• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Is The Protestant Bible Heretical?

Discussion in 'Non-denominational' started by Lion Heart, May 31, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    You know reformer...even the jewish Christians BEFORE LUTHER didn't accept the WHOLE catholic bible.
    It really gets on my nerves when people jump to the conclusion that Luther was this mighty guy that said hey...lets take out this stuff its NOT REAL!...And everyone just sat on thier hineies and said OK..your right.....NAAA thats NOT the way it happened!
    GEL
     
  2. VOW

    VOW Moderator

    +15
    Catholic
    Married
  3. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    Here is the truth...Was it ONLY martin Luthers WORD that made the aprocrypha NOT biblical...NOWAY!!! That is a complete lie and it doesn't make sense anywhay!

    In reality, the Apocryphal Books were never excluded from the Old Testament Canon of Scripture because they were never a part of the Canon. The Jews, who were God's chosen to keep the Old Testament Scriptures, never accepted any of the Apocryphal Books as Scriptural . IT WASN"T LUTHER WHO DENIED IT FIRST>>IT WAS THE JEWS!!When I say never I mean they disregarded them from the beginning of the collection of the Scriptures up until today. This exclusion weighed heavily against the Church accepting the Apocrypha as Scriptural. Other than the obvious defects the Jews rejected the Apocrypha because none of the works were written by Prophets. :idea: All of the Old Testament Canon, with a few exceptions, was written by people who either had the Gift or Office of Prophet. Of the few that did not fit this category, like Esther, the book contained enough historical and Scriptural accuracy for the Jews to determine it to be Canonical. The Apocrypha contains numerous historical, geographical, and chronological errors, :eek: so many that God's Chosen rejected the books outright. In addition to this, unlike most Canonized Works (Deuteronomy 31.24-26; Nehemiah 8.1-8; Joshua 1.8; Judges 3.4; Daniel 12.2; 9.2; Jeremiah 36; 2 King 22-23; Nehemiah 8.5), the Apocrypha never claimed to be the Inspired Word of God. They were merely "recountings", never claiming Divine Inspiration for themselves.
     
  4. VOW

    VOW Moderator

    +15
    Catholic
    Married
    Check the HISTORY of the Deuterocanonicals, plus the political climate of Palestine. The Christian Church was making quite a fuss and the Jews in political power did what they could to discourage it.

    Also, elsewhere in the Forum, Wolseley gave a detailed list of the Deuterocanonicals PARAPHRASED in the New Testament, showing that the Early Church had access to those writings.


    Peace be with you,
    ~VOW
     
  5. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    I thinkits best to go strait to the source..THE JEWISH history and HOW they kept Gods word intact....Did they ever accept them(apocrypha) NO!
    reading sites on the political reasons, the protestant reasons, or the catholic resons does not give you a very reliable or unbaised source of information. FIND a jewish website, get a jewish history book and LOOK there, or ask a friendly jewish person YOU know to guide you though this!
    Good luck!
    GEL
     
  6. Auntie

    Auntie THANK YOU JESUS!!

    +603
    Christian
    Married
  7. Reformationist

    Reformationist Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

    +412
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I read all of the comments on the thread you cited and there are a couple of things I would like to share with you. You do yourself a terrible disservice with the way you presented the material in the thread. You seemed quite manipulative with your opinionated entries regarding sections of the letter. Your attitude in the thread is not indicative of God's love. You have brought yourself to the position of having to make certain judgments: Either you think Luther was not a Christian, and therefore, one of the most influencing factors in today's Protestanism is a heretical and incorrect translation of God's Word, or, you do believe Luther to be a Christian and you are comfortable with judging another's servant:

    Rom. 14:4
    Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

    Aside from the snide remarks Luther uses in referencing Papists, I see nothing wrong with what he said. Luther was a learned and recognized man, even by the Catholic church and if what he mentions about the slanderous actions of the Pappists are true then I don't begrudge him his frustrations. Again, I will say he could have worded his feelings regarding Catholics differently but as to the license he took with the interpretation, he seems to do a good job of explaining that.

    What I find most ironic is that the content of that letter has been the focus of many a thread on this very board. So, obviously, these disagreements on scripture have been around for many years.

    I would offer you some advice. Feel free to disregard it if you are so inclined. Pray that God will increase your faith. The ire that is evident in your posts is evident of an inability to trust that God will bring about His plan regardless of who comes along and translates the Bible, correctly or not. Neither Martin Luther nor any other recognized Protestant will change the course of God's immutable plan. If the very foundations of Protestanism, or Catholocism, are proved to be in error beyond a shadow of a doubt then know that everything is, and will continue to, progress according to God's plan. There is nothing to worry about.

