It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We Are In The Last Hour-- Heed The Trumpets

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Typical Catholic apologist tripe.
The apocrypha was removed from all protestant bibles, not just Luther’s. The reason being that those books contain nothing in them relating to Christ. Luther fully admitted that these books were acceptable for Christians to read, they just didn't have the same level of authority that others did. There is nothing at all preventing a Christian from getting a copy of the apocryphal books and reading them. Its not like he “hid” them like Rome was trying to do with the whole bible.

As far as “adding” or “removing” a word here or there, I find that difficult to believe considering that the Germans had NO UNIFORM WRITTEN LANGUAGE at the time Luther wrote his bible. As a matter of fact, he was the one who unified the German Language by writing the Bible, which was used as a reading primer in German Schools. Luther is still highly regarded in Germany, even among non-Lutherans, for this reason.

Now what I HAVE seen in person, is Catholic Apologists attempt to twist all sorts of recorded history, to make their actions seem acceptable over the years, every time they get caught with their pants around their ankles. I have seen them quote their own Catholic writings in dispute of historical evidence from neutral third parties. I even had a Nun, who was teaching a class she didn't realize had multiple Lutherans in it at the time, attempt to twist history as to why the protestant reformation started. Attempting to make it appear as though the Church was innocent and Luther was in the wrong, then hitting the roof when the historically recorded topic of “Indulgences” was brought up... (that one almost lead to a rather embarrassing lawsuit against a Catholic School until they finally conceded)

Rome has no problem with changing the rules, history, or referencing their own writers as expert testimony in an attempt to twist the fact to cover their tracks. They did it with the scripture until Luther called them out and exposed them, they have done it with historical facts over the years, and they have even done it with their recent legal problems. This is exactly the reason why they have to have whole libraries full of “Cannon” law to justify their actions and excuses.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation. (Source)

Yeah, source.... Catholic's dot com...


lets be honest here...
The Catholic Church, who were stretching the scripture by miles to suit their own agenda, was not worried about a “heretical” text that accidentally replaced a “the” with an “as”. What they were worried about was that the public would realize:

1)There is no purgatory.
2)There is only salvation through grace, and it can be outside the church.
3)You are not supposed to have graven images.
4)You're not supposed to “pray to the saints”.

Without these things they could not sell people “indulgences” for sins, or relics like: “saint peters toe jam” in a bottle, that if you prayed to it “seven times a day” would “spring all your relatives from purgatory”....

THAT'S what they were REALLY worried about.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by adjensen
 
Typical Catholic apologist tripe.
The apocrypha was removed from all protestant bibles, not just Luther’s.

No, they weren't. They were included in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, which many conservative Christians believe is the only version that English speaking people should read (a point on which I disagree.) Books of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible

Luther removed them from his Bible because they were used, in part, to support Catholic theology that he disagreed with, and his overt rationale was that they were written in Greek, not Hebrew, so were not a part of the Hebrew Bible. However, it is likely that the Septuagint, in Greek, is the version of the Hebrew Bible that Jesus, the Apostles and the early church used, so their inclusion in scripture is proper.


As far as “adding” or “removing” a word here or there, I find that difficult to believe considering that the Germans had NO UNIFORM WRITTEN LANGUAGE at the time Luther wrote his bible.

You seriously think that adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 has no theological impact? And that his reason for doing so, that "Paul intended that word there", is valid?


Now what I HAVE seen in person, is Catholic Apologists attempt to twist all sorts of recorded history, to make their actions seem acceptable over the years, every time they get caught with their pants around their ankles. I have seen them quote their own Catholic writings in dispute of historical evidence from neutral third parties.

I wager that you have not seen me do such, because I'm a trained historian who has extensively studied church history, both good and bad, both Catholic and Protestant. You are welcome to correct me on matters of historical error on my part, but you are not welcome to accuse me of behaviour that I am not guilty of.

I came into this thread to correct your egregiously incorrect statement that the Roman Catholic Church imposed the death penalty on people who dared to own a Bible. Unless you have evidence of that fact, it would appear that you are the one who is making up facts in dispute of historical evidence, not I.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



The Catholic Church, who were stretching the scripture by miles to suit their own agenda, was not worried about a “heretical” text that accidentally replaced a “the” with an “as”.

I am guessing that you have no idea who the Albigensians were and what they taught? Go read up on Catharism and decide whether it was right or wrong for the church to protect the Bible from their influence.

