Vulgate

[KatholikosMercy]

His doctrine did not either. Have you ever read Luther’s writings on the Bible?
It says nothing of the things you say.
Many people quote his tableside talks with people he had over at his home. People would take notes on chats they had at his home. These were later written into papers. Imagine if I used what was said on these threads as Catholic Church doctrine to other people. That would not be fair representation of the Catholic Church.
Read his writing if you want to know his doctrines.
That is not to say Luther wrote something’s that the Lutheran Church and myself do not agree with.

I have read his thesis posted on the Wurtenburg doors.

Its in PROTEST to the Foundation and Pillar or all Truth 1Tim 3:15

 

[zcharry]

I have read his thesis posted on the Wurtenburg doors.

Its in PROTEST to the Foundation and Pillar or all Truth 1Tim 3:15

Do you know what the thesis that were posted were used for?
They were used as bullet points for students to sit and debate.
Not much different than what we do on this forum. They just blossomed into what there are known today as the 95. There were many different thesis that were circulated before the 95.
Take the time sometime if you are interested and read a few of his preface on the books of the NT. It is a good incite to his views without being overwhelmed by his writings.

 

[ahmadhassan]

zcharry i see you ignore what i asked you you dont have answer?

 

[zcharry]

zcharry i see you ignore what i asked you you dont have answer?

Did not see your question.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Do you know what the thesis that were posted were used for?
They were used as bullet points for students to sit and debate.
Not much different than what we do on this forum. They just blossomed into what there are known today as the 95. There were many different thesis that were circulated before the 95.
Take the time sometime if you are interested and read a few of his preface on the books of the NT. It is a good incite to his views without being overwhelmed by his writings.

How do you know I haven’t?

The fact remains he was ONE man who openly spoke against the Church which made his ideas a departure from sound doctrine and rebellion against the revealed truths of the Apostolic Faith.

Otherwise known as heresy and what Paul warns against. To further the rebellion into a skeleton religion is an abominable tragedy.

 

[ahmadhassan]

Did not see your question.

can you prove that jews ommitted ?

 

[zcharry]

How do you know I haven’t?

The fact remains he was ONE man who openly spoke against the Church which made his ideas a departure from sound doctrine and rebellion against the revealed truths of the Apostolic Faith.

Otherwise known as heresy and what Paul warns against. To further the rebellion into a skeleton religion is an abominable tragedy.

Since this is off thread I will let it rest, but I answered to Luther because if you are not going to stay fact but nonfiction then it needs to be corrected.
I’m not Catholic but I would never let someone state things that are not true about Catholic Church. Catholic’s should have, at least, the same courtesy to others.

 

[zcharry]

can you prove that jews ommitted ?

ommitted what?

 

[Renton405]

Luther even rejected Hebrews and Revelation??

Wow, now I definatly know he was a false prophet/heretic…

I thought it was just James he wanted out because it says “Faith without works is dead”

Macabees always deserves to be in the bible because Jews celebrate Hannukah and the Prophecys in the book of Daniel can only be fully understood by reading the book of Macabees

So the Lutheran Church put the books back in? or did Luther when he “decided” that he made a wrong mistake…

 

[Renton405]

so you say that jerome lied? did he believe in corruption of OT?then he is unbeliever according to christianity right?
what if a christian believed that bible is corrupted does he remain christian? ,i love to learn about comparative religions

Uthman also burned many original copys and had them re-written… many revisions in the Quran…

I had read i think in Iraeneus… That when Ptolemy hired all the Jewish scholars to translated the OT into greek that the end result was that ALL of the copys of every scholar was EXACTLY the same… When Ptolemy saw this he realized that this was a book of great power …

Also… The Codex Vaticanus is the oldest bible on earth… The copys in the KJV are from a 9-10th century OT Jewish document…Thats why the changed “Virgin” to “Favoured Woman” and “Hail full of Grace” to “Greetings, Favored Woman”

 

[zcharry]

Luther even rejected Hebrews and Revelation??

