Martin Luther "edited" The Word of God...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
he added a german word to reflect the (what he believed) intention of paul in the original language.
.
See that? Talk about biased translating…

“…he added a german word to reflect the (what he believed) intention of paul in the original language.”

What he should’ve done was just translate what was said, not what “he believed” Paul’s intention was.

Your whole defense of Luther’s work was ‘what he thought’.

See? That’s why it’s been come to be known as “Sola Luther”.

And one more thing…as for my “biased” sources, 99% of the time, when I debate a Protestant, I use PROTESTANT websites and sources so’s not to incure the accusation that my sources are biased…and because of all that dissention among Protestants, it is soooooooooooo easy to find a Protestant that disagrees with Protestants (you know, the whole “house divided against itself” deal?).

😃
 
See that? Talk about biased translating…

“…he added a german word to reflect the (what he believed) intention of paul in the original language.”

What he should’ve done was just translate what was said, not what “he believed” Paul’s intention was.

Your whole defense of Luther’s work was ‘what he thought’.

See? That’s why it’s been come to be known as “Sola Luther”.

And one more thing…as for my “biased” sources, 99% of the time, when I debate a Protestant, I use PROTESTANT websites and sources so’s not to incure the accusation that my sources are biased…and because of all that dissention among Protestants, it is soooooooooooo easy to find a Protestant that disagrees with Protestants (you know, the whole “house divided against itself” deal?).

😃
Every translation requires some interpretation by the translator because exact word for word transaltion is not possible. Not every language has a word that perfectly corresponds to the one being translated. Also differences in grammar would make an exact word for word translation difficult. This is especially true as the manuscripts we have don’t include punctuation. The translator must decide where it belongs. That is not to say I defend Luther in this instance and obviously most Protestants do not agree since no translation since as included the word alone. But translators will always interpret and not always correctly. For example in Genesis 3:15 Jerome translated it to be the woman crushing the serpent’s head. I am not aware of any translator since who has done this. The Douhay-Rheims is an exception since it is translated from the Vulgate, not the original language. Similarly Jerome used the words “do penance” while every translation that I an aware of since has translated the Greek as repent.
 
The translator must decide where it belongs.

That is not to say I defend Luther in this instance and obviously most Protestants do not agree since no translation since as included the word alone. But translators will always interpret and not always correctly. For example in Genesis 3:15 Jerome translated it to be the woman crushing the serpent’s head. I am not aware of any translator since who has done this. The Douhay-Rheims is an exception since it is translated from the Vulgate, not the original language. Similarly Jerome used the words “do penance” while every translation that I an aware of since has translated the Greek as repent.
The differences there are that Jerome was of The Church that canonized The Holy Bible in the first place.

Luther didn’t “translate” a verse, but literally changed a verse and all of a sudden, a new doctrine (Sola Scriptura) is revealed and coincidentally to the person who changed the text to bring about this new doctrine?

Honestly, you have to be (not you personally) really stupid to believe that a man who changes the meaning of a text and then creates a doctrine to meet it are coincidental, ESPECIALLY coming from an ant-Catholic.

Again and always…the tree, the tree, the tree!

Protestants hold Luther’s revelations of Scripture as true, yet they totally reject his veneration of Mary, his belief of her Immaculate Conception and on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

They place their faith in a “man” who they don’t completly agree with.

So which time was he wrong to them?
And which time was he right?

To Protestants, when Martin Luther disagrees with Catholic Doctrine, he’s right. When he agrees with Catholic Doctrine, he’s wrong.

The only basis for a Protestants faith is anti-Catholicism. That is, those Protestants who know the truth and remain Protestant.

And being anti-any Christian is a sure sign that one is “not” a true Christian themselves.

Their one of those that brag about casting out demons and working miracles in Jesus’ name, but whom Jesus never knew.

Gosh I love being Catholic!

I love my faith!

I love it, I love it, I love it!

