KJV vs. Septuagint, 1 Mediator, Pius XII & the Jews, and corruption in the Church


#1

Wow, my close friend’s brother just sent me an extremely anti-Catholic message. I don’t even know where to start. Here’s what he wrote:

"I believe, Jon that you The catholic church has misunderstood Mathew 16:17-20. which is where the idea papacy is derived from. I will get into this verse more momentarily but more important to now is this fact. The Catholic Church ignores 1st Timothy 2:5 (as quoted from a King James Bible) “For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Is this because The Septuigant (LXX)does not contain this verse, Seeing how the untouched manuscripts used for the King James are older and more trusted than those of the LXX (which is believed widely too be false, Strangely still used as a reference by most scholars). Mathew 16:17-20 states that " And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

16:20
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. "

In my opinion this just means that Peter is to go witness to the world. The keys to the kingdom is simply that Peter and the other apostles have the ability to save people by preaching. Peter was not a pope nore did he act as one. To have a pope is to have a man act as a mediator between me and God, which would directly contradict verse 20. But the Catholic church has always done this. It is simply a political body. The Vatican is as greedy, corrupt and power hungry as Any tyrranical government. In fact the Vatican and Pope Pius XII were responsible for the first militery action of WWI and urged Hitler to invade Stalingrad. Pius is know as Hitler’s Pope. It goes further into the proverbial rabbit hole than that. read Zenit “the world from the vatican’s view” or look up the Vatican Bank Claims. But according to Romans 3:10 “As it is written, There is no one that is rightous,no, not one.” If Luther was a heretic for opposing the Catholic church than I am too. You will find that The Catholic church is not as clean and perfect as many believe. It is a political church and nothing good wil come of it. Now is this to say that all catholics are bad? Of course not, just the higher ups are. Now I am not a fan of lutherans either but They have deviated from ML’s plans for the church alot. but so have the catholics. From the Vatican saying the Bible isn’t true its just a good way to live your life, to other endless examples, the church aint good man. At least the jews have not changed a damn thing in 6000 years, thats why I like them, they dont screw around with what God told them to do. I dont know what I am, sure as hell aint a catholic, and you have to be born a jew to be a jew, so I guess I’ll take the KJV literally, call myself a Christian and leave it at that."

So, I don’t really even know where to begin. I can easily address the Peter/pope issue, but I’m not familiar with other issues that he raises. I didn’t know that the Septuagint didn’t contain 1st Tim. 2:5 :confused: Since when is the KJV more reliable? I didn’t know that it was older either. What’s up with Pope Pius XII urging Hitler to invade Stalingrad? :confused: How do I respond to his claims of corruption in the Church? Obviously there’s corruption in the Church…there always has been the whole way back to Judas. I’m sure that there is much corruption in Protestantism today too. I’ve heard that the so-called “reformers” weren’t the most righteous of individuals. Is this true? Sorry for posting this big long thing. I don’t like to do that, but I’ve never even heard of most of these things. Thanks a lot! :thumbsup:


#2

[quote=JSmitty2005]Wow, my close friend’s brother just sent me an extremely anti-Catholic message. I don’t even know where to start. Here’s what he wrote:

"I believe, Jon that you The catholic church has misunderstood Mathew 16:17-20. which is where the idea papacy is derived from. I will get into this verse more momentarily but more important to now is this fact. The Catholic Church ignores 1st Timothy 2:5 (as quoted from a King James Bible) “For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Is this because The Septuigant (LXX)does not contain this verse, Seeing how the untouched manuscripts used for the King James are older and more trusted than those of the LXX (which is believed widely too be false, Strangely still used as a reference by most scholars). Mathew 16:17-20 states that " And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In my opinion this just means that Peter is to go witness to the world. The keys to the kingdom is simply that Peter and the other apostles have the ability to save people by preaching. Peter was not a pope nore did he act as one. To have a pope is to have a man act as a mediator between me and God, which would directly contradict verse 20. But the Catholic church has always done this. It is simply a political body. The Vatican is as greedy, corrupt and power hungry as Any tyrranical government. In fact the Vatican and Pope Pius XII were responsible for the first militery action of WWI and urged Hitler to invade Stalingrad. Pius is know as Hitler’s Pope. It goes further into the proverbial rabbit hole than that. read Zenit “the world from the vatican’s view” or look up the Vatican Bank Claims. But according to Romans 3:10 “As it is written, There is no one that is rightous,no, not one.” If Luther was a heretic for opposing the Catholic church than I am too. You will find that The Catholic church is not as clean and perfect as many believe. It is a political church and nothing good wil come of it. Now is this to say that all catholics are bad? Of course not, just the higher ups are. Now I am not a fan of lutherans either but They have deviated from ML’s plans for the church alot. but so have the catholics. From the Vatican saying the Bible isn’t true its just a good way to live your life, to other endless examples, the church aint good man. At least the jews have not changed a damn thing in 6000 years, thats why I like them, they dont screw around with what God told them to do. I dont know what I am, sure as hell aint a catholic, and you have to be born a jew to be a jew, so I guess I’ll take the KJV literally, call myself a Christian and leave it at that."

