A little history please!

[misti88]

What were the reasons behind Luther omitting parts of Esther and parts of Daniel? I have read them over and over and can find nothing controversial. At least as far as I’m concerned but maybe I’m a little bias. Also if besides the fact that he didn’t think them divine why all of the other 7 books?

Thanx

 

[christosdavid]

For the books of Daniel and Esther, Luther was working on the principle of Hebraica veritas and retained the sections only attested to by the Hebrew and Aramaic (of Daniel) as opposed to the extra chapters which were contained in the Greek (LXX) and then translated into the Latin version which he ommitted.

 

[misti88]

Thank you but I sure think that a very strange reason…it’s quite obvious they belong. If the people that think KJV read them and they were honest with themselves they would also wonder why the censorship!

 

[TimothyH]

This is speculation. I know little about the history of Luther and the so called reformation.

The Book of Wisdom is not favorable to those who deny that transubstantiation is possible, that it takes place, or that it is God’s will.

In Chapter 16 of the Book of Wisdom, the author compares the rain of hail and fire upon Egypt with the rain of manna on Israel in the desert. In this comparison, he notes that the elements of fire and water, as well as the manna, both had their physical properties changed by God.

For against all expectation, in water which quenches everything, the fire grew more active; … And again, even in the water, fire blazed beyond its strength so as to consume the produce of the wicked land. (Wisdom 16:17, 19)

For this substance of yours revealed your sweetness toward your children, and serving the desire of the one who received it, was changed to whatever flavor each one wished. (Wisdom 16:21)

Chapter 19 is even more blatant. It not only states that the physical properties of substances were changed, but that elements themselves and even creatures changed places.

For the elements, in ever-changing harmony,
like strings of the harp, produce new melody,
while the flow of music steadily persists.
And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
For land creatures were changed into water creatures,
and those that swam went over on land.
Fire in water maintained its own strength,
and water forgot its quenching nature;
Flames, by contrast, neither consumed the flesh
of the perishable animals that went about in them,
nor melted the icelike, quick-melting kind of ambrosial food.
(Wisdom 19:18-21)

I find the last line most interesting. While the ambrosial food - manna - was melted at sunrise six days of the week, it was not melted on the seventh day, and this with no difference in the substance percievable to humans.

-Tim-

 

[misti88]

Could you explain these verses for me,exactly what are they pertaining to that would be such a bother to the Protestants. These are things I was raised with and have never questioned;not that I am questioning now but I have just recently discovered that all the bibles that are out there are not the same as the Catholic bible. I have been studying lately, the difference not only in the bibles but in the belief’s of other religions. Some I knew were extremely different the obvious ones]. But I started a bible study with my in-laws who are SDA and I was flabbergasted by there beliefs and there disbelief’s. My husband never really practiced and for 25 years I thought the only difference was going to church on Sat. not doing ANYTHING from Fri. night to Sat. night and not eating pork and shellfish, bottom dwellers and alot of them were vegetarians. Boy o boy did I just about have a fit when they started in on soul sleeping and no eternal hell or Purgatory and we were sinning by not obeying the Mosaic Laws. At 46 I am still so ignorant on so much.

~Misti

 

[larsenl1]

Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons have lots of beliefs that are not what is considered mainstream Protestants.

Another poster answered the question about the 7 books. See, the Jewish rabbis rejected books that were not in Hebrew due to the diaspora, the fact that a lot of Jews live in foreign countries and so the one thing that united them was language. All along, though, the apostles and the churches they started used the entire Septuagenit.

Luther actually discarded books that were trusted for 1500 odd years because he went to the the version used by Rabbis.

I may not be getting all the technical jargon right, but that is the basic idea.

Most Protestants do no believe in Transubstantiation, the fact that the words of consecration bring down the holy spirit, time collapses, and the eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ.

They believe it pretends to be the the body and blood. Most protestant churches do not offer eucharist at every worship service. Lutherans will offer it every other week, Methodist once a month and they focus on the sermon and the hymns as the most important part of worship and oh by the way service is going to be longer today because there is communion.

I would encourage you to attend RCIA classes to learn more about your faith.

God Bless

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have heard that the Jews rejected the Greek books because conversions to Christianity were much higher among the Greek speaking Jews. Also, after the destruction of the Temple, the Jews became very xenophobic and rejected all foreign influences.

