How To Read and Understand The Bible

[Ginger2]

I found info on the Wenzel Bible. It was a Translation of the Old Testament - only.

• • Thus no complete German translation available in Luther’s day.

If you look back to the beginning of this discourse on the German translation, you will see I acknowledged there were some partial translations, but none complete.

Also, as I was looking into this translation I read the emperor who ordered the translation was big into astrology and pictures of “bathing girls characterize Wenzel’s Bible”

If this is true it would explain why the RC didn’t point out this translation as a counter to the need for Luther to translate the Scriptures.

Was this a corrupt Bible?

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Whoo-hoo :coolinoff:

I have been reading about this Wenzel Bible and I was wrong. I had not heard of this one before. I must have confused it with another.

I found the info below in an article on the History of painting.

The Emperor himself is represented in the beautiful artwork within the margins of the pages of his Bible. The Emperor is often depicted sitting in a bathtub as naked girls bath him.

(In all fairness, some of the pictures show people clothed)

Now, I am aware that much of the artwork during these centuries was rather risque, but this is the first time I heard of an Emperor having himself displayed on the very pages of the Bible enjoying his lavish lifestyle.

Rather vain if you ask me.

Thank you Randy for bringing this to my attention.

Ginger

 

[CWBetts]

Thank you for that brilliant and enlightening dissertation.

I looked up these claims of the many complete German translations available in the 16th century. They all were false claims. I could not find my notes on the last two, but remember hearing of them and since I know my research revealed these claims were false, I stated so.

Let me ask you this, since you are obviously so knowledgeable and helpful in teaching others every thing there is to know about anything,…

Luther said he wanted to translate into German so anyone could read and understand. But Catholics today claim there were many German translations available to the public so there was no need for his translation.

It seems to me if there were German translations available during the time of Luther, Catholics would have used that as an argument against Luther’s translation. They would also have pointed out that existing translations didn’t use the word “allein”.

Instead, they complained the word changed the meaning because it wasn’t found in the **Greek or Latin texts. **

Why didn’t any of Luther’s critics point out these other translations???

Maybe you should try a different approach. Instead of useless sarcasm,…

Is there any document from a Catholic during the time of Luther that says there are several (or even one complete) German translation existing before Luther’s?

The problem with Luther’s translation is the fact that he relegated several books to a non-canonical status, even though it was the consensus that they were canonical. I know you will blather on about St. Jerome, but I see your Jerome and raise you a St. Augustine

 

[Ginger2]

The problem with Luther’s translation is the fact that he relegated several books to a non-canonical status, even though it was the consensus that they were canonical. I know you will blather on about St. Jerome, but I see your Jerome and raise you a St. Augustine

We are not speaking of “the problem with Luther’s translation”.

We are talking about whether there were several, or even one complete German translation at the time of Luther.

The question to you was:

Why didn’t any of Luther’s critics point out these other translations?

Why put ML’s NT down comparing it to Greek and Latin when ML said the language he chose was needed as it was proper grammar. They could have pointed out that no other German translation used the word “alien”. The logical argument would have been to compare other respected German translations to see if the grammar was indeed proper.

Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry, the name “NotWorthy” does not give any gender indications. I just always pictured you in a dress.

I’ll tell you what. I’ll put on a dress if that’s what it takes to get you (and Ed) to address the John 20:21-23 questions.

A) Jesus was sent by the Father to forgive our sins (I know there’s more He was sent to do, but that fits the context of John 20). Isn’t Jesus sending the Apostles to do the same In His Name?
B) With the receiving of the Holy Spirit, are the Apostles given the awesome authority to forgive sins in Jesus’ Name?
C) Even more incredible, what about this incredible authority that, if the Apostles refuse to forgive someone of their sins, Jesus won’t forgive them either?

 

[PJM]

=Ginger2;5747430]Well now I’ve heard it all!!!

For years Catholics have told me the council of Jamnia threw out books from there canon to deny Jesus was the Christ.

I have cited the fallacy of this argument as well as explained there is no evidence of this council ever taking place, to no avail…

That is until recent times when I started a thread and basically asked Catholics to provide whatever info they had on this "council. During the course of the thread Catholics acknowledged there was no council - finally!!!

Now that Catholics have acknowlegded and admitted there was no council, they are creating a new myth - claiming that Protestants invented the myth!!!

Amazing!

Ginger

Hi Ginger,

Once again you seem to miss the point. 2 Tim. 3:16 clearly states the the [singular] bible is without error of falsehood.

The fact that the Catholic Church selected the “fuller Canon” and it is the one that is warranted as THEE TRUTH, so “help me God” does not denounce the truth that exist in the second choice, rather it speaks of an incompleteness.

The part that does speak of “untruths” is the modifications that the Protestant community made to existing text, that was understood to be withour error and Divinely inspired for nearly 1100 years.

That is the real isssue is it not:shrug:

Hope your well,

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[I_kilt_Gawd]

http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/christianity.jpg

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NotWorthy I’ll tell you what. I’ll put on a dress if that’s what it takes to get you (and Ed) to address the John 20:21-23 questions.

A) Jesus was sent by the Father to forgive our sins (I know there’s more He was sent to do, but that fits the context of John 20). Isn’t Jesus sending the Apostles to do the same In His Name?
B) With the receiving of the Holy Spirit, are the Apostles given the awesome authority to forgive sins in Jesus’ Name?
C) Even more incredible, what about this incredible authority that, if the Apostles refuse to forgive someone of their sins, Jesus won’t forgive them either?