So, I don’t really even know where to begin. I can easily address the Peter/pope issue, but I’m not familiar with other issues that he raises. I didn’t know that the Septuagint didn’t contain 1st Tim. 2:5 :confused: Since when is the KJV more reliable? I didn’t know that it was older either. What’s up with Pope Pius XII urging Hitler to invade Stalingrad? :confused: How do I respond to his claims of corruption in the Church? Obviously there’s corruption in the Church…there always has been the whole way back to Judas. I’m sure that there is much corruption in Protestantism today too. I’ve heard that the so-called “reformers” weren’t the most righteous of individuals. Is this true? Sorry for posting this big long thing. I don’t like to do that, but I’ve never even heard of most of these things. Thanks a lot! :thumbsup:
[/quote]

There is so much nonsense here that one doesn’t know where to begin. I fear, though, that your friend has a serious case of “my mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Just a couple of quick things . . .

The very serious King James Bible Onlyites absolutely reject the Septuagint. Period. They believe that it is an AD 3rd century fabrication.

The very serious King James Bible Onlyites insist that the Greek translation underlying their Bible is the most accurate, if not only accurate text out there. (Interestingly enough, the text they use was translated by the CATHOLIC PRIEST Erasmus!) Erasmus’ text – the so-called Textus Receptus – was, in fact, the best that was available – in 1611. The King James Bible Onlyites totally discount the legitimacy of any later textual find which would contradict difficult passages in the Textus Receptus. (In fact, one of the most severe scholarly criticisms of the New King James was its continued – deliberate – reliance on inferior texts.

The very serious King James Bible Onlyites will tell you that the King James Bible ACTUALLY CORRECTS the original Hebrew and Greek!

And Pope Pius XII urging Hitler to invade Stalingrad? Utter poppycock! Make him give you a source (other than Jack Chick) for that one!

Just a few points . . .

Blessings,


#3

JSmitty << I didn’t know that the Septuagint didn’t contain 1st Tim. 2:5 >>

Tell him the Septuagint is a translation of the OT Hebrew into Greek. Is he saying that 1 Timothy 2:5 is an Old Testament verse?

Maybe he means the Greek OT and Greek NT manuscripts together, i.e. the earliest complete manuscripts of the Bible we have from the 4th century (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc). As far as I know, they contain 1 Timothy including verse 2:5. There isn’t a textual issue about that verse. Ask him for a reference. If he responds with a Jack Chick or Dave Hunt comic book, you know you have him. :thumbsup: :smiley:

JSmitty << Since when is the KJV more reliable? I didn’t know that it was older either. >>

This is known as “King James Only” nonsense.

Most of the later manuscripts are “Byzantine” and a variation of that manuscript family is what the “Textus Receptus” of the King James Bible is translated from and based on, but even the King James translators did not have the complete Greek, so they back translated from the Latin (e.g. parts of the book of Revelation). As much as I dislike his anti-Catholicism, James R. White has a good book on the subject, and see his other pages here.

JSmitty << What’s up with Pope Pius XII urging Hitler to invade Stalingrad? >>

Ask him for a source, then refer him to Ron Rychlak and these EWTN articles. :thumbsup:

JSmitty << How do I respond to his claims of corruption in the Church? Obviously there’s corruption in the Church… >>

Link him to some of these articles on Dave Armstrong’s site.

