Luther Altered the Bible?

[AquinasXVI]

TertiumQuid:

Your Luther quote:

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment.”

and also,

“let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.”

Who the heck did Luther think he was that we should wait for his approval to have our own opinions or mode of reading scripture. These two quotes to me reek of self absorption.

in XT.

 

[TertiumQuid]

AquinasXVI:

Who the heck did Luther think he was that we should wait for his approval to have our own opinions or mode of reading scripture. These two quotes to me reek of self absorption. in XT.

Hello,

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Have a nice day.
James Swan

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

TertiumQuid:

Luther’s later view on Revelation appears to treat the book as canonical, but yet Luther retained some doubt (as did many throughout church history) as to John being the author. There are a variety of reasons why he treated Revelation with the utmost seriousness from 1530 on. without boring everybody, the most important factor would be that Luther increasingly believed his century was the last. Thus, he gave much seriousness to Revelation. I commend you to his writing on the subject before making any further inaccurate statements.

Regards,
James Swan

Strawman argument. It cannot be of a different author and still be canonical or Scriptural.

 

[gardenswithkids]

TertiumQuid:

Which “others”?

This is a charge i’ve been trying to get to the bottom of.

TertiumQuid-
I wrote a second post where I explained it was a Lutheran pastor who told me that Luther wanted to get rid of a couple of books in the New Testament–he’s was the same person who told me others around prevented Luther from doing that. The Lutheran pastor who told me that didn’t name names, he didn’t even list all the books that you included on your link that Luther questioned.

I did check out your link and it is apparent that you have studied this extensively. But you also seem intent on proving that Catholics have some “Luther Card” that we play. You do not know me. I have Lutheran ancestors. I married a Lutheran (whose now Catholic, but that is besides the point.) I attended a Lutheran Church with my husband for several years. I still go to Lutheran churches from time to time for events with family or friends. I have numerous friends and relations who are Lutheran. I know and love many Lutherans.

Up until I read your link, I had always assumed Luther to be a good man, (albeit proud, as many of us are.) I’ve heard priests say glowing things about Martin Luther. But as I read your link, the description of him reminded me more of some dissendent Catholic theologians that I’ve met teaching in universities. Oddly, the link you provided painted the worst image of Luther I ever imagined.

As you and your link assert that Luther translated and included all the questioned books in an appendix; I do not know any facts to contadict or prove that. But I can assure you, the Bible my husband used for many years in his Lutheran church had only 66 books in it. Lutherans that I know use a typical 66 book Protestant Bible. Somehow, somewhere, most Protestant Bibles eventually excluded some books that Catholics recognize. And once again I ask, why 66 books??? That’s a strange number for a perfect Bible.

 

[Milliardo]

Semper Fi:

In other words, Luther had been catching some flak for his “reasoning” about Revelation and decided to change it.

Which is how the man is. When his teaching of sola scriptura sent people to justifying their sinfulness because it is supposedly in the Bible, Luther had to retract it and say that there is need for some kind of authority to interpret the Bible. Of course, he stopped short of saying it should be the Catholic Church.

 

[Tonks40]

gardenswithkids:

TertiumQuid-
I wrote a second post where I explained it was a Lutheran pastor who told me that Luther wanted to get rid of a couple of books in the New Testament–he’s was the same person who told me others around prevented Luther from doing that. The Lutheran pastor who told me that didn’t name names, he didn’t even list all the books that you included on your link that Luther questioned.

I did check out your link and it is apparent that you have studied this extensively. But you also seem intent on proving that Catholics have some “Luther Card” that we play. You do not know me. I have Lutheran ancestors. I married a Lutheran (whose now Catholic, but that is besides the point.) I attended a Lutheran Church with my husband for several years. I still go to Lutheran churches from time to time for events with family or friends. I have numerous friends and relations who are Lutheran. I know and love many Lutherans.

Up until I read your link, I had always assumed Luther to be a good man, (albeit proud, as many of us are.) I’ve heard priests say glowing things about Martin Luther. But as I read your link, the description of him reminded me more of some dissendent Catholic theologians that I’ve met teaching in universities. Oddly, the link you provided painted the worst image of Luther I ever imagined.

After reading (limited only) to the posts on this forum in regards to Luther, I’ve come to understand that he was a man who loved God, and wanted to see more positive things from the Church during his time. But his desire and urgency to see those changes took him away from the real meaning of the Church, and created a wave-effect of error that seems overwhelming to correct. I cannot judge a man based on his good-will desires, but I can feel saddened by the lasting effects his “colored-glasses” have caused.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hello gardenswithkids,

Thank you for your interest in this topic.

gardenswithkids:

I wrote a second post where I explained it was a Lutheran pastor who told me that Luther wanted to get rid of a couple of books in the New Testament–he’s was the same person who told me others around prevented.

It doesn’t make any difference to me whether it was a Lutheran or Catholic that puts forth this idea. As far as I can tell, it’s a myth. I’m hoping that if I eventually make enough noise about it, someone will either be able to confirm or deny its truth. In all of the discussions I’ve had on this topic (and there have been many), this would be the first time this idea was purported to come from a “Lutheran”.

gardenswithkids:

i did check out your link and it is apparent that you have studied this extensively. But you also seem intent on proving that Catholics have some “Luther Card” that we play. You do not know me.

I only did this study because every time I got into a discussion with Catholics on the Canon, they would always bring up Luther- as if what he said about the canon was somehow importantly relevant. It’s interesting, but Luther’s opinion isn’t really all the relevant. Even in this thread- Luther’s view on the Bible really isn’t relevant to whether or not someone should “convert” to Roman Catholicism.

gardenswithkids:

Up until I read your link, I had always assumed Luther to be a good man, (albeit proud, as many of us are.) I’ve heard priests say glowing things about Martin Luther. But as I read your link, the description of him reminded me more of some dissendent Catholic theologians that I’ve met teaching in universities. Oddly, the link you provided painted the worst image of Luther I ever imagined.

I greatly appreciate this comment- it’s a keeper for me. I am often accused by Catholics of “whitewashing” the facts about Luther. My intent has always been to present truth, however awful or great it may be. Your comment demonstrates that I’ve succeeded.

gardenswithkids:

As you and your link assert that Luther translated and included all the questioned books in an appendix; I do not know any facts to contadict or prove that.

Luther’s Bible contained the entirety of the canon, as well as the apocrypha. If you can produce any information to the contrary, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Semper Fi:

Strawman argument. It cannot be of a different author and still be canonical or Scriptural.

Thank you for not mentioning any more mis-information about Luther in this post.

Interesting argument though. Let’s apply it: as far as my studies have shown, the precise author of Hebrews is not certain. Based on your reasoning, that book also cannot be canonical.

Regards,
James Swan