Martin Luther was a catholic priest who was excommunicated from his church.  He reduced the bible to 66 books, married a catholic nun and had 6 children...in the sixteenth century.  Anyone else find that odd?

Carbon based life form, atomic weight 6.

put the joint down dude....

"Martin" has six letters... "Luther" also has six letters... you may be on to something here.

What is your point OP? Do you think Martin Luther was doing the Devils work?
 

lol, in for comments. luther was no perfect theologian but did what was right

Praise God for Martin Luther. The selling of indulgences by the Romish church, praying for dead people, the veneration of Mary, etc were just a few of the unbiblical practices by  Romanites. The most damning false teaching by her still exists to this day, that of justification. We are saved by grace through faith, not of works, lest anyone should boast, Ephesians 2:8-9. Sola gracia.

Martin Luther was an idiot !!!!! Anyone that is so anti-Semitic that they would state " The only way to baptize a Jew is to tie a mill stone around his neck and kick him off a bridge" Has no place in Christian Theology other than to show what not to be like.

Read the rest of the book, sir. Luther was wrong.

ETA: the WHOLE book, including the parts Luther decided to get rid of before he got all Sola Scriptura on everyone.

 

I don't think I've seen so many anti-Catholic tropes strung together in only two lines. It amazes me that people are willing to flaunt their ignorance so publicly. I don't know what church you go to that preaches this idiocy, but you might want to re-think your attendance there.



From the CCC, THIS is what the 'Romanites' (snicker) ACTUALLY teach



2005  Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience
and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our
feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord’s words — "Thus you will know them by their fruits”—reflection
on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us
a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever
greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.



 

 

I can't speak for his marrying a nun and such, but it is undeniable that he chopped seven books out of the Bible because they didn't jive with what he was selling.

"Sola Scriptura", but only after I decide what is Scriptura...

I understand the desire to find a more simple understanding of Christ, and I am not blind to the many wrongs that MEN did within Christ's Church, but Luther was a heretic who taught doctrines that directly went against Scripture. I fear for him.

As for his followers, permit me to stress that I believe they are mistaken, but I hesitate to apply the term "heretic" to them, as their intent is usually pure.

Luther didn't chop anything from the bible.  Those books were still included.  They were removed in the 1800s.  He said they were worthy of study.  To say he removed them sounds like you are saying they couldn't be found between the covers of his bible.

I'm trying hard not to laugh as to many anti-Catholic sounds bites strung together in such a short post.  



As for saved by grace through faith:  that is what the Catholic Church has always taught.  What you mean is "faith alone," but can you find that phrase in the bible anywhere? (hint:  it's there in only one epistle -- one that Luther considered removing from the New Testament)



 

I agree with you, but it's in more than one epistle (1 Corinthians 13:2).

Alright I'm going to nitpick just because I'm bored. Just looked that one up.  While it implies a situation of faith alone (faith...but not love), but it doesn't explicitly state "faith alone."

1 Corinthians 13:2New International Version (NIV)

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

If you're disagreeing with me, I'm confused.  It doesn't imply faith alone--sola fide, as the guy meant to say--but it clearly says that faith alone is not enough.

In light of the excesses and abuses of the Catholic Church at the time ... no. I can't say as how I find anything odd.

23
23
23
23
23
23

not really. there are much stranger things in life than that

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I meant that 1cor13:2 is referring to a situation of faith without charity, or "faith alone."  I was agreeing that this passage does say that faith alone isn't enough, but was disagreeing that there are more places than James that use the exact term "faith alone."  Sorry, like I said, I was just nitpicking because I was bored.  

In that verse Paul is speaking of spiritual gifts, speaking in tongues to be exact.  He says that you must show love. Charity in the KJV.  If you red further he gives more examples.  My question is, if you truly have faith, won't you show love?  It would be impossible not to.

This is not a Catholic vs Luther post I am making, just an observation.

