P
PRmerger
Guest
Amen! Very Catholic, this!
- Status
S
spina1953
Guest
I think that you have either misunderstood me or missed that point I was making. If I have to check the Scriptures to make sure that the preacher is preaching correctly, that means to me that I am the one who knows what is doctrine and what is not and is to be preached. It also means that I know better than the preacher does about what Scripture means and does not mean. This to me is taking on authority over and above the authority of the preacher. If I can not trust the preacher to preach correctly and I have to make sure by checking Scripture to make sure that he/she does or is preaching correctly than indeed there is pride in that I am the authority because I know what is to be preached and preached correctly. testing the Spirits to see if something is correct takes a lot of understanding of what is being tested Besides how can I really know beyond a doubt that the Spirit is really guiding me? to make sure tat what the preacher is preaching is without error? If I am that sure that the Spirit is guiding me than I do not need the church and have no need for guidance as I know because the spirit told me so.
D
drblank1
Guest
Part of LXX was the translation by Hebrews at the request of Philadelphus that included the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text (the 39 books of the OT). We are unsure the origins of the apocrypha writings.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh. So JEWS did indeed consider it canonical. SomeoneâJEWSâput the Septuagint together.
And therefore there were some JEWS who considered the âapocryphaâ inspired.
QED.
D
drblank1
Guest
If there is nothing between you and God, the Holy Spirit will guide you. Even the Catholic church agrees that some bishops teach in error at times.
If I am a master mechanic and came to you and said, I have a car to sell you that that gets 100/mpg. Would you buy it without verifying my claims, or would you want to do some research, drive it, and see it for yourself? How is that prideful. It is the same concept.
D
drblank1
Guest
Please read my quote again, the Jews translated our 39 books. We do not know where the apocryphal writing came from. How does that put the Jews responsible for those writings?
Good try my friend!!!
P
PRmerger
Guest
They just mysteriously appeared in the Septuagint?Please read my quote again, the Jews translated our 39 books. We do not know where the apocryphal writing came from. How does that put the Jews responsible for those writings?
Good try my friend!!!
Really?
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4767062764552435&pid=15.1
That would mean that God really did want those books in there, if no Jew actually put them in!
D
drblank1
Guest
Well, that is a contradition to your early post when you said God has NOT fully revealed to us what He wasnts us to know about Him. Not sure where you are coming from? But thank you for acknowleging it. That is why I am a Biblical Christian.Amen! Very Catholic, this!
That is great that what I wrote is very Catholic. But MORE important than that: it is very Christian!!!
D
drblank1
Guest
I believe the Jewish people. Speak to them and ask them. Donât believe me. Go out and TEST what I am saying. Speak to a Jewish Rabbi. Ask him to give you historical evidence. I am not afraid for you to go and prove me wrong. Please, do it. Test it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Which Jewish people? The ones who spoke Greek and included the âapocryphaâ?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Perhaps if you could cite the post of mine that you believe says this, we can chat.
Please provide the link.
Thanks.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Philippians 3:8 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained. [Bold mine]
Doesnât sound like Paul is preaching OSAS. :nope:
P
Porknpie
Guest
Interesting that is what the Jehovah Witnesses say. Link here.
Absolutely, completely, 100% false. There were more Hellenistic Jews holding that the Septuagint was the Word Of God than Palestinian Jews.
Itâs great that you would read the Catechism. For that you get a big
Couple of other things to note from the Catechism.
We are not a religion of the book.
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a âreligion of the book.â Christianity is the religion of the âWordâ of God, a word which is ânot a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and livingâ.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74
Although it is extremely important to remember
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lordâs Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of Godâs Word and Christâs Body.66
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, âbut as what it really is, the word of Godâ.67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lordâs Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of Godâs Word and Christâs Body.66
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, âbut as what it really is, the word of Godâ.67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
And is extremely important to recognize
128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in Godâs works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.
129 **Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. **Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107
Because Christians read the OT in light of Christ crucified is a pretty important reason why we do not let the Pharisees determine what was OT scripture. The Church determined what was scripture based on the Apostolic Faith, what was handed down by the Apostles and they looked at what was being read at Mass in Catholic Churches throughout the world.
