G
Gorgias
Guest
How so? Mt 16:19 is clearly directed solely to Peter…
- Status
A
alwayswill
Guest
He did not
As for as we know only three things were ever written by the hand of God
The Ten Commandments on the stones
The wall in front of Nebuchadnezzar
In the sand in front of Jesus.
Obviously God could have written more: but He chooses not to
Whether the commands in Leviticus. the prophecies in Isaiah , or the Revelation to John;
God choose certain people in certain times to be carried along by the Holy Spirit to put to writings the thoughts of God.
If I were God I would have done things differently
and if you were God you would have done things differently.
Because I do not want to go down the rabbit trail (in this thread) of how the Canon was determined; does not mean I do not have an answer on how the Canon was determined.
A
alwayswill
Guest
mispost
G
guanophore
Guest
I think post 88 captures it well. I guess it is more an extension of the use of the keys given to the ordained.
I was thinking of the binding and loosing, which was given to all the Apostles (the authority to legislate). I think this was meant to be used in unity with Peter, and now with his successor.
I also find it interesting that, when Jesus predicts Peter’s denial, He tells Peter that Satan has desired to sift them all, but that Jesus prayed for you (Peter - Singular not plural) and tells him when he is restored to strengthen his brethren.
This seems to say that anyone who wants to benefit from Christ’s prayer better get in with Peter!
M
Micosil
Guest
Of course it is broad, because the disputes were broad. The local councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, are sometimes undervalued by various Traditions. I think that is unfortunate, as they give us a good view of where at least parts of the early Church were on the matter of a canon. They are not the only view, but they are important.
But none of these speak to the whole Church, nor did any of these, through an ecumenical council establish a universal canon for the whole Church. The existence of various canons in the Eastern and Oriental churches is evidence of that fact, and the existence of open disputes regarding the canon by people as early as Rufinus, who was contemporary with or after the things you mention in your list, and as late as participants at the Council of Trent, indicates that Catholics, much less Orthodox Christians, were not bound to accept a 73 book canon.
I think the Orthodox might take umbrage with this.
Are they in the Septuagint? If the Septuagint is the measure of a complete Bible, then does not Luther’s inclusion of the Prayer of Manasseh make it more complete?
Oh, no. That’s not my position. That’s the reality throughout the history of the Church.
But see, Shocker, that just isn’t the case.
Jon
I didn’t say they did. I said they, like Luther, had the liberty to dispute books.
If Luther had had the authority to remove books from scripture, you wouldn’t have them in your Bible, and neither would I. His Bible would not have had them.
when one states one’s opinion, one is stating one’s opinion. Why would you arbitrarily permit everyone to do that, then deny Luther the same privilege?
Luther’s Bible has 74 books. It has all the books that St. Jerome’s has, plus the Prayer of Manasseh. Why do you dispute this truth?
did he remove any books from the canon? Yep…7 of them
Luther did nothing more nor less than these. He stated his opinion. He never removed books from the Bible. He never claimed authority to remove books from the canon. He regularly states in his prefaces that his opinion is not binding on others. Even the Lutheran confessions do not acknowledge a “Luther canon”.
Jon
S
steve_b
Guest
Luther removed 7 canonical books from the canon. Do you get that point? By making 7 scriptural books apocrypha, he did WAY MORE than just express his opinion
J:
But He DID remove 7 canonical books from the canon of scripture.
HIS BIBLE had 7 fewer canonical books (66 not 73 books) because he reclassified 7 canonical books to apocryphal status (not scripture)
J:
His opinion led him to remove 7 canonical books from his bible. And all Protestants followed the father of Protestantism, and his bible
J:
that’s just obfuscation.
his bible has 66 canonical books not 73. The other books to Luther and the rest of Protestantism don’t count in the total books when numbering the canonical books of scripture in his bible.
How many times, and how many ways, does your point have to be refuted?
By putting 7 canonical books into apocrypha status 7 books no longer count as canonical books. No longer count as scripture. So stop counting them as if Luther counted them as canonical “books” …
apocrypha ≠ canon /scripture. They have no status. They don’t count to Luther nor count to all the rest of Protestantism, as scriptural books.
Demoting 7 canonical books to apocrypha (not scripture), is removing 7 books from scripture. Period dot end of sentence.
And all of Protestantism followed him when assembling their bibles. .
J:
restating a falsehood over and over again, won’t make falsehood true…
J:
Yet he did it.
It’s the old story, watch what people do.
J:
sheeshAgain, one shouldn’t look at what he “says”, look at what he “does”. He was excommunicated for teaching heresy. One doesn’t get a letter from the pope unless they are causing lots of turmoil in the Church. And Luther did that.
J:
Baloney!!!
Are those 7 canonical books he made apocryphal books, now canonical books again, within Lutheranism?
Does your DRB have those seven books? Yes? Then he didn’t remove them.
I have them in a Bible. If he removed them, how is that possible?
