Was Luther cursed?

Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV):
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
Do I take it that he fell victim to this curse? Is there any evidence in his life to point to that?

Attached: 9C328726-408F-4847-A657-734A0EF328A0.jpeg (307x409, 78.55K)

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=PjvXbotd9Lw
bible-researcher.com/jerome.html
bookofconcord.org/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_fidei_proxima
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_certa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_communis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_probabilis
bible-researcher.com/johnofdamascus.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

What thing is sure about Luther, it's that he was a failed monk… Unable to fight his passions and riddled with intrusive thoughts.
Rather than admitting he was perhaps too weak to live an ascetic life he declared that man alone is unable to ever EVER fight his sinful nature without God… Which is true, but he takes it up to eleven and declare any attempt as futile… Sola fide, yada yada.

Fpbp as always

No, because he didn't add anything.
You're using the NIV. Did the NIV translators become cursed when they added "and sisters" to passages saying "brothers" (adelphos)?

Attached: Screenshot_20190318-194918_Firefox.jpg (1635x3816, 1.58M)

Well he still took away several books from the Bible, so the curse would still be in effect

And Jerome didn't?

Attached: 227c07e0f.gif (480x264, 1.54M)

Wow I didn't know Martin Luther was such a powerful influence he even got Catholics to start calling it deutrocanon (or "second canon") all because of him.

If it makes you feel better I’m honestly in between Catholicism and Protestantism; this way this thread goes may tip me one way or the other

Jerome?

St. Jerome didn't compile all of the Bible, prot. He translated some of it, but his works is not all of the Bible.
Though I do find it hilarious that you don't deny that Luther removed books from his bible and don't deny that he is cursed.

Attached: download (7).jpg (259x194, 5.2K)

Yes.

This. And the word there is best translated scroll, not book (another KJV fail).

Are the Orthodox cursed? Every branch of the Orthodox Church has added books that the Catholic Church does not consider canon. Or are the Catholics cursed because they don't include the books like 4 Ezra and 3 Maccabees? And if the Orthodox Church is correct, which branch as the correct canon? Obviously only one of the various Orthodox canons can be correct and the others are guilty of adding or taking away from Scripture.

St. Jerome didn't want to include the deuterocanon in his translation of the Bible. He and St. Augustine got into a fight about it until he finally agreed to put them in.

Pride is the original sin for a reason. It was pride to rebel against church as it was pride to project his weaknesses and proclaim solas.
I would pick spanish inquisition before political correctness when there are grooming gangs in our cities, flooded with invaders, any day.
Just because our enemies wrote the historiography that does not mean everything about church history is bad. The whole fact that "reformation" is not called "deformation" tells you that enemies of the church wrote history.

There's a difference between a Biblical canon being the way it is because the local Church has preserved it this way traditionally, and a Biblical canon being the way it is because the canon was reformed at some point because people didn't like it.

I don't think Luther gave a shit about what Spaniards did to Moors and Jews

Not really. The only reason those local churches have traditionally preserved those canons in the first place is because someone, at some point, did or did not like certain books. Why is 4 Esdras not apart of the Greek Orthodox canon? Because someone didn't like it. Why is 4 Maccabees not apart of the Russian Orthodox canon? Because someone didn't like it. And so on. You get the point. Just because some churches have traditionally accepted or rejected certain books doesn't change the fact that only a certain number of books are God-breathed. 3 Maccabees doesn't become God-breathed when go to Greece and then cease to be God-breathed once go to Rome. The Book of Enoch has traditionally been in the Ethiopian Orthodox canon longer than the Russian Orthodox Church has existed. Does this mean that the Book of Enoch is God-breathed?

No, no evidence.

But it does prove something amazing:

...

I do not think so too. But this is what I hear from prots all the time.

Dude, Luther didn't remove the apocrypha books. They were in his bible and in the original King James bible. The placement of them is just in a different order, nothing is added or removed.

Also, all English translations added words obviously as there isn't a direct word to word translation.

Also, you're quoting from the most heretical translation of the bible in English

There's also the fact that the RCC itself didn't unanimously regard the deuterocanonical books as equal to the other books until the Council of Trent, which didn't end until fifteen years after Luther's death.