Phil P


#4

JSmitty quoting anti-Catholic words in red << In my opinion this just means that Peter is to go witness to the world. The keys to the kingdom is simply that Peter and the other apostles have the ability to save people by preaching. >>

Ask him for scholarship backing that up. Then ask him why the “keys of the kingdom” according to most Protestant (and some Catholic) and evangelical scholarship these days means:

(A) The keys of the kingdom represent authoritative teaching, and Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now on earth as Christ’s chief teacher;

(B) The keeper of the keys, according to the background of Matthew 16:19, has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isaiah 22);

© The authority of the keys is likened to that of the teachers of the Law in Jesus’ day, and the correct interpretation of the Law given by Jesus is accessible to the early community (the Church) through the tradition of Peter;

(D) The authority of the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19) are not different from the key of David (Isaiah 22:22; Rev 3:7), since Jesus controls and is in possession of both;

(E) Therefore, the keys (or “key” singular) represent FULL authorization, FULL authority, PLENARY authority, SUPREME authority;

(F) The keys of the kingdom are NOT to be understood as merely entrance keys (or “opening the door of faith” to the Gentiles), but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward who regulated the affairs of the entire household (cf. Isaiah 22), which in the New Covenant is Christ’s universal Church (cf. Matt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15);

(G) Peter, as holder of the keys, is not merely the “gatekeeper of heaven” or “doorkeeper” but is therefore the Chief Steward of the Kingdom of Heaven (the Church) on earth;

(H) Further, the power of the keys can represent baptismal or penitential discipline, excommunication, exclusion from the Eucharist, legislative powers or the power of governing the affairs of the Church;

(I) The language of “binding” and “loosing” is Rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching or a teaching function (or “Halakhic” pronouncements), denoting the authoritative declaration that an action is permitted or forbidden by the law of Moses, and in the Church the authority to pronounce judgment on unbelievers and promise forgiveness to believers;

(J) The “binding” and “loosing” refers to the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the early community, which Jesus was establishing through His apostles in His Church) to declare a commandment or teaching binding or not binding, forbidden or allowed, and God in heaven will ratify, seal, or confirm that decision made on earth (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

Yes, you can copy/paste this all back to him to drive him nuts. But it’s unfinished. :smiley:

Phil P


#5

[quote=David Zampino]There is so much nonsense here that one doesn’t know where to begin. I fear, though, that your friend has a serious case of “my mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Just a couple of quick things . . .

The very serious King James Bible Onlyites absolutely reject the Septuagint. Period. They believe that it is an AD 3rd century fabrication.

The very serious King James Bible Onlyites insist that the Greek translation underlying their Bible is the most accurate, if not only accurate text out there. (Interestingly enough, the text they use was translated by the CATHOLIC PRIEST Erasmus!) Erasmus’ text – the so-called Textus Receptus – was, in fact, the best that was available – in 1611. The King James Bible Onlyites totally discount the legitimacy of any later textual find which would contradict difficult passages in the Textus Receptus. (In fact, one of the most severe scholarly criticisms of the New King James was its continued – deliberate – reliance on inferior texts.

The very serious King James Bible Onlyites will tell you that the King James Bible ACTUALLY CORRECTS the original Hebrew and Greek!

And Pope Pius XII urging Hitler to invade Stalingrad? Utter poppycock! Make him give you a source (other than Jack Chick) for that one!

Just a few points . . .

Blessings,
[/quote]

I also know someone who rattles off the most outragious claims that it’s hard to know if they’re serious (i.e.the Catholics and the Muslims are going to combine since they both believe in the Septuagint). I agree, it’s probably not realistic to argue with someone who isn’t rational and has their mind already made up. I still struggle with this though and a priest recommended handing the person a copy of the Chatechism of the Catholic Church so that they can educate themselves on something that they’re so interested in.

Good luck and let us know how it goes.


#6

Peace be with you!

I will do my responses in bold. This is the same unfounded cr*p that we hear all the time.

[quote=JSmitty2005]Wow, my close friend’s brother just sent me an extremely anti-Catholic message. I don’t even know where to start. Here’s what he wrote:

"I believe, Jon that you The catholic church has misunderstood Mathew 16:17-20. which is where the idea papacy is derived from. I will get into this verse more momentarily but more important to now is this fact. The Catholic Church ignores 1st Timothy 2:5 (as quoted from a King James Bible) “For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Is this because The Septuigant (LXX)does not contain this verse, Seeing how the untouched manuscripts used for the King James are older and more trusted than those of the LXX (which is believed widely too be false, Strangely still used as a reference by most scholars). Mathew 16:17-20 states that " And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Note the “I believe that” that starts off this paragraph. Basically, what he is saying is “In my opinion and based on my own personal interpretation of Scripture which I arrive at by placing myself as the sole interpreter of Scripture…”