I do not approve of the way that the church wiped them out, but their translation wasn't a matter of simple word replacement.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by adjensen
Luther removed them from his Bible because they were used, in part, to support Catholic theology that he disagreed with, and his overt rationale was that they were written in Greek, not Hebrew, so were not a part of the Hebrew Bible.

Nonsense,
If Luther had “removed them” for the reasons you're stating, then why would he have recommended the Apocrypha as “books that are not regarded as equal to the Holy Scripture, and yet are profitable and good to read.

Right... He wouldn't have...

Besides please tell me whats in... Say... “Bel and the Dragon” that Luther wanted hidden because it supported Catholic teaching? …Yeah... Nothing...


Originally posted by adjensen I'm a trained historian who has extensively studied church history, both good and bad, both Catholic and Protestant.

Since you're such the chruch history expert you might want to know that Luther didn't "remove" the Apocrypha, he put them in their own section between the Old and New testaments. Hence they fact they are called “inter-testamental” books. Funny that a guy that was trying so hard to hide their support for Roman Catholicism would leave these suppesdly “highly supportive” books in his translation, em?

Care to comment of that little mistake from your "non catholic appologist", "supposedly neutral", biblical historical training?

The funny thing is that I have heard every argument that you have presented here, VERBATUM, from another poster on ATS who I know is an Roman Catholic Apologist.


Originally posted by adjensenYou seriously think that adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 has no theological impact? And that his reason for doing so, that "Paul intended that word there", is valid?

1) The Roman Catholic Church didn't exactly supply Luther with top of the line original books to work from, considering that they were sort of busy trying to hunt him down and put him to death to stop him from publishing anything else.

2) Again the German's had no uniform written language, so what translation from the original books to German to English are you using? The Luther bible is still available today for all to read and compare with other translations. His one little “mistake” whether intentional or not, was nothing compared to the Catholic Churches intentional twisting of scripture to remove whole concepts such as “salvation through faith alone” for PROFIT...


Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb "alone" was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul's intended meaning.

As I said, translation issue...That's all it was...


Originally posted by adjensenI came into this thread to correct your egregiously incorrect statement that the Roman Catholic Church imposed the death penalty on people who dared to own a Bible.

You mean my egregiously correct statement which I showed you from their own Councils writings?
Thanks...



Originally posted by adjensen
I am guessing that you have no idea who the Albigensians were and what they taught? Go read up on Catharism and decide whether it was right or wrong for the church to protect the Bible from their influence.

I do not approve of the way that the church wiped them out, but their translation wasn't a matter of simple word replacement.

...And they were not the only people they “converted” to death through the inquisitions because of doctrinal differences. As a matter of fact the Bible itself directly addresses the actions of the Roman Catholic Church and their methods of policing other protestant believers:


And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: -Revelation 13



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by adjensen
Luther removed them from his Bible because they were used, in part, to support Catholic theology that he disagreed with, and his overt rationale was that they were written in Greek, not Hebrew, so were not a part of the Hebrew Bible.

Nonsense,
If Luther had “removed them” for the reasons you're stating, then why would he have recommended the Apocrypha as “books that are not regarded as equal to the Holy Scripture, and yet are profitable and good to read.

Um... because by taking them out of scripture, he was denying their authority, which was his goal.

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is "profitable and good to read", but is not scripture, eh?


Since you're such the chruch history expert you might want to know that Luther didn't "remove" the Apocrypha, he put them in their own section between the Old and New testaments. Hence they fact they are called “inter-testamental” books.

I thought you said that they were "removed from all Protestant Bibles, not just Luther's"




Originally posted by adjensenYou seriously think that adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 has no theological impact? And that his reason for doing so, that "Paul intended that word there", is valid?

1) The Roman Catholic Church didn't exactly supply Luther with top of the line original books to work from, considering that they were sort of busy trying to hunt him down and put him to death to stop him from publishing anything else.

Come on. His adding that word is crucial to Sola Fide. You're claiming that he had a flawed version of the Vulgate to translate from, one that had a word in it that no other version of the Vulgate (or the Greek versions of Romans) has in it?

That is a stretch of... biblical proportions.



Originally posted by adjensenI came into this thread to correct your egregiously incorrect statement that the Roman Catholic Church imposed the death penalty on people who dared to own a Bible.