The Bible has 73 books. Luther's version has 66.

Please do the math...

Negative ghost rider...

You look it up.  The Apocrypha was included in the Geneva bible, the king James and others until the 1880s.  In fact it was at one point illegal to print the King James Version without the Apocrypha.  He may not have liked them as much and felt they were not truly inspired by God, but he did not delete them.  He said they ere worthy of study.  The Catholic Church did not canonize them until the council of Trent, which was post reformation. The Jews never Cannonized it either. So no matter what Luther did, he could not have removed books from the Bible that were not Cannonized until after he was dead.  He died in 1546.  Trent was 1544- 1563.

I am not Lutheran.  I am just stating the facts.  He did and said stuff that was wrong, but no need to add to the list.

I'm not talking about the Apocrypha, and canon Scripture was established by the Church as early as 382AD when Jerome translated it into the Latin Vulgate, which was the official version of the Bible from there onwards, and only confirmed as such at Trent.

As Christians we have to unite, not divide. the Muslim storm is coming

Anyways...Luther didn't remove anything from the Bible.  One can make a case that the Catholic Church added to it in 385.  The books you are referring to were not in the septuagint( the Hebrew bible.). This would have been the books that Jesus used....

I am not saying that..just making the point it could be said.

I'm not trying to argue here.  I'm saying Luther didn't remove books.
I am not one of those people who say that all Catholics are doomed...or all Protestants are heretics.  I think your relationship with Christ is what matters.  That said...this thread has derailed and I will leave it at that.

Amen to that....

Nice try, however Jesus and the Apostles quoted the GREEK translation of the septuagint 300 out of ~315 times in scripture. As of ~250 BC the apocrypha was absolutely included in the septuagint. Its amazing how revisionist protestant history becomes. . .

You are correct.  I misspoke the septuagint does include these books, they are not however in the Jewish Canon.  This is the same as the protestant bible that remained the same until they were removed in the 1880s.  This does not change the fact that Luther did not remove these from the Bible.

So Protestant tradition jumps from Jewish tradition to what a profoundly-out-of-his-depth priest suddenly said, then jumps to the 1880's?

Uh....

I'm not following that jump history...Jerome did not think they should be included, and they only became part of the RCC canon AFTER the reformation.  So historical fact is...they were added to the REC canon after the council of Trent.  Never part of the Jewish canon, and never part of the protestant canon.  They were included in the septuagint,  but not considered inspired, part of basically all bibles until the 1880s. And only considered, canon since the mid 1500s.  I do not know of any mainstream protestant denomination that says not to read them.  

Again, I only brought this up to show that Luther never cut books out of the bible like someone said.  Whether they should or should not be considered inspired is another topic.

What does any of this have to do with Excalibur and/or civil rights? Sorry, not GD.

Again, yes he did.

The canon of Scripture is the list of 73 books that belong to the Bible. The earliest writings of the Bible were likely composed in the 10th century B.C. The writing of Scripture continued until the first century A.D., when Revelation was complete.

Seven books of the Bible, all in the Old Testament, are accepted by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but are not accepted by Jews or Protestants. These include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. These books are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics and Orthodox and Apocryphal by Jews and Protestants. These were the last books of the Old Testament written, composed in the last two centuries B.C. Their omission in Protestant Bibles leaves a chronological gap in salvation history.

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.

With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. and because the Christians were seen as a threat, the Jewish leaders saw a need to get their house in order. One thing that they did was to decide officially the list of books that were to compose their Scriptures. They did this at the Council of Jamnia (about 100 A.D.), at which they rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books because they believed that they were not written in Hebrew. (In 1947, however, fragments in Hebrew of Tobit and Sirach were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, most Scripture scholars believe that 1 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom were also originally written in Hebrew.) The early Church did not require all Scripture to be written in Hebrew, and the New Testament books were written in Greek.

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.

