Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Inspiration of the Bible
Theopedia.com ^ | Theopedia.com

Posted on 05/14/2014 8:40:09 PM PDT by boatbums

Inspiration establishes that the Bible is a divine product. In other words, Scripture is divinely inspired in that God actively worked through the process and had his hand in the outcome of what Scripture would say. Inspired Scripture is simply written revelation. "Scripture is not only man's word, but also, and equally God's word, spoken through man's lips or written with man's pen" (J.I. Packer, The Origin of the Bible, p. 31).

The term comes from Latin and English translations of the Greek word theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16. The KJV renders it "inspiration", while the RSV uses "inspired of God". However, the word literally means "God-breathed".

Relevant passages

•Matthew 5:18
•Acts 1:16
•Galatians 3:16
•2 Peter 1:19-21 (ESV)
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. - 2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Views on the extent of inspiration

There are tyipcally four main views that are associated with the doctrine of Inspiration.

Neo-orthodox

A common belief of neo-orthodoxy is its view of the utter transcendence of God. That is, God is so completely different and set apart from us that we cannot comprehend him apart from his revelation to us (this entails a rejection of natural theology). The issue appears when neo-orthodoxy is compared to Evangelicalism regarding what the title "Word of God" means. Proponents of neo-orthodoxy claimed the Word of God was God himself, and thus the Bible is a witness to the Word of God. As a witness, the Bible cannot be the Word of God (i.e. God is not the Bible), but the Bible still remains a mediator of the Word of God in some manner. Because the writers were finite and sinful, they were capable of error in their writings. Thus, while the writers of the Old and New Testament recorded their experiences and witness to revelation, their writings may contain errors. Problems with this account are raised when one understands that Scripture is God's Word (2 Tim 3:16) and that people were inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20-21). They were not merely accounts of each person's experience with God.

Dictation

Although not popular, the dictation theory is prevelant within some conservative Christian circles. This view expresses the belief that God simply dictated what he wanted to be written down. Therefore, all the author did was write down as he was told from God and the end product is the Word of God. Although Scripture does portray this idea (Jer 26:2; Rev 2:1,8), this is not the way all of it was written. At other times authors expressed their own personalities (Gal 1:6, 3:1; Phil 1:3, 4, 8) and the Holy Spirit still insured that the writings reflected God's desired outcome.

Limited inspiration

This view proposes that Scripture is inspired, yet it is limited to certain aspects. It affirms that God guided the writers, yet also allowed them the freedom to express their own thoughts regarding history and experiences they had. This allows the Bible to contain historical errors, yet, it is claimed that the Holy Spirit protected writers against any doctrinal error. Thus, the Bible may contain historical errors but it remains a reliable source of doctrine. Problems with this view appear in its rejection of the historical trustworthiness of Scripture. Archaeology has proven many biblical accounts (and even removed earlier difficulties) correct, and although the Bible is divinely inspired it also remains a historical document that contains accurate details. This view appears to easily conclude that errors may be possible within difficult passages whereas this is not the case.

Plenary verbal inspiration

The word plenary means "full" or "complete". Therefore, plenary verbal inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and doctrinal details. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration extends to the very words the writers chose. For example, in Acts 1:16 the Apostle Peter says "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake" (KJV). Paul calls all scripture "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16 (referring to the Old Testament). Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the writers along (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21) while allowing their own personalities and freedom to produce the Bible we have today. This view recognizes and asserts both the human and divine element within Scripture. This understanding has sometimes been compared and contrasted to the understanding of the two natures of Jesus.

Four things inspiration is not

In order to insure the clarity of what inspiration is and is not, the following four points should be helpful:

\1) The idea is not of mechanical dictation, or automatic writing, or any process which involved the suspending of the action of the human writer's mind. Such concepts of inspiration are found in the Talmud, Philo, and the Fathers, but not in the Bible. The divine direction and control under which the biblical authors wrote was not a physical or psychological force, and it did not detract from but rather heightened the freedom, spontaneity, and creativeness of their writing.

\2) The fact that in inspiration God did not obliterate the personality, style, outlook, and cultural conditioning of his penmen does not mean that his control of them was imperfect, or that they inevitably distorted the truth they had been given to convey in the process of writing it down. B.B. Warfield gently mocks the notion that, when God wanted Paul's letters written,

    He was reduced to the necessity of going down to earth and painfully scrutinizing the men He found there, seeking anxiously for the one who, on the whole, promised best for His purpose; and then violently forcing the material He wished expressed through him, against his natural bent, and with as little loss from his recalcitrant characteristics as possible. Of course, nothing of the sort took place. If God wished to give His people a series of letters like Paul's, He prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who spontaneously would write just such letters (The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible).

