the mark of the beast is basically keeping the sunday instead of saturday as the God's day of worship &rest, I didn’t believe it but it’s in the Bible..the pope under the cover of NWO is misleading the people to think that it’s a simple chipXD
For those who "slam" Dr. Luther, you ought to read some more of his writings, Small & Large Catechisms. Acquire a copy of Tappert's Book of Concord too.
Martin Luther was a very confused and angry man whose entire theology can be based off of his chronic bouts with indigestion. This heretic has done more to damage Christendom than any of the barbarian invasions of the 1st millenium.
Luther's theology was the result of indigestion? That's quite an ad hominem logical fallacy there.
He was not a heretic, and that was proven by his works defending his position from Scripture. The heretics were the Roman Catholics who were attempting to prostitute the Word of God. Even today, Rome teaches a false Gospel contrary to the clear testimony of the NT that salvation is solely and sufficiently by God's grace through the gift of faith, no works added.
@AgApE010 Luther had absolutely NO authority to change Holy Scripture or discard Sacred Tradition: only the Catholic Church has this authority, given to her by Our Savior in Matthew 16:18 when he gave St. Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Luther's ultimate heresy is the foolish and unbiblical doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". Scripture does not teach unless SOMEONE interprets its meaning. When Protestants attempt to do this, they fall into error due to their fallen nature.
The Keys to the Kingdom don't mean that Apostles were able to do whatever they wanted. Even in the First Church Council in Acts 15, they did "as seemed good to the Spirit," i.e., in submission to God. In any case, you assume that your church is the Church of the New Testament that Christ established. I understand that Roman Catholics depend on this assumption in their theology, but it is simply not true. If you read the Early Fathers, you'll see nothing of your church in there.
@AgApE010 St. Peter was given ALL authority by Christ: "Whoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, etc."
And the Catholic Church IS the original Christian church. That is an indisputable fact. Even St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Church "Catholic". It means "Universal".
If you read the Early Church Fathers, you will easily see the Catholic Church present. It has held true for 2000 years: far before the Heretical "reforms" of the 16th century.
Jesus gave the authority of binding and loosing to ALL the apostles (Matthew 18:18), not just to Peter.
I know Ignatius called the Church "Catholic." As you said, this word means "Universal," i.e., meaning that the Church consists of Jews, Gentiles, slave, free, all over the world. Protestants hold to the fact that the Church is Catholic in this sense. Just because your sect calls itself "Catholic" doesn't mean it is the Church in Ignatius' time. That is fallacious reasoning.
@AgApE010 But the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven were given directly to St. Peter, which gives him Primacy over all of the apostles.
And yes, the Church in St. Ignatius' time is, was, and always will be the Holy Catholic Church. Jesus said that the "Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it", meaning that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error. He also said that He would be with us "even unto the consummation of the world": Jesus would never leave His Church, ever.
The keys were mentioned to Peter first, yes, but less than two chapters later they are also given to all the apostles. What gives Peter primacy is the fact that he is the center of focus among the apostles. He is always mentioned first, he always speaks for the group, and Christ called him the Rock on which He would build His Church. That Peter is the Rock is shown by the fact that the Church grew and gained a foundation with him, particularly in the period before Paul...
When Jesus said the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, it means that death will not prevail. That's why He uses the term "Gates" of Hell or Hades. In any case, that term does not mean that the Church is protected from doctrinal error. Remember, there were doctrinal errors very early. That's why the Church had to hold its First Council in Acts 15.
the first Heretic since Arius to tear the fabric of the Church apart. All because HE had to be right rather than listen to those around him. Pride was his biggest sin, and the lead so many more into it.
If Luther was a heretic and the Reformation was wrong in general, go and burn your English Bible like the Papists were doing in those days. After all, you should not have English Bibles since those came out of the "evil" Reformation. Also, do you spend money on indulgences to free your departed family from Purgatory? If not, why not?
@AgApE010 I didn't say God didn't bring about some good things from Luther's sin, God can do that. I said he, Luther, was the first heretic since Arius to tear the Church apart. Just as a fuller understanding of the Most Holy Trinity came about due to Arius, there were some good things that came about in the Counter Reformation after Luther.
Question: Was Martin Luther a true German or was he a Roman, part of the holy roman empire that simply denounced his own fellow Roman bretheran? I know that "Germany" was then part of the holy roman empire however, is there evidence that he was of "Barbarian, heathen or the uncivilized" as Paul in the bible refers to these peoples? Would they let a heathen be a Priest?
@historyisknowledge Luther was a German nationalist, if you had actually taken the time to read his writings you would know this as he said it frequently. Paul mentions the "Scythians" as being barbarians, not sure why you would equate the scythians with Germans, the scytians were an eastern asiatic people who occipied land north of Turkey and Iran. Perhaps you equate the two because some people in the past had considered the Germans to be semi-barbaric.
wow!! sola scritura doen't work you must have the holy spirit to understant the scrpitures. I haev books on theology & believe me they open your understanding.
protestants are always slipping & thats why they don't get no where. Mainly cause nothing is happening not spiritually or mentally. I have been to their chuches And i see no one growing. Some pastor comes in and makes a whole lot of noise, waiting for the people to put thier offerings.
I would have followed Luther, if his invention of sola scriptura had not resulted in more than 38,000 different protestant demonimations with different and contradictory teachings.
The Bible is perfect. For one to simply understand 2 Tim 3:16 it must be read in line with other books such as that under 1 Timothy 3:15. There is no where in the Bible that states that Bible is the only Authority. But it does say however that it's the church. So far Protestants theologians (Early Reformers and modern theologians) have only stated their position or worked ard it. What's new....