    God bless.
     
  8. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,605
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I do go straight to the source, GEL. I go right to the earliest Christian writings, and I see how they viewed the Deuterocanonical books. Jewish sources, while informative, do not reflect the Christian view, because Jews are not Christians, or vice-versa. 1st-century Jewish sources will tell you a lot about 1st-century Judaism, but they won't tell you squat about 1st-century Christianity. For that, you have to access 1st-century Christian sources. Once again, if you have a brain tumor, go see a brain surgeon, not a lumberjack.
    Actually, yes, they did. It was the Jamnian faction of the Pharisees that rejected them, and that was only after the destruction of Jerusalem.
    And Jewish sources won't give you a Jewishly-biased view of the information? It'll somehow magically be free of all bias, simply because it's a Jewish source instead of Catholic or Protestant? Come now, GEL. :D
     
  9. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    We are talking abou tthe same thing..are we not??
    If the apocrypha was written before Christ, then WHY, you know the jews that kept all the OT, why did they NOT concider them inspiried? They NEVER DID! You cannot go to christian history to find out if the jews before Christ upheld the apocrypha as inspired. The fact is BEFORE Christ was EVER born, BEFORE christianity was EVER founded, BEFORE the Church was ever established, the apocrypha WAS not concidered inspired by the jews!
    GEL
     
  10. Trento

    Trento Senior Veteran

    +550
    Catholic
    Married
    Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

    There are various theories as to when the Jews closed their Old Testament canon. One is that the Old Testament was closed once and for all by Ezra (400 BC). This is a view that was held by some of the Fathers, a number of more recent Catholics and many Protestants. Such a view, however, runs into a number of difficulties. For example, the second book of Ezra contains genealogies of the High Priests continuing 150 years after the death of Ezra. In the same book is a list of the descendents of King David traced down to the sixth generation after Zerobabel, that is, down to about 300 BC. The existence of these genealogies is proof enough that the Old Testament canon remained open at least 150 years after Ezra’s death.



    In fact, the Old Testament canon was still in a state of flux in the time of Christ with both the Sadducees and Samaritans, for example, accepting only the first five books of Moses as inspired and canonical. The great Jewish historian, Josephus Flavius, provides one important hint as to why uncertainty still surrounded the Old Testament canon so late in its history:

    "From the time of Artaxerxes to our own time, our history has been written down very particularly (accurately and in detail), but these books have not been considered worthy of the same credit as the books of earlier date, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets."2



    From these last words it is evident that Josephus required a prophet to appear and canonize the Deuterocanon in the same way other prophets in the past had done for the Protocanon. The question at the time of his writing was still held in abeyance. Unbeknown to Josephus this "prophet" was to be Christ and the Apostles.



    Nevertheless, Josephus makes it clear that though not canonized the Deuterocanon enjoyed great credit among the Jews as inspired literature:

    "But what credence we have given to all those books of our own nation is evident from our conduct; for, though so long a time has passed, no one has ever been so bold as to add anything to them whatsoever. But all Jews are instinctively led, from the moment of their birth, to believe that these books contain divine oracles and to abide by them and, if need be, gladly to die for them."3


    As if to emphasize this point further, Josephus says that in the composition of his Jewish Antiquities he had used exclusively "sacred writings," yet he frequently quotes 1 Maccabees and the deutero fragments of Esther. Further, in the Talmud Baruch is referred to as a "prophetic book," Wisdom as "written by Solomon" and the book of Sirach is quoted often.

    In addition, excepting the Book of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees all the other parts of the Deuterocanon were previously written in Hebrew. This points to Palestine not only as their place of origin but also where the Alexandrian Jews received their belief in their inspiration and divine character. This is why there are no records of any schism or controversy on the subject between the Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews.



    For the Jews no final determination of the Old Testament was to be made until the Council of Jamnia (Javnah) in 90 AD. The Jews in this Council (and again in 118 AD), seeking to build a new focal point for their religious beliefs after the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and in an attempt to counter the early Christians who quoted the Septuagint in support of the claims of Christ, only accepted those Old Testament books which were (i) written in Hebrew; (ii) conformed to the Torah; (iii) pre-dated the time of Ezra; and (iv) written in Palestine. The Jewish authorities now xenophobically considered the Septuagint "too gentile." Only the Ethiopian Jews retained the Septuagint version and still do so today (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147). In any case, for Christians Jamnia is not authoritative, as all legitimate authority had passed to the Catholic Church sixty years earlier at Pentecost. By rejecting the seven additional books of the Septuagint Protestants therefore effectively follow the canon of the Old Testament as determined by the Jews at Jamnia.
     
