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

[Ginger2]

Tell me, Ginger - do you have any documents from Jamnia that prove your assertion? Ummm . . . I didn’t think so.

You are the one who brought up Jamnia and claimed the Jews removed inspired Scriptures. Then I asked you for documentation to prove your claims because I said you have no proof. Now you turn it on me to show documentation???

You’re the one claiming what happened at Jamnia. I’m the one that says there’s is no proof. Thanks, That one got a belly laugh!

The reason the group of Rabbis at Jabneh (Jamnia) wanted to rid themselves of the Greek Septuagint was the fact that early Christians were using it to convert Jews to Christianity. They grew resentful of the Greek translation becuase of this.

That one gets a double.

If the Jews were removing books to deny Jesus as the Christ,…
Why did they throw out books that don’t prophesy to Jesus?
Why would they keep books like Isaiah which so clearly point to Jesus**?**

The Jews were keepers of the Torah - God appointed. They would not throw out inspired prophesy. More likely, they would interpret it to discredit Jesus or deny that Jesus life fit the prophecies. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what they did in the New Testament.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

You’ve proven nothing.

Here’s one question of many that you won’t be able to answer:

When Paul spoke of the baptism of the dead, which Old Testament book was he referencing?

There is no indication he is referencing another book or quoting anyone. He asked what purpose was there for them to do it.

 

[elvisman]

My response:

I’m sorry, but I agree with all of your scriptures of course, except the last one, I can’t find it. Did you maybe misquote it? It sounds familiar, what translation are you using?

I am familiar with all these scriptures and have no problems with them. I have no problem even with the Catholic Church or the universal church being the first church. That is really irrelevant to the real problems. The problem is apostasy in the original church. I’m not altogether sure where it began, but it is prevelant in your dogmas. Did you think Jesus was telling Peter to do as the former popes and priests of his day were doing? Creating doctrines of men that nullified God’s word? We already know what Jesus said about these sorts of “Christians” or “Popes” or whatever you want to label them with. When your dogmas or traditions begin to bring sin into the church, God does not ordain this.

By the way, the collective PEOPLE who belong to Christ, and are scattered abroad the entire world are the church. Remember, the tabernacle of God resides within the heart of man, not a building or religion. It is man, the temple in which God lives, that represents the body of Christ. I’m not saying that there aren’t buildings that the Church, the body of Christ, the saved, gather in, for the Church gathered in homes at first. The reason for the following scriptures is to shed light on what God’s word says about ‘the church’

Act 5:11 Then great fear came on all the church and on all who had knowledge of these things.
Rom 16:5 And say a kind word to the church which is in their house. Give my love to my dear Epaenetus, who is the first fruit of Asia to Christ.

The above scriptures show easily, that the church consists of followers of Christ. Also called the ‘body of Christ’ with Christ being the head.

This scripture below shows also, that it is man himself in which God dwells thorugh His Holy Spirit.

1Co 6:19 Or are you not conscious that your body is a house for the Holy Spirit which is in you, and which has been given to you by God? and you are not the owners of yourselves;

I like this one. For it shows that saints are not saints because of their perfect deeds or good deeds, but because of their position in God. "Saved by grace"

Eph 4:12 For the training of the saints as servants in the church, for the building up of the body of Christ:

Paul is preparing the church, the body, about wolves in sheeps clothing to come.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Indeed the Catholic Church, or the original church was THE CHURCH. But when sin entered in and directly contradicted the gospel of Christ, people left it. The catholic church in it’s purest form, has been hi-jacked by traditions and dogmas that nullify God’s word. Just like the scribes and pharisees did back in the day. Whom by the way, ‘were the official chosen of God of His church’ back then. Isn’t that correct? And if the ‘chosen of God’ did sin and did lead many astray even killing the Son of God, why then is the pope any different? Scriptures please.

And if you want to use dogma, please refer to what scripture it upholds.

