Book every smart Catholic should read:

www.biblebelievers.com...

A masterpiece of Protestant theology, excellent work. Plus it's good for a conspiracy board as well

Something every anti-catholic bigot should read
www.catholic.com...

Someone should boot this down to the BTS Religion Forum.

That book is a Classic. You should read it instead of slandering me.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Nakash]

Perhaps the only conspiracy in religion is that the RCC are the ones behind the great deception. They have set up two of the 3 main schools of prophetic interpretation to cover the fact that the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, their emperors, and the Popes are specifically mentioned in prophecy. There is no reason to send this down to BTS despite FlyerFans kicking and screaming to do so. I stand behind the Protestant teaching that:

1) The fourth Beast of Daniel is Rome.
2) The little Horn of Daniel is the station of the Pope and Roman Emperors before them.
3) The first Beast of Revelation is Rome and is admitted to be so by Rome itself in its own writings and Bible.
4) There is no all powerful anti-Christ, rebuilt temple, nor 7 year tribulation period.
5) That the other two schools of prophecy, Futurism and Praeterism, are both manufactured by the RCC to throw the heat off of them and the station of the pope.
6) That the popularity of these other two schools of prophecy is in fact the Great Deception mentioned to happen in the end times.

I stand behind this, I can Biblically show the accuracy of it, and it’s not about slamming the RCC. I don’t have to slam them they did it to themselves. History shows them to be what they are; any logical person that knows one iota about history can see what they have done over the years. They are 100% responsible for every non-Christian out there that holds a beef with Christianity over such things as the Crusades and the Inquisitions. I can show this to be the truth even using their own bible, the foot notes in that bible, and their own teachings.

Just for starters, who is the only entity in history to “persecute the saints”?
Who has killed more Christians throughout history then anyone else?

The Emperors of Rome and the Popes that later replaced them…

Originally posted by defcon5
There is no reason to send this down to BTS despite
FlyerFans kicking and screaming to do so.

1 - Obviously the mods disagree with you.

2 - These type of bigoted anti-Catholic threads have been
posted many times before and they are easy to spot. They
belong in BTS. They are a matter of theological discussion,
not conspiracy.

3 - Saying 'someone should boot this down to bts' IS NOT
'kicking and screaming'. Get real.

4 - Telling anti-Catholic bigots to read up on what the Catholic
Church actually teaches IS NOT slander. It's the truth and
'the truth shall set you free'. Deal with it.

5 - Frankly, I'm not sure if the original post would (or wouldn't)
qualify as 'advertising', which is against ATS rules. It looks
to be pretty darn close.

1) Well I guess so, but it does not make it right, IMHO.

2) And if one side is pushing a Theological point to the extreme that it is almost a conspiracy, what then?

3) Funny anytime anyone brings up anything about the Catholic Church and any conspiracies therein, you’re there to send it down or get it sent down, you have done it to too many threads I have been interested in for it to be a coincidence.

4) And telling Catholics to read the bible for themselves, and maybe see what the issues that the protestant reformers had with the RCC, is being an anti-catholic bigot? Just to set the record straight, I went to Catholic High school for 4 years, I know their stance, and I have a legitimate gripe with some of it. I still have catholic friends from that school, and so is my employer. However, with that said, I also believe whole heartedly what I stated above. I have no issue with any particular catholic, but I do have an issue with the false teachings of the Catholic Church.

5) Advertising a free online book? Which honestly really has less to do with my post then I realized now that I read it… Oops

However, still it is a valid argument, it is a known fact that the Mary/Child worship comes from such areas as Isis/Horus worship, hence the black Madonna possibly being a statue of Isis. The RCC has always canonized pagan religious things, and this is another example, same as Christmas. To me that IS a conspiracy…

upload.wikimedia.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Im sorry did anyone else find it funny

"A book every CATHOLIC should read..."

"A masterpiece of Protestant theology"


I can think of many more books that are cruical to a catholics basic knowldge of tehf unctions of the church and the meanings of the mass, the power of prayer etc. that are vital to a cathoilcs main understanding of the church and some of its basic beliefs.

Next time you go to church how much do you really understand? Ask a catholic in after mass one day to expalin the Nciene Creed part for part. I almost can garuentee you they cant. As a catholic I can attest that there is a major lacking of basic church fundementals in the knowldge of the congeration.

Originally posted by Mizar
Next time you go to church how much do you really understand? Ask a catholic in after mass one day to expalin the Nciene Creed part for part. I almost can garuentee you they cant. As a catholic I can attest that there is a major lacking of basic church fundementals in the knowldge of the congeration.

That is part of what Protestants have always said about the RCC. The RCC fought for years to keep the Bible accessible to the smallest crowed possible so they could abuse it at a whim. That is what Martin Luther fought against and why he wrote the FIRST bible in German, the language of his parishioners. Its part of what makes the RCC a conspiracy in itself. They wanted to propagate ignorance as much and for as long as humanly possible to push their financial and political goals through the Middle Ages.