Uhhh dude Luther quoted the church fathers all the time, he had more in common with Augustine and Ambrose than the "fraternity of Peter" that was telling people they could buy their dead relatives out of purgatory with money.

Lutheranism (true, conservative, LCMS Lutheranism) is a better conservation of the early Catholic church than the modern Catholic church is.

That's not the "church fathers". That's one church father out of hundreds. And then a later scholastic (Ambrose). All reformers seem to do that. Maybe it was due to lack of printing, but they barely quote anyone else (to be fair, some Catholics seem to boil down church fathers to St. Augustine as well).

Luther had particular affinity for Augustine because he was an Augustinian friar, but saying he didn't argue from a wide range of early Christian writings is simply ahistorical

Thx bro you totally helped.

But Jerome quoted the Deuterocanon in his letters and called them Scripture.

He may have called them scripture in that they were sacred writings, but he did not consider them to be canonical scripture.
bible-researcher.com/jerome.html

It's not ahistorical. It's why the East had difficulty interacting with Catholics too (at least until the Uniates). St. Augustine (and for Catholics, Sts. Gregory and Jerome) made up the bulk of patristic quoting in the West (with Sts. Aquinas and Ambrose the popular scholastic thinkers.. but neither is a "church father"). Protestants are inheritors of all of this.

In any case, Councils are what matter at the end of the day. That's the worst thing about Luther out of all. He whined about Popes, but then just made himself the actual tyrant that no Pope can truly be accused of by setting himself above all ecumenical councils.. then rewrite theology from some pointless mining of Augustine. I have no clue why Evangelicals are impressed by this, or think that matters to anyone else.

Do you believe in the concept of the Holy Trinity?

One last thing, when I say "all ecumenical" councils, I mean even in his approval of some, he's still arrogant and tyrannical. None of it is his right.. To say "Yay" or "Nay", "I approve", or "I disapprove". You simply bow to the wisdom of the universal church.. rather than say you alone have the final veto and a greater allocation of the Holy Spirit all on your own, that even an ecumenical council can't attain.

Sigh. I edited a typo and just reposted whatever you quoted. Why do you even ask me that? I just defended the Ecumenical Councils over the authority of one man, and you care to ask if I believe in the Trinity? Do I sound like some Oneness Pentecostal to you?

That has nothing to do with what said about Luther citing a wide range of Fathers in his arguments, which he most of the other reformers did, from both the East and the West. Read the Book of Concord for yourself if you don't believe me bookofconcord.org/

Jerome's personal misgivings do not really factor in to the faith, every Church Father would have assented to what the Holy Spirit had declared through the Church.

Even Origen's obvious errors weren't objectively heretical at the time, nobody had proclaimed anything about it.

Lutherbibel 1522 (should be the available first version)

First page is his commentary before the letter:
< Daher kompt / das alleyn der glaube rechtfertig macht un das gesetz erfullet
< Den er bringet den geyst aus Christus verdienst / der geyst aber macht ein luftig un freyhertz / wie das gesetz fodert
< So gehe den die gutten werck aus dem glawben selber
Free translation, mostly pretty literal:

Second page is romans chapter 3:
< So halten wyrs nu / das der mensch gerechtfertiget werde / on zu thun der werck des gesetzs
< alleyn durch de glawben / Oder ist Got alleyn der Juden Got?

Attached: lutherbibel_1522_roemer2.jpg (1024x1420 251.24 KB, 233.65K)

So was the Church wrong to anathemize him and anyone that wouldn't anathemize him at the Second Council of Constantinople?

Do you have a single fact to show that it wasn't gentile converts that added them after mistook them for Scripture?

Besides the part where they get quoted in the NT and were found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea scrolls?

There are no quotes from them in the NT. If you are referring to the fact they came from the LXX I would agree, and also agree that the LXX is generally superior to the MT. That doesn't change what is canonical, however.
Just because a book was included in the same collection as Scripture doesn't make it Scripture. Are the maps in the back of your Bible inspired by God? If I put a quran next to one of my Bibles does that make it canonical? God forbid.

Welp, guess we'd better ban the gospels.

There was no canon until the Church fixed it, and it included the deuterocanonical books. The Jewish canon other than the 5 of the Torah wasn't fixed until after the destruction of the second temple.
Luther and his cronies were the ones who changed the canon - you're working ass backwards.

