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

[Old_Scholar]

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??

Do you know of such a Bible? What Bible do you know of that had the changes you mention? Since we have no copies, what makes you think wholesale changes were made to any Bible?

Of course I would not allow what you suggest. Fortunately I have correct copies of the Bible (I have several, and one dating back to the 18th century). I also have several different versions of the Bible and can compare them easily.

 

[guanophore]

I would agree with you that Peter was mentioned more and that he was the first apostle. That’s the gist of Matthew 16:18. Christ was to build His church on Peter’s confession of faith and Peter was the first convert. But you can’t use implications to say that Peter was given any more authority than the other apostles. In fact Christ was asked specifically which one of them was the greatest and He certainly didn’t tell them Peter was.

I think you are confusing the gift of primacy with a secular understanding if authority. Peter had primacy because God revealed truth to Him, Jesus prayed for him not to fail, and gave him the keys. The authority is in right doctrine, not in “lording” over others.

Had Peter had any primacy over the other apostles, it is unlikely that the Scriptures would not have mentioned it somewhere. Christ never did.

Maybe you did not read the passages above pointing out the many examples in scripture that Peter was prime. I don’t see how you can avoid so many. Also, it seems that, even if you wish to reject the Roman Church, which has been your approach, how do you explain the fact that the Orthodox support this doctrine, even though they don’t have any love for Rome either?

Regarding the keys, to this day, no one has any idea what Christ was talking about when he said He would give Peter the keys. We can only speculate.

Only a person that did not understand the Davidic Kingdom could possibly make such a ridiculous statement. Perhaps you would like to personallly reject what the Church believed for the first thousand years on this point, and that is your privilege. however, to assert “no one has any idea” is preposterous! One wonders what would happen if you accepted that Jesus really did give authority to Peter!?

Most believe the church has the keys and the keys are the path to salvation. Using Roman Catholic speculative and implicative belief, we can assume that if Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter, then surely He did to all the other apostles and disciples. Wouldn’t He have given them to Mary also?

Your hateful bigotry demonstrated so far on CAF against Catholic belief and teaching surely does not put you in a very tenable position to use “Roman Catholic Speculative belief”, even if there was such a thing, which there is not!

Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and no one else. Why is that so hard to accept? What changes if you accept it?

Certainly He would have wanted Paul to have them. After all if you want to find someone considered special in Scripture, it has to be Paul.

This is another example of interjecting your secular concept of authority into Christianity. What is “specialness”? Is that scriptural?

Christ went way out of the normal way in order to make Paul an apostle. Is that any harder to believe than to believe Peter was made special? No it isn’t.

Why would you want to make some sort of “specialness” out of it. Each has their gift appointed by God. Peter had gifts that Paul did not, and vice versa. They were not "special’ in themselves. The gifts, graces, and appointments they made came from God.

Speculation and assumptions are not what theologists and scholars are looking for in interpreting Scripture. They are looking for facts. In the absence of facts, we should believe what we are actually told in Scripture.

Are you assuming there are no “facts” in scripture? What does that mean “in the absence of facts”??!! Are you saying that Jesus did not give certain gifts to Peter, including the keys.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Guanophore

Maybe you did not read the passages above pointing out the many examples in scripture that Peter was prime. I don’t see how you can avoid so many. Also, it seems that, even if you wish to reject the Roman Church, which has been your approach, how do you explain the fact that the Orthodox support this doctrine, even though they don’t have any love for Rome either?

Just mentioning Peter first and him speaking for the others is not primacy. Nowhere in Scripture can you find where any primacy is claimed for Peter. Christ gave everything to the other apostles as he did to Peter except the keys and even many Catholic leaders make the claim that once a person is a Christian, they also have the keys.

Only a person that did not understand the Davidic Kingdom could possibly make such a ridiculous statement. Perhaps you would like to personallly reject what the Church believed for the first thousand years on this point, and that is your privilege. however, to assert “no one has any idea” is preposterous! One wonders what would happen if you accepted that Jesus really did give authority to Peter!?

Then why don’t you tell everyone here just exactly what the keys are?

