Why do Non-Catholics believe the Bible is divinely inspired?

[JonNC]

=Prodigal Son1;6421762]So, because each other accuses the other, it invalidates both?

To the contrary, it validates that both are a part of the One True Church, but it does call into question whether one of them alone, exclusively is the one True Church.

The Council of Trent was in response to changes reformers were taking, when a decree became necessary in the eyes of the Church.

It is intreresting that the canonicity of the D-C’s was debated at Trent amongst Catholics.
This was my point. Luther’s opinions and his actions regarding the canon were not unheard of or condemned before then.

Again, because two sides disagree justifies thousands of more ‘schisms’?

Again, to the contrary. It indicts them (schisms), and itself (the Great Schism), and all of us because we continue to allow His Church to be divided. There are some of us (not you) on both sides that seem to glory in the division.

Based on what authority?

That of the early, undivided Church.

This seems to be a repeated argument. What significance does the two having differences play in validating more Churches?

My earler remark (And the Orthodox more than Catholic???), to which you have responded here was directed that
Scencerian’s comment that appeared to say more scripture was better.

This paragraph seems to say the Catholics and the Orthodox are wrong, but Martin Luther was right. Where in scriptures does Martin Luther receive his authority to ‘rightly reflect scripture’?

I didn’t mention Martin Luther. My point isn’t whether or not Catholics or Orthodox are wrong. My point is that both claim to be right, both claim apostolic authority, both claim Sacred Tradition, and both claim they are the one True Church. How am I supposed to know which of you is right, since you don’t agree. Lutheranism makes no claim of infallible interpretation, or exclusivity.

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is intreresting that the canonicity of the D-C’s was debated at Trent amongst Catholics.
This was my point. Luther’s opinions and his actions regarding the canon were not unheard of or condemned before then.

Luther’s actions, or actions similar, had not been taken by others before, specifically changing canons of the Old Testament and his expressed opinions on the canon of the New Testatment. By changing canons of the Old Testament, certainly it drew into the debate the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books prior to an infallible decree.

I didn’t mention Martin Luther. My point isn’t whether or not Catholics or Orthodox are wrong. My point is that both claim to be right, both claim apostolic authority, both claim Sacred Tradition, and both claim they are the one True Church. How am I supposed to know which of you is right, since you don’t agree. Lutheranism makes no claim of infallible interpretation, or exclusivity.

Jon

It appears the differences between the two Churches are being used to validate all Churches started since the reformation. Now there are thousands of Churches that do not agree. Does that make it better?

Both Churches do in fact have Apostolic authority, through Apostolic succession, Sacred Tradition and both are, together, the one true Church, with Apostolic succession and Sacred Traditions. The differences between the two become minute when measured against the differences of thousands of Churches in the world today. As opposed to working through those minute differences between the two Churches, there are now major differences that have to be worked through to unify the Church as one, as it was intended to be, according to scriptures.

Making no claim of infallible interpretation, or exclusivity, does not make a Church correct, or the one true Church itself. It would be more like being a spectator to others trying to work out a unification, if it wasn’t one that keeps bringing up the differences between the two Churches, which appears to be a vested interest in keeping a division between the two.

 

[DorianGregorian]

When talking about the Inspiration of the Bible, it’s important to differentiate it from other terms.

To say the Bible is Inspired is common to nearly all Christian denominations. This means that the men who wrote it were Inspired by God to write it.

To say that the Bible is the Word of God is to say that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures and it was written by Him through men.

Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Protestants generally all agree on the two above points.

To agree with Biblical Maximalism is to give the Bible precedence in discussing historical events. I.E the parting of the Red Sea is a historical event.

To say the Bible is Inerrant is to say that the Bible, in it’s original text and when understood properly is protected from all error whether religious, historical, or scientific.

Most Christians won’t see a problem with the above either.