As such, and if you want to throw Pontifical Authority behind it, the 73 books of the Bible were considered signed, sealed, and delivered no later than 405AD, 1100 years before Luther decided to change them. The Bible he would have used as a Catholic Priest had 73 books. The same one he would have read at Mass. He took it, and ripped out what he didn't like.

Trent simply restated what Innocent I had established over a millennium earlier: the 73 original books were STILL the 73 books.

ETA: The part in blue is taken from EWTN, where this question has long since been asked and put to bed. It was the first reference I found upon searching. There are others. I didn't want anyone thinking I'd written all that as my own work.

You should read Luthers commentary, particularly concerning hebrews, james, and Revelation.

You're looking at the wrong number, dude.

666 is NOT the number of the beast.

I have read up on Luther's views on those books. (After reading this thread)  Can't say that I agree with him.  He said lots of things that lots of people Catholic and  protestant alike disagree with.  I have made no reference to him being correct.  My only point is that between the covers in his bible, were the same books that he used as a priest.  Unless in  his personal one he tore something out.

The telling thing for me was that I believed in a movement begun by a man (that championed sola  scriptura, most ironically) who advocated the dismissal of texts based on the fact that he couldn't reconcile them with his premise. The theologians or philosophers job is not to begin with an answer (luthers answer was sola fide) and dismiss sources that don't supprt the conclusion (his reason for not understanding James). His commentary is perturbing, and my parents dismiss any criticism of a reformer with"well, he was a sinful man" but without copping out its really hard to consider the consistent history of scripture, the argument for sola scriptura, and the comments of the man who championed the idea.

If you think Catholics don't revere scripture I don't know what to say other than its not been my experience. Quite the opposite, as with the other misconceptions I was raised with.

I have said this before and I will say it again here....

Having been a Protestant myself for a while, I have come to realize that Protestantism as a movement is led by a small handful of people who simply hate the Catholic Church and who don't want to lose the power and authority they have bestowed upon themselves.

The rest of Protestantism is made up of well-meaning and Christ-loving people whose faith is without question, but who have been led astray by the aforementioned leaders.

Take a look at the vile bilge spewed out by the likes of Jimmy Swaggart and Jack Chick regarding the Church that Christ Himself founded and bestowed with authority, then look at just how much of what they claim is JUST PLAIN FACTUALLY WRONG. And yet, Jimmy Seaggart still holds sway despite being a charlatan, and Chick continues to send out his stupid cartoons (which apparently don't violate Sola Scriptura in his eyes).

And don't even get me started on assholes like Joel Osteen.

It is a sad fact that, outside the authority established for the Catholic Church by Christ, any idiot can call himself a "minister" and teach his own interpretation of Scripture. David Koresh, anyone?

I have no bad feelings toward those individuals who happen to follow a Protestant line of thinking. I believe they are truly faithful and dedicated to Christ in the way they consider and have been taught is best. They are my brothers in Christ, and I will stand happily side by side with them on the day we all stand before the Lord. I am no better than they, and I'm quite certain that multitudes of them will enter theKingdon of Heaven before I do, assuming I do...

But it is those who teach false teachings, who claim to be experts of Scripture yet ignore inconvenient parts of it and history, and who label their fellow Christians as idol-worshippers, polygamists, and who call themselves "Reverend" while stating that their is no case for a priesthood, that I revile and fear for. It is they that will meet a very different Jesus than I hope to meet when my time comes.

Remember what He said about the Pharisees and the priests of the day: hypocrites and blind guides. Woe unto them...

Please remember that the people that you mentioned May call themselves Protestant but I personally know no one who follows them or believes they are true men of God.  Not saying people don't, just no one whom I know who is serious about Christianity.  I can add other names.  To say that these people lead the movement is wrong.  At least they don't lead any movement I subscribe to.

I agree that labels almost always throw way too wide of a net.