They still teach that you, as a layman, cannot properly understand what is in your Bible without their direct intervention. Hence the ignorance of their common parishioner. This is clearly against what is written in the Bible, that a normal person can interpret it through the intercession of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by defcon5
Funny anytime anyone brings up anything about the Catholic Church and any conspiracies therein, you’re there to send it down or get it sent down, you have done it to too many threads I have been interested in for it to be a coincidence.

Oh ??? I can be paranoid too .. wanna' see?

Funny anytime anyone brings up anything anti-Catholic and any
conspiracies therein, you're there to heap untruths and personal
misinterpretation upon it, and you've done it on too many threads
that I have been interested in for it to be a coincidence.

When people post ignorant anti-Catholic blathering, such as Jack
Chick tracts, I will post any information I have that counters. I do
the same with other threads. I just happen to have a lot of information
on Catholic beliefs here. It's called being well informed and well read
on a subject.

- You went to Catholic school. So what. There are lots of lapsed
Catholics and sour grapes Catholics out there. That certainly doesn't
make you an expert on Catholic doctrine. If you no longer believe what
the Catholice Church believes, then fine. Go your way in peace. But
if you post things such as ... the Catholic Church believes such and such
... and that information isn't accurate, I'll counter your post.

- If you wish to discuss a possible Mary/Child worship with a
possible Isis/Horus worship connection, then THAT could be a
conspiracy.

What was posted as a book that every 'smart Catholic' should read
was nothing more than fundamentalist anti-Catholic propaganda.
It belongs in theological discussion - not conspiracy.

Originally posted by Mizar
Ask a catholic in after mass one day to expalin the Nciene
Creed part for part. I almost can garuentee you they cant.

You are absolutely right. Most Catholics nowadays have no understanding
of their faith, or where it comes from. They are asleep at the wheel.
I totally agree with you. Since Vatican II, it's been a mess. A lost
generation.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If you wish to discuss a possible Mary/Child worship with a
possible Isis/Horus worship connection, then THAT could be a
conspiracy.

What was posted as a book that every 'smart Catholic' should read
was nothing more than fundamentalist anti-Catholic propaganda.
It belongs in theological discussion - not conspiracy.

Therefore, you agree that the discussion of the Mother Child relationship, its background, and how it was indoctrinated into the Catholic Church are in fact deserving of ATS status as a conspiracy. That is nice to know…

The following is a quote from the original document linked by Nakash:

www.biblebelievers.com...

The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop
Chapter II
Section II

The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child

The Babylonians, in their popular religion, supremely worshipped a Goddess Mother and a Son, who was represented in pictures and in images as an infant or child in his mother's arms. From Babylon, this worship of the Mother and the Child spread to the ends of the earth. In Egypt, the Mother and the Child were worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris. * In India, even to this day, as Isi and Iswara; ** in Asia, as Cybele and Deoius; in Pagan Rome, as Fortuna and Jupiter-puer, or Jupiter, the boy; in Greece, as Ceres, the Great Mother, with the babe at her breast, or as Irene, the goddess of Peace, with the boy Plutus in her arms; and even in Thibet, in China, and Japan, the Jesuit missionaries were astronished to find the counterpart of Madonna *** and her child as devoutly worshipped as in Papal Rome itself; Shing Moo, the Holy Mother in China, being represented with a child in her arms, and a glory around her, exactly as if a Roman Catholic artist had been employed to set her up. ****

Please tell me again how you do not go on the attack against every Protestant that starts any thread on the topic of the RCC?
How you don’t get their threads forced down regardless of the topic, sight unseen?

You obviously never even looked at the above link before you made the decision to call in a mod to have this thread sent to BTS.
You just proved that you have an agenda and are extremely biased for the home audience. Just because I am a Lutheran and a believer in Historicism does not make me a Catholic hater nor bigot. You seem to have an agenda that is Anti-Protestant, to silence anyone that speaks poorly of the RCC, so at what point does what your doing become the same bigotry that you accuse us of?

[edit on 12/27/2005 by defcon5]

'Fifty Years in the Church of Rome.' is a book I read that is definitely not pro-Catholic, but I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys history. Written by a Quebecois Priest, it tells his story, up until he left the RCC at age 50. Abe Lincoln makes an appearance in it, and I found it to be more against drunkenness, adultery, and blind obedience, than anti-Catholic.
Mother Teresa is a great example of a Catholic who is an excellent example of what it means to be a Christian. I would be disappointed if Protestants stopped protesting against the RCC, though, since that has always been one of their main raisons d'etre.

Nakash and FlyersFan--
Both of your links are readable online.

www.biblebelievers.com...

www.catholic.com...

