How do Protestants explain (James 5: 14-15)

[Rolltide]

KJV or NIT, either. I don’t really care if it says Holy Bible on the front, I consider it holy.

Prediction: I will be told my bible is wrong.

Not completely wrong, it’s just missing seven books, small parts of a couple others, and has a few problematic translations that could lead people to some incorrect conclusions.

Rest assured your Bible is still holy, just like any individual scripture is holy if you have a printed copy of it. That doesn’t mean it’s the most accurate version out there.

 

[Snow]

Not completely wrong, it’s just missing seven books, small parts of a couple others, and has a few problematic translations that could lead people to some incorrect conclusions.

Rest assured your Bible is still holy, just like any individual scripture is holy if you have a printed copy of it. That doesn’t mean it’s the most accurate version out there.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your version with the missing seven books is preferred by the only one that matters - God?

 

[ufamtobie]

Wrong. It’s a Christian book, which the RC church added to…

Lutheran DK,

Do you cellebrate Christmas on the 25th of Dec.?

Of course you do, and you should thank the Catholic Church for seting up a DATE that all Christians can honor Our Lords birth.

Do you Cellebrate Easter?

Of Course you do, this too you should thank the Catholic Church for seting a DATE so all Christians can Honor our Lords Resurection.

Do you read the Holy Bible?

Of Course you do, even though your King James version of the Bible is missing a few books and verses you should be thankful that Martin Luther did not take MORE books out, BUT WHAT BOOKS YOU DO HAVE THIS ALSO YOU SHOULD THANK THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

LutheranDK, IT IS FACT that Martin Luther took out 7 books and some verses from the Holy Bible. What does Jesus say about someone who does this. WELL LETS READ:

REV. 22: 19) IF ANYONE TAKES AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THIS PROPHETIC BOOK, GOD WILL TAKE AWAY HIS SHARE IN THE TREE OF LIFE AND THE HOLY CITY DESCRIBED HERE!

Lutherandk, OUCH! Was Jesus talking about Martin Luther? Well, fact/truth is Martin Luther, did take out some books, so YEAH!

Ufamtobie

 

[Soutane]

Naw, it’s really just that you being a **** really brings out the ******* in me.

Looks like I lead you into sin.Or at least immaturity.Sorry.

 

[Soutane]

Attn:LutheranDK-I do apologise for the remark about following Luther and not Christ.It was uncalled for and unChristrian and I had no right to say that.Again,please accept my sincere apology.

 

[LutheranDK]

Lutheran DK,

Do you cellebrate Christmas on the 25th of Dec.?

Of course you do, and you should thank the Catholic Church for seting up a DATE that all Christians can honor Our Lords birth.

Wrong. I celebrate Christmas on December 24th (I don’t know if this is strictly Danish tradition, or pan-Scandinavian…)
This is not, however, a thread about when to celebrate Christmas, neither is it neccessary to celebrate Christmas in order to be a Christian (Many Messianic Jews, for instance, do not), so let’s not argue about that?
Although I’d like to point out that I have not said that the RC church has never done anything good, and I resent the implication that I have.

Do you Cellebrate Easter?

Of Course you do, this too you should thank the Catholic Church for seting a DATE so all Christians can Honor our Lords Resurection.

See above.

Do you read the Holy Bible?

Of Course you do, even though your King James version of the Bible is missing a few books and verses you should be thankful that Martin Luther did not take MORE books out, BUT WHAT BOOKS YOU DO HAVE THIS ALSO YOU SHOULD THANK THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

OH LET’S SPEAK IN CAPITAL LETTERS NOW, BECAUSE THAT MEANS THAT MY POINT IS MORE VALID THAN IF I DON’T!!!

(or more likely: It makes my post harder, and more annoying to read.)

Luther did not take canonical books out. He took out books that had been added to canon (meaning the one that was decided on in Nicea in 325) by the emerging RC church

LutheranDK, IT IS FACT that Martin Luther took out 7 books and some verses from the Holy Bible.

See above

What does Jesus say about someone who does this. WELL LETS READ:

REV. 22: 19) IF ANYONE TAKES AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THIS PROPHETIC BOOK, GOD WILL TAKE AWAY HIS SHARE IN THE TREE OF LIFE AND THE HOLY CITY DESCRIBED HERE!

