Denomination-specific TheologyA special subforum where a thread starter can restrict threads to replies by members of a particular denomination only to discuss denomination-specific theology.
That is a nice and fluffy thought. In reality, Luther not only disgarded them from being anything near inspired, and also wante dto remove James, Revelation and Ruth. Philip Melanchton would not let him. This is why we do not see the deuterocanonicals in protestant Bibles today.
By what authority did Luther have the power to decide anything concerning the canon? I have not found no evidence of any.
To take the canon, which was decided by the Chuirch Christ gave the Power and authority to to canonize, and then virtually disgard the parts he doesn't agree with for doctrinal reasons, is ludicrous. I guess the fact that no one sto what Luther taught is evidence enough of the power that was working through Luther. Not to mention the chaos and division which are the main fruits of his false doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura.
peace, papist
All the stories you tell seem to be only stories told and retold by people who wanted to discredit Luther. Have you got a single original reference for Luther wanting to remove the books but being stopped by Melanchthon?
Luther started translating the New Testament in 1521 while hidden away from those who wanted to kill him. He published a complete New Testament in 1522. No evidence exists that he wanted to remove any books from the New Testament.
Matter of fact no evidence he wanted to remove any of the Old Testament either.
He didn't work too hard himself on the Apocrypha. But it should be realized he didn't innovate anything there either. Other approved bibles of his time had the apocrypha in separate sections. Calling them apocrypha or not scripture agreed with every resource he had from the Roman Catholic Church. The Vulgate, the glossa Ordinaria, and the Other Latin Translations he had all were in agreement, they weren't authoritative scripture.
Some Catholic apologists have equated having books in an appendix with removal. And so others, who are not careful in their sources and reading have taken up the cry of Luther removed books. He didn't, he agreed with and followed the practice of the Roman Catholic Church at the time.
And I don't know where you got the idea he disregarded books. In his catechism the bearing of false witness is illustrated with the story from the Apocrypha of Susanne. He preached from James more than once, and so on. I realize your ideas are not original to you, but they are not true and I would caution you against continuing to spread false stories.
Sometimes the motivated histories written to discredit Luther get rather humorus. For instance it has been reported that Luther's insight that is referred to as his Tower Experience occurred while using the toilet. This was most curious since the tower is quite small and there are no facilities in close association with it. Finally it was figured out that the "historian" read an idiom that meant Luther was downtrodden or depressed as using the toilet.
So be careful in reading the things written about Luther, many are incorrect.
Marv
__________________ Eze 36:25-27 ESV (25) I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. (26) And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (27) And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
Heb 10:22 ESV let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
I am frankly amazed that Catholics have used Luther as their lightning rod for centuries of abuse and malignment for all of any attempts (successful or not) to reform the Church. He was hardly the first one to do so, nor the last, nor even the most successful, if one judges by numbers of adherents. One might even argue that the EOC is the first example of a failed attempt to rein in the power of Rome.
At night as part of my "get ready to sleep" ritual, I read the NLV. For my Sunday school classes (morning and night and home study), I use the NASB but anything that seems sketchy or I want to dig deeper I use KJV.
To me, the key is to READ some sort of translation. Once you get into it, you find out for yourself which one you seem drawn toward more. It also depends on what your purpose is. If you want to read "cover to cover", try the NLV. It is written closer to a story and stays pretty close to the Word. Sure, I wouldn't use it for a study Bible but it will introduce some concepts that will make you pick up the KJV.
Orthodox, catholics and protestants have different bibles. But theres a curse in revelation about adding or removing scriptures from bible. Im greatly confused and afraid.
The Bibles that these groups use aren't fundamentally different. They all have different translation philosophies. But their content virtually says the same thing.
The Bibles that these groups use aren't fundamentally different. They all have different translation philosophies. But their content virtually says the same thing.
Actually, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Protestants are not in agreement on which books are deemed canonical Scriptures. In essence, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have a longer OT and NT canon than any Christian faith.
So yes, there is a fundamentally differences between the above groups Bibles. Protestants (with the majority of Jews) have the shortest canon of the Bible, everyone else have more books in there Holy Bible.
In IC.XC,
__________________ "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh (cf. 1 Cor 10:16)" (1st Apology 66, AD 160) - St. Justin Martyr.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O Taste and see that the Lord is Good! (Ps 33:8, LXX)
Actually, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Protestants are not in agreement on which books are deemed canonical Scriptures. In essence, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have a longer OT and NT canon than any Christian faith.
So yes, there is a fundamentally differences between the above groups Bibles. Protestants (with the majority of Jews) have the shortest canon of the Bible, everyone else have more books in there Holy Bible.
In IC.XC,
Ramon96, thanks for your response. I can see that I haven't been too clear. When I say "there aren't fundamentally different," I mean that all the books they have in common. As far as I have seen, their translations of all the books they share all say virtually the same thing. Your thoughts?
Actually, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Protestants are not in agreement on which books are deemed canonical Scriptures. In essence, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have a longer OT and NT canon than any Christian faith.
So yes, there is a fundamentally differences between the above groups Bibles. Protestants (with the majority of Jews) have the shortest canon of the Bible, everyone else have more books in there Holy Bible.
In IC.XC,
Yes there are differences in the which books we have, but since none of the disputed books contains anything critical its hardly a fundamental matter. All do well to have read Maccabees as important historical background to Jesus' world, Wisdom as amazing poetry about the Word/Wisdom of God that seems to have influenced the N.T. writers, and so on, but whether one takes those books as canonical or not is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Even the idea that we should be able to draw a black and white distinction between inspired and not inspired is an extra-biblical idea.
__________________ Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us.
(++Desmond Tutu)
I am impressed that despite the many differences of Tradition among the various branches of Christianity, there are no fundamental differences of doctrine as understood from the Bible, whether or not it contains the disputed books. Those other books neither add nor detract from other doctrines found in the Bible. Other doctrines such as the Four Marian Dogmas of the RCC are admittedly extrabiblical in their origin and based upon divine revelation in 1950.
Ramon96, thanks for your response. I can see that I haven't been too clear. When I say "there aren't fundamentally different," I mean that all the books they have in common. As far as I have seen, their translations of all the books they share all say virtually the same thing. Your thoughts?
Sorry for misunderstanding you. Yes, I would agree that all books we have in common say virtually the same thing, but it's more a matter of interpretation than anything else.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
__________________ "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh (cf. 1 Cor 10:16)" (1st Apology 66, AD 160) - St. Justin Martyr.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O Taste and see that the Lord is Good! (Ps 33:8, LXX)
Yes there are differences in the which books we have, but since none of the disputed books contains anything critical its hardly a fundamental matter. All do well to have read Maccabees as important historical background to Jesus' world, Wisdom as amazing poetry about the Word/Wisdom of God that seems to have influenced the N.T. writers, and so on, but whether one takes those books as canonical or not is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Even the idea that we should be able to draw a black and white distinction between inspired and not inspired is an extra-biblical idea.
I will generally agree. Although I regard the disputed books as canonical Holy Scriptures (along with few others), I am in agreement that nothing in these books adds any significant knowledge to any books all Christians accept as "Holy Scriptures". I don't think it's a major matter, although many Protestants believe otherwise. Which books should be deemed "Holy Scriptures" is based upon one's Tradition. I only enter into discussion of this topic when a Protestant gives common objections against the inclusion of these books in the Holy Bible, objections that doesn't hold tight when fully examine, in my humble opinion.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
__________________ "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh (cf. 1 Cor 10:16)" (1st Apology 66, AD 160) - St. Justin Martyr.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O Taste and see that the Lord is Good! (Ps 33:8, LXX)
Linear Mode
