Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jude quotes a prophecy from the Book of Enoch. Does that make Enoch canonical? No one says that the Apocrypha cannot contain good things but that does make them Scripture.

For example, Sirach contains much good advice but it also says:

Under Mosaic law divorce was permitted but the Book of Malachi, which is indisputably Scripture, tells us that God hates divorce. Jesus also condemns divorce. Yet Sirach actually advises divorce. How can something that contradicts recognized Scripture be considered inspired?

Gabriel of 12;

Hi Sycarl; because Sirach recorded Truth of the bill of Divorce allowed by Moses Sirach did not lie, it happened so it is recorded Truth. There are many things in all of scripture that records the people of Isarel practiced their religion contrary to God’s law and Jesus revelations. This doesnt refutes them as being non canonical or canonical. I dont see the contradiction? Just revelation;

 

[elvisman]

There are many Catholics who are born again and thus saved. Then again there are many who are not thus not saved.

Who are YOU to say who is saved and who is not?
That is the sin of preumption.

Even St. Paul said about himself:
"No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."

As has already been pointed out to you - salvation is a process.

 

[elvisman]

There is no evidence any of the Apocrypha were even discussed at Jamnia. If you have evidence present it because quite frankly I’m tired of hearing unsubstantiated claims.

Your “absolute” claims of what happened at Jamnia are all speculation. Which is why you never present proof, just make one empty claim after another.

Josephus wrote twenty years before Jamnia He had actually temple scrolls in his possession. Josephus’ canon was the same canon as the Protestant Bible

Ginger

First of all - you’re still dodging the New Testament points that you brought up. You said that the 1st century Church “libraries” held the very same books we have in out New Testament today - which is complete hogwash. Libraries??

Secondly, you’re implying that Josephus had a canon and that it was relevant.
Josephus was a Jewish Roman historian - not even a christian. Why on earth would you hold to what he believed to be canon?

Lastly, Jabneh (Jamnia) happened - whether you like it or not. It’s a matter of history. The Deuterocanonicals are not “Apocrypha”. That is a Protestant claim - AFTER the 15th century. Even the original King James included the Deuterocanonicals.

Talk about empty claims . . .

 

[Ginger2]

Secondly, you’re implying that Josephus had a canon and that it was relevant.
Josephus was a Jewish Roman historian - not even a christian. Why on earth would you hold to what he believed to be canon?

Josephus was indeed a Jew, a Jew who wrote: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” - Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3

The above statement was quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century.

If Josephus was a Jew willing to tell the truth about Jesus being the Christ, why would he lie about the Jewish canon?

**Lastly, Jabneh (Jamnia) happened - whether you like it or not. It’s a matter of history. **

lol

This assertion by Catholics is absurd to say the least. The Jews were entrusted by God Himself as keepers of what we call the Old Testament. They took their responsibility very seriously and would never have done away with with inspired Scriptures.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

First of all - you’re still dodging the New Testament points that you brought up. You said that the 1st century Church "libraries" held the very same books we have in out New Testament today - which is complete hogwash. Libraries??

No I did not. You misunderstood. The descrepancies between Protestant and Catholics Bibles is in the OT. I pointed out that just because some collections of books include inspired books, it does not mean all the books are inspired.

What I said about the NT was that 1st century Christians believed the Apostles were prophets speaking for God, therefore, they considered their writings inspired.

In-other-words, they already knew what was and wasn’t Scripture in the first century. That means the first century documentation that went uncontested is more reliable then 4th century documentation that that met with disagreement.

Ginger

 

[elvisman]

Josephus was indeed a Jew, a Jew who wrote: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” - Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3

The above statement was quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century.

If Josephus was a Jew willing to tell the truth about Jesus being the Christ, why would he lie about the Jewish canon?

lol

This assertion by Catholics is absurd to say the least. The Jews were entrusted by God Himself as keepers of what we call the Old Testament. They took their responsibility very seriously and would never have done away with with inspired Scriptures.

Ginger

Josephus wasn’t a Christian and should therefore not be considered to be authoritative regarding the Scriptures - period. Strange that you’re even debating this point.

As for the Post-Christ, Post-Temple Jewish leaders - they no longer have any authority to change the Old Testament Canon. It is what it is - or don’t you believe that Jesus is the FULFILLMENT of the Old Testament? It CAN’T change after Christ fulfilled it.

Your point is moot.

 

[elvisman]

No I did not. You misunderstood. The descrepancies between Protestant and Catholics Bibles is in the OT. I pointed out that just because some collections of books include inspired books, it does not mean all the books are inspired.

What I said about the NT was that 1st century Christians believed the Apostles were prophets speaking for God, therefore, they considered their writings inspired.

In-other-words, they already knew what was and wasn’t Scripture in the first century. That means the first century documentation that went uncontested is more reliable then 4th century documentation that that met with disagreement.

Ginger

You are absolutely wrong.

The 1st century Christians DIDN’T know everything that was Scripture because - as I’ve already pointed out - debated what was and wasn’t inspired. they debated the inspirational validity of: James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. The arguments didn’t begin in the 4th century as you assert. They were going on from the very beginning.

Your comments are simply revisionist lies and are completely unsupported - not only by history but by just about every Protestant theologian alive today.

