R
rr1213
Guest
Ooooo, I know! (This ought to be good).
- Status
M
mgrfin
Guest
Thanks for your post.
I never follow the argument of those who say he used the word "allien’ , but he didn’t mean ‘alone’ in English.
I’ve studied Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, but I always feel like a dunce when someone tries to explain away this interpolation by Dr. Martin about the German.
Thanks for your clear analysis.
peace
mgrfin
P
Philothea53
Guest
He could refute it all he wanted and call us (Catholic) names for seeing it for what it was, but did he not feel anything for those people (protestants) who followed him and his crooked way of thinking?
M
mgrfin
Guest
In the books of the New Testament, Luther rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the Apocalypse. The he placed at the end of his translation, after the others, which he called 'the true and certain capital books of the New Testament".
peace
mgrfin
M
mgrfin
Guest
better…
C
Calvinator
Guest
In Luther’s translation, he left out Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse? Is this what you are saying?
D
donnyblake
Guest
This about sums up Mr. Luthert’s character…thanks ALLOFGRACE:
"When my grandmother spoke English she spoke it with der gross Cherman accent; my mother did not speak English until she went to school. I grew up in the home of my grandmother Rosena Meitzler Schumacher with my mother. I know what allien means - it means ALONE. It makes no difference whether he added SOLA, ALONE, ALLIEN, etc. HE ADDED THE WORD ALONE where it was not and he states that he did it. The fact remains that it had to be there in order to make it say what Luther wanted it to say - BY FAITH ALONE. The fact remains that SOLA FIDE is one of the kingpins of the Protestant movement and Luther himself said that without that the movement would fall. He did it dishonestly and he stated that he did but Protestants will twist and turn any dido to get their heads into the sand. Many don’t THINK deeply and are fooled by all the hubbub but anyone who KNOWS LUTHER knows better. He went so far as to throw outbooks of the Bible to protect what he called “my evangel.” His delusions of grandeur moved him to say that NO ONE, not even the angels in heaven could judge “my evangel” and that anyone who did not accept “my evangel” could not be saved.
It was a hard blow to me when I found out these things as a deeply involved Protestant; it shook my faith but I put on my big girl panties and dealt with it. I didn’t put down all the books I dug deeper into it and could no longer in good conscience remain a Protestant. Yet it would be another decade before I would consider the Catholic Church.
Many stay in denial. It’s their prerogative."
A man of character, or merely a character???
"When my grandmother spoke English she spoke it with der gross Cherman accent; my mother did not speak English until she went to school. I grew up in the home of my grandmother Rosena Meitzler Schumacher with my mother. I know what allien means - it means ALONE. It makes no difference whether he added SOLA, ALONE, ALLIEN, etc. HE ADDED THE WORD ALONE where it was not and he states that he did it. The fact remains that it had to be there in order to make it say what Luther wanted it to say - BY FAITH ALONE. The fact remains that SOLA FIDE is one of the kingpins of the Protestant movement and Luther himself said that without that the movement would fall. He did it dishonestly and he stated that he did but Protestants will twist and turn any dido to get their heads into the sand. Many don’t THINK deeply and are fooled by all the hubbub but anyone who KNOWS LUTHER knows better. He went so far as to throw outbooks of the Bible to protect what he called “my evangel.” His delusions of grandeur moved him to say that NO ONE, not even the angels in heaven could judge “my evangel” and that anyone who did not accept “my evangel” could not be saved.
It was a hard blow to me when I found out these things as a deeply involved Protestant; it shook my faith but I put on my big girl panties and dealt with it. I didn’t put down all the books I dug deeper into it and could no longer in good conscience remain a Protestant. Yet it would be another decade before I would consider the Catholic Church.
Many stay in denial. It’s their prerogative."
A man of character, or merely a character???
A
allofgrace
Guest
At times he spoke as though he had settled it and at other times up to his death he said that he never had.
He never said that God made him holy - he didn’t believe that. He believed that man was unendingly corrupt (the bondage of the will). He did not believe that we have free will. He said that when you believed in Jesus that that was all that there was. When you trusted Jesus then God saw only Jesus’ righteousness and imputed that to you. He did not understand GRACE and passed that down to his spiritual children. GRACE is so much more than Protestantism teaches that it is.
In Protestantism Jesus died for less than what Catholics believe he died for. The supernatural was downplayed by Luther and the so-called “reformers.”
St. Paul said that in the last days people would not accept sound doctrine and he also said that there would be “a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.” I believe that that is what the “reformers” gave us - symbolism in the sacraments rather than the power of God ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING in the believer, grace that is merely “unmerited favor,” justification that is “by faith alone,” “private interpretation” of the scriptures ALONE to the point that very few look for GOD’S TRUTH today… and on and on.
