The Pope?

[Philthy]

EA_Man:

Tim,

Think about what you’re saying.

You say that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

Actually the correct term is inerrant. Infallibility only applies to something capable of action.

EA_Man:

But then you say that the infallible Word of God needs a further unveiling by an infalilible teaching magesterium.

Not exactly. Its not that the Word of God needs it, its that you and I need it. The fact that numerous interpretations of basic Christian doctrine exist from genuinely motivated Christians confirms this.

EA_Man:

How is an infallible interpretation any better than the infallible revelation?

Because it can be stated using AFFIRMATIVE( yes or no) language rather than INTERPRETIVE terms. The bible typically uses phraseology that is vague and left to interpretation. And even when it doesnt people will say it is! A good example is when Christ said “This is my body” The FACT is that you and I don’t know how to interpret that yet it NEEDS interpretation. The magisterium in its capacity as teacher steps in with AFFIRMATIVE terminology and answers the question, “Is the Eucharist the body of Christ?” with the easily understood answer, “YES IT IS” and the confusion is over. Another example is, “Should infants be baptized?” Bible doesn’t say one way or the other DEFINITIVELY. But the magisterium can, and has always said “YES, baptize infants”. No ambiguity.

EA_Man:
Divine revelation is a disclosure or unveiling by God. But to claim, as Catholics do, that God’s infallible unveiling in the Bible needs further infallible unveiling by God is to say that it was not unveiled properly to begin with.

Not at all. That’s entirely a bias on your part. Its only when you elevate the Bible above the Church that you have a problem with it. Where does the bible make the claim you are making? I see numerous references in the NT to “hold fast to the traditions whether by letter or word of mouth”. I see the Church referred to as the “pillar and foundation of Truth”; I see Paul in the very letters used by most Protestants to justify Sola Scriptura (2Tim3:16) telling Timothy(who Paul says "knows all Scripture) that he (Paul) is writing to Timothy so that he will “know how to behave in the Church of the Living God, which is the pillar and foundation of Truth”. And in the end, if I disagree with you, you, according to your theology, have no right to claim any authority to tell me otherwise. In addition, neither of us will actually know Gods intent in Scripture.

Ill write more later - sorry for butting in.

Phil

 

[ml1958]

RE-START
I have went about this all wrong. I jumped in a forum,for the first time in my life.I bounced off of one idea just to jump in another direction. I have not stated my case correctly,and have been a poor represenative of a member of the Church of Christ.

First. I was promped to do this because of all the new Pope old Pope stuff. Everything I see read and know about the Catholic church is the complete opposite of what my faith is built upon.

If I were starting this thread over I would have said the following to have you see where I am coming from.

text:
The words of Jesus Christ and the Inspired words of God are written in the New Testament. I know that the Bible has survived because God wanted it to. I know that everything I need to know to get to heaven is on those pages.

worship: I attend worship services on Sunday, the first day of the week. I take communion every Sunday. We do not have instruments in worship because God told us to make melody in our hearts. Adding instruments is serving man (because we like it better). we give as we have prosphered every Sunday. We observe the death of Christ in communion every Sunday. Christmas is a holliday. We do not know Christ was born on December 25th,and if he was we are not told to observe it in a worship service.

On and on and on…How can we get past majot issues? As an example everything we beleive about baptism is told to us in the New Testament,and we do it exactally as it is taught.
You must hear to beleive. Babys can’t hear and understand,so you do not baptize them. Baptism is immersion,not sprinkling.
on and on and on.

To break it down, we listen to everything Christ tells us to do and the way he told us to do it. We do the same with the writings of the Apostles because they were inspired by God. Jesus left us a pattern to follow.
Everything else is added or changed to the way Man wants it to be, or Man has a better way of doing it. We reject this. Our entire faith and worship is built upon this.
I honestly beleive this.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

ML, I’m glad you clarified your belief system–it is very helpful to know just where you are coming from. . .

But I must point out to you that most of the ways in which you feel you are “sticking to what the Bible says” were not used by the apostles themselves nor by the Christian Church itself, even in part, on a “continuous basis”. . .not until your denomination made the decision to follow what YOUR leader (a man, though he thought he was following Christ) decided was “the way”.

Babies WERE baptized in the early Christian church, the mid Christian Church (Middle ages prior to <>) and the later Christian church. It isn’t the CATHOLIC Church which changed the practice of baptism!