  11. Trento

    Trento Senior Veteran

    +550
    Catholic
    Married
    Let us presume that the charge is true the Council of Trent added the 7 disputed books in 1546. How, then, could Martin Luther reject those 7 books as early as 1519? It was in that year that Luther had a debate with J. Maier Eck about purgatory. When confronted with 2 Maccabees 12:46 as a proof passage, Luther responded by saying that this book was not Scripture. This was fairly difficult for him to say if the book did not get added until 1546.

    What really happened was that ever since the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 4th century AD, the Christian faithful were taught that the deuterocanonical books are Scripture, and they were used as such. It was not, however, till 1546 that these books were solemnly and dogmatically defined as belonging to the canon, because it was not until then that the inspiration of those books was called into question. And no doctrine is defined till called into question.

    Why, though, did Martin Luther deny the inspiration of the deuterocanon? Because the 7 disputed books contain lots of scriptural proof for Catholic doctrine, especially purgatory and almsgiving/penance. This Luther did not like. So he decided it be better to side with the Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh concerning the canon, so as to justify his breaking with Church teaching concerning certain doctrines.
     
  12. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,605
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    LOL. This is similar to Loraine Boettner's ludicrous assertion that the Catholic Church placed the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1229. Since the Index of Forbidden Books wasn't even established until 1546, it'd be pretty hard to place the Bible, or any other book, on it in 1229, which is 317 years before the thing even existed.
     
  13. VOW

    VOW Moderator

    +15
    Catholic
    Married
    I commend you on reading EVERYTHING. Few people did. And you are absolutely right, I went overboard. However, in explanation, the overall attitude on the board at that time was "get the Catholics." We were being attacked, right and left, with people saying that our interpretation of Scripture was whacked, and various other words of love. The Protestant viewpoint was presented as one of purity, uncontamination, and overall superior to anything the Catholics could say or do. My intention was to show that the BIRTH of Protestantism was not as shining as people thought. I do regret the entire TONE of the thread, but the information was true and totally applicable.


    My PERSONAL interpretation is somewhere between the two. Yes, I believe Luther was a Christian, but I feel he let his ego take charge of his life. He had valid gripes, but his was a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is no argument that the local administration of the Catholic Church had some BIG problems in Luther's day, but he went about his changes in the wrong way. He collected quite a following ("groupies" in today's language) who spent their time telling Luther what a great guy he was, and that he should break completely away from Catholicism and march to his own drummer. You read his remarks about the Catholic Church, and they were WAAAAAAAAAAAAY beyond simple dissatisfaction. To talk about your superiors in such a fashion is horrendous! To think that you have the endorsement of God to elevate yourself above the teachings of the Church which has existed for 1500 years is egotistical beyond words.

    The fact is, Luther was NOT the first to translate the Bible into German! There is plenty of history to show that the Bible had been translated into the common vernacular long before Luther drew his first breath. He considered HIS translation to be above all others, and he gave himself license to EDIT as well as translate. All OTHER translations were a joint effort, but Luther wanted no "help," for then he would have to compromise his "work."

    It's my feeling that Luther didn't love the Bible, or love God, as much as he loved Luther.


    It's more than just his "snide" remarks, Reformationist. He was shooting down his superiors, his teachers, his Church, his God. Luther was a Roman Catholic PRIEST. It's like a clerk at a large company walking up to the CEO and saying, "Look, Pal, I know more about running this place than you ever could. Here's my list of demands, you BETTER change!"

    I appreciate the advice, and the intent with which it was given. I grow in my faith daily, and I see this forum as a place of my personal growth. And I ask God to guide me, to help me deal with the frustrations I encounter here. I've been told that I DO make a difference, so I stay on.

    Again, Reformationist, I say to you what my intention is here in Christian Forums: I don't want to convert the world to Catholicism. I'm very comfortable and content in my faith, and I think if anyone else is content in theirs, then God bless them. However, I am here to help clear up misconceptions and misunderstandings that others may have with Catholicism. This in-fighting amongst Christians is abysmal, and heartbreaking. I simply wish to clear up the confusion so we ALL can function as members of the Body of Christ, and share His message with the world.