Now Biblical Literalism is that the Bible is not only Inerrant, but that every word is to be taken literally. I.E There will be a 1,000 year reign of Christ as said in Revelation, Jesus will come down on a cloud at the end times (Gospel of Luke), and 144,000 Jews will be converted. This is where Catholics (obviously) disagree, as well as Mainline Protestants (Millennialism and Dispensationalism being explicitly rejected in the Augsburg Confession and implicitly in the XXXIX Articles).

Of course the problem becomes which parts of the Bible are literal and which aren’t, but a careful study of the text from a Scholastic view allows one to accurately determine that.

Look at it this way:
Catholic: The Bible is the Word of God when interpreted by the Pope and with tradition is a source of doctrine.

Protestant: The Bible is the Word of God and sole source of doctrine, Jesus is the center of religion and it is a matter of faith that the Bible accurately describes his life. Other Confessions and Creeds (Nicene for example) are true because they accurately express the Bible.

Fundamentalist: The Bible is the Word of God and is the Center of Religion. Creeds are manmade and are to be ignored, if not downright heretical.

Look especially in the differences between a Protestant and Fundamentalist.

 

[JonNC]

=Prodigal Son1;6422453]Luther’s actions, or actions similar, had not been taken by others before, specifically changing canons of the Old Testament and his expressed opinions on the canon of the New Testatment. By changing canons of the Old Testament, certainly it drew into the debate the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books prior to an infallible decree.

If putting them in a different order, and adding the Prayer of Manasses is changing the canon, then ok. And his expressed opinions were held by many, including Jerome, and Cajetan.

It appears the differences between the two Churches are being used to validate all Churches started since the reformation. Now there are thousands of Churches that do not agree. Does that make it better?

I said in my last post that it doesn’t: "Again, to the contrary. It indicts them (schisms), and itself (the Great Schism), and all of us because we continue to allow His Church to be divided. There are some of us (not you) on both sides that seem to glory in the division."
No excuses, we are all guilty of dividing His Church, wounding His ministry to the world. Each one of us, each of our communions, when we wish to point the finger of blame, should do so in a mirror.

Both Churches do in fact have Apostolic authority, through Apostolic succession, Sacred Tradition and both are, together, the one true Church, with Apostolic succession and Sacred Traditions. The differences between the two become minute when measured against the differences of thousands of Churches in the world today. As opposed to working through those minute differences between the two Churches, there are now major differences that have to be worked through to unify the Church as one, as it was intended to be, according to scriptures.

When I view threads between Catholic and Orthodox Christians here, the differences do not seem minute. In fact, I find them to be some of the harshest exchanges.

Making no claim of infallible interpretation, or exclusivity, does not make a Church correct, or the one true Church itself. It would be more like being a spectator to others trying to work out a unification, if it wasn’t one that keeps bringing up the differences between the two Churches, which appears to be a vested interest in keeping a division between the two.

It seems you and I agree on this, as we do on other things. Much more time should be spent celebrating our commonalities, and searching, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for solutions to our divergences. With Him all things are possible.

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If putting them in a different order, and adding the Prayer of Manasses is changing the canon, then ok. And his expressed opinions were held by many, including Jerome, and Cajetan.

The only difference is that those who held such opinion did not take measures to impose their opinion above the collective Church’s opinion.

When I view threads between Catholic and Orthodox Christians here, the differences do not seem minute. In fact, I find them to be some of the harshest exchanges.

I see those exchanges and often wonder if those participating are really interested in a unification.

It seems you and I agree on this, as we do on other things. Much more time should be spent celebrating our commonalities, and searching, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for solutions to our divergences. With Him all things are possible.

Jon

The solutions will come…maybe not in this lifetime, but there will be a unification.

 

[Spencerian]

I would be interested in reading about the point at which the Orthodox “added” the remaining books of the Septuagint to their canon, specifically that it occurred after 1054 AD.