This isn't about what the jew thinks. This is about the Truth. And the Truth is that the apocrypha wasn't canonical at the time of Christ and isn't now.

That is a lie. Jesus refers to the Scriptures as though they are fixed. The apocrypha was not included in any canons until after His time on earth.

They didn't have a book. They had a bundle of scrolls. Every synagogue had Genesis through Deuteronomy, but other than that which scrolls they had varied, some had less, some had more. Jews fixed their canon after His time, and Christians fixed a different canon.

How could Luther change the canon when the Roman Catholic Church didn't formally recognize the deuterocanon as equal to scripture until after his death?

Nope, sorry user.

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. - Matthew 11:13

Why are you even drawing a distinction as if it being hardback or not matters.

You are in serious need of help. None of your filthy rags will buy a ticket to heaven sinner. True faith and God's grace are the foundations of a true Christian life. No amount of charity work can replace it, thus it is the only thing that truly matters.

Wow I didn't know monks were completely without sin; no wonder you worship them so much then! Luther freed my people from a church of hypocrites and fools. Selling indulgences for debt that was paid long ago, oppressing other nations with a tithe that made bishops in a far away land live like Kings, and killed in the name of God if anyone dared translate the Bible into vernacular or expose them.

great, so I guess we have to throw out the New Testament, which was all fixed scripture when Christ said that

Except, Christ condemned the Jews for not knowing what was scripture

28At the resurrection therefore, whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her.
29And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Reconcile the idea of a "fixed canon" with the Jews when Christ Himself rebuked them -for not knowing it!-. By the way, do you know what scripture the Jews were quoting? Tobit!

That's a lie, St. Augustine covered the authenticity of the deuterocanon.

If the Dead Sea Scrolls are any indication, he led many people to eternal ruin, seeing that the hebraic deuterocanon was found. He had thrown them out on the basis that no Hebrew version of them existed!

Just because Luther didn't put St Augustine's work into the Bible doesn't mean they he thinks he was wrong on everything. Luther wanted to remove books from the Bible because he believed that they weren't of the same weight as the other books and contained contradictions. This doesn't mean that he didn't think people should read them or that they should be burned, but he wanted a Bible that he could guarantee to someone that everything that is in it is divinely inspired and true with no hesitation in his mind. You should really read his books before you slander the man like this.

Luther's opinion on the Church Fathers is besides the point, the Hebrew Deuterocanon existed, and one wonders if he would have proceeded with removing the scriptures had he known.

in other words, they contradicted his theological innovations.

and he was wrong. dead wrong.

But there was no official decree from the RCC stating that the deuterocanon is on the same level as Scripture until the Council of Trent. Augustine may have thought they were equal to Scripture, nobody's perfect after all, but there were many Christians afterwards, even some Doctors of the Church, who did not.

Neither was there any decree towards the doctrine of a Christian marriage, doesn't mean it hasn't stayed intact without an official declaration. If you haven't noticed, the Councils tend to be reactive instead of proactive.

well, nobody's perfect, and they were wrong.

and once again I will ask: would have Luther thrown out the Deuterocanon if he had the Hebraic copies?

I strongly doubt it, and it's nothing but a boon to the Catholic Church that it turns out the hebrew copies are very closed preserved by what She did have.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_fidei_proxima
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_certa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_communis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_probabilis

I'm new to this discussion, but are you saying that everything written in Hebrew, even if found in the 20th century or later, is inspired? Is this for real right now?

OK, so the topic here is why Luther threw out the Deuterocanon. One of the reasons why he threw them out, was because nobody had any copies of the Hebraic Deuterocanon in the 16th century, so he argued the veracity of the deuterocanon could not be maintained.

In the mid-20th century, the Dead Sea Scrolls appeared, as did some hebraic deuterocanon scripture. So not only did they actually exist, they existed in Christ's time, and the Hebraic copies follow very closely to the copies the Church had in Luther's time.

Now you follow? This has nothing to do with inspiration, which is another topic entirely.

Gnostic writings existed then too. Surely you don't think everything written in Hebrew is inspired simply for that fact. I'm sure you don't think that. Yet your method of reasoning seems to presuppose it.
Couple things here. So you base your faith on these discoveries? You place a lot of faith in what someone found in the 1940's and concurrently not so much in God for preserving his word and the sources needed available for all generations.