    May God bless you as well.



    Peace be with you,
    ~VOW
     
  14. Rosa_Haji

    Rosa_Haji New Member

    7
    +0
    I've been told that I DO make a difference, so I stay on.


    I can see that you would make a difference. That was a well written and thoughtful post, Vow! :clap:

    God Bless you,
    Rosa
     
  15. MissytheButterfly

    MissytheButterfly Back and Better than EVER!

    +5
    Vow..let's remember that just about every church has flaws..including your own. I see your point, but I hope you don't think your church is without spot or wrinkle..the whole reason Luther had an initial problem with the Roman Catholic church is because he went to Rome and was disgusted by the way the priests were acting...and not to mention the indulgences that Roman clergy were granting in return for money.

    For those of you that do not know an indulgence is a custom that developed in the Middle Ages. St. Peter's Basilica in Rome needed construction and preachers were requested to secure "donations" from people in return for prayers and the remission of punishment for sin, presumably because of the Pope's special power to "bind" and "loose".

    Just to make note: I am not trying to put down the Catholic church but if we are going to discuss this..let's have ALL the truth..not biased truth.
     
  16. Trento

    Trento Senior Veteran

    +550
    Catholic
    Married
    I'll use this as a basis for for where you get your anti Catholic calumny which by the way is viewed by St. Paul as a capital sin. I live by the Mexican border in fact we go to Mexico to have dental work done. In this way we have become friends with many Mexicans and all the ones we know have bibles. In 1531 there were very few people that could read in Mexico. this was the year that Spanish forces conquered the Aztec empire. Less than 20 years later, 9 million of the inhabitants of the land, who professed for centuries a polytheistic and human sacrificing religion, are converted to Christianity. This was not done by reading bibles but by an apprition of the Mother of God.
     
  17. VOW

    VOW Moderator

    +15
    Catholic
    Married
    To Missy:

    The practice of selling indulgences was not in Rome, it was locally, where Luther lived in Germany. I don't even know if he WENT to Rome; most of his argument was from his parish in Germany. That is where he posted his theses, that is where he did his translation.

    The selling of indulgences was NOT a Papal Decree, it was never endorsed by the Pope, and it was NOT a Church-wide practice. It was a tactic by some priests and bishops to line their pockets with money from the royalty and others in power.


    Peace be with you,
    ~VOW
     
  18. MissytheButterfly

    MissytheButterfly Back and Better than EVER!

    +5

    LOL..okay Vow..we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one..because I have a college text book that says otherwise..and I am going with the text book. And Luther did in fact go to Rome..it is documented in history.

    Missy
     
  19. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Hmmm. Pretty much the same charge as was levelled against the Christians by the Jewish establishment. Martin Luther did not start the protestant movement - he was just more prominent than a lot of others around the same time. Corruption among the church heirarchy resulted in the protestant movement, not Martin Luther.
     
  20. VOW

    VOW Moderator

    +15
    Catholic
    Married
    To Missy:

    I just did some EXTENSIVE reading about the whole Luther-indulgences business. What a MESS!

    First, we both get points, LOL. Right now, history is wondering whether or not Luther DID go to Rome. So many stories abound, it's really difficult to untangle them all. It appears that if he went, it was a pilgrimage of sorts, it had nothing to do with the clash of politics that later developed between Luther and the Catholic Church.

    Second, hindsight seems to show Luther as a sufferer of depression. That must have colored everything he felt, said, and did during those times. He was a scholar, and more than anything he wanted to do research and study. But the mundane day-to-day work of being a priest prevented him from doing what he wanted to do.

    The Papal Bull of Indulgences was renewed, in order to gain money for the cathedral in Rome. It wasn't intended to serve as a fund-raising device, apparently any monies received were just to be forwarded on to the Church for construction purposes. However, in local hands, Indulgences went hog-wild. The biggest scandal (and apparently the one where Luther blew his top) had to do with someone in power using the indulgences as a bribe to get rid of a rival and put a personal advocate in his place. From what I can gather, an archbishop who would profit from the arrangement made some kind of deal so the pope apparently agreed to it, and then the proceeds from the pay-off were split with the archbishop and Rome. Rome also gained a bonus along with the payment.

    Granted, it was a rotten deal. But I still maintain that Luther's tactics were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My feelings would be, "If it's Broke, FIX it, don't go buy a new one."


    Peace be with you,
    ~VOW
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...