Thank You Father for bringing me home after my disobedience and arrogance and I pray that my anti-Catholic brethren be healed of that Satanic imposition and that my non-Catholic Christians who aren’t anti-Catholic be blessed an infinite fold!

Amen!
 
Honestly, you have to be (not you personally) really stupid to believe that a man who changes the meaning of a text and then creates a doctrine to meet it are coincidental, ESPECIALLY coming from an ant-Catholic.
That’s not all that Luther did that was wrong. Towards the end of his life, he was anti-Semitic in his writing (so much so that the Nazis used some of his theology to try and convince Christians to support the Holocaust against the Jews *); also, he tried to remove the Book of James from the NT Canon (supposedly called it a “right strawy epistle”) and he is credited with starting the idea that the Pope is the Anti-Christ (which I can find no Scriptural evidence to support, but this ridiculous idea has done a lot of damage to RC-Protestant relations).

What is interesting though is that the mainstream texts most ‘Protestants’ use for their Scripture translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV) do not use Luther’s questionable translations and they keep the Epistle of James (which I firmly believe is part of the NT Canon, and so do most ‘mainstream’ Protestants). Yet Protestant theologians of various denominations (Jack Chick, Benny Hinn, Joel O’steen, and the random guy on the street corner telling everyone they’re going to Hell are not examples of good Protestant theologians) are able to defend and contend for their faith and beliefs. Instead of looking at the popular ‘send me your money and you’ll be healed’ televangelists or the self-proclaimed infallible _____________ (pick a Protestant denomination) street corner preachers, read J. P. Holding (Tekton Apologetics Ministries), check out the Christian Think-Tank or find the books by Michael Green, a top Anglican apologist.

((cont’d))*
 
Protestants hold Luther’s revelations of Scripture as true, yet they totally reject his veneration of Mary, his belief of her Immaculate Conception and on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
They place their faith in a “man” who they don’t completly agree with.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find Protestants (even Lutherans) who place their ‘faith’ in Luther or hold his revelations (better ‘interpretations’, please find where he claims Divine knowledge) to be 100% accurate. For me personally, my view of Luther is that he had some interesting points, but his interpretations are not infallible and he is still a sinner like everyone else.

You might also want to recognize that Luther was not the only Reformer. There was Zwingli, Calvin, the Anglican theologians, etc., all with different views on theology.
The only basis for a Protestants faith is anti-Catholicism. That is, those Protestants who know the truth and remain Protestant.
And being anti-any Christian is a sure sign that one is “not” a true Christian themselves.
It is a shame that portions of Protestantism are so Anti-RC that they are unwilling to even try to understand RC doctrine, yet they attack it anyway. It certainly does not cause me to look favorably upon those groups.

Looking at this website and the arguments it puts forth in favor of Roman Catholicism and actually looking at basic RC doctrine for myself, I don’t see any apparent conflicts between Roman Catholic doctrine and Scripture. I am not necessarily saying RC doctrine is correct (or incorrect), but I am saying that to reject RC doctrine out-of-hand like many Protestants do seems counter to the theology of Sola Scriptura, and not even knowing RC doctrine, yet stridently condemning it as wrong [and even demonic or some other insult], seems very inappropriate and only makes those who do that type of thing look ignorant (at best). Certainly, I wish Protestantism would be more open to RC doctrine.

Personally, I am fascinated by the Saintly intercession doctrine (I am having PM conversations with several people about this issue and I started a thread under another topic about this) and I am giving strong consideration to asking a Saint to make intercession for me, but I am nervous (not because I think asking for Saintly intercession is sinful/morally wrong; I have looked at Scriptures and at the discussions/answers given by the resident apologists and people here and I see no Scriptural contradictions or issues of that sort). I am nervous more because it is so new to me as a consideration and goes against the things ingrained by virtually all Protestant groups.