I understood that Luther, having rejected the authority of the Catholic Church to define the Bible, turned to the Jews as the remaining authority for defining the Bible. Don’t know how he justified the New Testament under that rule.

 

[Crumpy]

Luther would be eating some crow today, about rejecting books that were not written in hebrew and aramaic. In fact, hebrew versions of some of the 7 books were found at Qumran in the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls.

So, according to Luther’s own rule, those books should be accepted as canonical, based on the historical evidence (which was lacking in Luther’s day).

Luther wanted to throw out the “catholic” books of the Bible. these were printed with the King James Version for a long time, until some people decided they did not want to distribute as scripture any books that supported Catholic points of view.

These are not real strong foundations for the followers of Luther. I thank God I was raised as a Catholic.

 

[nordskoven]

Luther chose to use the Masoretic text, the post-Jesus text aggregated to have a standard after the diaspora. Jesus used the Septuagint, the Catholic text. Rabbi Jacob Neusner suggests the Masoretic “Old Testament” shades some translation to avoid obvious fulfillments in the life of Christ.
*For against all expectation, in water which quenches everything, the fire grew more active; … And again, even in the water, fire blazed beyond its strength so as to consume the produce of the wicked land. (Wisdom 16:17, 19)**For this substance of yours revealed your sweetness toward your children, and serving the desire of the one who received it, was changed to whatever flavor each one wished. (Wisdom 16:21)*Chapter 19 is even more blatant. It not only states that the physical properties of substances were changed, but that elements themselves and even creatures changed places.
For the elements, in ever-changing harmony,
like strings of the harp, produce new melody,
while the flow of music steadily persists.
And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
For land creatures were changed into water creatures,
and those that swam went over on land.
Fire in water maintained its own strength,
and water forgot its quenching nature;
Flames, by contrast, neither consumed the flesh
of the perishable animals that went about in them,
nor melted the icelike, quick-melting kind of ambrosial food.
(Wisdom 19:18-21)
I was interested in the Book of Wisdom excerpts. There is, on YouTube, a lot of interest in various hydrogen gas extraction and application methods. Some forms, Brown’s Gas, I believe, don’t burn your flesh but will melt rock, i.e., the action of the flame is contingent on the material being heated. So water burning is interesting as hydrogen is extracted from water, possibly by radiant heat from some anomaly in the Sun. Flames not consuming flesh sounds like the Brown’s Gas on YouTube. Hydrogen gas is used in soldering/melting high-temperature metals like platinum.

 

[larsenl1]

There is, on YouTube, a lot of interest in various hydrogen gas extraction and application methods. Some forms, Brown’s Gas, I believe, don’t burn your flesh but will melt rock, i.e., the action of the flame is contingent on the material being heated. So water burning is interesting as hydrogen is extracted from water, possibly by radiant heat from some anomaly in the Sun. Flames not consuming flesh sounds like the Brown’s Gas on YouTube. Hydrogen gas is used in soldering/melting high-temperature metals like platinum.

Couldn’t it just be God? I AM WHO AM can do anything. He does not have to follow the laws of physics.

 

[misti88]

couldn’t it just be god? I am who am can do anything. He does not have to follow the laws of physics.

i must agree! It is God…that’s what faith is believing when there is no explanation!

~Misti

 

[pablope]

What were the reasons behind Luther omitting parts of Esther and parts of Daniel? I have read them over and over and can find nothing controversial. At least as far as I’m concerned but maybe I’m a little bias. Also if besides the fact that he didn’t think them divine why all of the other 7 books?

Thanx

Just adding some…Luther changed the order of the bible…he placed the 7 DC books in an appendix like section…likewise, with the OT, there were books he considered not fit to be in the Bible…Jame, Jude, Revelation (there is one more which escapes me), and did the same thing, he placed them at the end.

There were varioius reasons…as explained by other posters. You might want to look up the Council of Jamnia.

The DC books were finally removed by a Bible Society , in the 1800s, so as to save money from printing costs.

I asked this question of a protestant, and you may try to ask your in laws. Ask them if they knew the basis for the removal of the DC books and the sections of Daniel and Esther.
If not, then educate them.

If they know, they most likely will cite Luther, or any other reason. But whatever the reason…it goes back to Luther…so I asked this question…“if you follow Luther’s opinion regarding the DC books that these should not be in the Bible, then why do you have the NT books that Luther also disputed in your Bible?” “Should these NT books then also be removed because Luther doubted their canonicity also?” If they say the NT books should be in the Bible, then why not the DC books also?