You have "Protestants" who seem to be more anti-Catholic than pro-Christ. By the same token, the Catholic side of the aisle has spawned such winners as the kid-touches and the IRA. Anyone can put on a mantle, but it doesn't make them what they claim, and sadly too many otherwise great people get smeared with the same brush.

So yes, my comments are directed at a very narrow band of very loud, very wrong, and yet very influential people.

I saw a Joel Osteen show the other day (no choice - it's what was on in the diner where I was eating) and could not believe the number of innocents pulled in by that shyster and his wife. Lord, have mercy....

There really is no monolithic Protestant movement.  There are the Evangelicals who either hate or disdain the RCC.  There are liturgical denominations, some of which are relatively close to Catholicism, at least in form of worship.  And there are liberal denominations that tend to mirror heretical, liberal Catholics and back such things as "gay marriage", ordination of women, serial monogamy, etc.  It's also interesting how the similarities between mainline Protestantism and the RCC were prior to the Lambeth Conference.

And now most Lutherans are democrats or "conservative democrats."

I have met more than one athiest left winger who honestly thought that most church goers are republicans lol!

Luther wrote a book in his later days named "The Jews and their lies." That was something Preacher didn't tell us about in confirmation class.

Oh, dear. Off to Google...

I don't know who the main detractors of the RCC are, but they certainly put on a good show with their claims...

Come to think about it....... I can't think of one who was in a "mainline" Protestant sect. Hmmmm..... Maybe I need to polish my terms on this...

In my experience and in no particular order:

-Evangelical fundamentalists who, for the most part, disapprove of Catholic "doctrines" that aren't.  These are your Mary/idol worship-mongers, the "Catholics aren't saved", whore of Babylon types.  

-Episcopalians who left the RCC over one of many disagreements, but wanted to retain the feel of the RC liturgy.  In my experience this ranges from former RC Priests who wanted to marry and have families to women who wanted to be priests and folks who divorced and wanted to remarry without going through the annulment process.  The Episcopal Church has a similar process, but from it is far less involved, especially for second marriages.  IIRC, third marriages have to be approved by the Episcopal bishop.  Conservative Episcopalians are largely aligned with the RCC and many from both churches hope for reunification.

-Liberal protestants who think that the RCC oppresses women because the can't be priests (nice juxtaposition with the Evangelicals who think we worship Mary), think that the RCC hates the same-sex attracted because it excludes them from "marriage", and those who think that the RCC has no business in the reproductive choices of women, be they abortion, abortifacient contraceptives, or other artificial contraceptives.  Some overlap with liberal Episcopalians here.

Many of the Lutheran/Methodists I know just think that the RCC is a little bit wacky and that there's a little too much guilt and too many rules, but don't have huge heartburn with the RCC.  Look for this to change as more mainline Protestant denominations embrace gay marriage.

Edited ~ medicmandan


Sorry... Thought it was GD

You need stop right there and realize you are contradicting yourself. No, they were not part of the jewish canon, yes they were part of the greek setuagint. Jesus and the apostles quoted mostly from the greek septuagint.

There was no such thing as a "protestant canon" that you speak of until the Reformation. The apocrypha was always part of the Canon as gathered (septuagint along with new testament books) in the late 4th century. There werent two (predominant) collections of scriptures throught the first centuries and the middle ages, there was one that was completed.

Trent RE-AFFIRMED the canon, it did not canonize new texts.

I'll accept your cannon point.  My next question is.  Can you point to a verse where anyone in the Bible quotes from these books? I am not asking for places they are mentioned.  I know own those are there.  But I can point to many places where Jesus or others actually quote from the non disputed books.  Mentioning does not .aka it scripture.  There is talk of Zeus in the Bible.

But using that logic, Zeus would have to be real since he is mentioned...

Those books were in the canon until the Jews decided to remove them some time after Christ's death, mainly because they had not been originally written in Hebrew, rather than for any of their content. The same cannot be said about Luther...