Lutherandk, OUCH! Was Jesus talking about Martin Luther? Well, fact/truth is Martin Luther, did take out some books, so YEAH!

NO HE WASN’T. HE WAS…
Ok, I’m going to stop writing in capital letters just because I can, and write like a normal adult again…

I don’t know if your interpretation of that verse is also the official interpretation of the RC church, but it is most definately NOT the most obvious.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that Luther did in fact remove true canonical books from the Bible (which I do not believe!). That would still not make this verse about Luther!
Because Jesus is referring to the book that He has just ordered John to write - Revelation! He is not referring to the entirety of the Bible, but to that one book! So using that verse in this debate is a clear sign of ignorance of Scripture…

Ufamtobie

LutheranDK
-who is quite sure he’s one of only a handfull of people inhere who can read the Bible in its original language…

 

[MDK]

Wrong. It’s a Christian book, which the RC church added to…

Ah, the historical revisionist… is hysterically revealing what people will claim.

The 7 D-C Scriptures were in the canon closed by the Catholic Church before there was even a Lutheran Church. Please learn history, and stay with it… and by respecting true history, and fullness of truth, you’ll eventually become Catholic, or unfortunately and obstinately remain in the dark.

 

[Steadfast]

Ah, the historical revisionist… is hysterically revealing what people will claim.

The 7 D-C Scriptures were in the canon closed by the Catholic Church before there was even a Lutheran Church. Please learn history, and stay with it… and by respecting true history, and fullness of truth, you’ll eventually become Catholic, or unfortunately and obstinately remain in the dark.

Thats not entirely accurate.

Your church didn’t actually close the OT canon until after Luther was dead.

Before this scholars were permitted a range of opinions on the canonicity of the deuteros.

Having said that, I agree that simply saying that the RCC “added” them is even more inaccurate.

 

[MDK]

Thats not entirely accurate.

Your church didn’t actually close the OT canon until after Luther was dead.

Before this scholars were permitted a range of opinions on the canonicity of the deuteros.

Having said that, I agree that simply saying that the RCC “added” them is even more inaccurate.

If you’re talking about the Council of Trent, the Fathers of Trent only took cognizance regarding the Protestant doubts, and no doubt of authenticity was expressed at Trent. You’re distorting by implying that the books of the Bible hadn’t been settled long before.

Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. wrote a decree listing the 73 Old and New Testament books of the Bible. Council of Hippo, in North Africa, 393 A.D. the same 73 Books of the Old and New Testament were approved. Council of Carthage 397 A.D. approved the same 73 books of sacred scripture that the Catholic Church uses today. In 405 A.D. Pope St. Innocent I approved the same 73 books of the canon and closed the canon of the Bible. From the fourth century, there was unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon, just as it is today… unchanged by heresy such as that of Luther.

My church had actually established the canon by 405… so, are you talking about the Martin Luther that lived in 1500’s, or some other Martian Luther?

 

[Steadfast]

If you’re talking about the Council of Trent, the Fathers of Trent only took cognizance regarding the Protestant doubts, and no doubt of authenticity was expressed at Trent. You’re distorting by implying that the books of the Bible hadn’t been settled long before.

Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. wrote a decree listing the 73 Old and New Testament books of the Bible. Council of Hippo, in North Africa, 393 A.D. the same 73 Books of the Old and New Testament were approved. Council of Carthage 397 A.D. approved the same 73 books of sacred scripture that the Catholic Church uses today. In 405 A.D. Pope St. Innocent I approved the same 73 books of the canon and closed the canon of the Bible. From the fourth century, there was unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon, just as it is today… unchanged by heresy such as that of Luther.

My church had actually established the canon by 405… so, are you talking about the Martin Luther that lived in 1500’s, or some other Martian Luther?

Are you suggesting that Jerome, Cardinal Ximenes, Erasmus and a great many others were heretics?

I am familiar with all the history you cited.

My point is that faithful Catholic scholars were free to question the canonical ordering of the OT books until Trent and they were doing so with greater frequency until that time so it’s nearly as inaccurate to say that “The 7 D-C Scriptures were in the canon closed by the Catholic Church before there was even a Lutheran Church.” as it is to insist that the RCC added books.

This is what really constitutes the closing of the canon, precedent is just part of the basis on which the decision is eventually made.

 

[MDK]

Are you suggesting that Jerome, Cardinal Ximenes, Erasmus and a great many others were heretics?