16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

16:20
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. "

In my opinion this just means that Peter is to go witness to the world. The keys to the kingdom is simply that Peter and the other apostles have the ability to save people by preaching. Peter was not a pope nore did he act as one. To have a pope is to have a man act as a mediator between me and God, which would directly contradict verse 20. But the Catholic church has always done this. It is simply a political body. The Vatican is as greedy, corrupt and power hungry as Any tyrranical government. In fact the Vatican and Pope Pius XII were responsible for the first militery action of WWI and urged Hitler to invade Stalingrad. Pius is know as Hitler’s Pope. It goes further into the proverbial rabbit hole than that. read Zenit “the world from the vatican’s view” or look up the Vatican Bank Claims. But according to Romans 3:10 “As it is written, There is no one that is rightous,no, not one.” If Luther was a heretic for opposing the Catholic church than I am too. You will find that The Catholic church is not as clean and perfect as many believe. It is a political church and nothing good wil come of it. Now is this to say that all catholics are bad? Of course not, just the higher ups are. Now I am not a fan of lutherans either but They have deviated from ML’s plans for the church alot. but so have the catholics. From the Vatican saying the Bible isn’t true its just a good way to live your life, to other endless examples, the church aint good man. At least the jews have not changed a damn thing in 6000 years, thats why I like them, they dont screw around with what God told them to do. I dont know what I am, sure as hell aint a catholic, and you have to be born a jew to be a jew, so I guess I’ll take the KJV literally, call myself a Christian and leave it at that."
[/quote]

Tell him to read the autobiography of Rabbi Israel Zolli, who was the head Rabbi of Rome during the Holocaust. This rabbi converted to Catholicism after the war because of how much Pope Pius XII had helped the Jews. Albert Einstien also said that the Catholic Church was the thing that most helped Jews during the war and because of that, he finally had a respect for it (he hadn’t like the Church before). Pius XII did absolutely NOTHING to help the Nazis…in fact, the Nazis hated him! When he was elected pope, the Berlin newspaper put out an article saying how disappointed the Nazi party was because they knew Pius XII would not support them! The estimate of the total number of Jews saved by the Church during the holocaust is around 860,000.
Is your friend’s brother a heretic? Yes. But, unless he left the Catholic Church, which it doesn’t sound like he did, he is a material heretic, not a formal heretic.
The Septuagint of course does not contain Paul’s letters to Timothy…it only contains OT books! The KJV is NOT the most accurate translation. I have no idea why these KJV onlyists are so obsessed with that translation. The most accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew is the Latin Vulgate because Jerome translated in a time when classical Greek was still being spoken as an everyday language.


#7

Timothy 2:1,3 “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, INTERCESIONS, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;…For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour” (KJV)

When a person asks another to pray for him (as prostants do often) the other person becomes a “mediator” in a sense. In fact that is what we a told to do. But, ours is dependent on Jesus. It all goes through him, making him the one mediator.

You can see it in some instances in Acts where people come up to an apsotle and ask for help. The Aposlte doesn’t say, “Bugger of heritic and go ask Jesus.” He complies and helps. But, it is not of his own power but, of Jesus. He is a mini-mediator.

Make sense?

And about the corruption in the Chruch, Look to say that the Church is less valid because it has sinnful people would invalidate the invisable church therory to bacause there are sinfull people in that too :eek: and therefore couldn’t be the church.

There is a niffty bit on the Catholic Homepage I will look up for you on the Papacy. It is rather through.


#8

I think this is the one that would be of the most use. catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

This might also help. catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

And here is the whole lot of them. catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

It has some early Church fathers in it which is usefull when saying, “Here is the Scripture that supports this teaching. And you know what the people who lived closest to it beleived the same.”


#9

[quote=PhilVaz]JSmitty << I didn’t know that the Septuagint didn’t contain 1st Tim. 2:5 >>

Tell him the Septuagint is a translation of the OT Hebrew into Greek. Is he saying that 1 Timothy 2:5 is an Old Testament verse?

Phil P
[/quote]

Exactly. I would hit him hard with that one. The Septuagint is the Greek version of the Old Testament.

