Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[Eternaly_Secure]

You have to talk to Luther, because he is the one who changed the Bible. Jesus used one version of the OT and you are using another. You are using another, because Luther decided to change it.

How can you say, then, that Luther is immaterial to this discussion.

And I am not using him “against” you. I am discussing the canon of the Bible–specifically how it was changed by Luther.

You are claiming that the books Luther removed are not inspired. Would Jesus have used a version of the OT that wasn’t inspired?

How do you know that the NT books are inspired? The canon was determined in the 4th century by the Catholic Church? Why do you accept this canon?

I do believe that all of the books of the Bible are inspired, and I have the assurance that God gave to his church to know that the canon is correct.

If you don’t believe that God gave this assurance to his Church, how do you know that the canon you accept is correct?

You know nothing of Luther, so how do you know that he was protected from error when removing some of the OT books from the canon that was decided in the 4th century by the Church that Jesus founded and gave his assurances to?

I cant talk to Luther as he is dead, but the problem is that since the internet started, there are that many things going around about that many people that you wouldn’t know who to believe.
The Bible is God’s word and he decided what would and wouldn’t be in it, not Luther or anyone else. It’s not true the Bible we have now is anything to do with Luther.

 

[Contarini]

I cant talk to Luther as he is dead, but the problem is that since the internet started, there are that many things going around about that many people that you wouldn’t know who to believe.
The Bible is God’s word and he decided what would and wouldn’t be in it, not Luther or anyone else. It’s not true the Bible we have now is anything to do with Luther.

It’s true that the fact that your Bible doesn’t have the Apocrypha has very little to do with Luther, except insofar as Luther’s ideas were essential in pulling together a wide range of grievances against late medieval Catholicism into a viable alternative form of Christianity (actually several rather different forms continually splitting and mutating as the centuries go on), and this made a different official canon possible. Most Protestant Bibles in the sixteenth century had the Apocrypha.

But the main problem with your post is your claim that “God decided” what would be in the Bible as you now have it. What makes you so sure? Of course we could say that God decided everything that would happen, but that would apply to the contents of the Catholic Bible or the Book of Mormon just as well.

On what basis do you claim that the 66-book Biblical canon is what God wants, rather than the larger canon used by Catholics and Orthodox (and with some caveats by Anglicans as well)?

Edwin

 

[kalt]

I cant talk to Luther as he is dead, but the problem is that since the internet started, there are that many things going around about that many people that you wouldn’t know who to believe.
The Bible is God’s word and he decided what would and wouldn’t be in it, not Luther or anyone else. It’s not true the Bible we have now is anything to do with Luther.

I guess I should have said “speak to”.

Anway, you say that the bible is God’s word and that HE decided what would and wouldn’t be in it, not Luther.

Do you know that you aren’t using the OT that Jesus used? That you are using the version that Luther created by cutting out books from the canon (list of inspired books).

Where do you think the Bible came from? I think you know that it was written by men over many, many years. So how did all those books come together as what we call the Bible today? And how do you know that your version of it is correct?

 

[kalt]

It’s true that the fact that your Bible doesn’t have the Apocrypha has very little to do with Luther, except insofar as Luther’s ideas were essential in pulling together a wide range of grievances against late medieval Catholicism into a viable alternative form of Christianity (actually several rather different forms continually splitting and mutating as the centuries go on), and this made a different official canon possible. Most Protestant Bibles in the sixteenth century had the Apocrypha.

But the main problem with your post is your claim that “God decided” what would be in the Bible as you now have it. What makes you so sure? Of course we could say that God decided everything that would happen, but that would apply to the contents of the Catholic Bible or the Book of Mormon just as well.

On what basis do you claim that the 66-book Biblical canon is what God wants, rather than the larger canon used by Catholics and Orthodox (and with some caveats by Anglicans as well)?

Edwin

All of the books in the Catholic Bible are considered inspired. Some Protestant Bibles include those books as “apocrypha”.

 

[kalt]

I understand that Catholics think that trust in the Holy Spirit guarantees that the Catholic Church will be correct in its doctrines. My point is that denial of infallibility by Protestants does not constitute a denial of the presence of the Holy Spirit with the Church. The phrase “what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” does not self-evidently refer to doctrinal infallibility. (In fact, it doesn’t self-evidently refer to anything–its meaning is disputable, like so many other things in Scripture, as Catholics are fond of reminding naive Protestants but sometimes seem to forget themselves when it’s convenient!)

Edwin

How does the Holy Spirit guarantee the survival of the Church? How do you know what is correct?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

How does the Holy Spirit guarantee the survival of the Church? How do you know what is correct?

Jesus speaking to his disciples:

John 16

12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

I guess I should have said “speak to”.

Anway, you say that the bible is God’s word and that HE decided what would and wouldn’t be in it, not Luther.

