History of the Bible and your opinions?


#1

So I was watching a video that really brought my attention. This video is talking about Martin Luther and his changes in the Bible. A 9 minute video.

Here is the link if you want to see it: m.youtube.com/watch?autoplay=1&feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=PjvXbotd9Lw

My question to you is, do you find a little bit of “evilness” or maybe that is not the correct term but some kind of badness in Martin Luther? I just wonder where he is now?.. since he died from many illnesses. I mean, he still was a Christian… but he changed the Bible.

Something that just makes me wonder…?


#2

I definitely don’t find “evilness” in him.
To me, he is a man searching for truth and trying to make things right. In fact, I find much goodness in those qualities.

He didn’t actually change the bible, per se. I think he just made a new collection-list of books included.
All those books were voted on so many centuries ago and in his opinion, some were not correct to include. Many in history have had different opinions as to which books should be included or not–especially because there is much dispute about who wrote what and we cannot be sure of authenticity.

Many original books of scripture and gospels don’t exist anymore, unfortunately.
I think Paul’s first letter to Coriniths which he references in writing in one of his letters in the canon, is one that does not exist anymore–among many others.

The bible the Catholics follow today is pretty much the same as always, yes?

.


#3

The Bible, I have read is where Martin Luther found
great insights into where the Catholic practices have
erred(Indulgences), His teachings could have had great effect
had he STAYED in the Roman Catholic Church! However
he spoke against the Magisterium and that caused his
excommunication.


#4

It was the Church that authoritatively compiled and assembled the Bible. Though other texts of the Apostles existed (and still do) these ones were infallibly assembled as inspired documents suitable for reading at Mass.

But yes, Martin Luther was an incredibly arrogantand derogatory person. He removed those 7 books (and parts of Esther and Daniel) to suit himself, using the (modern) Jews as an excuse, and also wanted to remove the Gospel of James calling it “the epistle of straw” and added the word “alone” into the book of acts.

His reason:

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”

He did also mention something regarding how the German language justifies the word “alone”. I don’t know German to comment, but it is too much of a coincidence that all of his edits involved some part of scripture that contradicted his own doctrines.

We will never know the total number of people who have been separated from the true Church and the Sacraments because of this man. Who have had to settle for a watered down Christianity, and Lord Knows how many people he has led to Hell because of his actions and encouragements. We can’t judge any individual person to be in Hell, people can still repent in the fractions of a second they have left to live, but dissent, heresy and schism lead a person only to one place.


#5

I am reading a book about Anti-Semitism and I couldn’t believe the things that Martin Luther said about the Jews – I think this was part of his problem with the Church. I believe the Church ried to get him to change his antisemitic remarks and he refused to do sol.


#6

i heard once that Martin Luther reconciled with the Pope and church before he died. not sure if it is true or not…:shrug:


#7

that is not true. The final state of Martin Luther’s soul in is God’s hands and I think we should leave it there and not speculate any further on him.


#8

Martin Luther was excommunicated because he refused to recant a number of things that he was beginning to teach such as faith alone, sola scriptura (they call it the five solas) and manyf other things. He wasn’t ex-communicated soley on speaking against the Magisterium of the Catholic church and the Pope. It is one thing to speak up against corruption and abuse in the Catholic church. A great many of the saints have done that and brought about reform and change. Martin Luther took is a step further and begain to teach a number of things that are not taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic church.
He was in error and refused to repeat of his errors and that resulted in his ex-communication.


#9

I wouldn’t say evilness, but erroneous yes.


#10

It is “interesting” how one person could have changed many people.

I have heard that the way to get to Heaven is faith alone, like Luther put, it just confused me because what if someone were to lie, cheat, steal, and many other awful things and still have faith… yet not do the things God commands, what will happen to him? According to my church, if he has accepted God then he should be okay… but then i hear others opinions inside that church. :shrug:

Thanks everyone


#11

According to him, that would be A-okay.

“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your faith be stronger… …No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

People interpret these passages in a million different ways to try to do him favour, but all he is doing is simply teaching his doctrine of sola fide exactly as he wanted it.


#12

I think it’s true to say that the evil one worked on the very flawed person of Luther to lead him out of the Church.