[quote=JSmitty]Since when is the KJV more reliable? I didn’t know that it was older either.
[/quote]

The KJV is not more reliable, nor older. Think about it: St. Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, lived in the 400’s. Ask your friend if he is really that gulliglbe as to believe that the translators of the KJV who lived in the 1600’s had older and more reliable manuscripts than St. Jerome who lived 1200 years earlier. Tell him that he may be that gullible, but you aren’t.

[quote=] What’s up with Pope Pius XII urging Hitler to invade Stalingrad?
[/quote]

Ask him why he believes this (he probably read it in a book somewhere). Then ask him to provide a little proof.

[quote=] How do I respond to his claims of corruption in the Church?
[/quote]

There may be corruption in the church members, but not in the doctrines or dogmas taught by the Church.


#10

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html is 5 myths about 7 books (the deutercanonical books) which was given to me by Church Militan (so thank him for this one and not I).
And here is some Early Church Fathers on the Issue if that will help. catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
Good luck on that.


#11

[quote=JSmitty2005]So, I don’t really even know where to begin. I can easily address the Peter/pope issue, but I’m not familiar with other issues that he raises. I didn’t know that the Septuagint didn’t contain 1st Tim. 2:5 :confused: Since when is the KJV more reliable? I didn’t know that it was older either. What’s up with Pope Pius XII urging Hitler to invade Stalingrad? :confused: How do I respond to his claims of corruption in the Church? Obviously there’s corruption in the Church…there always has been the whole way back to Judas. I’m sure that there is much corruption in Protestantism today too. I’ve heard that the so-called “reformers” weren’t the most righteous of individuals. Is this true? Sorry for posting this big long thing. I don’t like to do that, but I’ve never even heard of most of these things. Thanks a lot! :thumbsup:
[/quote]

You’re right–the reformers (or revolutionaries, rather) were NOT the best group of guys. They were killing each other left and right, like Calvin did when someone disagreed with him. Luther was a drunk and had an extreme ego problem. Henry XIII had…2? I can’t seem to keep all these straight…of his wives executed and divorced another 2. He also had hundreds (literally) of mistresses on the side.

In Christ,
Rand


#12

[quote=JSmitty2005]Wow, my close friend’s brother just sent me an extremely anti-Catholic message. I don’t even know where to start. Here’s what he wrote:

<<<

So, I don’t really even know where to begin. I can easily address the Peter/pope issue, but I’m not familiar with other issues that he raises. I didn’t know that the Septuagint didn’t contain 1st Tim. 2:5 :confused: Since when is the KJV more reliable? I didn’t know that it was older either. What’s up with Pope Pius XII urging Hitler to invade Stalingrad? :confused: How do I respond to his claims of corruption in the Church? Obviously there’s corruption in the Church…there always has been the whole way back to Judas. I’m sure that there is much corruption in Protestantism today too. I’ve heard that the so-called “reformers” weren’t the most righteous of individuals. Is this true? Sorry for posting this big long thing. I don’t like to do that, but I’ve never even heard of most of these things. Thanks a lot! :thumbsup:
[/quote]

Your best bet is to ask him to converse with you one topic at a time. Protestants love to make several accusations at once so that if you make too sound a point in refuting one of their claims, they will ignore your valid point and then switch to one of the other accusations they originally made. The funny part is: they will eventually digress to the first subject that you made your valid point on and pretend that you have not yet answered that topic.

Start with the KJV translation issue. If you can’t make him see the light on that one, (and you probably won’t) he will then be able to make accusations based on a questionable translation that will serve to keep the issues confused.

Addendum to Rand Al’Thor’s post:

**“Tell him to read the autobiography of Rabbi Israel Zolli, who was the head Rabbi of Rome during the Holocaust. This rabbi converted to Catholicism after the war because of how much Pope Pius XII had helped the Jews.” **

He not only converted to Catholicism, but he took the name of Eugene as his Christian name. (Pope Pius XII’s first name is Eugenio.) Unfortunately, Rand Al’Thor, you made the mistake of suggesting: “Tell him to read the autobiography of…” Most people who are set against the Catholic church don’t read outside of the bible; a side-effect of sola scriptura.

Thal59


#13

[quote=Rand Al’Thor]You’re right–the reformers (or revolutionaries, rather) were NOT the best group of guys. They were killing each other left and right, like Calvin did when someone disagreed with him. Luther was a drunk and had an extreme ego problem. Henry XIII had…2? I can’t seem to keep all these straight…of his wives executed and divorced another 2. He also had hundreds (literally) of mistresses on the side.

