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.
I’m a disciple of Christs. Christ the Messiah. A believer in Christ.

Believe in Christ?

But that is scandalous.

I leave.
 
Eating the bread is believing in Christ and what He teaches. Drinking the wine is listening to and accepting His word and living accordingly.
Click to expand...
So,what you are saying is the end of John 6 is a parable?

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

"“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” "

Old Scholar,what you are saying in regards to what Jesus says is not a hard teaching at all.
 
Thing said:
I’m a disciple of Christs. Christ the Messiah. A believer in Christ.

Believe in Christ?

But that is scandalous.

I leave.
Click to expand...
LOL…I just realized you were posting/thinking the same thing:thumbsup:
 
Old_Scholar said:
At least you should try and be truthful and show that the books I said were banned were also banned.
Click to expand...
I did try. And I got this message:

**
No
Click to expand...
** publications met your search

New search | Adjust previous search
Search took 0.867 sec
They are all on the list as well as the ones you mentioned. Why won’t you admit that?
Click to expand...
Bestsmileys.com…:rolleyes: .lemme see,http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif what reason could I possibly have??http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/5.gif

Oh! Oh!!http://bestsmileys.com/waving/3.gif Pick me,http://bestsmileys.com/waving/1.gif pick me!!!http://bestsmileys.com/bouncing/19.gif I know,http://bestsmileys.com/bouncing/6.gif I know!!! :
[SIGN1]“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.****[/SIGN1]
 
Old_Scholar said:
They had no English copies in the 15th century but when they were made available in the 16th century, then they could read them and the result was the reformation. Then it became apparent they had been taught wrong.
Click to expand...
Old Scholar - for my heart’s sake please read some history and not propaganda. You have this sterling, shining idea of the Reformation…Athena springing fully formed from the brow of Zeus (so to speak). Have you actually read anything about the history of Henry VIII? He broke with the Church because Catharine of Aragon could not provide him with a son and heir. His greed caused the dissoultion of the monasteries. The people were browbeaten into protestantism - many times on pain of death.

There was NO reformation in England that fits your construct. There were NO pious English farmhands sitting in their crofts quietly reading their Bibles (precisely because most of the them could not read). The reformation in England was not religious, it was political. It was bloody and both sides were at fault. Do you honestly think Elizabeth I was concerned about religious issues? She followed in her father’s footsteps and was a very, very adroit and cunning leader.

This vision of pious puritans sitting around the table at night reading scripture is a construct of a much later age when the political battle had been won. Milton wrote in the mid-1600s. ( Of course in the mid-1600s we have to deal with Cromwell). But that is not the Middle Ages or even the early Renaissance in England.

Old Scholar. If you are serious and intellectually honest with yourself, I can point out any number of history texts which may prove to be enlightening. The reality of 16th century England is far more complex than “for the first time the Bible was printed in English and everyone could see the errors”.

The 16th century in England is a fascinating story - warts and all. Please don’t reduce it to mere slogans.
 
40.png
Zooey:
I did try. And I got this message:
http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gifUmmm…:rolleyes: .lemme see,http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif what reason could I possibly have??http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/5.gif

Oh! Oh!!http://bestsmileys.com/waving/3.gif Pick me,http://bestsmileys.com/waving/1.gif pick me!!!http://bestsmileys.com/bouncing/19.gif I know,http://bestsmileys.com/bouncing/6.gif I know!!! :
[SIGN1]“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.****[/SIGN1]
Perhaps reading the Bible instead of spending so much time making pretty posts would benefit some people…
 
brotherhrolf said:
Old Scholar - for my heart’s sake please read some history and not propaganda. You have this sterling, shining idea of the Reformation…Athena springing fully formed from the brow of Zeus (so to speak). Have you actually read anything about the history of Henry VIII? He broke with the Church because Catharine of Aragon could not provide him with a son and heir. His greed caused the dissoultion of the monasteries. The people were browbeaten into protestantism - many times on pain of death.

There was NO reformation in England that fits your construct. There were NO pious English farmhands sitting in their crofts quietly reading their Bibles (precisely because most of the them could not read). The reformation in England was not religious, it was political. It was bloody and both sides were at fault. Do you honestly think Elizabeth I was concerned about religious issues? She followed in her father’s footsteps and was a very, very adroit and cunning leader.

