The real Luther

[Contarini]

Jay,

Since you haven’t responded to my last post (understandably, since you have had a lot of others piling on you as well), I wasn’t going to jump back into this thread, but I thought I should say something to defend my friend Chris Armstrong. Actually I took umbrage at the review myself (mostly at what I thought was the patronizing tone of the first couple of paragraphs), and said as much to Chris. I can assure you that he would never refer to the Catholic Church as a sewer. As someone else pointed out, he put the word in quotation marks–it was a term used in the 16th century–at it was not referring to the Catholic Church as a whole, but to the corruption of Rome itself in the Renaissance, which no Catholic denies. (You know the 14th-century story, perhaps, about the Jew who converts to Christianity after a visit to Rome because only a divine religion could survive in the face of such corruption.) Chris does have a Protestant view of the Church, but it’s a very ecumenical one. As for the reference to Luther teaching “grace alone,” Luther did teach that and he did believe that Catholics don’t teach it. Protestants have historically believed that Catholicism fails to teach grace alone in a sufficient manner (much as many Protestants claim to believe in the “Real Presence” but Catholics find their account insufficient). It would have been better if Chris had written “faith alone,” but he was writing as a Protestant to Protestants (again, in the same way that a Catholic would speak of “the Real Presence” as identical with transubstantiation–something Protestants and some Orthodox would challenge).

When you have time, perhaps you could explain how you maintain your view of Luther as dishonestly “adding” words to the Bible in the face of the quotation I provided giving his rationale for doing so. It’s fine to disagree with that rationale, but can you really say that he was being dishonest? Isn’t it more dishonest to omit a relevant passage when claiming to prove your point through Luther’s own words, as you did? (BTW, I don’t think you are personally being dishonest–I’m more inclined to think that you are repeating automatically a generations-old polemic without looking at the context yourself. But you are responsible for checking these things, and for retracting your claims when the error is pointed out to you. This you have not done.)

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[ZoeTheodora]

When you have time, perhaps you could explain how you maintain your view of Luther as dishonestly “adding” words to the Bible in the face of the quotation I provided giving his rationale for doing so. It’s fine to disagree with that rationale, but can you really say that he was being dishonest?

Hi, Edwin. I saw your argument re this a few days ago. Was too busy to respond then, but would like to take a stab at it now.

You can argue till the cows come home that Luther was merely practicing “dynamic equivalence.” If the stakes weren’t so very high, and if the dice weren’t so very loaded, that argument might hold water.

But Luther didn’t add an innocuous, non-loaded word in an innocuous, non-loaded place. He added the very word that would most effectively (and conveniently!) serve his purpose in establishing a “Biblical” basis for his revolutionary soteriology.

Does this not strike you as incredibly self-serving? How can it be construed otherwise?

Surely it’s no mere coincidence that this one particular exercise of “dynamic equivalence” just happened to provide Luther with a badly needed Scriptural warrant for his novel views.

Perhaps Luther wasn’t lying with full awareness of his lie. Perhaps he was kidding himself. Perhaps he sincerely failed to notice that his addition of the word “alone” was just a tad too convenient and self-serving.

Perhaps. But doesn’t that make him look like a bit of an idiot (which we know he wasn’t)?

Just asking…

ZT, a/k/a Diane

 

[Katholikos]

Churchmouse, this is in response to your posts #23 and #24. Sorry not to have gotten back with you sooner. I’ve been busy building an addition on to my home.
I found the quotes your friend shared with you. Does this look familiar? This is from google’s cache when I searched under “per sola fide.”

[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:cLpvyhrM1OsJ:www.christianforums.com/archive/index.php/t-60181+%22per+sola+fide%22+italian+bible&hl=en](http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:cLpvyhrM1OsJ:www.christianforums.com/archive/index.php/t-60181+"per+sola+fide"+italian+bible&hl=en)

QUOTE
A. believer
Let me get this straight. Is it your position that it is acceptable to alter the meaning of the Scriptures in order to make it easier to read? How do you reconcile this claim that “he believed that is was a better way of translating the passage” when no other scholar has ever translated it that way? Excuse me?

I’ll quote again here what I just quoted this morning on another thread. This is from a post on another board by evangelical author and pastor, David King:

In his commentary on Romans, Roman Catholic Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. comments that Luther was not the first to invoke *sola fide in his translation of Romans. Others used the term in a broader context as well. Below the astericks is what Fitzmyer states on pp. 360-361 of Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993).