Also, I may have a lot of explaining to do at the Restorationist group I am involved in at my university (I am involved in two campus ministries: an Episcopal Chapel House and a group quasi-affiliated with the Independent Christian Church movement [which is Restorationist in its theology]). :rolleyes:
Their one of those that brag about casting out demons and working miracles in Jesus’ name, but whom Jesus never knew.
I think I commented on that passage in another thread and linked to an article discussing it. 😛
 
That’s not all that Luther did that was wrong. Towards the end of his life, he was

((cont’d))
While I’m not defending his personal faults, but when I judge a person who professes to speak on behalf of Christ, I focus on his theological faults (with Luther, that’s more than enough).

You know, the deal with “do as they teach, but not as they do”, when Jesus referred to Phairsees who taught The Law, though the didn’t live the Law.

I certainly don’t believe that Luther worked on God’s authority. His work is rotten and that alone makes the theological aspect of that particular tree rotten (his fruits? Christian division and misindoctrination).
 
Well, the anti-semetism of his affected his theology (and thus potentially the theology of those following him), rejecting the Epistle of James is certainly a theological issue and so is trying to re-interpret prophecy is such a way as to demonize one’s enemies.
 
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find Protestants (even Lutherans) who place their ‘faith’ in Luther or hold his revelations (better ‘interpretations’, please find where he claims Divine knowledge) to be 100% accurate. For me personally, my view of Luther is that he had some interesting points, but his interpretations are not infallible and he is still a sinner like everyone else.

You might also want to recognize that Luther was not the only Reformer. There was Zwingli, Calvin, the Anglican theologians, etc., all with different views on theology.

It is a shame that portions of Protestantism are so Anti-RC that they are unwilling to even try to understand RC doctrine, yet they attack it anyway. It certainly does not cause me to look favorably upon those groups.

Looking at this website and the arguments it puts forth in favor of Roman Catholicism and actually looking at basic RC doctrine for myself, I don’t see any apparent conflicts between Roman Catholic doctrine and Scripture. I am not necessarily saying RC doctrine is correct (or incorrect), but I am saying that to reject RC doctrine out-of-hand like many Protestants do seems counter to the theology of Sola Scriptura, and not even knowing RC doctrine, yet stridently condemning it as wrong [and even demonic or some other insult], seems very inappropriate and only makes those who do that type of thing look ignorant (at best). Certainly, I wish Protestantism would be more open to RC doctrine.

Personally, I am fascinated by the Saintly intercession doctrine (I am having PM conversations with several people about this issue and I started a thread under another topic about this) and I am giving strong consideration to asking a Saint to make intercession for me, but I am nervous (not because I think asking for Saintly intercession is sinful/morally wrong; I have looked at Scriptures and at the discussions/answers given by the resident apologists and people here and I see no Scriptural contradictions or issues of that sort). I am nervous more because it is so new to me as a consideration and goes against the things ingrained by virtually all Protestant groups.

Also, I may have a lot of explaining to do at the Restorationist group I am involved in at my university (I am involved in two campus ministries: an Episcopal Chapel House and a group quasi-affiliated with the Independent Christian Church movement [which is Restorationist in its theology]). :rolleyes:

I think I commented on that passage in another thread and linked to an article discussing it. 😛
Think about it, even The Reformers didn’t agree with each other 100%. The very foundation of The Protestant Church was founded on on men who were divided (which is why the attempt to “re-form” God’s Church failed).

Again and always…a house founded on sand.

I would personally suggest to every Protestant (both anti-Catholic and not) to read The Holy Bible without the tinted glasses of their respective religion and/or lack thereof.

If they were to take a Bible and if they were to sit “in” a Catholic Church and read The Book of Revelations, they would see that revelation come alive in The Church.
 
The differences there are that Jerome was of The Church that canonized The Holy Bible in the first place.

Luther didn’t “translate” a verse, but literally changed a verse and all of a sudden, a new doctrine (Sola Scriptura) is revealed and coincidentally to the person who changed the text to bring about this new doctrine?
The change to Romans did not result in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If anything it affected the doctrine of Sola Fide. However that is not wholly dependent on Romans 3. In fact you can find the expression faith alone used extensively by John Chrysostom.
Protestants hold Luther’s revelations of Scripture as true, yet they totally reject his veneration of Mary, his belief of her Immaculate Conception and on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

They place their faith in a “man” who they don’t completly agree with.

