condemns that document as nothing but “the traditions of men”). Show me where He references a Greek or Arab philosopher.

I can’t.

And Peter himself, does he not say (2 Pet. 1:19), “We have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

Because we will do well to pay attention to scripture. That says nothing about scripture being the Christians final authority. Scripture doesn’t even have a table of contents. That was put there by the church.

He doesn’t exult in some religious group or some tradition. He clings to the naked Word of God.

When you say, “some religious group” are you referring to a church? For the most part, apostolic tradition contains the same material that is found in apostolic Scripture, only in a different form.

If tradition was good enough for Paul then it’s good enough for me. In 2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands the members of the church to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. Let me know if you find a verse that voids this commandment to obey apostolic tradition.

It is true that Jesus condemned human traditions that void God’s word but those verses have nothing to do with apostolic tradition that we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. Jesus is referring to the Pharisees, regarding human tradition.

Historical fact: It was apostolic tradition that allowed the Catholic Church to accurately codify the canon; apostolicity was determined from tradition, as per protestant scholars as well. Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was codified the CC leadership had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors making the Bible an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church, which also proves that oral tradition did not fade away with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) and knowing who in fact wrote the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[jericho777]

jericho777;8463711:

As was Luther…and? Once you step outside those boundaries you ae no longer an Augustinian monk. Present those doctrines put forth by Augustine?

Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, total corruption, or Augustinianism) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.

 

[pablope]

pablope;8460921:

Pablope,
When I started reading scripture I wasn’t concerned with specifics per se. It was more of a broad brush learning generalities. Later when I became more interested in deeper things I looked deeper into the word.

But you avoided entirely the question I posed…let me ask again…below…

And how did you come the point that you are able to see them? And why are those in the same boat as you are not able to see them like you do?

Let me give a real life situation that plays continuously…there are two christians 1 and 2…both baptized, etc…full of faith…and both read the Scripture…read a passage in Scripture…but come to different conclusions and meanings and interpretations…so who’s eyes were opened by God? Two cannot be right…I assume you will agree…so which one?
*

Or does God want us all to come into His light? And if we are all in God’s light…how come there is misinterpretation?*

God wants all He has chosen to come to understanding.

Isn’t God’s will to choose all, and not exclude anyone?

Are they disagreeing on the deity of Christ or how many elders to have in the local church? If you could solve that problem you would be wealthy.

Do you really think that Jesus would leave earth and His Church without providing a mechanism to resolve such disagreements? Do you think He would not know that there would be disagreements? If you think so, then He did not do an adequate job of instructing the Apostles, isn’t it? He fails as a God, is what you are saying.

Actually, if I could solve such problems, I would be saint, not a wealthy man. I would not accept money for the Church of Christ…I would surrender my all.

However there many factors surrounding a person’s understanding so it is anybody’s guess.

And what are those factors? Could you provide those factors/causes?

God gives the grace to understand to those whom He has chosen. Lk 8:10 He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,“‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’

Context, context…my friend…this is after the parable of the sower, and Jesus explains the parable to the Apostles alone, and not to the crowd…Jesus is preparing the Apostles for their leadership role…and speaks of those who will accept the gospel differently, who the Apostles will encounter when they go out to spread the Word.

 

[pablope]

Because one claims to be something does not make them so.

It is the church’s duty to correctly interpret scripture. .

So which church correctly interpret Scripture? And which church do you think is not doing its duty to interpret Scripture?

Let me give you another real life example…

An individual Christian, baptized and all, very devout and faithful, and a church doing its duty diligently, do not interpret a passage the same way…there are very serious differences…(and I think this happens within protestant circles all the time)…

So, who do you think has the correct interpretation…the church or the individual?

Whose interpretation should prevail, the church or the individual?

How would the church and the individual resolve their differing interpretation?

 

[CopticChristian]

We both agree on the NT scriptures it is the OT where we disagree. The difference of seven books between the Catholic and Protestant canons stems from the fact that the early Christians used a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures which differed from the one which came to be accepted by the Jews; the Protestant churches later dropped those books which were not accepted by the Jews.
I go to scripture to define who and what church is.