In Christ,
Rand
[/quote]

Thanks for these examples. I would appreciate any more that you all may know of. I know that a religion isn’t nullified simply because it contains sinners; I just need to level the playing field since he seems to think that Protestants are a bunch of saints.


#14

[quote=JSmitty2005]Thanks for these examples. I would appreciate any more that you all may know of. I know that a religion isn’t nullified simply because it contains sinners; I just need to level the playing field since he seems to think that Protestants are a bunch of saints.
[/quote]

These quotes should do it. They are all from Martin Luther:

“Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain” said Luther. “‘Faith justifies’ and ‘faith does not justify’ contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor’s hood and let him call me a fool”.

Luther referred to the book of James, which contradicted his false teaching, as “an epistle of straw. I do not hold it” he declared, “to be his writing, and I cannot place it among the capital books”. (The facts about Luther, page 203) “I maintain that some Jew wrote it, who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.” "We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]…

Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 to support his doctrine of faith “alone”. When confronted, he said the following:

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), 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”.( Amic. Discussion, 1, 129)

Referring to the Apocalypse (Revelation), Luther wrote: “There are many things objectionable in this book. To my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his or her own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it”.

Regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews, Luther declared. “The fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle, is proved by what it says in chapter two. It need not surprise one to find here, bits of wood, hay, and stubble”. (The Facts about Luther pg. 203)

Luther on the Gosples: “The first three [Gospels] speak of the works of Our Lord, rather than of His oral teaching; that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred to the others. In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels” (The Facts about Luther, page 203, taken from “Collected Works”).

Luther on the Old Testament: “The book of Ecclesiastes”, Luther wrote, “ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it. It has neither boots nor spurs; but rides only in socks, as I myself did when an inmate of the cloister. Solomon did not, therefore write this book, which was made in the days of the Machabees of Sirach. It is like a Talmud, complied of many books, perhaps [written] in Egypt…”. “Of very little worth is the book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch may be. The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness. The first book of Maccabees might have been taken into the Scriptures, but the second is rightly case out, though there is some good in it… Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probably that Solomon wrote and made this book” (The Facts about Luther, page 202; taken from "Collected Works”)

Zwingli, one of the other leading “reformers”, referred to Luther’s cut and paste version of the Bible as “a corruption of the Word of God”. (Amicable Discussion, Trevern, 1, 129)

Luther on good works:

“That shall serve you as a true rule that wherever the Scriptures order and command good works, you must so understand it that the Scriptures forbid good works” (Martin Luther - Wittenb. ed. 2,171.6).

“If you should not sin against the Gospel” said Luther, “then be on your guard against good works; avoid them as one avoids a pest.” (Martin Luther - Jena. ed. 1.318 b)

"God only obliges you to believe and to confess (the faith). In all other things He leaves you free, Lord and master to do whatever you will without any danger to your conscience; on the contrary, it is certain that, as far as He is concerned, it makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation. What is it to Him if you do or do not do such things? (Werke XXI p. 131)

continue


#15

continuation

“During this life we have to sin. It is sufficient that, by the mercy of God, we know the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. Sin will not separate us from Him, even though we were to commit a thousand murders and a thousand adulteries per day” (Franca, 9.439).

The husband may drive away his wife; God cares not. Let Vashti go and take an Esther, as did the king of Ahasuerus” (Wittenb. V, 123).

The fruits of Luther’s reformation, in his own words:

“This one will not hear of Baptism, that one denies the Sacraments, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are about as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No Yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet”. M. Luther, De Wette III,61

“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul” said Luther " they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers" M. Luther, Walch XIV, 1360

“There is no smearer but whenever he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself, and crowns his ***, convincing himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him”. Walch V.1652

“How many doctors have I made by preaching and writing” asked Luther in frustration “Now they say, Be off with you. Go off with you. Go to the devil. Thus it must be. When we preach they laugh. …when we get angry and threaten them, they mock us, snap their fingers at us and laugh in their sleeves”. 19 M. Luther, Walch VII.2310

“When we have heard or learned a few things about Holy Scripture” admitted Luther “we think we are already doctors and have swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all”. Walch V.472

“After we understood that good works are not necessary for justification, I became much more remiss and cold in doing good… and if we could return now to the old state of things and if the doctrine of the necessity of good works to be holy could be revived, our alacrity and promptness in doing good would be different” (M. Luther Werke, XXVII, p. 443).

