Posted on 01/01/2015 2:06:50 PM PST by RnMomof7
Imagine, deleting the Book of Wisdom. I wonder how Luther thought that he had the authority to do this. Perhaps it was merely hubris.
Were those the ones that were included by the Council of Trent, which happened AFTER Luther translated the Bible?
They were those that Catholic Church had accepted since the 4th century and reaffirmed at the Council of Trent after Luther removed them.
Show us where Luther removed them.
Give us a link to show us the Bible that he did that in.
Even this link from a Catholic source states that Luther did not remove the books from the Bible.
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=438095
Why do you persist in promoting this error?
You really need to correct that if you wish to maintain your credibility. Repeating error like that does it no good.
Your posts infer it is still imposed.
Did you actually read the link you gave?
The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D.Luther removed these books from the accepted canon of Scripture that was used since the 1st century and reaffirmed a number of times. He also removed some books from the New Testament, only to be restored later by his followers. And please, don't plead that because he included them in an appendix that he actually did not remove them. They were excluded from the list of books that he considers as canonical, i.e. inspired Scripture. Today Protestants do not even include them in an appendix.…
The early Church continued to accept the books of the LXX version, although some debate about these books continued through the 5th century. This list, as accepted by the Catholic Church, was affirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D., by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., and by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442, the Catholic list was again restated, against those who wanted to include even more books.
In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.
Finally, in 1546, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional list of the Catholic Church.
Your comment was that he removed them from the Bible.
That is not true and that Catholic site says as much.
They were INCLUDED in the Bible that he translated.
He translated them and put them in the book.
How is that *removing* them and why do you persist in stating that he did when he didn’t?
His opinion about whether they belonged in the canon is not what you stated. You stated that he removed them and he didn’t.
If you wish to argue about his opinion of whether they belonged in the canon, then address that, but don’t keep saying that he did something he didn’t do.
He translated them and put them in the book.
Don't be argumentative. When someone normally says "Bible" they mean the collection of Sacred Scriptures, not the additional material that is included in a particular edition.
Please allow the elevator to reach the top.
Are you a Jew, a Gentile, or a child of God? Are you part of Israel, the Gentiles/nations, or part of the Body of Christ, the Church? Do you even know the differences? Its important because the Bible is FOR everyone, but not written TO or ABOUT everyone. Failure to understand this very basic principle has led to all sorts of error, compounded by almost 2,000 years of religious ignorance.
Jesus and Paul are not at odds. They have the same source - God, who IS TRUTH. However, what Jesus taught, and what Paul taught, is very different. Why? Put your theological big boy britches on and answer that conundrum. It is only possible if they are teaching different people and/or at a different time. You can't be told that your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees by Jesus, and then be told you are righteous by faith by Paul and they both be Truth, UNLESS you belong to a different group living in a different administration. The Body of Christ is NEITHER Jew or Gentile, male or female, Baptist, or Catholic, etc. Jesus revealed this Truth through Paul, a revelation that was HIDDEN IN GOD, a Mystery not revealed until AFTER Israel rejected their king, the cornerstone.
This principle continues throughout the NT, and you must be careful to note who is addressed in each letter. You cannot be "zealous of the Law" and at the same time be dead to the Law. Nor can you be a servant/slave, and also be a child of God. Its impossible to be an old sinner, and also a new creation in Christ. And finally, you can't look to works to save you, if by Grace you are saved through faith. Its a gift of God, not earned so that nobody can boast in anything other than Jesus.
So much religious error comes from attempts to apply what belongs to Israel, to the Body of Christ. In an age where knowledge abounds and you have instant access to every Bible translation, study aid, ministry, theological opinion, and most importantly the Holy Spirit dwelling inside you, this should NOT be the case.
But if you do want Paul, how about this one: For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you. (Titus 1:5)
Hey look, I can cherry pick a verse to! Should we go and do likewise?
Matthew 27:5 (KJV)
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Do you follow the presbyters that have been appointed (appointed, not selected by the congregation) in every town? Does your church even have presbyters that have been appointed since the days of the Apostles?
