Tyndale and defying the Pope

[LittleLambofJesus]

really? wow, i thought it was more than that.....maybe i'm mixing it up with "dogs"

What may be confusing is that there are 2 different greek words used for "dog" in the Christian NT.

One appears to symbolize a full grown dog, and one small dog, such as a puppy.

[this may be off the topic of the OP tho]

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon :: G2952
Strong's Number G2952 matches the Greek κυνάριον (kynarion), which occurs 4 times in 4 verses in the Greek concordance
1) a little dog

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon :: G2965
Strong's Number G2965 matches the Greek κύων (kyōn), which occurs 5 times in 5 verses in the Greek concordance
1) a dog
2) metaph. a man of impure mind, an impudent man



.

 

[brinny]

yeah, it's prob'ly off topic, but interesting tho'

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Very Funny.

What's funny?




.

 

[fireof god98]

what about martin Luther? he did a lot more than Tyndale in my mind.
I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.
martin luther

 

[brinny]

Yes, he was a great man of God also.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

what about martin Luther? he did a lot more than Tyndale in my mind.
I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.
martin luther

Yes, he was a great man of God also.

I would say he was..........


III MARTIN LUTHER'S USE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE

Luther's involvement with the Hebrew language was to continue throughout his career, especially in his translations of the Bible. Luther constantly strove to find the original meaning - he was always seeking the source of the biblical materials. That meant that he needed to find the most original, the most reliable Hebrew source for his Old Testament. This quotation from his "Table Talk" is revealing about his passion:

"If I were younger I would want to learn this language [i.e. Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture…. For that reason they have said correctly:'The Jews drink out of the original spring, The Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, The Latins, however, out of the puddle.'"16
​

.

 

[brinny]

that's AWESOME!!!!!!

 

[fireof god98]

don't hold him to high on a foot stool. he wanted to get rid of the book of James and revelation and aslo wrote a book called "on the Jews on their lies

 

[brinny]

yeah, we can't really hold any man too "high" as even it says about Elijah that he was just a man like any other man...it was God Who moooved and worked through Him...he was just a vessel used by God...good point.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by fireof god98

what about martin Luther? he did a lot more than Tyndale in my mind.
I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.
martin luther
​

Originally Posted by brinny
Yes, he was a great man of God also.

I would say he was..........


III MARTIN LUTHER'S USE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE

Luther's involvement with the Hebrew language was to continue throughout his career, especially in his translations of the Bible. Luther constantly strove to find the original meaning - he was always seeking the source of the biblical materials. That meant that he needed to find the most original, the most reliable Hebrew source for his Old Testament. This quotation from his "Table Talk" is revealing about his passion:

"If I were younger I would want to learn this language [i.e. Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture…. For that reason they have said correctly:'The Jews drink out of the original spring, The Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, The Latins, however, out of the puddle.'"16
​

.

that's AWESOME!!!!!!

don't hold him to high on a foot stool. he wanted to get rid of the book of James and revelation and aslo wrote a book called "on the Jews on their lies

Yeah.

I was on a Calvinist forum some yrs [predestinarian.net]and a thread called "James Exposed".
That was one of the most hotly debated issues.

Post # 44 The Roman Catholic (Western), Greek Orthodox (Eastern), and the Protestants (schismatics of the Western Church), love to appeal to the early fathers for their identity and foundation. Especially Rome and the Orthodox sects.

The Apostle Paul on Justification by Faith Alone

Do you see Peter getting lumped in with James, in the context of Gal. 2 as a "positive thing"? Paul rebukes him severely for his hypocrisy and is not "happy" that even Barnabas was carried away in such filth......something completely out of step with the purity of the whole gospel. With these issues being so great a cause of strife in these years of the advance of the gospel.......where do we find anything written by James that shows he also repented of such hypocrisy? Where did he make any effort at all to make it plain to all the new gentile assemblies that he made a mistake?

