Why Did Martin Luther Remove 7 Books From The Bible. Free Messaging Hookup Sites!

Bible The Luther Did From Remove Why Books 7 Martin

Why do Catholic Bibles have seven more books than Protestant Bibles?

How to answer - Why did the Catholic Church add seven books to the Bible?

15 Mar Generally Protestants respond by saying that Martin Luther did not remove books , the Roman Catholic church added them. Then the argument usually involves .. No takes issue as to when the Protestant bible was printed without the 7 books listed as Apocryphal by Luther. The issue was as to why those 7. 12 May The Church never added seven books. Early Christians accepted the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonicals. Martin Luther removed them in the 16th century. The Septuagint which was the Old and New Testament translated by about 70 to 72 Jewish scholars into Greek, which was the popular. Martin Luther didn't "remove" them so much as move them to an appendix as " lesser" than the other books. This was not exclusive to the deuterocanonical books, as he also placed Hebrews, James (the "Epistle of Straw"), and Revelation in an appendix. It's just that those have survived within Protestant.

It cracks me up to see this argument repeated. Hi James, You said: You appear to base this on a single passage from another Article you wrote. Here is what Luther says in the single quote you gave: This I think was purgatory " This "Purgatory" Luther claims to 'still believe in' and 'never denied' sounds nothing like the traditional Purgatory. Where is it ever said Christ went to Purgatory in any Catholic document or Scripture? Luther says he finds in Go here that people like Christ and David 'tasted hell', but the only plausible thing that Luther could be talking about is the Scriptural references of Christ going to 'upper Hades' Acts 2: Yet any informed person should know that this is not Purgatory as traditionally understood.

If that's the case, which it seems like it is to me, then Luther 'continued to believe' his own version of Purgatory, thus rendering your objection null. And as was pointed out, why would Eck be mentioning Purgatory if there was no disagreement on it but rather harmony?

There had to be some substantial disagreement on Luther's end. Hi Nick, Luther then says, "This I think was purgatory, and it seems not beyond belief that some of the dead suffer in like manner.

Of critical importance to Michuta's argument would be Luther's view during his debate with Eck. In regards to this quote though, what was Tauler's view? Why would Luther mention it? These are questions that should've provoked you to begin with.

I call these explanations "myths" because they are either incorrect or simply inadequate reasons for rejecting these books of Scripture. I don't see the "the overwhelming accounts of mystics and Church Fathers's writings on Purgatory" as that which interprets the sole infallible rule of faith. The Eastern Orthodox use the term "Anagignoskomena.

Do either you or Sam plan on going "deep into history" on your own? Certainly I could research this issue for you, rather than using the Socratic approach of trying to get you guys to think for yourselves. It has been my experience with those on your side of the Tiber that most don't care enough to go all that much deeper than beyond the materials Link provide.

Sure, some of you guys know how to find material from secondary sources via Google Books, like, "This scholar said this" or "This scholar said that". I know close to nothing about you personally, but Sam claims to be "a Catholic, currently pursuing a master's degree in theology.

I currently have Michuta's 1st edition of Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger in front of me also personally signed by Gary.

Why Did Martin Luther Remove 7 Books From The Bible

I have nothing against Mr. I can appreciate the fact that he at least tried to put out a book beyond the typical fluff that Rome's pop-apologists spew out. But as I skimmed through Gary's selected bibliography, it appears he didn't do the necessary research on Luther either.

Works of Martin Luther. Sometimes called the Holman Luther, since it was originally published by A. This is an English set in 6 volumes. They were published in the early 's. This is basically close to using nothing from Luther.

He cites PE on pagefootnote As Luther understood the term, apostolicity was the degree to which a book preached the gospel as Luther understood it. Also see Reuss, History, I have PE 6 from in front of me right now as well. Page has 7 words and two dates on it: However, I find it odd Gary wouldn't at least use a volume that contained Luther's prefaces to the apocrypha this volume does not.

At least Gary could have used the 57 volume English LW set. His friend Steve Ray was even selling the 55 volume Libronix version of it before I pointed it out, then he pulled off his website. So Gary probably did have access to it, but chose not to do the necessary research to present an informed view.

Perhaps Gary has since revised his book, I don't know. Simply stated, neither you, Sam, or Mr. Michuta have presented a cogent historical argument using the necessary research to present an informed view. James, your arguments are poor for denied DC.

Why others books was cutted out? If with Eck he confirm an opinion about DC, he were a coward because He must expose for all himself opinions. About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone click at this page to hold his own opinions.

I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. The Luther opinion about Revelation null point 1 and 2. Or you cut DC books and Revelation or Follow other authority and don't cut it. Papista, I have no idea what you're arguing. Perhaps English is not your primary language? Do you disregard the overwhelming accounts of mystics and Church Fathers's writings on Purgatory as well or do you rely solely on just a few Protestant theologians of the Reformation who ultimately seemed hellbent on schism?