Immersion and pouring were legimate ways to baptize in the early Christian church, mid Christian Church and later Christian Church. Immersion was not the “real and only way” once, changed by the Church, and then “rediscovered” by your group.

David danced before the Lord. Psalms tell us to praise the Lord with “timbrel, strings, and pipes”. Music was an integral part of the Jewish worship services which Jesus Himself attended, and which the early Christian church would adapt. God did not say, in chapter and verse, “when you pray to me thou shalt not sing”. The earliest “Mass” was performed in homes and in the context of a meal. Do you hold your worship services at peoples’ homes, recline at table after having your feet washed, and keep kosher? Point is, keeping to a “literal”, word by word interpretation while ignoring the fact that cultures–including food, clothing, money, even government have changed from 33 A.D.–is Pharisitic behavior–the “letter of the law” ignoring the “spirit” which guides and informs the law, without which the “Law” is meaningless.

After all, you have ALREADY changed the “literal” interpretation of one of the most important Biblical passages in John 6. Do you believe that in communion you EAT the flesh of God and DRINK His blood? If you do, then you are Catholic to all intents and purposes because you believe in the REAL presence. If not, you have taken a man-made interpretation that John 6 is somehow “symbolic”. . .an interpretation which WAS NOT HELD BY THE CHURCH from 33 A.D. until the Protestant Reformation. . .and said, "well, yeah, I believe that the earth was created in 7 real days, that the sun stood still for Joshua, that Elijah was carried up to heaven in a whirlwind and the Messiah was born of a virgin. . .but His words, repeated over and over with “I’m not kidding you boys, I MEAN this” in this ONE book, are “only symbolic”. Doesn’t that kind of JAR you a touch?

Just think about that. This saying was so hard that most of the people who had been hailing Him on Palm Sunday as “King of the Jews” LEFT IN A HUFF. Yet He didn’t call them back saying, “Fellas, I’m only speaking SYMBOLICALLY”. . .

 

[wcknight]

Ml1958, your Bible contains a lot but it does not contain everything. First off how do you suppose the early Christians followed their faith ??? There were no written accounts until much later.

In the early Church, the Apostle first and later their successors the Bishops were the keepers of the faith. It was through traditions handed down from generation to successive generations that kept the life of the Church going.

The concept of the true presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist (aka Communion) was a tradition of the Church from day one. It is written up in a document by one of the early Church fathers, Justinian in the first century. It did not make it into the NT, but has been an accepted teaching in the Church for 2000 years.

BUT just because it is not in the NT does not make it a false doctrine. The specific concept of the Holy Trinity was not defined until the 3rd century. It too is not mentioned in the Bible but it is an accepted doctine since the early Church.

The very book that you accept as the inerrant word of God, was the result of a selection process performed by the very Chruch that you reject in the 2nd or 3rd century.

However, about 500 years ago, the predecessors of the folks who you now follow removed several books from the NT. IF as you say the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why would ANYONE remove or alter ANY of the books in it ???

By changing the content of the Bible the Protestant reformers, necessarily invalidated any claim that they may have that the Bible is indeed inerrant. BY removing contents that directly point to the Hebrew practice of prayers for the dead (the 2 books of Macabees) and the concept that salvation is by faith AND works (the book of James), the reformers have made their claims a total farce.

PLUS the bible itself says that scriptures AND TRADITION is to be held and accepted for furthering the faith.

When scriptures itself says that the concept of scriptures alone is
an invalid concept, you have to question the legitimacy of folks who push this idea.

Read about the early Church and you will find all the practices of Catholicism performed today, done basically the same as it was in the first and second century. The mass, confessions, the sacraments, prayers for assistance from the saints and the honor paid to Mary are all parts of our early Christian faith.

The “Bible only” Christians did not exist in the first and second century for a very simple reason, back then there were NO Bibles around. Most folks could not read, and the printing press did not come about until hundreds of years later. AND the official books of the NT were not specified until a couple of hundred years afterwards.

wc

 

[mrS4ntA]

ml1958:

A day or two ago someone sent me a reply saying that it was the Catholics that made sure us ( Church of Christ ) people actually got the New Testament. How did this happen? Who got the original copys?
Also I would like more information about the period of time from when Christ Died and returned to Heaven to the time the New Testament was distributed.