While the overall theology remained congruent between the eastern and western Churches, some differences in their Old Testament canon occurred due to cultural norms as well as sources.

[There were versions of the Septuagint (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm), such as the Codex Vaticanus (western churches) and the Codex Sinaiticus (eastern churches). These versions came about because Jews in different locations favored differing books than other Jews.

While both versions used by the eastern and western churches contained the same core books considered inspired over several synods and councils prior to 1054, some eastern churches privately adapted books from their version of the LXX (and other related sources) that the western churches never had in their codices, such as 3 Maccabees and 1 and 2 Esdras.

Over time after the split, these books become a permanent part of the Orthodox OT canon:
*

• 1st and 2nd Esdras
• Prayer of Manasseh
• Psalm 151
• 3rd Maccabees

 

[JonNC]

=Prodigal Son1;6422618]The only difference is that those who held such opinion did not take measures to impose their opinion above the collective Church’s opinion.

One can only speculate if Father Martin would have handled it differently had he not been excommunicated. I suspect he might have, considering the fact that, regardless of his personal opinion, he still took the time and effort to translate the D-C’s and Prayer of Manasses into German.

I see those exchanges and often wonder if those participating are really interested in a unification.

Ditto when I see some discussions between western Christians.

The solutions will come…maybe not in this lifetime, but there will be a unification.

The Church Triumphant for sure, and the gates of Hell will not prevail!

Jon

 

[power_load87]

I ask the question of Non-Catholics specifically because, from reading other posts, I think I already have a fairly good grasp of the Catholic position.

I actually posted this on some websites specifically for Protestants and, I’m sorry to say, I thought the answers were really, really weak. But I’ve asked questions of non-Catholics here, and I have found their answers to be very well thought out, even if I disagree with them, so I’m looking for more of the same!!
The answers I have gotten so far, from the other websites:

1. The Holy Spirit told me so. (This is not helpful to me, as I see many other God-loving people following different books because that’s what the Holy Spirit told them to do. Also, the Holy Spirit doesn’t tell me jack, or maybe that small, still voice gets shouted out by my obnoxious one. Either way, this is not helpful.)
2. It inspires me, and so it is inspired. (But that’s confusing emotions with objectivity. Additionally, oddly enough, the most inspiring book in the Bible to me is Sirach, which Protestants don’t recognize as being inspired)
3. It lists prophecies that came true. (That may very well be the case, but it also list prophecies that have yet to pass, as in the Book of Revelation, and additionally, I went to a psychic when I was 20 and that lady was DEAD ON. Freaky. And I certainly dont’ think her words were divinely inspired.)
4. It says it’s divinely inspired. (I would argue that it does not say that. Additionally, other books - like the Book of Mormon - claim to be divinely inspired, as did my psychic friend, and those are not either. I can claim to be a fish, but that doesn’t make it so.)
5. It lists events that are historically accurate. (So does my history book, but again, not divine)
6. It was compiled by many different authors over many different times. (I still don’t quite understand how this would translate to God-breathed.)

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. At the other websites, I got these types of answers, or I was told that I just needed more faith. Thanks again for your time!

The word of God is truth from God. The bible is simply man’s attempt of capturing on paper the word of God interacting with man. Those who make the bible as a whole the word of God simply make a false God for themsleves.

The bible in many places does not present a solid truth. For example the book of Matthew records Jesus driving out the money changers from the temple on the same day as the triumphal entry(Jesus rides donkey). The book of Mark presents this same event (Jesus cleansing the temple) on the day after the triumphal entry. The book of John places this event in the second chapter of John meaning/implying the event occured 2 years before it acctually occured.

Man Cannot make the claim that the bible was inspired by God if it contains such errors in testimony because the bible also records that God is not the author of confusion, yet confusion for when this event occured is presented by all versions of the bible in it’s current state of preservation. Jesus never promised us a book. Jesus promised a spirit of truth to be poured out on the true followers of God. Jesus also promised his followers would be able to do all that he could. Where are those people today?

