As I read a Protestant Bible it occurs to me...

[CalCatholic]

1966 version of the Jerusalem Bible. This version is back in print.

I need LARGE PRINT though.

It would be nice if Doubleday would release the Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem Bibles to be published in e-books, such as for my Kindle, then we would have our large print.

 

[JonNC]

Just looking at this…this statement seem to indicate a fullness of pride and an unwillingness to listen to reason…and someone wanting to have his own way.

This is from an initial impression…

Yes, and that’s the problem when someone quotes something out of the context. Now, to be sure, Luther could be harsh, abrasive, even vulgar, and I am in no way defending that, even though it was a different era. He was also apt to use sarcasm and hyperbole. So one must even more carefully use context.

The quote is taken from Luther’s letter on translating, and the link I’ve provided describes things very well.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=%22If+your+Papist+annoys+you+with+the+word+%28%27alone%27±+Rom.+3%3A28%29%2C+tell+him+straightway%2C+Dr.+Martin+Luther+will+have+it+so%3A+

Jon

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Yes, and that’s the problem when someone quotes something out of the context. Now, to be sure, Luther could be harsh, abrasive, even vulgar, and I am in no way defending that, even though it was a different era. He was also apt to use sarcasm and hyperbole. So one must even more carefully use context.

The quote is taken from Luther’s letter on translating, and the link I’ve provided describes things very well.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=%22If+your+Papist+annoys+you+with+the+word+%28%27alone%27±+Rom.+3%3A28%29%2C+tell+him+straightway%2C+Dr.+Martin+Luther+will+have+it+so%3A+

Jon

The problem with this is that some people have become extremely proficienty in spinning and rationalizing defenses for Martin Luther with the same skill that O.J. Simpson attorneys rationalized away all the damning and obvious evidence. So yes, one can rationalize a defense for anything; atheist do it, pro-abortionist do it, even the Nazi’s did it to exterminate a whole generation of people of a certain race. I wish you could tell me just what you think makes up a false teacher. Scripture warned many would come in Jesus name teaching false things. What’s more, I believe Luther’s violent hatred for the Jews in Germany sowed generational hatred for them in Germany.

“ If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”–Martin Luther

Link

 

[JonNC]

And this, Jharek, is the reason I stopped my conversation with Gabriel. I cannot and will not defend the indefensible - Luther’s late-in-life turn on the Jews, but it is wholly taken out of context when one looks at the church in medieval times. Luther’s book gets lots of attention, but Ecke’s equally hateful book gets ignored. And of course, part of the reason is that Hitler chose to use Luther’s anti-judaism, and not Ecke’s, I understand that.

The fact is, both Catholics and Lutherans today reject and condemn the anti-Judaism of the past, and the anti-semitism of the last century and now this.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

And this, Jharek, is the reason I stopped my conversation with Gabriel. I cannot and will not defend the indefensible

I just wish you could define what it is that makes up a false teacher. Luther invented new doctrines, discarded Church teaching, and dismissed Church authority. You’ve chosen to ignore the other questions, just answer that one…

 

[JonNC]

I just wish you could define what it is that makes up a false teacher. Luther invented new doctrines, discarded Church teaching, and dismissed Church authority. You’ve chosen to ignore the other questions, just answer that one…

What I’ve chosen to ignore is your attempt to bait me into a level of debate that I do not wish to participate in. You seem simply to want to bash Martin Luther. You are welcome to do this if you choose. I just won’t participate.
I have offered you 2 things:

1. a defense of Luther’s Catholic right to opinion regarding the canon of scripture, even though I am circumspect about about some of the conclusions he drew.
2. a condemnation of some of Luther’s tone and indeed some of his writings.

What I have not done, which apparently you want, is trade polemic for polemic, such as your question of “false teacher”, and your comment implying that Pope Benedict considers Lutheranism in a similar way as Pope John Paul II viewed Islam.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

And even then, his later anger was based on religion and not race. He was content with any person that became a Christian.