I have no problem with Peter having the keys. I personally believe the keys are the gospel, the path to salvation, and I believe the church has the keys. What I am saying is that there is no definition of what the keys are and to make the claim that they somehow give complete authority to peter in all matters of faith and morals is wrong. Scripture does not support that. It would have been realistic if Christ had said Peter held some kind of primacy, instead he denied that any apostle had authority over another.

Why would you want to make some sort of “specialness” out of it. Each has their gift appointed by God. Peter had gifts that Paul did not, and vice versa. They were not "special’ in themselves. The gifts, graces, and appointments they made came from God.

Christ made a point of making sure the apostles knew that none of them were of any more authority or standing than another. Then Christ took an anti-Christian, one who persecuted and murdered Christians, and turned him into His spokeperson. does that not seem to you to be something special? Why do you suppose Christ did that and in that way? Couldn’t He have just said Peter, you are special to me and I want you to reign over all?

Are you assuming there are no “facts” in scripture? What does that mean “in the absence of facts”??!! Are you saying that Jesus did not give certain gifts to Peter, including the keys.

**The facts we have are that Christ gave Peter and the other apostles special authority while on earth. He promised them special rewards in His kingdom. He gave the keys to Peter but did not tell us whether there were special conditions or not. Fact is He made it a point to say that Peter was not any more “special” than the others but instead that all the apostles were equal. Those are the facts.

When the apostolic age was over, no one else had the powers and authority the apostles had. Christ did not say anything from them would be passed down except their knowledge. All else is speculation.**

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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.

Now wait a minute here - if your proof of a vast conspiracy to suppress books is that these supposedly suppressed books are not around today… That is a major logical fallacy.

My parents claim I am the firstborn and I came along 8 years after they were married. The fact I have no older brothers or sisters is not proof positive they sold my older brothers and sisters!

But Old Scholar honestly I need for you to slow down and imagine the massive logistics of this conspiracy you envision. In the days before phones, faxes, email, interstate highways, modern cartography for accurate maps of where all the villages were…

I am trying to imagine what effort it would have taken even by 150 A.D. to send agents out to all the known world where Christianity had begun to be spread - from Ireland to India, Germania to Ethiopia to collect up these supposed missing books and see to it that they were banned.

Why don’t we have more manuscripts that are older than 16 centuries old?

17 centuries is a mighty long time…

 

[mathematician]

In Britain there was a sustained attempt to prevent an English translation of the Bible appearing, and, if you did publish one, there was a good chance it would cost you your life.

 

[Claudius]

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…

This is an out right lie. The Catholic Church NEVER, EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER, Banned the Bible. We are the ones that protected the sacred scriptures while you protestant liars were ripping books out. We were the ones being killed by you protestant murderers because we did not want to give you an inch of control over our spiritual lives. We want to go to heaven and we want a Bible that will help us get there. You want to send us to hell because you are from Satan. Get behind me Satan. I will not stand for your lies. I call you a liar right here, right now. What I have written is the truth as all who know what they are talking about will attest to. You have written lie after lie after lie on this board but I will not go allong with you. You can say it was banned all you want but it will never be true. What I have written is the truth so either accept it or go off into the woods somewhere and sing cumbaya to yourself. There is no middle ground here. There is no compromise with the truth. All truth is Jesus and all lies, even yours come from Satan. Get behind me Satan. You don’t have even a clue of what you are talking about. You are just a Racist, Anti Catholic bigot that came here looking for a fight. I will give you one. I will let the words of truth by my sword and they will cut through your lies.

I have other choice things I would like to say to a *** like you who slanders your neighbor and the good name of the millions of Catholics who were killed defending the Bible, or gave their lives to copy the Bible, but I will already recieve an infraction for what I have already said, but be warned. The truth will not be contained and I will commit myself to a theological act of mercy and CORRECT YOU, because you are WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT.