Paul and Christ would not have warned against error, if in fact there would be such a one who would be exempt from it.

That is why they were told to look at the works. Their works, the dogma, traditions, of the catholic church, should be in complete harmony with the word of God. As it stands, on many grounds, it is in direct contradiction. Beginning with having to be catholic to enter heaven (unless ignorant of catholocism) and assuming that mary was assumed into Heaven as well as but hardly the least, the many scapulars that hold powers when worn, granting favors and protections despite sins committed.

First of all - you didn’t read my response. If you had, you would have noticed that much of the proof is in the Scriptures I quoted. (By the way, I typed 1 Tim. 3:25 - it’s actually 1 Tim. 3:15).

Secondly, your beliefs render Jesus a liar. He promised that not even the gates of hell would prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:19). Whenever I hear or read a Protestant speak of how the Church became corrupt and apostate or was “hijacked” I see a lack of faith in the Word of God.

We don’t adhere to sola Scriptura because sola Scriptura is UN-Biblical. It is found NOWHERE in Scripture. The Authority of the Catholic Church and its Traditions, on the other hand ARE supported. Here are a few examples:

Matt. 16:15-19
Matt. 18:15-18
John 16:13-15:
2 Thess. 2:15
2 Tim. 1:13-14
2 Tim. 2:12
1 Cor. 11:2
Acts 2:42

Also - show me some dogmas of the Catholic Church that are in direct contradiction with the word of God, as you assert.

 

[elvisman]

You are the one who brought up Jamnia and claimed the Jews removed inspired Scriptures. Then I asked you for documentation to prove your claims because I said you have no proof. Now you turn it on me to show documentation???

You’re the one claiming what happened at Jamnia. I’m the one that says there’s is no proof. Thanks, That one got a belly laugh!

**I was merely showing you that there may not be any existing documents but that *doesn’t *prove that it never happened. **Can you show me any original photos or documentation of how the dinosaurs disappeared?

Your objections are weak. Tell me something - why do you reject the 7 books that were thrown out at Jamnia? These books WERE part of the Greek translation that Jesus grew up with. You reject them because you agree with the Post Christ, Post Temple Jewish leaders. Whether or not you believe that there was a council at Jamnia is irrelevant. You have chosen to side with the very next generation of the very people that rejected Jesus - over His Church.
**The Jews at the time were the ones Jesus was speaking of in the parable of the **wedding feast in Matt 22:2-14 and Luke 14:16-24 - you just can’t see it.

Umm, where’s that big belly laugh now?

That one gets a double.

If the Jews were removing books to deny Jesus as the Christ,…
Why did they throw out books that don’t prophesy to Jesus? **
Why would they keep books like Isaiah which so clearly point to Jesus**?

The Jews were keepers of the Torah - God appointed. They would not throw out inspired prophesy. More likely, they would interpret it to discredit Jesus or deny that Jesus life fit the prophecies. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what they did in the New Testament.

Ginger

Ummm . . . I never said that the Jews removed books to deny Jesus. Where did you get that from?
I said that they removed them because they were being used to convert diaspora (dispersed Jews) to Christianity.

The point is - like I said above - you don’t agree with the Body of Christ. Sadly, you chose to believe a body of Rabbis who had no authority to change and declare OT canon.

 

[ICA04]

I was merely showing you that there may not be any existing documents but that *doesn’t *prove that it never happened. Can you show me any original photos or documentation of how the dinosaurs disappeared?

Your objections are weak. Tell me something - why do you reject the 7 books that were thrown out at Jamnia? These books WERE part of the Greek translation that Jesus grew up with. You reject them because you agree with the Post Christ, Post Temple Jewish leaders. Whether or not you believe that there was a council at Jamnia is irrelevant. You have chosen to side with the very next generation of the very people that rejected Jesus - over His Church.
**The Jews at the time were the ones Jesus was speaking of in the parable of the **wedding feast in Matt 22:2-14 and Luke 14:16-24 - you just can’t see it.