\3) Inspiredness is not a quality attaching to corruptions that intrude in the course of the transmission of the text, but only to the text as originally produced by the inspired writers. The acknowledgement of biblical inspiration thus makes more urgent the task of meticulous textual criticism, in order to eliminate such corruptions and ascertain what the original text was.

\4) The inspiredness of the biblical writing is not to be equated with the inspiredness of great literature, not even when (as is often true) the biblical writing is in fact great literature. The biblical idea of inspiration relates not to the literary quality of what is written, but to its character as divine revelation in writing.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; inspiration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last
Through Plenary Verbal Inspiration, we know we can trust in the inerrant truth and authority of the Bible because it is God's revelation to us.
1 posted on 05/14/2014 8:40:09 PM PDT by boatbums
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; Alex Murphy; redleghunter; BlueDragon; metmom; Iscool; xzins; Mr Rogers

Ping for comments.


2 posted on 05/14/2014 8:41:33 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

**plenary verbal inspiration **

New term for me. Does that apply to how Martin Luther changed the Bible too?


3 posted on 05/14/2014 8:51:18 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Martin Luther didn’t change the Bible. Even today, the Catholic Church has never resolved if the Apocrypha is good for doctrine, or only has value as moral stories. Since Protestants believe, IAW Paul, that all scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction”, we also believe good moral stories that are not suitable for doctrine are not scripture.

Martin Luther’s opinion of the value of the Apocrypha - which he translated into the vernacular - is in line with Jerome, and the Council of Trent did not try to decide if Augustine or Jerome was correct.


4 posted on 05/14/2014 9:23:35 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; boatbums; daniel1212

We could discuss how the Catholic church mistranslated into English the Latin Vulgate which was a translation from the original Greek.

Verses, for example, such as Genesis 3:15 where the Catholic church tries to deify Mary and use the pronoun *she* instead of *he* to imply that it was MARY instead of Jesus that the conflict with Satan occurred.

Or the verse in Acts 2:38 where the Catholic church mistranslates the word *repent* as *do penance*.

Catholics are in no position to criticize the quality of translations of Scripture into English with albatross named the Douay-Rheims Bible hanging around their necks. (Just for starters).


5 posted on 05/14/2014 9:25:30 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Martin Luther added the word “ONLY” to make faith only.

I’m not talking about the difference in the number of books.

Also Luther did some taking out of various verses, but I have not researched all that. The letter of James comes to mind. He almost didn’t let that get in his Bible.


6 posted on 05/14/2014 9:26:51 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I’m not talking about the English. Luther was working with the Vulgate.


7 posted on 05/14/2014 9:27:49 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
New term for me. Does that apply to how Martin Luther changed the Bible too?

Which part of the Bible did he write?

8 posted on 05/14/2014 9:30:43 PM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; boatbums

Doesn’t matter what the language. The Catholic church still mistranslated Scripture and it is still an authorized version of the Bible.

If they produced a Bible that they changed and authorized it, what’s it to them if someone else does the same?

And any Catholic on board here has yet to prove that Luther changed anything.

bb has provided over and over again, reams of evidence disproving and disqualifying that accusation about Luther made in the Catholic’s desperate attempt to vilify him and discredit any version but their own poor quality translations.

Show us what Catholics claim he changed and bb will show you that he didn’t. It’s been posted many times before so I know she can do it.


9 posted on 05/14/2014 9:33:58 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
if the Apocrypha is good for doctrine, or only has value as moral stories

Too bad as 1st Maccabees would make a great text for establishing tyranny as an explicit divinely endorsed justification for revolt. We can use that sort of moral ammo for what is coming.

10 posted on 05/14/2014 9:35:27 PM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I’m not talking about the English. Luther was working with the Vulgate.

Which part of the Vulgate is inspired?

11 posted on 05/14/2014 9:36:20 PM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Mr Rogers
Also Luther did some taking out of various verses, but I have not researched all that.

So you admit that you don't know. What are you repeating then? Hearsay?

The letter of James comes to mind. He almost didn’t let that get in his Bible.

So Catholics get all bent out of shape because he ALMOST didn't include James? But by their own admission, they admit that he did after all. So what's the problem?

Y'all can't accuse him of changing the Bible based on an *almost* when y'all admit that he did include it after all and so didn't change the Bible in reality. So that accusation against him falls really flat.

*He changed the Bible by removing James, except that he didn't*????

Is that the best y'all can do?

12 posted on 05/14/2014 9:38:23 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“Martin Luther added the word “ONLY” to make faith only.”

