J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Here is an excellent treatise on Luther the false doctrine generator:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/luther.htm
home.inreach.com/bstanley/luther.htm
- Status
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
bstanley’s recap
Prov 30:5-6, Eccl 3:14, Jer 23:36, Gal 1:8-9, 1Pet 1:24-25, 2Pet 3:15-16, and Rev 22:18-20.
- Luther had no Biblical authority to do any of the things of which he did.
- Luther started the false man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Then he promptly defied the theme of it by ignoring many verses from Scripture which I have mentioned in this writing,
Psalms 127:1
Hebrews 13:17
Matthew 16:18
Matthew 18:15-17
Luke 22:32
Acts 5:29
Ephesians 5:24
James 2:24
Revelation 11:8 - Luther started the man made “individual interpretation of Holy Scripture” and ignored verses of Scripture which forbid it. Since I could not find the verse which authorizes individual interpretation of Scripture, then this is another violation of Sola Scriptura by him.
2Peter 1:20-21
Acts 8:26-34 - Luther denied Apostolic tradition which had been preserved for almost 1500 years.
That was a clear violation of, 2Thessalonians 2:15 - Luther added to the Bible, in Romans 3:28, inserting the word “alone”. This was a clear violation of all of the verses which forbid any person to do so.
Prov 30:5-6, Eccl 3:14, Jer 23:36, Gal 1:8-9, 1Pet 1:24-25, 2Pet 3:15-16, and Rev 22:18-20.
- Luther subtracted from the Bible, the seven Deuterocanonical books which had been in the Bible for over 1100 years, and he wanted to remove others such as the book of James from the New Testament. This is a clear violation of Holy Scripture in many places, proving him to be guilty of all of the verses shown in the previous segment.
Show me the verse in Scripture which authorized him to do this? - Luther ignored other verses which I have not presented earlier.
No private interpretation of Holy Scripture, Acts 8:26-34
That we all may be ONE, and not more than the one Church which Jesus Christ founded
in Matthew 16:18 - Luther refuted the GOD given gift of ordination by a Bishop, by saying he will do his own ordination. Clearly, this is blatant arrogance at its worst, by creating heresy and placing himself above Holy Scripture.
- He is guilty of calumnizing and Demonizing, and of calling for the murder of other human beings, while completely ignoring the command of Jesus Christ to love one another. (John 15:12)
- He spoke against some of the New Testament books, two of which were James and Revelation.
- By speaking against GOD’s Holy Word, Luther has judged GOD Himself.
- He converted Scripture handed down by GOD into scripture devised by man.
- He preached anti-Semitism against the Jews who are the very roots of Christianity.
- I have shown in this document that Martin Luther placed himself above the authority of the Church which Jesus Christ founded. He placed himself above Holy Scripture with his “listen to me” rhetoric, and he has tried to place himself above GOD by criticizing GOD’s Holy Word.
S
Steadfast
Guest
Great, wonderful, now who were Luther’s supporters, advisers or counselors who persuaded him to include books in his translation of the bible that he didn’t want to include?
Won’t you concede that there weren’t any?
Or, let me make it easier for you, won’t you at least concede that you don’t really know if his supporters, advisers or counselors encouraged him to do this but it seems likely to you that they did and that you said that because, in your bias, you cannot conceive of him deciding to include them on his own?
Won’t you concede that there weren’t any?
Or, let me make it easier for you, won’t you at least concede that you don’t really know if his supporters, advisers or counselors encouraged him to do this but it seems likely to you that they did and that you said that because, in your bias, you cannot conceive of him deciding to include them on his own?
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title “Apocrypha,” declaring,
Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the “non-canonical books” of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out. Why Luther took this course of action is hard to say.
Some scholars believe Luther wanted to return to the “primitive faith,” and therefore accepted only those Old Testament books written in Hebrew originally; others speculate he wanted to remove anything which disagreed with his own theology.
Nevertheless, his action had the permanent consequence of omitting the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in Protestant versions of the Bible.
Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God’s work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament).
Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the “non-canonical books” of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out. Why Luther took this course of action is hard to say.
Some scholars believe Luther wanted to return to the “primitive faith,” and therefore accepted only those Old Testament books written in Hebrew originally; others speculate he wanted to remove anything which disagreed with his own theology.
