Could Luther have changed the Bible?

[George]

One thing that I've thought of before is how some Christians will refute some theologies and say it's not in the Bible. An interesting thought is Martin Luther having the unchallenged ability to alter the Bible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One thing that I've thought of before is how some Christians will refute some theologies and say it's not in the Bible. An interesting thought is Martin Luther having the unchallenged ability to alter the Bible.

He did change the bible to make sure it didn't include bits about praying for the departed or the departed saints interceding for the living. That's why he removed seven books and parts of two more from the old testament. He also disliked justification by works and faith together so he wanted to remove James and was not very keen on Hebrews, 2 & 3 John or 2 Peter.

 

[Alithis]

"shrug * i follow neither rome nor luthar .. he tried ..i'll give him that ..

 

[MoreCoffee]

"shrug * i follow neither rome nor luthar .. he tried ..i'll give him that ..

How many books are in your bible?

 

[Lamb]

Luther removed books from the bible but did say that the apocrypha was useful.

 

[Josiah]

One thing that I've thought of before is how some Christians will refute some theologies and say it's not in the Bible. An interesting thought is Martin Luther having the unchallenged ability to alter the Bible.

Things you and Coffee circumvent....



1. Luther didn't have the ego of the RCC or LDS to take upon self alone to dogmatically/definitively determine what is and is not canonical. Neither Luther NOR the Lutheran Confessions state what is and is not canonical. Neither had the ego and power-quest to do so.



2. The issue of what is and is not canonical has NEVER been officially determined ecumenically; it was NEVER an issue addressed by ANY of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and has NEVER been determined beyond a single denomination. And the OOC, EOC and RCC have NEVER - one once, not ever - agreed on this topic. The OOC and the EOC and the RCC have DIFFERENT canons. And they ALWAYS - always - have had different canons, different Bibles. This centuries - many centuries - before Luther was born. The 3 major denominations when Luther was born all had DIFFERENT Bibles - because the exact canon had NEVER been officially, dogmatically, ecumenically determined. Still hasn't.



3. Yes, Luther personally (not officially, not denominationally, not dogmatically, not definitively) translated the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Kione Greek into German. It was just a personal TRANSLATION, it was not a formal, dogmatic definition of what is and is not Scripture. But his translation actually has MORE books in it that MoreCoffee's new Roman Catholic Bible, one MORE book in it! And yes, James is IN the Book.



4. Luther DID remove one book commonly found in Catholic tomes of his day. When Catholics still shout about Luther removing a book from the NT in his German translation, they are correct - he did remove a book. Where they lie is in suggesting it was the Book of James. This is an outright, intentional lie. Anyone who has ever seen this German translation (and I have), anyone who googles the content thereof, know this is an outright LIE. Sad when we see teachers knowingly lying. It's really sad. And yes, I was aware of this lie as a young person before I left the RCC. The book Luther "removed" was the Epistle to the Leodiceans. True - this book had never been officially embraced by the single, individual RC Denomination BUT for nearly 1000 years, it was commonly found in RCC Bibles (not OOC or EOC ones). Luther did NOT include it, thus it can be said he "removed" it. But Catholics won't tell you that, they'll tell you he removed the Book of James - an outright lie. How sad. Such is the level of anti-Protestantism.



5. There are DEUTERO books (the word means "SECONDARY"). For centuries before Luther, they were referred to as DEUTEROcanonical - and many stated that they should not be used as norma normans for doctrine. The OOC and EOC and RCC had NEVER agreed as to which are and are not to be embraced, even as DEUTEROcanonical. Luther included the typical RCC "set" (which is smaller than the EOC set, which in turn is smaller than the OOC "sets") - plus one. But he personally (not formally, not denominationally, not definitively - but only has his OWN personal, individual OPINION) shared that these are generally not considered norma normans for doctrine. It was shared as his own personal, individual OPINION. But he put them IN the tome. Catholics lie (sorry to use that word but it's unavoidable), they lie when they say he left these books out. They just knowingly lie about it. It's sad. Such continues the level of anti-Protestantism.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], you say "self alone" when you are in fact referring to the Catholic Church. Is that because you are fixated on it being one Church instead of a plethora of denominations?