That was a matter of translation, not doctrine:

“For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the [German equivalent of the] word sola — even though in Romans 3 it was not [the equivalent of] sola I used but solum or tantum. (5) That is how closely those donkeys have looked at my text! Nevertheless I have used sola fides elsewhere; I want to use both solum and sola. I have always tried to translate in a pure and clear German. It has often happened that for three or four weeks we have searched and inquired about a single word, and sometimes we have not found it even then. In translating the book of Job, Master Philip, Aurogallus (6) and I have taken such pains that we have sometimes scarcely translated three lines in four days. Now that it has been translated into German and completed, all can read and criticize it. The reader can now run his eyes over three or four pages without stumbling once, never knowing what rocks and clods had once lain where he now travels as over a smoothly-planed board. We had to sweat and toil there before we got those boulders and clods out of the way, so that one could go along so nicely. The plowing goes well in a field that has been cleared. But nobody wants the task of digging out the rocks and stumps. There is no such thing as earning the world’s thanks. Even God himself cannot earn thanks, not with the sun, nor with heaven and earth, nor even the death of his Son. The world simply is and remains as it is, in the devil’s name, because it will not be anything else.

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text — if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them...

...Why should I even bother to talk about translating so much? If I were I to explain all the reasons and considerations behind my words, I would need an entire year. I have learned by experience what an art and what a task translating is, so I will not tolerate some papal donkey or mule acting as my judge or critic. They have not tried it. If anyone does not like my translations, he can ignore it; and may the devil repay him for it if he dislikes or criticizes my translations without my knowledge or permission. If it needs to be criticized, I will do it myself. If I do not do it, then let them leave my translations in peace. Each of them can do a translation for himself that suits him — what do I care?”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html


13 posted on 05/14/2014 9:39:29 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The real objection to Luther was that he made a vernacular translation that ended up popular and widely published. It was the same objection Tyndale faced, and the main objection was that mere commoners could read scripture on their own.


14 posted on 05/14/2014 9:43:20 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Martin Luther added the word “ONLY” to make faith only.

In which verses did Luther make this change? Could you please give an example?

15 posted on 05/14/2014 9:44:31 PM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Mr Rogers
Martin Luther added the word “ONLY” to make faith only. I’m not talking about the difference in the number of books.

It would be wonderful if you would take the time to read this rebuttal of your errant assertion about Luther "adding the word alone to make faith alone", so I don't have to do it every time you seem to forget that I have:

    Luther approached the work of a translator honestly. If Luther was attempting to radically distort the New Testament, his “doctored” work failed in many ways. Luther did not add the word “alone” to Galatians 2:16, nor did he remove “alone” from James 2. Even in his revision of the Latin Vulgate, Luther left the Latin of Romans 3:28 as it was, because the contrast was apparent.

    If Luther was attempting to introduce a radical mistranslation into church history he likewise failed. Luther mentions others before him translated Romans 3:28 as he did (for example, Ambrose and Augustine). The Roman Catholic writer Joseph Fitzmyer verified Luther’s claim, and also presented quite an extensive list of those previous to Luther doing likewise. Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.” It is entirely possible Luther’s understanding of “faith alone” differs from those before him, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the thrust of Romans 3:28 implies “alone.” Others previous to Luther may have differed in theological interpretation, yet saw the thrust of the words implied “alone.” Hence, as a translator, Luther holds company with others, and cannot be charged with a mistranslation. If he’s guilty of such a charge, so are many before him. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/07/debate-did-martin-luther-mistranslate.html

Here's another:

    Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

    “I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

    Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

    “So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

    4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Catholics ignore, and most Protestants are not aware of:

    “Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

    Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

    The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

    At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

    Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

    Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

    Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

    Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

    Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

    John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

    Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

    Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

    Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

    To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

    Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

    Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

    See further:

    Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

    Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

    Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

    Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

    Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.” http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html


16 posted on 05/14/2014 9:46:22 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

And that broke the stranglehold the Catholic church had on the spiritual lives of people, ending forever, their spiritual tyranny.


17 posted on 05/14/2014 9:47:22 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Martin Luther was a heretic that actually thought he could change the word of God. Martin Luther should have been given the same fate that all other heretics were given in his time, the death penalty. The Reformation was the absolute worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. This drunkard German monk didn’t have any more authority than a peasant had. And the same goes for anyone that follows any faith that this rum-head started.


18 posted on 05/14/2014 9:48:56 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died;we should thank God that such men lived" ~ Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

It should have said that he added the word “ALOME.”

My mistake on words.


19 posted on 05/14/2014 9:52:51 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Mr Rogers
Also Luther did some taking out of various verses, but I have not researched all that. The letter of James comes to mind. He almost didn’t let that get in his Bible.

Keep researching. But I'll save you the time. Luther didn't "take out" any verses from the Bible. He NEVER "almost didn't let" James "get in his Bible", either. He had doubts of its inspiration at first but changed his mind later in his ministry though he did not ever remove it from his German translation of the Bible.

I hope you can remember this and will avoid arguing as if it was true. I hope that you will be able to recognize the sophistry the next time if some Catholic writer repeats it.

