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

[cfrancis]

Did you expect the church to say anything else?

I guess I couldn’t really expect you to read the links I provided.

Oh well…

From *A History of the Christian Church: Middle Age *By Charles Hardwick, the note I asked you read stated the Bible was translated into Spanish and Italian and French - all authorized - during the same time period.

If you had actually read the article The Catholic Church has NOT been the enemy of the Bible throughout history, you would have noticed it was not a periodical of the Catholic Church, but a layman’s publication. You could then have at least attempted to counter any one of his points.

 

[cfrancis]

This, of course, was expected. That is you claiming that the Council of Toulouse was simply a “local” council. It is normal for the RCC to make the claim that this council was strictly a local one. It wasn’t me claiming the synod was local - it was my source, CCEL - a source with which I beleive you are familiar.

For the third Synod of Oxford, 1408, History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution , provides some insight for you.

 

[cfrancis]

If we agree that a general prohibition against the Scriptures was never in existence, only a local one, then we must also agree that a general proclamation of the canonicity of the Apocrypha was never in existence either, at least until the middle 16th century. In supporting the Apocrypha, the RCC always refers to the regional councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. If we apply a certain standard to one council then we must apply it to the others.

You are welcome to your false dichotomy - I’ll have no part of it.
Yes, Toulouse, et al, were local synods ot deal with local problems. Their proclamations were aimed at those local problems. To deny that is to deny history.
Rome, Hippo, Carthage were, too, local synods. But Carthage shows the decision was not just a local issue.
From the Council of Carthage, Canon XXIV:

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture…[lists the Catholic Bible]…
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

The N.African bishops sent this to Rome for Pope Boniface and the magisterium to confirm.

 

[brotherhrolf]

When they start talking of trying to copy the Bible and then referring to Bic pens, it doesn’t take a genius to know they have no idea of what was copied and how. It seems they believe one sat down with a Bible and started making copies which would indicate a lack of knowledge about how it was done.

First the vellum or parchment had to be prepared. In a scriptorium in an abbey, they had brothers whose sole job was the preparation of the skins for use as a writing surface. This was a lengthy process unless one simply scraped the fur off and waited for the bloody mess to dry. Course, that might affect the writing surface a tad. But this is, after all, Old Scholar’s scriptorium. Who knows, perhaps those ancient scribes in Europe had access to papyrus along with their Bic pens.

When the vellum or parchment was prepared, the page was laid out - i.e. the lines were ruled with a stylus. Depending upon the era, it might have been simple block layout (uncial (one of the earliest scripts used) was written without breaks and without punctuation). In later ages, two columns would become the norm. If the page was to be illuminated provisions were made for that. In Old Scholar’s scriptorium this step is unnecessary we are only interested in production writing of scripture.

When the page was ready (and depending upon the intent), normally senior scribes (does that suit you Old Scholar? Scribes? Not calligraphers? Calligraphy means beautiful writing which it certainly was. So scribes to appeal to your predilections) were given the task of copying scripture. In other eras, certain scribes were assigned the duties of rubricator - i.e. they specialized in writing red letters. In Old Scholar’s scriptorium they had scripture memorized by heart and had no need for copying scripture.

As can be seen by closely watching Donald Jackson in the video, the formation of letters (no matter which script you choose) is, indeed, a matter of formation. One does not simply whip out a Bic and scrawl the Word of God across a page to suit one’s ideas of how things were written. In addition, quills need to be sharpened every now and again. No, that is a needless complication surely the word penknife has no meaning. In addition in Old Scholar’s scriptorium, the pens never need sharpening and the nibs never split and there is no need to lift the pen off the page. Everything writes like a Bic. And Donald Jackson doesn’t know what he’s doing as Her Majesty’s Calligrapher (OOPS I meant Scribe!)

And then there were the scribes in the scriptorium who specialized in making ink and paints from pigments. But we all know that they were perfectly able to go down to their local Hobby Lobby or Michael’s. I guess they were just adroit in their purchasing power. While they were there they would be able to purchase dowels with nice end caps to facilitate the scrolls that we all know were made in the Middle Ages.

I invite you to google the Scroll of Kells - that marvelous eigth century scroll which is unrolled 12" a day in the library of Trinity College in Dublin.

Yep, gotta love those scrolls. Whip out an epistle, roll it up, and send it on down the line. In Old Scholar’s Scriptorium marauding Vikings, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Huns or Moors don’t exist. In Old Scholar’s Scriptorium people aren’t huddled around monasteries or castles. There was no collapse of civilization.