Wow, now I definatly know he was a false prophet/heretic…

I thought it was just James he wanted out because it says “Faith without works is dead”

Macabees always deserves to be in the bible because Jews celebrate Hannukah and the Prophecys in the book of Daniel can only be fully understood by reading the book of Macabees

So the Lutheran Church put the books back in? or did Luther when he “decided” that he made a wrong mistake…

Get your facts straight.
It took about three centuries after Jesus’ ascension for all the churches everywhere to agree on all of the 27 books that we call the New Testament. Why? There were s number of reasons for this.
1.Not all the churches were immediately familiar with all the books.
2. Certain false teachers misused the Book of Revelation, making some of the churches suspicious of that book.
3. There were questions as to whether this or that book was written by an apostle (or by someone who worked closely with an apostle).
4. Through those early centuries many other books were written, claiming to be the Gospel or Epistle or Acts or Revelation of this or that apostle or biblical figure. It took time to sort out some of these false claims. Books that were “spoken against” by some leaders in some places during the first centuries were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
Actually, the books of the New Testament came to be accepted and are trusted by us today because they demonstrate their trustworthiness and power as the written Word of God.
It is true that Luther at least once expressed the opinion that Revelation is “obscure,” and that James is “a straw epistle” because (he) Luther though that James was opposing Paul on justification through faith. He had questions about the authorship of Hebrews.
The books and words of Scripture stand on their own authority, regardless of Luther’s opinions.
Sources for the quotation you cite are to be found in “Luther’s Works” (American Edition), Volume 35.

Martin Luther did in fact refer to the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw compared to these others [the rest of the New Testament], for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” He wrote this in his “Prefaces to the New Testament” (p. 362).

In his “Prefaces to the Epistles of James and Jude,” he explained what he meant by that expression “epistle of straw.”
He wrote: “In spirit, thought, and words [he] mangles the Scriptures and thereby oppposes Paul and all Scripture” (p. 397).

Footnote 54, on the same page explains: “(James) wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal
to the task.”

These comments were expunged from Luther’s 1530 edition of the New Testament, but it is not certain that Luther changed his mind about the quality of the Epsitle of James.

Lutherans do not regard Luther’s words as a final authority on this or any other subject. The books and words of Scripture stand on their own authority.

 

[anthony022071]

so you say that jerome lied? did he believe in corruption of OT?then he is unbeliever according to christianity right?
what if a christian believed that bible is corrupted does he remain christian? ,i love to learn about comparative religions

Jerome said that he intended to point out the mistakes of those who suspect some fault in the Hebrew Scriptures,and to correct the faults of the Greek and Latin copies (evidently with reference to the Hebrew Scriptures). So he did not believe in the corruption of the Hebrew Scriptures. You should have figured this out from
the quote that you posted. How could he have been an unbeliever
on account of some faults in the texts?

 

[ahmadhassan]

Uthman also burned many original copys and had them re-written… many revisions in the Quran…

I had read i think in Iraeneus… That when Ptolemy hired all the Jewish scholars to translated the OT into greek that the end result was that ALL of the copys of every scholar was EXACTLY the same… When Ptolemy saw this he realized that this was a book of great power …

Also… The Codex Vaticanus is the oldest bible on earth… The copys in the KJV are from a 9-10th century OT Jewish document…Thats why the changed “Virgin” to “Favoured Woman” and “Hail full of Grace” to “Greetings, Favored Woman”

why do you talk about islam? wanna talk about authinthucation of qur`an open new thread but i will not answer you when you talk about islam in a topic about bible

 

[ahmadhassan]

Jerome said that he intended to point out the mistakes of those who suspect some fault in the Hebrew Scriptures,and to correct the faults of the Greek and Latin copies (evidently with reference to the Hebrew Scriptures). So he did not believe in the corruption of the Hebrew Scriptures. You should have figured this out from
the quote that you posted. How could he have been an unbeliever
on account of some faults in the texts?

so as jerome said paul said lies that isnt present in herbew and also the greek bible is corrupted
you said that church didnt agree with him so the church authinthicated corrupted one

Saint Jeromes concern was not upheld by the Magisterium of the Church so its irrelivent. It was not on his authority alone to make any such claim.

Saint Jerome translated the Vulgate from Greek. He didn’t corrupt it.

I read this as what he said:
“It is not my purpose, as snarling ill-will pretends, to convict the LXX. of error, nor do I look upon my own labour as a disparagement of theirs.”

