Why I could never follow Luther.

[yankee_drifter]

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Thanks for the link. However, I see problems. I don’t have time to discuss every one of them, but, for example, the first passage on the list is Matt.2:16 which allegedly quotes Wisdom 11:7.

Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. Matt. 2:16

Wisdom 11:6-8: For instead of of a perpetual running river troubled with foul blood, or a manifest reproof of that commandment, whereby the infants were slain, thou gavest unto them abundance of water by a means which they hoped not for: declaring by that thirst then how thou hadst punished their adversaries.

The first passage was about Herod sending his soldiers to kill every two year-old baby in Bethlehem in order to kill Jesus. The Wisdom passage is about infants dying due to thirst.

Another example is that Matt.2:16 supposedly quotes Wisdom 11:7. Here are the passages,

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal . Matt. 6:19-20

Lay up thy treasure according to the commandments of the most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold. Shut up alms in thy storehouses: and it shall deliver thee from all affliction. Sirach 29:11-12

In the Matthew passage, Jesus encourages us to lay up treasure in heaven. In the Wisdom passage, the author tells us that we can get rich by following God’s command and wealth will deliver us from affliction. But Jesus’ statement was not about personal wealth or freedom from affliction.

What your list has done is that it tried to match phrases such as “store up . . . treasure” and “lay up treasure” and words between the Deuterocanon and the New Testament. However, the concepts of the passages are completely different. Anyone can match short phrases and words. Given a collection of eleven books and the Bible, one can only imagine how many short phrases and words can be matched. But matching full sentences and concepts is another issue.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

First off, you say the Jewish cannon wasn’t decided until 90AD. However, there was never a council of Jamima. It was only in the 20th century that it was speculated that there may been been one. Look it up and you will see its referred to as hypothetical.

The canon was indeed closed by the time of Jesus’ earthly mission. He said the Scriptures consisted of the Law, Prophets and Psalms. Nothing else. When Jesus and the apostles appealed to Scripture, they had a specific set of books in view. Biblical and historical testimony affirm this. This threefold set of books did not contain the apocrypha.

History reveals that in 90-100 AD the Jews were actually uniting against the apocryphal books. The apocrypha in the larger Greek canon were eventually repudiated by the Jews later in the 1st century. There isn’t any historical evidence to verify that the Septuagint used during the Apostolic era included the apocrypha.

Question if the jewish cannon was set then why did jewish leader such as the sadducesees deny all writting as scripture except for the Torah?

Also the books of Ruth Joshua Kings Judges Sammuel and Chronicals and others would not fall into your 3 classes so what do we do with them?

You bring up the point of rejecting these books because of contradictory accounts found in them, but do not address it when pointed out that the same thing happens in books you do accept. You can not have both.

And it is a 20th century denial of the council of Jamima taking place. You speak of historical eveidence provide some of a standard jewish cannon prior to 90 AD.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Thanks for the link. However, I see problems. I don’t have time to discuss every one of them, but, for example, the first passage on the list is Matt.2:16 which allegedly quotes Wisdom 11:7.

Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. Matt. 2:16

Wisdom 11:6-8: For instead of of a perpetual running river troubled with foul blood, or a manifest reproof of that commandment, whereby the infants were slain, thou gavest unto them abundance of water by a means which they hoped not for: declaring by that thirst then how thou hadst punished their adversaries.

The first passage was about Herod sending his soldiers to kill every two year-old baby in Bethlehem in order to kill Jesus. The Wisdom passage is about infants dying due to thirst.

Another example is that Matt.2:16 supposedly quotes Wisdom 11:7. Here are the passages,

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal . Matt. 6:19-20

Lay up thy treasure according to the commandments of the most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold. Shut up alms in thy storehouses: and it shall deliver thee from all affliction. Sirach 29:11-12

In the Matthew passage, Jesus encourages us to lay up treasure in heaven. In the Wisdom passage, the author tells us that we can get rich by following God’s command and wealth will deliver us from affliction. But Jesus’ statement was not about personal wealth or freedom from affliction.

What your list has done is that it tried to match phrases such as “store up . . . treasure” and “lay up treasure” and words between the Deuterocanon and the New Testament. However, the concepts of the passages are completely different. Anyone can match short phrases and words. Given a collection of eleven books and the Bible, one can only imagine how many short phrases and words can be matched. But matching full sentences and concepts is another issue.

Anyone can dismiss them as well.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Anyone can dismiss them as well.