So which time was he wrong to them?
And which time was he right?

To Protestants, when Martin Luther disagrees with Catholic Doctrine, he’s right. When he agrees with Catholic Doctrine, he’s wrong.

The only basis for a Protestants faith is anti-Catholicism. That is, those Protestants who know the truth and remain Protestant.

And being anti-any Christian is a sure sign that one is “not” a true Christian themselves.
I do not hold all of Luther’s interpretations as true nor do I hold all Catholic interpretations as wrong. What I do not believe is that the Catholic Church has never taught error. That does not mean that Protestants have everything right or Catholics everything wrong.
Their one of those that brag about casting out demons and working miracles in Jesus’ name, but whom Jesus never knew.

Gosh I love being Catholic!

I love my faith!

I love it, I love it, I love it!

Thank You Father for bringing me home after my disobedience and arrogance and I pray that my anti-Catholic brethren be healed of that Satanic imposition and that my non-Catholic Christians who aren’t anti-Catholic be blessed an infinite fold!

Amen!
I love my faith too. I love it enough to look for elements of truth wherever I can find them, including the teachings of the Catholic Church. I love it enough that I cannot accept everything that the Catholic Church proposes as necessary for belief, particulairly those things that have only been deifined as necessary in the last 200 years. For example, if it was not necessary to believe in the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854, why did it become necessary then? Did God change what He required us to believe because the Pope said we now had to believe it? God doesn’t change. If it was necessary to believe it from the start, what happens to people like Thomas Aquinas who did not accept the doctrine as set out by Pius IX? If it has always been necessary, did the Church not fail people by not telling them so until 1854? Why would someone not have to believe it in 1853 but have to believe it in 1855? I could go on with similar examples.
 
<<You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).>>

In other words, “The pope is not infallible, but I am.”
 
<<You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).>>
I almost cracked up in laughter reading this. I mean, that sounds so pompous and arrogant and ridiculous. I don’t see him claiming Divine revelation. In fact, he says ‘my will is reason enough’.

What I have to ask though is why didn’t the Pope obey the Dr. Martin Luther? How dare the Pope disobey an order from Dr. Martin Luther! :rolleyes: 😃 :rolleyes: 😃 :rolleyes: 😃
 
It certainly matches his desire to take the book of James, that “epistle of straw,” and throw it “into the fire.”

My own Concordia Bible, with its Lutheran notes preceding each book, quotes Luther as saying that James “wasn’t up to the task.”

Luther’s own words are my best friend in teaching my children the authority of the Church, and the folly of ignoring it.

Peace.
John
 
I do not hold all of Luther’s interpretations as true nor do I hold all Catholic interpretations as wrong.
Pick and choose. This is what lead to 34,000+ denoms.
What I do not believe is that the Catholic Church has never taught error. That does not mean that Protestants have everything right or Catholics everything wrong.
Prove one doctrine that The Church taught that was later found to be wrong.
For example, if it was not necessary to believe in the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854, why did it become necessary then?
Because The Pope said so!

LOL!

No, seriously, the truth has to be accepted. If a Christian doesn’t accept the truth about Mary, then they are breaking the commandment that mandates that we honor or mother.
Did God change what He required us to believe because the Pope said we now had to believe it? God doesn’t change. If it was necessary to believe it from the start, what happens to people like Thomas Aquinas who did not accept the doctrine as set out by Pius IX? If it has always been necessary, did the Church not fail people by not telling them so until 1854? Why would someone not have to believe it in 1853 but have to believe it in 1855? I could go on with similar examples.
Fair questions…exactly “when” did Christians start believing in The Trinity? Or in The Rapture? Or in The Bible?

Niether of them existed at the “beginning”, so does that make them unworthy of belief? As for God “not” changing, has God ever said that Mary “wasn’t” immaculate conceived?