I grew up going to church. Since we moved alot, it was different congregations, mostly either Baptist or Independant but leaning toward Baptist. In the late 1950's through the 1960's I heard much anti-Catholic rhetoric. Actually, I have heard lots through the years.
I went to public school and the Catholics I knew there seemed okay. In fact, some were friends. Even as kids we would talk and compare our beliefs. Some things were different, but not all Protestants are exactly alike either. For example, some baptize by sprinkling and some by immersion.
I had trouble understanding how the Protestants could secede from Catholicism which I had been told was almost "Devil Worship", but not be tainted. They have the same roots, so why did one go evil and one not?
Anyway the day came a few years ago that I actually bought a Catholic Study Bible, the New American Bible. The Catholic Bible has extra books. I looked up the things I believed. Everything was there.
All the foul stench and evil ways that I had been told about are not in the Catholic Holy Book.
The few times I have been to Catholic Church Services have been for weddings and baptisms. These folks seem to be very ceremonial. Nothing wrong with that. Communion is a ceremony and Protestants do that also.
Personally, I prefer a bit less formality, but some Protestant Churches have lots of Ceremonial stuff, too.
I don't agree with everything that the Catholic Church teaches, but then I have some disagreements with the other Denominations, too. As long as the rules come from the Bible, New Testament, I have no problems. If I don't already know it, then show it to me. The problems I have are with the Extra-Biblical (Man-made) rules. I don't follow the Old Testament Laws and Regulations because I believe Jesus changed things with His Resurrection.
I suppose that is why I will attend but stop short of actually joining a church.
When you get rid of all the fluff and go to the basics, we believe the same thing. That is what makes us Christians.
1. Virgin Birth of God's Son
2. Death by Crucifixation
3. Resurrection
I suppose you have heard that the Catholics wrong for holding Mary in such High Esteem? God did too. He chose her.
Anybody wanting to can read the New American Bible online at www.catholic.org...://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm
For an older more traditional version, you might try the Douay-Rheims Bible
at www.drbo.org...
I have found out through the years that with just a little information I can DENY IGNORANCE. We struggle so much with non-believers, why do we have all this in-fighting?

Rawiea You as myself, have been taught, as a Protestant, that a good Christian can go to heaven based solely upon your faith. Justification by faith, Salvation through grace. Maybe you would be interested in knowing what the Catholic Church says about you, even though your Catholic friends may not realize it, though they most likely did and didn’t say anything about it.

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent II, Fourth Lateran Council)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VII, the Bull Unam Sanctam)

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

Therefore, they believe it’s not through grace, not through the type of life you lead, but through works, and especially the work of being an active member of their faith. I certainly have not see any Protestant religion teach that no member of any competing Christian faith is allowed salvation, have you? Yet, we are the bigoted haters?

If you had lived even a few hundred years ago, you could have been snatched up by them and put through the most vile of tortures: burning, frying, flaying, sawing, draw and quartering, by them to get you back into the church. Of course once they were done you would be so messed up that they would have kill you anyway since you would not be able to survive for long, however, they did mange to get you back into the church before you passed on…

Nice group though really…

Originally posted by defcon5
Please tell me again how you do not go on the attack against every Protestant that starts any thread on the topic of the RCC?

Hey ... if someone posts information that is correct, I won't have to
post anything in rebuttal. However, there certainly does seem to
be a lot of misinformation and Jack Chick style anti-Catholic posts
taking place. Guess you'll just have to pull up all my posts and
take a look for yourself. If people post correct information that is
not favorable toward the Catholic church, then I have agreed with
it. If they post crap ... then I tell them the truth ... like it or not.

You obviously never even looked at the above link before you made the decision to call in a mod to have this thread sent to BTS.

Wrong (again) on two things -

#1 - I DID look at the link and found it overwhelmingly biased and full
of stereotypical untruths and fundamentalist anti-Catholic rantings.
It stunk of troll dung, which is rather easy to detect.

#2 - I didn't 'call in a mod'. I stated that this thread belonged down
in ATS religion forum and I stated it on the thread for all to see. The
mods agreed. They too have seen enough agendiazed anti-Catholic
threads to know one when they see it.

You just proved that you have an agenda

Wrong again.

I am a Lutheran and a believer in Historicism

Good! You'll LOVE this history on Martin Luther and the bible. Since
YOU brought him up earlier and stated many untruths about him.
You erroneously stated that he wrote the first bible in German.
This is wrong. The German Vulgate had been around for many years
prior to Martin Luther and was accessble.

He did, however, make many changes to scripture in order to make
it fit his version of what he wanted religion to be all about. These
new versions he made very accessable to the public because he
wanted his new version to be THE one seen. Rather good marketing
strategy from the leader of a new religion.

From the Wittenburg Documents – observations made by his fellow ‘reformers’ -

Jerome Emser, Doctor of Leipsic, made a critical examination of Luther’s
translation when it first appeared and detected more than a thousand
errors and faults. Dr. Emser made corrected faithful version, and had it
published. Martin Bucer, a fellow ‘reformer’, says that “Luther’s
translation ‘failures in translating and explaining the scriptures were
manifest and not a few.” (Bucer, Dial, contra Melanchthon) Zwingli,
another leading ‘reformer’, pronounced Luthers translations as “a
corruption of the Word of God”. (Amicable Discussion, Trevern, 1, 129
-Note). Hallam in Historical Literature, I, pg 201 says of Luthers
translation - “… It is viewed as faulty and insufficient in many respects
… many Lutherans consistories called for its entire revision.”