@studygreek U got to follow salvation history to understand. Extracted from Scripture catholic to save time on my typing... The only main argument a Protestant can make is that, once the Bible was compiled, all oral apostolic tradition was committed to Scriptures and the requirement to follow oral tradition ceased.
@studygreek But this doesn't prove from the Bible that there is nothing in the Scriptures that commands us to follow oral tradition until the Bible is compiled, and then to follow the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible). In fact, Jesus never even commanded any of His apostles to write anything down. They were only charged to "preach the Gospel to all creation." Matthew 28:19.
"Jesus never commanded the apostles to write anything down"
-
"Write in a book what you see..." (Rev. 1:11); And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." (Rev. 21:5). Besides, do you really mean to say that when the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write Scripture that this was not in agreement with the Son? You're trying very hard to uphold your traditions, even at the expense of the integrity of Scripture. You should examine your faith very closely, my friend...
@AgApE010 :) My separated brethren, it's never too easy for one to understand. So in your opinion that is, what have u come understand and interpret and who let you conclude? Who taught you what you know to believe in? It states that it is the church..... not your reformed bible where Martin tried to amend doctrines and not to say the least did remove 7 books. If by that you can't comprehend. Nothing else will. Same goes for 30,000 protestants' interpretation. Martin, A good man but silly.
I'm not a "separated brethren", my deceived Papist friend. Secondly, you completely avoided addressing my responses to your other comments which overthrow your claims and misunderstandings. Do you wish to be noble enough to admit that you were wrong in those claims? Then we can begin addressing your other accusations in this comment.
@AgApE010 :) So u say... So tell me which denomination are you from? Avoid? Try to... perhaps to take it that it's of no point further explaining. Coz I dun think you would be so kind as to even want to listen and least of all understand. I've come across enough of protestants such as yourself to know that it's of no further use explaining or deliberating. The case in point is who interprets for you to understand? Yourself? Your Pastor? Which came first? The Bible or the Church? :)
Still avoiding rebutting. Well, I'll be the polite one and answer YOU. I'm of the non-denominational denomination, Trinitarian, 5-Point Calvinist, Historical Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist. But when it comes to the essential issues, I, like every Protestant, believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone who is God incarnate, 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, crucified for believers, resurrected bodily. Those are the essentials, and we all hold to them.
@AgApE010 Pointless...you just keep dwelling on something not worth speaking more about... Go ahead and readup more. Then again, I said before it's a belief system...Being that stubborn, if you won't belief, you won't. Ok, polite one... :) But of coz.... like all protestants... a belief in theology of a man call Martin.... A made up but he sold you guys really good. Take care, friend. :)
Hahaha! I like how you avoid rebutting my arguments but rather simply respond by calling me stubborn and say that I was sold by Luther into accepting "his theology." Then you actually have the nerve to tell ME to read more while you are the one who has provided no counter-argumentation while your beliefs have been systematically demolished. You have no reasoning capabilities and I can see there's no point in continuing further. Au revoir.
@AgApE010 woe to u so called christians! woe to u, u do not believe in God for if u did u would believe in the one he sent! woe to u who do not not acknowledge the authority of God given to peter and his sucssesores! woe to u who do not understand u can not enter throught the gate of heaven, for it is locked, without the keys iv placed on the seat of peter! woe to u if u believed in God u would trust his judgment and listen to the one he gave authority to teach!
@AgApE010 woe to u so called christians! woe to u, u do not believe in God for if u did u would believe in the one he sent! woe to u who do not not acknowledge the authority of God given to peter and his sucssesores! woe to u who do not understand u can not enter throught the gate of heaven, for it is locked, without the keys iv placed on the seat of peter! woe to u if u believed in God u would trust his judgment and listen to the one he gave authority to teach!
When it comes to interpretation of Scripture, it depends on what level we are speaking. For example, even a new believer in the Lord can understand the theme of the Gospel of John, namely that salvation is by believing in the Divine Son of God; or of Romans, namely justification by faith and not our works. But when it comes to the deeper teachings of God's word, that requires deeper study (which isn't foreign to Christianity insomuch as even St. Polycarp encouraged his readers... contd
...Polycarp encouraged his readers to "study Paul's letters."). Thankfully, there's an objective method of interpretation called Hermeneutics, which I will not get into great detail concerning for the time being. In addition to this, there are teachers of God's word, such as Martin Luther or St. Augustine, to assist us in our understanding; as the Apostle himself said "He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers." (Eph. 4:11)
The Old Testament was there before the Church. And that was the source of authority for apostolic teaching and preaching. That's why all throughout the book of Acts, for example, they preached "as it is written"; "with this the Prophets agree"; and "the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so." But regardless, the first Church was not the Papist church so it doesn't support your argument in any case.
@studygreek Because the Scriptures are the living word of God which is the same yesterday, today and forever (cf. Hebrews 13:10), and there is no verse in Scripture that repudiates Paul's instruction in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we must also obey the oral tradition of the Church as Paul commanded, or we are not being faithful to the Scriptures.
It's a believe system. If you won't believe... you won't believe. Got it?
If you read the passage, Paul tells his readers what those traditions are: "It was for this He called you through *our gospel*..." (2 Thess. 2:14).