Umm, where’s that big belly laugh now?

Ummm . . . I never said that the Jews removed books to deny Jesus. Where did you get that from?
I said that they removed them because they were being used to convert diaspora (dispersed Jews) to Christianity.

The point is - like I said above - you don’t agree with the Body of Christ. Sadly, you chose to believe a body of Rabbis who had no authority to change and declare OT canon.

You are a real piece of work.

 

[josie_L]

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.

Ginger, we can all agree that amongst the Jews of that time there were varying differences when it came to what was accepted as scripture and what wasn’t (for example Jews in the diaspora used the Septuagint), we know the pharisees differed from the sadducees, so what makes you put all your faith in one man like Josephus?

 

[BrianH]

Ok to interject
No one argues that Jamnia discussed all seven books anymore…
That is research from 100 years ago
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Hi Jerry Were you once a Catholic? Just curious.

i don’t remember that far back

 

[Ginger2]

I was merely showing you that there may not be any existing documents but that *doesn’t *prove that it never happened. Can you show me any original photos or documentation of how the dinosaurs disappeared?

In-other-words, you are saying that no proof, is proof?

If you say I cheated on my spouse when I met with a business associate, and I deny it, who bears the burden of proof ? Is it for me to produce evidence of a non-event? Or is it for you to produce evidence the event actually occurred?

The Jews met at Jamnia. Christian have no evidence to the events of that meeting.

Tell me something - why do you reject the 7 books that were thrown out at Jamnia?

Because
*the Jews never accepted them as inspired
*1st century Christians never accepted them as inspired
*Jerome denied their inspiration
*the Pope demonstrated he denied their inspiration by allowing Jerome to write his denial in the Vulgate
*the Protocanicasl books were always accepted, while the deuteros were rejected from the beginning
*Church fathers before and after Jerome continued to reject the deuteros
*No evidence of any of the authors has ever testified to their prophethood

Ummm . . . I never said

that the Jews removed books to deny Jesus. Where did you get that from?
I said that they removed them because they were being used to convert diaspora (dispersed Jews) to Christianity.

I see…it has nothing to do with denying Jesus, then.

The Septuagint was used for Greek speaking converts because it was written in Greek.

**There is no evidence they used it because of the extra books. If that were the case, why didn’t the Jewish converts who could speak both Arabiac and Greek fluently, used it? **

Ginger

 

[Syele]

Have you bothered to understand how Barrett derived these calculations, or do you insist on an emotional basis to reject them. You have offered up no proof that he is wrong in stating 30 000 plus christian denominations.

You also insist on saying that Barrett lied, when I stated Barrett made a mistake.

I have bothered, here is the proof you demand though I still advise you to not take my word for it but to actually read the book and the encyclopaedia.

Of all Christians, 1,888 millions are church members affiliated to 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural megablocs, also to some 300 different ecclesiaastical traditions, and also to 33,820 distinct Christian Denominations across the world.

but wait… he also says there are 19 Geopolitico-religious blocs. (Check Global Diagram 2!) And some other designated families and groups I wont bother to go into for this post.

So we have:
6 major ecclesiastico-cultural megablocs
19 Geopolitico-religious blocs
300 different ecclesiaastical traditions
33,820 distinct Christian Denominations

What do those MEAN? That is the big question so lets look at the book outlining all this:
World Christian Trends, Ad 30-Ad 2200
By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher Guidry, Peter Crossing

In Table 6-7 “Definitions of key terms in the denominationalist/postdenominationalist analysis” we see that:

denomination: a grouping or network of linked churches or congregations in a single nation.
megabloc: One of 6 ecclesiastico-cultural subdivisions or affiliated Christians and their churches.