Simple logic dictates that God’s word is His instruction. The bible declares itself to be directly inspired by God.

I used these terms because they are a known set of doctrines not because they were of their own imaginations. Likewise Pauline doctrines were from God not Paul. Augustine got these doctrines from the bible yet the church of his day was not opposed to them, it was later on they were opposed.

These Protestant Bibles all contained the books later dropped by Protestants…
1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible

Council Trent 1545-1563

King James 1611

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

The original King James can be viewed at the above website. You may want to look at it.

The “Apocrypha” was officially removed from the English printings of the KJV in 1885 leaving only 66 books.

In 1880 the American Bible Society voted remove the “Apocrypha” Books from the King James Version…They were cheaper to print with fewer pages.

So on whose authority were these books removed. Recall all Protestants are fallible and next who is it that speaks for all Protestants?

So what happened from 1611 to 1885. Was Protestant thought filled with error while using the Bible with the deuterocanonical?

Tell me and anyone else where the Bible declares itself to be inspired by God?

What are you talking about. One Catholic priest like Augustine does not make for Doctrine of the Church unless in agreement with the OHCAC or in council as a voice in unison. Where do you get your ideas?

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s a false question, Nicaea: Jesus is the AUTHOR of the Bible, and yet when He came on earth in our human frame, over and over He appealed to it as His authority. (Since He is the King, He could have just said, “I say…” or “I have spoken! Amen!”) Does that not speak volumes D) for the primacy of the Bible?

Ps. 138:2: Thou hast exalted above everything Thy name and Thy word.

Check out all the times Jesus says, “It is written” (being sure to scroll down to “continued search results”). Also, the verses that say, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”

Show me a place where Jesus appeals to, say, the Talmud (on the contrary, He often condemns that document as nothing but “the traditions of men”). Show me where He references a Greek or Arab philosopher.

And Peter himself, does he not say (2 Pet. 1:19), “We have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” The bolded portion harks back to Psalm 119:105, “Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” Read through Psalm 119 and note how many times David hammers away at God’s Word being his only hope (he uses synonyms such as “law,” “precepts,” “commandments,” etc. for the Scriptures). He doesn’t exult in some religious group or some tradition. He clings to the naked Word of God. (And recall that David is a prototype of Christ.)

Jesus probably quoted from the Septuagint. Look at what the King James says about the Septuagint. Were they wrong?

the King James Bible, printed in 1810, called the “Potters Standard Edition”, happens to talk about the Septuagint. Here is what that King James Bible said.

“The most remarkable translation of the Old Testament into Greek is called the Septuagint, which, if the opinion of some eminent writers is to be credited, was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 270 years before the Christian era. At any rate, it is undoubtedly the most ancient that is now extant. The five books of Moses were translated first in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, and others were added until the whole Old Testament was finished, and the version dates about 270 years before the birth of Christ. The transcendent value of this version may be seen from the extensive usage that it had attained in Jewish synagogues, from the fact that our blessed Lord and the apostles habitually quoted from it, and also from the fact that it helped to determine the state of the Hebrew text at the time when the version was made. Besides, it establishes, beyond all doubt, the point that our Lord and his inspired apostles recognized the duty of rendering the Word into the vulgar tongue of all people so that all men might, in their own speech, hear the wonderful things of the Lord. All the authors of the New Testament appear to have written in the Greek language. That this tongue was already familiar to them as a vehicle to express God’s inspired Word is evident from their frequent use of the Greek translation, the Septuagint, in quoting the Old Testament and from the remarkable accordance of their style with the style of that ancient and precious version.”

 

[gerhardc]

That very question is what started my wife and I to reconsider our Anabaptist teachings and to start exploring the Catholic faith. As Anabaptist we are not evangelical, protestant nor “sola scriptura proponents”, but rather were taught that our church fathers withdrew from the Catholic Church over the coruption that existed within the church as well as doctrinal issues such as infant baptism, and were persucuted by both the Catholics and the Protestants. Over time, the Anabaptist churches have become more protestant - like, but I think it would suprise them just how “catholic” they really are! Studing the early Church Father have raised alot of questions in our minds as to where we need to be, to be fully submitted to Jesus.

