Protestants look Here

[David_Brent]

jimmy:

They were never called Apocrypha until after the reformation.

I hear you. But we do live in a post-Reformation time, right?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Michael, The bible contains the mind of God,the state of man,the way of salvation,the doom of sinners and the happiness of believers. Jesus said that Gods Word] it is written. There is power in Gods Word.It is the Sword of the Spirit.It will defeat satan. God Bless

I couldnt have said it better myself. Especially because that quote is right in a pocket NT Gideon Bible I have!
I agree with you, its a good version to use.

 

[jimmy]

David Brent:

I hear you. But we do live in a post-Reformation time, right?

It is a protestant term that is foreign to the early Church. It is false because it infers that the books are false and that they are apocryphal. The apocalypse of Peter is apocrypha. The gnostic gospels are apocrypha.

 

[jimmy]

Church Militant:

and don’t forget the Book of Enoch too!

Yes, that too.

 

[David_Brent]

michaelgazin:

First, the deuterocanonicals are not a “second canon.” They are referred to as God-inspired, as the rest of the Bible. “They are secondarily included in the one canon. They are not as primary as certain other books, for instance Matthew has primacy over 3 John, and Genesis is more important than Esther, however they are fully inspired by God.” James Akin

Second, I firmly believe the Bible is inspired and should be read for certain. Is it because the pope says so? Your history might be a little off. The entire magisterium of the Catholic Church infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit decided which books were indeed inspired. Now is the guidance of the Holy Spirit “better” evidence. Yes He is. But the point of the post is to hear protestant evidence, not catholic evidence.

It normally happens that when protestants put forth “evidences” of Biblical inspiration to Catholics, it usually results in them conceding their assurance of Biblical inspiration and telling Catholics they don’t know for sure either.

I earnestly would like to hear of a solid case for biblical inspiration from a protestant though.

Michael

If I understand what you’re saying, your argument that the Bible is inspired is based on your belief that a group of Catholic fathers were moved by the Holy Spirit when selecting which books were in and which were out. I can go with that. I hope and pray that the councils that canonized the selected writings were constantly in prayer when they were working through this all-important task.

As for the protestant “case” for biblical inspiration, it would be the same. We all know that the Bibles we read were editted together by a group of men. We all hope and pray that they heard the Holy Spirit clearly. You hope and pray that they heard clearly that the deuterocanonical books should be “in”, and protestants hope and pray that they heard clearly that those books should be “out.”

I have a set of the deuterocanonical books. Do I sin when I read my deuterocanonical-free Bible? I don’t think so.

 

[David_Brent]

Church Militant:

Geez David…is that all? I could have faith that the writings of Dan Abnett are inspired, and though I much enjoy his writings would that make it so? If that is all it takes then the Quran and the Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad Gita will all qualify because there are people who have faith that they are and base their moral lives upon it.
Pax tecum,

Ultimately, since none of us were there at the meeting, we have to live on faith that what we believe is true. In fact, I suspect even if we had a role at the canonization meeting(s), we still would not “know”.

I’m sure that Muslims, Mormons and Hindus have faith that their holy books are inspired. You and I have a different opinion of that based on the faith that we have in Jesus. We won’t know who is right until we die. We get some assurance that we are right based on what we’re taught about Jesus and the Bible and church tradition, but we won’t KNOW until we are in Heaven.

 

[adstrinity]

David Brent:

Regarding references, I don’t see a reference to the Assumption of Moses in Jude 9. Reviewing the Assumption of Moses, I see no reference to Michael and Satan in it. Granted, Jude references Enoch, but if references aren’t useful to declare something inspired I guess that doesn’t matter anyway.

WHAT?!!! Recheck your Bible!!!

Jude 9:
Yet the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment 8 upon him but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”

 

[David_Brent]

adstrinity:

WHAT?!!! Recheck your Bible!!!

Jude 9:
Yet the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment 8 upon him but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”

Re-check my post. I see that reference to Michael in Jude. I don’t see the same thing in the Assumption of Moses. Ergo, I don’t see a reference to the Assumption of Moses in Jude 9.

 

[David_Brent]

Please note that I have become a “regular member”.

Thanks for not booting me before my promotion!

 

[stargazer257]

michaelgazin:

Are there any good protestant forums like this one? I am looking to get an answer from protestant’s over how they know the scripture is truly God’s inspired word. Good Luck

Peace,
Michael

Michael, has anyone answered your question regarding protestant forums yet? I didn’t see any in the posts on this thread, but I may have missed them.

SG257

 

[Mickey]

David Brent:

Please note that I have become a “regular member”.

Thanks for not booting me before my promotion!

Your dialogue is charitable and respectful. There is no reason for you to be booted. Congrats!

 

[michaelgazin]

David Brent:

If I understand what you’re saying, your argument that the Bible is inspired is based on your belief that a group of Catholic fathers were moved by the Holy Spirit when selecting which books were in and which were out. I can go with that. I hope and pray that the councils that canonized the selected writings were constantly in prayer when they were working through this all-important task.