No. Believers are a Spiritual Body with Jesus as the Head, and only HEAD. There is no earthly priesthood for Believers, no monarchy, no religious nobility, no popes, no cardinals, not even a blue jay. God places everyone in the Body where HE pleases. Paul and Titus were directed by the Holy Spirit and appointed elders, or shepherds over the flock, not little dictators in fancy costumes. God help the congregation stuck under some man placed over them by some spiritually dead denomination.
BTW - Did you note their qualifications listed in Titus 1?
1. Blameless
2. Husband of one wife
3. Having faithful children
4. Not self-willed
5. Not soon angry
6. Not given to wine
7. No striker
8. Not given to filthy lucre - using wrong methods to raise money to increase his own income
9. A lover of hospitality
10. A lover of good men - the quality of goodness in men, not same-sex attraction
11. Sober
12. Just
13. Holy
14. Temperate
And my favorite ...
15. Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
In the last 2,000 years, how many priests, pastors, popes, bishops, etc., met all these requirements?
I have the sense that if all of those problems you’ve mentioned, and more, were all fixed to your satisfaction, you’d still find another excuse to stay away. But that is your decision and it is you who will answer to God for your decisions, as I will answer to Him for mine.
But if these really are the reasons why you’ve walked away from the Church (and no truly sincere Catholic would diagree with your concerns about most all of them), you must know that the SSPX is Catholic and subscribes to all of the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. No SSPX priest or bishop has committed any of those sins that you’ve enumerated. I don’t know where you live, but if you were sincere in your Catholic beliefs you could go on the net, find one of their Churches, go to confession and become a good Catholic once more. The SSPX may have its difficulties with Rome, but they might just work out well for you.
For a statement to be ‘making it personal’ it must be speaking of another Freeper personally.
Amen
I think the best answer is we are not saved by following the Law, we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
The Mormons have Joseph Smith and his anointed followers for prophecy and truth, the JW's have Ellen White and Roman Catholics have their prophets the popes.. Actually the apostles taught from the scriptures, as did Christ.. the scriptures contain the complete revelation of God...
THE TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO THE INSPIRATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Jesus has been proven to be not only a credible witness, but a messenger from God. In all His teachings He referred to the divine authority of the Old Testament (Mt. 5:17-18; 8:17; 12:40-42; Lk. 4:18-21; 10:25-28; 15:29-31; 17:32; 24:25-45; Jn. 5:39-47). He quoted the Old Testament 78 times, the Pentateuch alone 26 times. He quoted from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, and Malachi. He referred to the Old Testament as “The Scriptures,” “the word of God,” and “the wisdom of God.” The apostles quoted 209 times from the Old Testament and considered it “the oracles of God.” The Old Testament in hundreds of places predicted the events of the New Testament; and as the New Testament is the fulfillment of, and testifies to the genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament, both Testaments must be considered together as the Word of God.
The New Testament reveals the Old
The new Testament IS the teaching they were being given orally then written ...
They can not hear or understand..they have been blinded
What Christ left was His church.. it had no priests, no mass,no idols, no 7 sacraments, no confessional and no apostolic succession.. these are all inventions of Rome
I was on a really long flight the other day and contemplated the Papist faith.
If you consider the whole Mary heresy it is amazing how one false piece of doctrine leads to another and another. Kind of like a person who lies, and needs to add other lies to try to hold the original story together.
Check your Bible again. It had episcopoi (bishops), presbuteroi (priests) and deaconoi (deacons). The Mass is the name given today for the Breaking of the Bread. Since Catholics have no idols I will pass over this one. Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance ("whose sins you forgive …"), Marriage, Anointing of the Sick and Holy Orders (episcopoi, presbuteroi and deaconoi) are all attested in the Bible. See Acts 1 for apostolic succession.
Feel what you like. But it’s not about me is it. It’s about the problems I mentioned whether Norm Lenhart or anyone else comes back or not. Because they matter and I don’t. I mean it’s not like I can write the Pope and say ‘Look sport, run it my way or I’m on the highway” and he spazzes out and excoms Nancy Pelosi.
I doubt my importance in the big scheme is quit that great.
I don’t figure in their plans. I don’t effect anything in any life there. Not the Priests, not the slaughtered Christians. Not the pope. So how about this radical proposition. Place the scrutiny and concerns where someone can benefit by fixing what DOES matter.
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.