Hi NotWorthy. You better get ready to put on that dress because before we begin this dialog show me where in John 20:21-23 does it mention APOSTLES ? ED O…

 

[PJM]

=EdOsiecki;6311228]Hi NotWorthy. You better get ready to put on that dress because before we begin this dialog show me where in John 20:21-23 does it mention APOSTLES ? ED O…

[18] Mary Mag’dalene went and said to **the disciples/B], “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where **the disciples **were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

**Mark.3:18 **Partial list of the Apostles] Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,

John.20 24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Eight days later, **his disciples were **again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

Search ResultISCIPLE

“One who is learning or has learned. In the New Testament the word describes any follower of Jesus’ teaching (Matthew 10:1). During his public ministry** it referred as well to his twelve chosen aides,** but in the Acts of the Apostles they are always referred to as Apostles (Acts 1:26). (Etym. Latin discipulus, pupil, follower.)”

Ed, your not going to try to hold the position that these “deciples” were not the Apostles are you

I think you’d be cute in a dress Ed**

 

[EdOsiecki]

QUOTE]Posted by PJM

Ed, your not going to try to hold the position that these “deciples” were not the Apostles are you?

Hi PJM, Why? Because if I do that bankrupts your theology. When God’s Word mentions disciples that could mean any follower of Jesus. Isn’t that correct? What makes this any different? ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy. You better get ready to put on that dress because before we begin this dialog show me where in John 20:21-23 does it mention APOSTLES ? ED O…

The problem is, nowhere in John’s Gospel is the word Apostle used.

We have hints when we see the word “Twelve” used, which was exclusively used as the Apostles. John refers that of the Twelve, Thomas was missing, in verse 24.

But does this dodge of yours mean you’re not going to address the main issue: Jesus gave people the authority to forgive other’s sins in His Name.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NotWorthy The problem is, nowhere in John’s Gospel is the word Apostle used.

Hi NotWorthy, It’s been a long time. It’s good to hear from you once again.--------You say the word apostle is nowhere to be found in John’s gospel. May I ask, why then did you use it on post 360? ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, It’s been a long time. It’s good to hear from you once again.--------You say the word apostle is nowhere to be found in John’s gospel. May I ask, why then did you use it on post 360? ED O.

Because we KNOW from the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus met the Apostles (addressed as “The Eleven”) in the Upper Room the evening after His Resurrection (Easter Sunday) - for example, look at Luke 24:33. In John’s Gospel, we see Jesus meeting a group in the upper room that very same evening. He starts both meetings with the very same words - “Peace be with You”.

Now, I don’t think I’m using any exegetical gymnastics to claim that the disciples that Jesus greets in John 20 are the Apostles.

BTW, Peace be to you as well, brother! It’s been a while!

And forget it. The dress no longer fits.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NotWorthy
But does this dodge of yours mean you’re not going to address the main issue: Jesus gave people the authority to forgive other’s sins in His Name

James 5:17 tells us to forgive one another’s sins. But only God forgives sins. 1John 1:19 informs us to confess our sins to God. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NotWorthy,
Because we KNOW from the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus met the Apostles (addressed as “The Eleven”) in the Upper Room the evening after His Resurrection (Easter Sunday) - for example, look at Luke 24:33. In John’s Gospel, we see Jesus meeting a group in the upper room that very same evening. He starts both meetings with the very same words - “Peace be with You”.

The two people from Emmaus were among them too. So in John 20:21-23 How does one conclude that these are only the inner circle part of the twelve? I’m being very technical for a reason! ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

The two people from Emmaus were among them too. So in John 20:21-23 How does one conclude that these are only the inner circle part of the twelve? I’m being very technical for a reason! ED O.

I wasn’t aware that I claimed that only the Apostles received this authority. I’ll bite. Why the technicality?

 

[NotWorthy]

James 5:17 tells us to forgive one another’s sins. But only God forgives sins. 1John 1:19 informs us to confess our sins to God. ED O.

But Jesus says:
A) IF you forgive their sins… I will forgive them.
B) IF you DON’T forgive them… then I won’t.

What gives?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NotWorthy
But Jesus says:
A) IF you forgive their sins… I will forgive them.
B) IF you DON’T forgive them… then I won’t

.Does Jesus really mean here, confessing personal sins to an ordained priest as it is being done today in the Catholic church? ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

.Does Jesus really mean here, confessing personal sins to an ordained priest as it is being done today in the Catholic church? ED O.

That’s up to the Authority of the Church to decide. While confession is not the only means of doing this, the Church has set up the Sacrament of Confession as the normative means of doing this. Confession has changed, according to the doctrines of the Church. For instance, public confession was the normative means in the beginnings. The Church determined that private confession was better for all parties concerned, especially when one considers that in some instances, only one partner of an illicit affair may be repentant and wishing to confess in public.

What we know of Jesus’ intent is that He was willing to pass on an awesome responsibility. For instance, what if the Apostle John decided not to forgive a person’s sins. How would Jesus handle this (up in Heaven)?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NotWorthy
That’s up to the Authority of the Church to decide. While confession is not the only means of doing this, the Church has set up the Sacrament of Confession as the normative means of doing this. Confession has changed, according to the doctrines of the Church. For instance, public confession was the normative means in the beginnings. The Church determined that private confession was better for all parties concerned, especially when one considers that in some instances, only one partner of an illicit affair may be repentant and wishing to confess in public.

Hi NotWorthy,
In the Old T. God was very precise when He established the priesthood,yet, nowhere in the Old T. did He have priests hear confessions. The people there had sins too, but they confessed to God. You write much here and there’s much more on this in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but my question is where is any of this information mentioned in the Bible? Why would anyone confess sins to a priest when there’s no need to do so? ED O.