But ok, lets get past that for a second. Let's assume everything you said is true. Are you basically admitting that God didn't allow the primary source to remain around until the creation of the Israeli state in 1947? Were we to rely on them for verification all along?

One other thing, what is the relevance of Luther at all to this topic? That part I really don't get.

I read the background of the thread, I just didn't want you confusing me with someone else.

Re-read .
Particularly, "This has nothing to do with inspiration, which is another topic entirely".

It isn't about inspiration, it's about Luther's metrics for throwing out the Deuterocanon. The reveal of the DSS destroys one of his main arguments.

I'm not sure why you're really deviating the topic this hard (Catholic Derangement Syndrome?), but I base my faith on the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Turns out, the Deuterocanon indeed existed in Christ's time.

Friend, Sirach and Tobit and Letter of Jeremiah were preserved! In the bosom of the Catholic Church!

I already spoke plainly, Catholic Derangement Syndrome strikes again.

You're missing my point. said that Luther is the one responsible for removing the deuterocanon. I pointed out here that that the Church did not formally hold the deuterocanon as equal to scripture until after Luther's death. Then said that I was lying and seemed to imply that everyone agreed on the status of the deuterocanon in the period between St. Augustine and Luther, which is not the case.

Actually no its not. It is directly related to this topic.

1 Peter 1:23 states that the word of God is incorruptible and never passes away. So we know that anything not inspired by God is corruptible and will be lost over time, while God's word always remains by providence to us. This is central to the topic because the things God allowed to pass away by definition cannot be God's word. This includes whatever innovations you're taking from the DSS.

Let's assume all this is true. My question, again, is why do you think anything written in Hebrew is therefore inspired?

Let's assume for a second that we found incontrovertibly what you're describing. You're basically saying that because Hebrew manuscripts (that were later lost until 1940's) existed, this serves as some kind of establishment of legitimacy. Yet this ignores the fact that many gnostic writings were corrupted and lost over that same time due to them not being God's incorruptible word. And we don't even need to get into the arguments over what is actually contained in DSS because the whole underlying point is defeated.

So again, are you basically admitting that God didn't allow the primary source to remain around until the creation of the Israeli state in 1947? Were we to rely on them for verification all along according to you? It seems like your silence speaks a lot regarding this question.

So yeah I plainly disagree that inspiration and preservation are not intimately linked. It is not another topic entirely, that's the whole point.

He was, in large part, being chief of the Reformers.

It had over a 1,000 years worth of precedent beginning in the 4th century.

then, substantiate your claim and provide Catholic sources after St. Augustine (whom the argument all hinges, not St. Jerome) that repudiate Sirach or Tobit or any other deuterocanonical source.

Your problem, of course, is that you do not respect the Church of Christ, so whatever it proclaims means nothing to you.

No, it's not. The Catholic approved deuterocanon was not the only books discovered, other works that the Orthodox and the other Church acknowledge were also discovered.

I am not basing any claim at all that its existence presupposes inspiration, which is given up entirely to the authority of Catholic Church.

look, the deuterocanon was taken seriously by the 2,000 year old apostolic church, and you cannot even look to the Orthodox or the other one for support because they support even more works.

that you have mind-warped yourself is not my problem, neither that you have been seduced by Luther's errors.

???

You obviously didn't click the wikipedia links. The Church holds certain things true even though it didn't formally proclaim it. Certain things within the sacrament of holy orders, for example, weren't even formally defined and clarified until Pius XII in mid 20th century.

You're basing your whole premise on Deuterocanon is Gnostic tier paper that is used for starting up your grill. I mean, how can you even compare something that was included in the Scriptures by all Apostolic Churches to Gnostic texts?

It is directly related because whatever new stuff you're gleaning from the DSS is not inspired for the simple fact that it was lost and corrupted. Regarding anything you bring up from there, where was it before 1940's? And what would you have said before the 1940's? How can we know there isn't more bizarre stuff that might be found to bring more gnosticism into the world that would use the same arguments you just used?