The Bible is a Catholic document. Not only did the Gospels were finished long after the death of the Christ and some of His disciples, the canonisation of the books (the “table of content” of the Bible, stating which book is inspired and which is not, if you will) in the Bible was not after several centuries in the year of the Lord (the fourth century, if memory serves). And the process was done by an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. Catholic bishops determined that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s writings were God-breathed and to be spread as the Gospels. Catholic Bishops decided, with the Holy Spirit’s protection, that the Gospel of Mary, of Barnabas, etc are not God-breathed. Catholic Bishops decided that the book of Revelation is God-breathed after all, despite few people actually believing it was so. etc etc with the epistles.

The point is, Christ commanded the apostles and His disciples to “go and teach all nations,” not to “go and write books about me.” The command to teach, therefore, forms the authority of the magisterium and the Sacred Tradition. That is, the apostolic teaching passed down through the generation within the Church. Several centuries after Christ’s death, the Church compiled several writings of the early disciples and apostles of Christ that contain this Sacred Tradition into the Sacred Scripture of the Cathoic Church. In short, the Sacred Scripture is Sacred Tradition in writing. The Church was the one who declared that the Bible is God-breathed.

“I would not believe in the Gospels myself, were I not moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” – St Augustine.

 

[midwest_mom]

ml1958
Sometimes we just don’t understand each others ways.

Do you believe that we are born with original sin? Do you believe that baptism is washing away original sin? That is why we baptise baby’s. Then they learn their faith as children, and confirm that faith through confirmation when they are old enough to make that committment themselves with full understanding.

Some denominations such as Methodist’s have conferences where representatives come together and vote on issue pertaining to the trueths of the church. Such as gay ministers, gay marriage, wording that is gender friendly, etc. The Catholic church is not a democracy. We don’t think that the trueth every changes. (Though there are some who want it to.) That is the Pope’s responsibility. To keep us pointed toward the trueth. He is our shepherd on earth. Jesus knows we are not perfect and become weak. We need guidence on earth.

When I was protestant, I was always searching. How could I be sure that I was following the path Jesus laid. As I went through RCIA and learned about the Catholic Church and Church history, my heart became peaceful. I was home.

You can not understand our faith without studying and learning why we do and believe as we do. It is so hard to explain with out talking face to face.

 

[mercygate]

midwest mom:

ml1958

You can not understand our faith without studying and learning why we do and believe as we do. It is so hard to explain with out talking face to face.

Hillaire Belloc used a powerful illustration when he said that critics of the Church are like men inside Chartres Cathedral on a dark night, trying to see the stained glass windows by candle light, and wondering why people say that these windows are so beautiful.

 

[need_to_know]

ml1957:

I need to understand why Peter was more special that the other 11.

We don’t know, all we know is that He saw something in Peter which he did not see in the other 11 apostles, it’s just one of those mysteries.

 

[Ignatius]

ml1958:

It’s ml1957 incognito. I was dissapointed to get suspended. Actually I didn’t know it until I read it today from your posts. I was not told,and I thought it was my email acting up.

I was concerned about this but message # 196 put me at ease.
Oh well, this may be my last post. I can’t make up different names every day.

The can keep me from posting, but I don’t think they can prevent me from reading.

A day or two ago someone sent me a reply saying that it was the Catholics that made sure us ( Church of Christ ) people actually got the New Testament. How did this happen? Who got the original copys?
Also I would like more information about the period of time from when Christ Died and returned to Heaven to the time the New Testament was distributed.

You’re kidding right? You actually don’t know that it is the Catholic Church which gave you the New Testament? How can you believe absolutely in the Sacred Scripture as the inerrant Word of God without knowing why?

OK, let’s start from the beginning. Here’s the first assignment. Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include, where (geographic location) was this done, when (specific date) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon).

I pray the Holy Spirit will guide you in your search and bring you to Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Yours in Christ.

 

[ml1958]

It is not that I don’t beleive in original sin,but that all will sin.

Sure Adam and Eve sinned,and we all need forgiveness,as we will all surely sin.
However a baby can’t sin. Are you suggesting that if a baby dies before it is baptized,it is lost?

 

[StratusRose]

ml1958:

It is not that I don’t beleive in original sin,but that all will sin.

Sure Adam and Eve sinned,and we all need forgiveness,as we will all surely sin.
However a baby can’t sin. Are you suggesting that if a baby dies before it is baptized,it is lost?