In Old Scholar’s Scriptorium we have to keep a close watch out for the evil Magesterium. Because we few, we merry few, we band of brothers are proto-protestants and we stand in the gap ready to protect the rights of our fellow villains, serfs, and peasants to read and interpret scripture for themselves through the medium of passing scrolls in the night.

And Old Scholar goes on and on about what happened in Catalonia and the Languedoc…he will not give me an answer as to whether or not he supports the Albigensians, Cathars, or Lollards only that the Evil Magesterium had their agents out to burn the scrolls that those villains, serfs, and peasants were so desperately trying to get their hands on.

Did I tell you that heresy does not exist in Old Scholar’s Scriptorium?

 

[irishmac]

First the vellum or parchment had to be prepared. In a scriptorium in an abbey, they had brothers whose sole job was the preparation of the skins for use as a writing surface. This was a lengthy process unless one simply scraped the fur off and waited for the bloody mess to dry. Course, that might affect the writing surface a tad. But this is, after all, Old Scholar’s scriptorium. Who knows, perhaps those ancient scribes in Europe had access to papyrus along with their Bic pens.

When the vellum or parchment was prepared, the page was laid out - i.e. the lines were ruled with a stylus. Depending upon the era, it might have been simple block layout (uncial (one of the earliest scripts used) was written without breaks and without punctuation). In later ages, two columns would become the norm. If the page was to be illuminated provisions were made for that. In Old Scholar’s scriptorium this step is unnecessary we are only interested in production writing of scripture.

When the page was ready (and depending upon the intent), normally senior scribes (does that suit you Old Scholar? Scribes? Not calligraphers? Calligraphy means beautiful writing which it certainly was. So scribes to appeal to your predilections) were given the task of copying scripture. In other eras, certain scribes were assigned the duties of rubricator - i.e. they specialized in writing red letters. In Old Scholar’s scriptorium they had scripture memorized by heart and had no need for copying scripture.

As can be seen by closely watching Donald Jackson in the video, the formation of letters (no matter which script you choose) is, indeed, a matter of formation. One does not simply whip out a Bic and scrawl the Word of God across a page to suit one’s ideas of how things were written. In addition, quills need to be sharpened every now and again. No, that is a needless complication surely the word penknife has no meaning. In addition in Old Scholar’s scriptorium, the pens never need sharpening and the nibs never split and there is no need to lift the pen off the page. Everything writes like a Bic. And Donald Jackson doesn’t know what he’s doing as Her Majesty’s Calligrapher (OOPS I meant Scribe!)

And then there were the scribes in the scriptorium who specialized in making ink and paints from pigments. But we all know that they were perfectly able to go down to their local Hobby Lobby or Michael’s. I guess they were just adroit in their purchasing power. While they were there they would be able to purchase dowels with nice end caps to facilitate the scrolls that we all know were made in the Middle Ages.

I invite you to google the Scroll of Kells - that marvelous eigth century scroll which is unrolled 12" a day in the library of Trinity College in Dublin.

Yep, gotta love those scrolls. Whip out an epistle, roll it up, and send it on down the line. In Old Scholar’s Scriptorium marauding Vikings, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Huns or Moors don’t exist. In Old Scholar’s Scriptorium people aren’t huddled around monasteries or castles. There was no collapse of civilization.

In Old Scholar’s Scriptorium we have to keep a close watch out for the evil Magesterium. Because we few, we merry few, we band of brothers are proto-protestants and we stand in the gap ready to protect the rights of our fellow villains, serfs, and peasants to read and interpret scripture for themselves through the medium of passing scrolls in the night.

And Old Scholar goes on and on about what happened in Catalonia and the Languedoc…he will not give me an answer as to whether or not he supports the Albigensians, Cathars, or Lollards only that the Evil Magesterium had their agents out to burn the scrolls that those villains, serfs, and peasants were so desperately trying to get their hands on.

Did I tell you that heresy does not exist in Old Scholar’s Scriptorium?

My dear brotherhrolf,

Let cooler heads prevail here. While I agree with you that the process which Scripture was copied and illuminated was vastly more tedious and time-consuming than Old Scholar imagines or claims, I still believe that we should follow what St. Peter told us in 1 Peter 3:15-16, “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence” (NAB). While Peter was urging us to defend our faith, I think it should be applied to all things. Even in arguments.

Dominus vobsicum

 

[brotherhrolf]

And I thought I had cooled down… But I take your rebuke in the spirit in which it was given my celtic friend. I’ve spent a lot of time on this thread because of the wild and gross inaccuracies being floated about as fact when they are not. One can bring a horse to water but one cannot make him drink.