Just a few example of Luther’s butchering of the Word of God in order to
make the bible better fit his new religion (quoted from ‘The Facts about
Luther’ – ISBN 0-89555-322-8 – author Patrick O’Hare)

– Matt 3:2 he changed the words ‘repent’ and ‘do penance’
and replaced them with ‘mend’ or ‘do better’. Acts 19:18 says
‘Many of them that believed came confessing and declaring
their deeds” however, Luther hated confession and good works
so he changed the passage to ‘they acknowledge the miracles of
the apostles’. Another – in the expression ‘full of grace’ in the
Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, he rewords ‘thou gracious
one’ – he just couldn’t have heaven confirming that Mary was ‘full of
grace’. In Romans 4:15 which says ‘the law worketh wrath’ Luther
translated it to ‘the law worketh ONLY wrath’, which of
course changes the text and the meaning. And of course one of the
really biggies – Romans 3:28 says ‘we account a man to be justified
by faith without the works of the law’ which Luther had to change to
justifiy his new religion - ‘we hold that a man is justified without works
of the law by faith ALONE.’

Kinda shows exactly how much respect Luther had for the Word of God.
None. Which is rather evident considering what he thought of the 10
commandments and especially the commandment about adultery. His
rather famous (unless you are Lutheran, then you aren’t taught this)
saying in regards to sex – his advice to the married man – ‘if the wife
is unwilling, then take the maid’. Gotta’ have that sex, and if the one
you are married to won’t, or can’t, have sex, then you are
free to commit adultery and rape. (Sicko.) Of course, considering
that he is also known for telling his fellow reformers “to the devil with
Moses” and he said the same about the Ten Commandments.

Other quotes about the Word of God from Luther – (quoted from ‘The Facts about Luther’ –
ISBN 0-89555-322-8 – author Patrick O’Hare)

‘ Of the Pentateuch he says: “We have no wish either to see or hear
Moses.” “Judith is a good, serious, brave tragedy.” “Tobias is an elegant,
pleasing, godly comedy.” “Ecclesiasticus is a profitable book for an
ordinary man.” “Of very little worth is the book of Baruch, whoever the
worthy Baruch may be.” “Esdras I would not translate, because there is
nothing in it which you might not find better in Aesop.” “Job spoke not as
it stand written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the
argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this
book.” “The book entitled ‘Ecclesiastes’ 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 Maccabees of Sirach. It is like a
Talmud, compiled from many books, perhaps in Egypt at the desire of King
Evergetes.” “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 history
of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” “The first book of
the Maccabees might have been taken into the Scriptures, but the
second is rightly cast out, though there is some good in it.”

He rejected from the canon the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St.
James, the Epistle of St. Jude and the Apocalypse. These he placed at the
end of his translation and the others, which he called ‘the true and certain
capital books of the New Testament”. He says “The first three
Gospels speak of the works of Our Lord, rather than of His oral
teachings; 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 Epistle to the Hebrews did not suit him. “It need not surprise one to
find here,” he says, “bits of wood, hay and straw.” The Epistle of St.
James, Luther denounced as “an epistle of straw”. “I do not hold it,” he
said, “to be his writing, and I cannot place it among the capital books.” …
“there are many things objectionable in this book,” he says of the
Apocalypse; “to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or
prophetic character … everyone may form his own judgement of this book;
as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason
for rejecting it.” (Sammtliche Werke (Collected Works) 63, 169-170)

You seem to have an agenda that is Anti-Protestant

Nope. Wrong again. I am not anti-protestant. I am anti-ignorance
and I happen to have a lot of information that counters the anti-
Catholic ignorance that some looooove to post here. Deal with it.

Originally posted by defcon5
I certainly have not see any Protestant religion teach that
no member of any competing Christian faith is allowed salvation,
have you?

Don't get out much, do you? I lived in Alabama for 10 years. The deep
south is full of exactly what you profess the protestants don't have.

Tuesday night it was the Church of Christ. They went door to door every
Tuesday proclaiming that unless you were Church of Christ you were
going to Hell. There was a special place in Hell for the Catholics, for the
Baptists, etc. On Thursday we got the Baptists. They claimed everyone
except Baptists were going to Hell. Some of the Baptists even claimed
that other Baptists who weren't part of their particular Baptist group
were going to Hell as well. The Southern Baptists said the Northern
Baptists and Free Will Baptists were going to Hell. The Free Will
Baptists claimed all the others except Free Will Baptists were going to
Hell. Then there were the Presbyterians ... according to them all the
Catholics, Episcopals, Greek and Russian Orthodox were going to Hell.
Probably most of the Lutherans as well according to them.

Yet, we are the bigoted haters?

Yep. There are PLENTY in the Protestant groups that are.
Jack Chick gets a whole bunch of orders for his junk-tracts.
It's what keeps him going. Where do you think it comes from?
Not from the Catholics!

Nice group though really…

Right back atchya'. The truth is ... just about every religion says that
they are 'THE' religion and 'THE' truth. That's how they keep people in
their church. Even the Amish do the same.

I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, was an altar boy (before V-2, and no, I was never treated wrongly by any priest of brother), attended a Maryknoll Sisters school for grades 1-3, and went to a Jesuit boarding high school for a year.

I left the RCC when I was 21 for a lot of reasons all of which semed to make sense at the time, and a couple which still do. After years of atheism, I am now a Lutheran ("Catholic sans Pope") and quite happy in my beliefs and liturgy.