One last thought...why did you bring up Martin Luther anyway on a thread that is discussing the inspiration of the Bible? How is that relevant?

20 posted on 05/14/2014 9:55:43 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; Gamecock

If you can’t discredit the message, discredit the messenger.....

So, go ahead..... Show us what he changed.

And about allegations about his character, shall we address the rate of alcoholism amongst Catholic priests?

Or these lists?

Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)

Gamecock, another one for your list......

And thank God for the Reformation, that broke the stranglehold the Catholic church had on just about everything and every one. God sent Jesus to free us, not to put us back into bondage. If He wanted us to be in bondage to religion, He could have just keep the Law and not sent Jesus to die and pay the penalty for our sin for us.


21 posted on 05/14/2014 9:57:06 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; metmom
I’m not talking about the English. Luther was working with the Vulgate.

Another falsehood. Where are you hearing this? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible:

    While he was sequestered in the Wartburg Castle (1521–22) Luther began to translate the New Testament from ancient Greek into German in order to make it more accessible to all the people of the "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation." He translated from the Greek text, using Erasmus' second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament, known as the Textus Receptus. Luther did not translate from the Latin Vulgate translation, which is the Latin translation officially used by the Roman Catholic Church.

Luther NEVER used the Latin Vulgate to translate the Bible into contemporary German. From the same link above:

    A large part of Luther's significance was his influence on the emergence of the German language and national identity. This stemmed predominantly from his translation of the Bible into the vernacular, which was potentially as revolutionary as canon law and the burning of the papal bull.[25] Luther's goal was to equip every German-speaking Christian with the ability to hear the Word of God, and his completing his translation of the Old and New Testaments from Hebrew and Greek into the vernacular by 1534 was one of the most significant acts of the Reformation.[26] Although Luther was not the first to attempt such a translation, his was superior to all its predecessors. Previous translations had contained poor German, and had been from the Vulgate Latin translation, i.e. translations of a translation rather than a direct translation into German from the originals.[25] Luther sought to translate as closely to the original text as possible, but at the same time his translation was guided by how people spoke in the home, on the street and in the marketplace.[27] Luther's faithfulness to the language spoken by the common people was to produce a work which they could relate to.[28] This led German writers such as Goethe and Nietzsche to praise Luther's Bible.[29] Moreover, the fact that the vernacular Bible was printed also enabled it to spread rapidly and be read by all. Hans Lufft, the Bible printer in Wittenberg, printed over one hundred thousand copies between 1534 and 1574, which went on to be read by millions.[30] Luther's vernacular Bible was present in virtually every German-speaking Protestant’s home; and there can be no doubts regarding the Biblical knowledge attained by the German common masses.

22 posted on 05/14/2014 10:04:19 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
It should have said that he added the word “ALOME.” (sic)

My mistake on words.

Did he add it to the plenarily verbally inspired auto- or apographs, or only as a clarifying word to make his German translation conform exactly to the precise meaning of the Koine, as it was understood at the time and in the culture of writing under inspiration by the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit, if you wish, the two terms mean the same in English)?

23 posted on 05/14/2014 10:06:06 PM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Like I said before, it’s a wonder Luther didn’t meet the same fate the majority of heretics met. Death by hanging. He also called the pope the anti-christ. But he also kept some of his VERY CATHOLIC beliefs, that protestants find repulsive. He believed Mary was the Mother of God and was born without sin. He believed in purgatory and he believed the CATHOLIC CHURCH gave the world the Bible. But he was a heretic who had the unmitigated gall to try and change the Word of the Lord and he called the Chair the Peter the anti-Christ.


24 posted on 05/14/2014 10:07:56 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died;we should thank God that such men lived" ~ Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: metmom
If the topic of the thread is too hard to discuss or might reveal their own bias, the “Luther Card” often gets tossed out as a sort of rabbit hole attempt to hijack the thread. I guess it doesn't occur to some that if they don't have anything of value to add, they can just read and learn. No one is forcing anyone to post a comment.
25 posted on 05/14/2014 10:10:27 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You got a BINGO! ;o)


26 posted on 05/14/2014 10:12:05 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
**Sorry, my mis-tag; this is a corrected re-post**

It should have said that he added the word “ALOME.” (sic)

My mistake on words.

Did he add it to the plenarily verbally inspired auto- or apographs, or only as a clarifying word to make his German translation conform exactly to the precise meaning of the Koine, as it was understood at the time and in the culture of writing under inspiration by the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit, if you wish, the two terms mean the same in English)?

27 posted on 05/14/2014 10:12:20 PM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; metmom
My, my...touched a nerve did it?

Got any thoughts about the topic of this thread or is this one more chance to condemn all Freeper Protestants by proxy???