B
benjohnson
Guest
The trouble with this argument is that Christians are the new Israel: We wouldnât defer to the now Judaism for anything now that God has revealed Christ to us - especially now that Judaism in itâs more Rabbinic form has also changed over the last 2000 years.I believe the Jewish people. Speak to them and ask them. Donât believe me. Go out and TEST what I am saying. Speak to a Jewish Rabbi. Ask him to give you historical evidence. I am not afraid for you to go and prove me wrong. Please, do it. Test it.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hartman Grisar, who wrote an extraordinary 6 Volume biography of Luther, also published a one volume version. He also comments on the âqualityâ of Lutherâs âtranslationâ of the NT into German:
âIt was partly the defects of the translation itself, partly the cleverly calculated and thus all the more dangerous marginal glosses, which called forth objections and warnings from Catholic writers as soon as the work was published. Emser complains that Luther âmade Scripture to turn everywhere on faith and works, even when neither faith nor works are thought of.â Emser speaks of more than 1400 passages which Luther had rendered in a false and heretical sense, though many of the passages he instances are not of any great importance.â Grisar, pg 518-9, Volume V
Why was Luther in such a hurry to publish his translation of the New Testament? It wasnât because the German people deserved to read the Scriptures in their native tongue because they had more than two dozen printed translations in German prior to his. So, why the rush to publish something that was so poorly done? The Emser quote provides a plausible answer to this question. He relates that Lutherâs translation took every opportunity to portray Scripture as teaching Salvation by Faith Alone, even where it wasnât the subject of the text. However, in Lutherâs mind, ALL Scripture was intended to teach Salvation by Faith Alone and SOâŠâŠhe âfoundâ it everywhere. He wanted everyone else to do so also.
âThe Bible was unmistakably a Luther Bible. Prefaces and glosses read like an evolving catechism of Lutherâs theology. Itâs center is the doctrine of âjustification by faith alone.â Gritsch, (Lutheran Professor of Church History), âCompanionâ, pg. 65
Luther âspunâ the Bible to suit his own purposes, and as we have already learned, he criticized entire books of the Bible, AS IF, he had the authority to do so. In spite of his claim that the Bible is perfectly understandable to even the layman, Luther found it ânecessaryâ to accompanying prefaces which made it very clear that Salvation was by Faith Alone. It is odd though that nobody in Christian history ever ânoticedâ that doctrine before in Scripture. Apparently Luther, who was not willing to take the chance that people wouldnât ânoticeâ and made sure to âeducateâ them early on in their reading. Obviously, the desire to convince others (and himself) of Salvation by Faith Alone was the key motivation for âtranslatingâ the NT to German.
Now we come to the question as to whether Luther actually translated anything, and again, we turn to Protestant Scholar Henry Clay Vedder:
âAuthorities differ concerning the number of editions of the Bible in German before Lutherâs version appeared, but none enumerate fewer than fourteen in High German and three in Low German. Those in High German, which are all that we need consider here, are apparently reprints of a single MS. version, of which two copies are still preserved, one in a monastery at Tepl, Bohemia, the other in the library of the university at Freiburg in the Breisgau. The former, known as the Codex Teplensis has recently been printed and is accessible to all scholars. As this MS. contains seven articles of faith that are evidently Waldensian, many have been led to attribute to this version a Waldensian origin. Others have pointed out that no more is proved by the MS. than a Waldensian ownership of it at some time, and have asserted a Catholic origin for the version. We need not enter into this controversy, which concerns a question of technical scholarship rather than the historic effect of the version; for, whatever theory of its origin may prevail, the fact of it a frequent reprinting and wide circulation cannot be hi any wise affected.
This (German) version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the âdeadly parallel.â It appears from a verse-by- verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Lutherâs version is to call it a careful revision of the older text.â/U] Vedder, pg. 170-71
According to Vedder, not only was it impossible for Luther to have translated the NT from Greek into German, but he didnât. Furthermore, what we have always thought of as âLutherâs translationâ was not a translation at all, but really just a ârevisionâ of an earlier German NT. It would seem that these facts help us get a little closer to what motivated Luther to âtranslateâ the NT into German. Obviously it wasnât to âgive the German people the Scriptures in their native languageâ, because they already had German Bibles. It wasnât because Luther thought he could produce a âsuperiorâ German version, because even Luther must have realized that nothing âsuperiorâ would result from an incredibly rushed 11 week effort.
The only conclusion we can draw is that Luther, who had just been rebuffed by both the Church and the empire at Worms, and of course, recognized that his version of Salvation by Faith Alone was going to be resigned to the dustbin of Christian History if he didnât âdo somethingâ fast. That âsomethingâ was to publish the NT in German, and to write Prefaces for each book which would âassistâ the readers to âdiscoverâ Salvation by Faith Alone EVERYWHERE. Of course, officially âdemotingâ James to a secondary status, from which doctrine is not established, would âhelpâ to bend the minds of the populace. Who wouldnât âpreferâ a âsalvationâ in which Only Faith (or more radically â Only Belief) was important?