To everyone else here, there is really no reason to listen to this hate monger anymore. He has shown his hand. We all know what he is. Everyone tell him, Get behind me Satan. Then call St. Michael to humiliate him. What he is doing is telling lies and he is VERY unchristian. There is no gray in this matter. There is only white and black, the truth or a lie and he is a liar. I can tell all of you right now that I have read more of the Bible then OLD SCHOLAR has. He is neither old nor a scholar. If he had read all of the Bible, then he would not be a protestant, or a liar but would be a good Catholic who did not come here to lie to people.

 

[Claudius]

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…

By the way, for those of us who are litterate unlike the so called old shcolar who is nothing but a liar, the Rubrics of Mass are where the rule for who can read durring Mass is and the Enchiridion of Indulgences states explicitly the kind of indulgence granted for a reader of scripture as well as most legitimate Bibles. Seeing as how protestants do not have legitimate bibles, it is no wonder that they have no idea about his and go to making up lies to slander the Church.

There is a conspiracy here, and Old Scholar is part of it. It is the same conspiracy against God’s Church that has always been there. Old Scholar is working for Satan. He is the one part of an ages old conspiracy to surpress the Catholic Church and see all the faithful crucified. I will bear my cross but I will speak the Truth, and it is this that Satan, and his helpers like Old Scholar here want to crucify me for.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Now wait a minute here - if your proof of a vast conspiracy to suppress books is that these supposedly suppressed books are not around today… That is a major logical fallacy.

My parents claim I am the firstborn and I came along 8 years after they were married. The fact I have no older brothers or sisters is not proof positive they sold my older brothers and sisters!

But Old Scholar honestly I need for you to slow down and imagine the massive logistics of this conspiracy you envision. In the days before phones, faxes, email, interstate highways, modern cartography for accurate maps of where all the villages were…

I am trying to imagine what effort it would have taken even by 150 A.D. to send agents out to all the known world where Christianity had begun to be spread - from Ireland to India, Germania to Ethiopia to collect up these supposed missing books and see to it that they were banned.

Why don’t we have more manuscripts that are older than 16 centuries old?

17 centuries is a mighty long time…

I have already given the many citations that proved the books were banned and destroyed.

First you say you don’t believe there was any suppression of books but then ask why don’t we have copies dating back further??? Is this a valid argument? Have you considered that the church burning so many books had a little to do with why we don’t have them today?

And how Christianity spread so quickly can be found in any good history book (not one written by a religious institution, but a valid history book) available at your local library. You will find that it was because of the excellent road system the Roman Empire had built in order to control the empire, it was not difficult to travel in those days. When Constantine made Christianity a legal religion, there were only 10% of those in the Roman Empire that were Christians. Even after much persecution, burning at the stake, being fed to animals, etc. Christianity spread rapidly in spite of the Romans.

How do you suppose it spread? Those who traveled and preached took copies of the written word with them because no one would believe them if they couldn’t prove what they had to say.

An afternoon at the library would give you much more information than you will get from Church history in a lifetime.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This is an out right lie. The Catholic Church NEVER, EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER, Banned the Bible. We are the ones that protected the sacred scriptures while you protestant liars were ripping books out. We were the ones being killed by you protestant murderers because we did not want to give you an inch of control over our spiritual lives. We want to go to heaven and we want a Bible that will help us get there. You want to send us to hell because you are from Satan. Get behind me Satan. I will not stand for your lies. I call you a liar right here, right now. What I have written is the truth as all who know what they are talking about will attest to. You have written lie after lie after lie on this board but I will not go allong with you. You can say it was banned all you want but it will never be true. What I have written is the truth so either accept it or go off into the woods somewhere and sing cumbaya to yourself. There is no middle ground here. There is no compromise with the truth. All truth is Jesus and all lies, even yours come from Satan. Get behind me Satan. You don’t have even a clue of what you are talking about. You are just a Racist, Anti Catholic bigot that came here looking for a fight. I will give you one. I will let the words of truth by my sword and they will cut through your lies.

I have other choice things I would like to say to a *** like you who slanders your neighbor and the good name of the millions of Catholics who were killed defending the Bible, or gave their lives to copy the Bible, but I will already recieve an infraction for what I have already said, but be warned. The truth will not be contained and I will commit myself to a theological act of mercy and CORRECT YOU, because you are WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT.