28 posted on 05/14/2014 10:18:39 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Luther undoubtedly had his faults, as all humans do. However, he was successful at translating the Bible into everyday German and getting it into the hands of commoners - as Tyndale did for England and the New Testament, since he was executed at the instigation of the Catholic Church before he could finish the Old Testament.


29 posted on 05/14/2014 10:19:06 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Doesn’t matter what the language. The Catholic church still mistranslated Scripture and it is still an authorized version of the Bible."

Prove it. I'm looking forward to reading your own, personally done, accurate translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

30 posted on 05/14/2014 10:34:32 PM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
The topic "Inspiration of the Bible" is, for us, what the various writers claim it to be. We have to choose. Here is a definition supplied by the Dean Burgon Society, a global organization of believers supporting the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text as the legitimate bases for the English Authorized Version translations. For your information, an except from that organization's web site:

Dean Burgon Society

A. THE BIBLE.

We believe in the plenary, verbal, Divine inspiration of the sixty-six canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments (from Genesis to Revelation) in the original languages, and in their consequent infallibility and inerrancy in all matters of which they speak (). The books known as the Apocrypha, however, are not the inspired Word of God in any sense whatsoever. As the Bible uses it, the term "inspiration" refers to the writings, not the writers (); the writers are spoken of as being "holy men of God" who were "moved," "carried" or "borne" along by the Holy Spirit () in such a definite way that their writings were supernaturally, plenarily, and verbally inspired, free from any error, infallible, and inerrant, as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired.

We believe that the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament, and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the King James Version (as found in "The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611").

We, believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts, which in our time has no equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized Version of 1611 and say "This is the WORD OF GOD!" while at the same time realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture.

We believe that all the verses in the King James Version belong in the Old and the New Testaments because they represent words we believe were in the original texts, although there might be other renderings from the original languages which could also be acceptable to us today. For an exhaustive study of any of the words or verses in the Bible, we urge the student to return directly to the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Traditional Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation for help.

31 posted on 05/14/2014 10:40:09 PM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

bookmark


32 posted on 05/14/2014 11:22:59 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

God feeds the birds but he does not take it to the nests for them.

In the same sense God inspired the Bible but he did not do
the writing and translating, there are mistakes or there would be nothing to disagree about.

Even the apostles obviously made mistakes, Paul accused Peter of leaving the Gentiles and eating with the Jews, if it was true then both of them made mistakes, Peter for doing it and Paul for telling the world about it rather than going to Peter in private as Jesus said to do.

Also in Tim 2:8 Paul said to pray lifting up holy hands.

What did Jesus say?
Mat 6
5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.


33 posted on 05/14/2014 11:45:29 PM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Moreover, the fact that the vernacular Bible was printed also enabled it to spread rapidly and be read by all. Hans Lufft, the Bible printer in Wittenberg, printed over one hundred thousand copies between 1534 and 1574, which went on to be read by millions.[30] Luther's vernacular Bible was present in virtually every German-speaking Protestant’s home; and there can be no doubts regarding the Biblical knowledge attained by the German common masses.

So much for the *illiterate masses* paradigm put forth by Catholics as to why the Catholic church should keep the Bible out of the hands of the commoners.

Sheesh. *Few people could read*, *They couldn't afford books*.

Excuse after excuse that is proved false at every turn.

34 posted on 05/15/2014 4:18:46 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Like I said before, it’s a wonder Luther didn’t meet the same fate the majority of heretics met. Death by hanging.

Burning at the stake as is the preference of the Catholic church.

God protected him.

35 posted on 05/15/2014 4:20:01 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Exactly. The thread is about the inspiration of Scripture and they’ve turned it into another Luther/Protestant bashing thread.

They just can’t defend the Catholic church’s position on it so have to change the subject and put others on the defensive.


36 posted on 05/15/2014 4:21:45 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Yup. Instead of addressing the two mistranslated verses, it’s Luther bashing, which has NOTHING to do with the thread.


37 posted on 05/15/2014 4:23:32 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Genesis 3:15

http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-15.htm

In the Hebrew

http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/3-15.htm

Acts 2:38

http://biblehub.com/acts/2-38.htm

In the Greek

http://biblehub.com/text/acts/2-38.htm\

Repent = metanoeo’

http://biblehub.com/greek/3340.htm

Definition: I repent, change my mind, change the inner man (particularly with reference to acceptance of the will of God), repent.


38 posted on 05/15/2014 4:27:44 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
He also called the pope the anti-christ.
Not only did he call the pope the anti-christ, he had it depicted as well:
Birth and Origin of the Pope; art (one of a series of eight) commissioned by Martin Luther to the artist Lucas Cranach, for his work Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil (March 1545). Luther told him what to depict, and wrote a rhyming verse for each plate. Mark Edwards, from whose book I found this "art" (see below) wrote: "A third cartoon shows the Pope and three cardinals being expelled from the anus of a female devil while three furies are nursing and caring for three infant popes . . . a graphic echo of Luther's assertion in his treatise that the pope had been born from the devil's behind."
Art is at link: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/did-martin-luther-regard-roman.html
39 posted on 05/15/2014 5:53:02 AM PDT by mlizzy ("If people spent an hour a week in Eucharistic Adoration, abortion would be ended." --Mother Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
New term for me. Does that apply to how Martin Luther changed the Bible too?

