Protestant interpretations...

[Jason_1977]

Luther’s words are often taken out of context by Catholics. I am only going to address the above “quote” as it is one I already looked up in the past.

What Luther actually said was “compared to” the other epistles, James is an epistle of straw. Luther was stating that the other gospels were much stronger concerning their witness to Christ. He was not making a statement of doubt.

It’s interesting how you cut out the words “compared to” when “quoting” Luther.

Isn’t that the same thing you falsely accused me of doing?

Ginger

To be honest, I just cut & pasted from another site. OH, I DID get to the bottom of the whole St. Joseph Confraternity issue you have & I was able to have someone look it up & indeed it says mark is the 2nd gospel, we think it just meant 2nd in place & not chronologically, but it’s dangerous if you dont know when books were written, because it could be construed as bum dope & you wouldnt know it unless you knew when each gospel was written. I’ll give ya that one. Flag on the play, lol.

 

[Jason_1977]

My experience with Catholics “quoting” Luther is it’s best to go read his words in their entirety for yourself. Every time I have checked his writing I have found his statements taken out of context, except for one time.

However, it is not uncommon for scholars to discuss the varying views, uncertainties and unanswered questions about the epistles and their authors.

This does not necessarily indicate a denial of their inspiration, rather an admission that we are not certain of every detail concerning these books.

As I have already demonstrated, Luther did not deny the inspiration of James. He merely compared it to other books in reference to their witness.
This is a valid observation. For instance, if you wanted to witness to someone who didn’t know Christ using the New Testament, which book would you be more likely to use:

A. John
B. James

The obvious answer is John. The very purpose in John writing his Gospel is so we may believe Jesus is the Messiah, and by believing we may have life in his name.

So, for this purpose, I agree James is an epistle of straw compared to the others.

Ginger

I’d say luke.

 

[Jason_1977]

We already know Luther did not remover the 7 extra apocrypha - He appended them the same as Jerome did. The RC didn’t have a problem with Jerome doing so, so I find it curious they have a problem with Luther keeping the Bible exactly as Catholics claim it had been for 1200 years.

I doubt your other claims are accurate, as well. Luther did not sit down and write the entire Bible all at once. Luther wrote one book at a time and released each book as it was completed.

And we have already determined Lutheran scholars cannot always be trusted to tell the truth, so why bother quoting them?

Ginger

why bother defending them?

 

[Jason_1977]

Jason, It seems you don’t comprehend anything anyone says, but rather assume you have all the answers and continue to make false claims after they have been proven false.

I don’t understand this.

EXAMPLE:

{\

I am not a follower of Luther, but of Christ Jesus, but I must speak out against false accusations and slander. Your assertions are false.

Ginger

At some point in time, you’ll realize the world isn’t always wrong. THIS is well known that he basically butchered the bible. Its very well known. His bibles were reassembled in the correct manner AFTER his death. Everyone can see this but protestants. I was a protestant my whole life up until a year and a half ago & I knew this. So does my father who remains protestant, my mother, honestly.

 

[Jason_1977]

Jason, It seems you don’t comprehend anything anyone says, but rather assume you have all the answers and continue to make false claims after they have been proven false.

I don’t understand this.

EXAMPLE:

{\

I am not a follower of Luther, but of Christ Jesus, but I must speak out against false accusations and slander. Your assertions are false.

Ginger

When have I been proven false? I dont sit down just because someone has a strong opinion on something, really…show me something…anything…proving Martin Luther NEVER removed books from the bible. PROOF…I mean, I havent seen ANY proof.There’s a nice warm breeze in the room, but I havent seen proof yet. I have cited 3 books in the past 24 hours, gave the authors & page numbers & everything, but that wasnt enough for someone else. I am willing to read & keep an open mind & stand ready to be corrected. As far as I’m concerned, I havent seen proof Ginger, so if you can show me, or lead me to hard substantial proof that luther never did that, I am more than ready to say I stand corrected. Until then, I maintain that the world is not wrong.

 

[plain_me]

This is known worldwide what Luther did. It’s fact. The only way you’d be able to see hard evidence of what he did is if you were to see one of HIS reformed bibles. After his death, Bibles were reassembled back to the way they should have been. It’s fact. I cited some books & scholars in there & there’s plenty of documentation to support it. I wouldn’t put much stock in Luther. If HE can remove books & get away with it, what will remain sacred?

I’m coming back today to discuss, but Luter is not the topic of this thread. You’ve gone off on some wild tangent since the nam of Luter was mentioned, and I’d appreciate it if you left the hobby horse in the stall and continue where wea left off beforehand. I asked some questions of you that were pertaining to the original conversation we were having; could you adress those?

 

[SimonArizona]

I’m coming back today to discuss, but Luter is not the topic of this thread. You’ve gone off on some wild tangent since the nam of Luter was mentioned, and I’d appreciate it if you left the hobby horse in the stall and continue where wea left off beforehand. I asked some questions of you that were pertaining to the original conversation we were having; could you adress those?

