Apostolic sucession... Of the bible


#1

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.


#2

=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.

OK:) Take 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; 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:

Cleary God passes on His Powers and Authority to Peter and the Apostles: “As the father has sent me; so too I send YOU!”

And In John 17:19 Jesus actually GIVES HIMSELF AS THGE WARRANTY OF THESE TRUTHS! **verses, 18-20 **“As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me”

Jn. 21: 14-17 "This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep"

SUCCESSION IS BY ABSOLUTE NECESSITY INSTITUTED BY JESUS WHEN HE EXPANDS THE MANDATE TO “TEACH THE ENTIRE WORLD”

Sadly I have shared this information multiple times and am unaware of even a single concert:o


#3

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:

Cleary God passes on His Powers and Authority to Peter and the Apostles: “As the father has sent me; so too I send YOU!”

And In John 17:19 Jesus actually GIVES HIMSELF AS THGE WARRANTY OF THESE TRUTHS! **verses, 18-20 **“As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me”

Jn. 21: 14-17 "This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep"

SUCCESSION IS BY ABSOLUTE NECESSITY INSTITUTED BY JESUS WHEN HE EXPANDS THE MANDATE TO “TEACH THE ENTIRE WORLD”

Sadly I have shared this information multiple times and am unaware of even a single concert:o

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.


#4

=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.

Just GOOGLE it. Secualr history agrees on the authorship.:thumbsup:


#5

After all, the Church is the greatest historian on earth. :slight_smile:


#6

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…

BUT even so…it doesn’t mean the stories and quotes didn’t originate from the apostles or other disciples in the original group that followed Jesus. It’s just really hard to trace it, that’s all.

It’s gets more difficult when you take some of the events, though, that were added in later manuscripts of the bible.
The “he who has not sinned cast the first stone” scene was not found in early bible manuscripts (as you know and can see, many bibles note this at the bottom of the page) and didn’t start showing up in manuscripts until hundreds of years later.
So moments like that would be way more difficult to trace back to the apostles or anyone alive during the time of Jesus because it is such a later addition.

I assumed you meant the Christian bible/canon, yes?
Not the “Old Testament”?
.


#7

Dr. Mary Healey has some good programs archived here on Catholic Answers radio. I highly suggest all of them!


#8

AMEN Brother! :smiley:


#9

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?


#10

Bottom line: No Catholic Church, no bible.


#11

=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?

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?

Friend,

If one seeks their own truth to any issue; one can likely find support for it on the net:)

If, however one seeks the actual truth on the Issue of Succession and Apostolic Authorship; one need go no futher than the bible itself and long held and known historical [secular] evidence.

The Bibe NT was authored by the Apostles, because no -one else could have that much information about Christ activities. Also because the bible has Endured a totureous 2,000 years of scrunity. Josepeh Smith et.al. could not refute it so he dismissed and and wrote his own version [as many of little understanding try to emulate]:o

For Papal Succession it self; again the bible itself and secualr history prove it.

When Christ; our PERFECT unerring God, shortly before Assending “back to the Father” EXPANDED the Mandate to His Apotles [only and exclusively BTW], by Now COMMANDING that they Teach The “ENTIRE WORLD” what I thought “YOU!”…
Mk. 15:14-15 & Mt. 28:18-20; by absolute necessity this demanded Succession.

Futher evidence exist when LED BY PETER, the Apostles choose a replacement for Judas; and again, a bit later on when Jesus Himself ADDS Saul /Paul to the ranks of the Apostles.

Certainly we should; even MUST seek truth; but grandpa used to say:

“When we look for trouble” we are FAR more likely to find it. Amen:D


#12

#13

This may help a little:

The History of the Bible - brief overview


#14

=juliamajor;10632456]

=juliamajor;10632456]

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.:slight_smile:


#15

We must understand that the oral tradition was far more important than a bible. In fact, there was no bible. There was Church instruction, which is what Pauls letters all are.

They are instructions to the bishops of the regions he visited.

Like to Timothy for example. He obviously did not have a printing press where he wrote to the thousands of church members.

So, the question was Paul acting on his own behalf or on behalf of the Church’s authority?

The Apostolic tradition can be traced pretty far back, however at some point it is going to be about faith.

Like I said to an atheist once. If you ever want to destroy a persons faith, prove that God exists and Jesus is Lord with empirical evidence.


#16

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).


#17

This is true of the Hebrew bible, but not of the Christian bible…the “new testament”.

Since the OP is asking about apostles, I assume she is asking only about the Christian bible, yes?


#18

…except, Luke and John of Patmos were not apostles.


#19

=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).

may I suggest you check the Vatican Libriary or EWTN’s


#20

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.


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.