Marty didn't change the bible...He wrote a new bible based on a different source of material...

40 posted on 05/15/2014 7:49:40 AM PDT by Iscool (Ya mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And any Catholic on board here has yet to prove that Luther changed anything.

Sounds like Sacred Tradition to me ...

41 posted on 05/15/2014 7:57:16 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
If you are implying that the Bible is untrustworthy, I will have to disagree with you. I'll address your points, if it will help you to better know the value and authority of Holy Scripture.

God feeds the birds but he does not take it to the nests for them. In the same sense God inspired the Bible but he did not do the writing and translating, there are mistakes or there would be nothing to disagree about.

God gave the bird an INNATE ability (instinct) to know to build nests in the first place and which foods are best for them and then provides the food dependent on the regions where they live. In the same way, God gives to those who are believers the Holy Spirit and this is how we can understand the things of God - without which it would be foolishness to us (I Cor. 2:14). We hear and recognize the voice of our Shepherd, as well. That we have the texts in their original languages (thousands of manuscript copies going back to the early centuries), and language experts who are able to translate into English - for example - all the truths God has desired we know, there is no real reason to doubt what we have in the Bible today is lacking what God gave to us.

Even the apostles obviously made mistakes, Paul accused Peter of leaving the Gentiles and eating with the Jews, if it was true then both of them made mistakes, Peter for doing it and Paul for telling the world about it rather than going to Peter in private as Jesus said to do.

All men are fallible and do make mistakes as well as sin. The reason Paul rebuked Peter "to his face" was because he was publicly doing something that would have a huge effect on all Christians had he not been openly corrected. Paul did what had to be done and that incident established doctrine. He wasn't "picking on" poor Peter by trying to embarrass him in front of others. No doubt, had Paul made a similar error, Peter would have been urged to act the same. These men were APOSTLES. What they did and said had influence over all Christians. If you remember in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he advised them to openly rebuke a member who committed gross sin (sex with his father's wife) and who had not been corrected or called to repentance. This doesn't contradict Jesus in any way because it was not just a simple problem between two people - it affected the entire church.

Also in Tim 2:8 Paul said to pray lifting up holy hands. What did Jesus say? Mat 6 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Can you not lift up holy hands in your prayer closet? I've done it while praying all alone in my car. It is not something one does in order to appear pious or holy to others and is why we can do so even in worship with others. It is the attitude that counts. Jesus rebuked the religious leaders who made a show of praying in the temple square.

If you continue to have doubts about the reliability of Scripture, here is a good site to investigate all those "seeming" contradictions in the Bible Countering Bible Contradictions.

God bless you as you live for Christ and seek to know His word.

42 posted on 05/15/2014 3:21:03 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: metmom

That tactic says WAY more than they think.


43 posted on 05/15/2014 3:24:33 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

If you are implying that the Bible is untrustworthy,


No, I am not implying that at all.

You wrote
All men are fallible and do make mistakes as well as sin.

But then you make excuses for Paul telling the world Peters fault.

You wrote
The reason Paul rebuked Peter “to his face” was because he was publicly doing something that would have a huge effect on all Christians had he not been openly corrected. Paul did what had to be done and that incident established doctrine.

What Paul did wrong was to tell all about it in a letter.

But before he said anything in public he should have went to peter privately.

You wrote
These men were APOSTLES.

Yes, we all know that Peter was an apostle who Jesus chose but we only have Pauls word that he was an apostle.

You wrote
If you remember in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he advised them to openly rebuke a member who committed gross sin (sex with his father’s wife) and who had not been corrected or called to repentance. This doesn’t contradict Jesus in any way because it was not just a simple problem between two people - it affected the entire church.

Actually I get the idea that Paul told them to get him out of the Church.

But they should go to him in private first because it would be a grave mistake to accuse some one of something and not be able to prove it or worse yet, to actually be wrong about it.

Paul could easily have been wrong about Peters action, it is so easy to think you know why some one is doing what they are doing and you may be a thousand miles off.

You wrote
Jesus rebuked the religious leaders who made a show of praying in the temple square.

Yes, that is why Jesus tells his followers not to make a big show of it.

It is amazing how people who believe in Jesus will use technical points to go ahead and do those things he warned us against,

I was at the altar one sunday night with my head bowed in prayer when two or three men came and started pounding on me and telling me to pray, i told them I was praying, they told me to shout it out.