Paca and all glory to Isa.

 

[BelFarfalla]

gerom say that the OT was corrupted

Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions.

Written a.d. 388. For the scope and character of this work, see Prolegomena.
…

Where did you get this quote from? Is it online?

 

[BelFarfalla]

so as jerome said paul said lies that isnt present in herbew and also the greek bible is corrupted

you said that church didnt agree with him so the church authinthicated corrupted one

Jerome did NOT say that Paul was a liar. He also did not say that the Greek bible is corrupted; he said that there were copies of it that had errors. You are taking one quote, from one source and distorting what it said. He was a prolific writer, there is a lot more that St. Jerome had to say on this subject.

 

[ahmadhassan]

Jerome did NOT say that Paul was a liar. He also did not say that the Greek bible is corrupted; he said that there were copies of it that had errors. You are taking one quote, from one source and distorting what it said. He was a prolific writer, there is a lot more that St. Jerome had to say on this subject.

gerom say that the OT was corrupted

Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions.

Written a.d. 388. For the scope and character of this work, see Prolegomena.

“The53795379

Hor. Odes II., x. 19, 20.
highest peaks invoke

The lightning’s stroke.”

But I am in a corner, remote from the city and the forum, and the wranglings of crowded courts; yet, even so (as Quintilian says) ill-will has sought me out. Therefore, I beseech the reader,

“If53805380

Virgil, Ec., vi. 10.
one there be, if one,

Who, rapt by strong desire, these lines shall read,”

not to expect eloquence or oratorical grace in those Books of Hebrew Questions, which I propose to write on all the sacred books; but rather, that he should himself answer my detractors for me, and tell them that a work of a new kind can claim some indulgence. I am poor and of low estate; I neither possess riches nor do I think it right to accept them if they are offered me; and, similarly, let me tell them that it is impossible for them to have the riches of Christ, that is, the knowledge of the Scriptures, and the world’s riches as well. It will be my simple aim, therefore, first, to point out the mistakes of those who suspect some fault in the Hebrew Scriptures, and, secondly, to correct the faults, which evidently teem in the Greek and Latin copies, by a reference to the original authority; and, further, to explain the etymology of things, names, and countries, when it is not apparent from the sound of the Latin words, by giving a paraphrase in the vulgar tongue. To enable the student more easily to take note of these emendations, I propose, in the first place, to set out the true53815381

Ipsa testimonia. This is what he calls in other places Hebraica veritas. Jerome was right in the main in correcting the LXX, and other Greek versions by the Hebrew. He was not aware (as has been since made clear) that there are various readings in the Hebrew itself, and that these may sometimes be corrected by the LXX., which was made from older mss.
reading itself, as I am now able to do, and then, by bringing the later readings into comparison with it, to53825382

That is, by the obeli (†), to show what has been left out, and the asterisk (*), to show what has been inserted.
indicate what has been omitted or added or altered. It is not my purpose, as snarling ill-will pretends, to convict the LXX. of error, nor do I look upon my own labour as a disparagement of theirs. The fact is that they, since their work was undertaken for King Ptolemy of Alexandria, did not choose to bring to light all the mysteries which the sacred writings contain, and especially those which give the promise of the advent of Christ, for fear that he who held the Jews in esteem because they were believed to worship one God, would come to think that they worshipped a second. But we find that the Evangelists, and even our Lord and Saviour, and the Apostle Paul, also, bring forward many citations as coming from the Old Testament which are not contained in our copies; and on these I shall dilate more fully in their proper 487places. But it is clear from this fact that those are the best mss. which most correspond with the authoritative words of the New Testament. Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the Seventy Translators, reports them as translating only the five books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest. And, further, those who afterward came into the field as translators—I mean Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion—give a version very different from that which we use.53835383

That is, from the copies of the LXX. commonly used in the fourth century.

jerome said that paul said things that isnt present in herbew OT but present in the Greek translation of this herbew bible
so he didnt believe in the greek one and according to jerome paul told things that isnt present in herbew so paul lied
what church did? it didnt accept what jerome said so it keeped corrupted greek translation of herbew OT

 

[Renton405]