---

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3): END QUOTE

[And the post goes on with cites from Origin, Hilary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard,Theophylact, and:]

QUOTE Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24). [DTK’s note - If I may be so bold as to correct Fitzmyer’s reference here to Theodoret. The reference in Migne is not PG 93.100, but should be PG 83.1001 - Obviously this may be a typo on the part of Fitzmyer, but at any rate I checked the reference myself and found it elsewhere to be PG 83.1001].

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”).

---

Plus, Catholic translations prior to Luther used the terminology of faith alone with respect to Romans 3:28. The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had “allein durch den glauben,” while the Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had “per sola fide.” END QUOTE

I don’t recall either you or your friend giving credit to “evangelical author and Pastor David King” whose work this appears to be.

More will be posted as soon as I have time.*

 

[Katholikos]

Contarini:

Jay,

When you have time, perhaps you could explain how you maintain your view of Luther as dishonestly “adding” words to the Bible in the face of the quotation I provided giving his rationale for doing so. It’s fine to disagree with that rationale, but can you really say that he was being dishonest? Isn’t it more dishonest to omit a relevant passage when claiming to prove your point through Luther’s own words, as you did? (BTW, I don’t think you are personally being dishonest–I’m more inclined to think that you are repeating automatically a generations-old polemic without looking at the context yourself. But you are responsible for checking these things, and for retracting your claims when the error is pointed out to you. This you have not done.)

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin, this is a first. I don’t think anyone has ever before criticized me for marking elipses and then posting the URL where the entire text I was quoting from could be read. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I’ll have to consult with you in advance in the future to make sure I put the elipses in a place that is acceptable to you. What do you recommend as a just punishment – bamboo shoots under the fingernails? Chinese water torture? Or, perhaps, in view of the seriousness of this, beheading?

More on Luther’s “rationale” later.

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay

 

[bboop]

I was raised Lutheran. We NEVER studied about Luther, except the World Book version – ‘he was a great man who fought against the abuses in the CC.’ I read a book about Lutherans who joined the CC, many of them pastors. Those people started to dig deeply into Luther’s writings, which are stunningly – anti-Semitic among other things. I would say, Lutherans do NOT know Luther. And the Lutheran Church today is very much NOT the Lutheran Church ML started. I understand he kept many Catholic beliefs… (which I cannot quote).

 

[Katholikos]

To Contarini and Churchmouse (and others who may be interested )

Here again is a partial quotation concerning Fr. Fitzmeyer and sola fide (emphasis mine):

"In his commentary on Romans, Roman Catholic Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. comments that Luther was not the first to invoke *sola fide in his translation of Romans. Others used the term in a broader context as well." *

*What exactly does “in a broader context” mean? Does it mean that “others” were not using the term in the same way that Luther was? If so, it’s irrelevant. *

*I do not know German or Greek, but there is obviously no corresponding adverb in the Greek text for “alleyn/alleine” (alone). I’ve checked the NIV Interlineal Greek-English New Testament. Two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that “sola” was used in the theological tradition before him. *

*The term “faith alone” as it was used by Luther is not implied by the context. If it were, why is it not in any modern English translation? Or in any modern German translation that I can find? Luther’s claim that it was demanded by the context indicates that he was deciding what the Scripture should mean according to his interpretation of it and not translating it as it was written under the inspirtation of the Spirit.

---

The “sola” may have appeared in writings prior to Luther, but it was never meant in the same way. Again, this goes back to “a broader context”. The previous uses of “alone” were not consistent with Luther’s use. The Catholic Church has NEVER taught justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide), and no Catholic translator has ever meant to suggest that.

*You imply that my problem with Luther is merely that he added the word “alone,” and argue that he only did exactly the same thing as some of his (Catholic) predecessors did. Well, no. I insist that although they may have added the word (I take Fitzmeyer’s word for it), they didn’t force a meaning on the passage that wasn’t there in the original. Luther didn’t add “alone” *exactly as others did before him. He added the word and an interpretation. Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith ALONE led him to a false understanding of Romans 3:28 and he wanted to ensure that his interpretation had scriptural support. So he not only rejected James from the canon of his German translation of the Bible (previously documented) because it says in 2:24, “You see how a person is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE” (emphasis added), but he also added the word “alone” to Romans to make it read, “man is justified by FAITH ALONE.” That’s falsification, not translation.