 

[Old_Scholar]

First the vellum or parchment had to be prepared. In a scriptorium in an abbey, they had brothers whose sole job was the preparation of the skins for use as a writing surface. This was a lengthy process unless one simply scraped the fur off and waited for the bloody mess to dry. Course, that might affect the writing surface a tad. But this is, after all, Old Scholar’s scriptorium. Who knows, perhaps those ancient scribes in Europe had access to papyrus along with their Bic pens.

When the vellum or parchment was prepared, the page was laid out - i.e. the lines were ruled with a stylus. Depending upon the era, it might have been simple block layout (uncial (one of the earliest scripts used) was written without breaks and without punctuation). In later ages, two columns would become the norm. If the page was to be illuminated provisions were made for that. In Old Scholar’s scriptorium this step is unnecessary we are only interested in production writing of scripture.

When the page was ready (and depending upon the intent), normally senior scribes (does that suit you Old Scholar? Scribes? Not calligraphers? Calligraphy means beautiful writing which it certainly was. So scribes to appeal to your predilections) were given the task of copying scripture. In other eras, certain scribes were assigned the duties of rubricator - i.e. they specialized in writing red letters. In Old Scholar’s scriptorium they had scripture memorized by heart and had no need for copying scripture.

As can be seen by closely watching Donald Jackson in the video, the formation of letters (no matter which script you choose) is, indeed, a matter of formation. One does not simply whip out a Bic and scrawl the Word of God across a page to suit one’s ideas of how things were written. In addition, quills need to be sharpened every now and again. No, that is a needless complication surely the word penknife has no meaning. In addition in Old Scholar’s scriptorium, the pens never need sharpening and the nibs never split and there is no need to lift the pen off the page. Everything writes like a Bic. And Donald Jackson doesn’t know what he’s doing as Her Majesty’s Calligrapher (OOPS I meant Scribe!)

And then there were the scribes in the scriptorium who specialized in making ink and paints from pigments. But we all know that they were perfectly able to go down to their local Hobby Lobby or Michael’s. I guess they were just adroit in their purchasing power. While they were there they would be able to purchase dowels with nice end caps to facilitate the scrolls that we all know were made in the Middle Ages.

I invite you to google the Scroll of Kells - that marvelous eigth century scroll which is unrolled 12" a day in the library of Trinity College in Dublin.

Yep, gotta love those scrolls. Whip out an epistle, roll it up, and send it on down the line. In Old Scholar’s Scriptorium marauding Vikings, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Huns or Moors don’t exist. In Old Scholar’s Scriptorium people aren’t huddled around monasteries or castles. There was no collapse of civilization.

In Old Scholar’s Scriptorium we have to keep a close watch out for the evil Magesterium. Because we few, we merry few, we band of brothers are proto-protestants and we stand in the gap ready to protect the rights of our fellow villains, serfs, and peasants to read and interpret scripture for themselves through the medium of passing scrolls in the night.

And Old Scholar goes on and on about what happened in Catalonia and the Languedoc…he will not give me an answer as to whether or not he supports the Albigensians, Cathars, or Lollards only that the Evil Magesterium had their agents out to burn the scrolls that those villains, serfs, and peasants were so desperately trying to get their hands on.

Did I tell you that heresy does not exist in Old Scholar’s Scriptorium?

All I ask is that you remember we are talking about epistles here and, for example, Paul’s letter to Titus was only 46 very short paragraphs. His other epistles varied in size but we were never talking about copying the entire Bible, only epistles, one at a time. Please remember that. These epistles were, upon receipt, copied and furnished to all the other churches as well.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Brotherhrolf

Brotherhrolf

You have been bugging me about the **Albigenses/Carthar **“question” as you call it, and the Waldensians and Lollards. I will give you your answer, since I have a few moments at last to answer.

It was the Manichean cult from Persia, that survived in a modified form during the dominance of Western Europe. In Italy its followers were known as the Cathari; in France, where the group was larger and more influential, they were called the Albigenses.