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted from the detero canonical or apocrypha. What you gave us was a list of similarities, but when we read them carefully, we see they are talking about different things. Jesus recognized nothing beyond the Law of Moses, Prophets and the Psalms. Jesus said: “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the** Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms** must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44)

BTW, there was no COUNCIL of Jamnia. It was an informal meeting between some Jews to discuss the 22 books that were already canon.

The Septuagint has ceased to be used by Jews.

 

[swords99]

Question if the jewish cannon was set then why did jewish leader such as the sadducesees deny all writting as scripture except for the Torah?

Also the books of Ruth Joshua Kings Judges Sammuel and Chronicals and others would not fall into your 3 classes so what do we do with them?

You bring up the point of rejecting these books because of contradictory accounts found in them, but do not address it when pointed out that the same thing happens in books you do accept. You can not have both.

And it is a 20th century denial of the council of Jamima taking place. You speak of historical eveidence provide some of a standard jewish cannon prior to 90 AD.

Its interesting that you keep mentioning the Sadducees, the very group that denied the Resurrection, any afterlife or existence of the spirit world such as angels and demons. They were more concerned with politics than religion.

The Jews divided their scriptures into three parts: the Torah (the “Law”), or Pentateuch; the Nevi’im (the “Prophets”); and the Ketuvim (the “Writings”), or Hagiographa. Ruth Joshua Kings Judges, etc fall in the latter category.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The Septuagint has ceased to be used by Jews.

Were is maybe true that it has ceased being used, the Fact remains that it was being used by the Jewish people in Israel, Before during and after the time of Christ on Earth.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KathleenGee,

As Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Chruch of Christ at all times so that it can not teach error. While we as humans can sit down after the fact and say we would have done such-and-such differently - this is not the way has chosen to guide His Church - the Catholic Church.

The condemnation that Luther received to teaching heresy and failing to follow the beliefs of the Catholic Church (selling indulgences was an abuse by some and never a teaching of the Church) was guided by the Holy Spirit.

Now, as for poisoning the Pope … as I recall, we are not allowed to do evil to bring about good. Besides, even civil authorities frown on murder…

God bless

Alot of blame can be placed on Leo X. If he were voted out, the problems with Luther could have been resolved.

 

[Frindon]

I was thinking of this all day and wonder how others feel about it.

Luther came AFTER the Church. Now scriptures said the Church is One, Holy, Catholic,and Apostolic.

Now on a common sense level Luther separated himself from the ONE Church. Now we come into the battle who has the ONE Church. It has to be the Church that was started by Peter.

Now here is where the problem with Luther comes in my mind. Luther was at one time a part of the Church started by Peter. Simply because, he walked away from the Church that History proves was connected to Peter. Here is where common sense comes to play, Peter and the CC were here long before Luther, Luther was not here long before the CC.

Now in my eyes it shows how Luther walked away from Jesus because Jesus said the Church and I are ONE. and there is ONE HCAC,

Now rather there was sin going by humans in the RCC at that time or not has nothing to do with the OHCAC.

I mean do People really think that Peter did not have Sin, that John didn’t, Etc. We know they did because of the repentance that they continued to do all of their lives.

Now the RCC is considered the Church that is led by the Pope. (the present Peter). Now the Catholic Church is universal. Which mean one, all are welcome, all can become one in Christ through Christ with Christ who is the Church.

Now I have heard that there is no such thing as the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH! Now that is not true. Now granted the Church is not Roman but it is called the Roman Catholic Church, has been forever.

Now Luther was at one time part of the RCC. Now if the Church is one, and was here long before Luther how could there possibly be more than One Church?

Please no disrespect anyone, just trying to figure out their line of reasoning on this?

The Creed does not say One Holy Roman Catholic Church. The word Roman was used by those who wished to say they were the Anglican Catholic Church and just as valid. Calling yourself Roman Catholic is playing into schizmatics hands. A Universal (catholic) Church cannot be tied to any country. If you wish to say we are Catholics who practice the Roman rite as opposed to Catholics who practice the Eastern rite, that is fine. Be careful, just because you have heard something since you were young does not make it right.

Frindon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Swords99,

Wow! You packed a lot of material into this post. Some of it I even agreee with… But, allow me to make some comments.