Jacques Maritain in his Three Reformers: Luther-Descartes-Rousseau encapsulates well Luther’s self-centeredness that has played itself out in the centuries since. (Appropriately, Maritain refers to the section onLutheras "The Advent of the Self):

What first impresses us in Luther’s character is egocentrism: something much subtler, much deeper, and much more serious, than egoism; a metaphysical egoism. Luther’s self becomes practically the center of gravity of everything, especially in the spiritual order. And Luther’s self is not only his passing quarrels and passions, it has a representative value; it is the self of the created being, the incommunicable stuff of the human individual. The Reformation unbridled the human self in the spiritual and religious order, as the Renaissance (I mean the hidden spirit of the Renaissance) unbridled the human self in the order of natural and sensible activities.

After Luther decided to refuse obedience to the Pope and break with the communion of the Church, his self is henceforth supreme, despite his interior agonies which increased until the end. Every “external” rule, . . .becomes then an intolerable insult to his ‘Christian liberty.’

“I do not admit,” he writes in June 1522, “that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.” [Erl., 28, 144]. “Luther’s self,” wrote Moehler, “was in his opinion the centre round which all humanity should gravitate; he made himself the universal man in whom all should find their model. Let us make no bones about it, he put himself in the place of Jesus Christ.”

As we have already noticed, Luther’s doctrine is itself only a universalization of his self, a projection of his self into the world of eternal truths. From this point of view, what distinguishes the father of Protestantism from the other great heresiarchs is that they started first from a dogmatic error, from a false doctrinal view; whatever their psychological origins may have been, the cause of their heresies is a deviation of the intelligence, and their own fortunes only count insofar as they conditioned that deviation. It is quite different with Luther. What counts is his life, his history. Doctrine comes as an extra. Lutheranism is not a system worked out by Luther; it is the over-flow of Luther’s individuality.

See also this article which explains how his terrible upbringing helped form his psychology.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=652


#13

The real question to ask in this is where did Luther or your church get authority to make such proclamations? If you start to research that topic, it will be eye-opening.


#14

If Luther were alive today, he’d have egg on his face about rejecting the books of the septuagint – most of the Hebrew originals were found at Qumran (the dead sea scrolls).

So, Luther and the council of Jamnia were both wrong (apparently).

I haven’t heard about the book of Wisdom being written in Greek. I heard that the book of Esther was the only book missing from Qumran.


#15

The Catholic Church selected which books would go into the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

amazon.com/Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger/dp/1581880103

Peace,
Ed


#16

=khmsct99;12026632]So I was watching a video that really brought my attention. This video is talking about Martin Luther and his changes in the Bible. A 9 minute video.

Here is the link if you want to see it: m.youtube.com/watch?autoplay=1&feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=PjvXbotd9Lw

My question to you is, do you find a little bit of “evilness” or maybe that is not the correct term but some kind of badness in Martin Luther? I just wonder where he is now?.. since he died from many illnesses. I mean, he still was a Christian… but he changed the Bible.

Something that just makes me wonder…?

Only God knoes for sure if Martin did or DID NOT repent and Concert on his death bed. So only God knoes where he ended up.

However I think your point is VALID:

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, “

“ Matt.19: 17 “And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

Rom.2: 13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

It is NOT God who chooses heaven or hell for usl it’s HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES!

Certainly as a fallen away Roman Catholic priest, to found a church and write a faith that opposes God’s necessarily singular truth is not, unrepeanted, going to get one into heaven. Hebrews 6: 1-7 addresses this precise issue.

But that is GOD"S call not ours. Amen:thumbsup:

God Bless you,


#17

=khmsct99;12028773]It is “interesting” how one person could have changed many people.

I have heard that the way to get to Heaven is faith alone, like Luther put, it just confused me because what if someone were to lie, cheat, steal, and many other awful things and still have faith… yet not do the things God commands, what will happen to him? According to my church, if he has accepted God then he should be okay… but then i hear others opinions inside that church. :shrug:

Thanks everyone

NO ON ANYTHING will be sufficient to get anyone to heaven, other than being a Martyar for Christ.

Read John 3: 5 & Mt. 19: 17 for examples. And tha’s the VERY short list:thumbsup:

God Bless you, and thanks for asking,
Patrick


#18

Last I heard , there was no council of Jamnia. It is not a historical fact.


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.