Read this, catholic.com/library/infant_baptism.asp

 

[Ignatius]

ml1958:

A day or two ago someone sent me a reply saying that it was the Catholics that made sure us . . .got the New Testament. How did this happen? Also I would like more information about the period of time from when Christ Died and returned to Heaven to the time the New Testament was distributed.

You’re kidding right? You actually don’t know that it is the Catholic Church which gave you the New Testament? How can you believe absolutely in the Sacred Scripture as the inerrant Word of God without knowing why?

OK, let’s start from the beginning. Here’s the first assignment. Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include, where (geographic location) was this done, when (specific dates) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon).

I pray the Holy Spirit will guide you in your search and bring you to Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Yours in Christ.

 

[mercygate]

ml1958:

Are you suggesting that if a baby dies before it is baptized,it is lost?

Your question ties into what “faith” is and to infant baptism. We are aware that this differs from CofC belief; I offer it because you may never have heard a sound discussion of infant baptism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way – Bold type added:

**
The Baptism of infants**

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the lfe that God has entrusted to them.

1252The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

---

Faith and Baptism

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. **The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. **The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: "Faith!"

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow *after *Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

FYI: Searchable online edition of the *Catechism. *http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Since 90% of what all Christians profess is the same, you might refer to the Catechism when presenting doctrinal issues to your kids. It is a brilliant summation of the faith.

 

[ml1958]

Is this website an official Catholic site? Is it approved by the Catholic church?

You all have given me a lot of information that I need to research. I am not sure I will be able to consider any other documents other than the Bible.
In brief layman terms, how did the bible get to us after Jesus left Earth?
I am teaching my Bible class tonight,and this will be good information for us to discuss. One of my students has a Mother that is a Cathilic. For some reason there seem to be good cathilics and just Catholics. Good Catholics go to mass more often than Easter and Christmas. Are you familiar with these 2 names?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Here is some information on how the Bible (in its written form) came about, over the centuries.

Luther himself noted "it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation..." (14) Many people both Catholic and Protestant do not realize exactly how much They owe the Catholic Church for the progression of the bible as we know it today. for example before Luther  made his German Transition in September of 1522, there were seventeen German Transitions (all before 1518) already in print, twelve of these in the Low-German dialect. (7)

38-61 A.D. THE FIRST GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN: St. Matthew one of the twelve apostles of Christ, Catholic Bishop and martyr for the faith, writes the first gospel of the life of Christ in his native language of Hebrew. This gospel would eventually be followed by three other gospels written in Greek language these were the gospel of St. Mark (64 A.D.), the gospel of St. Luke (63 or 64 A.D.) and the gospel of St. John (97 A.D.).

52 A.D. THE FIRST EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN: St. Paul, apostle of Christ, Catholic Bishop and martyr for the faith writes the first epistle to a part of the Church. This is known today as "First Thessalonians". This writting would soon be followed by 21 other apostolic epistles by various Catholic authors the last one being written by St. John the apostle in 69 A.D.

64 A.D. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES WAS WRITTEN: St. Luke disciple of St. Paul and Bishop of the Catholic Church and martyr for the faith, Writes "Acts of the Apostles" a history of the Catholic church from Easter to the death of St. Paul. The two contributions Acts and his gospel make St. Luke the author of the largest portion of the New Testament about twenty-eight percent.

98-99 A.D. THE LAST DIVINELY INSPIRED WRITING OF THE APOSTLES IS COMPLETED: St. John, apostle of Christ and Bishop of the Catholic Church writes the last divinely inspired writing of the apostles. This is known today as "Revelations"

153-170 A.D. THE FIRST TREATISE ON "THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.": The earliest attempt at constructing a Harmony was that of Tatian (died a.d. 172).  and its title, Diatessaron, furnishes abundant evidence of the early acceptance in the Catholic Church of our four canonical Gospels The next Harmony was that of Ammonius of Alexandria, the teacher of Origen, It appeared about A.D. 220, but has been lost. (17)

2nd - 3rd A.D. CENTURY THE FIRST BIBLE SCHOOL: The early Catholics started a school in Alexandria for the learning the Gospels and other early Catholic writings.(6)

250 A.D. THE FIRST PARALLEL LANGUAGE BIBLE: The Catholic Origen creates the Hexapla edition of the Old Testament which contained parallel Hebrew and Greek versions. (5)

250 A.D. THE FIRST CATHOLIC LIBRARY: The Catholic Origen creates a very well-stocked library in Caesarea, for the purpose of studing the Gospels and other early Catholic writings. (19)