-
Your argument from that verse assumes quite a few things: One, that the Romanist church is the same Church as the first Church in Paul's day. Second, you assume that by "traditions" Paul meant transubstantiation, penance, papal infallibility, etc. That's reading a lot into his word, especially in light of the context as shown above.
to Peter's position and status. It is clear, from the wealth of Biblical and extra-Biblical support for the doctrine of Petrine Primacy that Jesus meant exactly what the plain sense of a literal meaning of Scripture means; You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church.
@Ignatius1125 : Apart from a tendentious interpretation of Matt 16:18, what "wealth" of Biblical support do you find for the doctrine of Peter's supremacy? My own answer would be: nothing.
Finally, did Jesus intend to differentiate between Peter and the rock upon which He would build His Church? Some people might say that we cannot know what Jesus meant, but they would be wrong. Everything we know about Jesus comes to us through the Apostles and those the Apostles taught. So, we can learn what Jesus meant by this by looking at the Scriptural and non-Scriptural references
@Ignatius1125 umm...are you holding the non-scriptural references on par with scripture?
If God gave the New testament in Greek....don't you think he knew what he was doing when the greek words were different? There are no textual variants in the greek text for that one either.
He was trying to represent what was a perfect pun (using exactly the same words) in Aramaic using a language which did not allow him to do this. In English, virtually all of the effect is lost few people know that Peter means rock - but in Greek at least some of the meaning can be preserved.
Nouns in ancient Greek are gendered that is, some of them are masculine and some are feminine. The word petra is feminine (it is used today in some parts of the world as a female version of the name Peter) and so could not be used to apply to a man like Peter (it would be like calling a man named Stephen Stephanie!) The male version of petra is petros and so that is why Matthew used those words.
@Ignatius1125 Umm... your logic again astounds me. In some parts of the world today....this wasn't today, this was when Koine Greek ruled. Greek was greek and Petros meant Petros and Petra meant Petra.
Your use of language skills is horrible. If I call my brother, "brother." I am not saying sister. Same here, writers in Greek knew the difference between genders.
But why did Saint Matthew (or whoever translated Matthew into Greek) use different words to represent the same word in Aramaic? The answer lies in a grammatical point which is not present in English, but is present in other modern languages such as French, Spanish and German.
@Ignatius1125 Wow, how do you know Matthew didn't write it in Greek? We have texts from as early as 50AD that are in Greek. In fact we have no reason to believe any of the new testament was written in any other language but Greek due to textual evidence.
So, when Jesus called Simon Peter (meaning rock) He would not have said Peter. He would not even have said Petros (from where we get the English name Peter). He would have used the Aramaic a word which we find eight times in Saint Paul's epistles (four times in Galatians and four times in I Corinthians). This word is Kepha, and means rock. It is this word that Jesus would have used when saying You are Peter and on this rock -He would have said You are Kepha and on this kepha
a semitic language related to Hebrew and common in the Persian empire. A number of examples are Aramaic are cited in the New Testament as the words that Jesus actually spoke (the most famous example is Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? found in Matthew 27:46.)
Greek was the common language of the first century Near- and Middle East for commerce, trade, education and international communications but Jews in Palestine would not have spoken it when talking to each other. Jesus might have used the language to speak to non-Jews (such as Pilate) but He would not have commonly spoken to His disciples in that language. For that, He would have used Aramaic
Secondly, did Jesus use two different words to refer to Peter and this rock? Again, no He did not. While the New Testament is written in Greek it was not that language that Jesus and the Apostles would have commonly spoken day to day. (There are a number of authorities who maintain that the Gospel of Matthew was not written originally in Greek, but in Aramaic. This position is based on linguistic analysis of the Greek text of the Gospel, as well as records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea
Any difference in meaning had disappeared from the language by the time Matthews Gospel was written (around the middle of the first century AD). In addition, the difference can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone in first century Koine Greek, He would have used the Greek word lithos.
Firstly, do petros and petra really mean small rock and large rock? Greek scholars are almost universally agreed in saying that the words petros and petra were synonyms (words which have the same meaning) in first century Greek. The meanings "small rock" and "large rock" are only found in a number of ancient Greek poems which were composed centuries before the time of Christ.
That petros and petra really mean small rock and large rock respectively
That Christ used different words to refer to Peter and this rock
That Christ intended to differentiate between Peter and this rock in that way
As we shall demonstrate, none of these facts are true! Remember, in order for this challenge to stand up, all of these facts must be true. If even one is not, then the whole argument collapses.
A number of non-Catholics will say that this difference of words means that Peter cannot be the rock, as the word petros means small rock or pebble while petra means large rock or boulder. These Protestants will argue one of the two points above that the larger foundation is either Christ or Peter's faith, and that the man himself is the smaller rock; similar, but not the foundation.
The objection to the Catholic interpretation runs as follows; in the Greek manuscripts of Matthew Jesus calls Peter Petros and this rock Petra. These two words look very similar (they are, in fact, connected to each other and both mean rock) but they are clearly not precisely the same word.
This is one of the most interesting challenges, albeit no harder to refute (although it is a little more complex). We can learn something about the nature of another language namely Greek through refuting it, and also come to understand the world Jesus and the Apostles lived in better through the linguistic analysis.
Refuting this claim should begin with the either / or apologetic tactics. Apologists should also make use of the extensive Scriptural and non-Scriptura support for Petrine Primacy other than Matthew 16:18. Remember, Scripture should not be read in isolation.
This is an example of the either / or understanding of Christianity common to many Protestants. Because Christ is described as a rock, Peter cannot be. Because Christ is the foundation of the Church, Peter cannot be. They fail to understand that Christianity is not either / or but both / and.