This vision of pious puritans sitting around the table at night reading scripture is a construct of a much later age when the political battle had been won. Milton wrote in the mid-1600s. ( Of course in the mid-1600s we have to deal with Cromwell). But that is not the Middle Ages or even the early Renaissance in England.

Old Scholar. If you are serious and intellectually honest with yourself, I can point out any number of history texts which may prove to be enlightening. The reality of 16th century England is far more complex than “for the first time the Bible was printed in English and everyone could see the errors”.

The 16th century in England is a fascinating story - warts and all. Please don’t reduce it to mere slogans.
Click to expand...
**Actually my history comes from secular history sources:

The origin of mankind
The History of the World
The History of Western Civilization
History of the Bible
History of Christianity
3 College textbooks of world history

I don’t rely entirely on Religious sources. They sometimes are a little biased.

But I will be glad to get your list and check them out of my local library, that is, if I don’t have them in mine already.**
 
teadough said:
So,what you are saying is the end of John 6 is a parable?

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

"“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” "

Old Scholar,what you are saying in regards to what Jesus says is not a hard teaching at all.
Click to expand...
****The definition of the word used for “drinketh” my blood in John is:

*to receive into the soul what serves to refresh strengthen, nourish it unto life eternal *****

These verses are not to be taken literally. Like parables, they must be understood in the proper sense. We can’t actually “eat” Jesus or “drink” His blood—that is a little ridiculous.

I think that says it all…
 
teadough said:
cont

y lambs," “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t you quote the Scriptures instead of telling us what you think they mean???
 
Old_Scholar said:
The references are all there and you can find them easily if you really wanted to. I know you don’t want to read them though.
Click to expand...
Oh… well lemme ask you this then. Do you keep a copy of the Book of Mormon or the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in your home?

I doubt it.

And if you came into possession of that NWTHS somehow, what would you do with it?

And if your kids got hold of copy and had been reading it, how would you react?

BTW, I looked up your references…you can say what you please, but if you answer my questions above the way I think you will then you are no better than the Catholic Church that you are trying to indict. Do you even know what the Albigenses taught and why all this came about? Time for you to do some more “scholarship”, something without an agenda this time perhaps? :rolleyes:
 
Old_Scholar said:
Why wouldn’t you quote the Scriptures instead of telling us what you think
Click to expand...
they mean???What difference does it make when you do the very same thing? How is your personal interpretation any more valid than mine or the Catholic Church’s?

Especially when you espouse things that the Bible doesn’t actually teach and have been shown your errors several times now on many different topics.

I don’t think we’re the ones not reading what is referenced here. 🤷
 
Old_Scholar said:
And for Claire, it is obvious from those declarations that it was any English translation of the Bible and not just ones the church approved. The main point is that they forbade anyone from reading them.
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose that was?

Could it be that after the Gutenberg press was invented and the Bible could be printed quickly and economically so that the average person could read it, the church was afraid that the doctrines they taught may not be there? You know it was about 1450 A.D. that the printing of the Bible started making it so available.That is a complete misrepresentation. If this is your “scholarship” then it appears to be faulty.
Did the Catholic Church Keep the Bible From Being Translated Into the Vernacular Languages?
Even today you know, the church still says all its doctrines have to be supported by Scripture.
Click to expand...
And they are, but not ONLY by the scriptures. Why? Because they don’t have to be.
The Catholic Reformation came about because of people being able to read the Bible themselves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. Nice propaganda, but not accurate. The Real Catholic Reformation came about long before the 16th lame century.
Reform Came before the Reformation
 
Church_Militant said:
Oh… well lemme ask you this then. Do you keep a copy of the Book of Mormon or the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in your home?

I doubt it.

And if you came into possession of that NWTHS somehow, what would you do with it?

And if your kids got hold of copy and had been reading it, how would you react?

BTW, I looked up your references…you can say what you please, but if you answer my questions above the way I think you will then you are no better than the Catholic Church that you are trying to indict. Do you even know what the Albigenses taught and why all this came about? Time for you to do some more “scholarship”, something without an agenda this time perhaps? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
**Actually I have both those books in my library and quite a few others. I even have Mein Kampf, the rise and fall of the Third Reich and many others. I am a reader.

