I
izoid
Guest
You are starting to remind me of Luther. My translation does not have “no other writings”.
My children’s names are John, Michelle and Elizabeth. Does that mean that those are my only children?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
My children’s names are John, Michelle and Elizabeth. Does that mean that those are my only children?
S
SemperReformada
Guest
Okay, I see your point but you need to consider that my post was in repsonse to Thistle who apparently was trying to prove the inspiration of the deutero’s by illustrating various NT allusions and alleged quotations.After reading this, I definitely did go back and read what you wrote. You said:
In making this statement you have to assume that citation has some bearing on inspiration. Otherwise, why bother making a connection between “never quoted” and “thought they were inspired”?
It would be like if I said, “My daughter never sent me an email stating she wanted a birthday present.”. Then she would say to me, “Wait a second! Never on any of my previous birthday did I have to email you to get a present.”. Then I say to her, “Wait a second! Who said there was a connection between emails and presents? You’re putting words in my mouth.”
I do not believe there are any NT quotes or allusions from the dc’s which would lead someone to believe the dc’s are inspired. So if I were Catholic I would approach this whole topic differently.
A
adriancombe
Guest
Keeping in mind that I don’t see citation or reference as directly connected to inspiration….
I do not believe there are any NT quotes or allusions from the dc’s which would lead someone to believe the dc’s are inspired. So if I were Catholic I would approach this whole topic differently.
Have you seen this yet?
bombaxo.com/allusions.html
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
He “kept” the unique Catholic set of the Deutero books later officially embraced at Trent in the sense that he included them in his translation (as Lutherans did as they used that - in German or translations of it). He frequently quoted from it (references are found even in the Lutheran Confessions). But he does not follow Trent and officially determine that they are the inspired, inerrant, inscripturated words of God.The points you bring up are rather interesting.
Do you have any sources that Luther did keep the Deutercanonical Books?
Luther soon realized what we all do, that it’s not “contradictory” at all. Indeed, James 2:20 is a part of the Lutheran teaching of sola fide.Do you understand that the “BRIEF problem” you describe about Luther’s opinion about James is rather troubling to me considering James 2:20 “Faith without works is useless” would be contradictory to Luther’s theology?
Translations ALWAYS add or delete words as compared to the original koine Greek or ancient Hebrew. Yes, there is a case when he added “alone” to a verse in his translation. Some would agree that that is a good and faithful translation of the thought, others not. But the translations Lutherans use today don’t have it. You should know that for Lutheran scholars, NO translation is used (including Luther’s) but as in Catholicism, they always go to the Hebrew and Greek. Just as your priest never uses any translations as he prepares sermons, etc., so no Lutheran pastor does. IIn fact, my father stopped permitting me to have discussions with him about verses on the basis of a translation when I was 12 years old. He gave me the tools to go back to the original (sadly NOT internet tools, lol, but a ton of books!) - I still use those. When I just want to read, I typically use the ESV but if I’m studying a NT verse, I got to my koine Greek text. And frankly, while Luther’s translation lasted well into the 20th century and I understand was extremely well done, I’d hesitate to use ANY translation that resulted from one person or one perspective (even if that’s Lutheran). The ESV is a process going back to 1885 and has involved hundreds and hundreds of scholars from a very broad, very ecumenical perspective. But even then, I use it simply for familiarity with content - not for study.Can you explain why Luther added the words “alone” to several bible passages or is this a falsehood?
I hope that helps.
Pax
- Josiah
A
adriancombe
Guest
**. *You should know that for Lutheran scholars, NO translation is used (including Luther’s) but as in Catholicism, they always go to the Hebrew and Greek. *Just as your priest never uses any translations as he prepares sermons, etc., so no Lutheran pastor does. *IIn fact, my father stopped permitting me to have discussions with him about verses on the basis of a translation when I was 12 years old. *He gave me the tools to go back to the original (sadly NOT internet tools, lol, but a ton of books!) - I still use those. *
.
This sounds like me today. Unfortunately the Catholic clergy in the U.S. is nowhere near the level you are talking about.*
F
fish90
Guest
Why would Luther include books in his version of the bible when he did not believe they were inspired?He “kept” the unique Catholic set of the Deutero books later officially embraced at Trent in the sense that he included them in his translation (as Lutherans did as they used that - in German or translations of it). He frequently quoted from it (references are found even in the Lutheran Confessions). But he does not follow Trent and officially determine that they are the inspired, inerrant, inscripturated words of God.
Luther soon realized what we all do, that it’s not “contradictory” at all. Indeed, James 2:20 is a part of the Lutheran teaching of sola fide.
Translations ALWAYS add or delete words as compared to the original koine Greek or ancient Hebrew. Yes, there is a case when he added “alone” to a verse in his translation. Some would agree that that is a good and faithful translation of the thought, others not. But the translations Lutherans use today don’t have it. You should know that for Lutheran scholars, NO translation is used (including Luther’s) but as in Catholicism, they always go to the Hebrew and Greek. Just as your priest never uses any translations as he prepares sermons, etc., so no Lutheran pastor does. IIn fact, my father stopped permitting me to have discussions with him about verses on the basis of a translation when I was 12 years old. He gave me the tools to go back to the original (sadly NOT internet tools, lol, but a ton of books!) - I still use those. When I just want to read, I typically use the ESV but if I’m studying a NT verse, I got to my koine Greek text. And frankly, while Luther’s translation lasted well into the 20th century and I understand was extremely well done, I’d hesitate to use ANY translation that resulted from one person or one perspective (even if that’s Lutheran). The ESV is a process going back to 1885 and has involved hundreds and hundreds of scholars from a very broad, very ecumenical perspective. But even then, I use it simply for familiarity with content - not for study.