You mean my egregiously correct statement which I showed you from their own Councils writings?

The Council said that a specific translation was unacceptable. It said nothing of church approved translations.



Originally posted by adjensen
I am guessing that you have no idea who the Albigensians were and what they taught? Go read up on Catharism and decide whether it was right or wrong for the church to protect the Bible from their influence.

I do not approve of the way that the church wiped them out, but their translation wasn't a matter of simple word replacement.

...And they were not the only people they “converted” to death through the inquisitions because of doctrinal differences.

The treatment of the Albigensians is not germane to this discussion -- as I said, the actions that the church took were reprehensible -- but whether the church was correct in its condemnation of the Albigensian translation of the Bible. You appear to be in favour of that translation, meaning that you're an Arian and you reject the Nicene Creed.

I don't imagine that is really the case, that you'd reject Christianity simply to foment your hatred of the Roman Catholic Church, so maybe you want to rethink that position?



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by adjensen
The Council said that a specific translation was unacceptable. It said nothing of church approved translations.

Can you explain the meaning of the words “any translation”, apparently they mean something different to you than they do to everyone else in the rest of the world.

"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."
- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD



Originally posted by adjensen
Um... because by taking them out of scripture, he was denying their authority, which was his goal.

he didn't take them out of scripture, he just put them in the middle of the book between testaments. Again, to the rest of the world, to “take something out” means to remove it, not move it.


Originally posted by adjensen
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is "profitable and good to read", but is not scripture, eh?

Was it placed between the old and new testaments in the Luther Bible?
No, then I guess its not the same thing then.


Originally posted by adjensen
I thought you said that they were "removed from all Protestant Bibles, not just Luther's"

It is removed in all modern versions of the protestant bible, however if you really want a original copy of Luther’s Apocryphal translation there is one for sale on Amazon. The point is that he never sought to hide or remove it due to supporting Roman Catholicism as you claimed.

And hey...I'm not the one claiming to be the trained bible history expert that you are. That's twice now you have been directly proven wrong, but just like the Catholic Church you seek to find ways to get around admitting your mistakes.


Originally posted by adjensen
Come on. His adding that word is crucial to Sola Fide. You're claiming that he had a flawed version of the Vulgate to translate from, one that had a word in it that no other version of the Vulgate (or the Greek versions of Romans) has in it?

No, I'm claiming that its a translation problem when going to a language which didn't even officially exist at the time it was translated. If there was no “word” to mean what was intended by the original author, then another word with a similar meaning had to be used. You are making an awfully big fuss out of one word in hundreds of thousands...

But that's just like the Catholic Church to try and justify the Eiffel Tower sticking out of their eye by pointing out the grain of sand in someone else's...


Originally posted by adjensen
You appear to be in favour of that translation, meaning that you're an Arian and you reject the Nicene Creed.

I never said any such thing, and you darn well know it.

The Arian heresy had been handled a thousand years earlier by the Council of Nicaea...
So you're telling me that the Church had to confiscate all Bibles, and kill hundreds of thousands of people just because they were worried that some might think that Christ was a creation of God rather than God himself?

Uhm.... Yeah.... Not....
They were worried that the common man would see the liberties they were taking with THEIR translation, and how they were abusing it for profit. But hey, any excuse will do in a pinch, right?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I don't imagine that is really the case, that you'd reject Christianity simply to foment your hatred of the Roman Catholic Church, so maybe you want to rethink that position?


Where did he state that he hated the institution of the Roman Catholic Church?



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
We are indeed in the last hour. We are on this planet for a reason. We will know, we will know...



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



No, the issue was with the translation, not the language -- there were many translations into other languages (the first English translation, for example, was the Wycliffe Bible from the 1300s, though there were earlier fragmentary translations that dated back to the Eighth Century.


I realize that. But the quote that was posted earlier was from 1219 I believe. A century earlier. The RCC did not want the layperson with a Bible for quite some time in it's history. And people printed and distributed them to Christians desperate for the Word of God under the penalty of death.

It said in the Bible that the Bereans were "noble" in their endeavours to search the scriptures diligently to confirm what they were being taught aligned with God's Word.




edit on 1-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



Yeah, source.... Catholic's dot com...


