|
|
Post by righteousone on Aug 9, 2008 7:51:04 GMT -5
Luther wasn't pleased with the doctrines of the bible. Our bible, and therefore wanted to change it and change it he did. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD. What is the matter with you people? You are willing to stand behind someone who disagreed with God's Holy Word?  ? And you agree with Luther who is now dead? What exactly watchman ARE you "protesting"? |
|
|
|
Post by righteousone on Aug 9, 2008 16:26:56 GMT -5
If it wasn't for Martin Luther there would not have been a Reformation and if there had not been a Reformation than there would not have been a United States of America and I would not be posting on this forum. Praise the "LORD" for the REFORMATION! Uh...The United States was founded long before Luther. To say this ridiculous statement and boast about his lies and his betrayal to Jesus Christ is a terrible sin. Luther was a heretic, a liar and a troublemaker. Thank you Jesus for the Catholic church that still stands because Jesus said it would! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 9, 2008 17:16:50 GMT -5
If it wasn't for Martin Luther there would not have been a Reformation and if there had not been a Reformation than there would not have been a United States of America and I would not be posting on this forum. Praise the "LORD" for the REFORMATION! Uh...The United States was founded long before Luther. To say this ridiculous statement and boast about his lies and his betrayal to Jesus Christ is a terrible sin. Luther was a heretic, a liar and a troublemaker. Thank you Jesus for the Catholic church that still stands because Jesus said it would! The Vikings and The Chinese were here way before anybody else, but it was The Spaniards who established the first European Colonies here. By the time The English ever set foot on the East Coast, we had an established government, Churches built and had already begun evangelizing to and brining The Gospels to the natives. The Catholic Church were the only evangelizers for the first 1,500 years of Christianity. It was our Bible that the world came to know Christ through. Amen. On top of that, The English Protestants came here avoiding religious persecution...from whom? From their very own brethren...The English Protestants. The Pilgrims came here because they were being hounded by The Protestants for "how" they wanted to worship. (Eventually, The Pilgrims began protesting themselves and would dissolve into seperate denominations themselves.) And it was the Pagan Native Americans who found the starving and living in squalor and they clothed them and they fed them an the sheltered them. Now, did they do the "will" of Jesus? They were acting the way Jesus teaches us to, and they didn't even know The Gospel yet. Why? Because the Word of God is written on everyman's heart and they did the good that God wrote in their hearts.  The Protestants have also done great works in their evangelical ministries throughout the 3rd world. |
|
|
|
Post by righteousone on Aug 9, 2008 18:25:52 GMT -5
People who praise the Lord for the "Reformation" are only fooling themselves, since they were not there. Therefore you are only following someone's word and nothing more. Protestants are followers of men. All man made religions. The Catholic church is the one true church founded by Jesus, unless you call Jesus the man.
What are you protesting? Can't anyone answer that?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Sept 15, 2008 11:51:57 GMT -5
I went to a "Taize" at a Lutheran Church the other day. I was pleasantly suprised to see that they were almost trying to copy the Catholic Church! They had a huge Icon of Jesus in front, and they even had a "side altar" with an icon of Mary! The (priest?) pastor there had on identical clothes as our priests had on. It's only a matter of time before many more Lutherans become Catholic (and Orthodox).
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Sept 19, 2008 10:04:07 GMT -5
I went to a "Taize" at a Lutheran Church the other day. I was pleasantly suprised to see that they were almost trying to copy the Catholic Church! They had a huge Icon of Jesus in front, and they even had a "side altar" with an icon of Mary! The (priest?) pastor there had on identical clothes as our priests had on. It's only a matter of time before many more Lutherans become Catholic (and Orthodox). teresa The longer a Christian practices their faith Biblically, the closer they get to Catholicism. The oldest Protestant faiths are very close to Catholicism. You're right, it's only a matter of time. Episcopalians are easy Catholic Converts. Anglicans consider themselves Catholics. If all one did was to follow the Bible literally, word for word, they'd have Priests, The Eucharist, Confession, etc... without a doubt.  |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Dec 9, 2008 1:25:35 GMT -5
Martin Luther on Protestantism: "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity...