Hating Jews based on race is a modern invention that can’t really be traced back entirely to medieval times.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

What I’ve chosen to ignore is your attempt to bait me into a level of debate that I do not wish to participate in.

Jon, all I am wondering is what you would consider a “false teacher”. Sacred Scripture warned about these false teachers.
You’re on a Catholic forum discussing a man who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for heresy. Scripture warns that “there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition”.

I’m simply interested in your opinion. What do you consider a false teacher?

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Yes, I am interested in what he believes makes up a false teacher. I have made it clear that I believe Martin Luther was a false teacher and that Protestantism was founded on heresy. So the simple question stands, if Martin Luther was not a false teacher, what exactly makes up a “false teacher”? After all, the Sacred Scriptures warn about false teachers.

If that question is too difficult to face for some, then I think people are afraid of facing the truth. Jon, I don’t mean to be difficult, I’m simply troubled with the fact that millions of souls have been deprived of valid sacraments over the past 500 years because of men who took it upon themselves to teach as if they had the authority to teach doctrine in the name of Jesus Christ, and in the process caused division upon division upon division.

Now then, if Martin Luther was teaching the truth, then the Catholic priesthood is a farce and Purgatory doesn’t exist. So who exactly is right, Luther or the Church. If Luther is not a false teacher, then what exactly makes someone a false teacher?

 

[TertiumQuid]

The problem with this is that some people have become extremely proficienty in spinning and rationalizing defenses for Martin Luther with the same skill that O.J. Simpson attorneys rationalized away all the damning and obvious evidence.

If this comment was the result of reading my blog entry as posted by JonNC, I find the comment highly insulting, and would like an apology, or the comment taken down by a Catholic Answers moderator.

If no action is taken, I will contact the moderators.

Thanks,

James Swan

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

If this comment was the result of reading my blog entry as posted by JonNC, I find the comment highly insulting, and would like an apology, or the comment taken down by a Catholic Answers moderator.

If no action is taken, I will contact the moderators.

Thanks,

James Swan

Dear Mr. Swan, I’m sorry if my comments offended you; I was simply responding to the post in this thread. You are free to disagree with me, but I do happen to believe that some people have become extremely proficient in spinning and rationalizing defenses for Martin Luther with the same skill that others rationalize away the obvious. I didn’t mean to ruffle any feathers, nor was I singling out anyone in particular, I just happen to believe it is true.

Luther himself accused the pope of being the anti-Christ, just as people today accuse the pope of being the anti-Christ. I don’t suppose the pope or Catholics will ever get an apology, simply because that is what some people actually believe.

Some people accuse the Catholic Church of teaching false doctrines, and spend much of their time on earth spreading all sorts of literature devoted to attacking Catholic teaching. From my perspective, these people are merely self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters, who appoint themselves teachers and “pastors” of souls, teaching their own doctrines based on their personal interpretation of Scripture. In reality, I believe they have no authority whatsoever to teach in the name of Jesus Christ.

As for Martin Luther, the man was a Catholic priest who was declared a heretic and excommunicated from the Church. Based on his writings, I happen to believe he was a confused man, deceived by the father of lies and half truths, and blinded by pride. Those who dismiss his vile ramblings, erratic behavior, insulting fart-labeled language directed toward the Vicar of Christ, his blatant dismissal of Sacred Scripture, his editing of the Sacred texts to fit his personal doctrine of justification, his arrogant attitude,etc., etc. etc.---- as mere sarcasm, are, in my humble opinion, rationalizing away all the evidence that Luther was a false teacher.

The reason why it is important to find out and face the truth is that many people today base their Christian doctrines on Luther’s teachings.

 

[studychristian]

Dear Mr. Swan, I’m sorry if my comments offended you; I was simply responding to the post in this thread. You are free to disagree with me, but I do happen to believe that some people have become extremely proficient in spinning and rationalizing defenses for Martin Luther with the same skill that others rationalize away the obvious. I didn’t mean to ruffle any feathers, nor was I singling out anyone in particular, I just happen to believe it is true.