I think you're doing a good job arguing your POV, but when I see the above I cringe as a man of logic and debate. Sorry, I despise circumstantial ad hominems with a passion. Carry on though, this dialogue with two very knowledgeable members is great reading and iron sharpening.




edit on 1-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
So many people fear the wrath of God in the unforeseeable future yet much fewer see it in their day to day lives. The strong points of the whole Christian belief system lie in the life of Jesus not in the book of wrath. Fearing the end of the world is like fearing your own death. It is inevitable, but you do not know when your time is up. If someone came up to you and said he could interpret the time of your death, would you believe them? It says in the same book nobody knows the time of the end except for God, so why think differently?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
The first Christians of the New Testament believed they existed in the end times. And there has been a number who have held that belief ever since. A surprisingly large number of people seem to yearn for this Apocalypse.

Surely two thousand years passing by would give most a reason to pause and consider the validity of the concept?

God is creation, not destruction.

And by God I am not talking about a bearded dude named Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, sitting on a cloud, periodically smiting people.

Evolve.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WashMoreFeet

Originally posted by Snsoc
reply to post by WashMoreFeet
 


"He shall honor a GOD of fortresses." Not a goddess.

Nice try.

Excuse me, I have to go ask Mary to pray for you.


I'm sorry, but are you actually being serious?

So I guess God was unwittingly creating a loophole for goddess worship when He said, "You shall have no other gods before me."

I'm thinking not.
edit on 7/1/2013 by WashMoreFeet because: (no reason given)



I thought I made myself clear, but it's obvious that I didn't.

I'm not promoting goddess worship.

You made a claim that the antichrist is going to promote goddess worship, and then claimed that this was somehow Catholicism, because... um...Mary. Then there was a lot of nonsense about goddesses who you claimed were connected with towers and this somehow was connected to the "god of fortresses," as if a tower and a fortress were the same thing. But most ridiculous part was the fact that Bible verses that YOU quoted that said that the antichrist would honor a GOD, and you went ahead and said that this meant GODDESS, as if a man and a woman were the same sex.

You really should read your own stuff and think about it objectively before you post it. I'll do the same with mine.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by WashMoreFeet
 


I'm an ex-Catholic. That religion cemented my hate for organized religions. I especially don't like how Catholics like to push their religion onto everyone else. If the religion is divinely inspired then the message alone should be enough to convert people. Yet more and more people are turning away from Catholicism and even Christianity in general.

Also please tell me how to leave this planet and go to some other planet, I would love to do that. You make it sound so easy in your post. Don't like here? Well just go to another planet.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by adjensen
The Council said that a specific translation was unacceptable. It said nothing of church approved translations.

Can you explain the meaning of the words “any translation”, apparently they mean something different to you than they do to everyone else in the rest of the world.

"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."
- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD

That particular council was not an ecumenical council, it was local to the area in which it was held, so any orders that were issued were only temporary and limited to the geographical area from which the bishops attending were from -- the area of the Albigensians. It's probably overreaching, and they could obviously have worded it better, but the intent is clear -- church approved versions of the Bible, only.

But, again, only in that area, and only while the heresy was running rampant. There were existing and ongoing translations into other languages, and those were not affected by that local council.

In the same timeframe, Pope Innocent III is usually accused of similarly "banning the Bible" in anything but Latin, but his own writings concur that it isn't the language that matters, but the content:


To the same bishop and chapter of Metz we have given orders to inquire carefully about the truth, who was the author of that translation, what was the intention of the translator, what is the faith of those using it, what is the cause of teaching it, if those using it venerate the apostolic See and honour the Catholic Church (Source)

If he banned all translations, he wouldn't have written all that, he'd have just said "no translations."



Originally posted by adjensen
Um... because by taking them out of scripture, he was denying their authority, which was his goal.

he didn't take them out of scripture, he just put them in the middle of the book between testaments. Again, to the rest of the world, to “take something out” means to remove it, not move it.

Luther was clearly demoting the books of the apocrypha because he didn't believe them to be scriptural, you said so yourself. He did the same thing with Hebrews and James, books that he intended to remove, but in the end merely "demoted".

I don't know the machinations that eventually produced what was the Luther Bible, but given that the Reformation was as much political as it was religious, in many aspects, it would not surprise me to learn that Luther's sponsors told him that they would not back him if he did something as over-the-top as removing a dozen books from the text.


And hey...I'm not the one claiming to be the trained bible history expert that you are.