He tried to justify this addition later, of course, as one would expect. But I’m not buying it. The whole thing is too “coincidental” and self-serving to be dismissed as good-faith “dynamic equivalence,” particularly in view of Luther’s own words about the matter, which I previously posted.

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Eric Goodrich:

I have nothing but respect for the history and traditions of the Catholic faith, but let me first off say that I do take offense to the fact that “Lutherans” are grouped in with “Non-Catholic Religions”… I know that Catholicism is the original Christian Church and that the roots run right back to the Apostles. But, to say that Lutheranism is not a Christian Religion, is flat out wrong.

Who said Lutheranism is not Christian? We say it is non-Catholic. It is Protestant, having protested the authoritative teachings of the One True Church founded by Christ, but holding to “some” Catholic Christian Truths.

I think the issue of his day was that of serious corruption in the church. The selling of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins of your dead relatives was prevalant and was used as a fundraiser to pay for St. Peters Cathedral to be built…

Can you find a single Church document sanctioning such activity?

Luther wanted to end this and reform the Church he loved. He also wanted some things that the Catholic church has changed like having Bibles in the Language of the people ( not just Latin).

The Catholic Church had already published Bibles in the vernacular. Luther was not the first to do so. Luther changed the wording of the Bible to suit his own agenda. He removed books with which “he” disagreed, and he inserted the word “alone,” so as to change the meaning of a particular passage, upon which he based his man-made doctrine.

He also thought that priests should be able to marry (something that is a constant topic at my wifes Catholic family gatherings).

When my Catholic family gathers, we are in union with Rome.

If he hadn’t been such a threat to the power structure of the time and the Church had changed it’s direction, you would have probably cannonized him and we would all be Catholic and not talking about what a terrible man he was.

A “threat to the power structure!!!” um, I think you missed the verse…“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” We are concerned over the loss of souls, not the loss of power! And no, no one who edits the Sacred Scriptures and condones adultery would be thought of as a saint in Catholic circles.

They never understand why I don’t go up for communion…

No offense intended, but your wife’s family doesn’t seem to know much about the Church’s teachings.

my pastor is unlike many… He tells us that the Catholics in town came to him and asked if they could come to the Sunday services…He also practices open communion and asks only that if you believe that Jesus died for your sins and that this is the Body and Blood of the Savior that you may partake.

By teaching this, he is defying Catholic teaching and encouraging the Catholic faithful to disobey the authority established by Jesus Christ.

He told my wife when transferred to St. Johns that she could join with me if she liked, and remain a Catholic.

Who was he to declare this?

He did not want her to give up her faith.

It doesn’t sound that way.

This is what Christianity needs more of.

More relativism? Lukewarmness? Error?

This is what Christ would want of his people on earth. We can certainly do more to spread the Gospel to all people, together and united, than discussing something that happened 500 years ago.

But we are not together and united. We are separate and separated. Let’s at least be honest about it. We pray for true unity, but we refuse to “fake it.”

I would also like to add that the Lutheran church does not teach the history of Martin Luther.

I cannot imagine why it wouldn’t. Are they ashamed of their founder?

… Luther is not thought of as the founder of the Church…Christ is the Foundation for Lutherans…

Luther is the founder of the Lutheran Church, like it or not. Jesus Christ founded One Church, the Catholic Church, in 33 AD. Luther founded his church about 1500 years later.

God bless you all, Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

God Bless you, too…Keep searching for the Truth! Peace to you and the Mrs.
Pax Christi. <><

 

[Eric_Goodrich]

Panis Angelicas:

Who said Lutheranism is not Christian? We say it is non-Catholic. It is Protestant, having protested the authoritative teachings of the One True Church founded by Christ, but holding to “some” Catholic Christian Truths.

Your own website identifies this entire discussion board under “Non-Catholic Religions”

Can you find a single Church document sanctioning such activity? The Catholic Church had already published Bibles in the vernacular. Luther was not the first to do so. Luther changed the wording of the Bible to suit his own agenda. He removed books with which “he” disagreed, and he inserted the word “alone,” so as to change the meaning of a particular passage, upon which he based his man-made doctrine.
Panis Angelicas:

When my Catholic family gathers, we are in union with Rome.