The Albigenses were devoted to purity of living, were more gayer and more lighthearted than the Christians of the Roman communion. ** Living on the domains of the Count of Toulouse, they developed what was probably the highest civilization in Western Europe in the late twelfth century.** The Albigenses were harmless and inoffensive but, by refusing to recognize the priest as essential to salvation (as insisted upon by Rome), they constituted a menace to the Church. Also, their great wealth was not without attraction to certain elements in the Church. Accordingly, in 1208, Innocent III preached a crusade against them. An army, gathered from all parts of Christian Europe and led by Simon de Montfort, invaded southern France, massacred the Albigenses, and obliterated their semi-pagan civilization. Heresy was eliminated, but no barbarian conqueror had ever wiped out a Christian community with greater ruthlessness. The Albigenses were not reformers, they were content to live their own lives. At about this time, however, a much more ominous movement arose in the West, a movement that demanded reform of the Church itself. Peter Waldo, a rich citizen of Lyons in France, was its originator, and his followers were called Waldeneses. The Waldeneses claimed that they were reverting to primitive Christianity and demanded that the Bible be the sole guide to salvation. They repudiated those dogmas and practices of the Church which had developed after Apostolic times. The Waldensian sect was excommunicated in 1184, and many of its members were destroyed in the Albigenses Crusade. (1)

And from another History book:

The Albigenses were named after the town of Albi in southern France, where many of them lived. In the thirteenth century the pope preached a crusade against them, and **the movement was stamped out by wholesale massacres. ** The Waldensians were followers of Peter Waldo; most of them lived in France. They regarded the Bible as a sufficient guide to religious life, and condemned the luxurious living of some of the clergy. The Waldensian sect survived severs persecution and formed a branch of the Protestant church in Italy; some may still be there.

The Lollards, as the followers of John Wycliffe were called, held beliefs similar to those of the Waldensians. Wycliffe was the master, or head, of an Oxford College and a popular preacher. He and two friends translated the Bible into English. He organized bands of “poor priests” sworn to poverty, who went about preaching in English to the common people; in their sermons they attacked many beliefs and practices of the Church and also demanded social reforms. The Lollards were severely persecuted. John Huss, a priest and professor in the University of Prague, was influenced by the doctrines of Wycliffe. Huss Attacked the actions of some of the clergy in sermons and pamphlets and urged that the powers of the pope be limited. In 1415 he was excommunicated from the Church and burned as a heretic. His followers, known as Hussites survived many years of religious war. They kept alive his teachings, which influenced martin Luther. (2)

Now I will give you the Historical Record of the beliefs of the Albigensians.

The believed that the history of the universe was one long struggle between the forces of light (good) and the forces of darkness (evil). The evil forces (Satan) created man and the earth, but Adam had some measure of goodness. Jesus was not born of a woman, nor was he crucified. because he was wholly good, wholly light. The jehovah of the Old Testament was the god of evil. The Albigensians had an elite of their own (“the perfect”), who devoted themselves to pure living. Some of them forbade the veneration of the cross; others forbade infant baptism, the celebration of the mass, or the holding of private property. Many of them denied the validity of one or more of the sacraments. Some even said the Catholic church itself was Satan’s. Albigenses often had the support of nobles, and particularly women, who adopted their views to combat the church politically. The church proclaimed a Crusade against the Albigensians and a related group, the followers of Peter Waldo (Waldensians), in 1208.(3)

Actually many of those beliefs are still valid to some today.

References:

(1) *Man and the Western World *by John Geise, Phd University of Pittsburg. p 562

(2) The Record of Mankind, A. Wesley Roehm, Chairman of the Department of History and Social Services, Oak Park and River Forest High School, Oak park, Illinois; Morris R. Buske, World Civilization Humanities Coordinator, Oak Park and River Forest High School, Oak park, Illinois; Hutton Bebster, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Stanford University; Edgar B. Wesley, Professor of Education, University of Minnesota. p.187

(3) *The History f Civilization *(eighth edition), Vol. 1, Robin W. Winks, Crane Brinton, John B. Christopher, Robert Lee Wolff. p 215

You asked if I agreed with their beliefs. The answer is yes I believe and agree with several of their beliefs. They refused to accept the papacy, I agree with that; they believed that the Bible was the sole authority, I agree with that. .

 

[ASimpleSinner]

We all know, of course, that there was 100% literacy in the middle ages. I guess someone didn’t even consider that the statues and stained glass windows were there as visual aids for the priest to use when explaining the Bible to the peasants who didn’t really need them because they were all literate.

Not only were they all literate, but they all had the means to commission manuscripts that were hand printed, and had the free time to read it, and had the developped language to translate it, and had the infrastructure needed to educated educators who had the infrastructure to open schools…

People really NEVER seem to stop to think much about what life before the Industrial Revolution was like, let alone the world of feudal Europe before the printing press.

When Evangelicals hold up their Bible and say “This is the word of God and I can read it for myself.” Well I always want to point out that 600 years ago, being able to read it and afford it was not possible.