Interesting… so that means that EVERY country a linked congregation is found in will be counted as an individual denomination. Thats not only when referring to Catholics or only any group but a general definition applied to the whole study. Read the definition of denomination again. it does not say how they are linked, I will cover that in a bit for now lets say they are linked. Lets say we have 4 congregations A, B, C, and D. All four believe exactly the same doctrines. They just got tired of driving so far to church every time the doors opened. It could be Baptist or Catholic or even Followers of David Koresh for all we know. all we know atm is that they are all exactly the same except A&B are in Mexico and C&D just over the US border in El Paso, Texas. By this definition we have 2 denominations. Lets here you Catholics yell, “But anything more than ONE is TOO MANY!” Yeah, I hear you. Good thing they agree on everything in Doctrine except for where they live and I dont think that is a doctrine.

Does anyone here really want to keep that country division thing in the definition for apologetics debates? Cause if you do… there are a minimum of 242 Catholic Denominations in there. (Barrett actually lists WAY more Catholic Denominations in there 2k+ but I will only mention that in passing, I had a thread on it a long while back if you care much). I doubt you all want to claim that much division and none of us have that definition as required for Christianity so lets adjust it more fairly.

denomination: a grouping or network of linked churches or congregations

Using just this part of the study definition alone, lets calculate a little:
33,820 distinct Christian Denominations Divided by the 242 countries that the site freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1956752/posts(I will hereafter refer to it as markomalley) claims the study covers, equals (Simple math here thus is only an approximation) = 139.752066116 Lets round up all the way to 600 jsut for fairness sake cause surely not all the denominations are not in all the countries. (Id have said 200, but people who like the 33,000 number seem to like drama so Im trying to help)

So I will say we are now down to less than 600 Denominations including Catholics and protestants and other Christianlike people too. But we still dont know what Barrett defines as Linked or Distinct. Lets look in his Book:

Now what about the claim that Catholics are really one cause of that dividing line being removed and Protestants are still fragmented immeasurably?
the 6 megablocs easch is listed as one Megabloc. and is said about them that “Each has regarded itself as the true Church, the truest expression of Christianity, a genuine restoring the original and genuine faith of Christ to the world.” In other words each got equal number listed here as one. Catholics can now rejoice Barrett got it right on this part and put you all together as one, but watch out, protestants can say the same thing.
* Independent
* Protestant
* Marginal Christianity
* Orthodox
* Roman Catholic
* Anglicans

Then each megabloc was not immediately divided to denominations as markomalley would have you believe. No each of those was subdivided into 300 “families”. and those families are divided to “Denominations”

Lets look at some of those (I grabbed 3 at random)

644 Latin American pentecostal​

805 single autonomous congregations​

813 White-led pentecostal​

I’m really expected to believe that there are 813 different denominations that have multiple linked congregations calling themselves “White-led Pentecostal”? lets google that for fun. If there are 813 then I’m sure to find the beliefs of one of them.

right?
At least one?
But no.
on googling that I did not find any denominations claiming that as their name. I did find a bunch of links to info on Barretts study as well as some other studies that covered race and churches. Where are the 813 denominations? You should by now have the clue that these are NOT the sort of denominations you mean and I mean when we say “What denomination of Christian are you?” answers to that would be “Baptist” or “Lutheran” not “Yeah I’m a Chinese Charismatic who disagrees with all those Filipino Charismatics!”

 

[Syele]

Reading the Book about it all its covered, Charismatic covered all the Charismatics including protestant ones and Catholic ones and independent ones! So what is Barrett actually saying if not how fragmented Christianity is?

Ecclesiastical type
This classification is not based on historical evolution or doctrinal criteria, but, in keeping with the whole of this book, is a contemporary description of the actual situation in world Christianity today.