When my Christian Family gathers, we are in union with Jesus Christ. He never has to apologize for mistakes He has made as does Rome. He unites us all, Rome has made many mistakes and changes their own rules to adapt to the “changing needs” of the Church or society quite often. Jesus remains unchanged. I will always look to my Saviors teachings for direction in life before I look to that of other poor, miserable sinners such as myself. I think we all know that we will answer to a Higher Power at the end of our earthly lives, I am just thankful I have Someone in my corner!
Panis Angelicas:

No offense intended, but your wife’s family doesn’t seem to know much about the Church’s teachings.

I think that is a combination of many things. Included are the facts that they not only cannot understand the complexity of their own Church, but I feel that they miss out on the real message of the Bible and focus on the “Rules” of the Church. These are very devout Catholics, but there is so much they cannot comprehend.
Panis Angelicas:

By teaching this, he is defying Catholic teaching and encouraging the Catholic faithful to disobey the authority established by Jesus Christ. Who was he to declare this?

Christ gave us this direction. Christ told His Believers to “Do this in Remembrance of Me”. My Pastor follows the teachings of Christ. Remember the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19? Do you think Jesus was only talking to you? He was talking to all Believers! This is our purpose in this life. If you want to sit and debate theology, go get your doctorate! You can argue all you want. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Panis Angelicas:

It doesn’t sound that way. More relativism? Lukewarmness? Error? But we are not together and united. We are separate and separated. Let’s at least be honest about it. We pray for true unity, but we refuse to “fake it.”

The teachings of Jesus were simplistic enough for any child to understand. You try to complicate the teachings and mission of John 3:16 into something that Christ never commanded. “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3. Would you call the ministry of Jesus, lukewarm? I would call it a simple message of how to treat one another, how to love, what our mission is on this earth, and how to honor his Sacrifice for us. This is a message a little child can understand. Jesus knows when we are sorry for our sins. Look at the woman weeping that washed His feet with her tears, did He tell her abour pennance? Did he tell her to read 30 minutes of the Old Testament to gain indulgences? He saw into her heart and forgave her. This is the message of Salvation.This is the Gospel Truth. If you follow Christ and be more “Christ-like”, I doubt He would accuse me of “faking it.”

I follow Christ, not the Pope (a sinful man) or Martin Luther (another sinful man). Catholic means universal, that is the message of Christ’s Salvation. Not just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles. Not just for the Pharisees but for the prostitutes and tax collectors. I am just glad He came for me.

 

[Katholikos]

bboop:

I was raised Lutheran. We NEVER studied about Luther, except the World Book version – ‘he was a great man who fought against the abuses in the CC.’ I read a book about Lutherans who joined the CC, many of them pastors. Those people started to dig deeply into Luther’s writings, which are stunningly – anti-Semitic among other things. I would say, Lutherans do NOT know Luther. And the Lutheran Church today is very much NOT the Lutheran Church ML started. I understand he kept many Catholic beliefs… (which I cannot quote).

The book may have been There *We Stood, Here We Stand, 11 Lutherans Rediscover Their Catholic Roots, *edited by Timothy Drake, a journalist and former Lutheran, whose conversion story is also in the book. Many of the stories are of former Lutheran clergy (men and women) who became Catholic.

The book is available for $10 at AuthorHouse.com

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Eric Goodrich:

Your own website identifies this entire discussion board under “Non-Catholic Religions”

Yes, Eric. Read: Non-Catholic. You are Lutheran, not Catholic. It does not say Non-Christian. There are many non-Catholic Religions.

When my Christian Family gathers, we are in union with Jesus Christ. He never has to apologize for mistakes He has made as does Rome. He unites us all, Rome has made many mistakes and changes their own rules to adapt to the “changing needs” of the Church or society quite often. Jesus remains unchanged. I will always look to my Saviors teachings for direction in life before I look to that of other poor, miserable sinners such as myself. I think we all know that we will answer to a Higher Power at the end of our earthly lives, I am just thankful I have Someone in my corner!