 

[Hisalone]

Who are YOU to say who is saved and who is not?
That is the sin of preumption.

Even St. Paul said about himself:
"No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."

As has already been pointed out to you - salvation is a process.

The presumption is that all Catholics are saved.
I would never say all Protestants are born again believers.
John 3 defines it.

 

[Hisalone]

First of all - you’re still dodging the New Testament points that you brought up. You said that the 1st century Church "libraries" held the very same books we have in out New Testament today - which is complete hogwash. Libraries??

Secondly, you’re implying that Josephus had a canon and that it was relevant.
Josephus was a Jewish Roman historian - not even a christian. Why on earth would you hold to what he believed to be canon?

Lastly, Jabneh (Jamnia) happened - whether you like it or not. It’s a matter of history. The Deuterocanonicals are not "Apocrypha". That is a Protestant claim - AFTER the 15th century. Even the original King James included the Deuterocanonicals.

**Talk about empty **claims . . .

Why is Josephus not a reliable source for OT cannon?

 

[Jerry_Marino]

lean not on your own understanding, trust in the LORD.

man can err so i would not put too much emphasis on what one might say, that is why we all should have our daily bread relying on the HOLY SPIRIT to teach us,

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

lean not on your own understanding, trust in the LORD.

man can err so i would not put too much emphasis on what one might say, that is why we all should have our daily bread relying on the HOLY SPIRIT to teach us,

Hi Jerry Were you once a Catholic? Just curious.

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Dear Protestants,

Whence do you have authority to interpret the Bible as you do, since it is certainly a text which requires interpretation (Acts viii, 31), and it does not admit private interpretation (II Peter i, 20)? Do you believe that you are right as a “holy man of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 21), and if so, why? How do you know that your interpretation is the right one, above that of the other several thousand denominations equally assured of the veracity of theirs, which they in contradiction to all the others?

The Holy Spirit is the authority.
As far as I know the catholic Bible has enough scripture in it that no catholic will be left without excuse. So with all that’s added and all that’s taken away, the Lord Jesus can still speak to you through your version, if you are willing to listen.

Btw, I dont concider myself a protestant, just a sinner before salvation and a sinner saved by grace after salvation.

 

[elvisman]

The presumption is that all Catholics are saved.
I would never say all Protestants are born again believers.
John 3 defines it.

More false accusations, huh?

I have never stated that all Catholics were saved.
I would never make that assumption about anybody because salvation is a process. I have no idea who is or isn’t saved - except for what has been declared by the Church - and neither do you.

 

[elvisman]

Why is Josephus not a reliable source for OT cannon?

Josephus was a non-Christian historian. He had no authority to decide on or declare any Post-Christ, post-Temple biblical canon - and neither did the Jewish leaders.

On top of that - being a non-Christian, he wasn’t guided by the Holy Spirit.
Is that clear enough?

 

[Hisalone]

More false accusations, huh?

I have never stated that all Catholics were saved.
I would never make that assumption about anybody because salvation is a process. I have no idea who is or isn’t saved - except for what has been declared by the Church - and neither do you.

You were the one who falsely accused.
I said not all Catholics are born again or saved. You took offense and knee jerked as you always do. Reading Comprehansion is your friend.
If one is truly born again then they can see the Christ who abides in others.
If you are not born again you are all up in your head and dont understand the things of the Spirit.

 

[elvisman]

You were the one who falsely accused.
I said not all Catholics are born again or saved. You took offense and knee jerked as you always do. Reading Comprehansion is your friend.
If one is truly born again then they can see the Christ who abides in others.
If you are not born again you are all up in your head and dont understand the things of the Spirit.

No - you said:
"The presumption is that all Catholics are saved."
I neither presumed it nor said it.

As for being born again - I was born again at Baptism - just like Jesus said (John 3:5-6).

 

[Hisalone]

Josephus was a non-Christian historian. He had no authority to decide on or declare any Post-Christ, post-Temple biblical canon - and neither did the Jewish leaders.

On top of that - being a non-Christian, he wasn’t guided by the Holy Spirit.
Is that clear enough?

As an historian Josephus reports he does not decide nor declare.
His witness would be outmost reliable.

 

[Contarini]

As an historian Josephus reports he does not decide nor declare.

Wow, how naive you are!

His witness would be outmost reliable.

Historians of the ancient period do not generally agree with you. Josephus had an axe to grind–his historical writing was largely a work of apologetics either for Jews or for his own betrayal of the Jewish cause. That doesn’t mean he’s worthless–he’s a very valuable source. But you can’t just take him at face value. Still, on this issue I think he’s fairly reliable.

Edwin

 

[elvisman]

As an historian Josephus reports he does not decide nor declare.
His witness would be outmost reliable.

Then why do you call it “Josephus’ Canon”?

 

[Ginger2]

Josephus wasn’t a Christian and should therefore not be considered to be authoritative regarding the Scriptures - period. Strange that you’re even debating this point.

Josephus was a Jew and would know which Old Testament Scriptures were inspired B. C. That is His authority, given by God.

Now stop dodging my questions.

If Josephus was a Jew willing to tell the truth about Jesus being the Christ, why would he lie about the Jewish canon?

**The Jews **were entrusted by God Himself as keepers of what we call the Old Testament. They took their responsibility very seriously and would never have done away with with inspired Scriptures.