250-300 A.D. THE FIRST BIBLE IN BOOK FORM: The Jews used long papyrus scrolls, the Early Catholics were the first to use the book (codex) form for scarred scriptures. (10)

4TH CENTURY THE FIRST USE OF THE WORD "BIBLE": It came from the Greek word "biblos" which means the inner bark of the papyrus, paper-reed, from which paper was originally made, in Egypt. The Latin form "Biblia" spelled with a capital letter, came to mean "the Book of Books," "The Book" by way of pre-eminence, the inspired Book, etc. The Holy Scriptures were first called the Bible by St. Chrysostom, the Catholic Archbishop of Constantinople, in the 4th century. (12)

Con’t.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

4TH CENTURY THE OLDEST EXISTING BIBLES: The two oldest existing Bible containing both the Old and most the (Note not the complete) the New Testaments called today the Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), the Codex Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.), the Codex Ephraemi (345 A.D.), and the Codex Alexandrinus (450 A.D) were hand copied by Catholic monks.(6)

367 A.D. THE FIRST USE OF THE WORD "CANON": St. Athanasius, the Catholic bishop of Alexandria, is the first to apply the term Canon to the contents of the Bible, he introduced the verb canonize, meaning "To give official sanction to" a written document. (6)

367 A.D. THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: The 39th festal letter of St. Athanasius, the Catholic bishop of Alexandria, sent to the churches under his jurisdiction in 367, ended all uncertainty about the limits of the New Testament canon. In the so-called festal letter, preserved in a collection of annual Lenten messages given by Athanasius, he listed as canonical the 27 books that remain the contents of the New Testament, although he arranged them in a different order. Those books of the New Testament, in their present-day order, are the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. (1)

388 A.D. THE FIRST GLOSSARY OF PROPER NAMES IN THE BIBLE: St. Jerome compiled the "Book of Hebrew names, or Glossary of Proper Names in the Old Testament," The Book of Hebrew Names was no doubt of much use in the ages is which men were ignorant of Hebrew, although it's arrangement is rather clumsy with a separate glossary for each book of the Bible; (17)

388 A.D. THE BOOK OF THE SITE AND NAMES OF HEBREW PLACES: St. Jerome compiled the "The Book of the Site and Names of Hebrew Places" which was first compiled by Eusebius athough St. Jerome's has additions. the names under each letter being placed in separate groups in the order of the books of Scripture in which they occur; for instance, under the letter A we have first the names in Genesis, then those in Exodus, and so on. But there is less room here for what is fanciful, and the testimony of men who lived in Palestine in the fourth and fifth centuries is of great value still to the student of sacred topography. When the places are outside the writer's knowledge, credulity is apt to creep in, as when the author tells us that on Ararat portions of the ark are still to be found.(17)

390 A.D. THE FIRST COMPILING OF THE COMPLETE NEW & OLD TESTAMENT: At the Council of Hippo, the Catholic Church gathered together the various books which claimed to be scripture, passed on the merits and claims of each and this council decided which were inspired and which were not. The Catholic Church put all the inspired books and epistles together in one volume with The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (which was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., this was the version Christ and His apostles used) and That is the Bible as we have it today. The Catholic Church therefore gave to the people and the World, the Bible as we have it today (2)

400 A.D. MOST OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES TRANSLATED: In Syriac, Coptic, Ethhiopic, Georgian Languages(8). Across the Rhine and Danube from the Roman Empire A Gothic version was translated by the Gothic Bishop Ulfilas (318-388), who after devising an alphabet, produced a version of the Scriptures from the Septuagint Old Testament and from the Greek. (10)

406 A.D. THE ARMENIAN TRANSLATION: In 406 the Armenian alphabet was invented by Mesrob, who five years later completed a translation of the Old and New Testament from the Syriac version into Armenian. (10)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

405 A.D. THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE COMPLETE BIBLE IN THE COMMON LANGUAGE: Latin Vulgate, from the Latin editio vulgata: “common version”, the Bible still used by the Roman Catholic Church, was translated by St. Jerome (Whom the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version in their original preface called " a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him"). In 382 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the leading biblical scholar of his day, to produce an acceptable Latin version of the Bible from the various translations then being used. His revised Latin translation of the Gospels appeared about 383. Using the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament, of which he produced a new Latin translation, a process that he completed about 405. (3) It is as a translator of Scripture that Jerome is best know. His Vulgate was made at the right moment and by the right man. The Latin language was still living, although Latin civilization was dying; and Jerome was a master of it.(17)

450-550 A.D THE BEZAE CANTABRIGIENSIS (ALSO CALLED CODEX BEZAE): This is the oldest existing bilingual manuscript, with Greek on the left page, and Latin on the right. Bezae
Cantabrigiensis was a western text copied c. 450-550 A.D. It has preserved most of the four Gospels, parts of Acts.

