Replies

I've asked a lot, but have gotten no answer other than, "Well! If you can't see it; then you're just dumb!"

It's not a matter of your being dumb or anything of the sort. Luther denied several doctrines, in order to do so he shed those books of the Bible that focus on those doctrines or elaborate on them. Now people deny those doctrines and their proof that the doctrines are not correct is that they’re not in the Luther Subset.

Almost every time someone around the RF wants to know what they miss by not having those portions of Scripture, what they really want is to have doctrines they disagree with introduced into the conversation. They know their true anti-Catholic colors show if they introduce their laundry list when it’s not directly related to another topic. So, they try to find a way to have others introduce various topics. Then the anti-Catholic crowd has a chance to post dialog from their favorite comic strips “in response”.

The folks who don’t care whether or not they are use the same Scripture Christ and the Apostles relied on and all Christians relied on until Luther, don’t care what they miss, either. They ignore Scripture in the NT that connects to missing Scriptures and that’s that. When people deny and argue over what’s clearly written in Scripture they do claim to accept, why bother with the fact that they miss things in Scripture they threw out ?

Doctrines in the Luther Subset are in the NT as connections back to the OT books that are gone. Those who want to ignore those doctrines ignore or reinterpret verses connected to them. It’s another case exactly like Luther wanting to get rid of James. In this case, however, everyone went along with him and agrees with throwing out Scripture. They’re not consistent enough to throw out Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, but they’re just fine with throwing out parts of the Old Testament. Most of the half-truths and jokes people toss out to try and defend throwing out parts of the Old Testament apply just as much and sometimes more to the parts of the New Testament Luther didn’t like. Does that bother the people who defend the Luther Subset? Nope, not a bit.

FWIW, in addition to doctrinal topics, there are elaborations of things Christ and the Apostles said that let you see things the way those who were being spoken to would have been looking at them because they were familiar with the references that are not in other books of the Bible. There are connections Christ referred to that drive home or elaborate a point and are nowhere else in the Scriptures other than in the books thrown out by Luther. Some things that are a brief reference in the NT would invoke a whole story for Jews of the time but without those portions of the OT you don't have the whole story to refer to. Portions of those Scriptures that relate to Jesus Christ were very convincing to Jews at the time of Christ and many became Christian after studying those Scriptures.