Can I join the conversation? what are the questions?

 

[whm]

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The Word was set before the foundation of the world. The Word became flesh and dwelt among men.

You know that John 1 was(and still is) read at every traditional Latin mass. So yes Catholics are very familiar with it. I am not sure what your specific point is.

This is the single mosst important issue I see with a majority of Catholics, including the ones in my family; they do not know Scripture. They read it on occasion but because they have been told and conditioned in my opinion, that they cannot or maybe do not need to interpret because they can only know from the Church which is correct rather than the Holy Spirit, which is what Scripture teaches. There is nowhere in Scripture that says a church interprets scipture, but there it does say the Holy Spirit will lead and guide one individual to the truth concerning the things of God.

I keep seeing it stated that “Catholic individuals are not allowed interpret scripture”. This is not true. What is true is that Catholics can not interpret scripture in a way that contradicts Church Dogma/Doctrine. This is not much different in protestant churches. For example most churches would frown on a member denying the Trinity. Or try asking a Southern Baptist pastor to baptize an infant. Or try telling many protestant denominations that they should not allow divorced people to remarry (see Mark 10:11-12). In contrast (for example) Catholics are free to believe a literal interpretation of the story of creation or a more figurative interpretation.

My point is most denomination have some boundaries on the interpretation of scripture. I would agree that ALL Christians should spend a large amount of time studying scripture. My Church encourages this.

 

[Jason_1977]

I’m coming back today to discuss, but Luter is not the topic of this thread. You’ve gone off on some wild tangent since the nam of Luter was mentioned, and I’d appreciate it if you left the hobby horse in the stall and continue where wea left off beforehand. I asked some questions of you that were pertaining to the original conversation we were having; could you adress those?

I was actually talking to ginger…

 

[Jason_1977]

I’m coming back today to discuss, but Luter is not the topic of this thread. You’ve gone off on some wild tangent since the nam of Luter was mentioned, and I’d appreciate it if you left the hobby horse in the stall and continue where wea left off beforehand. I asked some questions of you that were pertaining to the original conversation we were having; could you adress those?

What questions?

 

[plain_me]

To be honest, I just cut & pasted from another site. OH, I DID get to the bottom of the whole St. Joseph Confraternity issue you have & I was able to have someone look it up & indeed it says mark is the 2nd gospel, we think it just meant 2nd in place & not chronologically, but it’s dangerous if you dont know when books were written, because it could be construed as bum dope & you wouldnt know it unless you knew when each gospel was written. I’ll give ya that one. Flag on the play, lol.

As I was going through and catching up yesterday, I pointed this out to you, and as I read on further I noticed that Ginger deduced the same thing. You can take a look back there at mine here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5731422&postcount=364

And Ginger’s here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5731046&postcount=346

And here’s the one where I pointed out Ginger’s (the other protestant’s) insight here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5731444&postcount=366

This is maybe a good illustration of the reason behind the frustration of some who are trying to dialogue with the RCs in the room. They don’t seem to want to listen to the protestants because they think they are automatically wrong. That seems prideful and arrogant. I hope to be able to read and respond to your challenges and inquiries in a respectful way, and I wish it could be returned in that way.

…it’d be nice, anyways…

 

[JohnnyBeth]

You know that John 1 was(and still is) read at every traditional Latin mass. So yes Catholics are very familiar with it. I am not sure what your specific point is.

I keep seeing it stated that “Catholic individuals are not allowed interpret scripture”. This is not true. What is true is that Catholics can not interpret scripture in a way that contradicts Church Dogma/Doctrine. This is not much different in protestant churches. For example most churches would frown on a member denying the Trinity. Or try asking a Southern Baptist pastor to baptize an infant. Or try telling many protestant denominations that they should not allow divorced people to remarry (see Mark 10:11-12). In contrast (for example) Catholics are free to believe a literal interpretation of the story of creation or a more figurative interpretation.

My point is most denomination have some boundaries on the interpretation of scripture. I would agree that ALL Christians should spend a large amount of time studying scripture. My Church encourages this.

If you are limited by “the Church”; it is no different that saying the “Church” has the only authority to interpret Scripture. The “Church” you would refer to in this regard would be the Magesterium aspect…correct me if I am wrong.

I used the John vese to show that the Word was before the church; you said the church was before the word of God; not so.

 

[plain_me]

At some point in time, you’ll realize the world isn’t always wrong. THIS is well known that he basically butchered the bible. Its very well known. His bibles were reassembled in the correct manner AFTER his death. Everyone can see this but protestants. I was a protestant my whole life up until a year and a half ago & I knew this. So does my father who remains protestant, my mother, honestly.

The point is that Luther is not the essence of my faith. It’s not a matter of not seeing something; it’s a matter of honesty and not wanting someone to be slandered. It’s a matter of not allowing the actions (good or bad) to determine what I believe to be true about God and His word. Which is why I think it’s more of a waste of time to continue bickering about Luther and his POVs.