The ECF’s were critical to my conversion. For me it was as simple as this: I wanted to belong to the church to which the apostles belonged regardless of the wolves in sheep’s clothing, which of course Jesus predicted would come to pass:

“Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves.”
Thanks for the feedback friend.

More than what it does to visiting any particular building on a Sunday, or to following any particular protocol, or to any particular hierarchy of officials, or to any particular authority presumed to have been awarded, “Church” relates to a condition of a person’s heart as is brought about by faith in the resurrected Christ and reflected through works.

As for receiving the right teaching, John - meaning, neither I nor Catholics nor Protestants - but the John in the Bible, through the working of the Holy Spirit, said this: “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” (1 John 2:27).

The key is not finding the right church affiliation but finding the right Spirit for teaching, which *comes through rebirth **of **your spirit **by *the Spirit:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’” (John 3:6-7)

 

[pablope]

We both agree on the NT scriptures it is the OT where we disagree. The difference of seven books between the Catholic and Protestant canons stems from the fact that the early Christians used a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures which differed from the one which came to be accepted by the Jews; the Protestant churches later dropped those books which were not accepted by the Jews.

 

[mwok]

By whose authority? Well, I have a degree from a college of theology and a lot of people who share my point of view, plus I’m really good at speaking to an audience. So, just look at my wall and ask my congregation!

 

[gerhardc]

Why doesn’t the bible tell us that the bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” (Jesus, John 17:17)

What or who is the Word? The events concerning and the sayings of/about Jesus is the Word. Refer John 1, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” Thus, the Gospels and the Epistles and the revelation of John all form part of the Message about the Kingdom of God through Christ - it is the Good News, the Gospel, the Word of God. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament is the word of God. Christ makes the OT alive: “But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 3:14). In the NT, Jesus fulfils God’s promise, His word. Like the promise of the Christ is the word of God, so the witness of the Christ is the word.

Those who preach the word preach Jesus.“But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,”

“Handeling the word of God” and preaching the “gospel”, Paul says, is the same thing.

 

[CopticChristian]

More than what it does to visiting any particular building on a Sunday, or to following any particular protocol, or to any particular hierarchy of officials, or to any particular authority presumed to have been awarded, “Church” relates to a condition of a person’s heart as is brought about by faith in the resurrected Christ and reflected through works.

As for receiving the right teaching, John - meaning, neither I nor Catholics nor Protestants - but the John in the Bible, through the working of the Holy Spirit, said this: "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." (1 John 2:27).

The key is not finding the right church affiliation but finding the right Spirit for teaching, which *comes through rebirth **of ***your spirit **by **the Spirit:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’" (John 3:6-7)

Reconcile your notion as you post it with the Eunuch in Acts…

And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 And when Philip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Or

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Teach, explain, guide…I ask you the same thing do you understand what you are reading and who is explaining and guiding and teaching you…which Bible study, Pastor did you learn your theology from?

 

[CopticChristian]

“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” (Jesus, John 17:17)

What or who is the Word? The events concerning and the sayings of/about Jesus is the Word. Refer John 1, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” Thus, the Gospels and the Epistles and the revelation of John all form part of the Message about the Kingdom of God through Christ - it is the Good News, the Gospel, the Word of God. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament is the word of God. Christ makes the OT alive: “But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 3:14). In the NT, Jesus fulfils God’s promise, His word. Like the promise of the Christ is the word of God, so the witness of the Christ is the word.

Those who preach the word preach Jesus.“But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,”

“Handeling the word of God” and preaching the “gospel”, Paul says, is the same thing.

This isn’t an answer. It sounds more like an attempt to try to teach someone something. The tragedy is you don’t know enough to teach. You have learned that if you throw enough what you believe to be Scripture around people will think you know and understand something. This is what happens in Protestant Circles. The guy that throws verses around and tries to make sense sounds like the most learned. This is not going to work for you unless you address the questions directly.