My point is many are quick to note Luther’s faults but refuse to admit there were corrupt popes and priests and always will be…

This is really a doctrinal issue, Swords99, not a personality one. No man is without sin - the only real difference is that some are positions of power so that their sin influences and scandalizes more people faster! Yes, there were Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and even the Faithful - who repeatedly and intentionally failed to follow Christ. While we expect good example from those in authority - our real Examplar is Christ. We will be judged on how closely we follow Him - not someone else.

To justify Luther’s break with the Church because of evil and sinful men in positions of Catholic Church authority is odd. Note, the 10 remaining Apostles did not break with Peter for denying Christ. No doubt about it - Peter sinned most greiviously in his denial of Christ.

The Protestant faiths do not “follow” Luther. He is not the founder of any religion. Christ alone has that position.

That’s news to me, Swords99, because almost every Lutheran document I have seen in the US praises Luther for a particular virtue. If Luther is NOT the founder of the Lutheran faith, who is?

As for the RCC purging and cleansing the church by ousting dissenters, this is how the this church silenced those who disagreed, by excommunication or worse -death. I see nowhere in the history of the RCC any reforms having been done.

Let me direct you to the Council of Trent and the reforms that were made, Swords99. Here is the link: newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm If you are really interested in seeing the errors of your last statement, you will read this. Many changes were made.

Truly, Luther was correct to identify sinful practices and men who abused their authority and twisted the teachings of the Catholic Chuch - he was wrong in the way he went about it. The 'bath water; needed to be changed, but Luther wound up throwing the 'Baby" out with it! That was the real problem.

It continued to forge ahead as a powerful organization because it was “married” to the State of Rome. Thus it wielded political power with the king’s endorsement.

This is a good observation! The Papal States and the Pope did concern themselves too much with temporal ends - and it was hard (if not impossible) to distinguish them from the medieval and renaissance princes of the day. Members of this elite establishment had many places to lay their head - unlike Christ whom they claimed to be following as they shepherded the Flock.

Faults on both sides…sure, but the RCC punished the reformers and those who chose to follow these reformers. Exile and threats of death were everywhere. But the RCC remained nearly unscathed and unrepentant.

You are really quite wrong about this.
The unity Christ had prayed for was broken - due in no small measure to the scandal caused by the Shepherds. This is an on-going pain - and one that every one who gave bad example to the so-called reformers is accountable. I say so-called reformers because they really did not end up ‘reforming’ anything - they totally broke away.

Thank God we now have separation of church and state.

Actually, this is a good idea.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

Ho Tom.

=tqualey;7280146To justify Luther’s break with the Church because of evil and sinful men in positions of Catholic Church authority is odd. Note, the 10 remaining Apostles did not break with Peter for denying Christ. No doubt about it - Peter sinned most greiviously in his denial of Christ.

True, but where did the others excommunicate Peter? And neither sought the life of the other - Luther’s life was certainly in peril, by some of those who were abusing the Church and her doctrines.

That’s news to me, Swords99, because almost every Lutheran document I have seen in the US praises Luther for a particular virtue. If Luther is NOT the founder of the Lutheran faith, who is?

Praising Luther and considering him the “founder” are two different things. The first section of the Lutheran confessions, The Book Of Concord contains nothing from Luther. It is the three ecumenical Creeds. Lutherans confess them, and their profession of faith in God the Father, Son, and HOly SPirit. Christ is the founder of the catholic faith, of which we are a part, not Luther.

Let me direct you to the Council of Trent and the reforms that were made, Swords99. Here is the link: newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm If you are really interested in seeing the errors of your last statement, you will read this. Many changes were made.

Not just Trent, but Vatican II, and many other times. I find myself in agreement with you on Swords99’s comment.

Truly, Luther was correct to identify sinful practices and men who abused their authority and twisted the teachings of the Catholic Chuch - he was wrong in the way he went about it. The 'bath water; needed to be changed, but Luther wound up throwing the 'Baby" out with it! That was the real problem.

Then all the more reason for Catholics and Lutherans to continue to strive for reconciliation.

The unity Christ had prayed for was broken - due in no small measure to the scandal caused by the Shepherds. This is an on-going pain - and one that every one who gave bad example to the so-called reformers is accountable. I say so-called reformers because they really did not end up ‘reforming’ anything - they totally broke away.

If, in fact, one properly views the Reformation as incomplete until reconciliation is again acheived, by the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and in answer to God’s call, then your statement is at the least premature.

Jon

 

[Roy5]

Most Protestants I know don’t follow Luther. I believe a recent poll found that a high percentage of Protestants don’t know or consider him the ‘founder’ of Protestantism.