That is the way he chose to publish them. That is not removing them. Remember what you said he: "HIS bible. It is his translation, with his opinions.
Ah, the lemmings argument. Are you of the opinion that no one was able to think for themselves after Luther? His Bible contains 74 books.
I guess your just going to have to stop trying. Luther’s Bible has 74 books. His opinion was that the 7 DC books were not of the same level as the others. I don’t agree with him, but he was welcome to his opinion.
Cajetan essentially agreed with Luther about their status. If one uses his definition of canon, then Lutherans can consider them canon.
Of course they are scriptural.
But he didn’t remove them. See your own DRB. I can look at by German Die Bibel. There they are. Luther had no authority to remove books from the canon. Nobody does.
The lemmings.
Steve, they were very bright individuals. They made their own decisions.Then I suggest you realize that Luther did not remove any books.
Yes, and he made sure he translated and he included 74 books.
Check your timeline. His excommunication had nothing to do with his translation.
Really? Here’s the link to the Book of Concord. Find a listing of a canon.
They are canon if they are used, as Cajetan says,
Lutherans have often used the DC’s liturgically, and in hymnody. We could very easily call them canon in that way.
But to your point, I never claimed you state. I said that the Book of Concord does not list Luther’s canon.
Jon
S
steve_b
Guest
click on the picture . lutherbibel.net/Does your DRB have those seven books? Yes? Then he didn’t remove them.
I have them in a Bible. If he removed them, how is that possible?
That is the way he chose to publish them. That is not removing them. Remember what you said he: "HIS bible. It is his translation, with his opinions.
Ah, the lemmings argument. Are you of the opinion that no one was able to think for themselves after Luther? His Bible contains 74 books.
I guess your just going to have to stop trying. Luther’s Bible has 74 books. His opinion was that the 7 DC books were not of the same level as the others. I don’t agree with him, but he was welcome to his opinion.
Cajetan essentially agreed with Luther about their status. If one uses his definition of canon, then Lutherans can consider them canon.
Of course they are scriptural.
But he didn’t remove them. See your own DRB. I can look at by German Die Bibel. There they are. Luther had no authority to remove books from the canon. Nobody does.
The lemmings.
Then I suggest you realize that Luther did not remove any books.
Yes, and he made sure he translated and he included 74 books.
Check your timeline. His excommunication had nothing to do with his translation.
Really? Here’s the link to the Book of Concord. Find a listing of a canon.
They are canon if they are used, as Cajetan says,
Lutherans have often used the DC’s liturgically, and in hymnody. We could very easily call them canon in that way.
But to your point, I never claimed you state. I said that the Book of Concord does not list Luther’s canon.
Jon
Scroll down and see that there are 2 testaments (scripture) in his bible, then an apocrypha meaning (not scripture). And those are his words. That’s where your founder put those 7 books
Your argument is refuted.
Are those books on in that Bible? Your argument is against his words. Again, you wish to set a different standard for Luther.
Jon
G
Goya
Guest
As I’m sure you well know, the word ‘bible’ comes from the Koine Greek ‘biblos’; it only means ‘the books’.
Many Catholic Bibles come with added materials. Study aids. An encyclical or letter from a Pope about the value of scripture… A copy of the constitution of the Church… Pictures, maps, and commentary.
There is NEVER any pretense of any of those being on the same level as the Inspired text–as being included within ‘the books’.
Luther isolating those books from Scripture, is akin to affixing them like supplemental material. Appendices, and such.
He expressly rejected their inspired status–as evidenced by the fact that the Protestant world followed suit (just as they followed ML right out the door of the Church that Christ founded).
Sorry, but it’s just nit picky, when you try to spin it off as though Luther didn’t really deny those books their divine inspiration, just because “…he included them with (not ‘in’) his "Bible”.
“in” his bible, suggest incorporated, as an integral part thereof–not as some sloppy seconds supplement–which is what he did, by isolating them, and labeling them ‘Apocrypha’.
S
steve_b
Guest
On the contrary, it’s YOUR argument that’s against Luther’s own words
from a Lutheran source
“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”
context from:
(all emphasis mine)
*"Luther recommended the Apocrypha as books that are not regarded as equal to the Holy Scripture, and yet are profitable and good to read. Lutheran piety up to now seems to have remembered just the first part of this statement and did not very often exercise itself in the profitable reading. This present edition gives us occasion to get a fresh approach to books like Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees, and others. Accompanied with quotations mainly from Luther and John Gerhard, and useful explanations, the reader may gain a deeply spiritual approach to the Apocrypha and explore anew these treasures of the Lutheran faith!"
—Prof. Dr. Volker Leppir
*Eberhard Karls Universität
Tübingen, Germany
From: cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx
See?
As an aside,
Re: *Prof. Dr. Volker Leppir @ *Eberhard Karls Universität, Tübingen, Germany, other statement,
"Lutheran piety up to now seems to have remembered just the first part of this (Luther’s ) statement and did not very often exercise itself in the profitable reading. "
That further restates, that Lutherans continue to teach what Luther taught
- that those 7 OT canonical books that he made apocrypha, aren’t scripture. So nothing has changed within Lutheranism on that subject.
