Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages, as some have claimed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tantum_ergo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
None of the Bible was written in Latin.
Certainly wasn’t written in English either, mate - I trust you’re not restricting yourself to only reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew?

Besides which - IESUS NAZARENUS REX IUDAEORUM would certainly have been written in Latin for one, as well as Greek and Hebrew, and it’s certainly in the Bible. I presume it won’t take too much cogitation for you to figure out whereabouts.

Not to mention the Canon of the Bible (the list of which books the Councils of Hippo and Carthage determined to be scriptural, which is the ‘List of Contents’ of the Bible as it were), itself would’ve been written in the language of those councils - Latin.
 
Certainly wasn’t written in English either, mate - I trust you’re not restricting yourself to only reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew?

Besides which - IESUS NAZARENUS REX IUDAEORUM would certainly have been written in Latin for one, as well as Greek and Hebrew, and it’s certainly in the Bible. I presume it won’t take too much cogitation for you to figure out whereabouts.

Not to mention the Canon of the Bible (the list of which books the Councils of Hippo and Carthage determined to be scriptural, which is the ‘List of Contents’ of the Bible as it were), itself would’ve been written in the language of those councils - Latin.
Maybe you could clue me in on where that is. A search didn’t find it.
 
The documents that describe the banning of books are documents of the Roman Catholic Church and I have listed them here with references. No one has made the claim that they were in error yet.
Why should we claim that local councils erred in banning heretical versions of the Bible that were produced and distributed in their regions?

If I recall rightly, King James himself had destroyed copies of the so-called ‘adulterers Bible’ of 1631 (it had a typo so that ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’ read ‘thou shalt commit adultery’ 😃 ) - there are only eleven copies that survived to this day. AND fined the printers the equivalent of an average person’s lifetime’s wages for the mistake as well.
 
Maybe you could clue me in on where that is. A search didn’t find it.
Oh dear, Old Scholar, your scholarship is sadly lacking. Think a little. One phrase, in scripture, written three times, in Latin, Hebrew and Greek. Can’t be that difficult to figure out, can it?

Would it help if I told you that in Latin there was no letter ‘J’, so they would write the letter ‘I’ instead? Go on, substitute Js for the Is … as in ‘JESUS NAZARENUS REX JUDAEORUM’ and tell me if it helps.
 
Team--------------------------------------------------------------Score

Catholic Church-----------------------------------------------2000
Old Scholar ---------------------------------------------------------0

😃 😉
 
History tells us that the roadways and ways of communication the Romans had was the thing that allowed such a rapid spread of Christianity. They had roads everywhere. They needed them to properly control their provinces and collect their taxes.
Again, Old Scholar PLEASE take a look at the VAST Christian communities WELL OUTSIDE of the Roman Empire.

The Persian Empire, Ethiopia, and India were WELL OUTSIDE of the Roman Empire, and in existence by the time you are of the thinking that these suppressions took place.

How could Rome have so successfully squashed and suppressed things in these places?
 
Why should we claim that local councils erred in banning heretical versions of the Bible that were produced and distributed in their regions?

If I recall rightly, King James himself had destroyed copies of the so-called ‘adulterers Bible’ of 1631 (it had a typo so that ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’ read ‘thou shalt commit adultery’ 😃 ) - there are only eleven copies that survived to this day. AND fined the printers the equivalent of an average person’s lifetime’s wages for the mistake as well.
All I am saying is that there was no statement made by the council that these books were banned merely for a local area. Actually one of them bans them in all of England, France and Spain. Not exactly a local area.
 
Oh dear, Old Scholar, your scholarship is sadly lacking. Think a little. One phrase, in scripture, written three times, in Latin, Hebrew and Greek. Can’t be that difficult to figure out, can it?

Would it help if I told you that in Latin there was no letter ‘J’, so they would write the letter ‘I’ instead? Go on, substitute Js for the Is … as in ‘JESUS NAZARENUS REX JUDAEORUM’ and tell me if it helps.
That doesn’t substantiate your claim that part of the Bible was written in Latin.
 
Again, Old Scholar PLEASE take a look at the VAST Christian communities WELL OUTSIDE of the Roman Empire.

The Persian Empire, Ethiopia, and India were WELL OUTSIDE of the Roman Empire, and in existence by the time you are of the thinking that these suppressions took place.

How could Rome have so successfully squashed and suppressed things in these places?
You should know Rome was only interested in the Roman Empire at that time, not the entire world.
 
You should know Rome was only interested in the Roman Empire at that time, not the entire world.
And that as the case my be in makes a case for MY point!

If they were unconcearned about these other places outside the empire it stands to reason that your ficticous “lost scriptures” would have been included in the canons of the places they either couldn’t get to or weren’t concerned with.

And that is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.

If there were these additional scriptures you charge there to be, they would be in use by the communities that have been in India since the time of Thomas the Apostle and were well outside the influence of Rome or her roads.