How on earth where Christians Christian before the printing press and literacy?

No one who is pro sola scriptura ever likes to answer that one.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

There are only 7 books that are different from the catholic bible and a non-catholic bible. With few exceptions, the remaining books are identical. How in the world can any single mortal man, condemn the printed Word of God from being published and distributed to non-catholics? Granted, the RCC has claimed the original manuscripts over the ages of the books of the bible, but just how many of us have seen with our own two eyes, these originals? *** I understand that there were books that didn’t make the cut by the RCC because they didn’t advance the cause of the RCC in its proper light.*** I’m referring mainly to the books that discuss the boyhood life of Jesus both good and bad as well as other books that are on the market now. :tiphat:

I hope that you are not of the thinking that the Catholic Church is so monolithic and powerful (and always has been) that they would be able to pull off some vast conspiracy of altering the Bible,

Before the Councils of Carthadge (Modern North Africa) in 396 AD when the canon of the Bible was established Christianity had already spread to Persia, India, Assyria and the Scriptures of course were already taken to these places. These folks would come to be known as the [Church of the East ](Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia as early as the second century.)and broke ties with the Latins and Greeks in 431 AD.

Even if the Catholic Church had wanted to suppress books of the Bible that were legitimate Gospels as opposed to fakes written by sects, I am unsure how it would have even been possible to go as far

East as India, as far
West as Ireland, as far
South as Ethiopia and as far
North as Germania and then…

…secretly switched out Bibles and alter them. Can you imagine the manpower, the maps, the roads, the technology that would have taken?

Never mind that some of these places were in schism at any given time and would NOT have respected a bishop or priest coming out of the Latin empire…

Especially when Muslims talk about how the Scriptures were corrupted early on… Well, I always want to know how they can believe that? There were so many copies in so many places it stands to reason that at least one copy of “the real” Bible would pop up. All “Dead Sea Scrolls” fiction aside, that has NEVER happened. Because the corruption and suppression of the Bible NEVER happened.

 

[brotherhrolf]

All I ask is that you remember we are talking about epistles here and, for example, Paul’s letter to Titus was only 46 very short paragraphs. His other epistles varied in size but we were never talking about copying the entire Bible, only epistles, one at a time. Please remember that. These epistles were, upon receipt, copied and furnished to all the other churches as well.

But that was during the early church not the Middle Ages. Of course the epistles were copied to scrolls and disseminated throughout the early church. Scrolls were in use throughout the Roman Empire. But scrolls were not in use in the Middle Ages. We simply have to admit that civilzation collapsed across the western half of the Roman empire. Monasteries, castles, and feudalism was the response.

It took the Irish (who had not yet suffered the impact of the Norse) to send missionaries and books back to the Anglo-Saxons first and then on to Carolingian Europe. If you look at surviving manuscripts of the time (i.e. the Book of Kells, the Lindisfarne Gospels) they are not writing out the Epistles, they are copying the Gospels and binding them. And if you sit down and page through those Gospels, you will see the esteem in which the Word of God was held.

 

[Claudius]

HHMMM, in the Catholic Church we see two different rules at work. One rules says that all that are able MUST read the bible, especially the Gospels. Even if you had no time to read anything else, you should at least read the four Gospels, every word.

Then we have this other rule of the Catholic Church that says that the people are forbidden to read the bible, especially the Gospels, and it is a grave crime if they do.

What can we make of this? It seems that the Catholics have two different opposing rules and that the protestants have been correct in critisizing the Catholic Church all this time. IT WOULD seems that way IF we only have the text of the rules that I have just place above with no other information to go on.

Here is where we see the protestant propencity to lie. While it is true that the Catholic Church forbids the reading of the Bible, especially the Gospels, what is the rest of the Rule. The Rule does not talk about LIFE IN GENERAL, but the order of reading DURING MASS. The Rule that forbids Bible reading did not apply to people in everyday life, only during MASS. During Mass, only the Diaconus or Presbyter (who were the only people that the Church knew 100% to be litturate) could read the Bible to the people at a public Mass. This rule only applies to this. When the very few protestants that actually know this rule and where it comes from bring it up, they already know themselves that it is a lie.

Basic rule for dealing with protestants, assume they are telling you a lie and that any evidence they produce is a forgery.

So we should look also at the rule of the Catholic Church that says that you MUST read the Bible, at least the GOSPELS if nothing else. This rule is attached to something called an INDULGENCE. See that scary word that protestants just can’t stand. If a Catholic (any Catholic, man, woman, child, priest, layman, Pope) read the Bible, even just a little bit, they recieve an indulgence. If they read for at least thirty minuets, they may recieve a Full indulgence. This is the Church not just telling you that it is ok to read the Bible, not just that it is good, not just encouraging it, but outright demending that Catholic read the bible and rewarding those that do.

