Bible Questions

All of Sacred Scripture is the inspired writing of the Holy Spirit. Regardless of which persons or how many persons wrote any book of the Bible, God remains the One True Author of all. John wrote his Gospel, but some other persons completed it, all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote his letters, but with help from Tertius, Sosthenes, Timothy, Silvanus,and perhaps others. Yet each book of the Bible is entirely the work of the One God, Who is Author of all.

The Scriptures themselves proclaim that they are inspired by God, that God is their author, and that they were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The human authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way that the inspired text contains all those things and only those things that God wills. Therefore, everything asserted by any and all verses of the Bible as true must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, infallibly.

The declaration of the Canon did not close the Canon, but rather teaches which books are canonical.


Which edition or version of the Bible is infallible?

We do not have the original manuscripts, nor do we have copies of the same. And any particular manuscript, printing, translation, or edit of the Bible can contain errors particular to that edition. Therefore, the Bible is not any one edition or version or translation or set of manuscripts. The Bible is every version and edition in every language all together. Any one edition might have errors particular to that edition. But God never permits the errors particular to individual editions to reach such an extent that even the smallest truth would be lost to the faithful.

Yidda wrote:All of Sacred Scripture is the inspired writing of the Holy Spirit. Regardless of which persons or how many persons wrote any book of the Bible, God remains the One True Author of all. John wrote his Gospel, but some other persons completed it, all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote his letters, but with help from Tertius, Sosthenes, Timothy, Silvanus,and perhaps others. Yet each book of the Bible is entirely the work of the One God, Who is Author of all.

Who are those SOME OTHER PERSONS??

The Scriptures themselves proclaim that they are inspired by God, that God is their author, and that they were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The human authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way that the inspired text contains all those things and only those things that God wills. Therefore, everything asserted by any and all verses of the Bible as true must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, infallibly.

Purely circular reasoning - The bible is authored by God because the bible says so - that will never work at all.

The declaration of the Canon did not close the Canon, but rather teaches which books are canonical.

Same circular reasoning.

Which edition or version of the Bible is infallible?

We do not have the original manuscripts, nor do we have copies of the same. And any particular manuscript, printing, translation, or edit of the Bible can contain errors particular to that edition. Therefore, the Bible is not any one edition or version or translation or set of manuscripts. The Bible is every version and edition in every language all together. Any one edition might have errors particular to that edition. But God never permits the errors particular to individual editions to reach such an extent that even the smallest truth would be lost to the faithful.

So no copy of the original manuscript, what we have are editions which have errors - wow!!! watta great confession !!!

Yidda wrote:OT authors:

David certainly did write Psalms or David wrote some Psalms. Since these began with David, they are all ascribed to his authorship. In ancient times, the main author was the author, and other contributors remained anonymous.

Jesus attributes the Psalms to David for that reason: the Psalms began with Davids work and are an extension of his work.

Im not asking about Psalms.

Im asking about, Kings, Chronicles, Hebrews - who are their respective authors???

Thanks

Jewel wrote:

Who are those SOME OTHER PERSONS??

Some of the OT books were not written by one person, but by a number of authors and editors over a period of time.

It does not matter who the human authors were, since the One Supreme Author is God.

Jewel wrote:

Purely circular reasoning - The bible is authored by God because the bible says so - that will never work at all

No it's not.

Among the books written;The church was able to discern which books are inspired and human writings only, so it is the Church founded by Christ who has this Gift of infallibilty to know, guided by the promise of God through the Holy Spirit and it is ordained by Christ himself. The compilation of the Bible which we read and exist today were all chosen by the Church that is why they are infallible.

Particular errors are permitted in particular editions. And the copyists, printers, translators, and editors of the text are not inspired by God. Yet the Holy Spirit nevertheless prevents error from being added, truth from being subtracted, and truth from being corrupted, in Sacred Scripture itself. No truth of Sacred Scripture has passed away from every extant edition. No error has been added to every extant edition. No corruption has occurred in every extant edition. Nor even has any error, corruption, or subtraction reached such an extent that the truth cannot be discerned from the editions that are extant.

The truths of Sacred Scripture are not completely contained within any one version or edition of the Bible. Any individual version will contain the vast majority of these truths. But, in their entirety, these truths are located across all the versions and editions of the Bible that exist in their various languages.

Thank you sister yidda for your effort in answering my question/s

It seems that we are not getting any better on the first issue.

You just admitted that you dont have the original and that the editions that you have today contain errors, so how would you attribute its authorship to God when God doesnt err in any way shape or form?

That's sounds very anyoying to me.



Thanks.

Here it is folks

@ yidda, dhugz & marc.

According to your NT bible, where exactly did Joseph and Mary go after Jesus' birth?


Thanks.