View Poll Results: Tyndale vs Roman Catholicism

Tyndale was right in rejecting Roman Catholicism

87 69.60%

Tyndale was wrong in rejecting Roman Catholicism

13 10.40%

Tyndale was a heretic

16 12.80%

Who the heck was Tyndale?

9 7.20%


.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

don't hold him to high on a foot stool. he wanted to get rid of the book of James and revelation and aslo wrote a book called "on the Jews on their lies

Well, we have covered this ground before, regarding James, it was the emphasis on works that Fr. Marty did not like, but he kept James in. He also kept the Apocrypha.

Be mindful also that Luther not only consulted the Vulgate as a reference, but "Lutheran Editions" of St. Jerome's Vulgate continued to be printed for at least another 100 years after the reformation. For a Latin Bible, it's as good as it gets! Be mindful also that the Lutheran Mass also continued to be celebrated in Latin, where that language was understood, for at least 100 years.

Our Choir will, on occasion still perform a Gradual which is set in Latin; where do those translation come from? Jerome's Vulgate, of course!

The issue for Luther was not defying Rome for defiance sake, but one of accessibility and spreading the Gospel.

BTW, Luther never got his head around how God's chosen people could deny Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Society, not just Luther, were not that Jew friendly at that time. What he wrote was also held by the RCC at that time. Times have changed.

 

[fireof god98]

Well, we have covered this ground before, regarding James, it was the emphasis on works that Fr. Marty did not like, but he kept James in. He also kept the Apocrypha.

Be mindful also that Luther not only consulted the Vulgate as a reference, but "Lutheran Editions" of St. Jerome's Vulgate continued to be printed for at least another 100 years after the reformation. For a Latin Bible, it's as good as it gets! Be mindful also that the Lutheran Mass also continued to be celebrated in Latin, where that language was understood, for at least 100 years.

Our Choir will, on occasion still perform a Gradual which is set in Latin; where do those translation come from? Jerome's Vulgate, of course!

The issue for Luther was not defying Rome for defiance sake, but one of accessibility and spreading the Gospel.

BTW, Luther never got his head around how God's chosen people could deny Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Society, not just Luther, were not that Jew friendly at that time. What he wrote was also held by the RCC at that time. Times have changed.

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history.

No, he did not, he moved them to a more chronological location; between the testaments.

He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that he "mused" about rejecting St. Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, yet, one can find it, where it should be; after Philemon, but before James; and as I said, James is in there.

His comments about James being an "epistle of straw" were due to it's conflict with not his personal opinion, but it's apparent conflict with other portions of Scripture.

He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

I'm no Biblical Scholar nor am I a linguist; so all I can do is speculate as to why. Evidence in other manuscripts? An effort to make the German syntax work? I do not know.

FYI, Luther's Bible included (between the testaments) the following:

1. Judith
2. Wisdom of Solomon
3. Tobit
4. Ecclesiasticus, as Luther titled it "Book of Jesus Sirach"
5. Baruch
6. Letter of Jeremiah
7. 1 Maccabees
8. 2 Maccabees
9. Old Greek Esther
10. Susanna
11. Bel and the Dragon
12. Prayer of Asariah
13. Song of the Three Holy Children
14. Prayer of Manasseh.

Lutheran eiditions of the Vulgate included the above, but also

1. 1 Esdras
2. 2 Esdras
3. 3 Maccabees
4. 4 Maccabees
5. Psalm 151

Rome does not seem to dispute the other Canons found in the East that may contain more or less than these and that of their own approved editions; why is ours so disputed, if not out of pure misunderstanding?


Yes, we do put different emphasis on various books, than Rome does, so do some of the various Orthodox Churches as well; so did Jerome for that matter.

 

[Serpentslayer]

Tradition is not all bad.

It's when tradition becomes dogma that then flies in the face of truth, by implying that man needs to instruct man in matters of godliness leading towards holiness and truth.

