Understood. You reject the Catholic council that gave us the Old and New Testaments because you don't consider it to be a reliable authority. That means you can't use that council as proof that any of the books you accept are scripture and will need to find another authority to verify that each book you accept is scripture and each book you reject is not scripture.
Looking forward to it.
How would that be relevant? According to Wikipedia, Luther's bible contained all 73 books in both testaments despite him not accepting some of those books as scripture. Luther explained why he rejected the book of Revelation in his preface to the book of Revelation in the bible he wrote.
Good day, Samir
I did not get any canon from a council, you presuppose authority is required and the church of rome flls that need for you. I see the question of the canon as purely historical, regardless if that be the NT or OT.
Gauis of Rome had issues with the book, even though it was widely accepted.
Have you read Luther on Revelations what is it you find so irritating ... you may not agree with him and that is ok. I am sure there are many in the history of the "church" that you would disagree with and them with you.
Luther:
About this book of the Revelation of John,
I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be
neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions; but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly, — more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important, — and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, too mild.Finally,
let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in
Acts 1:8
, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely,
For a fuller understanding I would recommend :
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther on Revelation: "I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it."
In Him,
Bill