So what do we see from this. Catholic, all Catholic, are required to read the Bible if they are able and are rewarded by the Church with an indulgence if they do. If a protestant read the bible, even a correct bible, they can not recieve this reward. However, during Mass is not the time for everyone to stand up and start talking about this passage or that passage and start preaching. There is something far, FAR, more important going on, and besides, we read through the ENTIRE COMPLETE BIBLE in three years anyway. The bible is not the most important thing to a true christian. (just for the record, the only true christians are those the eat the body of Jesus and drink his blood at Catholic Mass).

So, I am glad that this whole mess of protestant lies has been cleared up.

Oh, for any of you protestants who want to bring up the list of banned books, The BIBLE was NEVER on that list so you are just telling a lie. Several books that protestants always want to claim are of a Catholic origin, like the book on how to identify, track down and kill witches, are on the list. Another big clue is the fact that the list was never even published until after 1500 so any pretend version of the list you want to lie about coming from 1200 is just that, nothing but a lie.

 

[brotherhrolf]

You asked if I agreed with their beliefs. The answer is yes I believe and agree with several of their beliefs. They refused to accept the papacy, I agree with that; they believed that the Bible was the sole authority, I agree with that. .

Old Scholar, I thank you. You have acknowledged previously on this thread that you are a Catholic. All three of these movements were denounced as heresy. One cannot pick and choose the "good points’ of a heresy (i.e renunciation of the papacy and sola scriptura) without acknowledging the rest of what they preached which should be heretical even to today’s protestants.

As such your entire approach to the question about whether or not the Bible was forbidden or burned during the Middle Ages may now be exposed for what it is - a gross twisting of historical reality to fit the notions popular to the Reformers in the Renaissance and today’s protestants of the likes of Jack Chick and Tony Alamo.

Yes, the books were banned. Yes, the books were burned. The “translations” supported heresy. The Magesterium was well within its rights to do so and, as you have admitted elsewhere, these were local councils and not wholesale movement of HMC.

I and others have already devoted a great deal of time to patiently explaining why the Bibles were chained; the fact that the majority of people in the Middle Ages could not read; and have given explanations as to why bibles were banned and burned.

You claim you are a Catholic. You would do well, sir, to hoist the jolly roger for you are flying false colors. Our Lord said “Let your yes be yes and your no be no”.

I will have nothing more to do with this thread.

 

[Thing]

OS:

All I ask is that you remember we are talking about epistles here and, for example, Paul’s letter to Titus was only 46 very short paragraphs. His other epistles varied in size but we were never talking about copying the entire Bible, only epistles, one at a time. Please remember that. These epistles were, upon receipt, copied and furnished to all the other churches as well.

The Bible as a whole certainly existed for the Catholic Church from 370-80-AD when St. Jerome translated all the Scriptures using many sources, many of which soon after were lost. This was before the beginning of the Middle-Ages. St. Jeromes Latin Vulgate was then the standard.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I hope that you are not of the thinking that the Catholic Church is so monolithic and powerful (and always has been) that they would be able to pull off some vast conspiracy of altering the Bible,

Before the Councils of Carthadge (Modern North Africa) in 396 AD when the canon of the Bible was established Christianity had already spread to Persia, India, Assyria and the Scriptures of course were already taken to these places. These folks would come to be known as the [Church of the East ](Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia as early as the second century.)and broke ties with the Latins and Greeks in 431 AD.

Even if the Catholic Church had wanted to suppress books of the Bible that were legitimate Gospels as opposed to fakes written by sects, I am unsure how it would have even been possible to go as far

East as India, as far
West as Ireland, as far
South as Ethiopia and as far
North as Germania and then…

…secretly switched out Bibles and alter them. Can you imagine the manpower, the maps, the roads, the technology that would have taken?

Never mind that some of these places were in schism at any given time and would NOT have respected a bishop or priest coming out of the Latin empire…

Especially when Muslims talk about how the Scriptures were corrupted early on… Well, I always want to know how they can believe that? There were so many copies in so many places it stands to reason that at least one copy of “the real” Bible would pop up. All “Dead Sea Scrolls” fiction aside, that has NEVER happened. Because the corruption and suppression of the Bible NEVER happened.