Scripture declares the opposite to what traditional dogmas have institutionalised and implied.

Here is why,

Jeremiah 31
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,”

And here is why,

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

The danger of churches being institutionalised is now apparent, by the hierarchical structure with its leading men, who have sought to change the very fabric of the ways and plans of God over time, by bringing into each denominations their own separate doctrines and dogmas.

Rather than the church being the hospital for the spiritually sick who seek God to heal them, men have adopted an institution where by they can place themselves as the administrators of the spiritual healing process.

Question that needs to be asked is, has the great commission priesthood overstepped their mark of authority and placed their very own doctrines and dogmas as the only mark of authority. Historically speaking scripture portrays the LEVITICAL priesthood as the perpetrators of the pharisaical institution that led to her being divorced by Christ.

I am only wondering how long will God put up with such an institution that is taking away his role as forgiver, healer, sanctifier and resurrector of the justified in Christ.

Jesus would have the final say in what the result would be of such an institutionalised pharisaical system,

Matthew 25:13
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

Woe can't be a good thing.

Who leads to all truth?

Confession to a priest, penance, being a member of a church institution, church hierarchy?

The pergatorial pervebial hog wash is always showing man to butt his way in the way of God and challenge God at every turn throughout the centuries that have passed

Guess what?

Man comes last and God always comes first because what he stated in Jeremiah has been ignored by all the church hierarchy to this very day.

So what is God going to do about it soon?

Shaking up off course!

Zechariah 14:2-3
2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem (Apostolic Church) to fight against it; the city will be captured (will be led to a false Christ, a false gospel and a false spirt), the houses ransacked (people will leave churches in droves), and the women raped (Apostolic priestly authority power taken). Half of the city will go into exile (many will leave the faith), but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. (The born again faithful will continue the true faith) 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle.

We are seeing the ecumenical get together of the institution to be the last ditch effort to built the tower of Babylon to reach God and the universal peace, with the universal Christ and without the Christ of the Holy Bible as the focus.

We know what happened to the tower of Babylon, right?

 

[Serpentslayer]

All men went their separate ways confounded in their dialects that they could not understand.

With God's Holy Word not all will understand it for those that are confounded will be led into captivity to another Christ (second coming doctrine), another doctrine (doctrine and dogmas and councils) and another spirit (penance, confessions and purgatory).

 

[Erose]

Tradition is not all bad.

It's when tradition becomes dogma that then flies in the face of truth, by implying that man needs to instruct man in matters of godliness leading towards holiness and truth.

Scripture declares the opposite to what traditional dogmas have institutionalised and implied.

Here is why,



And here is why,



The danger of churches being institutionalised is now apparent, by the hierarchical structure with its leading men, who have sought to change the very fabric of the ways and plans of God over time, by bringing into each denominations their own separate doctrines and dogmas.

Rather than the church being the hospital for the spiritually sick who seek God to heal them, men have adopted an institution where by they can place themselves as the administrators of the spiritual healing process.

Question that needs to be asked is, has the great commission priesthood overstepped their mark of authority and placed their very own doctrines and dogmas as the only mark of authority. Historically speaking scripture portrays the LEVITICAL priesthood as the perpetrators of the pharisaical institution that led to her being divorced by Christ.

I am only wondering how long will God put up with such an institution that is taking away his role as forgiver, healer, sanctifier and resurrector of the justified in Christ.

Jesus would have the final say in what the result would be of such an institutionalised pharisaical system,



Woe can't be a good thing.

Who leads to all truth?

Confession to a priest, penance, being a member of a church institution, church hierarchy?

The pergatorial pervebial hog wash is always showing man to butt his way in the way of God and challenge God at every turn throughout the centuries that have passed

Guess what?

Man comes last and God always comes first because what he stated in Jeremiah has been ignored by all the church hierarchy to this very day.

So what is God going to do about it soon?

Shaking up off course!