It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better." Martin Luther From my research Luther wasn't refering to the Catholic church. Luther was talking about the 1519 Bohemian controversy. Luther stated, “I repulse the charge of Bohemianism. I have never approved of their schism. Even though they had divine right on their side, they ought not to have withdrawn from the Church, because the highest divine right is unity and charity.” Again, Luther is not refering to the Roman church. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Dec 9, 2008 1:35:48 GMT -5
Of course, because "faith alone" isn't a Biblical Doctrine. He literally added the word "alone" to the term "saved by faith" in order to invent this new 16th Century doctrine in order to create his own religion which was named (no surprise) after himself. He made himself his own personal christ. Martin Luther Added to the Book of Romans The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states, Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted: ...Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65). Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said, You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127). This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By "papists" he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture. A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having supposed scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine. He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states, ...because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word 'only' before the term 'wrath' to Romans 4:15 (O'Hare, p. 201). This presumably was to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law. www.cogwriter.com/luther.htm(a Protestant website) The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer has shown in his book, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361 that the word “alone” had been previously used in translation in Romans 3:28. He cites Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophyylact, Theodoret, Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine- thus vindicating Luther’s point “I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.” |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Dec 9, 2008 11:55:36 GMT -5
Martin Luther on Protestantism: "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity...
It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better." Martin Luther From my research Luther wasn't refering to the Catholic church. Luther was talking about the 1519 Bohemian controversy. Luther stated, “I repulse the charge of Bohemianism. I have never approved of their schism. Even though they had divine right on their side, they ought not to have withdrawn from the Church, because the highest divine right is unity and charity.” Again, Luther is not refering to the Roman church. What is the source of that quote? I can't seem to find Luther being attributed with it anywhere (in other words, there is no proof that this is what he actually said). Can you tell us where you got that from? Because I can't find it. Here's the historical quote of Luther (with citeable references to his own writings so that you can confirm what he said for yourself...) “I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted.
St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor.
Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church.
On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.
We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly.
There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.” Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519 (more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses) quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356 www.catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=69 |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Dec 9, 2008 12:00:15 GMT -5
Of course, because "faith alone" isn't a Biblical Doctrine. He literally added the word "alone" to the term "saved by faith" in order to invent this new 16th Century doctrine in order to create his own religion which was named (no surprise) after himself. He made himself his own personal christ. Martin Luther Added to the Book of Romans The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states, Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted: ...Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65). Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said, You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127). This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By "papists" he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture. A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having supposed scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine. He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states, ...because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word 'only' before the term 'wrath' to Romans 4:15 (O'Hare, p. 201). This presumably was to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law. www.cogwriter.com/luther.htm(a Protestant website) The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer has shown in his book, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361 that the word “alone” had been previously used in translation in Romans 3:28. He cites Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophyylact, Theodoret, Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine- thus vindicating Luther’s point “I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.” But he isn't The Pope and only The Pope can decide what is to be accepted as fact. Christians have to go by what The Holy Spirit guided the Canon to be (not by the non-canonized versions). |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Mar 9, 2009 17:10:22 GMT -5
Quotes from Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their lies," 1543
Luther's Introduction:
I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
He did not call them Abraham's children, but a "brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools...
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
...their blindness and arrogance are as solid as an iron mountain.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Learn from this, dear Christian, what you are doing if you permit the blind Jews to mislead you. Then the saying will truly apply, "When a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit" [cf. Luke 6:39]. You cannot learn anything from them except how to misunderstand the divine commandments...
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it.
But for us Christians they stand as a terrifying example of God's wrath.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htmDid he really write this stuff? This is scary! |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Mar 9, 2009 17:18:39 GMT -5
(Martin Luther)
His main works on the Jews were his 60,000-word treatise Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies), and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ) — reprinted five times within his lifetime — both written in 1543, three years before his death.[83] He argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were "the devil's people." They were "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[84] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[85] and Jews were full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[86] He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time."[87] He also seemed to sanction their murder,[88] writing "We are at fault in not slaying them"(wikipedia)
What in the world?!! Is this like Pre-Nazi ism?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 6, 2009 13:15:26 GMT -5
Some of the church fathers and their anti-semitic comments:
Justin Martyr charged that the Jews crucified Christ in the highest pitch of their wickedness. It was during this time (150 A.D.) that the first encounter with Replacement Theology was embraced where the church replaced the Jews as God's chosen people.
Tertullian argued that divine judgment is upon Israel, and Jews are destined to suffer for the crucifixion.
New ideas opposing "law" sprang up as early as 160-320 A.D. Marcion, 2nd century, adopted Matthew 5:17 as key theme to ending God's law and taught that the grace of God superseded it, rejecting the Old Testament.