Amazing… the whole of the book is not based on historical or doctrinal criteria! He is saying that he made the denominations to describe what he saw in Christianity, not to be historical or doctrine based. Therefore if he sees a Catholic parish “congregation” that is all Black people and one that is all white people it makes perfect sense to “describe” them as two different groups. The groups are divided by “descriptive” categories not necessarily doctrines. And if there are two with Black people who clap and two with white people who clap… those are MORE denominations. Then you get the ones with mixed ethnicities clapping or not clapping or holding Sunday school, or not having a Sunday school class cause the congregations are too small… It can go on for ages and it says nothing about Whos denomination is correct or incorrect or even that they disagree on stuff!

While we might find it interesting to see such lists of descriptions and thus why there are titles like “ecclesiastico-cultural” or “Geopolitico-religious” it is NOT an indicator of how many Denominations there are in terms of the mainstream definition of the word. When you look at any study its important to look at WHAT exactly it was studying. Barrett was looking ot see how Christianity had Grown and how it was doing at fulfilling the “Great Commission” of reaching all countries with the Christian message, thus why stuff like ethnicity and location mattered and why methods are looked at like musical style. This is very different then cataloguing the divisions within Christianity. Instead it was to see what areas of the world have never heard of Christianity and how different groups go about spreading it.

Barrett neither lied or made a mistake. He honestly set up categories and described them as he needed to to make it possible to study missions over the world. Its the people who read the encyclopaedia and took from it what they wanted to see that are either being dishonest or ignorant. Saying “WOW Protestantism has 33,000 denominations because of sola scriptura!” sure sounds dramatic. and then someone tags on it that they have proof its in an encyclopaedia! It sounds even more like a whopper. But it is much more honest to go google the books and read it yourself instead of taking markomalleys word for it or even svedenson. most of the book I referenced is available online and many parts of the encyclopaedia too. and if you cant get to a page you want there is this thing called a library.

And I advocate the same for those lists of references. Dont repost stuff you haven’t checked yourself, then you just look bad when its incorrect.

How do I know that my interpretation of the Bible is the right one? I dont and neither do you. I pray and study and try to stay humble. I remember that I am just a human and dont know everything and that those who try to help me are in the same boat. People can discount the Holy Spirit guiding us to the Truth, but I believe that is His Goal and any divergences from it are not His fault but the faults of failable humans. As long as we are on this earth, there will be no perfect church because it is full of imperfect people. The gates of hell did not prevail on the Church, we are all still here, trying to understand an infinite God with finite minds and when we dont know anymore what is right, we can only submit to what we hope is correct there is always the element of faith. Catholics are in no better shape for that than protestants or even the “denomination” called “805 single autonomous congregations” lol. All of us rely on some measure of Faith to get though our daily lives both spiritually and physically and to say you dont is silly.

 

[Ginger2]

Ok to interject
No one argues that Jamnia discussed all seven books anymore…
That is research from 100 years ago
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Thank you for that link. Here are some “cautionary points” it includes:

1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing.
2. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.

This is what I said!

1. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.
2. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh.
   This is what I said!

exceprt:
We do not know much about the deliberations at Jabneh, but we do know that they mentioned the Gospels of the New Testament. They mentioned them specifically in order to reject them.

Do you realize how contradictory this is to what Catholics have persistently been claiming? (ie We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. and we do know that they mentioned the Gospels of the New Testament. …in order to reject them.
You just blew your whole argument using a Catholic source.

These admission leave you with only mere speculation as “evidence” to your position.

Ginger

 

[elvisman]

You are a real piece of work.

Great answer . . .**

 

[elvisman]

In-other-words, you are saying that no proof, is proof.

If you say I cheated on my spouse when I met with a business associate, and I deny it, who bears the burden of proof ? Is it for me to produce evidence of a non-event? Or is it for you to produce evidence the event actually occurred?

The Jews met at Jamnia. Christian have no evidence to the events of that meeting.