Luther was a human being, with strengths and weaknesses. His diatribe against the Jews - for example - was horrific. He also seemed less tha charitable when it came to the Peasants’ War. He could be bombastic and arrogant.

But he was a man of enormous courage, targeted by the Church for daring to criticize the popular distortion of indulgences. He also was a powerful speaker and writer, and managed to translate the Bible into German.

He is mainly admired, I think, because he had the fortitude and leadership ability to challenge the most powerful institution in Europe (probably the world). His courage allowed diversity to develop within Christianity rather than yield to the continuing supremacy and control of the Vatican alone. As a result, Christians have many alternatives today. There is a smorgasborg of denominations to suit every taste.

In other words, Luther led a 'revolution' against conformity which allows in our day a divergence of views among Christians. Some will condemn him for that. Others will follow him. Many more will not follow him but nevertheless admire what he was able to do.

It is no accident that Martin Luther King, Jr., was given those two first names. They both had their weaknesses, but they both opened up new vistas.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Swords99,

Your argument is going no where … and has become a bit repititious. We are not following the Hebrew Bible - we are following the Bible that was established with only inspired writings by God to His People.

These writings were determined to be inspired by the Catholic Church about the year 400AD - or about 1,200 years before Luther said they were in error. Now, you will notice that it was the Catholic Church that compiled the Books of the NT - the same NT you have in your hand. Don’t you think it odd that the Catholic Church - under the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit got the books of the NT ‘right’ - but somehow with that same Holy Spirit got it wrong with the OT? However, you are willing to following Luther who you know has no special claim to guidance by the Holy Spirit, no special selction by God the Father (as was true with Peter in Matt 16:15-19 and no recognition by Jesus that obviously Jesus had made a mistake in selecting Peter and now it was time to select Luther to lead His Church!

Fighting over 7 books that the Jews in 90AD wanted to excluce because they supported the Catholic Faith is hardly an argument. Do you really want to follow this group’s directions - this is the group that rejects Christ and the NT!??

Give it some thought.

God bless

Judaism officially excluded the deuterocanonicals. They are NOT PART OF THE HEBREW BIBLE. God entrusted His chosen people with His very Oracles. Later Greek speaking Jews had the Scriptures translated into their own language. Over the next century the remaining OT was also translated, as were a number of ‘apocryphal’ books now considered uncanonical, .

Therefore the RCC is without basis to claim these deutero canonical books are inspired.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Originally Posted by swords99
Judaism officially excluded the deuterocanonicals. They are NOT PART OF THE HEBREW BIBLE. God entrusted His chosen people with His very Oracles. Later Greek speaking Jews had the Scriptures translated into their own language. Over the next century the remaining OT was also translated, as were a number of ‘apocryphal’ books now considered uncanonical, .

Therefore the RCC is without basis to claim these deutero canonical books are inspired

Swords , I would like to point out the the Catholic Church does not accept apocryphal books either. Those books would be different than the deutrocannonical books.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

Your post was most interesting …and, makes perfect sense - if you look at the Church as a club or assembly of people who are free to pick and choose what they want to believe and forget Christ! Let me explain…

Most Protestants I know don’t follow Luther. I believe a recent poll found that a high percentage of Protestants don’t know or consider him the ‘founder’ of Protestantism.

Was ‘Protestantism’ founded by anyone?

Luther was a human being, with strengths and weaknesses. His diatribe against the Jews - for example - was horrific. He also seemed less tha charitable when it came to the Peasants’ War. He could be bombastic and arrogant.

You are quite right about this.

But he was a man of enormous courage, targeted by the Church for daring to criticize the popular distortion of indulgences. He also was a powerful speaker and writer, and managed to translate the Bible into German.

He is mainly admired, I think, because he had the fortitude and leadership ability to challenge the most powerful institution in Europe (probably the world).

About 200 years before Luther went off in his own direction - the Catholic Church was in a very sorry state! In addition to lax practice, immorality and outright greed - there were even multiple and competing Popes (something Luther did not have to contend with!). But a Champion of God - shwing enorus couraged - came forward, preached to Pope and people about following Christ. If Luther wanted a role model for courage and humility he could have followed the example of St. Catherine of Siena (here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm ). Truly, if you admire Luther for what amounts to hubris, you will be very impressed with the work done by St. Catherine.

His courage allowed diversity to develop within Christianity rather than yield to the continuing supremacy and control of the Vatican alone. As a result, Christians have many alternatives today. There is a smorgasborg of denominations to suit every taste.

Virtue, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is easy to display Luther as the ‘David’ against a sinful group claiming to represent Catholic Church teaching (‘Goliath’?). Or, that this "…control of the Vatican alone…’ was like the oppressive political nature of the Austro-Hungarian Empire - until finally the individual states broke free. But, the alternatives you claim as a virtue are merely so many blind paths leading to destruction. This ‘smorgasborg of denominations to suit every tasts’ is without doubt the most damning commentary I have seen. Look at all of the chaos and confusion - 20,000+ different ways, all claiming to be faithful to Christ yet all contradicting each other. The only conclusion that I can draw is that the Father of Lies has been hard at work.

In other words, Luther led a 'revolution' against conformity which allows in our day a divergence of views among Christians. Some will condemn him for that. Others will follow him. Many more will not follow him but nevertheless admire what he was able to do.

And, your role model is Luther - and, not Christ! There is the rub. Christ came so that we would be redeemed from our sins - He died so that the judgment of sin would not fall on us. He set up His Church (Matt 16:18) on Peter - the weak and sinful man who would shortly deny he even knew Christ. Weak and sinful men have occupied Peter’s Chair ever since. But, that does not mean that Christ has abandoned His Church.

Contrast this ‘diversity’ you brag about with the consistency of teaching in the Catholic Church. Yes, Luther has lead many astray - and, for this he will be judged. And, yes, many still follow his false teachings - and will run the risk of suffering eternal loss. Admiring someone who stands up against evil is truly a good trait. Watching them work at establishing a corrected path can be both beneficial and instructive. The change, however, from true reformer (in the rough model of St. Catherine) became corrupted with Luther establishing his own church - based - not on Christ - but, Luther’s understanding of what he wanted from a church.

This is a major problem as I see it.

It is no accident that Martin Luther King, Jr., was given those two first names. They both had their weaknesses, but they both opened up new vistas.

How interesting that his parents were so prescient.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Let me ask you to clarify one of them…

Ho Tom.

True, but where did the others excommunicate Peter? And neither sought the life of the other - Luther’s life was certainly in peril, by some of those who were abusing the Church and her doctrines.

This analogy of mine may have more of a ‘limp’ than I imagined… but, the idea was that after Peter’s grevious sin - the other Apostles did not try to throw him out of the group. Luther identified grevious sin on the part of Church officials - but, he would only have things his way - and left the Church - the one founded by Christ - when he did not succeed in the manner he had determined for himself.

Praising Luther and considering him the “founder” are two different things. The first section of the Lutheran confessions, The Book Of Concord contains nothing from Luther. It is the three ecumenical Creeds. Lutherans confess them, and their profession of faith in God the Father, Son, and HOly SPirit. Christ is the founder of the catholic faith, of which we are a part, not Luther.

This is what I would like clarified. Who founded the Lutheran Church?

Not just Trent, but Vatican II, and many other times. I find myself in agreement with you on Swords99’s comment.

Yes, JonNC, many others.

Then all the more reason for Catholics and Lutherans to continue to strive for reconciliation.

I am really in favor of this, JonNC, Ultimately, we as Catholics, are to be open to ways we embrace all who claim Christ. What makes it awkward (at least as I see it) are the major differences there are with, for example, the different views of the Seven Sacraments that the Catholic Church teaches.

If, in fact, one properly views the Reformation as incomplete until reconciliation is again acheived, by the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and in answer to God’s call, then your statement is at the least premature.

Jon

This is certainly a valid way to view the Reformation. It would not have gotten as far as it did without God’s permission. And, while I may not understand this - the obvious fact is that for over 400 years these 20,000+ splintered groups have been praying to God - and surely God will answer their prayers. So, in His Own Good Time all things will be done according to His Will.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;7285628][Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Let me ask you to clarify one of them…

You know me, Tom: fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

This analogy of mine may have more of a ‘limp’ than I imagined… but, the idea was that after Peter’s grevious sin - the other Apostles did not try to throw him out of the group. Luther identified grevious sin on the part of Church officials - but, he would only have things his way - and left the Church - the one founded by Christ - when he did not succeed in the manner he had determined for himself.

My point was he had lots of help, from Catholics who, I believe, had corrupted practices and teachings of the Church. Did he make mistakes? You bet.

Praising Luther and considering him the “founder” are two different things. The first section of the Lutheran confessions, The Book Of Concord contains nothing from Luther. It is the three ecumenical Creeds. Lutherans confess them, and their profession of faith in God the Father, Son, and HOly SPirit. Christ is the founder of the catholic faith, of which we are a part, not Luther.

This is what I would like clarified. Who founded the Lutheran Church?

Since Lutherans consider themselves part of the one holy catholic, and apostolic Church, we would say Christ. You might consider this a dodge, but we really mean it. Do we hold Luther and the other numerous Lutheran reformers in high regard? Of course.

I am really in favor of this, JonNC, Ultimately, we as Catholics, are to be open to ways we embrace all who claim Christ. What makes it awkward (at least as I see it) are the major differences there are with, for example, the different views of the Seven Sacraments that the Catholic Church teaches.

Nothing Christ calls us to do is necessarily easy. Just think of the progress over the last 60 years, and in great measure we have to thank Vatican II for it.

This is certainly a valid way to view the Reformation. It would not have gotten as far as it did without God’s permission. And, while I may not understand this - the obvious fact is that for over 400 years these 20,000+ splintered groups have been praying to God - and surely God will answer their prayers. So, in His Own Good Time all things will be done according to His Will.

Remember that virtually none of them have splintered from Lutheranism, but your point is well taken.

Jon
[/quote]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Yankee Drifter,

So, unless it is an exact match, it does not count? By extension, Would Christ have had to quote from every Book to be considered by you to validly have it in the Canon? Considering the sheer number of so-called similarities … this seems to be more than a coinsidence.

The Sadducees only recognized the first five books. The Pharisees recognized all of that are now part of the Canon. Like the Pharisees, Christ believed in the resurrection and angels - so, of the two groups, Christ was closer to the Pharisees. So, when you say that Christ, “…recognized nothing beyond the Law of Moses, Prophets and the Psalms” where do you get this?

As I understand it, the Septuagint was the Hebrews response to the Hellenization of heir culture and since so many of their young people could no longer read Hebrew, their scriptures were translated into Greek.

You may find this link informative concerning the events that took place Jamnia and how there actions were hijacked several centuries later! Here is the link: fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

God bless

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted from the detero canonical or apocrypha. What you gave us was a list of similarities, but when we read them carefully, we see they are talking about different things. Jesus recognized nothing beyond the Law of Moses, Prophets and the Psalms. Jesus said: “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the** Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms** must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44)

BTW, there was no COUNCIL of Jamnia. It was an informal meeting between some Jews to discuss the 22 books that were already canon.

The Septuagint has ceased to be used by Jews.

 

[gracelife]

Tom:

And, your role model is Luther - and, not Christ! There is the rub. Christ came so that we would be redeemed from our sins - He died so that the judgment of sin would not fall on us. He set up His Church (Matt 16:18) on Peter - the weak and sinful man who would shortly deny he even knew Christ. Weak and sinful men have occupied Peter’s Chair ever since. But, that does not mean that Christ has abandoned His Church.

Ouch.
Lutheranism is not about Luther. Lutheranism is about Christ. Thus, Christ alone.

Lutheranism is very Christocentric.
Christ is the point of Lutheranism.

It’s about what God has done for us. It is not about what we can do for Christ.
Lutheranism is about our redemption through Christ’s death and resurrection.

Lutherans see themselves as poor, miserable sinners. Beggars for God’s mercy and forgiveness. We can offer nothing good to God, He does it all. Our righteousness is as filthy rags before a Holy God. By grace, through faith, the gift of forgiveness is granted through Christ’s death and resurrection. We initially receive that gift in baptism.

In baptism we receive God’s promises of life and forgiveness. We are baptized into Christ’s death and raised alive into new life. In the Lord’s supper our focus is on Christ’s body and blood and the gift of forgiveness and grace. Through God’s word, we again hear the promises of Christ in the Gospel. Word and Sacrament are God’s gift to us. We simply receive.

Lutheranism is about Christ, but it’s not about Cannon Law, the Church, etc.

A Lutheran’s faith in centered on Christ. Thus, Christ alone.

 

[mountaintop]

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown2:the catholic church wasn’t started by peter it was founded on peter by God, Jesus when he gave peter the keys, who’s your teacher?

 

[gracelife]

The Christian church was founded on and by Christ.

Christ is our teacher. Yours too I assume.