 

[Josiah]

Things you and Coffee circumvent....



1. Luther didn't have the ego of the RCC or LDS to take upon self alone to dogmatically/definitively determine what is and is not canonical. Neither Luther NOR the Lutheran Confessions state what is and is not canonical. Neither had the ego and power-quest to do so.



2. The issue of what is and is not canonical has NEVER been officially determined ecumenically; it was NEVER an issue addressed by ANY of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and has NEVER been determined beyond a single denomination. And the OOC, EOC and RCC have NEVER - one once, not ever - agreed on this topic. The OOC and the EOC and the RCC have DIFFERENT canons. And they ALWAYS - always - have had different canons, different Bibles. This centuries - many centuries - before Luther was born. The 3 major denominations when Luther was born all had DIFFERENT Bibles - because the exact canon had NEVER been officially, dogmatically, ecumenically determined. Still hasn't.



3. Yes, Luther personally (not officially, not denominationally, not dogmatically, not definitively) translated the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Kione Greek into German. It was just a personal TRANSLATION, it was not a formal, dogmatic definition of what is and is not Scripture. But his translation actually has MORE books in it that MoreCoffee's new Roman Catholic Bible, one MORE book in it! And yes, James is IN the Book.



4. Luther DID remove one book commonly found in Catholic tomes of his day. When Catholics still shout about Luther removing a book from the NT in his German translation, they are correct - he did remove a book. Where they lie is in suggesting it was the Book of James. This is an outright, intentional lie. Anyone who has ever seen this German translation (and I have), anyone who googles the content thereof, know this is an outright LIE. Sad when we see teachers knowingly lying. It's really sad. And yes, I was aware of this lie as a young person before I left the RCC. The book Luther "removed" was the Epistle to the Leodiceans. True - this book had never been officially embraced by the single, individual RC Denomination BUT for nearly 1000 years, it was commonly found in RCC Bibles (not OOC or EOC ones). Luther did NOT include it, thus it can be said he "removed" it. But Catholics won't tell you that, they'll tell you he removed the Book of James - an outright lie. How sad. Such is the level of anti-Protestantism.



5. There are DEUTERO books (the word means "SECONDARY"). For centuries before Luther, they were referred to as DEUTEROcanonical - and many stated that they should not be used as norma normans for doctrine. The OOC and EOC and RCC had NEVER agreed as to which are and are not to be embraced, even as DEUTEROcanonical. Luther included the typical RCC "set" (which is smaller than the EOC set, which in turn is smaller than the OOC "sets") - plus one. But he personally (not formally, not denominationally, not definitively - but only has his OWN personal, individual OPINION) shared that these are generally not considered norma normans for doctrine. It was shared as his own personal, individual OPINION. But he put them IN the tome. Catholics lie (sorry to use that word but it's unavoidable), they lie when they say he left these books out. They just knowingly lie about it. It's sad. Such continues the level of anti-Protestantism.




Thank you.


.

Josiah, you say "self alone" when you are in fact referring to the Catholic Church. Is that because you are fixated on it being one Church instead of a plethora of denominations?

Yes, the individual RC Denomination insisted that it itself alone would dogmatically determine what is and is not canonical at it's OWN denominational gathering at Trent, a few years after Luther's death. It thus dogmatically separated itself from all the rest of Christianity since NO OTHER has - or ever has had - the same Bible as the singular, individual RC Denomination now uniquely has. It itself involved none but it itself (thus the antithesis of ecumenical).


See points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above.




.

 

[Lamb]

I stand corrected in that Josiah told me that only this one was removed: the Epistle to the Leodiceans.