To everyone else here, there is really no reason to listen to this hate monger anymore. He has shown his hand. We all know what he is. Everyone tell him, Get behind me Satan. Then call St. Michael to humiliate him. What he is doing is telling lies and he is VERY unchristian. There is no gray in this matter. There is only white and black, the truth or a lie and he is a liar. I can tell all of you right now that I have read more of the Bible then OLD SCHOLAR has. He is neither old nor a scholar. If he had read all of the Bible, then he would not be a protestant, or a liar but would be a good Catholic who did not come here to lie to people.

**How you can say the Bible was never banned is strange. I have already posted what the Catholic church itself wrote about the banning of the Bible and it has not been refuted. Denied but not refuted.

If you should read a little history (other than religious history) you would be able to see exactly what happened and when.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**Remember Jerome only translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. He did not translate the NT.
It was written in Greek originally.

But it makes one wonder. If the Catholic Church made a decision on which books should be in the canon as late as the 4th century, then one would wonder what happened to the originals since we have the copies??? They couldn’t have used copies for the canon…**

 

[Thing]

**Remember Jerome only translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. He did not translate the NT.
It was written in Greek originally.

But it makes one wonder. If the Catholic Church made a decision on which books should be in the canon as late as the 4th century, then one would wonder what happened to the originals since we have the copies??? They couldn’t have used copies for the canon…**

It should’nt worry you - this is the medaeval thread.

"The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity. The translator or translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come “from the first days of the Faith”, and the latter that it “had helped to strengthen the faith of the infant Church.” Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful and by the time of St. Jerome varied so much that that doctor could declare that there were almost “as many readings as codices.” It was this that as Richard Bentley, writing to Archbishop Wade, declares, “obliged Damasus, then Bishop of Rome, to employ St. Jerome to regulate the last revised translation of each part of the New Testament to the original Greek and to set out a new edition so castigated and corrected.” This St. Jerome did, as he declares in his preface “ad Graecam Veritatem, ad exemplaria Graeca sed Vetera.”

In 384 the correction of the Latin version of the Four Gospels; in 385, the Epistles of St. Paul; in 398, revision of the remainder of the Latin version of the New Testament…"
-NA.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

First you say you don’t believe there was any suppression of books but then ask why don’t we have copies dating back further??? Is this a valid argument? Have you considered that the church burning so many books had a little to do with why we don’t have them today?

I don’t think you get it.

Not having copies of greater antiquity is NOT evidence of suppression.

And how Christianity spread so quickly can be found in any good history book (not one written by a religious institution, but a valid history book) available at your local library. You will find that it was because of the excellent road system the Roman Empire had built in order to control the empire, it was not difficult to travel in those days. When Constantine made Christianity a legal religion, there were only 10% of those in the Roman Empire that were Christians. Even after much persecution, burning at the stake, being fed to animals, etc. Christianity spread rapidly in spite of the Romans.

Old Scholar do you know much about the Eastern Christian Churches?

Old Scholar take some time to read scholarly histories of the growth of Christianity WELL OUTSIDE the bounds of the Roman Empire… It went to India (not Roman) down to Ethiopia (not Roman) and throught the Persian empire (not Roman). Sure the Roman roads were great - in Rome. They also were rather finite and did not reach well into every village and area of commerce…

Again, how do you propose all the places texts were disseminated were found “agents of Rome” and suppressed? They weren’t because it did not happen.

How do you suppose it spread? Those who traveled and preached took copies of the written word with them because no one would believe them if they couldn’t prove what they had to say.

This demonstrates a presupposition that is remarkable Evangelical Protestant. Firstly, as many converts to Christianity could NOT read, secondly, why do you suppose converts who could would have found written documents as credible evidence?