For your assertion to be true of suppressed books Rome would have had to be VERY worried about these Christians in the East, would have had to have the manpower and means and transportation to send agents to India, Ethiopia, Persia, would have had to get men there to get the bishops to agree to burn these “lost books”…

I urge you, learn about the sacramental and scriptural life of the Indian and Persian Christians. Their theologies, histories, canon of scripture will simply NOT affirm your misinformed ideas about some Roman conspiracy of suppression. It would have been impossible.
 
And that as the case my be in makes a case for MY point!

If they were unconcearned about these other places outside the empire it stands to reason that your ficticous “lost scriptures” would have been included in the canons of the places they either couldn’t get to or weren’t concerned with.

And that is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.

If there were these additional scriptures you charge there to be, they would be in use by the communities that have been in India since the time of Thomas the Apostle and were well outside the influence of Rome or her roads.

For your assertion to be true of suppressed books Rome would have had to be VERY worried about these Christians in the East, would have had to have the manpower and means and transportation to send agents to India, Ethiopia, Persia, would have had to get men there to get the bishops to agree to burn these “lost books”…

I urge you, learn about the sacramental and scriptural life of the Indian and Persian Christians. Their theologies, histories, canon of scripture will simply NOT affirm your misinformed ideas about some Roman conspiracy of suppression. It would have been impossible.
**But you are missing the main point of this argument. The book banning took place in the middle ages, not in the time of the Roman Empire. The expansion of Christianity began in the Roman Empire which had marvelous roads and means of communications. At the time Constantine made his famous edict that Christians should not be persecuted but allowed to worship freely, there were only about 10% of the Romans that were Christians. In the next couple of centuries, Christianity spread rapidly and reached all the way to England and almost the entire world.

It was in the middle ages that the papacy was in France, not Rome and there were three popes then, all claiming primacy. Where do you think the Council of Toulouse and the Council of Tarragona took place? One was in France and the other in Spain. All part of the Roman Empire at one time, but not in the middle ages.**
 
OS…

I feel sorry for you. I really do… It seems your pride and arrogance blinds you to even the most basics truths, such as literacy levels of the Middle ages. You seem to hold the… “if it puts the CC in a bad light, it must be true” mentality…

You do not even represent protestant beliefs…

In Christ
 
**But you are missing the main point of this argument. **

So what is the main point of your argument?

No I am not. You are failing to understand or try to understand what youhave admitted you are unfamiliar with - the rise of Christianity well outside the Roman empire well within the first two centuries.

Christianity spread far and wide outside of Rome’s reach within the first three centuries. It reached India (again well outside of Rome’s reach) by the first century. It reached Ethiopia - outside of Rome’s reach in Apostolic times.
Old Scholar;3393294:
The book banning took place in the middle ages, not in the time of the Roman Empire. The expansion of Christianity began in the Roman Empire which had marvelous roads and means of communications.
By the middle ages your argument that the Roman Church banned biblical books becomes even weaker. Far weaker. The loss of the infrastructure and cohesion of the Roman empire, Schisms in the East startring with the Assyrians in the Persian Empire, the Orientals - Egyptians, Armenians, Georgians, Ethiopians, and then the Greeks would have made it utterly impossible for Middle Ages Rome to ban books of scripture world wide.

Please, I beg, beseach and implore you to learn about the history of Christianity in the East - it will disabuse you of a lot of these odd ahistorical ideas you have of a Roman conspiracy. It really will. Pick up one of your college text books you told me fills your house.
At the time Constantine made his famous edict that Christians should not be persecuted but allowed to worship freely, there were only about 10% of the Romans that were Christians. In the next couple of centuries, Christianity spread rapidly and reached all the way to England and almost the entire world.
And at the time of Constantine’s famous edict, there were thousands and thousands of Christians WELL BEYOND the Roman Empire on which his Edict had no effect - Armenia comes to mind. What is the point of that? Again, learn about the spread of Christianity Eastward - it really helps Protestants get over some of these odd ideas.

And Christianity was already in England as a minority party by the edict of Constantine.
It was in the middle ages that the papacy was in France, not Rome and there were three popes then, all claiming primacy.
What does this have to do with the conspiracy theory you have on how the Roman Church destroyed early Scriptures?
Where do you think the Council of Toulouse and the Council of Tarragona took place? One was in France and the other in Spain. All part of the Roman Empire at one time, but not in the middle ages.
What does this have to do with the conspiracy theory you have on how the Roman Church destroyed early Scriptures?

Do you know anything about the Syriac Scriptural codex that made it to India? What do you know about the east?
 
OS…

I feel sorry for you. I really do… It seems your pride and arrogance blinds you to even the most basics truths, such as literacy levels of the Middle ages. You seem to hold the… “if it puts the CC in a bad light, it must be true” mentality…

You do not even represent protestant beliefs…

In Christ
Yes, it is becmong apparent than when confronted with the fallacies of his claims to literacy levels, or understanding Christianity went far beyond the Roman empire in the time of the Apostles, or that it really and truly would be impossible for Rome in the 300s to send agents worldwide to get back copies of books he claims Rome ordered burned from India, Ireland, Ethiopia, Persia, even parts of China at the time.

He doesn’t have a leg to stand on, is unwilling to see that, and then starts shifting the chat to issues about the Avingnon papacy.