I hope that helps.
Pax
.
- Josiah
Why did Luther not have reservations with other Scripture including those that the Catholic Church denied as being inspired (Protoevangelium of James, Didache)?
What group of people existed then from the time of Christ’s death on the cross and until the year 400A.D. who had bishops, the pope, apostolic succession, the sacraments, and others if it was not the Catholic Church?
- What Luther thought is actually of no concern to Lutherans; he was and is not an authority in Lutheranism. ****
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Who said he didn’t? He just didn’t see an affirmation that they were. The Council of Trent hadn’t happened yet - and was of no concern or interest outside of Catholicism anyway.Why would Luther include books in his version of the bible when he did not believe they were inspired?
Lutheranism STILL has never ruled on this. We do not officially denounce ANY DEUTERO set of books - the OO’s or the EO’s or the CC’s. We just don’t officially embrace them as the inspired, inerrant, inscripturated words of God.
.
.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I would suggest that your argument that the counsole of trent hadn’t happend yet, so replacing out the Septuagint with the hebrew bible was a-ok to be an argument made with some ignorance of history. It was never A-ok to just replace out the OT chosen by all of Christianity including Christ him self. In fact, the first Christan to try was St. Jerome, the very person responcible for the Vulgate. He caused such a scandal in the See of Alexandria that they held no less than 2 regional counsoles to deal specifically with the issue. These were given Paple concent, and actually form the basis for the current Cannon of the bible (which the Protestant/Lutheran bibles violate).Who said he didn’t? He just didn’t see an affirmation that they were. The Council of Trent hadn’t happened yet - and was of no concern or interest outside of Catholicism anyway.
Lutheranism STILL has never ruled on this. We do not officially denounce ANY DEUTERO set of books - the OO’s or the EO’s or the CC’s. We just don’t officially embrace them as the inspired, inerrant, inscripturated words of God.
The counsole of Trent, was merly a reaction to Luther. It was a reaffermation of church teaching against the heresy that the Septuigant should be replaced by the Hebrew Torah in the Bible. St. Jerome was humble enough to just quit it when the final decission came down. This is why he never found him self excommunicated or worse yet, banished to the farthest reaches of the empire by the Christian Emperor. St. Jerome yeiled the authority of the Magisterium, despite his personal reservations. That would be the last time, until the time of Luther who needed to replace the OT in order to build his case for schism, that anyone would deny the canonicity of these books and the rest of the Septuagint
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I didn’t say they did.Randy,
The council of Jamnia didn’t even discuss the deutero’s.
I’ve read the article many times.Go to www.handsonapologetics.com and take a look at the article written by Steve Ray on the council of Jamnia.
What am I supposed to get out of it that I’ve missed?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Where did I say that Jamnia threw out the Deuteros?Randy,
I don’t understand your posts. In one post you seem to think Jamnia threw out the deutero’s and in another you discredit that notion and post information which says the dc’s weren’t discussed. What gives?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If Jimmy Akin (from whom I got this idea) is correct, then we still know with certainty that the books we have now are canonical.So much for your supposed certainty concerning the canon, huh?
How does this unsettle the Catholic position?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
That wouldn’t be fair to Luther.So, Luther is the one that caused everything in contemporary Protestantism, according to The Catholic Church?
Modern Protestants have rejected much of what he believed, and I can’t believe he’d be very pleased with what has become of the movement he started.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
We need to pause and let that statement sink in a bit…
- What Luther thought is actually of no concern to Lutherans; he was and is not an authority in Lutheranism.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Luther “changed” nothing. His translation INCLUDING the unique set of DEUTERO books that the Council of Trent would LATER uniquely declare are the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of God (he did not include the unique EO set or the unique OO set). He preached from such, he quoted such, references to such are even found in the Lutheran Confessions.I would suggest that your argument that the counsole of trent hadn’t happend yet, so replacing out the Septuagint with the hebrew bible was a-ok to be an argument made with some ignorance of history.
What he did NOT do is rule on them - one way or the other. Lutherans STILL have not. Trent did this after Luther’s death and only, exclusivly, solely for The Catholic Church thus of zero interest or consequence for the other half of Christianity. It is The Catholic Church that “determined” their status AFTER Luther’s death. Luther determined NOTHING about them.
.
C
crazzeto
Guest
No, your history is incorrect, the counsole of Trent did not later declare them inerrant, they already were a part of cannon. The Counsole of trent merly stated that you can’t remove any books for the bible and still call it the bible. If you want to continue arguing your point I suggest you start producing evidence to support your claim.Luther “changed” nothing. His translation INCLUDING the unique set of DEUTERO books that the Council of Trent would LATER uniquely declare are the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of God (he did not include the unique EO set or the unique OO set). He preached from such, he quoted such, references to such are even found in the Lutheran Confessions.
What he did NOT do is rule on them - one way or the other. Lutherans STILL have not. Trent did this after Luther’s death and only, exclusivly, solely for The Catholic Church thus of zero interest or consequence for the other half of Christianity. It is The Catholic Church that “determined” their status AFTER Luther’s death. Luther determined NOTHING about them.
.
F
fish90
Guest
AmericanJosiah, Ecumenical Councils are called in order to define doctrine that is already known. From what I know, the Church called the Council of Trent in order to define Luther and other Protestant reformists objections of the Catholic faith. Notice indulgences are still valid, the Deutercanon was permanently canonized because they are inspired, and etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.