I guess they thought that they needed to hear my prayer to God or maybe thought God is deaf but I do not see it that way.

I do not really need an explanation on this because this was almost fifty years ago, I know how people make a show of praying.

You wrote
If you continue to have doubts about the reliability of Scripture

I do not have any doubts about the reliability of the scripture and I think Paul uses good judgment on most things but my faith is in Jesus not Paul.

Jesus is Lord.
have a good good day.


44 posted on 05/15/2014 5:02:21 PM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
But then you make excuses for Paul telling the world Peters fault. You wrote The reason Paul rebuked Peter “to his face” was because he was publicly doing something that would have a huge effect on all Christians had he not been openly corrected. Paul did what had to be done and that incident established doctrine. What Paul did wrong was to tell all about it in a letter. But before he said anything in public he should have went to peter privately. You wrote These men were APOSTLES. Yes, we all know that Peter was an apostle who Jesus chose but we only have Pauls word that he was an apostle.

I made no "excuses" for anyone. I only explained what Scripture already said concerning the incident between Peter and Paul. We don't know if there was a private talk between the two, but only what Scripture does say. It is spoken of by Paul in his letter to the Galatians and it was FOURTEEN years after Paul's conversion that this happened with Peter to whom Peter even asserted his ministry was to the Jews (the Circumcision) and Paul's was to the Gentiles:

    When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

    When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

    “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

    “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:11-21)

This is the only time we read of any kind of disagreement between Peter and Paul and there is no question that Paul was right and Peter admitted his error. You can read how big a deal this was in light of what Peter was found doing. This, by the way, was after he had been given the vision from God about nothing being unclean and God wanting the gospel preached to the Gentiles. There IS a reason God included this in Scripture - it was not just Paul's idea to humiliate Peter, God inspired him to include that IN Scripture and it taught a very important point. Nothing is in Scripture that doesn't have a reason to be in there.

As for Paul's apostleship, either you trust in Paul's saying so - II Tim. 1:1; Colossians 1:1; I Tim. 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; II Cor. 1:1; Titus 1:1; I Cor. 1:1; Romans 1:1 and Acts 14:14 (even calls both Paul and Barnabus Apostles) - or you have to toss out ALL he wrote if you decide he was just lying about it. If that is your conclusion, then you can't have much faith in any of the rest of Scripture either.

Actually I get the idea that Paul told them to get him out of the Church. But they should go to him in private first because it would be a grave mistake to accuse some one of something and not be able to prove it or worse yet, to actually be wrong about it. Paul could easily have been wrong about Peters action, it is so easy to think you know why some one is doing what they are doing and you may be a thousand miles off.

Paul wasn't even there in Corinth but had heard about the scandal which is why he wrote to the church at Corinth and admonished them for NOT dealing with the man and instead boasting over it! He told them:

    It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

    Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

    I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (I Cor. 5)

It doesn't sound like anyone there thought they SHOULD go to the man first in private! It sounds like they would have grown worse and worse as a congregation had Paul not stepped in to set them straight.

It is amazing how people who believe in Jesus will use technical points to go ahead and do those things he warned us against,

It certainly didn't start with Christians. The religious class of Judaism was doing that long before and was why Jesus often rebuked them for nullifying the word of God with their traditions. Did Jesus "go to them privately" or did he openly criticize them before others to make a point? As we can see in much of what Jesus taught, there is the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". He is more concerned with the latter and he showed to those proud religious leaders that their outward shows of righteousness only made them whitewashed tombs full of stinking, decaying corpses.

My faith is also in Jesus Christ and not Paul OR Peter. These men wrote the words the Holy Spirit moved them to write and we can honor them because they practiced what they preached. They were in subjection to the word of God every bit as much as we are today.

Amen! Jesus IS Lord.

45 posted on 05/15/2014 8:32:24 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

This is the only time we read of any kind of disagreement between Peter and Paul and there is no question that Paul was right and Peter admitted his error.


I see no place it being mentioned by Peter so it is just assumptions.

Jesus explains it very plain in Mathew 18

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

and there is no question that Paul was right and Peter admitted his error.>>>>>

There is a question in my mind and that is the fact that there is no recording of the account except after the fact and Paul is telling it to the Galatians.

How could Peter admit something that as far as we know he knew nothing about?

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church:

If this happened the way Jesus instructed his apostles then it would have been recorded in the church but why is it that Paul is the only one to know anything about it?

It has the sign of back biting to me, it is not what Jesus preached.

Where did Peter have a chance to defend himself? or was he even aware that it was said of him?

Paul wasn’t even there in Corinth >>>

That is true, Paul maybe got a letter on this matter which may indicate that the matter was rehashed in Church and it may have already started out in private, some of the members did not like the outcome of its end.

But since this was one of Pauls churches then maybe the above is not so.