Do you know that you aren’t using the OT that Jesus used? That you are using the version that Luther created by cutting out books from the canon (list of inspired books).

Where do you think the Bible came from? I think you know that it was written by men over many, many years. So how did all those books come together as what we call the Bible today? And how do you know that your version of it is correct?

The Old testament I use is the very same one that Jesus Christ used and he should know, it’s his Word after all.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The Old testament I use is the very same one that Jesus Christ used and he should know, it’s his Word after all.

Hmmmm…

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Hmmmm…

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

If only people believed the Gospel as easily as the complete rubbish put forward as evidence on the internet.

 

[Contarini]

The Old testament I use is the very same one that Jesus Christ used

Could you substantiate this extraordinary claim?

I presume you’re talking about just the number of books included? (Or do you claim to read the OT in the same language did? Which language would that be? What about textual differences? How do you know that the manuscripts Jesus used are identical with the ones you use?) Even in this limited sense (which doesn’t provide an adequate basis for the strong claim you make), I find your claim dubious.

Do you use the normal Protestant OT 39-book canon? If so, where do you find evidence that Jesus used any of the following books:

Ruth
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Lamentations

I’ll be generous and give you 1-2 Chronicles on the strength of Matt. 23:35, although the Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chron. 24:20 was the son of Jehoiada, not Berekiah, so either Matthew has confused the two in his paraphrase of what Jesus said (which I think is most likely), or Jesus Himself got His Biblical references mixed up (which even on the basis of a kenotic Christology seems irreverent and unlikely), or the passage isn’t referencing Chronicles at all (which seems a stretch, but I certainly won’t argue the point if you want to say this in order to preserve inerrancy).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If only people believed the Gospel as easily as the complete rubbish put forward as evidence on the internet.

If only people accepted your religious claims without evidence, you mean, your task would be easy. Of course it would. But we aren’t going to. So either make a real argument with evidence people not members of your sectarian tradition will accept, or admit that you have no interest in defending your beliefs and go find a better use for your time and ours.

Edwin

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

If only people accepted your religious claims without evidence, you mean, your task would be easy. Of course it would. But we aren’t going to. So either make a real argument with evidence people not members of your sectarian tradition will accept, or admit that you have no interest in defending your beliefs and go find a better use for your time and ours.

Edwin

Calm down!
I have the Holy Spirit and the scriptures, but if you dont believe either of them and want evidence from the world you will remain lost.

**Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ** 2 Timothy3:7

 

[Contarini]

Calm down!

Don’t tell me to calm down. Give me a defense of your beliefs or stop spouting empty rhetoric.

I have the Holy Spirit and the scriptures

So you say. Mormons say the same. Lots of people say this–why should I consider your word authoritative?

Don’t you see how laughable it is to come onto a discussion forum and make bare assertions? It won’t convince anyone. It just makes your version of Christianity look ridiculous.

Edwin

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Don’t tell me to calm down. Give me a defense of your beliefs or stop spouting empty rhetoric.

So you say. Mormons say the same. Lots of people say this–why should I consider your word authoritative?

Don’t you see how laughable it is to come onto a discussion forum and make bare assertions? It won’t convince anyone. It just makes your version of Christianity look ridiculous.

Edwin

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18

 

[Contarini]

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18

Funny. That was one of the lectionary readings yesterday (and ironically I preached at a Methodist church yesterday, filling in for the pastor who had just got back from Israel).

But if you think that Paul believed that this meant he could go around saying things without providing any argument, then you really do need to read your Paul more carefully.

You are abusing Scripture to suit your own intellectual laziness, and that’s a very serious thing to do. Playing around with God’s Word is not a good idea.

Edwin

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Funny. That was one of the lectionary readings yesterday (and ironically I preached at a Methodist church yesterday, filling in for the pastor who had just got back from Israel).

But if you think that Paul believed that this meant he could go around saying things without providing any argument, then you really do need to read your Paul more carefully.

You are abusing Scripture to suit your own intellectual laziness, and that’s a very serious thing to do. Playing around with God’s Word is not a good idea.

Edwin

Praise the Lord that interlect has nothing to do with salvation.
Are you saved?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18

Preaching from which church?

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

 

[Contarini]

Praise the Lord that interlect has nothing to do with salvation.

Agreed. But loving truth rather than lies does have something to do with salvation. And your posts are disturbing in that regard. You don’t seem to love truth. You seem to love your opinions and identify them with God’s Truth.

Are you saved?

I was saved by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, just as you were.

Edwin

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Preaching from which church?

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

I’m not quite sure what you are getting at.

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Agreed. But loving truth rather than lies does have something to do with salvation. And your posts are disturbing in that regard. You don’t seem to love truth. You seem to love your opinions and identify them with God’s Truth.

I was saved by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, just as you were.

Edwin

I love truth, thats why I love my Saviour and his Word.

How do you know that you are saved?