Most likely than not, they would not be aware that Luther also disputed 4 NT books.

As a follow up, ask them to cite the chapter and verse where St. Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark? Once you locate this chapter and verse, how do you now know that the Gospel of Mark should be in the Bible? How do you know it is the word of God? How do you know that it is not just anybody named Mark that wrote the Gospel of Mark?

Answer next time when you locate the chapter and verse where St. Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark.

Another question for you to research…“Why did St. Mark write his Gospel?”

 

[get2bill]

Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons have lots of beliefs that are not what is considered mainstream Protestants.

Another poster answered the question about the 7 books. See, the Jewish rabbis rejected books that were not in Hebrew due to the diaspora, the fact that a lot of Jews live in foreign countries and so the one thing that united them was language. All along, though, the apostles and the churches they started used the entire Septuagenit.

Luther actually discarded books that were trusted for 1500 odd years because he went to the the version used by Rabbis.

I may not be getting all the technical jargon right, but that is the basic idea.

Most Protestants do no believe in Transubstantiation, the fact that the words of consecration bring down the holy spirit, time collapses, and the eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ.

They believe it pretends to be the the body and blood. Most protestant churches do not offer eucharist at every worship service. Lutherans will offer it every other week, Methodist once a month and they focus on the sermon and the hymns as the most important part of worship and oh by the way service is going to be longer today because there is communion.

I would encourage you to attend RCIA classes to learn more about your faith.

God Bless

LCMS Lutherans have communion every Sunday and also believe it is the true body and blood of Christ. They just don’t claim to be so bold as to know the how. Catholics did not either until about the 11th/12th centuries.

 

[mjakemccoy]

This is a great question, and the root of most of the division between catholics and protestants. After Luther lost a debate on Purgatory handily, the Roman legate referrencing Maccabees and the praying for the dead, Luther decided to reject the Greek texts to defend his position. This was following in the foot steps of a Dr. of the Church, St. Jerome. St. Jerome was delegated by Pope Damasus I to translate the official Latin translation of the Bible at the end of the fourth century. Before this point there wasn’t a solid canon on the Bible we know today, this is the foundation of both the Catholic and Protestant Bibles of today. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Bible is still the official Catholic translation of the Bible.

In an attempt to accurately translate Hebrew, Jerome moved to Palestine and worked closely with rabbis to develop his skills. He is still considered the greatest translator the Church has had. Those rabbis convinced him that the Septuagint texts were apocryphal and not part of the original canon. But these were Jewish traditions from Jews who had rejected Jesus. Jews during the time of Christ recognized the books for the most part, but it wasn’t as official of a canon for them as we know today. Jews that followed Jesus, the Apostles, Paul and other disciples in the early Church did recognize these 7 books as inspired. The Jews first official rejection of these books was by rabbi Akiba ben Joseph in Tosefta Yahayim 2:13 around 118 AD. This was during the second Jewish uprising against Rome. Rabbi Akiba declared a messiah, Simon bar Cochba. Christianity caused divisions within Judaism, this rejection was clearly a move to answer the threat caused by these followers Jesus. Jerome went against the traditions of the Church in his assumptions, but the rest of the Church maintained that these were considered inspired by the Jews at the time of Christ, that they were also used by the Apostles, and are quoted as such throughout the New Testament. Jerome did translate these 7 books, but his commentary in the Vulgate remained, and it is important to remember that these commentaries are not the inspired infallible word of God. Luther’s motives in following Jerome’s footsteps were merely a quick fix to try to get rid of Purgatory. But it is important for all of us to see the friction caused by one mistake thousands of years ago by a Church Doctor, and the massive division it caused during the Reformation. Christians are called to be one, yet we have differing Bibles and it is important to know the history of why.

The history of the Bible is complicated, and not as simple as most would like, so many are ignorant to its’ whereabouts. But this is important history for Catholics and Protestants to understand. Gary Michuta wrote a great book on its’ history “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger”. It will answer many of these questions. Praise be Jesus Christ.

 

[RevG]

Jews that followed Jesus, the Apostles, Paul and other disciples in the early Church did recognize these 7 books as inspired.