Jewel wrote:Thank you sister yidda for your effort in answering my question/s

It seems that we are not getting any better on the first issue.

You just admitted that you dont have the original and that the editions that you have today contain errors, so how would you attribute its authorship to God when God doesnt err in any way shape or form?

That's sounds very anyoying to me.

Thanks.

Jewel as I have said in the thread Q&A Theology, individual translations and edits of the Bible can have particular translation errors, or particular editing errors. The Bible is entirely inerrant because it is entirely inspired. But translators and editors of the Bible do not operate under inspiration, so we can and do err.

The teachings of the Catholic Faith are from Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

The Holy Spirit protects the Living Tradition, so that what is handed on from generation to generation retains purity of truth, so that errors are not introduced and truths are not lost or distorted.

The Holy Spirit guides the Living Magisterium, so that the passage of time does not in any way erode the teaching of the Church. The Magisterium works in the Spirit to teach the truths of Tradition and Scripture and to guard the deposit of faith.

The Word of God in Sacred Scripture, though written, is also lived by the Church, and is protected by the Holy Spirit from erosion or degradation over time. God did not merely write the Bible. He wrote the Bible and He continues to protect its truths, so that the passage of time and the particular errors possible in any particular edition do not cause the introduction of any error, nor the loss or distortion of any truth, in Scripture itself.

Any particular edition of the Bible is, in a sense, Scripture. But in full, Scripture is all editions, manuscripts, versions, throughout the world, not only in written form, but as these truths are lived in the Spirit, and guided by Tradition and Magisterium.

Jewel wrote:Here it is folks

@ yidda, dhugz & marc.

According to your NT bible, where exactly did Joseph and Mary go after Jesus' birth?


Thanks.

The NT says that they went to Egypt:

[Matthew]
{2:13} And after they had gone away, behold, an Angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: “Rise up, and take the boy and his mother, and flee into Egypt. And remain there until I tell you. For it will happen that Herod will seek the boy to destroy him.”
{2:14} And getting up, he took the boy and his mother by night, and withdrew into Egypt.
{2:15} And he remained there, until the death of Herod, in order to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Out of Egypt, I called my son.”

Yidda wrote:

The NT says that they went to Egypt:

[Matthew]
{2:13} And after they had gone away, behold, an Angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: “Rise up, and take the boy and his mother, and flee into Egypt. And remain there until I tell you. For it will happen that Herod will seek the boy to destroy him.”
{2:14} And getting up, he took the boy and his mother by night, and withdrew into Egypt.
{2:15} And he remained there, until the death of Herod, in order to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Out of Egypt, I called my son.”

I see, so they went to Egypt according to the matthean account.

But, do you know that according to Luke 2:39 they did not go to Egypt, rather they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth?

So where did they really Go, to Egypt or to Galilee? Obviously, they cant be in two places at the same time right?


Thanks

Blessed A.C. Emmerich says:

"The Flight into Egypt took place when Christ was nine months old."

"The Holy Family took the same way on their flight from Nazareth to Egypt."

So after Bethlehem, they went to Nazareth, just as Luke says. Then a few months later, they fled into Egypt from Nazareth.

Luke knew about Matthew's Gospel, the first to be written. Luke saw no need to repeat the same information. And he also knew that his audience (Gentiles) were not interested in the flight to Egypt, and in the return from Egypt. Matthew's audience, the Jews, saw great significance in that the Messiah was in Egypt just as the Israelites were in Egypt.

Yidda wrote:Blessed A.C. Emmerich says:

"The Flight into Egypt took place when Christ was nine months old."

"The Holy Family took the same way on their flight from Nazareth to Egypt."

So after Bethlehem, they went to Nazareth, just as Luke says. Then a few months later, they fled into Egypt from Nazareth.

If you dont mind, where did A.C. Emmerich take his historical basis for that?

Yidda wrote:Luke knew about Matthew's Gospel, the first to be written. Luke saw no need to repeat the same information. And he also knew that his audience (Gentiles) were not interested in the flight to Egypt, and in the return from Egypt. Matthew's audience, the Jews, saw great significance in that the Messiah was in Egypt just as the Israelites were in Egypt.

did A.C. Emmerich said that too??

If yes, then he is lying because the gospel according to matthew is not the first to be written though is put in the first part of the NT.

The first to be written among the four gospels is MARK not Matthew.


Moreover, it is an argument from silence that Luke knew about Matthew's Gospel because the new testament was not canonized yet when Luke wrote his Gospel. Furthermore, Luke was only a follower of Paul, he did not have time to go with the disciples of Jesus.

Lastly, the author of the Gospel according to Matthew is not really known. Scholars agree that the first to be written is the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospels of matthew and luke merely copied from the Gospel of Mark.