âIt was partly the defects of the translation itself, partly the cleverly calculated and thus all the more dangerous marginal glosses, which called forth objections and warnings from Catholic writers as soon as the work was published. Emser complains that Luther âmade Scripture to turn everywhere on faith and works, even when neither faith nor works are thought of.â Emser speaks of more than 1400 passages which Luther had rendered in a false and heretical sense, though many of the passages he instances are not of any great importance.â Grisar, pg 518-9, Volume V
Why was Luther in such a hurry to publish his translation of the New Testament? It wasnât because the German people deserved to read the Scriptures in their native tongue because they had more than two dozen printed translations in German prior to his. So, why the rush to publish something that was so poorly done? The Emser quote provides a plausible answer to this question. He relates that Lutherâs translation took every opportunity to portray Scripture as teaching Salvation by Faith Alone, even where it wasnât the subject of the text. However, in Lutherâs mind, ALL Scripture was intended to teach Salvation by Faith Alone and SOâŠâŠhe âfoundâ it everywhere. He wanted everyone else to do so also.
âThe Bible was unmistakably a Luther Bible. Prefaces and glosses read like an evolving catechism of Lutherâs theology. Itâs center is the doctrine of âjustification by faith alone.â Gritsch, (Lutheran Professor of Church History), âCompanionâ, pg. 65
Luther âspunâ the Bible to suit his own purposes, and as we have already learned, he criticized entire books of the Bible, AS IF, he had the authority to do so. In spite of his claim that the Bible is perfectly understandable to even the layman, Luther found it ânecessaryâ to accompanying prefaces which made it very clear that Salvation was by Faith Alone. It is odd though that nobody in Christian history ever ânoticedâ that doctrine before in Scripture. Apparently Luther, who was not willing to take the chance that people wouldnât ânoticeâ and made sure to âeducateâ them early on in their reading. Obviously, the desire to convince others (and himself) of Salvation by Faith Alone was the key motivation for âtranslatingâ the NT to German.
Now we come to the question as to whether Luther actually translated anything, and again, we turn to Protestant Scholar Henry Clay Vedder:
âAuthorities differ concerning the number of editions of the Bible in German before Lutherâs version appeared, but none enumerate fewer than fourteen in High German and three in Low German. Those in High German, which are all that we need consider here, are apparently reprints of a single MS. version, of which two copies are still preserved, one in a monastery at Tepl, Bohemia, the other in the library of the university at Freiburg in the Breisgau. The former, known as the Codex Teplensis has recently been printed and is accessible to all scholars. As this MS. contains seven articles of faith that are evidently Waldensian, many have been led to attribute to this version a Waldensian origin. Others have pointed out that no more is proved by the MS. than a Waldensian ownership of it at some time, and have asserted a Catholic origin for the version. We need not enter into this controversy, which concerns a question of technical scholarship rather than the historic effect of the version; for, whatever theory of its origin may prevail, the fact of it a frequent reprinting and wide circulation cannot be hi any wise affected.
This (German) version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the âdeadly parallel.â It appears from a verse-by- verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Lutherâs version is to call it a careful revision of the older text.â/U] Vedder, pg. 170-71
According to Vedder, not only was it impossible for Luther to have translated the NT from Greek into German, but he didnât. Furthermore, what we have always thought of as âLutherâs translationâ was not a translation at all, but really just a ârevisionâ of an earlier German NT. It would seem that these facts help us get a little closer to what motivated Luther to âtranslateâ the NT into German. Obviously it wasnât to âgive the German people the Scriptures in their native languageâ, because they already had German Bibles. It wasnât because Luther thought he could produce a âsuperiorâ German version, because even Luther must have realized that nothing âsuperiorâ would result from an incredibly rushed 11 week effort.
The only conclusion we can draw is that Luther, who had just been rebuffed by both the Church and the empire at Worms, and of course, recognized that his version of Salvation by Faith Alone was going to be resigned to the dustbin of Christian History if he didnât âdo somethingâ fast. That âsomethingâ was to publish the NT in German, and to write Prefaces for each book which would âassistâ the readers to âdiscoverâ Salvation by Faith Alone EVERYWHERE. Of course, officially âdemotingâ James to a secondary status, from which doctrine is not established, would âhelpâ to bend the minds of the populace. Who wouldnât âpreferâ a âsalvationâ in which Only Faith (or more radically â Only Belief) was important?
T
Topper17
Guest
:clapping:Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response,
To tell you the truth, I canât understand why a good person like you would follow a man like Luther. He was full of hatred, as mentioned by Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards in a refreshingly honest comment:
âLuther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.â Edwards, âLutherâs Last Battlesâ, pg. 36
âIt truly seems to me that if this fury of the Romanists should continue, there is no remedy except that the emperor, kings, and princes, girded with force and arms, should resolve to attack this plague of all the earth no longer with words but with the sword. âŠIf we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not all the more fling ourselves with all our weapons upon these masters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and all this stink of Roman sodomy that ceaselessly corrupts the church of God and wash our hands in their blood so that we may free ourselves and all who belong to us from this dangerous fire.â Marius, page 282-3 WA6: 347
In 1521, even before he was excommunicated, Luther calls for people to wash their hands in the blood of Catholics, and somehow, my comments about Catholics not wanting Lutherâs Doctoral beret are âobnoxiousâ. His comments were designed to incite the common people, and at that Luther was a master. We all know how that turned out for the âcommon peopleâ.