I found this to be interesting reading, yet it is without proof. There is no proof anywhere that Jesus or the apostles held these books to be inspired. They had them at their disposal for use, but nothing shows that they were held as authoritative
.

Jerome went against the traditions of the Church in his assumptions, but the rest of the Church maintained that these were considered inspired by the Jews at the time of Christ,

It is interesting that Jerome, Tertullian and Augustine are not held in much esteem in this conversation since they all rejected the authority of the Apocrypha. Augustine used the book of Wisdom greatly, but rejected all of the others. So are these early church fathers not part of the discussion?

on a side note, someone made an earlier jab at Protestants not believing in transubstantitation, which is accurate, but I feel obligated to inform them that Augustine taught a symbolic Lord’s Supper…isn’t he one of the great minds in the church? Why is it that the church doesn’t follow his teachings?

Luther’s motives in following Jerome’s footsteps were merely a quick fix to try to get rid of Purgatory. But it is important for all of us to see the friction caused by one mistake thousands of years ago by a Church Doctor, and the massive division it caused during the Reformation. Christians are called to be one, yet we have differing Bibles and it is important to know the history of why.

Luther was a couple hundred years ago, and this is a misrepresented kindergarten version of the beginning of the Reformation. Luther actually wanted to reform the Catholic church since it was teaching doctrine not found in the canon, thus the name reformers.

 

[misti88]

I found this to be interesting reading, yet it is without proof. There is no proof anywhere that Jesus or the apostles held these books to be inspired. They had them at their disposal for use, but nothing shows that they were held as authoritative
.

It is interesting that Jerome, Tertullian and Augustine are not held in much esteem in this conversation since they all rejected the authority of the Apocrypha. Augustine used the book of Wisdom greatly, but rejected all of the others. So are these early church fathers not part of the discussion?

on a side note, someone made an earlier jab at Protestants not believing in transubstantitation, which is accurate, but I feel obligated to inform them that Augustine taught a symbolic Lord’s Supper…isn’t he one of the great minds in the church? Why is it that the church doesn’t follow his teachings?

Luther was a couple hundred years ago, and this is a misrepresented kindergarten version of the beginning of the Reformation. Luther actually wanted to reform the Catholic church since it was teaching doctrine not found in the canon, thus the name reformers.

All of these books in one way or another DO show proof of inspiration…read them again and let GOD INSPIRE YOU! The truth can be FELT it warms the heart and brings tears to my eyes…it fills me with such emotion there is NO doubt what the truth is. I feel truly sorry for those that don’t read for themselves and open their hearts for the LORDS guidance. Its so funny how religion is like politics…you believe what you were taught to believe not necessarily:blush: the TRUTH!

LET GOD BE YOUR TOUR GUIDE…

 

[mjakemccoy]

I found this to be interesting reading, yet it is without proof. There is no proof anywhere that Jesus or the apostles held these books to be inspired. They had them at their disposal for use, but nothing shows that they were held as authoritative
.

It is interesting that Jerome, Tertullian and Augustine are not held in much esteem in this conversation since they all rejected the authority of the Apocrypha. Augustine used the book of Wisdom greatly, but rejected all of the others. So are these early church fathers not part of the discussion?

on a side note, someone made an earlier jab at Protestants not believing in transubstantitation, which is accurate, but I feel obligated to inform them that Augustine taught a symbolic Lord’s Supper…isn’t he one of the great minds in the church? Why is it that the church doesn’t follow his teachings?

Luther was a couple hundred years ago, and this is a misrepresented kindergarten version of the beginning of the Reformation. Luther actually wanted to reform the Catholic church since it was teaching doctrine not found in the canon, thus the name reformers.

My evidence offered is in the book I made reference to. If you’d like exhaustive support of these points I can use plenty of Protestant references to make my case. I’m not certain where you’re getting that Augustine rejected any of these books. Augustine oversaw the Synod at Hippo and the Council of Carthage. These Councils affirmed the canon sent from Rome, and did recognize the Deuterocanon. The same canon used today by the Catholic Church, minus I believe Ezra, which is all but a collection from other books, less one unique chapter. This book is still in discussion within the Catholic Church and has not been dogmatically rejected though it was not part of the canon established by Trent. Other than that it is exactly the same Bible Jerome translated. Ezra is also not found in Protestant Bibles.