Been there, done that, and got the t-shirt.

While I do not buy into many beliefs of other denominations (including the prevalent religion here, which is LDS), I am not so ignorant to think that any particular flavor of Christianity is without flaws.

Martin Luther, the one person who did more to eliminate the monopoly of the Catholic Church in Western Europe - and the revered founder of my particluar sect - was a virulent bigot when it came to Jews, as well as a rather poor and biased translator of thie Vulgate. Our Pilgrims (who came to Massachusetts for "religious freedom") would whip any Anabaptist or Quaker out of town. The Mormons, probably with tacit approval of the First Presidency, massacred a group of white settlers at Mountain Meadows, and every protestant, Catholic and anyo other flaver of Christianity in the United States did, at one time or another, cheerfully engage in religious, sexual, and racial discrimination. Some still do.

The Catholics come in for a lot of criticism (deservedly so, in my opinion) for trying to maintain their monopoly on Christianity in Western Europe (they'd already lost to the Orthodox in Eastern Europe); and their means were extreme. On the other hand, it was the devoutly Protestant Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs who signed an Order of Extermination against the Mormons in the 1840's, and it doesn't take too much research to show that every religion has done un-Christian things to maintain its ascendancy.

This is because the churches are run by imperfect men, trying to do the will (as they see it in their imperfect way) of a Perfect God.

Saying that a particular flavor of church is "wrong" is simply bigotry on your part, especially if your "facts" themselves are biased.

Defcon and Nakash, you remind me of the virulent Catholic and Protestant lunatics in Northern Ireland, or the some of the Shi'a and Sunni thugs in the Middle East whose theme seems to be "I love God more than you do, and to prive it I will kill you."

I don't know what faith you profess, but you seem to pretend to be followers of Jesus Christ, and neither of you are acting in a Christian way.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Originally posted by FlyersFan\
Good! You'll LOVE this history on Martin Luther and the bible. Since
YOU brought him up earlier and stated many untruths about him.
You erroneously stated that he wrote the first bible in German.
This is wrong. The German Vulgate had been around for many years
prior to Martin Luther and was accessble.

There were 17 bibles in German, none were readably available, and none of them were without major errors. Most of the errors were not only in Luther’s Translation, but also in the others, do to errors in the Vulgate (which was in Latin not German). Other errors were due to lack of proper research resources and tremendous differences in the German language which Luther also fixed. Yeah the guy was definitely a tremendous idiot just like you keep trying to say he was…

Supporting texts:

The Pre-Lutheran German Bible

According to the latest investigations, fourteen printed editions of the whole Bible in the Middle High German dialect, and three in the Low German, have been identified. Panzer already knew fourteen; see his Gesch. der nürnbergischen Ausgaben der Bibel, Nürnberg, 1778, p. 74.

The Vulgate

aided by the gross carelessness of scribes, made confusion worse confounded. Augustine complains of this "Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas."
2. Heresy. In addition to the inconvenience in preaching and the liturgical variations, a greater demand for an authoritative version arose from the continual watch of the early church against heretics. Confusion of text abetted heresy, and the absence of a standard text made it harder to refute it. Besides, the Jews, with one authoritative text, laughed at the confusion of the Christian Scriptures.

Jerome Emser
Emser was a vigorous controversialist But he was hardly a great scholar; the errors he detected in Luther's New Testament were for the most part legitimate variations from the Vulgate, and his own version is merely Luther's adapted to Vulgate requirements.

The German Rendering

The German language was divided into as many dialects as tribes and states, and none served as a bond of literary union. Saxons and Bavarians, Hanoverians and Swabians, could scarcely understand each other. Each author wrote in the dialect of his district, Zwingli (Note: One of your above named critics) in his Schwyzerdütsch. "I have so far read no book or letter," says Luther in the preface to his version of the Pentateuch (1523), in which the German language is properly handled. Nobody seems to care sufficiently for it; and every preacher thinks he has a right to change it at pleasure, and to invent new terms." Scholars preferred to write in Latin, and when they attempted to use the mother tongue, as Reuchlin and Melanchthon did occasionally, they fell far below in ease and beauty of expression.
Luther brought harmony out of this confusion, and made the modern High German the common book language. He chose as the basis the Saxon dialect, which was used at the Saxon court and in diplomatic intercourse between the emperor and the estates, but was bureaucratic, stiff, heavy, involved, dragging, and unwieldy. He popularized and adapted it to theology and religion. He enriched it with the vocabulary of the German mystics, chroniclers, and poets. He gave it wings, and made it intelligible to the common people of all parts of Germany.

Martin Luther

His contributions to Western civilization went beyond the life of the Christian Church. His translations of the Bible helped to develop a standard version of the German language and added several principles to the art of translation.