No. Are you suggesting that you really understand what went on, because from what I’ve seen, that is a stretch… a large stretch, beyond reason.

 

[Steadfast]

No. Are you suggesting that you really understand what went on, because from what I’ve seen, that is a stretch… a large stretch, beyond reason.

Yes, I am suggesting that I have a very good understanding of what went on, to whit:

The councils of Hippo and Carthage, the Festal letter of Athanasius and the decree of Damasus did not constitute a closing of the canon if scholars were permitted differing opinions on what books should actually be there.

The facts of history are that a good number of excellent and faithful Catholic scholars, until Trent, expressed the belief that the 7 deutero-canonical books were not authoritative to the same degree and extent that the rest of the books were, among them, Ximenes, Erasmus and Jerome.The facts continue that the number of scholars coming to similar conclusions was mounting at the time of the Reformation and that Luther’s belief on the matter was entirely orthodox at the time that he held it since he must necessarily have held it before Trent closed the matter in 1563 seeing that he died in 1546.

From this I conclude that the bald statement that the canon was closed before there ever was a Lutheran Church is factually inaccurate and amounts to little more than posturing.

 

[MDK]

I am familiar with all the history you cited.

My point is that scholars were free to question the canonical ordering of the OT books until Trent and they were doing so with greater frequency until that time so it’s nearly as inaccurate to say that “The 7 D-C Scriptures were in the canon closed by the Catholic Church before there was even a Lutheran Church.” as it is to insist that the RCC added books.

You added more after the first post…

No, it’s not inaccurate to say the Canon was closed before the Lutheran heresies and split from the Church. There are also things done at times to defend the truth in times of great heresy and apostasy. There is also a difference between the Papal authority and scholars talking about things.

Likewise, it’s nonsense to suggest that the Catholic Church added Scriptures to the canon. There is no legitimate support for this. It is simply another way that some who cannot legitimately overturn the Church’s authority and record of never teaching in error, attempt to do so using falsehoods.

 

[MDK]

Yes, I am suggesting that I have a very good understanding of what went on, to whit:

The councils of Hippo and Carthage, the Festal letter of Athanasius and the decree of Damasus did not constitute a closing of the canon if scholars were permitted differing opinions on what books should actually be there.

The facts of history are that a good number of excellent and faithful Catholic scholars, until Trent, expressed the belief that the 7 deutero-canonical books were not authoritative to the same degree and extent that the rest of the books were, among them, Ximenes, Erasmus and Jerome.The facts continue that the number of scholars coming to similar conclusions was mounting at the time of the Reformation and that Luther’s belief on the matter was entirely orthodox at the time that he held it since he must necessarily have held it before Trent closed the matter in 1563 seeing that he died in 1546.

From this I conclude that the bald statement that the canon was closed before there ever was a Lutheran Church is factually inaccurate and amounts to little more than posturing.

Wishful thinking on your part really won’t change the truth. Reading to repeat as opposed to understanding how it fits in are two different things. Why base your take on things from a heretic’s view? The fact that you would follow him, is an indication that you really don’t understand the truth, or if you do, then you refuse to follow it.

 

[Steadfast]

You added more after the first post…

No, it’s not inaccurate to say the Canon was closed before the Lutheran heresies and split from the Church. There are also things done at times to defend the truth in times of great heresy and apostasy. There is also a difference between the Papal authority and scholars talking about things.

Yes, it is because the canon was not officially closed until 1563
and the Lutheran Church existed before this.

Likewise, it’s nonsense to suggest that the Catholic Church added Scriptures to the canon. There is no legitimate support for this. It is simply another way that some who cannot legitimately overturn the Church’s authority and record of never teaching in error, attempt to do so using falsehoods.

I completely agree. I never said that it did, in fact, a more careful reading of what I did write will show that what I actually did say was that it is more inaccurate to say that the RCC added books than that the canon was closed before there was a Lutheran Church.

But both statements are inaccurate and, frankly, false, differing only in degree.

 

[MDK]

Yes, it is because the canon was not officially closed until 1563
and the Lutheran Church existed before this.

Wrong. Already explained why. If you follow the teachings of a heretic, it is no surprise you would continue to promote falsehoods.

I completely agree. I never said that it did, in fact, a more careful reading of what I did write will show that what I actually did say was that it is more inaccurate to say that the RCC added books than that the canon was closed before there was a Lutheran Church.