This is a challenge somewhat harder to refute, as it is at least partially true. Yes, the foundation of the Church is Christ (because the Church is Jesus Christ's bride and His mystical body) and Christ is described as a rock a number of times in Scripture.
Additionally, we must always remember to read and interpret Scripture as a whole not as single verses in isolation. The rest of Scripture points towards Petrine Primacy, as well as refuting the notion of sola fides, as do non-Scriptural sources.
Also, Christ has named the man who was Simon Peter - meaning 'rock' already. He does not say on this I will build my Church (which might be ambiguous) but rather on this rock I will build my Church.
So, if someone says, I own a motorbike and a car, and this is blue we believe that the car is blue. Saint Peter's declaration of faith in Jesus as the Messiah occurs in the sentence before, while the identification of Simon as Peter (rock) occurs immediately prior and in the same sentence.
Fortunately, refuting this notion is very simple. It is not even necessarily a matter of theology, but rather of grammar. When the word this is used in any language it generally refers to the noun which immediately follows.
Many nonCatholics will chooseto interpret the rock on which Christ builds His Church as the faith of SaintPeterThis supports the false notion of sola fides(faith alone)held to by a number of Protestants they say that Saint Peter's declaration of Jesus as the Messiah was the rock on which the Church was built and, therefore, all those who display faith in Jesus as the Messiah are in some way foundational to the Church. The Church in this scenario is built on faith, not on an individual.
But it is very important for the apologist to not become sidetracked or obsessed with the notion of defending this single verse as if it were the only support for the office of the pope. A correct understanding of the other Scriptural and non-Scriptural supports for Petrine Primacy is essential in order to avoid getting bogged down in verse-slinging.
There are, however, many people who wish to discredit this verse by trying to prove that it does not mean what the Catholic Church (correctly) says it means. There are a number of techniques which they may choose to use, and as an apologist you should be ready to respond to all of them.
Even if this verse is taken in isolation (something which is not recommended we should do when reading Scripture) it reads as a very solid support of Petrine Primacy. While it contains no complex doctrines, it does make it very clear that the Church of Christ is built on Saint Peter as a person. Christ calls him a rock, and then says He will build His Church (singular, thus showing there is only one Church) on him.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
In English, some of the impact of this phrase is lost the name Peter means rock and in many languages the same word would be used for both. So, a better understanding of what Christ actually said would be;
You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church
While there is significant other support both scriptural and otherwise for the doctrine of Petrine Primacy (the teaching that Saint Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed a greater teaching authority than they did, being able to settle matters of contention and command their obedience namely, he was the first pope!) it is a single verse in the Gospel of Matthew that provides much perhaps the clearest and simplest statement of this role Saint Peter possessed
Remember leaders of different Christian sects, the will of God is undivided Christianity. Give up your churches, no more Catholic, Protestants, Adventist, JW etc. If you think that I am wrong then prove that you are right. Ive asked the Lord for the two simultaneous explosion of volcano in the U.S. within this month of December, pray that it wouldnt happen, if despite of your prayer it does happen, then know that God is with me therefore you have to listen to me.
:) Liberal Catholic is not in communion with RC. Yes... Totally agreed with 2 Tim 3:16. It doesn't say "only scripture is". Go read up 2 Peter. Among the other books, Luther had troubles overcoming this, James and 2 Macc apart from Rev. Not to mention why he removed parts of Bible. Cheers!
Man is nothing but a sinner. If, we listen to man, then we are to blame. God, give us His Bible, and we are to read it. If, man contradicts the bible, then we are to obey the bible and not man. If, man says, the virgin mary was a virgin even after giving birth Christ, and the bible says otherwise, then we are not to listen to man. Bible (Scripture) Rules!!!!
Catholics, there is no need to argue. Explanations were already given from day one. Until our separated brethren can prove Sola Scriptura exists and is sole authority, there is no need to answer further secular queries.
Protestantism was founded by Martin, a mere man and alongside him were Zwingli and Calvin. Even they had differences too. So a Theology founded by men. Read up more, not just commentaries by Protestants. All have different versions, their versions but in line with their own interpretations. One advice... Catholics teach and explain the Bible and its teachings. Likewise, to understand the Bible, its using Scripture to read Scripture. Not some scholar that interpreting it 500 years ago.
The fruits of Luther's life are the division of Christianity in to 30,000 + denominations. 1 Cor 1 tells us that division is not of God. "I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas ...." to which can be added, "I am of Luther, I am of Calvin, I am of Zwingli......".
Remember Christians, the will of God is no Catholic, Protestant,Orthodox, Penticostal, Adventist, JW, Etc. NO DIVISION, Only Christians, holy, helping and sharing instead of buying and selling.
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:9-21)
Catholicism is wrong. God is the only omnipresent how can you pray to the saints we was people cannot be everywhere at the same so then how can everyone pray to the "saint mary" she was a blessed women but thats all. she fufilled her purpose in GOD'S plan. she was predestined as so was Luther and the apostles. Remember Jesus said the only way to the father was through him. so i dont know how the whole thing of praying to the saints came up. and yes i am a reformed christian
Where do we claim Mary is omnipresent? It does not require her omnipresence to hear prayers. We don't have to be present to hear President Oboma speak so why do you think they can do less in heaven than we. We can't request the prayers of others? That is what we do when we pray to Mary. We request her prayers "pray for us sinners". You don't ask others to pray for you?