You think you are in union with Jesus Christ, but you deny His Truths which He imparted to His Apostles and which have passed down through the ages through the Church which He founded. In His words, “He who hears you, hears Me.” He was speaking to His first bishops, the apostles. He gave them the power to forgive and retain sins, in this world, and it will be held the same in the next. Yes, the popes and priests are poor sinners like the rest of us, but empowered by the Holy Spirit in a very special way, through the special annointing Christ bestowed during the Last Supper, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which the protestant churches do not have.

I think that is a combination of many things. Included are the facts that they not only cannot understand the complexity of their own Church, but I feel that they miss out on the real message of the Bible and focus on the “Rules” of the Church. These are very devout Catholics, but there is so much they cannot comprehend.

The “real message of the Bible” can only be truly conveyed by the Church which wrote it. Certainly, not Luther, who created the “make it mean what you want it to mean” theology so prevalent today. Jesus meant things when He spoke. The apostles knew what He meant. They passed that on, through the Catholic Church. The Church has NEVER changed her Doctrines. Disciplines may change with the times or cultures, but not our Doctrines.
(continued)

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Do you think that the Lutheran Church hasn’t changed dramatically over the past 500 years of its existence? Has it nothing to apologize for?

Christ gave us this direction. Christ told His Believers to “Do this in Remembrance of Me”.

“us?” pardon me? He instructed His Apostles to “Do this in remembrance of Me.” There wasn’t a Lutheran at the Last Supper, my dear friend, only a small handful of Catholic bishops.

My Pastor follows the teachings of Christ. Remember the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19? Do you think Jesus was only talking to you? He was talking to all Believers!

Believers in what? Partial Truths/Partial Errors? or the Fullness of Truth? He was obviously speaking to those who were going to embrace His entire message, and members of His Church, which He founded upon Peter, (Kepha) the Rock.

This is our purpose in this life. If you want to sit and debate theology, go get your doctorate!

I thought you said “The teachings of Jesus were simplistic enough for any child to understand.” So, which is it? Simple? Or requiring a doctorate?

You can argue all you want. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Great! We’ll see you at Mass, then?

You try to complicate the teachings and mission of John 3:16 into something that Christ never commanded. “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3. Would you call the ministry of Jesus, lukewarm?

Nope, not at all. I would call your making it the end-all and everything He taught an absurd condensation. Everything He taught could not be contained in all the books of the world.

I would call it a simple message of how to treat one another, how to love, what our mission is on this earth, and how to honor his Sacrifice for us.

I’m sorry, Eric, but I don’t think that the Lutheran Church does honor the Sacrifice Christ left to us. He left the Sacrifice of His Body and Blood to His Church, to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, not to the churches founded by men, such as Luther and the like. It’s in the Bible.

This is a message a little child can understand. Jesus knows when we are sorry for our sins. Look at the woman weeping that washed His feet with her tears, did He tell her abour pennance? Did he tell her to read 30 minutes of the Old Testament to gain indulgences? He saw into her heart and forgave her. This is the message of Salvation.This is the Gospel Truth. If you follow Christ and be more “Christ-like”, I doubt He would accuse me of “faking it.”

Encouraging Catholics to believe in a false eucharist, “confected” by someone other than a duly ordained priest, (as your pastor does) is faking it. There is a serious separation between protestant and Catholic teaching, and you know it, or you would be receiving in the Catholic Church, which you refrain from doing, to your credit. Pretending that there is really no difference, no separation, is faking it. Imagining that one belief system is just as good and true as the next, conflicting belief system, is faking it.

I follow Christ, not the Pope (a sinful man) or Martin Luther (another sinful man). Catholic means universal, that is the message of Christ’s Salvation. Not just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles. Not just for the Pharisees but for the prostitutes and tax collectors. I am just glad He came for me.

He established One True Church for you, also. It’s up to you to accept or reject it. Do you think that Catholics follow the Pope, rather than Christ? We follow the Pope, because we know that Christ established the authority of the Papacy, and promised to guide the Church always. Christ didn’t err, and He certainly didn’t lie. Can’t say the same of the founder of the Lutheran Church. That said, all religions are not created equal. But we certainly do welcome converts! Are you interested?

 

[Shibboleth]

Panis Angelicas:

A “threat to the power structure!!!” um, I think you missed the verse…“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” We are concerned over the loss of souls, not the loss of power! And no, no one who edits the Sacred Scriptures and condones adultery would be thought of as a saint in Catholic circles.