If the writer of the gospel of matthew is matthew the disciple of Jesus Christ, then it doesnt make sense that he would copy the writings of Mark because mark was not an eyewitness to Jesus, while Matthew the disciple was. matthew is supposed to know better than Mark, so it is nonsense to say that he copied the writings of mark.

So that is really a very weak response from A.C. Emmerich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#The_first_gospels


Thanks

Jewel,

did A.C. Emmerich said that too??

Blessed A.C. Emmerich says:

"The Flight into Egypt took place when Christ was nine months old."

"The Holy Family took the same way on their flight from Nazareth to Egypt."

these above were according to Blessed A.C. Emmerich as you see there is quotation " the following statements were Yiddas statement.

Hi. Sorry to interrupt Esther but I did not see the hyphen there. Do you mean the quotation mark? Thanks.

MarcCatholic wrote:Hi. Sorry to interrupt Esther but I did not see the hyphen there. Do you mean the quotation mark? Thanks.

got it Marc, I correctedit thanks.

Jewel wrote:
If you dont mind, where did A.C. Emmerich take his historical basis for that?

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich received visions from God about Jesus and Mary and the Apostles.

Jewel wrote:
Luke knew about Matthew's Gospel, the first to be written. Luke saw no need to repeat the same information. And he also knew that his audience (Gentiles) were not interested in the flight to Egypt, and in the return from Egypt. Matthew's audience, the Jews, saw great significance in that the Messiah was in Egypt just as the Israelites were in Egypt.

did A.C. Emmerich said that too??

If yes, then he is lying because the gospel according to matthew is not the first to be written though is put in the first part of the NT.

The first to be written among the four gospels is MARK not Matthew.

No, that is not from Emmerich. It is my understanding from study. Scholars do not agree that Mark was the first to be written. Saint Jerome and Bishop Eusebius both state that Matthew was written first.

see this:
"The Gospel of Matthew, according to Jerome and Eusebius, was written before the other Gospels. Matthew wrote it for the first generation of Christians, who lived in Judea and were mostly (former) Jews. He wrote it before he left for distant lands to preach the Gospel and before Peter left Jerusalem for Rome. Matthew's Gospel was written first,before Mark, Luke, and John.

The Gospel of Matthew was written between three to six years after theAscension of Christ, during the reign of the emperor Gaius [Caligula].See the author's book, Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary, chapter 11, for a detailed chronology of the early Church, the Gospels, and Paul's missionary journeys.

Jewel wrote:
Moreover, it is an argument from silence that Luke knew about Matthew's Gospel because the new testament was not canonized yet when Luke wrote his Gospel. Furthermore, Luke was only a follower of Paul, he did not have time to go with the disciples of Jesus.

The NT states that Paul and Luke traveled with Mark and other disciples of Christ. So Luke certainly knew about Mark's Gospel. Most scholars believe that the Synoptics are similar because the authors knew about one or more of the other Synoptics.

Jewel wrote:
Lastly, the author of the Gospel according to Matthew is not really known. Scholars agree that the first to be written is the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospels of matthew and luke merely copied from the Gospel of Mark.

Scholars do not agree on those claims. Vatican II taught that the authorship of all the Gospels is Apostolic. Saint Jerome and Bishop Eusebius taught that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels,in that order.

Jewel wrote:
If the writer of the gospel of matthew is matthew the disciple of Jesus Christ, then it doesnt make sense that he would copy the writings of Mark because mark was not an eyewitness to Jesus, while Matthew the disciple was. matthew is supposed to know better than Mark, so it is nonsense to say that he copied the writings of mark.

The Gospel writers did not copy one another; they drew on a variety of different sources, including (in some cases) other Gospels.

The idea that Matthew borrowed from Mark is one opinion among scholars.But my opinion is that Matthew wrote first, so Mark was borrowing from Matthew. Mark was a disciple of Peter for many years, so he learned the Gospel from Peter. Mark also traveled with Paul, so he learned from Paul also.

Mark was young and Matthew was older, so it makes sense that Mark did not write a Gospel until many years later, after he had learned the Gospel from Peter and Paul and others. Matthew was a witness to Christ's ministry, so he would have written before Mark.

Yidda wrote:Does anyone have any questions about the Bible, either about the various languages, editions, manuscripts, authorship , or about specific difficult passages?

Please post your honest questions in this thread.

Why did the RCC prohibited Catholics from owning Bibles?

The Council of Toulousse made this order:

"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament"

Has this order been superseded? Was the Council wrong?

http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/banned.htm

The above link showed that Pope Innocent claimed that educated and intelligent people would have difficulty understanding the Bible that is why it was banned. Do you agree with his claim? Or do you agree with banning the bible?

Bro give me an authentic Catholic link saying that the Council of Toulousse is indeed a Catholic Council...wala kasi akong makita sa newadvent.org

Yidda wrote:

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich received visions from God about Jesus and Mary and the Apostles.

excuse me ha, but i think this is very interesting.