Several Church Councils from 341 A.D. to 626 A.D. prohibited Christians from celebrating the Sabbath, festivals, and even eating with the Jews. It seemed that the greatest concern with Judaism on the part of Christians leaders was the attraction that it held for Christians. . . . These rules do not come out of bad relations between Jews and Christians (what would now be called, erroneously, antisemitism), but rather were enacted because relations were good and the authorities wanted to separate the two peoples. God has always had a remnant who has followed the Torah.
John Chrysostom, 344-407 A.D., preached: "The Jews ... are worse than wild beasts ... lower than the vilest animals. Debauchery and drunkenness had brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only ... to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill and beat each other up ... I hate the Jews ... I hate the Synagogue ... it is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 22, 2009 19:30:39 GMT -5
Scary.
But let's go back to Martin Luther.
Why did he change the Bible and why did almost all protestants follow in his footsteps by using the Bible with books removed?
Even protestants that are non-Lutheran have followed this man made tradition. Most of them don't realize it though, so it isn't their fault.
Like, the quote at the bottom of your posts, alfie, it makes sense now. If you disagree with scripture, just take it out and then you don't have to listen to the authority of popes and councils.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 22, 2009 23:40:31 GMT -5
Scary. But let's go back to Martin Luther. Why did he change the Bible and why did almost all protestants follow in his footsteps by using the Bible with books removed? Martin Luther also dislike several NT Books (such as Hebrews, James, Revelation, etc), He wanted to take them out, but never did. He dislike James because it didn't agree with his "Faith Alone" doctrine. Yea, this is the man that several Protestants say God used to reformed his Church and bring his Word back to the hearts of true Christians that refuse to listen to the evil Roman Catholic Church.... Very Scary!  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 9:35:32 GMT -5
Not only that, he literally "changed" words in The Bible to justify some of his teachings (like Sola Fide for example): Martin Luther Added to the Book of Romans
The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states, Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:
...Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).
Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said,
You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By "papists" he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture.www.cogwriter.com/luther.htm |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 23, 2009 10:46:46 GMT -5
Scary. But let's go back to Martin Luther. Why did he change the Bible and why did almost all protestants follow in his footsteps by using the Bible with books removed? Martin Luther also dislike several NT Books (such as Hebrews, James, Revelation, etc), He wanted to take them out, but never did. He dislike James because it didn't agree with his "Faith Alone" doctrine. Yea, this is the man that several Protestants say God used to reformed his Church and bring his Word back to the hearts of true Christians that refuse to listen to the evil Roman Catholic Church.... Very Scary! First of all... the matter of what books were to be included in the Canon was not offically recognized by the Catholic church until the Council ofTrent. The Protestants had already decided upon their own canon and published many Bibles in this format, but the Catholics still had no official ruling on the matter. Luthers attempt to remove Revelation, Hebrews and James from the canon, was merely echoing the opinions of Catholic leaders like Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus - all of whom took the same view (namely, that these three books should not be in the canon). So the idea did not originate with Lutrhe; it came from Catholic scholars. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 23, 2009 10:53:44 GMT -5
Ok, I don't kow about these scholars.
But the point is that Luther really did remove entire books from the Bible. The Catholic Church did not. It doesn't matter if some people thought about doing it, what matters is that some people really did do it. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 10:54:08 GMT -5
First of all... the matter of what books were to be included in the Canon was not offically recognized by the Catholic church until the Council ofTrent. Did all you non-Catholics hear that? Based on "which" Bible? The Catholic's Bible. They didn't "decide upon their own canon". They just copied ours and deleted the same 7 books that The Pharisees deleted from their OT. They (The Protestants and The Pharisees) rejected the OT that The Apostles used. They had to...for The Pharisees, there was too much Jesus in them and for The Protstants, there was too much Catholicism in them...coincidentally, the same exact 7 books. What is the number of God? 7. What is the number of The Holy Trinity? 3. What is the number of The Beast? 666. The Catholic Bible has 73 books (the number of God with the number of The Holy Trinity). Take away the number of God from the total number of books in The Holy Bible and what do you get? 66! Or...66( 6). Uh...Luther himself was a Catholic Scholar.  And, any Christian idea (whether right or wrong) originated from Catholics before Luther because no Christian denomination existed before Catholicism. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 10:55:40 GMT -5
Ok, I don't kow about these scholars. But the point is that Luther really did remove entire books from the Bible. The Catholic Church did not. It doesn't matter if some people thought about doing it, what matters is that some people really did do it. Does that make sense? Exactly...let's look at this one fact: Find me one Holy Bible that had 66 books in it before the 16th Century... (crickets chirping) |
|
? And you agree with Luther who is now dead? What exactly watchman ARE you "protesting"?