Get your facts straight.
It took about three centuries after Jesus’ ascension for all the churches everywhere to agree on all of the 27 books that we call the New Testament. Why? There were s number of reasons for this.
1.Not all the churches were immediately familiar with all the books.
2. Certain false teachers misused the Book of Revelation, making some of the churches suspicious of that book.
3. There were questions as to whether this or that book was written by an apostle (or by someone who worked closely with an apostle).
4. Through those early centuries many other books were written, claiming to be the Gospel or Epistle or Acts or Revelation of this or that apostle or biblical figure. It took time to sort out some of these false claims. Books that were “spoken against” by some leaders in some places during the first centuries were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
Actually, the books of the New Testament came to be accepted and are trusted by us today because they demonstrate their trustworthiness and power as the written Word of God.
It is true that Luther at least once expressed the opinion that Revelation is “obscure,” and that James is “a straw epistle” because (he) Luther though that James was opposing Paul on justification through faith. He had questions about the authorship of Hebrews.
The books and words of Scripture stand on their own authority, regardless of Luther’s opinions.
Sources for the quotation you cite are to be found in “Luther’s Works” (American Edition), Volume 35.

Martin Luther did in fact refer to the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw compared to these others [the rest of the New Testament], for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” He wrote this in his “Prefaces to the New Testament” (p. 362).

In his “Prefaces to the Epistles of James and Jude,” he explained what he meant by that expression “epistle of straw.”
He wrote: “In spirit, thought, and words [he] mangles the Scriptures and thereby oppposes Paul and all Scripture” (p. 397).

Footnote 54, on the same page explains: “(James) wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal
to the task.”

These comments were expunged from Luther’s 1530 edition of the New Testament, but it is not certain that Luther changed his mind about the quality of the Epsitle of James.

Lutherans do not regard Luther’s words as a final authority on this or any other subject. The books and words of Scripture stand on their own authority.

If they don’t regard Luthers authority how can they trust that the 5 solas are correct?? And why would they name their church after him? isn’t that idolism in a sense??

I don’t understand how he can think James is a staw epistle… The book of James touches my heart deeply everytime I read it… just because it says “Faith without works is dead” means that it isn’t a true epistle??

 

[zcharry]

If they don’t regard Luthers authority how can they trust that the 5 solas are correct?? And why would they name their church after him? isn’t that idolism in a sense??

I don’t understand how he can think James is a staw epistle… The book of James touches my heart deeply everytime I read it… just because it says “Faith without works is dead” means that it isn’t a true epistle??

The Bible clearly states that we are justified by faith alone. Even the Catholic Church does not dispute this fact. This is from you own Catechism.

2010** Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion**. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

It is clear that we are justified by the Grace of God thru faith alone!
The split then is how we keep that Justification. Your Church believes God gift is not good enough and you must do something to increase his gift. We believe the gift is forever and you have the choice to accept the gift or reject the gift but the gift is always there.
There is not a debate we are justified by faith alone it is after the initial justification where the debate begins.

We do not worship Lutheran and the only reason the Church used his name was a way to distinguish beliefs between churches.
Do you worship Roman it was not always called the Roman Catholic Church.

When Luther wrestled with these and other books over questions of apostolicity or their place in the canon (accepted biblical books), he never questioned the inspiration and authority of God’s Word. Luther did not deny these books a place in the New Testament. From his first translation of the New Testament to the last work he did on Bible translation (shortly before his death), he included them.
As with questions of our faith, so with this question, Luther is never the final authority.

I feel the same way you do about James. Read in the right context it is a wonderful book on expressing are Christian faith. Many people use this book though to say we have to do good work to have justification and that is taking the book out of context.

God Bless

 

[anthony022071]

jerome said that
paul said things that isnt present in herbew OT but present in the Greek translation of this herbew bible
so he didnt believe in the greek one and according to jerome paul told things that isnt present in herbew so paul lied
what church did? it didnt accept what jerome said so it keeped corrupted greek translation of herbew OT

That quote is not from Jerome! It is from a modern scholar! How could you not figure that out? And neither Jerome nor the scholar said Paul lied.
The fact that there are minor faults in a text does not make it believable,unless it has doctrinal or moral errors.