Luther himself accused the pope of being the anti-Christ, just as people today accuse the pope of being the anti-Christ. I don’t suppose the pope or Catholics will ever get an apology, simply because that is what some people actually believe.

Some people accuse the Catholic Church of teaching false doctrines, and spend much of their time on earth spreading all sorts of literature devoted to attacking Catholic teaching. From my perspective, these people are merely self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters, who appoint themselves teachers and “pastors” of souls, teaching their own doctrines based on their personal interpretation of Scripture. In reality, I believe they have no authority whatsoever to teach in the name of Jesus Christ.

As for Martin Luther, the man was a Catholic priest who was declared a heretic and excommunicated from the Church. Based on his writings, I happen to believe he was a confused man, deceived by the father of lies and half truths, and blinded by pride. Those who dismiss his vile ramblings, erratic behavior, insulting fart-labeled language directed toward the Vicar of Christ, his blatant dismissal of Sacred Scripture, his editing of the Sacred texts to fit his personal doctrine of justification, his arrogant attitude,etc., etc. etc.---- as mere sarcasm, are, in my humble opinion, rationalizing away all the evidence that Luther was a false teacher.

The reason why it is important to find out and face the truth is that many people today base their Christian doctrines on Luther’s teachings.

I think after he was excommunicated he realized he would expose his devilish beliefs and lead others to this false teachings…

A lot of these misconceptions about Catholicism come from former Priests who lacked faith from the beginning.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What I’ve chosen to ignore is your attempt to bait me into a level of debate that I do not wish to participate in. You seem simply to want to bash Martin Luther. You are welcome to do this if you choose. I just won’t participate.
I have offered you 2 things:

1. a defense of Luther’s Catholic right to opinion regarding the canon of scripture, even though I am circumspect about about some of the conclusions he drew.
2. a condemnation of some of Luther’s tone and indeed some of his writings.

What I have not done, which apparently you want, is trade polemic for polemic, such as your question of “false teacher”, and your comment implying that Pope Benedict considers Lutheranism in a similar way as Pope John Paul II viewed Islam.

Jon

Jon,

I truly admire your class and composure. May God Bless you always.

Jose

 

[TertiumQuid]

Dear Mr. Swan, I’m sorry if my comments offended you; I was simply responding to the post in this thread. You are free to disagree with me, but .

The use of “but” negates the apology.

Is this typical of Roman Catholics, that they can compare something I wrote to the defense of a murderer? Recall it was stated of my blog entry, that I used the “same skill that O.J. Simpson attorneys rationalized away all the damning and obvious evidence”.

This is truly offensive, and if it were up to me, you would be banned.

I assume because I’m Protestant, no one will call you out on this, and will simply let you get away with it.

This is yet another reason why I will never convert to your religion.

James Swan

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the OP topic please.

 

[Church_Militant]

I checked this out a while ago and cannot do a good check now because Im using an iPod, but when I checked the Catholic Bible, we use "do penance. In the Protestant Bible I checked, they translate this as repent.

One famous example is Repent for the end of the world is at hand, For which we start off Do penance for …

I did a bit of research on this and found Scriptures About Penance. Hope this helps a bit.

 

[xylem411]

This Protestant Bible is leading me into studying Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, because Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory, Peter being the leader, Mary not being blessed. Yet I will explain why this made me began to ponder.

Luke 12:59 says, “I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” But it if it was talking about Hell, Jesus said once in Hell your in there forever, whats the point of that verse then? He’s talking about somewhere you go and you do suffer but to get all your sins payed for, thus he’s is talking about a 3rd place, because you cannot get out of Hell.

Matthew 16:18 states “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” You can interpret that this is saying Jesus knew Peter would be a good person to place being in charge of the Church.

Luke 1:48 states, “for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,” Mary Knew she was going to be called Mother because she gave birth to God in his human birth,.

