F
FireFromHeaven
Guest
Can we trace the bible back to te apostles? I was thinking on this and if we can it seems like an excellent proof to non Catholics that Jesus taught what was in the bible.
OK=FireFromHeaven;10630341]Can we trace the bible back to te apostles? I was thinking on this and if we can it seems like an excellent proof to non Catholics that Jesus taught what was in the bible.
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. **Teaching them **to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:OKTake special NOTE of what each of these have in-common. Each is Jesus; our Perfect God; speaking to; and exclusively the Apostles only.
So here’s HOW to PROVE Papal Succession. Space does not permit me to print out each reference.
Begin with:
Mt. 10:1-8; "And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go! And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.** Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils:**
Mt. 16:18 19 “And I [YOUR PERFECT God] say to thee: [Alone] That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU; now called] this rock I will build my church,[singular] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I *[Your God] *will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Mt. 18:17-18 extends this to ALL of the Apostles; THROUGH Peter Jn. 21: 14-17
Jn. 14: 16-17 filled in Jn. 20:21-22 “Receive the Holy Ghost!”
Jn. 17:17-18 " Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world"
Jn. 20: 21-22 " He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost"
Mk.16: 14-15 “At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Mt. 28:16-20 "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [Going therefore, **teach ye all nations;
Just GOOGLE it. Secualr history agrees on the authorship.=FireFromHeaven;10630586]That is an excellent proof of apostolic succession from the bible, but I was asking for a way to trace the bible back to the apostles. In other words to prove that the bible was written by the apostles or those close to them.
After all, the Church is the greatest historian on earth.Just GOOGLE it. Secualr history agrees on the authorship.![]()
AMEN Brother!After all, the Church is the greatest historian on earth.![]()
Bottom line: No Catholic Church, no bible.I found this article. straightdope.com/columns/read/1988/who-wrote-the-bible-part-4 It can be summed up as we don’t know. What do you think?
Thy was the most even. All the others claimed it was a lie, a forgery or written by romans. How do we answer these kinds of questions?
=FireFromHeaven;10631205]I found this article. straightdope.com/columns/read/1988/who-wrote-the-bible-part-4 It can be summed up as we don’t know. What do you think?
Friend,Thy was the most even. All the others claimed it was a lie, a forgery or written by romans. How do we answer these kinds of questions?
Wellllll…it depends.
Today we pretty much know that the gospels were written by highly educated and literate Greek-speaking writers–which none of the apostles were–and they were written something like from 40-80 years or more after Jesus died, after the stories were passed on verbally for that amount of time.
On close inspection we see that they are anonymous–the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were not added to each book until approx 120-140 AD–and they don’t claim to be eyewitnesses in the text…
And after much examination, many scholars will tell you that the writings of Paul, as one example, are not all actually written by him…that it’s likely six of Paul’s thirteen letters were written by someone else.
Sorry to disagree but the Greek was Koine, which is the Greek of the masses,not the educated high faluting Classical Greek of the philosophers.
the quality of the Greek varies from Gospel writer to Gospel writer. Luke’s Greek is good and has the quality of someone comfortable in that language. While Revelation is written in poor Greek by someone not at all comfortable with it.
Luke was a Greek physician. John of Patmos a Jew. This speaks to the authenticity of each gospel.
The rest I am in accord with you
.
=juliamajor;10632456]
The PROBLEM with your position is:=juliamajor;10632456]
the problem with your position is there is no original manuscripts. extant manuscripts are not original simply because parchment and papyri have a limited existence.The PROBLEM with your position is:
**Original manuscrpits **EXIST in different languages. Hebrew and Aramaic
See this site: newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm
Thus the Latin Vulgate Translation by Saint Jerome into One “common language”
points out; the Greek language used is NOT consistanly or exclusively of the Highly educated.![]()
may I suggest you check the Vatican Libriary or EWTN’s=juliamajor;10634182]the problem with your position is there is no original manuscripts. extant manuscripts are not original simply because parchment and papyri have a limited existence.
. the church fathers have passed in tradition that the Gospel of matthew had been written in hebrew(less likely) or Aramaic ( much more likely).
English Translations of the Biblemay I suggest you check the Vatican Libriary or EWTN’s
English Translations of the Bible
by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.
Introduction: The Bible was not written in English – not even “King James English”! Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally composed in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek (although some books may also incorporate Aramaic sources). Thus, what most people today read are not the original biblical texts, but other people’s translations of the scriptures.
But why are there so many different English translations of the Bible? And why can’t churches or scholars agree on just one translation?
No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.
The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).
Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.
The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning.
Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.
Every “translation” is already inevitably an “interpretation”! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that “translations” often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.
All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is “Modern English” very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).
Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more “inclusive” language alternatives.
Thus, no translation is “perfect” (none of them can be completely “literal” or 100% identical to the original texts) and there is no “best” translation (all of them have some advantages and some drawbacks). In general, however, the most recent translations (1980’s or 1990’s) are better than the older ones (esp. the KJV or the Douay-Rheims, both about 400 years old), not only since the English language has changed significantly over the centuries, but more importantly because of the ancient biblical manuscripts that have been discovered in the last 50 to 150 years which are much older (and thus closer to the originals) than the manuscripts that were available to the translators of previous centuries.
So then how do we show it can be traced to the apostles?/Q
That is where tradition comes in. Catholic theology is like a tripod. One leg the magesterium, one leg Tradition, the other scripture.
We are not people of the Book.we are not Sola Scriptura .we are not Sola Fide. We take into account those who came before us.
=juliamajor;10640636]English Translations of the Bible
by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.
Introduction: The Bible was not written in English – not even “King James English”! Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally composed in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek (although some books may also incorporate Aramaic sources). Thus, what most people today read are not the original biblical texts, but other people’s translations of the scriptures.
But why are there so many different English translations of the Bible? And why can’t churches or scholars agree on just one translation?
Thanks:thumbsup:No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.
The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).
Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.
The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning.
Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.
Every “translation” is already inevitably an “interpretation”! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that “translations” often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.
All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is “Modern English” very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).
Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more “inclusive” language alternatives.
Thus, no translation is “perfect” (none of them can be completely “literal” or 100% identical to the original texts) and there is no “best” translation (all of them have some advantages and some drawbacks). In general, however, the most recent translations (1980’s or 1990’s) are better than the older ones (esp. the KJV or the Douay-Rheims, both about 400 years old), not only since the English language has changed significantly over the centuries, but more importantly because of the ancient biblical manuscripts that have been discovered in the last 50 to 150 years which are much older (and thus closer to the originals) than the manuscripts that were available to the translators of previous centuries.