Once again you demonstrate a very modern worldview that just can’t be juxtaposed onto the reality of the pre-modern world. Unlike the “street evangelists” from evangelical and fundamentalist churches that would assail me on campus with a well worn copy of the Bible quoting to me with their take… There is no reason to believe anything like this was done in the ancient world… That evangelists showed up with scrolls in the countryside (where the VAST preponderance of people lived in days before modern infrastructure even as recently as a century ago) and unrolled scrolls for largely illiterate populaces to “search the scripture and discern”.

An afternoon at the library would give you much more information than you will get from Church history in a lifetime.

Interesting to me is how you presuppose secular documents in a secular library to have greater veracity than anything written by a Catholic historian. More interesting still is how you wrongly presume my world view is totally informed by some sort of “Vatican-conspiracy-approved” texts that are without reference to reliable histories.

Please demonstrate your more reliable afternoon library reading material that you credit with greater veracity.

Give up the ghost on the “Vatican conspiracy of suppression” theory - it is in no way tenable or even possible and you will learn that if you even so much as consult a secular historical account about the spread of Christianity as far afield to India, and what, in the ancient world, it would have taken for someone to travel there.

 

[Claudius]

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…

Rubrics for priest to celebrate Mass. Enchiridion of Inudulgences.

I also see that you have deleted my other post that denounce you as a terrible teller of lies. Don’t do that again.

While I am at it, why don’t you tell us the kind of deformed Bible it actually is that you read. I bet it is the KJV disgrace. If you were a real scholar then you would be able to tell us which part of the Bible was originally written in Latin.

That is actually a very good question. Anyone who has read a Real Bible, protected by the Catholic Church would know. So, please show us your scholar status by telling us, Which part of the Bible was ORIGINALLY written in LATIN?

If you have indeed read a REAL Bible then you should be able to figure this out very easily. But I am betting you can’t because you are only telling us lies.

 

[Claudius]

** 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. …**

You can claim this all you want but is will always be a lie. I can see right through it. Why don’t you go get a REAL Bible and read it? The CATHOLIC CHURCH is the one the defended the Bible, died for the Bible, and spent millions, billions of man hours making copies of the Bible so that we could have it here in our modern day.

Have you no shame. But we all know what you really are don’t we. You are an anti Catholic bigot. With that little snip in your by line I am also tempted to call you a Racist, which most Anit Catholic bigots are.

 

[Zooey]

Your ancestors in Ireland, in very, very isolated rural parts of Ireland, during the mid-1900’s also sold their cattle through the language of Greek, of all things!

Ah,yes, that would be my Welsh ancestors that you speak of!! Yes, we Celts were surely fond of our classical languages. They could scarcely be considered “dead” languages, with so many of us still knowing them!!

Do you know of such a Bible? What Bible do you know of that had the changes you mention? Since we have no copies, what makes you think wholesale changes were made to any Bible?

Those would be the “Bibles” of your dear friends the Albigensians, Cathars, & Co.
They were Gnostics, and their idea of “gospels” can be seen in the twisted ramblings of the “Gnostic [so-called] Gospels”.
Old Scholar:

Of course I would not allow what you suggest.

But, but-- What about your friends??? What about your gnostic buddies in the south of France, whose cause you have been so passionately arguing?? You know, those darling wee men with the notions about marriage being a sin, & fornication all but a sacrament?? They, who starved themselves (and others!) to death, because eating was a sign of being a “lower spiritual being”?
Old Scholar:

Fortunately I have correct copies of the Bible (I have several, and one dating back to the 18th century). I also have several different versions of the Bible and can compare them easily.

http://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/5.gif Really.http://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/4.gif Amazing.
I have more than thirty Bibles, myself. Not a one of them agrees with you, laddie.
And every one of my Bibles shows the Albigensians up for the :banghead: unChristian dafties that they all were!!

 

[mathematician]

Remember Jerome only translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. He did not translate the NT.
It was written in Greek originally.

Am I mistaken, or wasn’t the Vulgate a translation of both the Hebrew and Greek into Latin? I don’t think I am.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Rubrics for priest to celebrate Mass. Enchiridion of Inudulgences.

I also see that you have deleted my other post that denounce you as a terrible teller of lies. Don’t do that again.

