Scripture on our hands


#1

about my statement that the Catholic church was never interested on making scripture available to common people

There is nothing un-historical or untrue about this.
Instead of encouraging others to inform themselves i think you should do it yourself. next thing you are going to say is that the inquisition was also a “popular canard”.
3 names for anyone reading this.
Desiderius Erasmus.Martin Luther: Casiodoro Reyna. find how the catholic church help them in their translations.


#2

I think the reason they weren’t interested in making scripture available to common people was that common people back then couldn’t read anyway so it was pointless. Plus, it was so difficult to determine who had the real deal. Many groups went around with shady translations preaching heresy. It was safer for the Church to guard the real scripture than let people be led astray. The common folk would know the Church had the real McCoy and anyone alse claiming to have it was probably spreading false ideas. Does this make sense? Plus the logistics of passing out bibles without the printing press would have made it almost impossible anyway.


#3

[quote=Genesis315]I think the reason they weren’t interested in making scripture available to common people was that common people back then couldn’t read anyway so it was pointless. Plus, it was so difficult to determine who had the real deal. Many groups went around with shady translations preaching heresy. It was safer for the Church to guard the real scripture than let people be led astray. The common folk would know the Church had the real McCoy and anyone alse claiming to have it was probably spreading false ideas. Does this make sense? Plus the logistics of passing out bibles without the printing press would have made it almost impossible anyway.
[/quote]

If anyone wants to understand why vernacular copies of the bible were banned, read about the Abligensian heresy. The bible was never forbidden to people, but since they had to be copied by hand and one took YEARS to make, they were usually confined to the church. Not many people could afford a copy of the bible, so they kept it in the church so it would be available to all. That, plus the aforementioned literacy problem in Europe, there wasn’t a need for a medival version of the Gideons putting copies of the bible in everyone’s mailbox. It was simply a matter of 1. logistics, 2. academics, and 3. appropriate teaching. The Catholic Church has maintained from the begining that the bible doesn’t interpret itself. When people start to do that, you get the Heresy of Alba, the Protestant Reformation, and a host of other theological and Christological complications.


#4

Plus, giving uneducated people (even if they could read, which most could not) a Bible without an educated guide would have been a bad idea. These people didn’t have the experience necessary to understand various literary styles and they would have interpreted things the wrong way and started believing false doctrines.


#5

[quote=Genesis315]Plus, giving uneducated people (even if they could read, which most could not) a Bible without an educated guide would have been a bad idea. These people didn’t have the experience necessary to understand various literary styles and they would have interpreted things the wrong way and started believing false doctrines.
[/quote]

And presto! The Protestant Reformation.

Peace


#6

Do protestants FORGET that copy machines have not been around forever?

It took a long time to copy scripture by hand.
When a church managed to get a precious copy - it guarded that copy so that they could read from it during mass.

While many of the people could not read - some of them could. But the literate and the illiterate were joined together at mass as they all HEARD the Word!

The Church also had the challenge of keeping scripture free from error. Look at a “gnostic gospel” and you’ll understand.
Some “gospels” were banned because they weren’t actually gospels at all.


#7

[quote=Genesis315]Plus, giving uneducated people (even if they could read, which most could not) a Bible without an educated guide would have been a bad idea. These people didn’t have the experience necessary to understand various literary styles and they would have interpreted things the wrong way and started believing false doctrines.
[/quote]

what you are saying goes perfectly along with the doctrine of the catholic church, but according to this thinking if it was up to the catholic church than half of the apostles including Peter would never have access to the Bible cause they where not educated people nor they had experience understanding literary styles.
was there any standard to comply to in the eyes of our Lord Jesus for Him to preach to you?
was he not talking to uneducated people? or people that did not have money to get an education?


#8

[quote=cornerstone]was he not talking to uneducated people? or people that did not have money to get an education?
[/quote]

Correct, cornerstone! Hence oral Tradition!!! And there you have it…the Catholic Church! :wink:


#9

[quote=cornerstone]what you are saying goes perfectly along with the doctrine of the catholic church, but according to this thinking if it was up to the catholic church than half of the apostles including Peter would never have access to the Bible cause they where not educated people nor they had experience understanding literary styles. was there any standard to comply to in the eyes of our Lord Jesus for Him to preach to you? was he not talking to uneducated people? or people that did not have money to get an education?
[/quote]

What does this have to do with Scripture. The Apostles were personally trained by Jesus Christ himself for 3 years. I’d take that over a copy of the bible any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


#10

[quote=cornerstone]what you are saying goes perfectly along with the doctrine of the catholic church, but according to this thinking if it was up to the catholic church than half of the apostles including Peter would never have access to the Bible cause they where not educated people nor they had experience understanding literary styles.
was there any standard to comply to in the eyes of our Lord Jesus for Him to preach to you?
was he not talking to uneducated people? or people that did not have money to get an education?
[/quote]

You are forgetting one very, very minor issue. They most certainly understood the literary styles, because those styles were the styles of the day, not something looked at two thousand years later. They were Jews, listening to stories written by Jews for Jews. The styles weren’t in a vacuum, they were lived out in everyday life.

Yes, /christ was talking to people of his day, some of whom were more educated than others, in the sense of froaml schooling. But there was little available in that sense. Most of the schooling came as part of learning the Torah; some learened to write to some degree, although few learned enough to acutally be called Scribes. But because so many were partially illiterate, their learning came through oral teaching and memorization, and at that they became particularly adept.

If you are going to paste a 21st century mindset on a 1st century person, you might get a better bottle of glue…


#11

[quote=cornerstone]what you are saying goes perfectly along with the doctrine of the catholic church, but according to this thinking if it was up to the catholic church than half of the apostles including Peter would never have access to the Bible cause they where not educated people nor they had experience understanding literary styles.
was there any standard to comply to in the eyes of our Lord Jesus for Him to preach to you?
was he not talking to uneducated people? or people that did not have money to get an education?
[/quote]

This goes very much against the grain of the truth. All Jewish males were literate, as they were required to be able to read the Sacred Scriptures at the temple.