 

[Josiah]

I stand corrected in that Josiah told me that only this one was removed: the Epistle to the Leodiceans.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Epistle_to_the_Laodiceans.shtml (etc., etc., etc.). Yes, Catholics are correct when they state that (IN A SENSE) Luther personally (not definitively, not dogmatically) "removed" one book from the typical Catholic tomes of his day as he prepared his own TRANSLATION (not declaration of the canon). They just lie (sorry to use that word but it is the only accurate one) when they teach it was the Book of James or some DEUTERO book, it actually was the Epistle to the Leodiceans. Catholic teachers lie about this very consistently. And I learned .... and yes, this disturbed me a lot.... that one of my Catholic teachers who taught me that Luther removed the Book of James KNEW this was wrong and that the book was actually the Epistle to the Leodiceans. I was lied to. It WAS a part - just a part - of my reason why I left that denomination, although I boldly admit the lies of individual teachers are not lies of the denomination; the RC Denomination doesn't teach that just Catholic teachers and some lay members of that denomination (I DO acknowledge the difference).



Again....

1. Luther didn't have the ego of the RCC or LDS to take upon self alone to dogmatically/definitively determine what is and is not canonical. Neither Luther NOR the Lutheran Confessions state what is and is not canonical. Neither had the ego and power-quest to do so.



2. The issue of what is and is not canonical has NEVER been officially determined ecumenically; it was NEVER an issue addressed by ANY of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and has NEVER been determined beyond a single denomination. And the OOC, EOC and RCC have NEVER - one once, not ever - agreed on this topic. The OOC and the EOC and the RCC have DIFFERENT canons. And they ALWAYS - always - have had different canons, different Bibles. This centuries - many centuries - before Luther was born. The 3 major denominations when Luther was born all had DIFFERENT Bibles - because the exact canon had NEVER been officially, dogmatically, ecumenically determined. Still hasn't.



3. Yes, Luther personally (not officially, not denominationally, not dogmatically, not definitively) translated the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Kione Greek into German. It was just a personal TRANSLATION, it was not a formal, dogmatic definition of what is and is not Scripture. But his translation actually has MORE books in it that MoreCoffee's new Roman Catholic Bible, one MORE book in it! And yes, James is IN the Book.



4. Luther DID remove one book commonly found in Catholic tomes of his day. When Catholics still shout about Luther removing a book from the NT in his German translation, they are correct - he did remove a book. Where they lie is in suggesting it was the Book of James. This is an outright, intentional lie. Anyone who has ever seen this German translation (and I have), anyone who googles the content thereof, know this is an outright LIE. Sad when we see teachers knowingly lying. It's really sad. And yes, I was aware of this lie as a young person before I left the RCC . The book Luther "removed" was the Epistle to the Leodiceans. True - this book had never been officially embraced by the single, individual RC Denomination BUT for nearly 1000 years, it was commonly found in RCC Bibles (not OOC or EOC ones). Luther did NOT include it, thus it can be said he "removed" it. But Catholics won't tell you that, they'll tell you he removed the Book of James - an outright lie. How sad. Such is the level of anti-Protestantism.



5. There are DEUTERO books (the word means "SECONDARY"). For centuries before Luther, they were referred to as DEUTEROcanonical - and many stated that they should not be used as norma normans for doctrine. The OOC and EOC and RCC
had NEVER agreed as to which are and are not to be embraced, even as DEUTEROcanonical. Luther included the typical RCC "set" (which is smaller than the EOC set, which in turn is smaller than the OOC "sets") - plus one. But he personally (not formally, not denominationally, not definitively - but only has his OWN personal, individual OPINION) shared that these are generally not considered norma normans for doctrine. It was shared as his own personal, individual OPINION. But he put them IN the tome. Catholics lie (sorry to use that word but it's unavoidable), they lie when they say he left these books out. They just knowingly lie about it. It's sad. Such continues the level of anti-Protestantism.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, the individual RC Denomination insisted that it itself alone would dogmatically determine what is and is not canonical at it's OWN denominational gathering at Trent, a few years after Luther's death. It thus dogmatically separated itself from all the rest of Christianity since NO OTHER has - or ever has had - the same Bible as the singular, individual RC Denomination now uniquely has. It itself involved none but it itself (thus the antithesis of ecumenical).