And The Pope’s job is to tell us what is worthy of believing (as can be traced back to Saint Peter who did the exact same thing).

Again, it’s ok to have pastors telling one what to do or what to believe, but forum forbid that a “Roman Papist” do the same.
 
<<You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).>>

In other words, “The pope is not infallible, but I am.”
:rotfl:
 
Looking at this website and the arguments it puts forth in favor of Roman Catholicism and actually looking at basic RC doctrine for myself, I don’t see any apparent conflicts between Roman Catholic doctrine and Scripture. I am not necessarily saying RC doctrine is correct (or incorrect), but I am saying that to reject RC doctrine out-of-hand like many Protestants do seems counter to the theology of Sola Scriptura, and not even knowing RC doctrine, yet stridently condemning it as wrong [and even demonic or some other insult], seems very inappropriate and only makes those who do that type of thing look ignorant (at best). Certainly,* I wish Protestantism would be more open to RC doctrine.***

Let’s all pray that our Protestant brothers do that - be more open to RC doctrine, and also pray for Marcus Grodi that he’ll be up to the challenge when as a result more Protests will journey home.
God bless.
emarc
 
nsper7;3150070:
Looking at this website and the arguments it puts forth in favor of Roman Catholicism and actually looking at basic RC doctrine for myself, I don’t see any apparent conflicts between Roman Catholic doctrine and Scripture. I am not necessarily saying RC doctrine is correct (or incorrect), but I am saying that to reject RC doctrine out-of-hand like many Protestants do seems counter to the theology of Sola Scriptura, and not even knowing RC doctrine, yet stridently condemning it as wrong [and even demonic or some other insult], seems very inappropriate and only makes those who do that type of thing look ignorant (at best). Certainly,* I wish Protestantism would be more open to RC doctrine.***
Let’s all pray that our Protestant brothers do that - be more open to RC doctrine, and also pray for Marcus Grodi that he’ll be up to the challenge when as a result more Protests will journey home.
God bless.
emarc

My belief is that the staunch anti-Catholics who were misindoctrinated either by their parents or their churches or by society in general, don’t even consider looking into Catholicism.

I love watching The Journey Home. I love to hear the stories of all those Protestant Clergy who convert to Catholicism. They had to make great sacrifices to join The Church having to give up their jobs & salaries as pastors, many were ostricized by their friends and family and they had to start from scratch, but they placed their faith in God and they were blessed abundantly once they confirmed their own decisions.

You know who make the best Catholic Apologists?
Former Protestants.
Their on fire for The Church and they use that same zeal they once had just for Jesus for His Church.

I used to be a big time anti-Catholic, but in my studying history, I kept bumping into certain truths that I couldn’t ignore.

I think the best way to “enlighten” Protestants is not by encouraging them to study our doctrine. If all they did was to study the history of Christianity, they too would come face to face with the truth about our (and their) Church.

🙂
 
emarc;3151893:
My belief is that the staunch anti-Catholics who were misindoctrinated either by their parents or their churches or by society in general, don’t even consider looking into Catholicism.

I love watching The Journey Home. I love to hear the stories of all those Protestant Clergy who convert to Catholicism. They had to make great sacrifices to join The Church having to give up their jobs & salaries as pastors, many were ostricized by their friends and family and they had to start from scratch, but they placed their faith in God and they were blessed abundantly once they confirmed their own decisions.

You know who make the best Catholic Apologists?
Former Protestants.
Their on fire for The Church and they use that same zeal they once had just for Jesus for His Church.

I used to be a big time anti-Catholic, but in my studying history, I kept bumping into certain truths that I couldn’t ignore.

I think the best way to “enlighten” Protestants is not by encouraging them to study our doctrine. If all they did was to study the history of Christianity, they too would come face to face with the truth about our (and their) Church.

🙂
I think that your rabid anti Protestant rants are the best enlightenment a seeking Protestant could find to turn away from the Church. Glad I found you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top