Nevertheless, his action had the permanent consequence of omitting the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in Protestant versions of the Bible.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
S
Steadfast
Guest
Okay, so how about just one name of a friend of Luther who, over a beer one evening suggested, in a whisper that Luther might want to think about including James after hearing James viciously denounced as perniciously destructive of faith by Luther.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
hmmmmmmmmmmmm is Steadfast actually anti-catholic James Swan?
S
Steadfast
Guest
Earlier in this thread you said Luther omitted books from his translation.
Then you said he only included them because he was persuaded to by counselors and advisors (or supporters).
Now you’re seeking to cloud the water further with screed.
QED.
Then you said he only included them because he was persuaded to by counselors and advisors (or supporters).
Now you’re seeking to cloud the water further with screed.
QED.
S
Steadfast
Guest
No, I don’t even know who that is.
I’m just a Lutheran layman with a decent knowledge of history.
C
Contarini
Guest
So your main difference with Ayatollah Khomeini would be just which kind of blasphemers should be executed?
You quote Luther “rejecting” various books, and yet you admit elsewhere that he put them in an appendix. In other words, he was dubious about them. So were many other scholars of his day. Of course you ignore this. You further speculate that he kept them only because of his “councelors,” but you can’t name any of these councelors. You claim to get this idea from historians, but you can’t name any of these historians. And you wind up this extraordinary flight of fancy with:
You certainly like risks. For someone who thinks people should be executed for having wrong opinions, you really don’t seem that bothered to get your own opinions right. You haven’t got a shred of evidence for this speculation. You are just inventing things because they suit you.
And all this is somehow called “defending the truth”!
Edwin
S
sandusky
Guest
OUCH!!No, I don’t even know who that is.
I’m just a Lutheran layman with a decent knowledge of history who enjoys exposing slanderers and liars.
S
sandusky
Guest
A quote from Schaff in his History of the Christian Church vol. 7 p. 22, made by Luther regarding faith:”Faith is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, and it is impossible that it should not do good without ceasing; it does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is put, it has done them already, and is always engaged in doing them; you may as well separate burning and shining from fire, as works from faith.” Martin Luther
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Just do a search on Martin Luther. Every single person says that He wanted to remove these books. Is everybody a liar then? What convinced Luther to not remove them? There is no indication that he changed his mind of his own. The Logical conclusion is that he was talked out of it by his cohorts(advisors, counselors, or supporters).
He had advisor, counselors , or supporters:
Frederick the Wise is one. He staged a kidnapping.
Philipp Melanchthon
Johannes Bugenhagen
Justus Jonas
George Spalatin.
Katharina von Bora
I recommend this to view who his supporters were:
luther.de/en/themen/
He had advisor, counselors , or supporters:
Frederick the Wise is one. He staged a kidnapping.
Philipp Melanchthon
Johannes Bugenhagen
Justus Jonas
George Spalatin.
Katharina von Bora
I recommend this to view who his supporters were:
luther.de/en/themen/
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
I used to hold views about Martin Luther very similar to Steve’s. There is a lively hagiography about Luther in Protestant circles and it is very rare that the actual facts of the man’s life and character are examined. We shall do so here. It is not my intent to imply that there is nothing good about Martin Luther; there is some good in virtually all men. Rather, the negative information presented below is to complete a very lopsided portrait painted by Protestant Christians such as Steve who cling to this notion of Luther as a brave and godly reformer of the Church. (I gleaned the citations below from an unpublished paper by my friend Dave Armstrong entitled, “Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact”. I will see if I can get a complete copy of this paper available on-line).
The Scriptures say, “When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it” (Eccl 5:4-5). Martin Luther took solemn vows before God of celibacy, poverty, and obedience to his superiors. These vows were every bit as binding and every bit as optional as marriage vows. Dr. Luther proceeded to break all his vows.
Hailed as a “reformer” of the Church, which it must be admitted had indeed fallen into terrible disrepair during his day, Martin Luther exhibited such incredible arrogance, such atrocious personal morals, and such vile manners that it is hard to believe that this man was God’s appointed champion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So consumed was Martin Luther with his own sense of sinfulness that he proceeded to formulate a brand new doctrine never heard of in the history of the Church, justification by faith alone, and then set up a radical disjunction between this new “gospel” and the “law” which he defined as any moral command of God. In this way, Luther found a way to excuse his own moral failings.
