Catholicism vs Protestantism

Well, your eyes and glasses wouldn't alter your understanding of the words.

But the spirit may give a different understanding then a human would reach on their own.

So, a different rule (guide or measurement).

Again, maybe we can save some steps in our discussion, or maybe we would benefit by going step by step.

Yep, and do you feel God led you to believe apocrypha ?

Seem to me you know those book very well, is that book teach you to pray to mary? What part or verse in the what you call bible teach you pray to Mary or it is ok to sale forgiveness.



But your opinion is? Than every body has his own opinion.



Other than my opinion? Do you expect your opinion?

No I like my own opinion.

Other than your opinion what the reason you accept those book as part of the Bible?

Yep, and do you feel God led you to believe apocrypha ?

I agree, if we have time and talent to learn koine Greek we better do it. But I don't have a talent to learn language, to old to learn new language

which early Christians are you referring to?

I actually have never read the deuterocanonical books, nor do I pray to Mary. My goal is not to get you to accept those books, nor to argue for their inclusion but to demonstrate something.

Other than my opinion the reason I accept the deuterocanonical books as having a status of deuterocanonical rather than apocryphal(that is to say not having the full force of Scripture but having value as guides) is because the history of canon has treated them as such outside of a handful of individuals who rejected them. Canon gets its force through tradition recognizing the work of the Holy Spirit. We cannot divorce doctrine from the history of doctrine.

I'm impressed that you have learned as much English as you have!

Since tradition affects translation, if we are using a translation, we are also using tradition, aren't we?

I don't think that's all bad, after all
2 Thessalonians 2: 15 So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter.

Other than historical what make you believe deut is part of the Bible but not apo? Any verse that tell you deut yes apo no?

Historical acceptance is pretty much the only non-direct revelation reason for maintaining something as Scripture. I accept the Pentateuch because the kingdom of Israel accepted it, I accept the prophets because the people before me accepted it, I accept the NT because Christians before me accepted it. The Bible didn't come as a completed text handed down from God but was a canonized document, and recognizing the methods and historical basis of that canonization is critical to justifying Scripture and excluding unscriptural writings. We cannot even begin to discuss the question of what the Bible says until we decide the full measure of what the Bible is. And that takes appealing to tradition.

That premis is right in one condition

If no body make up or edit the real history and make false history.

History is subject to investigation.

For example, catholic make history that Peter was the first pope in Rome.

Read act, you will find apaul was, Bible never mention Peter being in rome

The issue with protestants isn't their opposition to the pope or some of the doctrines of Catholics, it's their insistence on an ahistorical method of establishing doctrine.

Unless you can prove from Scripture that historical positions were consistently biblical, this is just hot air. The final authority is the Word of God, and Protestants insisted on that. The Catholic church -- on the other hand -- elevated Tradition to the level of Scripture. Something which was seriously condemned by Christ.

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.

I'm not sure a single body would be capable of editing history in that sense. And I'm not saying we should trust a single body to determine what to believe, but we must look to history as best we can when examining doctrine. We have the writings of the ante-nicene fathers we can read, we have the historical records of the papacy so we can see how it developed. We have a pretty good history of the episcopacy so we can make a reasoned determination. We can trace how the Roman church first justified its position of leadership in the church based on Paul and Peter being martyred there and how legal and doctrinal maneuvering resulted in the establishment of the papacy with Leo 1. Tradition is not opposed to Biblical doctrine, but establishing Biblical doctrine without grounding it in tradition results in heterodoxy and heresy. The issue with protestants isn't their opposition to the pope or some of the doctrines of Catholics, it's their insistence on an ahistorical method of establishing doctrine.

It doesn't matter wether single person or 100 person, liar is liar
History of my country about 1965 coup detat was lie and was approve by thousand government people but most expert now know it was lie



Read act 28 and you will see the strong indicator Paul not Peter is the founder of church in rome

20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.

21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.

22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

Paul was in Rome about ad 61 and catholic say Peter there since ad 32

Do you believe in ad 61 after Peter there for 29 years Paul ask to the Jews if they heard about thi sect (Christianity) and they say no but they like to hear

What Peter did for 29 years there

I believe catholic is lie

You can say you have document or what ever, but I will compare with the Bible if not reasonable than I call it lie.

Catholic has history of lie

Example if you pay them your love one will out from purgatory sooner etc

So I am not trust history by catholic

Certainly, historical positions need to be defended with Scripture but Scripture gets its force of authority because it is authoritative tradition. It's not as if when Jesus came He brought a book with Him that detailed everything we need to know, instead we took apostolic tradition and gave it the color of authority through canonization. To even define Scripture we must appeal to historical tradition otherwise gnostic gospels, Jewish apocalypses, and all sorts of other writings are fair game. If we fail to look at the history of doctrine we're bound to invent doctrine and call it what Scripture teaches and then we are not bowing to Scripture but our own opinions and more often than not that's exactly what those in the reformed tradition have done. In effect the interpretation of Augustine via Luther, Calvin, et all has become elevated to an official tradition rather than breaking doctrine on Scripture.

My friend, you're fighting a battle I have no part in. Both Peter and Paul are said to have been martyred in Rome and that claim traces back to the earliest church documents. But that's not really here nor there. History can certainly be lied about for a time, but the truth tends to come out eventually. We have writings from the earliest church documenting a rich history we don't have to trust the claims of an authoritative body. We can read Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Clement, and many others for ourselves and determine what their doctrine was. We can trace back interpretations to their founders a lot of the time. If we fail to check our own interpretations against those that came before we aren't trusting Scripture but our own opinions.

But I don't believe catholic history, it doesn't matter if lie do by single person or thousand person lie is lie

20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.

Act 28
21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.

22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

Base on Jew history Paul was come to Rome about AD 60

Catholic say Peter had been there since AD 32

After 28 years Peter preach the gospel Paul ask Jew to come and they say they never heard about thi sect ( Christianity) to me it mean Peter not there and catholic is lie