I’m new to this forum so I hope my percptions which are truthful according to my current perceptions are not deemed offensive. I have recently finished a study that I found to be amazing and I shared this study in the thread titled “A study to share for the Passover and Easter”.

I recomend this study for the many objective truths it shares. I am not in agreeance with all that it presents towards the end of the study, but it does make a compelling case for what it presents.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hello Amateur Pianist

You said for you personally it was #1. The Holy Spirit told me so. It sounds nice but that can’t be the answer. The reason it can never be the answer is because any other person from any other religion or faith can claim the same thing. Ex. Mormons, JW, Methodist, etc… We all know that God does not contradict himself and he’s all knowing. Well if he tells you the bible is inspired and then goes and tells the mormons there LDS book is inspired, we have a problem. Both can’t be right but both claim the Holy Spirit told them so. You have to leave God out.

That is all nice…but…

I am simply and honestly relating to you what happened in my life to how I came to believe the Bible is divinely inspired (that is the topic of this thread isn’t it)? Why don’[t you believe me?

You speak of #7 the church that God Led. There is a problem with this also. God created One Holy Universal (katolicos in greek, catholic in english) and Apostolic Church. We can’t all be right but over 9000 denominations declare they are the true church. Think about it, he built one but thousands claim to be the one. This one church is the true visible church. What church can claim to be apostolic?

That is all nice…but…

The organization that was responsible for sharing Jesus Christ with me was not yours. It was a different organization. And the different organization is the one that taught me the Bible was inspired.

Now maybe if your organization was the one that was responsible for sharing Jesus Christ with me and leading me to Him, my story would be different. But that is not the way that it happened.
lna419;6419279:

That leaves us with #8 "because it seems reasonable that God would leave a divinely inspired written account of Himself. Of course it’s reasonable, human nature dictates that we leave historical documents behind. The only thing is that it didn’t magically fall from the sky. The bible we have today didn’t always exist. It took a little over 350 years to put the book together. When Paul writes to timothy and says to him all scripture is inspires, he was speaking of the old Testament. Half of pauls epistles weren’t even written along with revelation and others. My question to you is if all these books were not written yet how could they be considered inspired, they didn’t exist.

That it nice…but…

When I was a young Christian I was not smart enough to ask all of these nice little questions. I was just taught that the Bible was inspired by the church that Jesus led me into (that was responsible for bringing me to Christ) and this truth is something that God confirmed in my heart.

I am just relaying how this happened in my life (per the subject of this thread). Why is this a problem?

 

[SSTeacher]

I ask the question of Non-Catholics specifically because, from reading other posts, I think I already have a fairly good grasp of the Catholic position.

I actually posted this on some websites specifically for Protestants and, I’m sorry to say, I thought the answers were really, really weak. But I’ve asked questions of non-Catholics here, and I have found their answers to be very well thought out, even if I disagree with them, so I’m looking for more of the same!!
The answers I have gotten so far, from the other websites:

1. The Holy Spirit told me so. (This is not helpful to me, as I see many other God-loving people following different books because that’s what the Holy Spirit told them to do. Also, the Holy Spirit doesn’t tell me jack, or maybe that small, still voice gets shouted out by my obnoxious one. Either way, this is not helpful.)
2. It inspires me, and so it is inspired. (But that’s confusing emotions with objectivity. Additionally, oddly enough, the most inspiring book in the Bible to me is Sirach, which Protestants don’t recognize as being inspired)
3. It lists prophecies that came true. (That may very well be the case, but it also list prophecies that have yet to pass, as in the Book of Revelation, and additionally, I went to a psychic when I was 20 and that lady was DEAD ON. Freaky. And I certainly dont’ think her words were divinely inspired.)
4. It says it’s divinely inspired. (I would argue that it does not say that. Additionally, other books - like the Book of Mormon - claim to be divinely inspired, as did my psychic friend, and those are not either. I can claim to be a fish, but that doesn’t make it so.)
5. It lists events that are historically accurate. (So does my history book, but again, not divine)
6. It was compiled by many different authors over many different times. (I still don’t quite understand how this would translate to God-breathed.)