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.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I hope that you are not of the thinking that the Catholic Church is so monolithic and powerful (and always has been) that they would be able to pull off some vast conspiracy of altering the Bible,

Before the Councils of Carthadge (Modern North Africa) in 396 AD when the canon of the Bible was established Christianity had already spread to Persia, India, Assyria and the Scriptures of course were already taken to these places. These folks would come to be known as the [Church of the East ](Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia as early as the second century.)and broke ties with the Latins and Greeks in 431 AD.

Even if the Catholic Church had wanted to suppress books of the Bible that were legitimate Gospels as opposed to fakes written by sects, I am unsure how it would have even been possible to go as far

East as India, as far
West as Ireland, as far
South as Ethiopia and as far
North as Germania and then…

…secretly switched out Bibles and alter them. Can you imagine the manpower, the maps, the roads, the technology that would have taken?

Never mind that some of these places were in schism at any given time and would NOT have respected a bishop or priest coming out of the Latin empire…

Especially when Muslims talk about how the Scriptures were corrupted early on… Well, I always want to know how they can believe that? There were so many copies in so many places it stands to reason that at least one copy of “the real” Bible would pop up. All “Dead Sea Scrolls” fiction aside, that has NEVER happened. Because the corruption and suppression of the Bible NEVER happened.

There is still the possibility that a copy will someday show up. Look at how the Dead Sea Scrolls surprised everyone when they showed up.

Archaeologists will tell you that less than 3% of the land to be excavated and researched has been completed. It is a never ending practice and who knows what will eventually show up?

 

[Old_Scholar]

HHMMM, in the Catholic Church we see two different rules at work. One rules says that all that are able MUST read the bible, especially the Gospels. Even if you had no time to read anything else, you should at least read the four Gospels, every word.

Then we have this other rule of the Catholic Church that says that the people are forbidden to read the bible, especially the Gospels, and it is a grave crime if they do.

What can we make of this? It seems that the Catholics have two different opposing rules and that the protestants have been correct in critisizing the Catholic Church all this time. IT WOULD seems that way IF we only have the text of the rules that I have just place above with no other information to go on.

Here is where we see the protestant propencity to lie. While it is true that the Catholic Church forbids the reading of the Bible, especially the Gospels, what is the rest of the Rule. The Rule does not talk about LIFE IN GENERAL, but the order of reading DURING MASS. The Rule that forbids Bible reading did not apply to people in everyday life, only during MASS. During Mass, only the Diaconus or Presbyter (who were the only people that the Church knew 100% to be litturate) could read the Bible to the people at a public Mass. This rule only applies to this. When the very few protestants that actually know this rule and where it comes from bring it up, they already know themselves that it is a lie.

Basic rule for dealing with protestants, assume they are telling you a lie and that any evidence they produce is a forgery.

So we should look also at the rule of the Catholic Church that says that you MUST read the Bible, at least the GOSPELS if nothing else. This rule is attached to something called an INDULGENCE. See that scary word that protestants just can’t stand. If a Catholic (any Catholic, man, woman, child, priest, layman, Pope) read the Bible, even just a little bit, they recieve an indulgence. If they read for at least thirty minuets, they may recieve a Full indulgence. This is the Church not just telling you that it is ok to read the Bible, not just that it is good, not just encouraging it, but outright demending that Catholic read the bible and rewarding those that do.

So what do we see from this. Catholic, all Catholic, are required to read the Bible if they are able and are rewarded by the Church with an indulgence if they do. If a protestant read the bible, even a correct bible, they can not recieve this reward. However, during Mass is not the time for everyone to stand up and start talking about this passage or that passage and start preaching. There is something far, FAR, more important going on, and besides, we read through the ENTIRE COMPLETE BIBLE in three years anyway. The bible is not the most important thing to a true christian. (just for the record, the only true christians are those the eat the body of Jesus and drink his blood at Catholic Mass).

So, I am glad that this whole mess of protestant lies has been cleared up.

Oh, for any of you protestants who want to bring up the list of banned books, The BIBLE was NEVER on that list so you are just telling a lie. Several books that protestants always want to claim are of a Catholic origin, like the book on how to identify, track down and kill witches, are on the list. Another big clue is the fact that the list was never even published until after 1500 so any pretend version of the list you want to lie about coming from 1200 is just that, nothing but a lie.