Jerome, Augustine, and Tertullian are all held in high esteem by the Catholic Church. If something I said led you otherwise let me seek your sympathy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is full of Jerome and Augustine, and even parts of Tertullian’s teachings, though Tertullian did drift away from the Church. I’m a great admirer of Jerome & Augustine both, though I’m not afraid to point out Jerome’s mistake. I suggest you read more from these great followers of our Lord Jesus Christ. In Contra Epistoalm Manichaei, Augustine states “But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me”. After reading the entire Bible he was not convinced of Christianity until Bishop Ambrose convinced him. Jerome had a temper and his writings will clearly demonstrate his position on the Eucharist and Mary, clearly solid Catholic Doctrine. What is your evidence for Augustine suggesting a symbolic presence?

Even Martin Luther in his brave attempt to revolutionize the Church dared not go against the teachings of the Early Fathers on the Eucharist. “of all of the fathers… not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as ‘it is simply bread and wine’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’ Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as, ‘it is simply bread’…they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ’s body and blood are present” - Luthers Works V. 37,54.

Martin Luther is adamant about it’s legitimacy, and it is important historically to recognize that your church wouldn’t exist without Luther and the Reformation. The Baptist Church originated in England in 1609 by John Smyth, who came from the Church of England. It did not exist before this point. Henry VIII was also an avid supporter of the Real Presence, who founded the Church of England to get divorced. Yes the Catholic Church has some dirty history, but we aren’t the only ones. Dig into your own history, you go back far enough you’ll realize that you’re more catholic than you think. John Henry Newman’s book the Development Of Christian Doctrine is a great book, he was an Anglican (Church of England) who converted due to studying history, thoroughly chronicling the teachings of the Early Fathers. History of the Variations of Protestant Churches by Bossuette is an exhaustive 4 Volume Treatise documenting how quickly Protestants broke from one another over theological differences and demonstrates where different denominations came from. But read all Jerome’s and Augustine’s works first. God be with you.

 

[RevG]

My evidence offered is in the book I made reference to. If you’d like exhaustive support of these points I can use plenty of Protestant references to make my case. I’m not certain where you’re getting that Augustine rejected any of these books. Augustine oversaw the Synod at Hippo and the Council of Carthage. These Councils affirmed the canon sent from Rome, and did recognize the Deuterocanon. The same canon used today by the Catholic Church, minus I believe Ezra, which is all but a collection from other books, less one unique chapter. This book is still in discussion within the Catholic Church and has not been dogmatically rejected though it was not part of the canon established by Trent. Other than that it is exactly the same Bible Jerome translated. Ezra is also not found in Protestant Bibles.

Here is a link for an English translation for you and I will give you references. For your question of where Augustine tells that the Apocrypha is rejected. He states that we reject any Manichaean book and the Apocrypha in Book X of Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.html

Jerome, Augustine, and Tertullian are all held in high esteem by the Catholic Church.

this they did, but this is not the Roman Catholic Church which you are trying to defend that they held in high esteem, it came later.

What is your evidence for Augustine suggesting a symbolic presence?

in the same link in the same Reply to Faustus the Manichaean in Book XX you will find

“It is not any bread and wine that we hold sacred as a natural production, as if Christ were confined in corn or in vines, as the Manicheans fancy, but what is truly consecrated as a symbol.”

there is my evidence.

I am sure you can argue that the website is a poor translation, not in good faith, but it might be argued, so you can check other translations if you like. I look forward to your future responses, as I know they will come.

 

[RevG]

All of these books in one way or another DO show proof of inspiration…read them again and let GOD INSPIRE YOU! The truth can be FELT it warms the heart and brings tears to my eyes…it fills me with such emotion there is NO doubt what the truth is. I feel truly sorry for those that don’t read for themselves and open their hearts for the LORDS guidance. Its so funny how religion is like politics…you believe what you were taught to believe not necessarily:blush: the TRUTH!

LET GOD BE YOUR TOUR GUIDE…

Reading Old Yeller makes my eyes tear up, reading Twilight makes me excited, reading the Chronicles of Narnia can make me all warm inside…none of that makes the book inspired by God. emotions have nothing to do with the authority of a text.

 

[misti88]

Reading Old Yeller makes my eyes tear up, reading Twilight makes me excited, reading the Chronicles of Narnia can make me all warm inside…none of that makes the book inspired by God. emotions have nothing to do with the authority of a text.

very true yet very wrong!