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. At the other websites, I got these types of answers, or I was told that I just needed more faith. Thanks again for your time!

During the time I was an Evangelical, I not only spent much time reading the Bible I also made a great effort to appreciate how it was put together so the question as to why I believed the Bible was inspired came only as an afterthought. When that question did present itself to me, I guess the context can be reasonably compared with that of a cradle Catholic who’d reached his or her teens and had begun to question why he or she was a Catholic. In other words, I’d already arrived at the point where my presuppositions were well in place.

The thought sequence from my former Evangelical (SOLO Scriptura) viewpoint went something like this (at that time, by the way, the Orthodox Church was a mystery to me – I supposed Orthodox Christians were “Catholics without a pope” or something similar):

**“Although Christendom itself is fragmented, there is no doubt that all Christians revere the Bible and have presumably done so from the outset. Some may say the Bible is inspired, some may say it’s infallible, and some may say it’s inerrant but those seem to me to be just different terms to describe what is generally agreed among Christians is the Word of God.

It’s true that Catholics argue that our (Evangelical) Bible is truncated. However, since most of the Catholics I’ve met never read their Bible (if they even possess one) and consequently haven’t the faintest idea as to what might be in it, the argument that our Bible is deficient is probably only adduced by a few Catholic polemicists who’ve learned the titles of the books of the Apocrypha for apologetic purposes but actually have no particular interest in the content of those books. In any case all the disputed books are in the Old Testament and therefore none of them can possibly contain any instruction on Christian doctrine and lifestyle so they aren’t exactly essential, which means I can manage without them just like all my fellow Evangelicals are doing.”**

The claim made by Catholics that it was the Catholic Church that had put the Bible together and therefore only the Catholic Church could interpret the Bible caused me to be a little uneasy for quite some time but I eventually encountered the idea that the Bible is the Word of God not because the Catholic Church announced that it was so but simply because it was the Word of God. So the Catholic Church could rightly claim to be the “discoverer” of the canon but to claim that it was the “master” or “owner” of the canon didn’t necessarily follow. I immediately adopted that line and soon felt comfortable with it whereupon my uneasiness dissipated.

To summarize my SOLO Scriptura stance:

1. I interpret the Bible for myself as I see fit.
2. So there.
3. Ummm.
4. That’s it.

That’s pretty much how things were with me when I was an Evangelical.

Nostalgically,
Mick

 

[simplynoone]

I ask the question of Non-Catholics specifically because, from reading other posts, I think I already have a fairly good grasp of the Catholic position.

I actually posted this on some websites specifically for Protestants and, I’m sorry to say, I thought the answers were really, really weak. But I’ve asked questions of non-Catholics here, and I have found their answers to be very well thought out, even if I disagree with them, so I’m looking for more of the same!!
The answers I have gotten so far, from the other websites:

1. The Holy Spirit told me so. (This is not helpful to me, as I see many other God-loving people following different books because that’s what the Holy Spirit told them to do. Also, the Holy Spirit doesn’t tell me jack, or maybe that small, still voice gets shouted out by my obnoxious one. Either way, this is not helpful.)
2. It inspires me, and so it is inspired. (But that’s confusing emotions with objectivity. Additionally, oddly enough, the most inspiring book in the Bible to me is Sirach, which Protestants don’t recognize as being inspired)
3. It lists prophecies that came true. (That may very well be the case, but it also list prophecies that have yet to pass, as in the Book of Revelation, and additionally, I went to a psychic when I was 20 and that lady was DEAD ON. Freaky. And I certainly dont’ think her words were divinely inspired.)
4. It says it’s divinely inspired. (I would argue that it does not say that. Additionally, other books - like the Book of Mormon - claim to be divinely inspired, as did my psychic friend, and those are not either. I can claim to be a fish, but that doesn’t make it so.)
5. It lists events that are historically accurate. (So does my history book, but again, not divine)
6. It was compiled by many different authors over many different times. (I still don’t quite understand how this would translate to God-breathed.)