IT makes no sense, but I do enjoy the opportunity to address such odd error - it is giving me some ideas for my blog.
 
So what is the main point of your argument?

No I am not. You are failing to understand or try to understand what youhave admitted you are unfamiliar with - the rise of Christianity well outside the Roman empire well within the first two centuries.

Christianity spread far and wide outside of Rome’s reach within the first three centuries. It reached India (again well outside of Rome’s reach) by the first century. It reached Ethiopia - outside of Rome’s reach in Apostolic times.

By the middle ages your argument that the Roman Church banned biblical books becomes even weaker. Far weaker. The loss of the infrastructure and cohesion of the Roman empire, Schisms in the East startring with the Assyrians in the Persian Empire, the Orientals - Egyptians, Armenians, Georgians, Ethiopians, and then the Greeks would have made it utterly impossible for Middle Ages Rome to ban books of scripture world wide.

Please, I beg, beseach and implore you to learn about the history of Christianity in the East - it will disabuse you of a lot of these odd ahistorical ideas you have of a Roman conspiracy. It really will. Pick up one of your college text books you told me fills your house.

And at the time of Constantine’s famous edict, there were thousands and thousands of Christians WELL BEYOND the Roman Empire on which his Edict had no effect - Armenia comes to mind. What is the point of that? Again, learn about the spread of Christianity Eastward - it really helps Protestants get over some of these odd ideas.

And Christianity was already in England as a minority party by the edict of Constantine.

What does this have to do with the conspiracy theory you have on how the Roman Church destroyed early Scriptures?

What does this have to do with the conspiracy theory you have on how the Roman Church destroyed early Scriptures?

Do you know anything about the Syriac Scriptural codex that made it to India? What do you know about the east?
You seem to have the idea I have been proclaiming the Romans destroyed Scripture. I have been talking about the prohibition of the Bible by the Roman Church and only causually mentioned that if the Church had the Scriptures to copy, then why did they disappear. Is this claiming a conspiracy to destroy Scripture? I believe you are arguing one thing and me another. Others on this forum have already admitted that the church banned the Bible so that argument has been won.
 
Yes, it is becmong apparent than when confronted with the fallacies of his claims to literacy levels, or understanding Christianity went far beyond the Roman empire in the time of the Apostles, or that it really and truly would be impossible for Rome in the 300s to send agents worldwide to get back copies of books he claims Rome ordered burned from India, Ireland, Ethiopia, Persia, even parts of China at the time.

He doesn’t have a leg to stand on, is unwilling to see that, and then starts shifting the chat to issues about the Avingnon papacy.

IT makes no sense, but I do enjoy the opportunity to address such odd error - it is giving me some ideas for my blog.
Why don’t you start another thread and tell us how Christianity spread out further than the Roman Empire in the first two centuries? I would love to see that one.
 
OS…

I feel sorry for you. I really do… It seems your pride and arrogance blinds you to even the most basics truths, such as literacy levels of the Middle ages. You seem to hold the… “if it puts the CC in a bad light, it must be true” mentality…

You do not even represent protestant beliefs…

In Christ
**No need to feel sorry for me. Put your thoughts where they may do some good.

But please tell me where you have read anything about my beliefs…I must assume you are speaking of religious beliefs.**
 
OS:
…the Church had the Scriptures to copy, then why did they disappear?
Ok, nobody has the Bible, including yourself.
If the originals were lost in time.🤷
 
You seem to have the idea I have been proclaiming the Romans destroyed Scripture. I have been talking about the prohibition of the Bible by the Roman Church and only causually mentioned that if the Church had the Scriptures to copy, then why did they disappear. Is this claiming a conspiracy to destroy Scripture? I believe you are arguing one thing and me another. Others on this forum have already admitted that the church banned the Bible so that argument has been won.
Old Scholar you are backtracking. You jumped into the fray in responding to me after I addressed the objections of someone who decided that Rome had suppressed scripture. But if you want to know where I get the impression you think the same, look no further than this writing:
If this NEVER happened, why do you suppose the oldest copy of the Septuagint dates back to 400 A.D…? Or that, the oldest manuscript we have is a copy of Isaiah that dates back to 135 B.C.? We have a copy of John Ryland’s papyri that dates back to 125 A.D. and a codex copy of the Sinaiticus A dating back to 350 A.D. and a codex copy of the Vaticanius B that dates to 350 A.D. Unfortunately we don’t have anything older than that.

You can read of the dates, etc. here

We have very little that dates back to earlier than the 5th century so I would say that all the book burning, etc. really empacted our religion.
So with “all the book burning” and the lack of texts older than a certain date… What else do do you propose to suggest except that early on books of true scripture were suppressed or altered by Rome?
 
Old Scholar you are backtracking. You jumped into the fray in responding to me after I addressed the objections of someone who decided that Rome had suppressed scripture. But if you want to know where I get the impression you think the same, look no further than this writing:

So with “all the book burning” and the lack of texts older than a certain date… What else do do you propose to suggest except that early on books of true scripture were suppressed or altered by Rome?
Certainly they were in the possession of the church. What do you think happened to them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top