Was the Catholic church still built upon that rock? Don't forget the Great Schism from 1378-1417, when three people claimed to be the Pope at the same time. Did Christ's authority survive that in tact? I understand why Martin Luther felt that going back to the Bible was the only way to return to the teachings of Christ. I would have lost faith in the Pope's authority too. That's not to say that Catholics were all corrupt. Plenty of them were good people, but the church was just a little misled.
I am a Catholic and I am not angry at you. I feel sorry for you. It's too bad you chose to separate from Christ's Church. I would recommend doing some research on this subject. Start with the Bible. I will pray for you and all other people who fell under the spell of Luther and his followers.
@KAMIKAZR Its your soul not ours that is in danger for leaving. What is dangerous is getting information about the church outside of the Church From heretics. Pax
Luther was a giant with feet of clay, especially when it came to Jews, women and the German peasants who revolted.
If someone today, held the views that Luther did concerning the above, We would's think him a nominal Christian. We can't take from him the fact, that he stood against the might of Rome, and was responsible for the reformation. We must praise Luther for the good that he did, and condemn him for the bad.
the eaerth is the proper distance from the sun for life which shows God is merciful to life and is good,therefore a good reason to believe in a good God.Jesus dying in the place of sinners on a cruel cross, and all we have to do is put our faith and trust in Jesus as our God and saviour and turn from our sins, to inherit eternal happiness in paradise,also shows Gods love
Luther's works were used by Nazis but why Luther was anti Semitic and why the Nazis were anti - Semitic are for completely different reasons. Luther disliked the Jews because of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. Hitler and the Nazis, on the other hand, hated Jews based on their race. So to flippantly link Luther to Hitler shows an absolute lack of historical intelligence.
@paul197604 Yeah, Luther was at first actually a friend of the jews. He wrote works defending them against their abuse by the pope. He at first held the position that the jews refused to convert because of their ill treatment by so called "Christians" throughout the centuries. But later, after he realized they refused to convert and even attacked his works after he had defended them his disposition towards them changed.
@paul197604 People often bring up "On the Jews and Their Lies" but do they ever mention, "Servitus Judaeorum" or "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew" which were written by Luther in defense of the jews? "On the Jews and Their Lies" was actually influenced by the work "The Whole Jewish Belief" which was written by the racial Jew Anton Margaritha.
@paul197604 "On the Jews and Their Lies" wasnt even necessarily an attack on the jewish race per se as much as it was an attack on the Talmud and talmudic thought. We would all do well to take heed of Luthers warnings against talmudism and its twin brother jesuitism. The eugenic racial ideologies of the nazi's were worlds away from Luthers Bible Believing worldview. Luther wanted to bring the jews to the saving Grace of Jesus (if that were even possible), the nazi's wanted to kill them.
This has been flagged as spam show
the mark of the beast is basically keeping the sunday instead of saturday as the God's day of worship &rest, I didn’t believe it but it’s in the Bible..the pope under the cover of NWO is misleading the people to think that it’s a simple chipXD
djheatM5 3 weeks ago
ITs in Russian haha!
VladGordeevFilms 5 months ago
For those who "slam" Dr. Luther, you ought to read some more of his writings, Small & Large Catechisms. Acquire a copy of Tappert's Book of Concord too.
Read those, then come & debate.
lonewolf379th 10 months ago
Martin Luther was a very confused and angry man whose entire theology can be based off of his chronic bouts with indigestion. This heretic has done more to damage Christendom than any of the barbarian invasions of the 1st millenium.
drdst17 10 months ago
@drdst17
-
Luther's theology was the result of indigestion? That's quite an ad hominem logical fallacy there.
He was not a heretic, and that was proven by his works defending his position from Scripture. The heretics were the Roman Catholics who were attempting to prostitute the Word of God. Even today, Rome teaches a false Gospel contrary to the clear testimony of the NT that salvation is solely and sufficiently by God's grace through the gift of faith, no works added.
AgApE010 10 months ago
@AgApE010 Luther had absolutely NO authority to change Holy Scripture or discard Sacred Tradition: only the Catholic Church has this authority, given to her by Our Savior in Matthew 16:18 when he gave St. Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Luther's ultimate heresy is the foolish and unbiblical doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". Scripture does not teach unless SOMEONE interprets its meaning. When Protestants attempt to do this, they fall into error due to their fallen nature.
drdst17 10 months ago
@drdst17
-
The Keys to the Kingdom don't mean that Apostles were able to do whatever they wanted. Even in the First Church Council in Acts 15, they did "as seemed good to the Spirit," i.e., in submission to God. In any case, you assume that your church is the Church of the New Testament that Christ established. I understand that Roman Catholics depend on this assumption in their theology, but it is simply not true. If you read the Early Fathers, you'll see nothing of your church in there.
AgApE010 10 months ago
@AgApE010 St. Peter was given ALL authority by Christ: "Whoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, etc."
And the Catholic Church IS the original Christian church. That is an indisputable fact. Even St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Church "Catholic". It means "Universal".
If you read the Early Church Fathers, you will easily see the Catholic Church present. It has held true for 2000 years: far before the Heretical "reforms" of the 16th century.
drdst17 10 months ago
@drdst17
-
Jesus gave the authority of binding and loosing to ALL the apostles (Matthew 18:18), not just to Peter.
I know Ignatius called the Church "Catholic." As you said, this word means "Universal," i.e., meaning that the Church consists of Jews, Gentiles, slave, free, all over the world. Protestants hold to the fact that the Church is Catholic in this sense. Just because your sect calls itself "Catholic" doesn't mean it is the Church in Ignatius' time. That is fallacious reasoning.