 

[Nicea325]

That’s a false question, Nicaea: Jesus is the AUTHOR of the Bible, and yet when He came on earth in our human frame, over and over He appealed to it as His authority. (Since He is the King, He could have just said, “I say…” or “I have spoken! Amen!”) Does that not speak volumes () for the primacy of the Bible?

No it is not false at all. Yes Jesus is the AUTHOR but no where does he teach the Bible is the final authority. If so,please show us where?

Ps. 138:2: Thou hast exalted above everything Thy name and Thy word.

And the above verse proves the Bible-Only? Really?

Check out all the times Jesus says, “It is written” (being sure to scroll down to “continued search results”). Also, the verses that say, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”

U-huh and where does Jesus say: It is written that Scripture-Alone is the final authority? The fact Jesus says “It is written” does not prove the Bible-alone is the final authority. Pure conjecture on your part.

Show me a place where Jesus appeals to, say, the Talmud (on the contrary, He often condemns that document as nothing but “the traditions of men”). Show me where He references a Greek or Arab philosopher.

Show me where Jesus appeals only to the Jewish canon of 39 books and teaches it is the FINAL authority? As for traditions of men? Apparently you have a false understanding as to what he is making reference to in that verse. Why would he need to reference a Greek or Arab philosopher? Does Peter?

And Peter himself, does he not say (2 Pet. 1:19), “We have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” The bolded portion harks back to Psalm 119:105, “Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” Read through Psalm 119 and note how many times David hammers away at God’s Word being his only hope (he uses synonyms such as “law,” “precepts,” “commandments,” etc. for the Scriptures). He doesn’t exult in some religious group or some tradition. He clings to the naked Word of God. (And recall that David is a prototype of Christ.)

And where does the Word of God strictly mean only what is written?

 

[Nicea325]

So God didn’t canonize the OT? Did the cc write OT too!

And this is where many non-Catholics have a profound misunderstanding. No point in time has the CC denied God inspired men to write Sacred Scripture. It is not a question WHAT God did,but it is a question of…HOW did God canonize the OT and the NT. Through human instruments in His Church called Catholic bishops…a historical fact!

No amount of denials can erase a historical fact.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

I think the OP is mistaking sola scriptura for sola scriptura extremis. That’s easy to do, since some protestants (especially American protestants) do the same thing.

 

[jmcrae]

Not far from where I live one Christian leader (their affiliation is not important for the purpose of this discussion) accused another Christian leader (both really high up in the hierarchy) of having sexually abused him when he was a boy. The second Christian leader denies the accusation (of course). This is despite the first Christian leader also having accused another Christian leader of having sexually abused him, and was found guilty - this Christian leader (who was indeed found guilty) is not sitting in jail but has been pardoned.

Well, either the accuser had an extremely unlucky childhood (you would think he would have caught on about “stranger danger” after the first incident), or he is accusing people of things they did not do for personal monetary gain, or else to get some kind of sympathetic attention.

The point is: either the second Christian leader is guilty of sexual abuse in which case all the people under his authority should not keep company with him until he confesses and repents,

If he is Protestant, he could do this in the privacy of his bedroom - how can you know that he hasn’t done this? And if he is Catholic, then only his priest knows for sure what he has confessed, and whether or not he has repented.

or the first Christian leader is persisting in his lie about having suffered sexual abuse in which case he is acting contrary to any person in a position of authority in the church. You might (not) be surprised that both are still serving as ‘authorities’ in their respective circles.

So, now you want to destroy someone’s life on the basis of a rumour. and speculation?

Nothing has been proven. He is innocent until proven guilty. He may, indeed, have had an extremely unlucky childhood. Perhaps he was “pretty” in the way that pedophiles like. Or, maybe he is making the whole thing up.

But with regard to confession and repentance, these are private actions. You can’t know whether they have taken place, or not, and you have to assume the best about people.

 

[jmcrae]

Because one claims to be something does not make them so.