#12

[quote=cornerstone]what you are saying goes perfectly along with the doctrine of the catholic church, but according to this thinking if it was up to the catholic church than half of the apostles including Peter would never have access to the Bible cause they where not educated people nor they had experience understanding literary styles.
was there any standard to comply to in the eyes of our Lord Jesus for Him to preach to you?
was he not talking to uneducated people? or people that did not have money to get an education?
[/quote]

Fair enough, show me a copy of the Bible that you hold that was given to the apostles…


#13

[quote=SusanG]Fair enough, show me a copy of the Bible that you hold that was given to the apostles…
[/quote]

Good trick if he can do it, considering that it (the new testament) wasn’t even written at that time.


#14

I understand what Corner is saying, but he has a mind set that is unBiblical and unReasonable.

You believe that everyone in the world deserves their very own copy of the Bible to “see for them self”.
Owning a copy of the Bible is a luxury, people like us are lucky to have our own copy!


#15

[quote=cornerstone]what you are saying goes perfectly along with the doctrine of the catholic church, but according to this thinking if it was up to the catholic church than half of the apostles including Peter would never have access to the Bible cause they where not educated people nor they had experience understanding literary styles.
was there any standard to comply to in the eyes of our Lord Jesus for Him to preach to you?
was he not talking to uneducated people? or people that did not have money to get an education?
[/quote]

Since the Bible did not exist as a complete document until the third century, Peter DIDN’T have access to the Bible. Since he became the first Pope, I think we could safely make the assessment that he got along just fine without it.

Problem here is that Christ didn’t go around passing out tracts from Chick Publications or pamphlets that eventually were compiled into the Bible. He PREACHED to people. The Church did not come out of the Bible. The Bible came out of the Church. The books of the NT were selected out of many books and letters written by the early church, and the Council of Carthage decided on the canon of the NT, so it seems to me that the church that created the Bible has the right to decide who can and can’t read it without supervision and guidance.

Christianity adheres to truth and works under the assumption that truth exists and it is universal. If 20,000 denominations are teaching 20,000 different truths that come from the same source, then somebody is lying or badly mistaken (or truth just doesn’t exist, in which case we should all just hang it up now).

Muslims believe that when the Qu’ran is translated into languages other than Arabic it is no longer the word of God but an interpretation of the word of God. Although Muslims differ from Christianity in that they believe that Allah literally dictated his words to Muhammed, and did not just inspire Muhammed to write, I think they’ve got the right idea. While there are differing sects in Islam, there darn sure aren’t 20,000 denominations with distinctive beliefs in Islam.

God bless.


#16

[quote=cornerstone]about my statement that the Catholic church was never interested on making scripture available to common people
There is nothing un-historical or untrue about this.
Instead of encouraging others to inform themselves i think you should do it yourself. next thing you are going to say is that the inquisition was also a “popular canard”.
3 names for anyone reading this.
Desiderius Erasmus.Martin Luther: Casiodoro Reyna. find how the catholic church help them in their translations.
[/quote]

It was at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage that the Catholic Church compiled the first bibles ever. There was no such thing as the bible untill these councils. It was Catholic monks who copied the bible several times so that we would be able to have the scriptures. It was a Catholic who made the first translation to English, along with several other languages, in the 1200s. It was a Catholic who made the first print of the bible around 1500, Johhan Ghuttenburg.

To claim that the Catholic Church did not allow people to read the scriptures, when the Catholic Church is who made and wrote the bible, is libel at its worst.

Now, not everyone had coppies of the bible in there homes 700 years ago, but that was impossible because they could not copy the bible fast enough to distribute that many. There were only so many people doing the copying.


#17

[quote=cornerstone]what you are saying goes perfectly along with the doctrine of the catholic church, but according to this thinking if it was up to the catholic church than half of the apostles including Peter would never have access to the Bible cause they where not educated people nor they had experience understanding literary styles.
was there any standard to comply to in the eyes of our Lord Jesus for Him to preach to you?
was he not talking to uneducated people? or people that did not have money to get an education?
[/quote]

He is very correct almost all people could not read.

Second, none of the apostles had access to the bible. The bible is a 4th and 5th century book in its origin. The first councils - Rome, Hippo, and Carthage - to decide the canon of scripture, were at the very end of the 4th century.

The apostles did have access to the Septuagint, but they did not have there own copies. Like them, the people before the invention of the printing press did not have there own. They had to go to a church or monastery or whatever if they wanted to read them.


#18

[quote=geezerbob]Good trick if he can do it, considering that it (the new testament) wasn’t even written at that time.
[/quote]

the Bible is not just the new testament.

13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments

2 Timothy 4:13


#19

[quote=geezerbob]Good trick if he can do it, considering that it (the new testament) wasn’t even written at that time.
[/quote]

the Bible is not just the new testament.

13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments
2 Timothy 4:13
i do not know wich ones of you i should answer to anymore, really.


#20

[quote=geezerbob]Good trick if he can do it, considering that it (the new testament) wasn’t even written at that time.
[/quote]

the Bible is not just the new testament.

13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments
2 Timothy 4:13
i do not know wich ones of you i should answer to anymore, really.
cause Scott LaFrance says All Jewish males were literate but Jimmy there says “He is very correct almost all people could not read”.
Paul there had HIS OWN copy of scriptures. He did not only rely on oral tradition.
but it is ok the catholic church knows bettter than God Almighty told Isaiah and Jeremiah to write down His word to server as testimony for all generations.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.