How could we be sure that the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich is truly from God? How do you compare her to Ellen G. White?


I smell a circular reasoning here.

Ateo wrote:


Why did the RCC prohibited Catholics from owning Bibles?

The Council of Toulousse made this order:

"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament"

Has this order been superseded? Was the Council wrong?

http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/banned.htm

The above link showed that Pope Innocent claimed that educated and intelligent people would have difficulty understanding the Bible that is why it was banned. Do you agree with his claim? Or do you agree with banning the bible?

The Council of Toulouse was not an Ecumencial Council, and its order to prohibit possession of the Bible was under the temporal authority, which even Ecumenical Councils do not exercise infallibly. And their order only applied to the local area under the authority of that local Council. The reason was that certain translations of the Bible were being used to promote a particular heresy (Albigensian heresy). The order was temporary, local, and in my view erroneous.

But in any case, the order is often misrepresented by Protestants.

"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

The order applies mainly to translations of the Latin Vulgate. At that time, many of the laity knew Latin, so they could possess the Vulgate for use in the aforementioned devotions. But even so, I think the Council erred in this order. Toulouse should have only condemned certain versions of the Bible, distorted by translation and by the notes (glosses) in order to promote heresy.

Pope Innocent III did not ban the Bible. He sent letters dealing with the same heresies that Toulouse dealt with. He opposed certain translations used to promote those heresies. See this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages
and the section called 'Innocent III and vernacular translations'

Also, he did not say that people are incapable of understanding the Bible.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cum_ex_injuncto_%281199%29
He objected to certain groups of heretics, who "celebrate their assemblies in secret, usurp for themselves the duty of preaching, mock the simplicity of the priests and reject their community."

In another letter, Innocent wrote: "You should also seek the truth carefully: who was the author of this translation, what was their intention, what is the faith of those using it, what is the cause of teaching it, if they venerate the apostolic see and the Catholic Church" showing his concern for certain translations (those used to promote heresy).

These letters were a local and temporary exercise of the temporal authority of the Pope. The contents did not apply to the universal Church on earth, nor were these letters to the Bishop of Metz added to Canon Law (as is claimed).

This letter
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ea_est_in_fovendis
also makes it clear that only certain translations were a matter of concern.

Good job Bro Shad... :-) balak ko pa sana ibalik sa kanila ang tanong, but anyway you did what is right. All in all the saying that "the Catholic Church prohibited the reading and owning of the bible" is a myth.

Jewel wrote:

excuse me ha, but i think this is very interesting.

How could we be sure that the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich is truly from God? How do you compare her to Ellen G. White?


I smell a circular reasoning here.

Whether or not visions are from God can be determined by the content of the visions and the life of the visionary. Emmerich's life was examined by the Church, and she was beatified by Pope John Paul II. Many of the faithful have long had a devotion to her, especially because of her visions about the Passion. The content of her visions is consistent with Catholic doctrine.

Ellen G. White (founder of Seventh Day Adventists) was a Protestant,who was married by a justice of the peace, not even by a Protestant minister. She adhered to and taught the many false doctrines of Protestants in general and of the Seventh Day Adventists. I'm not familiar with the content of her many claimed visions, but if they were truly of God, then God would have corrected her many heresies. But moreover, God does not favor heretics with visions (unless to correct,like Saul on the road to Damascus)

Yidda wrote:

Whether or not visions are from God can be determined by the content of the visions and the life of the visionary. Emmerich's life was examined by the Church, and she was beatified by Pope John Paul II. Many of the faithful have long had a devotion to her, especially because of her visions about the Passion. The content of her visions is consistent with Catholic doctrine.

Ellen G. White (founder of Seventh Day Adventists) was a Protestant,who was married by a justice of the peace, not even by a Protestant minister. She adhered to and taught the many false doctrines of Protestants in general and of the Seventh Day Adventists. I'm not familiar with the content of her many claimed visions, but if they were truly of God, then God would have corrected her many heresies. But moreover, God does not favor heretics with visions (unless to correct,like Saul on the road to Damascus)

Thanks sister yidda

I have no more follow ups regarding emerich because I cant, and no one can question such kind of response, that is very much subjective. It is like saying that so and so is true because we believe that it was God who inspired him, how? because we feel it so.


Anyway, let's proceed. I wanna see now what could emerich has to say about this:


What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?


thanks

Blessed Anne Emmerich:

The cruel executioners then reconducted our Lord to Pilate’s palace, with the scarlet cloak still thrown over his shoulders, the crown of thorns on his head, and the reed in his fettered hands.

Jewel wrote:

Anyway, let's proceed. I wanna see now what could emerich has to say about this:


What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?


thanks

Scarlet according to Bl A.C. Emmerich