A Critical Estimate of Luther's Version

Luther's version of the Bible is a wonderful monument of genius, learning, and piety, and may be regarded in a secondary sense as inspired. It was, from beginning to end, a labor of love and enthusiasm. While publishers and printers made fortunes, Luther never received or asked a copper for this greatest work of his life.
A German translation from the original languages was a work of colossal magnitude if we consider the absence of good grammars, dictionaries, and concordances, the crude state of Greek and Hebrew scholarship, and of the German language, in the sixteenth century. He felt especially how difficult it was to make Job and the Hebrew prophets speak in barbarous German.
As regards the text, it was in an unsettled condition. The science of textual criticism was not yet born, and the materials for it were not yet collected from the manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic quotations. Luther had to use the first printed editions. He had no access to manuscripts, the most important of which were not even discovered or made available before the middle of the nineteenth century. Biblical geography and archaeology were in their infancy, and many names and phrases could not be understood at the time.
In view of these difficulties we need not be surprised at the large number of mistakes, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies in Luther's version. They are most numerous in Job and the Prophets, who present, even to the advanced Hebrew scholars of our day, many unsolved problems of text and rendering. The English Version of 1611 had the great advantage of the labors of three generations of translators and revisers, and is therefore more accurate, and yet equally idiomatic.

Originally posted by FlyersFan\

Jerome Emser, Doctor of Leipsic, made a critical examination of Luther’s
translation when it first appeared and detected more than a thousand
errors and faults. Dr. Emser made corrected faithful version, and had it
published. Martin Bucer, a fellow ‘reformer’, says that “Luther’s
translation ‘failures in translating and explaining the scriptures were
manifest and not a few.” (Bucer, Dial, contra Melanchthon) Zwingli,
another leading ‘reformer’, pronounced Luthers translations as “a
corruption of the Word of God”. (Amicable Discussion, Trevern, 1, 129
-Note). Hallam in Historical Literature, I, pg 201 says of Luthers
translation - “… It is viewed as faulty and insufficient in many respects
… many Lutherans consistories called for its entire revision.”

Just a few example of Luther’s butchering of the Word of God in order to
make the bible better fit his new religion (quoted from ‘The Facts about
Luther’ – ISBN 0-89555-322-8 – author Patrick O’Hare)

Lets take a look at a few of these guys that you are using to slander Luther, shall we…
Wanna bet most of them had an interest in the RCC, and had an interest in slandering him to shut him up, eh?

Jerome Emser Jerome (or Hieronymus) Emser (March 20, 1477 - November 8, 1527), antagonist of Luther, was born of a good family at Ulm.
He studied Greek at Tübingen and jurisprudence at Basel, and after acting for three years as chaplain and secretary to Raymond Peraudi, cardinal of Gurk, he began lecturing on classics in 1504 at Erfurt, where Luther may have been among his audience. In the same year he became secretary to Duke George of Albertine Saxony, who, unlike his cousin Frederick the Wise, the elector of Ernestine Saxony, remained the stanchest defender of Roman Catholicism among the princes of northern Germany.
Emser was a vigorous controversialist, and next to Eck the most eminent of the German divines who stood by the old church. But he was hardly a great scholar; the errors he detected in Luther's New Testament were for the most part legitimate variations from the Vulgate, and his own version is merely Luther's adapted to Vulgate requirements.

Notice that your guy that claims that Luther made remarks about adultry and rape shows up in this list:

What follows is the first part of an historical overview of key Roman Catholic authors and their approach to Luther.
The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part One)
By James Swan, July 2003

I. Introduction
II. Johannes Cochlaeus
III. Heinrich Denifle
IV. Hartmann Grisar
V. Catholic Encyclopedia
VI. Patrick O'Hare: The Facts About Luther
VII. Other Catholic Anti-Luther Writers
VIII. Conclusion
Endnotes

Shall we see what this document says about how unbiased this particular author was?

VIII. Conclusion

By James Swan, July 2003

In order to prove the guilt of a person, a prosecutor may attempt to sway the jury by presenting a character examination of the alleged perpetrator. In some instances, this may simply be the prosecutor doing his job well (by giving a correct look into the defendant’s character). It may also be an example of the prosecutor taking his jury into something like a mirrored room in a carnival funhouse, where images are distorted by the makeup of the glass. The later is true of the above Roman Catholic evaluations of Luther.

Sadly, the influence of Cochlaeus, Denifle, Grisar, O’Hare, and Ganss still can be felt. Their popular vilifying caricatures of Luther are gaining new life with the rise of the World Wide Web. Perhaps zeal towards their church drives Catholics to use emotionally charged approaches to Luther. My suspicion is that ad hominem arguments are easier to understand and put forth, provoke intense discussions, and convince those not willing to dig deeply into the real theology of Luther. It’s much easier to use a rhetorical argument that appeals to emotion than it is to engage in a study of what Luther actually said, in his own context.

Amidst the hostility put forth by Patrick O’Hare in his Facts About Luther, he actually said something quite profound:

“Catholics naturally feel indignant at the vilification, abuse and misrepresentation to which their ancient and world-wide religion is constantly subjected, but they are charitable and lenient in their judgement toward all who wage war against them. They are considerate with their opponents and persecutors because they realize that these are victims of a long-standing and inherited prejudice, intensified by a lack of knowledge of what the Catholic Church really upholds and teaches.” [117]

These words equally apply to Catholics steeped in a tradition that vilifies Luther. O’Hare missed that he was also an “abuser” and “misrepresenter.” Nor was he “charitable and lenient” toward Luther. He does though point out an important “fact”: people do feel indignant when their beliefs are vilified, abused, and misrepresented. The Catholic authors cited above indeed are guilty of gross misrepresentation. Worse still, their work and ad hominem arguments still have impact today.