AgApE010 10 months ago
@AgApE010 But the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven were given directly to St. Peter, which gives him Primacy over all of the apostles.
And yes, the Church in St. Ignatius' time is, was, and always will be the Holy Catholic Church. Jesus said that the "Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it", meaning that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error. He also said that He would be with us "even unto the consummation of the world": Jesus would never leave His Church, ever.
drdst17 10 months ago
@drdst17
-
The keys were mentioned to Peter first, yes, but less than two chapters later they are also given to all the apostles. What gives Peter primacy is the fact that he is the center of focus among the apostles. He is always mentioned first, he always speaks for the group, and Christ called him the Rock on which He would build His Church. That Peter is the Rock is shown by the fact that the Church grew and gained a foundation with him, particularly in the period before Paul...
AgApE010 10 months ago
@drdst17
-
When Jesus said the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, it means that death will not prevail. That's why He uses the term "Gates" of Hell or Hades. In any case, that term does not mean that the Church is protected from doctrinal error. Remember, there were doctrinal errors very early. That's why the Church had to hold its First Council in Acts 15.
AgApE010 10 months ago
are you a Roman catholic?
MrSlippin22 9 hours ago
Thank you for sharing the Martin Luther story. Quite incredible!
shalimarsgirl 1 year ago
Inquisition? what inquisition
vitolucabratsi 1 year ago
paul197604 so you think all religion are relative?
Dantex626 1 year ago
the first Heretic since Arius to tear the fabric of the Church apart. All because HE had to be right rather than listen to those around him. Pride was his biggest sin, and the lead so many more into it.
burkardhanis 1 year ago
@burkardhanis
-
If Luther was a heretic and the Reformation was wrong in general, go and burn your English Bible like the Papists were doing in those days. After all, you should not have English Bibles since those came out of the "evil" Reformation. Also, do you spend money on indulgences to free your departed family from Purgatory? If not, why not?
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 I didn't say God didn't bring about some good things from Luther's sin, God can do that. I said he, Luther, was the first heretic since Arius to tear the Church apart. Just as a fuller understanding of the Most Holy Trinity came about due to Arius, there were some good things that came about in the Counter Reformation after Luther.
burkardhanis 1 year ago
As a Catholic, I must say, thank you.
frankpaddyank 1 year ago
Question: Was Martin Luther a true German or was he a Roman, part of the holy roman empire that simply denounced his own fellow Roman bretheran? I know that "Germany" was then part of the holy roman empire however, is there evidence that he was of "Barbarian, heathen or the uncivilized" as Paul in the bible refers to these peoples? Would they let a heathen be a Priest?
historyisknowledge 1 year ago
@historyisknowledge Luther was a German nationalist, if you had actually taken the time to read his writings you would know this as he said it frequently. Paul mentions the "Scythians" as being barbarians, not sure why you would equate the scythians with Germans, the scytians were an eastern asiatic people who occipied land north of Turkey and Iran. Perhaps you equate the two because some people in the past had considered the Germans to be semi-barbaric.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
wow!! sola scritura doen't work you must have the holy spirit to understant the scrpitures. I haev books on theology & believe me they open your understanding.
protestants are always slipping & thats why they don't get no where. Mainly cause nothing is happening not spiritually or mentally. I have been to their chuches And i see no one growing. Some pastor comes in and makes a whole lot of noise, waiting for the people to put thier offerings.
mmminmin02 1 year ago
I would have followed Luther, if his invention of sola scriptura had not resulted in more than 38,000 different protestant demonimations with different and contradictory teachings.
elcamaras 2 years ago
The Bible is perfect. For one to simply understand 2 Tim 3:16 it must be read in line with other books such as that under 1 Timothy 3:15. There is no where in the Bible that states that Bible is the only Authority. But it does say however that it's the church. So far Protestants theologians (Early Reformers and modern theologians) have only stated their position or worked ard it. What's new....
qnnyw 2 years ago
@qnnyw Before you relate 1 Tim 3:15 to 2 Tim 3:16.
Check out these passages
Jeremiah 23:16-40
Acts 17:11--examined the scriptures everyday to see if what Paul said was true.
Isaiah 8:20--to the law and to the testimony if they do not speak according to these words they have no light of dawn.
Luke 16:29--They have moses and the prophets let them listen to them.
God has give us his word through the scriptures from OT to NT. We hold scriputre above all else because God tells us his word are life
studygreek 1 year ago
@studygreek U got to follow salvation history to understand. Extracted from Scripture catholic to save time on my typing... The only main argument a Protestant can make is that, once the Bible was compiled, all oral apostolic tradition was committed to Scriptures and the requirement to follow oral tradition ceased.
qnnyw 1 year ago
@studygreek But this doesn't prove from the Bible that there is nothing in the Scriptures that commands us to follow oral tradition until the Bible is compiled, and then to follow the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible). In fact, Jesus never even commanded any of His apostles to write anything down. They were only charged to "preach the Gospel to all creation." Matthew 28:19.
qnnyw 1 year ago
@qnnyw
-
"Jesus never commanded the apostles to write anything down"
-
"Write in a book what you see..." (Rev. 1:11); And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." (Rev. 21:5). Besides, do you really mean to say that when the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write Scripture that this was not in agreement with the Son? You're trying very hard to uphold your traditions, even at the expense of the integrity of Scripture. You should examine your faith very closely, my friend...
