Replies

After the meeting where the New Testament was approved and hand-written into numerous copies....the Greeks got a copy and went back to Athens.

Eventually, the folks in Rome...wanting an organization that headed the movement....copied the Greek version, and translated into....NOT Italian....but Latin. This prevented the masses from reading (what few of the masses could read and write Italian at the time). You can figure that for every couple hundred folks who could handle reading and writing Italian....there was probably one priest who could handle Latin.

The rest is pretty much history. Rome had freedom of religion up until that time-period, and within two generations....freedom of religion within Rome itself dissolved. Over the next couple of decades, the Catholic Church used it’s influence and the strength of the Legions to go out over the ‘empire’ and forceably remove literally hundreds of religions over what is Europe today.

Until 1619...that was the systematic program of control via the Catholic Church. The Thirty Years War ended the domination.

On the Old Testament (Wikipedia):

There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-40 BCE),[5] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.[6] The Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission says that "the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament".[7]

On the New Testament:

For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692, although it was nearly universally accepted in the mid 300s.[1] The Catholic Church made dogmatic definition upon its Biblical canon at the Council of Trent of 1546, reaffirmed the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393-419.[2][3] For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.

So, the formalization of the basic outline goes back to 393. Back to Wikipedia:

Marcion of Sinope, a bishop of Asia Minor who went to Rome and was later excommunicated for his views, was the first of record to propose a definitive, exclusive, unique list of Christian scriptures, compiled sometime between 130–40 AD.[24]

***(what few of the masses could read and write Italian at the time).***

Probably none of them as Latin was the common language of ROME at that time.

Not sure where you get all that from, but it seems pretty off.

After the meeting where the New Testament was approved and hand-written into numerous copies..

Well there were a series of meetings starting with the Synod of Hippo where the cannon of the Bible was agreed to. Hippo was in North Africa, and North Africa was longstanding part of the Roman Empire in 393 AD.

The Church was already pretty organized at this time, there were Bishops, who were the ones who voted on the resolutions of the Synods.

So this whole claim of yours:

..the Greeks got a copy and went back to Athens.

I'm not understanding this claim, in light of the above.

Eventually, the folks in Rome...wanting an organization that headed the movement....copied the Greek version, and translated into....NOT Italian....but Latin.

Well assuming we are talking about the Bible as formulated in the early period, such as the Synod of Hippo above the reason it was not translated into Italian is that the Italian language (which is essentially a degenerated form of Latin) did not exist circa 400 AD, it would take another 400 years for the earliest version of it to appear.

This prevented the masses from reading (what few of the masses could read and write Italian at the time). You can figure that for every couple hundred folks who could handle reading and writing Italian....there was probably one priest who could handle Latin.

No, not even close. It was not a conspiracy of Roman Catholic Church to deprive everyman from reading the Bible.

The rest is pretty much history.

It's all history, yes. But it's hard to know what you are talking about. Please feel free to site some times, dates, locations or reference material in explaining your views of history.

Rome had freedom of religion up until that time period)(which time period?), and within two generations....freedom of religion within Rome itself dissolved.

Surely you are aware of the role played by the Emperor Constantine the Great in making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire (as well as moving the center of the empire from Rome to the new capital he built, Constantinople (today's Istanbul)).

Over the next couple of decades, the Catholic Church used it’s influence and the strength of the Legions to go out over the ‘empire’ and forceably remove literally hundreds of religions over what is Europe today.

Constantine used the power of Rome (he was the Emperor, not the Bishop of Rome or Pope) to make Christianity the official religion of Rome. Constantine ruled from 306 to 337 AD. He was followed as Emperor by his nephew Julian who attempted to eliminate Christianity and return the Empire to the the Pagan gods. He is known as Julian the Apostate and ruled from 361 to 363.

Until 1619...that was the systematic program of control via the Catholic Church. The Thirty Years War ended the domination.

You've skipped ahead 1,300 years. A lot happened in that period, and the Catholic Church did assume a central role in the development of Europe from Late Antiquity until the Reformation began to end their hegemony.

If I had to guess I'd say you probably grew up in a Protestant church that retains anti-Catholic teachings. It seems you learned some apocryphal history that mashes together all sorts of time periods and puts the Catholic Church in sort of a role of boogie man / conspiracy.

The Catholic Church has plenty to apologize for over the centuries, but I don't think your basic idea (that they used Latin to keep people in the dark in Europe) has any basis in reality.

Many parts of Europe were never part of the Roman Empire. Most of them were illiterate when the Church was formulating the Bible, circa 400 AD. Poland for instance was illiterate and Pagan until the coming of Christianity around 1000 A.D., which is usually considered the start of Poland as a unique entity. The Church had a similar role in many other parts of Europe.

Here is a map of the Roman Empire (and it's four prefectures) circa 400 AD, around the time the canon of the Bible was being agreed to at a series of councils ("Synods") in North Africa:

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

The Vulgate of St Jerome (the Latin Bible) was translated from the Hebrew into Latin, not from the Greek Septuagint. And he worked in the late 4th century, well before the fall of Rome and the division of Latin into dialects and eventually new languages. No one spoke Italian then because the language hadn’t developed.

In fact, the term “vulgate” refers to the fact that Latin was the vulgar toungue, or language of the common people. Upper class people in Rome spoke Greek, on the other hand.

It wasn’t written so common people couldn’t undertsnad. On the contrary, it was written explicitly FOR the underclass.