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. At the other websites, I got these types of answers, or I was told that I just needed more faith. Thanks again for your time!

I was not raised in Catholicism and rather in the tradition of independent Baptists … i.e. Christianity (though, I agree that the Catholic Church is most in keeping w/ Christianity as it was laid out by Paul II Timothy 2:8).

I find Christianity in general to be an obvious work of one (obviously Paul) who was overwhelmed w/ jealousy and greed (if you find yourself offended, it was not my intent and rather … you should not worry of my opinion as I am clearly in the minority here and really, all over … thus, I pose no threat to your way of thinking … that I am aware of anyway).

Yet, I find the gospels, if taken as a whole, to be a parable of what it is written in the testimonies of the prophets … ultimately, to be a sort of test of what it was commanded to the Jews in their laws of justice and peace specifically created to cater to this peculiar People.

I find my deepest and most profound source of inspiration to be in the pages of the Tanach, the Hebrew Scriptures … the words I read (well, as I read it in my english version) are, IMHO, to be that of Divine origin given that I have thrown off the faith of ALL men and rather chosen to follow the “Voice” that clearly spoke to me from out of “the fire.” Deuteronomy 4:12 <— and that understanding I came to BEFORE I saw the words even written out in that way.

I can’t deny that the path I have been given is mapped out in such a strange way w/in the pages of this People that walked the earth long before I did. That is startling to me always and certainly something I feel necessary to take note of … for me, anyway. Then, I don’t believe and rather I KNOW the words of the Tanach are Divinely inspired … and whether or not anyone else acknowledges that, I am learning it matters little as it should apply to my own self. .

 

[Proallen]

Hi.

The reason that Catholic and Orthodox canons differ is simply because that our Orthodox brethren later added books to their Old Testament canon after their separation from Rome in 1054. These books are: 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees–all Old Testament books. The New Testament books are identical with the Catholic canon as established at the Synod of Hippo in the 3rd Century.

Five hundred years later, protestantism moved 7 of the New Testament books (which appear and are identical in both Catholic and Orthodox scriptures) into an appendix. After some printing presses removed them to save printing costs, some Protestant faiths today pretend that these books were never considered as inspired.

But both Catholic and Orthodox faiths, the oldest roots of Christianity, still have these 7 books.

However, the Bible is only part of both Orthodox and Catholic traditions. Both faiths share Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession and teaching authority. Their priests and bishops are just a validly ordained as Catholic clergy.

I would think that a Christian tradition that wants the complete word of God and considers the Bible alone as the only tool needed for worship would have more books in their bible, not less.

So, the simple answer is, the fullness of truth comes from either Catholic or Orthodox canons, for they hold more, not less, than Protestant scriptures.

There are over 30,000 Protestant traditions. Many of them have modified the KJB Authorized Version, creating their own scriptures. Some have badly or intentionally mistranslated their versions, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. A few have even added books not found in any other Christian tradition (such as the Mormons).

The Catholic and Orthodox testaments are identical in the New Testament and remain inclusive to each other in Old Testament.

I return the question to you. Which of your faith’s 30,000 biblical interpretations is the correct one?

This is an interesting philosophy but unfortunately not a correct one. Firstly, are the books that the Orthodox church added to the OT inspired or not?? You seem to present it as if it’s not a big deal. Secondly, the apocrypha which you were referring to has many many errors in it which many Catholics would admit to. St. Jerome when compiling the Latin Vulgate even set those books aside from the Scriptures. Hebraic Jews still to this day do not consider those books inspired either. There has been questions about the apocrypha long before Protestantism.