Well let’s look at the verse you stated here. “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It seems to me that you are putting more or different things into this statement than what is being said. Thank goodness you are not writing a Bible translation as you might add unnecessary words.

“the gates of hell”
As one person stated in another thread…”Since when have gates, in the history of battle, been used to attack?” Good question I think, gates really cannot be used to attack unless you drop them on someone or take them off their hinges and fire them from a trebuchet.

So what is being conveyed in this verse? Is Jesus omitting something and in essence saying, “The church will hold back the gates of hell so that the denizens of evil will not prevail against it.” ← Talk about adding words. In addition, the “the gates of hell” are being steadfast in this statement not prevailing.

Lets take another look at the words “the gates of hell.” Well we know that “hell” is not a Greek word and is not in the original text. The word “Hell” has its origin in the Old English word “Hel” which was the Norse goddess of the underworld. Being Old English would of course tell us once again that the word “Hell” never existed in the original biblical writings.

The word being translated as “Hell” is “Hades.” The word Hades first appeared in biblical writings when the bible was translated into the Septuagint. At this time the word Sheol was translated as thus. The Hebrew word She’Ol literally means “unseen”. Sheol was a place that both the good and bad go after death, I believe the Jewish use the words king and slave alike.

Job 3:13 – 3:19
"For now I would have lain down and been quiet;
I would have slept then, I would have been at rest,
With kings and with counselors of the earth,
Who rebuilt ruins for themselves;
Or with princes who had gold,
Who were filling their houses with silver.
"Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be,
As infants that never saw light.
"There the wicked cease from raging,
And there the weary are at rest.
"The prisoners are at ease together;
They do not hear the voice of the taskmaster.
"The small and the great are there,
And the slave is free from his master.

Hades is not the place of daemons or even evil people.

So what is being said by this verse… well gates are usually used for two reasons, to keep people out or to keep people in. With Hades or Sheol being the realm of the dead we can probably conclude that the gates are to keep people in.

…“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Maybe he meant this…

John 2:19 – 2:21
Jesus answered and said to them, 15 “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, 16 and you will raise it up in three days?”
But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

 

[Shibboleth]

Part 2

So this is how I see it…

Jesus is saying to Paul. I will pass from this realm but through you I will build my church and even though I will be sent to the grave [Hell, Sheol, Hades] it shall not keep my church from becoming for I will not be bound by the gates. I will rise from the grave and give you the good news and although I will leave this realm once again and ascend into heaven I will leave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven on this Earth in you.

 

[Katholikos]

Shibboleth,

There you go, in Protestant style, parsing the words of Scripture, IN ENGLISH, as if they contained the whole truth instead of part of the truth. You must also take into account Sacred Apostolic Tradition when reading the NT. **And you must weight your interpretation against what the living, believing Church was teaching at the time she wrote the NT. **

You are assured by Sola Scriptura that you, individually and personally, whether you know the ancient biblical languages or not, whether you know the cultural milieu in which the words were framed or not, not only have the authority to interpret the scriptures but will be led to “all truth.” 487 years of Protestant experience has proven Luther’s doctrine dead wrong. The Holy Spirit has either lead thousands of founders of new churches into different answers to the same questions, or He hasn’t led them at all. He obviously hasn’t led them at all. Why would He, when Jesus Christ founded only one church? He left us a Church, not a book.

The “gates of hell” is a Protestant translation – from the KJV. The Protestant RSV renders the Greek of Mt 16:18, “the powers of death shall not prevail against it” [His Church, founded on Peter the Rock].

The NT is not an instruction book in Christianity. It is a collection of the Church’s own writings to itself. It can only be understood correctly when read in context in which it was written – and it was written in the heart of the living, believing, teaching Catholic Church. The Church is not based on the New Testament; rather, the New Testament is based on the believing, teaching Church that produced it.
Ave Cor Mariae, Jay

 

[Shibboleth]

Katholikos:

It is a collection of the Church’s own writings to itself. It can only be understood correctly when read in context in which it was written – and it was written in the heart of the living, believing, teaching Catholic Church. The Church is not based on the New Testament; rather, the New Testament is based on the believing, teaching Church that produced it.
Ave Cor Mariae, Jay

Funny all of the words I was addressing were written in red in my study Bible meaning that they were the words of Jesus himself.