Because
*the Jews never accepted them as inspired
*1st century Christians never accepted them as inspired
*Jerome denied their inspiration
*the Pope demonstrated he denied their inspiration by allowing Jerome to write his denial in the Vulgate
*the Protocanicasl books were always accepted, while the deuteros were rejected from the beginning
*Church fathers before and after Jerome continued to reject the deuteros
*No evidence of any of the authors has ever testified to their prophethood

These statements are not only untrue – they’re preposterous – and you have shown no proof for these false claims.
Not only were these books accepted, they were part of the Septuagint translation, which was written 285–246 BC.
Also, it doesn’t matter what Jerome thought of these books, he didn’t have the authority to decide the matter.

I see…it has nothing to do with denying Jesus, then.

The Septuagint was used for Greek speaking converts because it was written in Greek.

**There is no evidence they used it because of the extra books. If that were the case, why didn’t the Jewish converts who could speak both Arabiac and Greek fluently, used it? **

Ginger

**Again, simply because no direct surviving documents from Jamnia exist, scholars have drawn from **drawing on Mishnaic and Talmudic sources to determine what was decided on at Jamnia.

**On the Christian side, **the Deuterocanonicals were quoted from and supported by virtually every Early Church Father including, Polycarp, Ignatius, Melito of Sardis, Justin Martyr, Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Athanasius.
Polycarp and Ignatius actually knew the Apostle John and were his students! Do you think that John would have led them astray? Give me a break.

It wasn’t until the Protestant Revolt in the 15th and 16th centuries that these books were called into question. Luther wanted 2 Maccabees thrown out because of its support of overtly Catholic practices such as praying for the dead – which Jews do to this very day.
As I indicated before Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, James,the latter because it spoke of the necessity of “works”. He called the Book of James, “The Epistle of Straw”.

Had it not been for the stern advice of his contemporaries, he might have gotten away with it. That means that Protestants would only have 23 Books in your New Testament – all based on Luther’s prideful stubbornness and hatred for the Catholic Church!

**The point is – we do not trust the edited canon of the Post Christ, Post Temple Jews. Also, as I have pointed out ad nauseam, Jesus made the Church became the pillar and foundation of truth and the custodian of the deposit of faith. This was taken away from the Jews because they rejected Christ, as Jesus illustrated in the parable of the wedding feast (**Matt 22:2-14,Luke 14:16-24), the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt. 21:28-32) and many more.

**Ummm . . . are you going to provide any proof or documentation now to support your claims or are we just supposed to take your word for it because of your smugness?

 

[SteveGC]

How do I know that my interpretation of the Bible is the right one? I dont and neither do you. I pray and study and try to stay humble. I remember that I am just a human and dont know everything and that those who try to help me are in the same boat. People can discount the Holy Spirit guiding us to the Truth, but I believe that is His Goal and any divergences from it are not His fault but the faults of failable humans. As long as we are on this earth, there will be no perfect church because it is full of imperfect people. The gates of hell did not prevail on the Church, we are all still here, trying to understand an infinite God with finite minds and when we dont know anymore what is right, we can only submit to what we hope is correct there is always the element of faith. Catholics are in no better shape for that than protestants or even the “denomination” called “805 single autonomous congregations” lol. All of us rely on some measure of Faith to get though our daily lives both spiritually and physically and to say you dont is silly.

I understand your sentiment. And I, as a Catholic, do not subscribe to the account of so many protestant denominations. I also do not discount the Holy Spirit guiding us to Christ (the Truth), nor do any Catholics I know.

But I also do not subscribe to the idea that all of Christianity is reduced to belief in Christ, the Bible, and a hope that we’re doing the things He desires of those of us who love Him. The notion that we’re all here on earth trying to make sense of it all, resting on the idea that our only sure guidance is the Bible and the Holy Spirit within each person individually (because man teaches us all sorts of conflicting things), reduces so much of what Christ came to do. Mind you, it certainly doesn’t reduce His sacrifice and atoning death for us. But I can’t imagine that Christ took great measures to choose and annoint specific men to walk with Him, breathe the Holy Spirit into them, send them out into all the nations…just so that ultimately today, we discredit the human teaching, and all we’re left with is this notion that the Holy Spirit can be breathed into us, and “maybe” we’ll receive the truths about salvation if we live long enough in faith, reading our Bibles under the guidance of people who may not be protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