7TH CENTURY THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO FRENCH LANGUAGE: French Versions of the Psalms and the Apocalypse, and a metrical rendering of the Book of Kings, appeared as early as the seventh century.(9) In 1223 (A. D.) a complete translation was made under the Catholic King Louis the Pious. This was 320 years before the first Protestant French version. (7) Up to the fourteenth century, many Bible histories were produced.

7TH CENTURY, THE FIRST GERMAN VERSION: The history of Biblical research in Germany shows that of the numerous partial versions in the vernacular some go back to the seventh and eighth centuries. It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention of printing.(9)

7TH CENTURY, SPACES PLACED BETWEEN THE WORDS: In the seventh Century, Irish and English monks began to leave space between the words as they copied the biblical texts by hand, before this all the letters ran together making a entire book look like one giant word. (19)

8TH CENTURY,THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE: By Aldhelm, the Bishop of Sherborne, and Bede. A 9th century translation of the Bible in to English (Anglo-Saxon the dialect of its time) was made by Alfred. A tenth century translation in to English was made by Aelfric.(7) , By 1361 a translation of most of Scripture in the English dialect (Anglo-Norman) of its time had been executed.(3) This was twenty years before Wycliffe’s 1381 translation (3)

This image is of the “Vespasian Psalter” a eighth century Catholic translation of the Book of Psalm in to English

8TH - 9TH CENTURY, THE USE OF THE FORM OF WRITING CALLED “MINUSCULE”: As the breakdown of Oriental commerce took papyrus out of the western market in compelled to use of parchment, the factor of economy became increasingly potent. To get more words on page, the scribe had two use smaller letters and squeeze them close together. Some, to preserve their distinct shapes, were extended above the line, some below. The ultimate result was a form of writing called “Minuscule”— little letters, with capitals inserted for emphasis. It is this system which is still use today. This grammatically was a major change from the “Majuscule”— which consisted of only large letters as used by the Greeks, Romans, and Jews. (16)

9TH CENTURY, THE FIRST SLAVIC TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE: The Catholic Saints Cyril and Methodius preached the Gospel to the Slavs in the second half of the ninth century, and St. Cyril, having formed an alphabet, made for them, in Old Ecclesiastical Slavic, or Bulgarian, a translation of the Bible from the Greek. Toward the close of the tenth century this version found its way into Russia with Christianity, and after the twelfth century it underwent many linguistic and textual changes. A complete Slav Bible after an ancient codex of the time of Waldimir (d. 1008) was published at Ostrog in 1581.(9)
eng13.jpg (62359 bytes)eng13.5.jpg (62362 bytes)
This leaf (circa 1260AD) has been written by hand in Latin, in black ink using miniature gothic texture on animal vellum. Rubricated initials and marginalia can be seen in red and blue. It was originally owned by William Foyle of Beeligh Abbey England.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

1170 A.D. THE FIRST PARALLEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE BIBLE: Eadwine’s Psalterium triplex, which contained the Latin version accompanied by Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon renderings, appeared it became the basis of all subsequent Anglo-Norman versions.(3)

THIRTEENTH CENTURY, THE FIRST DIVISION OF CHAPTERS: It was the British Catholic Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, St. Stephen Langton (died 1228), was first to tabulate scripture into Chapters, and we follow his arrangement to this day: some 1,163 chapters in the Old Testament, and only 260 in the New Testament." (4)

THIRTEENTH CENTURY, THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO SPANISH LANGUAGE: Under King Alfonso V of Spain. (7)

1230 A.D. THE FIRST CONCORDANCE: A concordance of the Latin Vulgate Bible was compiled by the Dominican Friar Hugo of Saint Cher. (5)