The Church produced the words of Christ? To itself? “Forgive them Father they know not what they do.” Who is he speaking to here, apparently only to the Church that apparently produced the words of Christ?

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Shibboleth:

Part 2

So this is how I see it…

Jesus is saying to Paul. I will pass from this realm but through you I will build my church …

Incidentally, Jesus was speaking to Peter, (Kepha) the first pope (not Paul, as you “see it.”)

Paul apparently never even really conversed with Jesus, except to hear His voice at the time of his conversion, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”

Jesus had already founded His Church and was already risen from the dead when He spoke to Saul!

Saul (who then became Paul) was not persecuting Jesus Christ, the God-Man, but the Living Church, the Body of Christ ~ the Catholic Church, of which Peter was pope.

And my point was, we need not fear “loss of power,” as was Eric’s faulty assertion. We have Christ’s word that His Church, the One He founded upon Peter will prevail, come what may.

Pax Christi. <><

 

[ZoeTheodora]

Shibboleth:

Funny all of the words I was addressing were written in red in my study Bible meaning that they were the words of Jesus himself.

:whacky: LOL!!! So Jesus spoke English, did He?

I don’t suppose it might occur to you that those “words in red” in your Study Bible could possibly be a translation of the original Greek…and that translations can be more or less accurate?

Katholikos is indicating that “jaws of death” or “jaws of hades” is a more accurate translation of the NT Greek than “gates of hell.”

I understand most modern scholars agree with him.

It doesn’t matter what your Study Bible says in red (or green or purple or gold lame’). What matters is what the Greek says, in the original mss. The original Greek presumably reflects what Our Lord actually said (in Aramaic).

From what I’ve been told, “gates of hell” is not a particularly good translation of the original Greek. And therefore it is not a particularly accurate reflection of what Our Lord actually said. “Jaws of death” is much closer. Leastwise, from what I’ve heard.

Your Study Bible can put “gates of hell” in red till the cows come home. That doesn’t make it a good translation. Nor does it make an English phrase twice removed from Our Lord’s native tongue the ipsa verba of Christ.

God bless,

ZT

 

[Shibboleth]

Panis Angelicas:

Incidentally, Jesus was speaking to Peter, (Kepha) the first pope (not Paul, as you “see it.”)

Terrible error, I was typing quickly and did not proof read. Sorry about that. And I do not think that the Catholic Church fears loosing power. Power, fame - a good Christian craves not these things.

 

[Shibboleth]

:whacky: LOL!!! So Jesus spoke English, did He?

I don’t suppose it might occur to you that those “words in red” in your Study Bible could possibly be a translation of the original Greek…and that translations can be more or less accurate?

Katholikos is indicating that “jaws of death” or “jaws of hades” is a more accurate translation of the NT Greek than “gates of hell.”

I did not say anything about English or Greek, we were commenting on the Bible itself. I am well aware of the Venacular of the NT. If you will notice you will see that I was commenting on the translation from the Greek. That was my whole point. Not only was I commenting on translation but conotation and denotation.

In fact the study Bible I use has the Greek and Hebrew texts written on the opposite page.

And yes “jaws of death” is a good translation. A great one infact.
Read through my arguement, I agree with that translation far more than “gate of hell.”

I do not like the KJV. I think that it had its place but in todays world it is only good for reading poetic writting.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Shibboleth:

The Church produced the words of Christ? To itself? “Forgive them Father they know not what they do.” Who is he speaking to here, apparently only to the Church that apparently produced the words of Christ?

The Church produced the New Testament. Don’t you know your Bible history?
Yes, Jesus spoke to His Church.
And Yes, the Church wrote things down for posterity, describing things which Jesus said and did.
Certainly the authors of the New Testament knew what they were writing about, and what Jesus meant, and for whom He meant it.
Is the fact that the Early Church wrote down Our Lord’s words for posterity really that incredible to you?
The Church did write the New Testament for herself ~ for the faithful. And She alone interprets it infallibly.

And I do really dislike it when people take Christ’s words ~ especially those He uttered while suffering on the Cross ~ in a pompous, ignorant, arrogant attack on the Church He founded.

It is you, Shibboleth, who knows not what you do.

Pax Christi. <><