And as far as the 30,000 Protestant denominations (which has been proven to be bogus), there are probably more opinions of what Scripture says amongst Catholic parishioners than that. So what that Catholic magisterium and doctrine are solid?? So are Protestant doctrines and they have the same problem of ununified members.

 

[KathleenGee]

Atleast people are worshipping together…we are together. We are all on different levels of faith, and that is the beauty of it as well.

When we have community growth programs, that is a time for people to share – and to learn.

Usually in parishes of past, the people that were dissenting from church teachings were usually the ones in power. So you had the people in leadership trying to control, and then you had the parishioners enduring and praying and drawing more on Catholic sources besides the sacraments to nurture their faith.

People who dissent, I have learned, come on real soon in a group. And we accept them, share, but finally someone will come forward to express their Catholic faith with conviction. Either the person learns or leaves the group.

 

[dove1967]

Because God said it is.
2 Tim 3: 14–17. 2 Peter 1: 20–21.

YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT!!

 

[Spencerian]

This is an interesting philosophy but unfortunately not a correct one. Firstly, are the books that the Orthodox church added to the OT inspired or not?? You seem to present it as if it’s not a big deal. Secondly, the apocrypha which you were referring to has many many errors in it which many Catholics would admit to. St. Jerome when compiling the Latin Vulgate even set those books aside from the Scriptures. Hebraic Jews still to this day do not consider those books inspired either. There has been questions about the apocrypha long before Protestantism.

And as far as the 30,000 Protestant denominations (which has been proven to be bogus), there are probably more opinions of what Scripture says amongst Catholic parishioners than that. So what that Catholic magisterium and doctrine are solid?? So are Protestant doctrines and they have the same problem of ununified members.

Proallen,

Since I am not Orthodox and don’t speak for them, I can only tell you what information has been recorded about their differences in canon. Obviously, the few OT books that they have that aren’t in the Catholic OT canon are considered as inspired by them.

I don’t know who you mean by “Hebraic Jews.” You cannot speak of the Jews as a monolithic group. The reason we have the deuterocanonical books is because there were differing bodies of worship (and their canons) between the Jews themselves: the Palestinian Jews (protocanonical books) and Alexandrian Jews (deuterocanonical books). Christians decided to include both sets of books as part of the OT canon as time passed.

What Protestants call the “Apocrypha,” what Catholics know as the deuterocanonical books, have always been a part of the Old Testament canon. I would need to see your source that proves your claim of St. Jerome, a claim which flies in the face of reason since the Latin Vulgate he compiled was *the *official translation of the Bible for the Catholic Church for many years until the Protestant Schism.

There are no errors in Scripture. It is inerrant. If our Bible has error, then it follows that **all **copies of Scripture (including your own) would also be suspect, for the Bible did not simply fall from the sky. It was compiled and codified by the early Christians of the only Church at the time, the Catholic Church, centuries after Christ’s ascension, and millenia before the first Protestant faiths arose and created an English translation of the Latin Vulgate (moving 7 books to an appendix).

We as Catholics hold true to our Magisterium’s interpretations but remain quite free to debate the significance of the interpretations. It saves all of us from making the mistake of interpreting in error, and has done so for 2,000 years. We are one, the Catholic Church. Over 1 billion people follow the tenets established long ago. The arguments and disagreements over Scripture, sadly, only exist with our Protestant brethen–otherwise, there wouldn’t be over 30,000 interpretations, bogus or not. I can create an entire thread about the differences there.

Many people claim to follow Christ, Catholic or no. What few disagreements in our Church come from those who do not follow the Church’s teachings. We pray for them as we pray for those outside of the Church who are in service to Christ.

You said that all 30,000 Protestant denominations are bogus. Since you’ve listed *yourself *as a Protestant, I’m not sure you’re helping your argument.