No, Christ intended for there to be some specifics about life in Himself, specifics that were to be taught unto all the nations. Salvific fundamentals. Taught by people, not a book. Things we wouldn’t have to spend a lifetime in prayer trying to discern. Things about baptism, about repentence, about obedience. The salvific truths about life in Christ were revealed. It’s not a matter of us figuring out what they are. It’s figuring out who safeguards them, and then spending our lives entering into them, and striving to cooperate with the will of God. The Holy Spirit is still our guide, no doubt. But it’s not supposed to be a mystery what we’re supposed to do. The Holy Spirit, dwelling within us, leads and guides us through the known teachings of Christ, as delivered by humans specifically “sent” to teach us. The guidance includes helping us through our Bible reading, helping us to make these teachings manifest within our unique, individual states in life.

Therefore, the teaching of the apostles is the most fundamental thing. The Bible supplements these teachings. That’s why we all learn from humans first, then pick up our Bibles within the context of that teaching. So, what is paramount is to ensure we are recipients of the authentic teaching. It’s not enough for all of us to individually rely on our Bibles alone. This is not the intent of the Bible, nor of God’s plan.

God Bless

 

[Ginger2]

I reject the Deuteros

Because
*the Jews never accepted them as inspired
*1st century Christians never accepted them as inspired
*Jerome denied their inspiration
*the Pope demonstrated he denied their inspiration by allowing Jerome to write his denial in the Vulgate
*the Protocanicasl books were always accepted, while the deuteros were rejected from the beginning
*Church fathers before and after Jerome continued to reject the deuteros
*No evidence of any of the authors has ever testified to their prophethood

These statements are not only untrue – they’re preposterous – and you have shown no proof for these false claims.

You are too funny. You keep telling me that lack of supporting evidence of a theory is not a reason to doubt the theory.

You have it backwards, without supporting evidence there is no reason to believe - especially when the is evidence to the contrary to the claim!

If you can’t find evidence to support your claims and all you can do is deny facts are evidence, there is no point in continuing this discourse.

Ginger

 

[elvisman]

I reject the Deuteros

You are too funny. You keep telling me that lack of supporting evidence of a theory is not a reason to doubt the theory.

You have it backwards, without supporting evidence there is no reason to believe - especially when the is evidence to the contrary to the claim!

If you can’t find evidence to support your claims and all you can do is deny facts are evidence, there is no point in continuing this discourse.

Ginger

I’ve already given you volumes of proof that the Deuterocanonicals were in use and accepted by the Jews prior to ant during the life of Jesus.
You have offered no evidence that:
*the Jews never accepted them as inspired
*1st century Christians never accepted them as inspired
*Jerome denied their inspiration
*the Pope demonstrated he denied their inspiration by allowing Jerome to write his denial in the Vulgate
*the Protocanicasl books were always accepted, while the deuteros were rejected from the beginning
*Church fathers before and after Jerome continued to reject the deuteros
*No evidence of any of the authors has ever testified to their prophethood
I have given you volumes of evidence from the early Church and history and you have offered nothing to the contrary except your usual smugness and ad hominem attacks. These are the fruits of ignorance.

According to NewAdvent.org:
"He (Jerome) never either categorically acknowledged or rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of the Canon of Scripture, and he repeatedly made use of them."

If this debate is over it is because you can’t offer anything to support your claims that:
*the Jews never accepted them as inspired
*1st century Christians never accepted them as inspired
*Jerome denied their inspiration
*the Pope demonstrated he denied their inspiration by allowing Jerome to write his denial in the Vulgate
*the Protocanicasl books were always accepted, while the deuteros were rejected from the beginning
*Church fathers before and after Jerome continued to reject the deuteros

I have already shown you that these claims are false.
GAME. SET. MATCH.