1 Peter 1:23-25
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Then why even bring up the DSS at all. That's the part I don't get. You act like somehow this makes some kind of difference when clearly it doesn't. There is no "layers" of legitimacy… either something is inspired or it is not. That's why I never understood people that used it as a basis to make arguments.

You bring up the DSS as if it proves some additional points. I'm demonstrating why this is not so.

Sure, I can get into this question, why not.

The word of God is the final authority while the church is responsible for safeguarding that scripture. You wouldn't have God's church lose control over it in any time. Fortunately our Lord has preserved his word to us given by him in its original words and it has never been lost. I don't need to rely on what man said to hear God's word nor to be given understanding, which is all God's domain. According to John 14:16-17 and John 16:13-14 the Holy Spirit will guide the saved individual into all truth bringing to rememberance all that the Lord has spoken.

According to John 8:47, he that is of God hears God's words. This is backed up also in John 10:1-14. For this reason there has never been any question or controversy regarding what God's word consists of among saved people in the church. There was no need for a Tridentine declaration of canonicity. Anything not included in the preserved, inspired word of God is nothing more than corruptible manmade traditions, and no state institution or denomination can come to overturn what God set up. 1 John 5:9 says that if we believe the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. And he that believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself.

Who said the Church lost control over the DSS? What are you talking about? It's always had control over it, it's just that older sources were found. The epistle St. Clement of Rome, the oldest known extra Biblical text, references the Deuterocanonical books.
Exactly, as St. Athanasius said in one of his Easter epistles naming the 22 books "…appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.''

Is St. John of Damascus Catholic enough for you? bible-researcher.com/johnofdamascus.html

Obviously the status of the deuterocanon as equal to scripture wasn't one of those things since there were Catholics at time of Luther who believed that those books could not be used to confirm matters of faith like the other 66 books could. Like Thomas Cajetan.
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

Forget it man. If they won't hear the Scriptures then neither will they believe though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31.

Also Romans 10:17. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

lol, this barb should be more directed towards the Greek Orthodox. If you were arguing in good faith, you would also have to accept the epistles of St. Clement as part of the divine revelation of the New Testament, as St. John of Damascus tells you in your link.

Luther, was a Catholic monk, attempting to separate what was canon and what was not by his own mind, which he had absolutely no right to.

If you say that the Church cannot say what is canon, then you reduce the canon to mere subjectivity, and even worse, relativity. Cajetan is quite clearly they are canonical by right of the authority of the Church, not because of history.

Again, Luther assumed there was no hebraic deuterocanon extant, that being so, it could not be considered divine scripture, and he was wrong.

You quote the scripture in vain if you will not hear the Church.

There is no "new stuff" I am gleaning from the DSS, and since you keep repeating this stupid straw-man argument, I'd like you to point out what exactly this "new stuff" I am "gleaning".

In disregarding the Church, you have no choice but to automatically accept whatever is old because of your sad and tortured misreading of 1 Peter 1:23. Just because something is old, does not make it the Word of God, what makes it the Word of God is the authority of the Church.

I have no clue on earth, I keep telling you this has to do with Luther and his argument for throwing out the deuterocanon and you keep rambling about something to do with 1 Peter.

The only legitimacy is the proclamation of the Church, your idea of legitimacy is whatever the KJV has in it, which the rest of Christianity cannot take seriously, even Luther would have cocked his head at these strange Americans proclaiming the KJV is the authentic Word of God.

Actually the Italian Bible during and some time before Luther had alone in the book of romans. While the original language doesn't have "alone" in the text, it based on the conclusion of the language, which wasn't really controversial until Christian's pointed it out to Catholics.

Luther didn't remove anything, in fact, most reformed Bibles contained the same numbers of books as modern Catholic books, until the 1800's, and without much explanation, the uninspired books disappeared from the biblical literature. I suspect the publishing companies wanted to make bibles cheaper, so they cut literal corners to do so.
Of course, there are retards who don't understand Bible history think Luther decanonized the apocryphal books when actually his views wasn't that unusual, since the most popular Biblical commentary for late medieval theologians claimed that """""""deuteronomical"""""""" books weren't part of the Canon. Heck, even Luther opponents don't view those books as canon.

They were canonized when the issue was forced. If it turns out they were inspired despite your claims, it is something you will have to bear before the Judgement.

CHECKED

...