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 :) My separated brethren, it's never too easy for one to understand. So in your opinion that is, what have u come understand and interpret and who let you conclude? Who taught you what you know to believe in? It states that it is the church..... not your reformed bible where Martin tried to amend doctrines and not to say the least did remove 7 books. If by that you can't comprehend. Nothing else will. Same goes for 30,000 protestants' interpretation. Martin, A good man but silly.
qnnyw 1 year ago
@qnnyw
-
I'm not a "separated brethren", my deceived Papist friend. Secondly, you completely avoided addressing my responses to your other comments which overthrow your claims and misunderstandings. Do you wish to be noble enough to admit that you were wrong in those claims? Then we can begin addressing your other accusations in this comment.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 :) So u say... So tell me which denomination are you from? Avoid? Try to... perhaps to take it that it's of no point further explaining. Coz I dun think you would be so kind as to even want to listen and least of all understand. I've come across enough of protestants such as yourself to know that it's of no further use explaining or deliberating. The case in point is who interprets for you to understand? Yourself? Your Pastor? Which came first? The Bible or the Church? :)
qnnyw 1 year ago
@qnnyw
-
Still avoiding rebutting. Well, I'll be the polite one and answer YOU. I'm of the non-denominational denomination, Trinitarian, 5-Point Calvinist, Historical Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist. But when it comes to the essential issues, I, like every Protestant, believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone who is God incarnate, 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, crucified for believers, resurrected bodily. Those are the essentials, and we all hold to them.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Pointless...you just keep dwelling on something not worth speaking more about... Go ahead and readup more. Then again, I said before it's a belief system...Being that stubborn, if you won't belief, you won't. Ok, polite one... :) But of coz.... like all protestants... a belief in theology of a man call Martin.... A made up but he sold you guys really good. Take care, friend. :)
qnnyw 1 year ago
@qnnyw
-
Hahaha! I like how you avoid rebutting my arguments but rather simply respond by calling me stubborn and say that I was sold by Luther into accepting "his theology." Then you actually have the nerve to tell ME to read more while you are the one who has provided no counter-argumentation while your beliefs have been systematically demolished. You have no reasoning capabilities and I can see there's no point in continuing further. Au revoir.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Typical Protestant nature and reaction. :)
qnnyw 1 year ago
Comment removed
qnnyw 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgApE010 woe to u so called christians! woe to u, u do not believe in God for if u did u would believe in the one he sent! woe to u who do not not acknowledge the authority of God given to peter and his sucssesores! woe to u who do not understand u can not enter throught the gate of heaven, for it is locked, without the keys iv placed on the seat of peter! woe to u if u believed in God u would trust his judgment and listen to the one he gave authority to teach!
gtepp031387 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgApE010 woe to u so called christians! woe to u, u do not believe in God for if u did u would believe in the one he sent! woe to u who do not not acknowledge the authority of God given to peter and his sucssesores! woe to u who do not understand u can not enter throught the gate of heaven, for it is locked, without the keys iv placed on the seat of peter! woe to u if u believed in God u would trust his judgment and listen to the one he gave authority to teach!
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@qnnyw
-
When it comes to interpretation of Scripture, it depends on what level we are speaking. For example, even a new believer in the Lord can understand the theme of the Gospel of John, namely that salvation is by believing in the Divine Son of God; or of Romans, namely justification by faith and not our works. But when it comes to the deeper teachings of God's word, that requires deeper study (which isn't foreign to Christianity insomuch as even St. Polycarp encouraged his readers... contd
AgApE010 1 year ago
@qnnyw
-
...Polycarp encouraged his readers to "study Paul's letters."). Thankfully, there's an objective method of interpretation called Hermeneutics, which I will not get into great detail concerning for the time being. In addition to this, there are teachers of God's word, such as Martin Luther or St. Augustine, to assist us in our understanding; as the Apostle himself said "He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers." (Eph. 4:11)
AgApE010 1 year ago
@qnnyw
-
"Which came first? The Bible or the Church?"
-
The Old Testament was there before the Church. And that was the source of authority for apostolic teaching and preaching. That's why all throughout the book of Acts, for example, they preached "as it is written"; "with this the Prophets agree"; and "the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so." But regardless, the first Church was not the Papist church so it doesn't support your argument in any case.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Thanks but you need to read up more in detail. Yours is but a portion of the story. :) But good effort though.
qnnyw 1 year ago
@studygreek Because the Scriptures are the living word of God which is the same yesterday, today and forever (cf. Hebrews 13:10), and there is no verse in Scripture that repudiates Paul's instruction in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we must also obey the oral tradition of the Church as Paul commanded, or we are not being faithful to the Scriptures.
It's a believe system. If you won't believe... you won't believe. Got it?
qnnyw 1 year ago
@qnnyw
-
If you read the passage, Paul tells his readers what those traditions are: "It was for this He called you through *our gospel*..." (2 Thess. 2:14).
-
Your argument from that verse assumes quite a few things: One, that the Romanist church is the same Church as the first Church in Paul's day. Second, you assume that by "traditions" Paul meant transubstantiation, penance, papal infallibility, etc. That's reading a lot into his word, especially in light of the context as shown above.
AgApE010 1 year ago
to Peter's position and status. It is clear, from the wealth of Biblical and extra-Biblical support for the doctrine of Petrine Primacy that Jesus meant exactly what the plain sense of a literal meaning of Scripture means; You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
@Ignatius1125 : Apart from a tendentious interpretation of Matt 16:18, what "wealth" of Biblical support do you find for the doctrine of Peter's supremacy? My own answer would be: nothing.
thinkerj 1 year ago
Finally, did Jesus intend to differentiate between Peter and the rock upon which He would build His Church? Some people might say that we cannot know what Jesus meant, but they would be wrong. Everything we know about Jesus comes to us through the Apostles and those the Apostles taught. So, we can learn what Jesus meant by this by looking at the Scriptural and non-Scriptural references
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
@Ignatius1125 umm...are you holding the non-scriptural references on par with scripture?
