Catholicism vs Protestantism

Is this the idea that you are putting forward? Go with scripture only, Sola scriptura, and decide for yourself what is scripture?

I understand but wouldn't you agree that a unbeliever Biblically cannot find salvation on his own merits? What do you preach to unbelievers about salvation? Reason I ask is in your opinion does Catholicism lead to salvation? If no then wouldn't you be afraid that your friends destination would be the same?

Many people on here says it doesn't lead to salvation.

I never read directly those book but some article that quote that book I did, and to me its not consistent with the Bible

Sola Scriptura is a solidly biblical doctrine (Matthew 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16,17). However Christians do not decide for themselves what is Scripture and what is not. The Holy Spirit has already guided the early Christians to exclude all the books that do not belong in the Bible.

Christ Himself established the divine inspiration of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), which is presently the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. See Luke 24. Those 24 books were split into 39 in the Septuagint, but the Reformers retained that arrangement. However, they should really have followed the Tanakh which has three major divisions -- Torah (5 books), Neviim (8 books), and Ketuvim (11 books).

The Holy Spirit led Peter to confirm that over half the New Testament (NT) -- all the epistles of Paul -- were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). There are other books in the NT which testify to their divine inspiration. And there are probably five books which do not directly say that they are inspired, but they are in perfect harmony with the rest of the Bible, and have been accepted as Scripture since the 2nd century (since they are found in the Syriac Peshitta).

The Septuagint (LXX) was a Greek corruption of the Old Testament (OT) from around 200 BC, which incorporated 50 apocryphal books (which were never a part of the Tanakh).

The Orthodox churches allowed some of these books to remain within their bibles. The Catholic church chose seven of those books to remain in their bibles. Had the Catholic church accepted the recommendation of their scholar Jerome (who translated directly out of both the Hebrew and Greek to produce the Latin Vulgate) those apocryphal books [called "deutero-canonical" (second canon) by the RCC] would have been removed.

By the time of the Reformation the RCC was bound and determined to prove that they had the correct Bible, therefore the Council of Trent declared those books to be canonical. Thus Catholics believe that they have seven extra books in their OT.

When the King James Bible was first published it included the Apocrypha between the two testaments. But the preface of the translators made it clear that it was not Scripture, but an adjunct. Eventually it was removed (as was the preface).

This is ahistorical. It could be argued that the reformers were led to reject what is now considered apocrypha, but early councils that met on the issue recognized those books. Christian writers who gave lists recognized those books. Early manuscripts recognized those books. So why did the Holy Spirit wait until Martin Luther to exclude them in favor of the canon set by Jewish leaders in reaction to Christianitys rise at the council of Jamnia?

Well it is not likely that if folks do not read the 66 books recognized as canonical it is not likely that they will read the apocryphal book or the gnostic books except to find an excuse to not believe the bible.

There is no question as to whether the epistle to the Romans or the gospel of John should be in the bible. Reconcile your beliefs here first then we will discuss these additional writings.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

...a version of scripture being edit...

...theology has driven translation...

It could be argued that the reformers were led to reject what is now considered apocrypha, but early councils that met on the issue recognized those books.

Yep, the version without apocrypha

Early councils were not investigating those books. But Jerome did investigate them and rejected them as being non-canonical. And the final authority is Christ Himself, who made it perfectly clear that only the 24 books of the Hebrew Tanakh were Scripture. Please read and study -- and digest -- Luke 24.

...Holy Spirit will lead us to understand Bible...

Seems to beg the question. Your opinion of what Bible doctrine is doesn't determine what the Bible is. Those books were in use when Jesus preached.

Your opinion of what Bible doctrine is doesn't determine what the Bible is.

So other than your opinion, what reason do you have for rejecting books that until the 1600s were basically universally recognized to be part of the Bible?

Sorry, I don't understand this part.

Sola Scriptura is a solidly biblical doctrine (Matthew 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16,17). However Christians do not decide for themselves what is Scripture and what is not. The Holy Spirit has already guided the early Christians to exclude all the books that do not belong in the Bible.

Christ Himself established the divine inspiration of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), which is presently the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. See Luke 24. Those 24 books were split into 39 in the Septuagint, but the Reformers retained that arrangement. However, they should really have followed the Tanakh which has three major divisions -- Torah (5 books), Neviim (8 books), and Ketuvim (11 books).

The Holy Spirit led Peter to confirm that over half the New Testament (NT) -- all the epistles of Paul -- were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). There are other books in the NT which testify to their divine inspiration. And there are probably five books which do not directly say that they are inspired, but they are in perfect harmony with the rest of the Bible, and have been accepted as Scripture since the 2nd century (since they are found in the Syriac Peshitta).

The Septuagint (LXX) was a Greek corruption of the Old Testament (OT) from around 200 BC, which incorporated 50 apocryphal books (which were never a part of the Tanakh).

The Orthodox churches allowed some of these books to remain within their bibles. The Catholic church chose seven of those books to remain in their bibles. Had the Catholic church accepted the recommendation of their scholar Jerome (who translated directly out of both the Hebrew and Greek to produce the Latin Vulgate) those apocryphal books [called "deutero-canonical" (second canon) by the RCC] would have been removed.

By the time of the Reformation the RCC was bound and determined to prove that they had the correct Bible, therefore the Council of Trent declared those books to be canonical. Thus Catholics believe that they have seven extra books in their OT.

When the King James Bible was first published it included the Apocrypha between the two testaments. But the preface of the translators made it clear that it was not Scripture, but an adjunct. Eventually it was removed (as was the preface).

The Holy Spirit has already guided the early Christians to exclude all the books that do not belong in the Bible.

I'm glad you said that because maybe it can save us a lot of time.

It is good that the spirit helps us to understand the scriptures!

It's just that we are then no longer using scripture alone as "the soul rule of faith and practice". We are using scripture plus spirit.

In Latin I think that would be "scriptura et spiritus".

Do you feel that God led you to choose that version of the Bible?

I think one of the brother say that unless you read bible in original language you read people opinion.

So I ask if that mean translator edit the original bible

And we use our eyes to read, and for me I need glases.

Not in that context brother.

Scriptura is the source of teaching, Holy Spirit help us to understand.

Thanks!

Yes, translators do edit the Bible based on their opinions. It's a necessary part of deciding how to best translate the original into the destination language.