I have said it before but it bears repeating â I am at least 10 times more charitable towards Luther than he was towards his opponents. I would also suggest to you that these things that we are learning about Luther are an indication of the nature and character of the man, a nature and character which is not what you would call âwell knownâ at all to the âaverage lay Protestantâ.
So Jon, just to be clear â there definitely IS a high moral ground here.
All this being said, I will restate that I have tremendous respect for Lutherans, especially because they are âdogmaticâ, meaning that dogma is seen as being very important. I am not as thrilled with the brand of Lutheranism which does not think that doctrinal issues are not worth arguing about.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
By the way, when I first came to CA a few months ago, you told me that you would criticize Luther âwhen needs beâ. The last quote from Marius seems to be a perfect opportunity to finally demonstrate that that statement is true.
Thanks for your response,
Actually Jon, YOU WISH Lutherans were not bound to Luther. You can claim all you want that Lutheranism is somehow âdisconnectedâ from Luther, but that will not make it so. It was Luther who founded the Lutheran church and your denomination is forever bound to the doctrines that Luther developed and âusedâ to break away from the Historic Church. I donât blame you for wanting to distance yourself from Luther but I think everyone here recognizes to be true exactly what you deny.
I find this comment rather interesting. Actually I think âthat thou doth protest too muchâ. I say that no Catholic Theologian would have wanted Lutherâs (Doctoral) beret, and THIS you find obnoxious. On the other hand, you donât think Catholics should be offended when the office of the papacy is referred to as the Anti-Christ. It also should be noted that it is the official teaching of the Lutheran church that the pop IS the anti-Christ, with that teaching actually being part of your confessions. Personally, I think that there is a whole lot more âgoing onâ here than my comment about Catholic Theologianâs not wanting Lutherâs beret.You see, these are the kind of obnoxious, unnecessary comments you make that makes dialogue with you unpleasant. I come here because I enjoy the interactions with respectful Catholics and others. So, before I say something that I will regret,
bye.
To tell you the truth, I canât understand why a good person like you would follow a man like Luther. He was full of hatred, as mentioned by Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards in a refreshingly honest comment:
âLuther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.â Edwards, âLutherâs Last Battlesâ, pg. 36
âIt truly seems to me that if this fury of the Romanists should continue, there is no remedy except that the emperor, kings, and princes, girded with force and arms, should resolve to attack this plague of all the earth no longer with words but with the sword. âŠIf we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not all the more fling ourselves with all our weapons upon these masters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and all this stink of Roman sodomy that ceaselessly corrupts the church of God and wash our hands in their blood so that we may free ourselves and all who belong to us from this dangerous fire.â Marius, page 282-3 WA6: 347
In 1521, even before he was excommunicated, Luther calls for people to wash their hands in the blood of Catholics, and somehow, my comments about Catholics not wanting Lutherâs Doctoral beret are âobnoxiousâ. His comments were designed to incite the common people, and at that Luther was a master. We all know how that turned out for the âcommon peopleâ.
I have said it before but it bears repeating â I am at least 10 times more charitable towards Luther than he was towards his opponents. I would also suggest to you that these things that we are learning about Luther are an indication of the nature and character of the man, a nature and character which is not what you would call âwell knownâ at all to the âaverage lay Protestantâ.
So Jon, just to be clear â there definitely IS a high moral ground here.
All this being said, I will restate that I have tremendous respect for Lutherans, especially because they are âdogmaticâ, meaning that dogma is seen as being very important. I am not as thrilled with the brand of Lutheranism which does not think that doctrinal issues are not worth arguing about.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
By the way, when I first came to CA a few months ago, you told me that you would criticize Luther âwhen needs beâ. The last quote from Marius seems to be a perfect opportunity to finally demonstrate that that statement is true.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Pease donât presume to inform us Lutherans what we profess as youâre woefully wrong.
Our claim is that the Lutheran church started at Pentecost, as we claim to be a valid continuation of the western church.
Itâs appropriate for Catholics to point out that the Catholic view of our church is different.
But itâs inappropriate for you to claim that they Lutheran viewpoint of our church is as you have said.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Topper seems to be debating something that is not even relevant anymore. Particularly in light of Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue that clearly proclaims:
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Thread off topic, despite warnings.
Closed.
Closed.
- Status