Help! Luther changed words & First Protestant Bible (Edited Title)

[jcrichton]

Unfortunately they probably held most of the same errors you hold.

I don’t know if they believed the apocrypha to be canonical or not…it’s a pitty if they did.

Thank Yahweh God that you are in full control of the truth!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Pwrlftr]

Thank Yahweh God that you are in full control of the truth!

Maran atha!

Angel

Thanks. It’s quite a burden being in full control of the truth.

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks. It’s quite a burden being in full control of the truth.

…might be reason why the Apostles held that the Church was the pillard and ground of the Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Pwrlftr]

…might be reason why the Apostles held that the Church was the pillard and ground of the Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel

What does that particular verse mean to you…and conversely, what should it mean to me?

 

[jcrichton]

What does that particular verse mean to you…and conversely, what should it mean to me?

To me, as to anyone claiming to be Catholic, means that the Church (the Catholic Church) founded by Christ is led by the Holy Spirit and He leads her according to Christ’s, the Truth, Will.

…if you are in the quest for the Truth, it should mean the same!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Pwrlftr]

To me, as to anyone claiming to be Catholic, means that the Church (the Catholic Church) founded by Christ is led by the Holy Spirit and He leads her according to Christ’s, the Truth, Will.

…if you are in the quest for the Truth, it should mean the same!

Maran atha!

Angel

I suppose I almost agree with you. I suspect you also include infallibility in there too and I am afraid that is where we part company.

 

[jcrichton]

I suppose I almost agree with you. I suspect you also include infallibility in there too and I am afraid that is where we part company.

I think that we parted company when you chose to believe that a man, at least eleven-hundred years removed, was led by the Holy Spirit to dismantle the Bible and establish an organization that would replace Christ’s only founded Church, which entails rejecting nearly fifteen-hundred years of Church history, denial of the Holy Spirit, eradication of Holy Tradition–thusly becoming estranged from Christ Jesus.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Pwrlftr]

I think that we parted company when you chose to believe that a man, at least eleven-hundred years removed, was led by the Holy Spirit to dismantle the Bible and establish an organization that would replace Christ’s only founded Church, which entails rejecting nearly fifteen-hundred years of Church history, denial of the Holy Spirit, eradication of Holy Tradition–thusly becoming estranged from Christ Jesus.

Maran atha!

Angel

I don’t know why many of you catholics prop Luther up as if he were a pope for all non-catholics.

I suppose I could respond in kind to your post but why bother? All you will do is rant and rave again…

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t know why many of you catholics prop Luther up as if he were a pope for all non-catholics.

I suppose I could respond in kind to your post but why bother? All you will do is rant and rave again…

I think that terminologies confuse you… non-Catholics do not have a Pope; as a Catholic, Luther is an ex-Priest who dreamt of being right and orchestrated a coup–he found enough followers and the civil/religious war that ensued left in its wake a schism that became the mother of thousands of schisms; for the most part, every group rejects the Catholic Church while claiming a direct line to the Holy Spirit, Who is credited to have divised the new world order of Christianity…

…you cannot “respond in kind” since it was you who initiated this exchange and accelerated the outcome…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Pwrlftr]

…you cannot “respond in kind” since it was you who initiated this exchange and accelerated the outcome…

I may have in post 20.

Nonetheless, I am quite aware of the history of Luther and also the obsession Catholics have with him.

Luther did place “alone” in Romans 3:28 but as I pointed out earlier he was not the first do so but that fact seems to escape Catholics. As to his opinions on the apocrypha, before Trent Catholics were well within their rights to have doubts about certain books and again, Luther was not the first (by a long shot) to doubt the canonocity of the books you call the deutero’s.

 

[DiscipleofHis]

I may have in post 20.

Nonetheless, I am quite aware of the history of Luther and also the obsession Catholics have with him.

Luther did place “alone” in Romans 3:28 but as I pointed out earlier he was not the first do so but that fact seems to escape Catholics. As to his opinions on the apocrypha, before Trent Catholics were well within their rights to have doubts about certain books and again, Luther was not the first (by a long shot) to doubt the canonocity of the books you call the deutero’s.

If we doubt the deutero’s and the authority of the Church, do we not doubt all the books of the Bible as being placed by random luck or natural selection through debate. If we have to be sure the Books are inspired by God, don’t we have to be sure in some sort of authority. You showed in detail others who used alone, and it can be shown that some used other books in their cannon but I wrestle with the idea that our cannon is theory at best because then our bible becomes a debate and theory as well and where does that leave us?
God Bless

 

[Pwrlftr]

If we doubt the deutero’s and the authority of the Church, do we not doubt all the books of the Bible as being placed by random luck or natural selection through debate. If we have to be sure the Books are inspired by God, don’t we have to be sure in some sort of authority. You showed in detail others who used alone, and it can be shown that some used other books in their cannon but I wrestle with the idea that our cannon is theory at best because then our bible becomes a debate and theory as well and where does that leave us?
God Bless

If you are a Catholic of course your trust your church because it’s supposed to have ruled infallibly on this issue. If you are a non-Catholic you can’t have infallible knowledge that the canon is entirely correct.

Now, the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God (the scriptures) didn’t have an infallble authority either and yet were held accountable by Jesus for knowing the scriptures.

Additionally, it appears there is no consensus among Catholics as to whether or not the canon is closed. I believe Catholic apologist Gary Michuta covers this in his book. I know he covered it in his debate w/ James White. If you haven’t listened to that particular debate I highly recommend it, both sides did a great job of making their points and I am sure that I am not the only one that learned a great deal from both of these men.

 

[DiscipleofHis]

If you are a Catholic of course your trust your church because it’s supposed to have ruled infallibly on this issue. If you are a non-Catholic you can’t have infallible knowledge that the canon is entirely correct.