It is my hope that Protestants will realize that many of the hostile arguments against Luther have been around for hundreds of years. Many of these anti-Luther arguments will be very familiar to any who have engaged Catholics in discussions about Luther.

There truly is “nothing new under the sun.”

Yeah this guy was REALLY unbiased and he did not have a bone to pick or anything. But of course what would you do to the guy that correctly identified the leader of your religion as the Anti-Christ, or the “Little Horn of Daniel”. You would try and shut him up. This is the biggest conspiracy that ever existed in religion, it IS the Great Deception, it is what the RCC has tried diligently to hush up since the days of Luther, going all the way to the point of making up false schools of prophecy to give alternate views that hide the truth.

Then these two were lesser competitors that agreed with many of Luthers teachings but had issues with a few, and Bucer was a follower of Zwingli’s to begin with:

Huldrych Zwingli

Huldrych (or Ulrich) Zwingli (January 1, 1484 – October 11, 1531) was the leader of the Swiss Reformation, and founder of the Swiss Reformed Churches. Independent from Luther, who was doctor biblicus, Zwingli arrived at similar conclusions, by studying the Scriptures from the point of view of a humanist scholar.
Zwingli's renunciation of the Catholic priesthood came only a few years after that of Luther's, Zwingli may have been over-shadowed by Luther's and Calvin's contributions to the Reformation.
Another reason for Zwingli's less noticeable career may have been caused by his own theological differences with respect to that of Luther's.

Martin Bucer
Martin Bucer (or Butzer, Latin Martinus Buccer) (1491–1551) was a German Protestant reformer.
He was born in 1491 at Schlettstadt in Alsace (today Sélestat, in France). In 1506 he entered the Dominican order, and was sent to study at Heidelberg. There he became acquainted with the works of Erasmus and Luther, and was present at a disputation of the latter with some of the Romanist doctors. He became a convert to the reformed opinions, abandoned his order by papal dispensation in 1521, and soon afterwards married a nun, Elisabeth Silbereisen.
On the question of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Bucer's opinions were decidedly Zwinglian, but he was anxious to maintain church unity with the Lutheran party, and constantly endeavoured, especially after Zwingli's death, to formulate a statement of belief that would unite Lutheran, south German and Swiss reformers

But anyway,
Lets see what they did to one guy that was a student of Luther to shut him up and stop him from printing bibles that allowed people to see what I am saying, and what everyone was talking about back then:

Tyndale
The Church also objected to Wycliffe and Tyndale's translations because they included notes and commentaries promoting antagonism to the Catholic Church and heretical doctrines, particularly, in Tyndale's case, Lutheranism.

The final revision of the Tyndale translations was published in 1534, and that becomes the notable year of his life. In two years he was put to death by strangling in the Netherlands for the unrelated charges of teaching Lutheranism, and his body was burned

There appeared what is known as the Great Bible in 1539. It was made by Myles Coverdale, and much influenced by Tyndale. The Great Bible was issued to meet a decree that each church should make available in some convenient place the largest possible copy of the whole Bible, where all the parishioners could have access to it and read it at their will

They hung him for teaching Lutheran Doctrine, but I guarnetee it was more for his involvement with the spreading of the Bible. So what would justify putting to death someone for simply speaking the truth, printing Bibles, and preaching Christianity?

Right here baby:

Dan 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

And what they wanted to prevent:

Luther's Translation of the Bible

Cochlaeus, the champion of Romanism, paid the translation the greatest compliment when he complained that "Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity."
The Romanists were forced in self-defense to issue rival translations. Such were made by Emser (1527), Dietenberger (1534), and Eck (1537), and accompanied with annotations.

If anyone pulled this today you would all be kicking an screaming about police states, NWO, and Anti-Christ’s. They tried to put an end to this because what Luther was saying had merit and was in fact true. If it had been utter BS they would have ignored it and it would have gone away, but instead it caused the greatest schism the Christian Church has ever known.

So in closing this says it better then I ever can:

Luther's Translation of the Bible
The richest fruit of Luther's leisure in the Wartburg, and the most important and useful work of his whole life, is the translation of the New Testament, by which he brought the teaching and example of Christ and the Apostles to the mind and heart of the Germans in life-like reproduction. It was a republication of the gospel. He made the Bible the people's book in church, school, and house. If he had done nothing else, he would be one of the greatest benefactors of the German-speaking race.
His version was followed by Protestant versions in other languages, especially the French, Dutch, and English. The Bible ceased to be a foreign book in a foreign tongue, and became naturalized, and hence far more clear and dear to the common people. Hereafter the Reformation depended no longer on the works of the Reformers, but on the book of God, which everybody could read for himself as his daily guide in spiritual life. This inestimable blessing of an open Bible for all, without the permission or intervention of pope and priest, marks an immense advance in church history, and can never be lost.
Luther was not the first, but by far the greatest translator of the German Bible, and is as inseparably connected with it as Jerome is with the Latin Vulgate. He threw the older translation into the shade and out of use, and has not been surpassed or even equaled by a successor. There are more accurate versions for scholars (as those of De Wette and Weizsäcker), but none that can rival Luther's for popular authority and use.

