T
TriuneUnity
Guest
It was printed without the permission of the papacy (unlike, say, the Gutenberg). It placed the DC books in between the OT and NT. It included prefaces to each book written by Martin Luther.
- Status
E
elvisman
Guest
It was a typo. I didn’t type the number 19.The power of death is not mentioned in Matthew 16:18. How can it be from Wisdom 16:13 if it is not even found in Matthew 16:18?
Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Matthew actually uses a phrase first found in Isa 38:10 I said, "In the prime of my life I shall go to the gates of Sheol;
It is also found in Job 38:17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?
The phrase Gates of Hell. Gates of Shoel is used much earlier than Wisdom in a book written hundreds of years earlier.
But the phrase you quoted is misleading. It says that Matthew 16:18 says something it does not. Why would the person say that?Seriously. I know you are using a source but that was either sloppy on their part or intended to trick.
The verses from Matthew are 16:18 and 19.
**In these verses, Jesus is telling Peter that the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against the Church. THEN, he gives him the power to bind and loose. This is where the idea of dominion over life and death comes in: **
**“For you have dominion over life and death; you lead down to the gates of the nether world, and lead back.”
Isaiah 38:10 and Job 38:17 say NOTHING about the dominion over life and death. The gates and the dominion over life and death are BOTH covered in Wisdom 16:13.
**
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Also, the Matthew 16:19, about opening and shutting, binding and loosing - Isaiah 22:22: “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”The power of death is not mentioned in Matthew 16:18. How can it be from Wisdom 16:13 if it is not even found in Matthew 16:18?
Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Matthew actually uses a phrase first found in Isa 38:10 I said, "In the prime of my life I shall go to the gates of Sheol;
It is also found in Job 38:17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?
The phrase Gates of Hell. Gates of Shoel is used much earlier than Wisdom in a book written hundreds of years earlier.
But the phrase you quoted is misleading. It says that Matthew 16:18 says something it does not. Why would the person say that?
A
answermethis
Guest
No words were added?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
How do you add words to a translation from another language?
A
answermethis
Guest
No word was added in his translation that differed from the Catholic Bible:knight1:
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
The translation was from Greek, not the Latin Vulgate. Of course the words were different… it’s a different language!!
Do you believe that when translators sit down to translate a text they translate word for word? If you did that, the translation would look like something from Babel Fish.
A
answermethis
Guest
No words were added that MIGHT have been seen to alter the meaning of a verse?
N
Nominefili
Guest
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
No.No words were added that MIGHT have been seen to alter the meaning of a verse?
N
Nominefili
Guest
-from Wikipedia
B
BrianH
Guest
**
Mat 16:19 **And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." *
Wisdom 16:13 *For it is thou, O Lord, that hast power of life and death *
None of the same words appear in English or more importantly the Greek. The power to bound in heaven is not the ability to give someone life. The ability to loose something on earth is not the ability give someone life either. In other words, not only are the words not the same, the concepts are different. It is not literary dependence or even the same idea.
And the concept of God having power over life and death is once again in the OT. It is also well known that the power to loose and bind is referring to Isaiah if anything.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I assume, of course, you’re referring to Romans 3:28… Here’s your argument, answer.No words were added that MIGHT have been seen to alter the meaning of a verse?
The original Greek of Romans 3:28 reads: logizomai anthrôpos dikaioô pistis chôris ergon nomos
The Latin reads: arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis
“The Latin Vulgate added words to the Bible… the word arbitramur does not appear in the original Greek!!”
A
answermethis
Guest
Luther added the word “ALONE” to make the sentence read: “We are justified by faith alone.” His explanation of this insertion is found in his own words, "I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin and Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. "
and bifurcate the Old Testament…
By what authority did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?..:knight1:
A
allenirvan
Guest
I can’t help but bring up that these number games ultimately depend on the use of a Base 10 numbering system.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
“…there has been much discussion about the translating of the Old and New Testaments. It has been charged by the enemies of truth that the text has been modified and even falsified in many places, which has startled and shocked many simple Christians, even among the educated who do not know the Hebrew and Greek languages. It is devoutly to be hoped that with this publication the slander of the godless will be stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least in part. Perhaps it may even give rise to more writing on such questions and matters such as these. Therefore I ask all lovers of the truth to take this work to heart seriously, and faithfully to pray to God for a right understanding of the divine Scriptures, to the improvement and increase of our common Christendom.” (From Luther’s Open Letter on Translating, 1530)
The first section of the treatise is actually fairly angry, sarcastic, and humorous. Luther shows himself fed up with his Papal critics. His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations. A strong Papal critic of Luther (Emser) did just that:
“We have seen that scribbler from Dresden play the master to my New Testament. I will not mention his name again in my books, as he has his Judge now, and is already well-known. He admits that my German is sweet and good. He saw that he could not improve upon it. Yet, eager to dishonor it, he took my New Testament nearly word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and notes, replaced them with his own, and thus published my New Testament under his name!”
2. Put this context into the quotes being misued.
With this context in mind, point out that Luther was blasting away at his Papal critics:
“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”
“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, “I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”
“Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are.”
One can almost feel Luther’s anger towards his Papal critics. They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
3. Luther’s actual reasoning for using “alone” in Romans 3:28
This is the sad part about those who use Luther’s Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:
“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:
“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”
4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28
Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Catholics ignore, and most Protestants are not aware of:
“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”
Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).
Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.
Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”
This is the sad part about those who use Luther’s Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:
“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:
“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”
4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28
Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Catholics ignore, and most Protestants are not aware of:
“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”
Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).
Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.
Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”
A
answermethis
Guest
…and…?
By what authority did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?..
The earlier authors were known to the councils as were others.
Did he have a vision of Saint Paul who clarified for him the meaning he intended???
I do not see how his acedemic achievements nor the writings of another group aid me in understanding your answer to the question…
By what authority did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?..
and about the bifurcation???..
By what authority did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?..
The earlier authors were known to the councils as were others.
Did he have a vision of Saint Paul who clarified for him the meaning he intended???
I do not see how his acedemic achievements nor the writings of another group aid me in understanding your answer to the question…
By what authority did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?..
and about the bifurcation???..
A
answermethis
Guest
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
If it is ok for Martin Luther why is the arguement not valid for others???
“while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text” Martin Luther
:knight1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
If it is ok for Martin Luther why is the arguement not valid for others???
“while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text” Martin Luther
:knight1:
N
Nicea325
Guest
Hello Brian! On another note,quick question? Does the United Methodist Church have clergy? Does your Christian tradition accept or reject Sola Scriptura? What about women as pastors?
These are not questions to start a fight,but merely to understand your Christian Church and its traditions. Thanks!
BTW: I work at local Catholic Church as a Director of Catechetical Ministry located in So.Cal and we have an interfaith food pantry with the local United Methodist Church. The folks from the Methodist Church who come and pick-up the food seem to be more interested what we believe and teach as Catholics,instead of attacking us.
Really nice folks. Nothing nicer than ecumenical dialogue with mutual respect.God Bless
- Status