So how does a non-Catholic have faith in scripture if they can not be sure of it’s inspiration, you know like if some Gnostic gospel might have been in there. I thought all protestants faiths claim absolute faith in the cannon being correct. Maybe I am wrong.

Now, the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God (the scriptures) didn’t have an infallble authority either and yet were held accountable by Jesus for knowing the scriptures.

Additionally, it appears there is no consensus among Catholics as to whether or not the canon is closed. I believe Catholic apologist Gary Michuta covers this in his book. I know he covered it in his debate w/ James White. If you haven’t listened to that particular debate I highly recommend it, both sides did a great job of making their points and I am sure that I am not the only one that learned a great deal from both of these men.

I had heard this debate was good, thanks for the tip. I will try and get my hands on it.
God Bless

 

[Pwrlftr]

I had heard this debate was good, thanks for the tip. I will try and get my hands on it.
God Bless

I think you will enjoy the debate.

As to your question about the canon, I don’t claim to have infallible knowledge of the content. I don’t believe there is an error but I admit that there could be.

 

[jcrichton]

I may have in post 20.

Nonetheless, I am quite aware of the history of Luther and also the obsession Catholics have with him.

Luther did place “alone” in Romans 3:28 but as I pointed out earlier he was not the first do so but that fact seems to escape Catholics. As to his opinions on the apocrypha, before Trent Catholics were well within their rights to have doubts about certain books and again, Luther was not the first (by a long shot) to doubt the canonocity of the books you call the deutero’s.

*I understand that as human even Popes may be of a different opinion than the Church (the whole body of Bishops and Believers); yet, having difference of opinions and working on presumptions does not make for heresy.

Even when outright heretic behavior is expressed the Church seeks to resolve the issue and allow the perpetrator to recant the challenge… when a person (or group as we have recently experienced) rejects the Church’s Teachings that person/s cannot but be seen as a thorn on the Side of the Body…

Luther may not have foreseen the chaos that he would impart onto the world but he must have experienced remorse (at least after the military explosion that occurred once the various monarchs appropriated his movement) and he might have desired to stop the schism but things have a way of running amock, specially when it comes to religion.

Just as Washington is seen as the Father of the Nation (though we know that he nearly lost his life several times and that it was only through the efforts of many others that the colonies gained their freedom) I, as many other Catholics, see Luther as that catalyst which married personal interpretation to creation of a seperate order (one which, you must agree, continues to gain ground as the thousands and thousands of organizations continue to surface, each purporting that they are faithful to Christ’s Command that we be one as He and the Father are One).

I cannot argue the Trent issue since I am not sure which Council determined that all 73 books were part of our Canon; yet, I am sure that I read something to the effect of this not being an issue till the Jews decided to adopt their Canon–to my pedestrian mind, adopting an anti-Christian Canon is a non sequitur.

FYI, my Catholic Bible does not separate any books into Biblical and extra-Biblical or part of Canon and extra-Canon.

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[DiscipleofHis]

I think you will enjoy the debate.

As to your question about the canon, I don’t claim to have infallible knowledge of the content. I don’t believe there is an error but I admit that there could be.

Hmm, I will have to ponder on that. I have not gotten that from a Protestand Christian before. Does your understanding of a possible error in Scripture not pose a question of what parts of Scripture you believe. Please expand on this. I am intrested.
Thanks.

 

[DiscipleofHis]

Council of Carthage III in 397 I know lists the accepted books we have. I believe Council of Hippo did as well. I will go back and look. I would have posted the exact clip of the web but I am new and not sure what I can and can’t do yet.

 

[jcrichton]

Now, the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God (the scriptures) didn’t have an infallble authority either and yet were held accountable by Jesus for knowing the scriptures.

*…but they did!

It is revealed in the New Testament that holy men of Yahweh God were inspired by the Holy Spirit to lead (spiritually) and to guide (spiritually) Israel.

We know that there were two separate schools, Pharisees and Sadducees, who held the deposits of these Holy Teachings, the first held the Scrolls and the latter the Oral. Due to man’s limitations and arrogance they both distorted the Holy Teachings and presented Israel with compromised revelations. Jesus called them hypocrites because they themselves would not enter into the Kingdom of God and still would not allow Israel to choose to enter.

Though the term is relatively modern Infallible Teaching existed since the OT and was demonstrated by Cephas, right after Pentecost, as he made it clear that the Church could not listen (obey) to man rather than to God!

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[jcrichton]

Council of Carthage III in 397 I know lists the accepted books we have. I believe Council of Hippo did as well. I will go back and look. I would have posted the exact clip of the web but I am new and not sure what I can and can’t do yet.

Hi, Discipleof His!

Thanks! I have read through historical accounts but history does not agree with me, bad with names and dates.

I truly appreciate a link so I can add it to your post.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Pwrlftr]

*…but they did!

It is revealed in the New Testament that holy men of Yahweh God were inspired by the Holy Spirit to lead (spiritually) and to guide (spiritually) Israel.

We know that there were two separate schools, Pharisees and Sadducees, who held the deposits of these Holy Teachings, the first held the Scrolls and the latter the Oral. Due to man’s limitations and arrogance they both distorted the Holy Teachings and presented Israel with compromised revelations. Jesus called them hypocrites because they themselves would not enter into the Kingdom of God and still would not allow Israel to choose to enter.

Though the term is relatively modern Infallible Teaching existed since the OT and was demonstrated by Cephas, right after Pentecost, as he made it clear that the Church could not listen (obey) to man rather than to God!

Maran atha!

Angel*

Who was infallible, the Sadducees or the Pharisees?