I didn’t make the statement as a disagreement, but to show that it was ludicrous as your statement about the books of the Bible not being firmly in place before the Lutheran heresies.

But both statements are inaccurate and, frankly, false, differing only in degree.

Coming from one who denies the authoritative Church built by Christ, why is this denial any surprise? Start with this… did the books of the Bible change at the Council of Trent, or did they affirm what had already been done?

 

[Steadfast]

Wishful thinking on your part really won’t change the truth. Reading to repeat as opposed to understanding how it fits in are two different things. Why base your take on things from a heretic’s view? The fact that you would follow him, is an indication that you really don’t understand the truth, or if you do, then you refuse to follow it.

My view is based on a careful reading of history from a lot of sources, a good number of them Catholic.

I realize that you have an interest in baiting me, it is far simpler for you if you can make me into a cartoon character.

The more history I read, the more I see the pitfalls of letting ones confessional commitments cloud ones apprehension of the truth.

When it comes to the issue of the Canon it is a caricature to say that the RCC added books. It just isn’t true. In the same way, it’s false to pretend that the canon was in any way really closed prior to Trent. It just wasn’t.

History won’t support either claim as fond as we may be of making them.

Realizing this has the advantage of giving us all breathing room.

 

[Steadfast]

Wrong. Already explained why. If you follow the teachings of a heretic, it is no surprise you would continue to promote falsehoods.

I’m sorry. You’re mistaken.

I didn’t make the statement as a disagreement, but to show that it was ludicrous as your statement about the books of the Bible not being firmly in place before the Lutheran heresies.

But now you’re moving the goalposts. I NEVER said that they weren’t in place. And you’re argument hasn’t been that they were merely “in place”. Your argument has been that the Canon was closed.

Coming from one who denies the authoritative Church built by Christ, why is this denial any surprise? Start with this… did the books of the Bible change at the Council of Trent, or did they affirm what had already been done?

No, they did not change at Trent. Trent recognized and officially published the, by far, majority view. Without going into speculation as to why they did so, it remains that until then Catholic scholars were free to suggest differently and that in the period immediately preceding Trent they were doing so in increasing numbers.

 

[MDK]

My view is based on a careful reading of history from a lot of sources, a good number of them Catholic.

I realize that you have an interest in baiting me, it is far simpler for you if you can make me into a cartoon character.

The more history I read, the more I see the pitfalls of letting ones confessional commitments cloud ones apprehension of the truth.

When it comes to the issue of the Canon it is a caricature to say that the RCC added books. It just isn’t true. In the same way, it’s false to pretend that the canon was in any way really closed prior to Trent. It just wasn’t.

History won’t support either claim as fond as we may be of making them.

Realizing this has the advantage of giving us all breathing room.

You realize incorrectly. I have an interest in telling you the truth about the authoritative teaching Church started by Christ. Whether or not you’re offended by that truth is up to you.

I don’t need extra breathing room, because I’m fine where I am. Who’s pretending? Those who have an interest in promoting falsehoods about the Church will tell you what you have told us. You’ve likely simply been mislead by enemies of the Church.

A serious problem grows when one believes sources hostile to the truth, as though it were truth. How can you learn about God’s authoritative Church from her enemies? Unless you’ve got a good background, and know how to factor it, you can’t. In other words, one will never get to the truth by that path.

Would you prefer that someone learn about you from people who despised you and thought you were evil?

 

[MDK]

I’m sorry. You’re mistaken.

First sentence I accept. Second sentence, you’re a bit off the mark… again.

But now you’re moving the goalposts. I NEVER said that they weren’t in place. And you’re argument hasn’t been that they were merely “in place”. Your argument has been that the Canon was closed.

No moving of goalposts. Canon was closed before Lutheran heresies. They were later defended against the heresies. Why would one learn to think like those who oppose the authoritative and hierarchical Church built by Christ?

No, they did not change at Trent. Trent recognized and officially published the, by far, majority view. Without going into speculation as to why they did so, it remains that until then Catholic scholars were free to suggest differently and that in the period immediately preceding Trent they were doing so in increasing numbers.

You’ve been simply speculating thus far, why stop here? When you learn history from those with an agenda against the true authoritative Church, no surprise that you’ll come up with all kinds of incorrect, misleading, and otherwise false interpretations convenient to the cause of those who oppose the Church built by Christ.