That website I used is Concordia Publishing House.
Would you consider that source, a trustworthy Lutheran resource that I quoted from?
Where did I make the claim that he did not hold those opinions? All I ma saying is that he did, in fact, include them. He took the time, with is colleagues, translated them, and included them. They are there. It is a fact of history, that he included them in his translation of the Bible.
I don’t even agree with his opinion about them. I am simply defending his right to hold his opinions against an outlandish double standard some want to seem to hold about it.
Jon
S
steve_b
Guest
Yeah. There is. Cajetan held essentially the same view as Luther regarding the DC’s. Some Catholic apologists give him a pass, with vague excuses like, “he wasn’t excommunicated”, which of course has nothing to do with Luther’s opinion of the canon of scripture. Luther was excommunicated for that.
There were people as far back as the 400’s that held a different canon than Hippo/Carthage/Rome, Rufinus being just one.
The fact is that Catholics had always had the liberty to dispute the books. Luther had the same liberty, except in the polemics of some apologists. Luther is held to a different standard.
I don’t particularly care that some hold this double standard. OTOH, there are lurkers who read threads here at CAF, and I think providing a balanced other viewpoint is worthwhile. Like I said, I don’t even particularly agree with his view, and as being Lutheran means I still have that pre-Trent liberty.
Jon
G
Goya
Guest
You’re pretending that he “included those books in his bible”.
No. What he did, was to separate them, put them in a distinct category–of patently lesser dignity…and included (liberally–for lack of a better term)–WITH his Bible.
The distinction you’re trying to avoid, is that Bible means “the books”; yet you’re trying to pretend that they are a singular book, because they are, and for all of our lives and then some, have always been, packaged as a single volume ‘book’.
My point stands, regardless of how you seek to spin it.
Luther treated the DC’s as the Catholic Church treats supplemental documents included with certain Bibles–which are also, patently, and of no pretense otherwise, of lesser dignity than the contents of the books which constitute the inspire Word of God.
NB: Those DC’s were part of the Septuagint–the ‘scripture’ that Christ and His Apostles knew as such.
Actually he did include them. I have a copy, not an original of course, but even that indicates that they are still there, in Lutheran Bibles today.
3 Macc is part of the Septuagint also.
Jon
S
steve_b
Guest
DC = Scripture
Apocrypha ≠ Scripture
Luther alone in his bible, created the latter out of 7 scriptural books.
**HUGE difference
**
J:
And Judas had his opinions as well. Your point?
*Is Rufinus, or Luther the pillar and foundation of truth? No.
The Church closed the canon in 382. Every council after that validated that same canon.
Your familiar with God’s response to Job? Full Chapter **, ch 38 of Job
How about this as an example**
insert Rufinus for Job in that link to chapter 38 of Job. Or put Luther there. Read ch 38 as if Jesus is making those points to Luther and NOT Job. For example, imagine Jesus asks Luther, Where were you Luther when I established the Catholic Church, and promised not even the gates of hell would prevail against it? The Church you were excommunicated from? etc etc etc…
J:
Who says?
after Damasus made his decree on the canon No council after 382 changed that canon. Florence an ecumenical council defined the same canon. I have printed the actual language of that decree of Damasus, many times in my conversations with you on this as I have with the language of Florence. Papal Decrees are taken seriously
J:
- Luther before he was excommunicated, was given plenty of time to respond to his errors. He didn’t even bother to respond. So he was excommunicated.
- Excommunication isn’t meant to be permanent. He could have recanted and brought back into communion, but he didn’t bother.
- AFTER he was excommunicated, full of ego he was, he wrote His bible, adding “alone” to faith, in Romans, and demoting 7 canonical OT books to apocryphal status. Not to mention trying to eliminate James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelations as well from the NT. He was busy. We’ve been over all that in the past
The ecumenical council of Florence 100 years before Trent approved the same canon as the decree of Pope Damasus. Bottom line, the canon of scripture the One True Church has today hasn’t changed from 382.
Steve , think about this. You’re comparing saints like John of Damascus to Judas?
Really?
.
Agreed. The Church is, and many great members of the Church held similar views to these two. And they were allowed to.
Apparently not. The EO has always had a different canon, numerous saints and Fathers held different views after 382. Clearly, they thought they were allowed to
I take them seriously. The men whom I mentioned took them seriously. Clearly they still thought they had the Catholic liberty to express dispute of certain books.
All irrelevant to his excommunication. All of his views were his own, had been held by others, all under Catholic liberty to do so.
Florence and Trent only apply to that part of the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It’s important, but not ecumenical. Regardless, that’s not the point. I see it as difficult to take Trent’s limits and project them backward on to people who clearly believed they were within their Catholic liberty to hold those views.
Jon
- Status