No, I said I am a trained historian -- it was my cognate in graduate school -- I am most definitely not an expert in the history of the Bible, it's of little interest to me, at least the post-Reformation aspects of it, which gets very messy. However, my original correction of you still stands -- the apocrypha was not deleted from all Protestant Bibles, as you claimed.


You are making an awfully big fuss out of one word in hundreds of thousands...

Because that one word, which was not in Romans 3:28 prior to Luther's translation, matters -- Sola Fide may not swing on that one instance, but it makes a huge impact, and Luther's claim that Paul "intended it to be there" is a reach.

Though I am a Catholic, I am a pretty crappy one -- I'm closer to the Solas than a lot of Protestants would claim to be -- but I can't dismiss something like that as an "oops". He changed scripture, significantly and intentionally, to support his theology.


The Arian heresy had been handled a thousand years earlier by the Council of Nicaea...
So you're telling me that the Church had to confiscate all Bibles, and kill hundreds of thousands of people just because they were worried that some might think that Christ was a creation of God rather than God himself?

No, I don't think that they "had to" do anything (and they didn't "confiscate all Bibles"
) but the church would not exist today if heresy wasn't confronted and dealt with throughout its history. As I've said twice now, I deplore the actions taken by the church in the slaughter of the Albigensians, but the subject of our conversation is the Bible, not political and theological wars.


edit on 2-7-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by WashMoreFeet
 


i can interpret this. Ive encountered the strange god and he's no god at all. Its a system that punishes the weak and vulnerable with voices and pain, and they set up a false system of good and evil to extract the truth but its all just lies because they already know the truth when they start attacking. So fake system on earth works with fake system of mind/body=stupid people turning on eachother for no good reason other than thought/feeling inducement and subliminal directions/suggestions.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
 



No, the issue was with the translation, not the language -- there were many translations into other languages (the first English translation, for example, was the Wycliffe Bible from the 1300s, though there were earlier fragmentary translations that dated back to the Eighth Century.


I realize that. But the quote that was posted earlier was from 1219 I believe. A century earlier. The RCC did not want the layperson with a Bible for quite some time in it's history. And people printed and distributed them to Christians desperate for the Word of God under the penalty of death.

I don't remember there being a ban on church approved translations. For a long time, Bibles were kept under lock and key at the church, but that was because they were expensive and rare in a pre-Gutenberg time, not because they needed to be hidden from anyone. I suspect that if one had the wealth in that time, they could pay some monks to make them a copy of the Bible for their personal use.

When first produced, the Gutenberg Bible was sold to private parties, and I doubt that a new technology caused the church to change the rules -- it was an accurate reproduction of the Vulgate, and if the church didn't have an issue with people owning that copy, I doubt that they would have had an issue with anyone owning an accurate copy that was produced by a monk by hand.


It said in the Bible that the Bereans were "noble" in their endeavours to search the scriptures diligently to confirm what they were being taught aligned with God's Word.

I don't think that the Roman Catholic church's opposition of people studying the Bible was rooted in the studying, but rather in the people -- someone who was uneducated in theology who picked up a Bible and started rooting through it would be unlikely to come to the same conclusion as what the church taught (whether right or wrong) and that's basically where heresy begins. Our buddy Gary Reckart is a good example of someone whose lack of education has led him to a clearly wrong version of Christianity, and that was probably even more the case in the Middle Ages.

As you know, I'm a Protestant-leaning Catholic (this week, lol) so I do think that Sola Scriptura is reasonable, to a point, but while I think someone can work out the means of salvation from scripture alone, they can also some to some pretty erroneous conclusions if they don't really know what they're doing, so the "just me and my Bible" theology can be dangerous, depending on the person.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
"Asht-tart," just means ‘The woman that made towers...

...It means this... Abbas Showing His Truth...Teaching All Righteous Truth... Yes the Tower Of Truth... It's done at the end of each cycle... And yes the Catholic Church plays a role... Pope Francis Is Truly Peter... They have the Mary's Mixed Up... For Lilith Was The Mary the chruch claimed as a whore until they found out the truth... Of Jesus Christ And Mary... You are in the Long Day Of The Sabbath... The Day the wheat is separated from the tares... As both sides of the family have gathered her to meet their beginning...



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Here's a nice documentary briefing on the subject... makes clear how the pagan God's were brought forth and hidden in new Doctrines all throughout history.




new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join