Luther’s prophecy: Nobody will allow himself to be led by another man’s doctrine or authority. Everybody will be his own rabbi: hence the greatest scandals". Lauterb. 91

“The Gospel today” said Luther, referring to his “gospel”, " finds adherents who are convinced that it is nothing but a doctrine that serves to fill their bellies and give free reign to all their impulses".

“Since the downfall of Popery and the cessation’s of ex-communications and spiritual penalties, the people have learned to despise the word of God. They are no longer for the churches; they have ceased to fear and honor God… I would wish, if it were possible, to leave these men without a preacher or pastor” complained Luther" and let them live like swine. There is no longer any fear or love of God among them. After throwing off the yoke of the Pope, everyone wishes to live as he pleases". (Walch ed.)

“The Gospel today” said Luther, referring to his “gospel”, " finds adherents who are convinced that it is nothing but a doctrine that serves to fill their bellies and give free reign to all their impulses" (Werke, XXXII, p. 2).

Luther’s conclusion after seeing the mess he caused: "If God had not closed my eyes, “and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to preach the Gospel”. Walch, VI,920

Luther’s spiritual life

“I confess, and many others could undoubtedly make an equal confession, that I am now more negligent than I was under the Pope: and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among monks and priests” (Walch,XI.1311).


#16

continuation

“I find myself here” proclaimed Luther on the day of his ex-communication, “insensate and hardened, established in idleness. Oh, woe! Praying little, and ceasing to moan for the Church of God, because my untamed flesh burns in great flames. In short, I, who should have the fervor of the spirit, have the fervor of the flesh, of licentiousness, sloth, idleness, and somnolence” (Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, II, p.22).

“I burn” said Luther " with a thousand flames in my unsubdued flesh: I feel myself carried on with a rage towards women that approached madness. I, who ought to be fervent in spirit, am only fervent in impurity” (Table Talk)

“With how much pain and labor did I scarcely justify my conscience that I alone should proceed against the Pope, hold him for Antichrist and the bishops for his apostles. How often did my heart punish me and reproach me with this strong argument 'Art thou alone wise? Could all the others err and have erred for so long a time?” (De Wette 2-107).

**A little insight into what Luther really thought about his heretical teachings: ** "There is no religion in the world that teaches this doctrine of justification [ie faith alone]: I myself, although I teach it publicly, have a great difficulty believing it privately" (Werke, XXV, p. 330).


#17

About the comment on the war. I am assuming that he really meant WW11 and not WW1. The invasion of Poland was the 1st action that brought total war. Only someone deprived of right reason would blame the Pope for that.
The Stalingrad comment is also absolute nonsence. Hitler did not listen to anyone.
st julie


#18

Here are some things that I’ve heard from fellow Catholics:

-The translators of the KJV actually cited the Catholic Douay-Rheims version as a guide.

-King James was a queer.

-The original 1611 KJV included the so-called “apocrypha,” (more accurately called the Deuterocanonicals.)

Are these true? If so, I’m sure he’d be surprised. If any of you have any other tidbits that might help, I could use 'em. :wink:


#19

[quote=JSmitty2005]Here are some things that I’ve heard from fellow Catholics:

-The translators of the KJV actually cited the Catholic Douay-Rheims version as a guide.

-King James was a queer.
[/quote]

I’ve also read that King James was gay.

[quote=]-The original 1611 KJV included the so-called “apocrypha,” (more accurately called the Deuterocanonicals.)
[/quote]

The original King James version of 1611 did include the seven books of the Old Testament that are now omitted from the Protestant Bibles. They were excluded beginning with the printing of 1629.

The following is taken from the Colliers Encyclopedia, which is a secular encyclopedia:

“The books termed Apocryphal by Protestants and deuterocanonical by Catholics… were included in the King James Version of 1611, but they are usually omitted in the English Revised Version and the American Revised Version. The Puritans disapproved of them because they did not form part of the original Hebrew text. The Septuagint, however, which was the Greek version of the Jewish Bible, did contain these books, and from the Septuagint, they found their way into the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome”. (Collier’s Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, Pg 348).


#20

How do we know that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint? Also, do any of you know of any links that are critical of the KJV translation? Thanks for all the help so far. Keep it coming. :thumbsup:


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.