We are seeing the ecumenical get together of the institution to be the last ditch effort to built the tower of Babylon to reach God and the universal peace, with the universal Christ and without the Christ of the Holy Bible as the focus.

We know what happened to the tower of Babylon, right?

Well the only folk I have found following man-made doctrines is Protestants, and their children communities. Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Personal Interpretation of Scripture, Once Saved Always Saved, etc., etc. All man-made doctrines.

 

[Erose]

No, he did not, he moved them to a more chronological location; between the testaments.

He may have kept these books in his Bible, but there is no doubt through his and the other reformer's devaluation of these Sacred Books, led to them eventually being completely removed from Protestant Bibles.

 

[Erose]

All men went their separate ways confounded in their dialects that they could not understand.

Yeah, its called the Protestant Revolt.

With God's Holy Word not all will understand it for those that are confounded will be led into captivity to another Christ (second coming doctrine),

Yep, you guys do seem to have a problem properly understanding God's Word.

another doctrine (doctrine and dogmas and councils)

Christ's Doctrine

and another spirit (penance, confessions and purgatory).

The Holy Spirit.

 

[Serpentslayer]

I'm not a Catholic nor a Protestant for my communion is with Christ through His Holy Spirit.

Second coming doctrine is what has kept the captive congregation in a state of ecclesiastical control by the hierarchy of the church in order to place a false hope. Much like the false hope of Santa clause is soon coming, so make sure you listen to your parents and be good at all times. This second coming doctrine is a spiritual tranquilliser to subdue people from knowing the truth through scripture.

Scripture plainly declares that to be in the presence of Christ the faithful must be vigilant in faith onto death where the thief (death) comes in a day and hour that no man knows to destroy (kill) your earthly house (body).

Doctrines, dogmas and councils are to be compared to the unadulterated 1st century teachings and if it doesn't line up then it must be rejected.

The 1st century church didn't teach about the following:

1) Christ's kingdom has not yet been established in Heaven
2) The resurrection of the dead has not yet commenced
3) The heavenly measured court of the 24 kingly judges has not yet been established by Christ
4) Christ's white throne judgement with his seated inner court of 24 judges has not yet commenced in separating the sheep from the TARES in judging all nations.
5) There is no first judgement after death immediately when the earthly body is dissolved.
6) Departed Saints are not reigning with Christ
7) Confess your sins before a priest
8) Pay pennants for the departed serving in purgatory
9) The faithful in Christ go to purgatory
10) Christ's first and only coming did not fulfil nor setup everything that needed to be fulfilled and setup through his Holy Spirit within the timeframe of this earthly realm.

The Holy Spirit of God is the only forgiver, healer, sanctifier and resurrector of a justified by the blood of the lamb of God faithful.

Purgatory, penance and confession to a priest is man trying his best to say to God that he saves other men.

Men saving men.

This is a lie!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

He may have kept these books in his Bible, but there is no doubt through his and the other reformer's devaluation of these Sacred Books, led to them eventually being completely removed from Protestant Bibles.

No, actually it was a political act by the British Parliament in the late 18th or early 19 th. cent. I think.

Yes, the laity in our Church lost it for a time with the transition to English (the only English translation was the KJV w/o the Apocrypha; however the Church retained these in our Confessions and in our Liturgy. Over the years there have been a number of supplemental printings of these books; the latest is the: The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

Again, his devaluation was no more nor no less that that of many Catholic theologians, St. Jerome included.

There are no Catholic Bible Scholars that do not agree that these books (and the additions to Esther and Daniel) were written in intertestamental times. Likewise, there are no Confessional Lutheran Bible Scholars who will dispute there importance to the interpretation of Scripture, since they draw on the OT and are quoted and more often referenced in the NT.

Please cut Luther and us Confessional Lutherans a bit of slack; Luther's ordering of these books was not without historic precedent, it was not an innovation. The British Parliament on the other hand....