As for Paul’s apostleship, either you trust in Paul’s saying so - II Tim. 1:1; Colossians 1:1; I Tim. 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; II Cor. 1:1; Titus 1:1; I Cor. 1:1; Romans 1:1 and Acts 14:14 (even calls both Paul and Barnabus Apostles) - or you have to toss out ALL he wrote if you decide he was just lying about it. If that is your conclusion, then you can’t have much faith in any of the rest of Scripture either.>>>>>

Acts 14:14 is the only scripture except for Paul and we don`t even know for sure who wrote it.

As for Paul’s apostleship, either you trust in Paul’s saying so>>>>>

or you have to toss out ALL he wrote if you decide he was just lying about it.>>>>>

No, I do not have to do that, although that may be your conclusion it is not exactly mine, that is why I said in my other comment that we might be a thousand miles off if we try to decide on the reason for the actions of some one else.

then you can’t have much faith in any of the rest of Scripture either.>>>>>

Just assuming again,

I could easily accuse you of having more faith and putting more stock in what Paul said than what Jesus said but I don`t really believe it.

As for either believing every thing or nothing about what Paul said I do not see it that way at all because on many things Paul makes a lot of sense, but he seems to be hostile to the Jews in general and also with out plainly saying so to make the 12 apostle that Jesus chose seem as nothing.

I am not a robot, I do not have to believe exactly as I am told, I have a mind of my own and if I can plainly see what I believe are contradictions in the scriptures, especially where Paul is concerned since he was the only one who made a big deal about his apostleship and still believe in the father, the son and the holy spirit then it gives me even more faith.


46 posted on 05/16/2014 6:05:34 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
I think that you are still not understanding the issue between Peter and Paul. If you read what Paul said - and we have no reason to think he was lying about it - Peter DID acknowledge he was wrong and, since what Peter did was effecting a LOT of people, his public rebuke WAS needed. I don't really see why you are accusing Paul of doing something wrong here since it happened two thousand years ago and we only have a passage or two that even talks about it. Neither you nor I know the "whole story" so I think it is best to trust that what God led Paul to do in this incident was necessary and was used by God to proclaim the critical doctrine of salvation by grace apart from works.

I put my trust in Jesus Christ and believe that the sacred Scriptures ARE what God intends for us to know and understand about His nature and our faith in relationship with Him. The words of Jesus recorded in Scripture are no more nor less critical to our faith than what Peter, Paul, James, John or the others wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is ALL divinely-inspired and written for our edification.

There really ARE no "contradictions" in Scripture. To think that there are indicates a denial of the God-breathed words of Scripture. God doesn't MAKE mistakes.

47 posted on 05/16/2014 3:12:34 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Peter DID acknowledge he was wrong>>>

Would you please show me the scripture where Peter said that.?

we only have a passage or two that even talks about it.>>>>

That is right, and some one is always pointing out that Paul rebuked Peter and the only reason they do this is because Paul is their apostle, although Peter happens to be one Jesus personally chose.

If peter made a mistake it is only fair to point out that Paul also made a mistake, but when Peter is accused it is gospel but if Paul is accused it is :oh no, it can not be: because scripture is inspired by God. what a contradiction.

It is ALL divinely-inspired and written for our edification.>>>>

Scripture was inspired by God but it was wrote by men and as you said men make mistakes.

All men are fallible and do make mistakes as well as sin.>>>

Fifty years ago I would argue that there were no contradictions but I have found many contradictions and feel the better for it because I realize the scriptures were wrote by real people and is not a fairy tale.

We can not have it both ways if Paul was guided by the holy spirit and could do no wrong then it would also be true of peter.

But any one who points out that Paul rightfully rebuked Peter can not believe that the apostles could not make mistakes.

So it appears to me that scripture is infallible only when it was Paul who wrote it.

There really ARE no “contradictions” in Scripture.>>>

I believe there are contradictions in Pauls writing at least and that any one who can not see them are considering the Bible written by angels or by God himself, and are afraid to admit it to them selves.

Jesus said that many false teachers would come and deceive the very elect if possible, so I think it wise to look into these things.


48 posted on 05/16/2014 5:44:12 PM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
Everything you said can be concluded with the simple point that you don't believe the Bible is the word of God or that what it says is trustworthy (deserving of trust). I completely disagree and this will be why we will not be able to see eye-to-eye on the place sacred Scripture has in the life of a Christian.
49 posted on 05/16/2014 6:56:38 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Everything you said can be concluded with the simple point that you don’t believe the Bible is the word of God


Well yes, I expected you to start making it about me instead of the scriptures.

I point out a few things Paul said or did that I believe contradicts what Jesus said but the way you ignore or put it off makes me wonder, was Jesus just a forerunner of Paul?


50 posted on 05/16/2014 7:27:26 PM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson