Posted on 08/02/2011 8:54:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I am not a fan of Martin Luther and what he did hudreds of years ago is not what I am getting at. I am going by what Lutherans are doing nowadays.Do you understand what I am saying?
You wrote:
“I am not a fan of Martin Luther and what he did hudreds of years ago is not what I am getting at.”
What happened hundreds of years ago has everything to do with now. If you’re going to attack the pope for living in an opulent Vatican it matters that that opulent Vatican was built by men centuries ago and that he has little choice now in where he lives. At least try to be consistent.
“I am going by what Lutherans are doing nowadays.”
If that is your concern, then you should never have brought up the pope living in the Vatican since that has nothing to do with Lutherans at all. Again, at least try to be consistent.
“Do you understand what I am saying?”
Because of your inconsistency, no, not really. Perhaps if you actually made a cogent point, an argument of relevance maybe, you comments would be more intelligible.
Can you muster up the wherewithall to do that?
Didn’t you read the part where I said that my statement about the Pope may have been ignorant? If I am wrong I can admit it. I don’t wish to disguss this any further because it’s going to become nasty. Really.
BTW:You can’t blame the Lutherans of today for what Luther did back in the 1400’s. They have nothing to do with it. I must be missing something because I feel that my statements are intelligent enough to understand. Remember what you said about the Vatican being built CENTURIES ago? Then what Luther did was centuries ago and should not reflect the Lutherans of today.
I may not know much about Catholicism but I know enough about Christianity.Remember,I was a Lutheran.
You wrote:
“Didn’t you read the part where I said that my statement about the Pope may have been ignorant?”
No one had to see that comment to know it was.
“If I am wrong I can admit it. I don’t wish to disguss this any further because it’s going to become nasty. Really.”
Why would you make it nasty?
You wrote:
“I may not know much about Catholicism but I know enough about Christianity.Remember,I was a Lutheran.”
Knowing a form of Protestantism has only a little something to do with knowing Christianity. Lutheranism is a sect from the 16th century. That’s all it ever will be and that’s at its best.
You wrote:
“BTW:You can’t blame the Lutherans of today for what Luther did back in the 1400’s.”
First of all, no one here is doing that. Secondly, Luther started the Protestant Revolution in 1517 not the 1400s.
“They have nothing to do with it. I must be missing something because I feel that my statements are intelligent enough to understand. Remember what you said about the Vatican being built CENTURIES ago? Then what Luther did was centuries ago and should not reflect the Lutherans of today.”
Except that Luther founded the Lutheran sect. Jesus started my Church. When someone becomes a Lutheran he is essentially taking on Luther’s name. If Luther was a loser with heretical theology - and he was - then that’s what someone is adopting to some degree.
You wrote:
“There were 8 German translations of the bible before Luther entered the scene.”
Actually there were more than that - if you mean before he made his own translation in the 1520s. There were at least 18 German language editions of the whole Bible, ninety German editions of the Gospels and the readings for Sundays and Holy Days, and some fourteen German language Psalters by the time Luther put out his New Testament translation in the 1520s.
Most Protestants are simply too ignorant about history - and specifically the history of the Bible - to know this. Perhaps, if most of them were not products of government schools, there would be less ignorance about these easily knowable historical facts.
I'm sure that was intended in the most ecumenical sense possible.
The significance of Die Bibel wasn't that it was written in a German dialect, but that it was written, and then widely published, in a German vernacular which was readily understood by the masses. At Wartenburg alone, over 100,000 copies of Die Bibel were printed by 1517.
While the initial translation of the New Testament was wholly the work of Dr. Luther, the final version of the entire Bible (Apocrypha included) published in 1534, was a collegial work.
Thank you so much for proving my point about Protestants being ignorant about history.
You wrote:
“At Wartenburg alone, over 100,000 copies of Die Bibel were printed by 1517.”
What time machine did they use? Luther only began his translation of the Bible in the 1520s. Thus, exactly ZERO copies of Luther’s Die Bibel were printed in 1517.
Care to try again? You could mention that Wittenberg, according to some scholars, produced 100,000 copies of Luther’s New Testament (and starting in 1530 the whole Lutheran Bible) between the 1520s and 1546 when he kicked the bucket. Other scholars believe Luft - Luther’s official Bible publisher - put out 100,000 NTs and Bibles between 1530 (about when the OT was finished) and 1574 (almost a decade after Luther’s death and almost 50 years after the erroneous date you posted).
Thanks so much for proving my point for me.
You wrote:
“Luther did not intend to start another church...”
And yet that is exactly what he did and he had to have known it before the end of his life.
“he just wanted to change what he thought was wrong in the Catholic Church.”
That is not a full explanation to say the least. If that were the case, then we would have no explanation for why he so openly lied about what he believed or what he would do.
“(I said 1400’s because I was thinking about the century in which he was born.You are right about the date). How did J-sus start the Catholic Church?”
Jesus established the Church and empowered it with His grace.
“Wasn’t he Jewish?”
Yes.
“The reason I’m defending the Lutherans and saying that they are just as charitable as the Pope is because you mentioned the current Pope and what he did. From an outside perspective it seems as though the Pope is being treated as more than human: The hundreds of thousands of people who come to see him see him in a different light than non-Catholics.”
He holds an office greater than himself. This means he is the focus of a great deal of attention.
“I don’t understand how Luther committed heresy because he wanted to change what he thought was wrong.”
He invented, propogated and encouraged heresy. Why he did that is essentially immaterial.
I’m through discussing this.Clearly you have a biased point of view that is not really grounded in truth.
I’m through discussing this.Clearly you have a biased point of view that is not really grounded in truth.
I’m through discussing this.Clearly you have a biased point of view that is not really grounded in truth.
You wrote:
“I’m through discussing this.Clearly you have a biased point of view that is not really grounded in truth.”
That’s a hilarious statement in light of the private emails you have sent me.
You didn’t read post #92. Arrogance is a poor substitute for knowledge, by the way.
You wrote:
“You didn’t read post #92.”
I did after the fact. Did your error change? No. You still made it and it wasn’t just a typo either.
“Arrogance is a poor substitute for knowledge, by the way.”
Then you have two problems. Work on those.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.