As for the protestant “case” for biblical inspiration, it would be the same. We all know that the Bibles we read were editted together by a group of men. We all hope and pray that they heard the Holy Spirit clearly. You hope and pray that they heard clearly that the deuterocanonical books should be “in”, and protestants hope and pray that they heard clearly that those books should be “out.”

I have a set of the deuterocanonical books. Do I sin when I read my deuterocanonical-free Bible? I don’t think so.

It is not so much a group of guys who we hope listened to the Holy Spirit correctly, rather the the infalllible Magisterium composed of direct successors to the apostles. They are guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit…their teaching and decisions are not subject to error.

The protestant “case” is not the same. As you put, you can only hope there was no error, as no protestant will claim the Church was guided infallibly.

The difference is, Catholics have the certitude that the Bible is inspired, while protestants can only hope it is. At least this is all I have heard from different protestants.

Peace be with you,
Michael

 

[michaelgazin]

stargazer257:

Michael, has anyone answered your question regarding protestant forums yet? I didn’t see any in the posts on this thread, but I may have missed them.

SG257

no not yet on that one

 

[jimmy]

David Brent:

Please note that I have become a “regular member”.

Thanks for not booting me before my promotion!

Do you have anyone to thank on this day of celebration?

 

[jimmy]

David Brent:

Please note that I have become a “regular member”.

Thanks for not booting me before my promotion!

There is no reason you would be booted. You have been respectful with your posts.

 

[Church_Militant]

David Brent:

I am fairly certain that Christ knew the Jewish law backwards and forwards (see the temptation in the desert). The Apostles probably knew as much law as one can pick up in the local synagogue. Since most of them were of working class backgrounds, they would not have had the opportunity to study the law under a Rabbi – something reserved for the best of the best.

The Septuagint question is just silly.

If so, why are 90 % of the NT quotes of the OT from the Septuagint?

 

[David_Brent]

michaelgazin:

It is not so much a group of guys who we hope listened to the Holy Spirit correctly, rather the the infalllible Magisterium composed of direct successors to the apostles. They are guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit…their teaching and decisions are not subject to error.

The protestant “case” is not the same. As you put, you can only hope there was no error, as no protestant will claim the Church was guided infallibly.

The difference is, Catholics have the certitude that the Bible is inspired, while protestants can only hope it is. At least this is all I have heard from different protestants.

Peace be with you,
Michael

You don’t “know” that. The “Magisterium” has a great name, but let’s face it. They were a group of men. Sinful. Fallible. Imperfect. You hope that they were guided by the infallible Holy Spirit, but you don’t “know” that. You’ve been taught that. You believe that. But you don’t know it. I’m not asking you to abandon it. I’m just suggesting a little objectivity about the circumstances. I am as certain as anyone can be about the inspiration of the Bible. I don’t doubt that the Bible is inspired. It is a powerful tool. The Lord has spoken to me through the verses in it. I know of people uttering verses from it and people being healed or freed from demonic forces. I don’t need more evidence of its origins or its nature. It is undoubtedly a Sword and a Shield!

 

[Christian4life]

I thought the person who started this thread wanted to know if there were any good Protestant Christian forums like this one. I for one have not found any.

I found only one Christian forum that was really for Christians…but they said that you weren’t allowed to “judge” anyone else’s lifestyle or say that anyone else on the forum wasn’t a Christian - which is all fine and dandy until the spammers come.

So if anyone knows of any…

 

[Church_Militant]

David Brent:

Ultimately, since none of us were there at the meeting, we have to live on faith that what we believe is true. In fact, I suspect even if we had a role at the canonization meeting(s), we still would not “know”.

I’m sure that Muslims, Mormons and Hindus have faith that their holy books are inspired. You and I have a different opinion of that based on the faith that we have in Jesus. We won’t know who is right until we die. We get some assurance that we are right based on what we’re taught about Jesus and the Bible and church tradition, but we won’t KNOW until we are in Heaven.

This makes the whole thing pretty relativistic as you state it…I think I’ll stick with what I’ve got. Thanks anyway.

 

[Mickey]

David Brent:

You don’t “know” that. The “Magisterium” has a great name, but let’s face it. They were a group of men. Sinful. Fallible. Imperfect. You hope that they were guided by the infallible Holy Spirit, but you don’t “know” that. You’ve been taught that. You believe that. But you don’t know it. I’m not asking you to abandon it. I’m just suggesting a little objectivity about the circumstances. I am as certain as anyone can be about the inspiration of the Bible. I don’t doubt that the Bible is inspired. It is a powerful tool. The Lord has spoken to me through the verses in it. I know of people uttering verses from it and people being healed or freed from demonic forces. I don’t need more evidence of its origins or its nature. It is undoubtedly a Sword and a Shield!

When Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, we believe that he meant the visible Catholic Church–yes, the same one in existence today! So yes, we do “know” for certain, because we trust in Christ.