Do you disregard the overwhelming accounts of mystics and Church Fathers's writings on Purgatory as well I see all of church history as subservient to the Scriptures, the sole infallible rule of faith. I don't see the "the overwhelming accounts of mystics and Church Fathers's writings on Purgatory" as that which interprets the sole infallible rule of faith.

5 Myths about 7 Books

Best for you to track down and read the book: Hi, my name is Kate. Okay, for those who think Maccabee sp? I'd argue they were closer to Christ--wouldn't they know more than Luther?

I am a lifelong Lutheran thinking of converting to Catholocism--after I find out about Luther's true nature and realized that hundreds of different protestant denominations disagree with each other about so many points of scripture!

Martin Luther: Great Translators of the Bible

How can anyone be a Protestant with a straight face--when no one agrees on important parts of scripture!!? I typically don't post comments on old entries, because they are usually "hit and run" drivebys. But snce your first name is "kate" and my favorite singer of all time is Kate Bush, I've posted your comment.

Luther's canon - Wikipedia

Luther did not "remove" 2 Maccabees. Not all "Christians" previous to Luther considered 2 Maccabees to be inspired Scripture. More info because someone is historically "closer to Christ" does not mean that there is the less likelihood of error.

If being harsh towards the Jews negates trust,you best check the history of the Roman church with what they did to the Jews- because by your standard, the Roman church shouldn't be trusted either. Careful with double standards. Ever heard of Dei Verbum? Yes, you have some good points. I must agree with them all, except for the Maccabees opinion, which is at odds with most scholars.

Why Did Martin Luther Remove 7 Books From The Bible

Myriad different interpretations by myriad denominations about every little passage—no matter how seemingly unimportant to the heart of salvation—is troubling! They can't all be right--but would God really be angry with those who happened, innocently, to interpret wrong? As I instantly knew that no loving God would forbid me from simply praying to him for my father's soul, I began to question all the heartless and self-aggrandizing nit picking going on with "religious authorities.

Don't ever buy wholesale into ANY organized church--your personal relationship with God must be most important. Church is good because you go there to show God Why Did Martin Luther Remove 7 Books From The Bible are praising and honoring Him--but men and their myriad interpretations all fail. I don't think Catholics have every point right either, of course. My apologies for a late reply- if you're still around.

In regard to Maccabees, as I understand the historicity of it's canonicity or lack thereof - there were two traditions concurrent in the church, and for Rome, one tradition won over the other, so I would be careful using the phrase, "most scholars. In regard to your "bigger concern"- you seem to think that the Roman Magisterium has interpreted the Bible completely- but- those on that side of the Tiber have private interpretation as well- even trying to figure out the correct interpretation of "infallible" documents.

Simply go through this blog here and go through my entries with the lable "blueprint for Anarchy" http: Rome claims this united front- but it really is just an empty facade.

When you say, "Don't ever buy wholesale into ANY organized church--your personal relationship with God must be most important," this is certainly at odds with what Rome would require of you. You will be responsible to believe such things like "Mary was assumed bodily to heaven. If I were to pray in regard to them- I would do so by simply asking God to comfort me as He Jesus being my true and ultimate parent, and thanking him for my earthly parents- and then requesting that His Spirit comfort me with trusting in God's goodness in knowing that whatever His ultimate will was for their eternal souls- His judgments are perfect, pure, and true, while mine are not, yet.

I look forward to eternity when my intellect and emotions will be in complete conformity to His will- and that I'll be able to see things in a pure and eternal way. Till then, I simply rest in the fact that the supreme judge over all of creation WILL do what is right.

Thanks for your reply James. We can absolutely take comfort in God's goodness--I do like the way you have gotten to the heart of the issue of grief and healing. I do, however, believe Catholic unity, no matter how incomplete, is more in evidence than Protestant unitywith protestants splitting into an astonishing number of denominations and warring interpretations of the Bible.

How can they all be right? And what is the eternal consequence if one church leader interprets a piece of scripture differently than the next? here

And to this day, there is still sort of a segmenting of books among Protestants among these lines. Russ you cannot accept the books because your church dismissed them. Thank you all; this has been very helpful. He classified some books as being lesser to what he considered Holy Scripture, wanted them separated therein, but he called them all "profitable to read.

And do the nitpicky interpretations of obscure scripture that so divides them really matter? Luther certainly being one of the most fallible, with his murderous intent toward poor serfs and Jews So, back to your original comment on Maccabees and my migration from Protestant to Catholic: Well, all Christians including Catholics pray, and prayer gives us the one-on-one with God.

We go to church not to focus on every tiny obscure piece of doctrine—but to be with, and pray to God—and be with other Christians. I still find the simple prayers and traditions of the Catholics make me personally feel closer to God. If the arguments you put forth to show why Rome is to be favored work against Rome as well, then your arguments are inconsistent.