 

[Ginger2]

You have offered no evidence…

You simply refuse to accept facts as proof when facts contradict your theology.

I am not going to go through all these points again as they have already been thoroughly covered, but I will repeat a couple,…

You have offered no evidence that:
*Jerome denied their inspiration

“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

You have offered no evidence that:
*the Protocanicasl books were always accepted, while the deuteros were rejected from the beginning

**
The Catholic Encyclopedia admits**: The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
In-other-words, the Protestant canon has always been received without dispute
AND
“The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”

You have offered no evidence that:
*Church fathers before and after Jerome continued to reject the deuteros

Before Jerome:
Origen (225) rejected all the deuteros (Baruch, Eccl., Wisdom, Tobit, Judith and Macc)
Council of Laodicea (363) This council rejected all but Baruch
Epiphanius (385) rejected all Deuteros
After Jerome:
Synopsis of Sac. Scrip. (550) rejected all the deuteros
Leontius (590) rejected all the deuteros
Anastasius of Sinai (c. 650) rejected all the deuteros
(List of the Sixty Books)
John of Damascus (730) rejected all the deuteros

If you read thru my posts, you will see I backed up every statement with documented facts. As for your insisting I prove something didn’t happen, that is ridiculous, and I’m sure you know it. It makes you sound desperate. “Prove to me you have never cheated on your spouse!!! Just because there is no evidence that you did cheat is no reason to think you didn’t!” too funny…

Ginger

 

[Jerry_Marino]

ahhhh!

need a breath of fresh air here, open the window somebody, please?

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

*The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that told you.*NAB

check this out guys, this is really awesome:

Matthew 11:29
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.NAB

Wow! so far i don’t need interpretation it is plain as day. i put both the protestant version and catholic just in case some want to argue about that but as you can see no difference.

in the gospel of John we are promised that the Father will send the Holy Spirit and He will teach and remind us of all Jesus taught.

in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells us to learn from Him and we will find rest, the question is rest from what there is another thread ( forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=320676 ) that later i will dive into, God willing.

now one final note from the book of James 1:5-8

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

But if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and he will be given it. But he should ask in faith, not doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed about by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord, since he is a man of two minds, unstable in all his ways.

ok since you insist one more

joshua 1:8

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

*Keep this book of the law on your lips. Recite it by day and by night, that you may observe carefully all that is written in it; then you will successfully attain your goal.*NAB

well my friends that is how this proTESTant knows that the interpretation of the Bible is the right one cause this Christian does not rely on His own understanding but trusts in the Lord.

READ YOUR BIBLE, FRIENDS

God desires to walk with you like He did with adam prior to the fall and enoch, the disciples walked with Jesus and they did not wonder from the Truth, well except one and we know what happen to him when he strayed from the Truth.

God bless you.

 

[elvisman]

“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

“The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”
Before Jerome:
Origen (225) rejected all the deuteros (Baruch, Eccl., Wisdom, Tobit, Judith and Macc)
Council of Laodicea (363) This council rejected all but Baruch
Epiphanius (385) rejected all Deuteros
After Jerome:
Synopsis of Sac. Scrip. (550) rejected all the deuteros
Leontius (590) rejected all the deuteros
Anastasius of Sinai (c. 650) rejected all the deuteros
(List of the Sixty Books)
John of Damascus (730) rejected all the deuteros
Ginger

Ginger **
What you fail to understand is that there was no canon until it was declared by the Church. You refer to individual lists as “canons”. If the Holy Spirit, as we believe, is the one who establishes the canon, why**** would you quote several different, bickering canons.**

**What this comes down to is – which canon do you believe? AND – if the Catholic Church is wrong about the OT Canon, how could you trust her to be right about the New Testament canon. **
We know Luther was wrong about the NT canon because he wanted to remove 4 books from it – as well as parts of the OT canon.