While I am at it, why don’t you tell us the kind of deformed Bible it actually is that you read. I bet it is the KJV disgrace. If you were a real scholar then you would be able to tell us which part of the Bible was originally written in Latin.

That is actually a very good question. Anyone who has read a Real Bible, protected by the Catholic Church would know. So, please show us your scholar status by telling us, Which part of the Bible was ORIGINALLY written in LATIN?

If you have indeed read a REAL Bible then you should be able to figure this out very easily. But I am betting you can’t because you are only telling us lies.

This one isn’t difficult. We have no copies of the original writings but history tells us the New Testament was written in Greek.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Am I mistaken, or wasn’t the Vulgate a translation of both the Hebrew and Greek into Latin? I don’t think I am.

You are correct and I was wrong. By the time I realized my mistake, there was no edit spot. Jerome did translate the NT Greek into Latin. He insisted on using the hebrew instead of the LXX in order to try to get it correct. However he was known to have made a few changes but since the original copies are not available, we have no way of knowing.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I don’t think you get it.

Not having copies of greater antiquity is NOT evidence of suppression.

I agree.

Old Scholar do you know much about the Eastern Christian Churches?

A little.

Old Scholar take some time to read scholarly histories of the growth of Christianity WELL OUTSIDE the bounds of the Roman Empire… It went to India (not Roman) down to Ethiopia (not Roman) and throught the Persian empire (not Roman). Sure the Roman roads were great - in Rome. They also were rather finite and did not reach well into every village and area of commerce…

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, how do you propose all the places texts were disseminated were found “agents of Rome” and suppressed? They weren’t because it did not happen.

Not sure what you mean by this one.

This demonstrates a presupposition that is remarkable Evangelical Protestant. Firstly, as many converts to Christianity could NOT read, secondly, why do you suppose converts who could would have found written documents as credible evidence?

You answer this one below.

Once again you demonstrate a very modern worldview that just can’t be juxtaposed onto the reality of the pre-modern world. Unlike the “street evangelists” from evangelical and fundamentalist churches that would assail me on campus with a well worn copy of the Bible quoting to me with their take… There is no reason to believe anything like this was done in the ancient world… That evangelists showed up with scrolls in the countryside (where the VAST preponderance of people lived in days before modern infrastructure even as recently as a century ago) and unrolled scrolls for largely illiterate populaces to “search the scripture and discern”.

There was always some method of transporting the Scriptures. Mostly scrolls but the invention of the codex made a big difference.

Interesting to me is how you presuppose secular documents in a secular library to have greater veracity than anything written by a Catholic historian. More interesting still is how you wrongly presume my world view is totally informed by some sort of “Vatican-conspiracy-approved” texts that are without reference to reliable histories.

You can not expect a church history to be impartial. A true histotrian will pay no attention at all to secular matters or religious matters, they merely report on what actually happened.

Please demonstrate your more reliable afternoon library reading material that you credit with greater veracity.

**In addition to the local library, have an extensive library at home. The history books I study are text books and have been approved for colleges and universities. They are all in agreement in the beginning of the church, how the papacy came into being, etc. They disagree drastically with the history of the church. **

Give up the ghost on the “Vatican conspiracy of suppression” theory - it is in no way tenable or even possible and you will learn that if you even so much as consult a secular historical account about the spread of Christianity as far afield to India, and what, in the ancient world, it would have taken for someone to travel there.

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.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Rubrics for priest to celebrate Mass. Enchiridion of Inudulgences.

I also see that you have deleted my other post that denounce you as a terrible teller of lies. Don’t do that again.

While I am at it, why don’t you tell us the kind of deformed Bible it actually is that you read. I bet it is the KJV disgrace. If you were a real scholar then you would be able to tell us which part of the Bible was originally written in Latin.

That is actually a very good question. Anyone who has read a Real Bible, protected by the Catholic Church would know. So, please show us your scholar status by telling us, Which part of the Bible was ORIGINALLY written in LATIN?

If you have indeed read a REAL Bible then you should be able to figure this out very easily. But I am betting you can’t because you are only telling us lies.

None of the Bible was written in Latin.