1300 A.D. THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO NORWEGIAN LANGUAGE: The earliest and most celebrated is that of Genesis-Kings in the so-called Stjórn (“Guidance”; i.e., of God) manuscript in the Old Norwegian language, probably to be dated about 1300. Swedish versions of the Pentateuch and of Acts have survived from the fourteenth century and a manuscript of Joshua-Judges by Nicholaus Ragnvaldi of Vadstena from c. 1500. The oldest Danish version covering Genesis-Kings derives from 1470. (11)

1454 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED BIBLE: A Catholic named Gutenberg caused great excitement when in the fall of that year he exhibited sample pages at the Frankfurt trade fair. Gutenberg quickly sold out all of the 180 copies of his Latin Vulgate Bible even before the printing was finished. (6)

1470 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED BIBLE DICTIONARY WAS PRINTED: It was written by Johannes Marchesinus ( a Franciscan friar). It was a guide to understanding the text of the Bible explains the grammatical constructs and etymology of difficult words in the Scriptures. Printed only 15 years after the First Book ever printed in the world, the Gutenberg Bible!

1466 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED GERMAN BIBLE: This was fifty eight years before Luther made his German Translation in 1524. (8) In that fifty eight years the Catholics printed 30 different German editions of the Bible.

1470 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED SCANDINAVIAN BIBLE: In the fourteenth century, versions of the Sunday Epistles and Gospels were made for popular use in Denmark. Large portions of the Bible, if not an entire version, were published about 1470. (9)

1471 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED ITALIAN BIBLE8) In the years before Luther’s Bible was published (Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522), the Catholics printed 20 different Italian editions of the Bible.

1475 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED DUTCH BIBLE: The first Bible in Dutch was printed by Catholics in Holland at Delft in 1475. Among several issued from the press of Jacob van Leisveldt at Antwerp (9)

1478 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED SPANISH BIBLE8) In the years before Luther’s Bible was published (Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522) the Catholics printed 2 different Spanish editions of the Bible.

1466 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED FRENCH BIBLE8) In the years before Luther’s Bible was published (Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522), the Catholics printed 26 different French editions of the Bible.

1516 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED GREEK NEW TESTAMENT: A Catholic named Erasmus first printed his Greek New Testament. (8) In the years before Luther’s Bible was published (Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522), the Catholics printed 22 different Greek editions of the Bible.

1534 A.D. THE FIRST USE OF ITALICS TO INDICATE WORDS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL: A Catholic named Munster was the first to use italics to indicate words not in the original Greek or Hebrew texts, in his version of the Latin Vulgate.(13)
1535 The First Bible Concordance Ever Printed: Done in Latin, and extensively accented in red ink, this is the very first concordance to the Bible ever printed.

 

[mrS4ntA]

ml1958:

Is this website an official Catholic site? Is it approved by the Catholic church?

You all have given me a lot of information that I need to research. I am not sure I will be able to consider any other documents other than the Bible.
In brief layman terms, how did the bible get to us after Jesus left Earth?

I’ve answered that! And T.E.'s answered it more thoroughly and extensively.

Are you familiar with these 2 names?

which names?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

1548 A.D. THE FIRST CHINESE VERSIONS: Among earlier translations is a version of St. Matthew by Anger, a Japanese Catholic (Goa, 1548). The Jesuit Father de Mailla wrote an explanation of the Gospels for Sundays and feasts in 1740, (9)

1551 A.D. THE FIRST DIVISION OF VERSES: The first division of the Bible into its present verses is found for the first time in an edition of the Greek New Testament published in Paris by the Catholic Robert Stephens. (10)

1555 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED COMPLETE BIBLE WITH CHAPTERS AND VERSES: The first division of the Bible into its present chapters and verses is found for the first time in an edition of the Vulgate published in Paris by the Catholic Robert Stephens. (10)

1561 A.D. THE FIRST COMPLETE POLISH BIBLE: Was printed at Cracow in 1561, 1574, and 1577. Jacob Wujek, S.J., undertook a new translation from the Vulgate (Cracow, 1593), which was praised by Clement VIII, and reprinted frequently. (9)

1579 A.D. THE FIRST MEXICAN VERSION: The first known Biblical undertaking in Mexico was a version of the Gospels and Epistles in 1579 by Didacus de S. Maria, O.P., and the Book of Proverbs by Louis Rodríguez, O.S.F. A version of the New Testament was made in 1829, but only the Gospel of St. Luke was printed.(9)

1836 A.D. THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE: A version of St. John’s Gospel and of the Acts was edited in katakana (square type) at Singapore (1836) by Charles Gutzlaff (9)