My take of Protestantism now:

So far I think they build there entire faith on John 3:16, at least for the most part, that verse does not directly end, meaning that it can be interpreted as that’s the main thing in general for salvation BUT not the only thing.

I think once I finish studying a bit more with this protestant Bible I will quit my Protestant finding in a Church and look at Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Yes, justice demands a perfect acounting, to every last word we say and farthing owed. However, Jesus satisfies perfect justice and covers every word and penny etc., etc -.This is the Good News ? Did not we die with him and are we not alive in Him, now ?

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Yes, and that’s the problem when someone quotes something out of the context. Now, to be sure, Luther could be harsh, abrasive, even vulgar, and I am in no way defending that, even though it was a different era. He was also apt to use sarcasm and hyperbole. So one must even more carefully use context.

One must be careful when reading Luther’s writings which are jam packed with statement that include some element of truth and may even seem like sound doctrine, but in fact is laced with half-truths. A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes element of truth, allowing for a rationalized acceptance of false statements. Jesus Himself tells us that many shall come and teach in the His name and deceive many people. Paul states that there would be deceitful workers masquerading as apostles of Christ. "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of truth righteousness"1 Cor. 11:3-15

Here is an example:

Luther wrote:

urge people not to enter the priesthood, the monastery, or the convent, and hinder them from so doing; encourage those who have already entered to leave; give no more money for bulls, candles, bells, tablets, and churches; rather tell them that a Christian life consists of faith and love. Let us do this for two years, and you shall see what will become of pope, bishops, cardinals, priests, monks, nuns, bells, towers, masses, vigils, cowls, hoods, tonsures, monastic rules, statutes, and all the swarming vermin of the papal regime; they will all vanish like smoke.

Yes indeed, a Christian life consist of faith and love, but without the priesthood we have no valid sacraments; without the sacraments we lose the primary means of sanctifying grace established by Christ through the Church. Without priests we have no Sacrifice of the Mass.The devil hates priests and does everything to lay snares and lead them astray. Without priests there is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and no Holy Eucharist for the flock.

In his attacks on the pope and Catholic doctrine, Luther states:

Get busy now; spread the holy gospel, and help others spread it; teach, speak, write, and preach that man-made laws are nothing;

Translate: Luther is teaching that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are “man-made laws” and that people should not believe them. After 1,500 years of Church teaching he tells his followers to trust in his teachings and not the teachings of the Church. Paul clearly warned:“just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray . . .For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. . . such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.”

These are but small samples of the voluminous works of a man who taught that the pope was the anti-christ, that the priesthood should be abolished, and that ancient doctrines of the Church should be discarded.

 

[JRRTFAN]

This Protestant Bible is leading me into studying Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, because Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory, Peter being the leader, Mary not being blessed. Yet I will explain why this made me began to ponder.

Mother because she gave birth to God in his human birth,.

My take of Protestantism now:

So far I think they build there entire faith on John 3:16, at least for the most part, that verse does not directly end, meaning that it can be interpreted as that’s the main thing in general for salvation BUT not the only thing.

I think once I finish studying a bit more with this protestant Bible I will quit my Protestant finding in a Church and look at Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Good for you, but I would not build your conversion on these things which are certainly true and helpful, but, the SOURCE AND SUMMIT of our faith is the Holy Eucharist and for that I direct you to John 6 and to the Last Supper accounts. That’s the crux, the Real Presence of our creator in our presence.

What I’m saying is don’t look to truths which are essential but periferal to the main kernal of absolute truth, Jesus himself.

 

[Taestron]

Good for you, but I would not build your conversion on these things which are certainly true and helpful, but, the SOURCE AND SUMMIT of our faith is the Holy Eucharist and for that I direct you to John 6 and to the Last Supper accounts. That’s the crux, the Real Presence of our creator in our presence.

What I’m saying is don’t look to truths which are essential but periferal to the main kernal of absolute truth, Jesus himself.

I would disagree. All essential truth is worthy to convert over. Now whether or not studychristian’s doctrinal issues are essential or not…:shrug