Seeing that scripture is the word of God makes it a source above all other source for religious instruction. Are any churches allowed to contradict the scriptures? If any other source is not the word of God why consider it for religious instruction? Augustine of Hippo is considered to be the father of Calvinism and your church don’t believe that. What was his source of inspiration?

St. Augustine of Hippo was ordained to the Catholic priesthood in the Diocese of Hippo in 391 AD. He became the Bishop of Hippo from 395 AD until 430 AD. He was one of the priests in attendance at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, which was the Council that proposed the canon of the Scriptures that was finally accepted by the Pope in 405 AD. (There were a variety of them for the Pope to choose from. Carthage, Rome, and Hippo each came up with the same one, which is why the Pope believed that this was the one given by the Holy Spirit.)

What was his source of inspiration? Not the Bible - he is one of the guys who gave us the Bible. Where did that group get the Bible from? It didn’t just fall from Heaven into their laps. He (together with the Bishops and other priests in his Diocese) had to go through many books to find those that were in accord with the Holy Tradition, as handed down by the Apostles.

The Calvinists probably like many of his doctrines, and in that sense he might be a “father” to them, but Calvinism as such did not exist prior to the mid-1500s AD, and certainly not prior to the birth of John Calvin, its founder.

 

[jericho777]

jericho777;8463187:

pablope;8460921:

But you avoided entirely the question I posed…let me ask again…below…

And how did you come the point that you are able to see them? And why are those in the same boat as you are not able to see them like you do?

By reading and rereading scriptures it was like a light went off. I had more references from throughout scripture that all connected together.

Or does God want us all to come into His light? And if we are all in God’s light…how come there is misinterpretation?

God only gives light to those He has chosen for salvation.

Isn’t God’s will to choose all, and not exclude anyone?

No.

Do you really think that Jesus would leave earth and His Church without providing a mechanism to resolve such disagreements? Do you think He would not know that there would be disagreements? If you think so, then He did not do an adequate job of instructing the Apostles, isn’t it? He fails as a God, is what you are saying.

Paul was warning the flock that wolves were already in the church.

The mechanism is only as good as those in charge of implementing it. The religious leaders at the time of Jesus were exceedingly corrupt and God was still in charge of Israel.

Actually, if I could solve such problems, I would be saint, not a wealthy man. I would not accept money for the Church of Christ…I would surrender my all.

You are to humble.

Context, context…my friend…this is after the parable of the sower, and Jesus explains the parable to the Apostles alone, and not to the crowd…Jesus is preparing the Apostles for their leadership role…and speaks of those who will accept the gospel differently, who the Apostles will encounter when they go out to spread the Word.

This is why I (Jesus) speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

14In them (Israel) is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

It is in context but let’s try this one then. Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

 

[jericho777]

So which church correctly interpret Scripture? And which church do you think is not doing its duty to interpret Scripture?

Let me give you another real life example…

An individual Christian, baptized and all, very devout and faithful, and a church doing its duty diligently, do not interpret a passage the same way…there are very serious differences…(and I think this happens within protestant circles all the time)…

So, who do you think has the correct interpretation…the church or the individual?

Whose interpretation should prevail, the church or the individual?

How would the church and the individual resolve their differing interpretation?

I hope mine is.

There are more dissenting catholics but who ever is interpreting scripture correctly. You are free to follow blindly without question or thinking if you prefer.

What is the issue at hand that is a problem? There were three major sects of Jews during the time of Jesus and their doctrines differed. Yet they still considered each other to be Jews. The Holy Spirit was leading Israel yet wht were differing doctrines?

 

[jmcrae]

The word Trinity doesn’t appear in scripture either but yet the Trinity is there. What did Jesus quote from time after time to prove His authority or to reinforce what He was teaching. The B-I-B-L-E. Please do a word search for “it is written” and see for yourself.

You seem to imagine that everything written at the time of Christ was “the Bible.”

We keep on trying to explain to you that the Bible didn’t actually exist (even in theory) until 405 AD. There were no actual Bibles in existence yet until St. Jerome finished the first one, several decades later.