[edit on 12/28/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Don't get out much, do you? I lived in Alabama for 10 years. The deep
south is full of exactly what you profess the protestants don't have.

Tuesday night it was the Church of Christ
On Thursday we got the Baptists.

Sounds like you should move…
Just kidding, I love when they come at me, because I always enjoy discussing religion, and am usually pretty good at doing it face to face without ticking off anyone too much. I may not be that good at it in printed text though.

But seriously the Church or Latter Day Saints is not really what I would consider a Protestant Church to begin with, an if you look it up in most places it is listed as a Cult. I really do not know a whole heck of a lot on what they teach, but they defiantly were not one of the original churches that Protested against Rome. The JW’s is anther I would not consider to be Protestant, it really has not been around along time and even the other Protestant Churches seem to shun them.
When I mean Protestant I mean the original groups that split, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, guys like that.

Baptists are a little off on their own since they almost all teach something different from Church to Church. I have heard of some far out groups in that organization as well.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Yep. There are PLENTY in the Protestant groups that are.
Jack Chick gets a whole bunch of orders for his junk-tracts.
It's what keeps him going. Where do you think it comes from?
Not from the Catholics!

There are many legitimate gripes in concern to the teachings that come from the Catholic Church. I am not familiar with what his are, nor what he is selling.

My biggest concerns are based in Historicism and Prophetic implications that surround that school of Prophecy. I do not have an issue with the RCC since I am not a member, even though I went to one of their schools for a long time. The implications are that Rome and now the RCC are the 4th beast of Daniel, and the first beast of Revelations. That means the next world influencing beast in revelations is the last super power that comes into existence after Rome. This is the one that enforces the Mark.

I am afraid that many are stuck in RCC’s school of Futurism to the point that they will not understand who this last beast is and will not fight the mark. They are looking for this Anti-Christ person that is not coming, and since Rome has tricked the world into not believing their place in prophecy and sold them a bill of goods, they are not going to see what is happening right now. And believe me it is happening right now.

Beasts are world controlling countries not men.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Right back atchya'. The truth is ... just about every religion says that
they are 'THE' religion and 'THE' truth. That's how they keep people in
their church. Even the Amish do the same.

I have yet to see torture devices in my church. Nor have I ever seen a pastor inform someone that decided to go try anther Christian religion that they were destined for hell. Even if they left to join the RCC. The only thing I have seen close to this is when someone took RCC Communion after being confirmed a Lutheran, our beliefs in that department are EXTREAMLY different in important ways.

Anyway how much more lenient is this:

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
Q. A non-Lutheran Christian friend of mine recently stated that he believes that Catholics are not saved and should not be considered Christians. What is the Synod's belief regarding the salvation of Catholics who adhere to Roman dogma?

Of course, personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the LCMS), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as "Christians" by the Synod—only God can look into a person's heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues…

The great danger is that believing things contrary to God's Word can obscure and perhaps even completely destroy belief in Jesus Christ as one's Savior. We pray that this will not happen to those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior and yet belong to heterodox church bodies, including fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church.

Then this:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent II, Fourth Lateran Council)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VII, the Bull Unam Sanctam)

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

[edit on 12/28/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Defcon and Nakash, you remind me of the virulent Catholic and Protestant lunatics in Northern Ireland, or the some of the Shi'a and Sunni thugs in the Middle East whose theme seems to be "I love God more than you do, and to prive it I will kill you."

I don't know what faith you profess, but you seem to pretend to be followers of Jesus Christ, and neither of you are acting in a Christian way.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Man you are one of the people here that I most respect, that really bothers me that you feel way.

Either I am not expressing myself correctly or you are just not reading what I am saying. If you go back and check the stuff I am saying about Historicism and do some reading on it you should understand what I am getting at. If you still don’t let me know and I will try and discuss it in chat or something.

Either way if you are truly a Lutheran of one of the main two synods you should be agreeing with me. They may not be very vocal about prophecy, and they may try and keep a low profile on conflicts with the Catholic Church, but its still there and if you go to your pastor and ask him I am 99% sure he will agree with what I am stating in here.

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

Q. A non-Lutheran Christian friend of mine recently stated that he believes that Catholics are not saved and should not be considered Christians. What is the Synod's belief regarding the salvation of Catholics who adhere to Roman dogma?

Of course, personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the LCMS), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as "Christians" by the Synod—only God can look into a person's heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues…

The great danger is that believing things contrary to God's Word can obscure and perhaps even completely destroy belief in Jesus Christ as one's Savior. We pray that this will not happen to those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior and yet belong to heterodox church bodies, including fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church.

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod


Q. As a Methodist living in a new town, I have found a local LCMS church where I feel comfortable and fed. Seeking information, I have looked over your pages on the net and have developed some questions. The connection between the antichrist and pope are unclear to me. Do you believe the pope is the only enemy?

. The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod's Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Anti-Christ" (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . .

Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person's heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

[edit on 12/28/2005 by defcon5]