I hope you can provide the catechism, decree or dogma that says the Bible was only forbidden to be read during mass. It has already been posted where the church decreed that it not be available for reading at all and in fact IS on the list of books banned by the pope and the list has been presented already. Claims can be made but proof should be submitted…

 

[geezerbob]

I hope you can provide the catechism, decree or dogma that says the Bible was only forbidden to be read during mass. It has already been posted where the church decreed that it not be available for reading at all and in fact IS on the list of books banned by the pope and the list has been presented already. Claims can be made but proof should be submitted…

I’ve stayed out of this thread ever since I found an out-and-out falsehood among the many distortions, half-truths, and out of context quotes which destroyed what little credibility the poster may have had. What has been posted has been deliberately deceitful and biased, has been from secondary sources, not original ones, and proves absolutely nothing except the poster’s own prejudice. Give it a rest, please, at least until you can come up with an intellectually honest presentation. As our Methodist friend would and has said about some of the previous posts, “Piffle.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s try ONE MORE TIME.

Old “scholar”, if I were to take your grandchild’s King James bible, go through it and change passages, delete some, add some entirely new passages, such that, for example, it would say that Jesus was NOT the Christ, that He did not die for us, that the only way for a woman to enter heaven was to be ‘made into a man’, that marriage was evil, divorce for any reason allowable, and that men and women should fornicate freely. . .

and I insisted that this was “The Bible” and that he or she should be taught exactly what this Bible said was TRUTH. . .

Would you be hunky-dory with the idea??

Is that book that I have described “The Bible?”

Is it??

 

[Old_Scholar]

How about you give us your version of the First Council of Nicaea then.

Earlier I was asked to give what I thought of the first Council of Nicæa. Here it is:

Christianity was expanding very fast in the 4th century and uncertainties and differences as to the beliefs began to appear rapidly. The principal dispute of that time was over the nature of Christ. There was a priest named Arius who maintained that Christ the Son, having been created by God the Father, was necessarily inferior to Him. This doctrine was called Arianism. This view was opposed by a priest named Athanasius who maintained Christ was not a created being, but was in all respects equal to God.

Constantine, the emperor of the Roman Empire at the time, knew this dispute was likely to continue to spread and it was already causing problems throughout the empire. The unrest was growing and he was afraid this dispute would harm his empire. He called for a council, or assembly of over 1800 bishops, (only about 300 showing up) to resolve the issue.

They met at Nicæa, a town in Asia Minor, not too far from Constantinople. The principal work of the council was to settle the dispute between Arius and Athanasius. The arguments of Athanasius won the acceptance of the council and Arius was condemned as a heretic. The council then formulated a statement of fundamental beliefs, which became known as the Nicene Creed.

History tells us that the council lasted for two months and Constantine presided. When it was obvious it was taking too long, he took control and insisted a decision be made. Only 2 bishops disagreed with the results and it was his friend, Athanasius, who prevailed. Many of the bishops disagreed but were afraid to go against Constantine. Constantine ordered all the writings of Arius to be burned and of course Arius was excommunicated. He spent the rest of his life trying to get back in good graces with the church and finally did get approval but died before he could regain the admittance and it is said he was poisoned.

Although this dispute had been officially settled, it lasted for decades and decades. Constantine himself later adopted Arianism and only became a Christian on his deathbed because he was afraid his soul would be lost. He received baptism while on his deathbed.

This information can be verified in “The Record of Mankind” previously quoted in another post in this thread.

Other things discussed at Nicæa was when to celebrate Easter and the formulation of the Nicene Creed. This creed was changed however, at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Here is a paste from a site that goes into more detail than what I have said. This refers to the continued belief in Arianism:

**Not surprisingly, the theological bloodshed didn’t end there. The followers of Arius refused to accept the decision, and the abstractness of the officially established doctrine made it less appealing to the masses than some of the tenets of Arianism, which were adopted in part by many more moderate bishops. In 331, Constantine - convinced by ecclesiastical advisors and his sister that Arius had been misrepresented - recalled the exiled bishop, and by the end of his reign had adopted a sort of modified Arianism. His sucessors followed suit rather than compromise the principate’s appearance of steadfast faith: Athanasius was exiled and recalled no less than five times under various rulers for various reasons (Julian “the Apostate”, for example, saw no better way to damage the church than by bringing the controversy back to the forefront.) Finally, the succession of Theodosius I put an end to the line of Arian emperors, and at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 all forms of Arianism were finally condemned. Despite this fact, Arianism lingered for some time in the army - the emperor Valens had dispatched missionaries to the Goths and converted them to Arianist Christianity, and by that time the Goths formed the backbone of the imperial army. It wasn’t until Clovis of the Franks converted to orthodox Christianity in 496 that the theological balance within the ranks shifted and eliminated the “heresy” of Arius once and for all. **

Source