What an eccentric use of "self" and "alone". The Catholic Church has around a billion plus adherents. But I suppose it suits your purposes. Ought I refer to Protestants in general as "half self" and "less then alone"? It would be absurd to do so and as a result I do not make such disparaging remarks but you insist on your peculiar usages as if playing with words in that way somehow improves your posts or makes your debating point(s) better. It doesn't. But if you like it so much carry on.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I stand corrected in that Josiah told me that only this one was removed: the Epistle to the Leodiceans.

That's an odd expression "I stand corrected" when what is meant is "I was wrong".

 

[Josiah]

1. Luther didn't have the ego of the RCC or LDS to take upon self alone to dogmatically/definitively determine what is and is not canonical. Neither Luther NOR the Lutheran Confessions state what is and is not canonical. Neither had the ego and power-quest to do so.



2. The issue of what is and is not canonical has NEVER been officially determined ecumenically; it was NEVER an issue addressed by ANY of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and has NEVER been determined beyond a single denomination. And the OOC, EOC and RCC have NEVER - one once, not ever - agreed on this topic. The OOC and the EOC and the RCC have DIFFERENT canons. And they ALWAYS - always - have had different canons, different Bibles. This centuries - many centuries - before Luther was born. The 3 major denominations when Luther was born all had DIFFERENT Bibles - because the exact canon had NEVER been officially, dogmatically, ecumenically determined. Still hasn't.



3. Yes, Luther personally (not officially, not denominationally, not dogmatically, not definitively) translated the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Kione Greek into German. It was just a personal TRANSLATION, it was not a formal, dogmatic definition of what is and is not Scripture. But his translation actually has MORE books in it that MoreCoffee's new Roman Catholic Bible, one MORE book in it! And yes, James is IN the Book.



4. Luther DID remove one book commonly found in Catholic tomes of his day. When Catholics still shout about Luther removing a book from the NT in his German translation, they are correct - he did remove a book. Where they lie is in suggesting it was the Book of James. This is an outright, intentional lie. Anyone who has ever seen this German translation (and I have), anyone who googles the content thereof, know this is an outright LIE. Sad when we see teachers knowingly lying. It's really sad. And yes, I was aware of this lie as a young person before I left the RCC. The book Luther "removed" was the Epistle to the Leodiceans. True - this book had never been officially embraced by the single, individual RC Denomination BUT for nearly 1000 years, it was commonly found in RCC Bibles (not OOC or EOC ones). Luther did NOT include it, thus it can be said he "removed" it. But Catholics won't tell you that, they'll tell you he removed the Book of James - an outright lie. How sad. Such is the level of anti-Protestantism.



5. There are DEUTERO books (the word means "SECONDARY"). For centuries before Luther, they were referred to as DEUTEROcanonical - and many stated that they should not be used as norma normans for doctrine. The OOC and EOC and RCC had NEVER agreed as to which are and are not to be embraced, even as DEUTEROcanonical. Luther included the typical RCC "set" (which is smaller than the EOC set, which in turn is smaller than the OOC "sets") - plus one. But he personally (not formally, not denominationally, not definitively - but only has his OWN personal, individual OPINION) shared that these are generally not considered norma normans for doctrine. It was shared as his own personal, individual OPINION. But he put them IN the tome. Catholics lie (sorry to use that word but it's unavoidable), they lie when they say he left these books out. They just knowingly lie about it. It's sad. Such continues the level of anti-Protestantism.




.

What an eccentric use of "self" and "alone". The Catholic Church has around a billion plus adherents.

I think you are trying to evade points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above.


Correct, the RCC ALONE, INDIVIDUALLY and JUST ITSELF appointed it itself alone to determine what is and is not canonical at the meeting of it itself exclusively at Trent (a few years after Luther's death), so that it now officially is separated from all the rest of Christianity on this point. The RCC at it's little denominational gathering at Trent did NOT equally involve the OOC or EOC or Lutherans or Calvinists or.... any but it itself exclusively; it was a decision of it itself alone, uniquely, individually. But again..... you seem to be ignoring points 1, 2, 3, 4 and also 5 above.





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think you are trying to evade points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above.

That's just your way of ignoring what I said.