And yes I kow all about the Albigeneses. But I would rather believe the secular version of the Albigeneses than what newadvent teaches. It’s more accurate.

And for your information, I have JWs stop by and leave Wathctower with me everytime they come by my house. Occasionally I invite them in and try to teach them the truth but they are brainwashed just like some others I communicate with. I don’t see a lot of difference in the Magesterium and the Watchtower organization.**
 
Church_Militant said:
What difference does it make when you do the very same thing? How is your personal interpretation any more valid than mine or the Catholic Church’s?

Especially when you espouse things that the Bible doesn’t actually teach and have been shown your errors several times now on many different topics.

I don’t think we’re the ones not reading what is referenced here. 🤷
Click to expand...
Not true. When I tell you what I think they mean, at least I list them. You don’t.
 
Church_Militant said:
That is a complete misrepresentation. If this is your “scholarship” then it appears to be faulty.
Did the Catholic Church Keep the Bible From Being Translated Into the Vernacular Languages?

**They certainly tried their best. And when they couldn’t stop the translations, they forbade the reading of it. I have already posted the Catholic declarations that do just that. **

And they are, but not ONLY by the scriptures. Why? Because they don’t have to be.

And yet your official position (or at least the official position of the RCC is that they have to be supported by Scripture.

Yeah, right. Nice propaganda, but not accurate. The Real Catholic Reformation came about long before the 16th lame century.
Reform Came before the Reformation
Click to expand...
That’s not correct. It was started by Pope Pius IV in 1560 and dlasted to the close of the Thirty Years’ War, 1648.
 
Old_Scholar said:
****The definition of the word used for “drinketh” my blood in John is:

*to receive into the soul what serves to refresh strengthen, nourish it unto life eternal *****
Click to expand...
These verses are not to be taken literally. Like parables, they must be understood in the proper sense. We can’t actually “eat” Jesus or “drink” His blood—that is a little ridiculous.

I think that says it all…I think you just showed that you force your own interpretation onto the Word of God. There is nothing at all in the Bread of Life discourse that even remotely hints at it being a parable or symbolic. The people that heard it that day took it literally, and though Jesus was in the habit of explaining things to the apostles according to (Mark 4:34 And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.), Our Lord didn’t do so this time and in fact made it a make of break proposition to the apostles when He turned to them and said, Will you also go away? (John 6:68).

A great many non-Catholics have gone “back; and walked no more with him” ever since, but the ones with ears to hear have come into the Catholic Church where they can receive the Bread of Life.

You must have never read the Greek in the Our Father where it says “Give us this day our daily bread.” Look into it and see why St. Jerome translated Matthew 6:11 “Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.” There’s a very good reason for that that he knew…and you do not.
 
Old_Scholar said:
**Actually I have both those books in my library and quite a few others. I even have Mein Kampf, the rise and fall of the Third Reich and many others. I am a reader.

And yes I kow all about the Albigeneses. But I would rather believe the secular version of the Albigeneses than what newadvent teaches. It’s more accurate.

And for your information, I have JWs stop by and leave Wathctower with me everytime they come by my house. Occasionally I invite them in and try to teach them the truth but they are brainwashed just like some others I communicate with. I don’t see a lot of difference in the Magesterium and the Watchtower organization.**
Click to expand...
Nice dodge.

Answer the rest of my questions as to your children.

As for sources… what did the Albigeneses teach, and is it consistent with Bible based Christianity?

(This oughtta be good…:rolleyes: )

Oh… and the next time you take a cheapshot dig at my Catholic faith with a remark like that, I will report you to the mods. If I said something similar about your religion you’d be on that button on me in a New York heartbeat. You know full well that that kind of remark is offensive…but you “Christian charity” doesn’t work when it comes to your faith sharing apparently.

If I have to be considerate of your religion, then those same rules apply to you as well.
 
Old_Scholar said:
Not true. When I tell you what I think they mean, at least I list them. You don’t.
Click to expand...
Hogwash… I have matched you verse for verse without fail except where your rhetoric didn’t require it. Kindly don’t misrepresent me in future.

I’ve pointed out to you several times so far that your “scholarship” is not what it’s cracked up to be.

You have a lot of rhetoric…and little else, especially when faced with Catholics like me who know the Word of God and why I believe what I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top