 

[Jason_1977]

As I was going through and catching up yesterday, I pointed this out to you, and as I read on further I noticed that Ginger deduced the same thing. You can take a look back there at mine here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5731422&postcount=364

And Ginger’s here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5731046&postcount=346

And here’s the one where I pointed out Ginger’s (the other protestant’s) insight here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5731444&postcount=366

This is maybe a good illustration of the reason behind the frustration of some who are trying to dialogue with the RCs in the room. They don’t seem to want to listen to the protestants because they think they are automatically wrong. That seems prideful and arrogant. I hope to be able to read and respond to your challenges and inquiries in a respectful way, and I wish it could be returned in that way.

…it’d be nice, anyways…

Dude, when you imply I might NOT be capable of responding maturely, it just makes me not want to bother with you in the first place.

 

[Jason_1977]

The point is that Luther is not the essence of my faith. It’s not a matter of not seeing something; it’s a matter of honesty and not wanting someone to be slandered. It’s a matter of not allowing the actions (good or bad) to determine what I believe to be true about God and His word. Which is why I think it’s more of a waste of time to continue bickering about Luther and his POVs.

On one had you say he’s not central to any belief, yet it’s important enough to defend him?

 

[plain_me]

When have I been proven false? I dont sit down just because someone has a strong opinion on something, really…show me something…anything…proving Martin Luther NEVER removed books from the bible. PROOF…I mean, I havent seen ANY proof.There’s a nice warm breeze in the room, but I havent seen proof yet. I have cited 3 books in the past 24 hours, gave the authors & page numbers & everything, but that wasnt enough for someone else. I am willing to read & keep an open mind & stand ready to be corrected. As far as I’m concerned, I havent seen proof Ginger, so if you can show me, or lead me to hard substantial proof that luther never did that, I am more than ready to say I stand corrected. Until then, I maintain that the world is not wrong.

If you really want to talk to someone who really KNOWS Luther, try this link:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/

This guy has done some major reading and defending of Luther, and you’ll have plenty of rebuttals to your arguments over there. You can even leave comments and interacts with the writer. There’s a new article at the top of the page criticizing OHare’s book, and there’s a list of the “TOP 10 ENTRIES ON MARTIN LUTHER” down the page on the right.

Enjoy!

 

[SimonArizona]

It’s a matter of not allowing the actions (good or bad) to determine what I believe to be true about God and His word.

Why do you believe what you believe the bible says. Opposed to say, why don’t you believe what someone else says the bible says? There are 1,000 of different interpretations of the bible that contradict each other. So why do you believe yours?

 

[SimonArizona]

If you are limited by “the Church”; it is no different that saying the “Church” has the only authority to interpret Scripture. The “Church” you would refer to in this regard would be the Magesterium aspect…correct me if I am wrong.

I used the John vese to show that the Word was before the church; you said the church was before the word of God; not so.

“Limited by the Church.” it is rather, kept in the correct understanding of the Faith Christ taught through the Church. The individual is the least qualified to interpret the Bible, so 2,000 years of One. constant, unbroken, understanding of the Scriptures, really shines light onto what the Sacred Scriptures are really meaning to say.

the “Church” has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

What is the only Church God entrusted with authority to declare which books belong in the bible?

 

[Jason_1977]

Why do you believe what you believe the bible says. Opposed to say, why don’t you believe what someone else says the bible says? There are 1,000 of different interpretations of the bible that contradict each other. So why do you believe yours?

you said it!

 

[plain_me]

It’s not that you have nothing to share, you have plenty. It’s the fact that the main point of text & its simplicity somehow doesn’t cut it & isnt hitting home?` what is a proof text anyway? Is that another way of saying paraphrasing? yes, I used scripture in that sense to make a point. no marks for creativity to boot. such is my luck. Marion bashing isn’t very becoming either. That’s a different ball of wax & I’m WAY more than willing to discuss that if you maintain an open mind & do your best not to ka-ka everything that gets said. it’s ok to disagree. Dont leave me with the impression that I’m full of it because so far I havent done that yet despite my frustrations. Why stop at Luke 1:28…it gets good from 1:45-55. Or how about even Luke 1:41-44. Interesting. My point? ( I have a feeling you’d ask) is precisely, to ask, what is YOUR point in even mentioning that? Are we discussing Mary worship in mentioning that? You’d call honoring the vessel that bore the Messiah, doo-doo? My friend, I’m going to pray for you.

Oh, I forgot to mention that I was not intending to engage in “Marion bashing.” What I meant was that you seem to have a hard time looking at the whole passage in question and deriving the teaching from that; and the RC teachings on Mary illustrate the fact that the RC practice is to cram as much predetermined theology into a verse that in no way account for the mountains of inferences made over the years.

SO, I would like to adress the Biblical data in light of the Biblical data instead of some theological construct imposed upon the Biblical data.