Luther’s Theology = A License to Sin: “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day” (Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82).
“When the devil comes to tempt and harass you . . . in-dulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him . . . otherwise we are beaten if we are too nervously sensitive about guarding against sin . . . I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind” (Table Talk in De Wette, 5.188; De Wette was a protestant scholar who collected the most significant sayings of Luther in several volumes).
Wherever the Scriptures order and command to do good works, you must so understand it that the Scriptures forbid good works (Luther’s Works, Wittenberg ed. 2:171.6).
“Moses must ever be looked upon with suspicion, even as upon a heretic, excommunicated, damned, worse than the Pope and the devil” (Commentary on Galatians).
The Scriptures say, “When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it” (Eccl 5:4-5). Martin Luther took solemn vows before God of celibacy, poverty, and obedience to his superiors. These vows were every bit as binding and every bit as optional as marriage vows. Dr. Luther proceeded to break all his vows.
Hailed as a “reformer” of the Church, which it must be admitted had indeed fallen into terrible disrepair during his day, Martin Luther exhibited such incredible arrogance, such atrocious personal morals, and such vile manners that it is hard to believe that this man was God’s appointed champion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So consumed was Martin Luther with his own sense of sinfulness that he proceeded to formulate a brand new doctrine never heard of in the history of the Church, justification by faith alone, and then set up a radical disjunction between this new “gospel” and the “law” which he defined as any moral command of God. In this way, Luther found a way to excuse his own moral failings.
Luther’s Theology = A License to Sin: “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day” (Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82).
“When the devil comes to tempt and harass you . . . in-dulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him . . . otherwise we are beaten if we are too nervously sensitive about guarding against sin . . . I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind” (Table Talk in De Wette, 5.188; De Wette was a protestant scholar who collected the most significant sayings of Luther in several volumes).
Wherever the Scriptures order and command to do good works, you must so understand it that the Scriptures forbid good works (Luther’s Works, Wittenberg ed. 2:171.6).
“Moses must ever be looked upon with suspicion, even as upon a heretic, excommunicated, damned, worse than the Pope and the devil” (Commentary on Galatians).
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
“I will not have Moses with his Law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ” (Tischreden (Table Talk), L.C.12.s.17).
“If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews” (Luther’s Works, Wittenberg ed., ad.5:1573).
Luther’s Arrogance: “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me” (Luther’s Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422)
Luther’s Sexual Lust: “They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations [to lust] by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women” (Luther’s Works, Jena ed., 1558, 2, 116; cited in P. F. O’Hare, “The Facts About Luther”, Rockford, 1987, 311).
“I sit here in idleness and pray, alas, little, and sigh not for the Church of God. Much more am I consumed by the fires of my unbridled flesh. In a word, I who should burn of the spirit, am consumed by the flesh, and by lasciviousness” (De Wette 2. 22., cited in O’Hare p. 3l4).
“I burn with a thousand flames in my unsubdued flesh: I feel myself carried on with rage towards women that approaches madness. I who ought to be fervent in spirit, am only fervent in impurity” (“Table Talk” cited in O’Hare p. 315).
Chastity is Impossible According to Luther: “Chastity or continence was physically impossible . . . Though the womenfolk are ashamed to confess it, yet it is proved by Scripture and experience that there is not one among thousands to whom God gives grace to keep entirely chaste. A woman has no power over herself . . . Hence to vow or promise to restrain this natural propensity is the same as to vow or promise that one will have wings and fly and be an angel” (De Wette, 2.535).
“Chastity is as little within our power as the working of miracles . . . As little as we can do without eating and drinking, so it is impossible to do without women . . . The reason is that . . . from woman we were born and begotten; hence our flesh is for the most part womans flesh and it is impossible to abstain from it” (Table Talk, 2,S.20, S.27).
Luther on Bigamy: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture” (De Wette, 2.459).
“If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews” (Luther’s Works, Wittenberg ed., ad.5:1573).
Luther’s Arrogance: “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me” (Luther’s Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422)
Luther’s Sexual Lust: “They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations [to lust] by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women” (Luther’s Works, Jena ed., 1558, 2, 116; cited in P. F. O’Hare, “The Facts About Luther”, Rockford, 1987, 311).
“I sit here in idleness and pray, alas, little, and sigh not for the Church of God. Much more am I consumed by the fires of my unbridled flesh. In a word, I who should burn of the spirit, am consumed by the flesh, and by lasciviousness” (De Wette 2. 22., cited in O’Hare p. 3l4).
“I burn with a thousand flames in my unsubdued flesh: I feel myself carried on with rage towards women that approaches madness. I who ought to be fervent in spirit, am only fervent in impurity” (“Table Talk” cited in O’Hare p. 315).
Chastity is Impossible According to Luther: “Chastity or continence was physically impossible . . . Though the womenfolk are ashamed to confess it, yet it is proved by Scripture and experience that there is not one among thousands to whom God gives grace to keep entirely chaste. A woman has no power over herself . . . Hence to vow or promise to restrain this natural propensity is the same as to vow or promise that one will have wings and fly and be an angel” (De Wette, 2.535).
“Chastity is as little within our power as the working of miracles . . . As little as we can do without eating and drinking, so it is impossible to do without women . . . The reason is that . . . from woman we were born and begotten; hence our flesh is for the most part womans flesh and it is impossible to abstain from it” (Table Talk, 2,S.20, S.27).
Luther on Bigamy: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture” (De Wette, 2.459).
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Interesting tidbit. 1007 years (7 for the great tribulation and 1000 for the millinial reign of Christ) exactly from the time of the fall of the roman empire to the birth of Martin Luther.
Could it that that satan was let loose for a time and indwelt by satan at the conception or at least at the birth of Martin Luther? It could explain his childhood episodes and later episodes with devils, evil spirits, and demons.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
To quote Dave Armstrong:
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Luther’s Responsibility for the Peasant Revolt Massacre: In 1525 a revolt of peasants against the German nobility ended in terrible tragedy and enormous loss of life. Luther sided with the nobles against the peasants and spurred on the gentry to violence against the common people:
“Luther’s advice . . . was fulfilled to the letter . . . ‘Like the mules,’ he says, ‘the civil powers must drive the common people, whip, choke, hang, burn, behead and torture them, that they may learn to fear the powers that be . . .The people must be forced, driven as one forces and drives swine and wild animals.’ . . . The peasants were slaughtered like sheep. It is computed that more than l00,000 men fell in the field of battle . . . The voice of all history proclaims that Luther was the cause of the insurrection of the peasants and of their subsequent massa-cre. Protestant writers for the last four centuries have declared that he was the firebrand who alternately stirred up peasant against prince and prince against peasant” (O’Hare, 235-37; see Luther’s Works, Erlangen ed., 24.287ff.)
Unrepentant for this atrocity, Luther even went to far as to put the responsibility on God Himself:
O’Hare continues:
“Luther’s advice . . . was fulfilled to the letter . . . ‘Like the mules,’ he says, ‘the civil powers must drive the common people, whip, choke, hang, burn, behead and torture them, that they may learn to fear the powers that be . . .The people must be forced, driven as one forces and drives swine and wild animals.’ . . . The peasants were slaughtered like sheep. It is computed that more than l00,000 men fell in the field of battle . . . The voice of all history proclaims that Luther was the cause of the insurrection of the peasants and of their subsequent massa-cre. Protestant writers for the last four centuries have declared that he was the firebrand who alternately stirred up peasant against prince and prince against peasant” (O’Hare, 235-37; see Luther’s Works, Erlangen ed., 24.287ff.)
Unrepentant for this atrocity, Luther even went to far as to put the responsibility on God Himself:
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Luther on the Jews: One hopes that Steve does not side with his hero in the proper way to deal with the Jews.
Jews, says Luther, “. . . will be tormented . . . in Hells deepest depths . . . What are we to do with this rejected, damned people? . . . I will give my honest advice. First, their synagogues or schools are to be set on fire . . . Secondly, their houses are likewise to be broken down and destroyed . . . Thirdly, all their Prayer Books and Talmuds are to be taken away from them . . . Fourthly, their Rabbis are to be forbidden under pain of capital punishment to teach any more . . . Fifthly, the Jews are to be entirely denied legal protection when using the roads in the country, for they have no business to be in the country . . . Sixth-ly, usury is to be forbidden them, and all their cash and their treasures . . . are to be taken away from them . . . all that they have . . . they have stolen and robbed from us through their usury” (Luther’s Works, Weimar ed., 53.411-18; Erlangen ed., 32.217-53).
“Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand . . . If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them” (Cited by O’Hare, 290))
Dave Armstrong cites Protestant William Shirer, in his 1600-page The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
“It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Lu-ther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passion-ate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedi-ence to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews and . . . advised that . . . ‘they be put under a roof or stable, like the Gypsies. in misery and captivity’ . . . - advice that was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler . . . In . . . the peasant uprising of 1525, Luther advised the princes to adopt the most ruthless measures against the ‘mad dogs’ . . . Here, as in his utterances about the Jews, Luther employed a coarse-ness and brutality of language unequalled in German history until the Nazi time. The influence of this towering figure extended down the generations in Germany, especially among the Protestants. Among other results was the ease with which German Protestantism became the instrument of royal and priestly absolutism . . . until the kings and princes were overthrown in 1918 . . . In no country, with the exception of Czarist Russia, did the clergy become by tradition so completely servile to the political authority of the state . . . Like Niemoeller, most of the pastors welcomed the advent of Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship in 1933 . . . Hitler . . . had always had a certain contempt for the Protestants: . . . ‘You can do anything you want with them. They will submit . . . they are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs’ . . . He was well aware that the resistance to the Nazification of the Protestant churches came from a minority of pastors and an even smaller minority of worshipers’” (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, NY: Fawcett Crest, 1960, 326-9).
Jews, says Luther, “. . . will be tormented . . . in Hells deepest depths . . . What are we to do with this rejected, damned people? . . . I will give my honest advice. First, their synagogues or schools are to be set on fire . . . Secondly, their houses are likewise to be broken down and destroyed . . . Thirdly, all their Prayer Books and Talmuds are to be taken away from them . . . Fourthly, their Rabbis are to be forbidden under pain of capital punishment to teach any more . . . Fifthly, the Jews are to be entirely denied legal protection when using the roads in the country, for they have no business to be in the country . . . Sixth-ly, usury is to be forbidden them, and all their cash and their treasures . . . are to be taken away from them . . . all that they have . . . they have stolen and robbed from us through their usury” (Luther’s Works, Weimar ed., 53.411-18; Erlangen ed., 32.217-53).
“Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand . . . If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them” (Cited by O’Hare, 290))
Dave Armstrong cites Protestant William Shirer, in his 1600-page The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
“It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Lu-ther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passion-ate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedi-ence to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews and . . . advised that . . . ‘they be put under a roof or stable, like the Gypsies. in misery and captivity’ . . . - advice that was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler . . . In . . . the peasant uprising of 1525, Luther advised the princes to adopt the most ruthless measures against the ‘mad dogs’ . . . Here, as in his utterances about the Jews, Luther employed a coarse-ness and brutality of language unequalled in German history until the Nazi time. The influence of this towering figure extended down the generations in Germany, especially among the Protestants. Among other results was the ease with which German Protestantism became the instrument of royal and priestly absolutism . . . until the kings and princes were overthrown in 1918 . . . In no country, with the exception of Czarist Russia, did the clergy become by tradition so completely servile to the political authority of the state . . . Like Niemoeller, most of the pastors welcomed the advent of Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship in 1933 . . . Hitler . . . had always had a certain contempt for the Protestants: . . . ‘You can do anything you want with them. They will submit . . . they are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs’ . . . He was well aware that the resistance to the Nazification of the Protestant churches came from a minority of pastors and an even smaller minority of worshipers’” (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, NY: Fawcett Crest, 1960, 326-9).
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Here’s one from Erasmus at ic.net
- The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther’s gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon (“chief books”) Hebrews, James (“epistle of straw”), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament “Apocrypha.” He regarded them as non-apostolic.** Of the book of Revelation he said, “Christ is not taught or known in it.” **These opinions are found in Luther’s Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.
- Status