A
allofgrace
Guest
Luther called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw with nothing of the gospel in it.” He said that James did not write it. He also says in his writings for all to read, “I don’t know what others may do but I will not have it in my bible.” Luther had no power to take those books out of the scriptures actually but he picked and chose among the books and wrote against those above. He didn’t consider Revelation scripture nor Hebrews. He complained that a revelation should be revealing.
He actually threw out 7 books and parts of books like Daniel in the Old Testament yet they remained part of the bible until the “Bible Societies” took them out completely. Even the King James Version had them in the back of the book as “The Apocrypha.”
And yes, we know the Protestant method of justifying the chopping of the Deuterocanonicals and it does not hold water. They were part of the canon from the time it was put together in the 4th Century and they were taken out. Protestants try to tell you that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from them but that is dishonest as well. They talk about the Jewish canon which was after Christ but it was part of the Septuagint translated into Greek in the Diaspora and used by the Jews of Jesus day.
Regardless of the twists and turns it suffers at the hands of those who want to justify it’s being thrown out, the fact remains that the Reformers played fast and loose with the Bible they claimed to respect. The fact remains that they THREW OUT part of the Old Testament and would have thrown out some of the new and then accuse the Catholic Church of ADDING BOOKS.
It is dishonest and reprehensible and so have at it…
C
Contarini
Guest
No. Either you have not actually read “On Translating,” or you have not bothered to try to understand it. He gives a reason from common German usage in his day indicating why he needed to use “allein” to interpret the meaning of the original. I know quite well that “allein” is the closest German equivalent to “alone.” That is not the point.
No, he stated the exact opposite. He stated that he needed to use it in German to convey the meaning of the Greek. I rather think he was wrong. But he did not “add” a word “dishonestly.” He made a translation decision, which was of course influenced by his theology, as all theological translations are.
Edwin
M
mgrfin
Guest
S
St_Violet
Guest
Luther didn’t throw them out, he placed them in the back of his bible because he didn’t believe that they were inspired even the book of revelations that many Protestants today hold dear, although we now know he was in error to believe this and to place them in the back of the bible. Sure he might of encourage others to read these books anyway but I’m just as sure he couldn’t resist putting in his 2 cents about those books at the same time.
what I think Luther did with those books is very dangerous to himself and Christianity. he basically seperated the bible.
what I think Luther did with those books is very dangerous to himself and Christianity. he basically seperated the bible.
M
mgrfin
Guest
You’re right about the Book of Revelations and Luther’s reaction to it. There is hardly a televangelist today on national television who isn’t into preaching from Revelations, even to the point of ignoring the Evangelists. They also love the book of Daniel.
It is beyond me how they ignore the message and the words of Jesus.
peace
mgrfin
H
HailMary
Guest
The book of Revelation is the most Catholic book of them all since it has the Liturgy, makes no wonder why he didn’t like it.
N
Nella
Guest
What??? Luther was a Reformer who held fast to the liturgies. So were the English Reformers. It was the later Protestants who threw out the meaning of the Eucharist and crossing yourself and such. Luther retained much of the same worship style as the Roman church.
M
mgrfin
Guest
This is an old and brave defense of the addition of the word "alone’ to the German text. We have heard it all before.
Let’s look at Luther’s defense: The answer he gave to a ‘perversion of the text’ was: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightaway: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him, who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom”.
(Amic Discussion, 1, 127).
BTW, Luther made his translation of the whole Bible in ten weeks.
peace,
mgrfin
C
Contarini
Guest
You have heard it before because it is sound. You are simply repeating, out of context, the rhetorical flourish that introduces Luther’s actual reasons. The kindest way to describe this kind of misleading, out-of-context quotation is “sloppy.”
I am not defending Luther’s translation choice. I am pointing out that it was a translation choice, not an “addition,” and that he explicitly defends it as such.
Edwin
M
mgrfin
Guest
Sloppy? Oh, thank God you didn’t call it snobbish.
Luther defends it as an addition.
peace,
mgrfin
H
hosemonkey
Guest
The fact is, is that Luther’s arrogance and disobedience has led millions into rebellion against God’s Church and sown dissent and destruction until this day. Luther has proven himself not only a sloppy scholar, but by his later actions, a swine. He was a man of, at bottom, poor character.
S
St_Violet
Guest
Well, the fact that Luther placed the word “alone” in romans just shows that he was not qualified to interprete the bible. One of the most difficult thing that can be done to the bible is to interprete it in other languages, Which is why the Catholic Church was very careful on whom they select to interpret the bible and how they were going to interpret it. for example, I happen to speak two languages, when I interpret one sentence to another language, I cannot interpret the sentence exactly how it was said in the first language in the form of another language, it’s just how it is. misinterpreting one word can change an entire text.
And by the way weren’t there already german bibles around?
I do not think anyone can say that Luther did not error in anything he tried to do after his break away from the True Church
And by the way weren’t there already german bibles around?
I do not think anyone can say that Luther did not error in anything he tried to do after his break away from the True Church
- Status