If God gave the New testament in Greek....don't you think he knew what he was doing when the greek words were different? There are no textual variants in the greek text for that one either.
1 COR 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
How can peter be the rock? If 1 Cor 3:11 states that Christ is the foundation.
studygreek 1 year ago
He was trying to represent what was a perfect pun (using exactly the same words) in Aramaic using a language which did not allow him to do this. In English, virtually all of the effect is lost few people know that Peter means rock - but in Greek at least some of the meaning can be preserved.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Nouns in ancient Greek are gendered that is, some of them are masculine and some are feminine. The word petra is feminine (it is used today in some parts of the world as a female version of the name Peter) and so could not be used to apply to a man like Peter (it would be like calling a man named Stephen Stephanie!) The male version of petra is petros and so that is why Matthew used those words.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
@Ignatius1125 Umm... your logic again astounds me. In some parts of the world today....this wasn't today, this was when Koine Greek ruled. Greek was greek and Petros meant Petros and Petra meant Petra.
Your use of language skills is horrible. If I call my brother, "brother." I am not saying sister. Same here, writers in Greek knew the difference between genders.
studygreek 1 year ago
But why did Saint Matthew (or whoever translated Matthew into Greek) use different words to represent the same word in Aramaic? The answer lies in a grammatical point which is not present in English, but is present in other modern languages such as French, Spanish and German.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
@Ignatius1125 Wow, how do you know Matthew didn't write it in Greek? We have texts from as early as 50AD that are in Greek. In fact we have no reason to believe any of the new testament was written in any other language but Greek due to textual evidence.
We have translations from the Greek.
studygreek 1 year ago
So, when Jesus called Simon Peter (meaning rock) He would not have said Peter. He would not even have said Petros (from where we get the English name Peter). He would have used the Aramaic a word which we find eight times in Saint Paul's epistles (four times in Galatians and four times in I Corinthians). This word is Kepha, and means rock. It is this word that Jesus would have used when saying You are Peter and on this rock -He would have said You are Kepha and on this kepha
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
a semitic language related to Hebrew and common in the Persian empire. A number of examples are Aramaic are cited in the New Testament as the words that Jesus actually spoke (the most famous example is Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? found in Matthew 27:46.)
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Greek was the common language of the first century Near- and Middle East for commerce, trade, education and international communications but Jews in Palestine would not have spoken it when talking to each other. Jesus might have used the language to speak to non-Jews (such as Pilate) but He would not have commonly spoken to His disciples in that language. For that, He would have used Aramaic
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Secondly, did Jesus use two different words to refer to Peter and this rock? Again, no He did not. While the New Testament is written in Greek it was not that language that Jesus and the Apostles would have commonly spoken day to day. (There are a number of authorities who maintain that the Gospel of Matthew was not written originally in Greek, but in Aramaic. This position is based on linguistic analysis of the Greek text of the Gospel, as well as records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Any difference in meaning had disappeared from the language by the time Matthews Gospel was written (around the middle of the first century AD). In addition, the difference can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone in first century Koine Greek, He would have used the Greek word lithos.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Firstly, do petros and petra really mean small rock and large rock? Greek scholars are almost universally agreed in saying that the words petros and petra were synonyms (words which have the same meaning) in first century Greek. The meanings "small rock" and "large rock" are only found in a number of ancient Greek poems which were composed centuries before the time of Christ.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
This argument hinges on three vital facts;
That petros and petra really mean small rock and large rock respectively
That Christ used different words to refer to Peter and this rock
That Christ intended to differentiate between Peter and this rock in that way
As we shall demonstrate, none of these facts are true! Remember, in order for this challenge to stand up, all of these facts must be true. If even one is not, then the whole argument collapses.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
A number of non-Catholics will say that this difference of words means that Peter cannot be the rock, as the word petros means small rock or pebble while petra means large rock or boulder. These Protestants will argue one of the two points above that the larger foundation is either Christ or Peter's faith, and that the man himself is the smaller rock; similar, but not the foundation.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
The objection to the Catholic interpretation runs as follows; in the Greek manuscripts of Matthew Jesus calls Peter Petros and this rock Petra. These two words look very similar (they are, in fact, connected to each other and both mean rock) but they are clearly not precisely the same word.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Challenge 3 : the Petra / Petros debate
This is one of the most interesting challenges, albeit no harder to refute (although it is a little more complex). We can learn something about the nature of another language namely Greek through refuting it, and also come to understand the world Jesus and the Apostles lived in better through the linguistic analysis.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Refuting this claim should begin with the either / or apologetic tactics. Apologists should also make use of the extensive Scriptural and non-Scriptura support for Petrine Primacy other than Matthew 16:18. Remember, Scripture should not be read in isolation.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
This is an example of the either / or understanding of Christianity common to many Protestants. Because Christ is described as a rock, Peter cannot be. Because Christ is the foundation of the Church, Peter cannot be. They fail to understand that Christianity is not either / or but both / and.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Challenge 2 : the rock is Christ, not Peter
This is a challenge somewhat harder to refute, as it is at least partially true. Yes, the foundation of the Church is Christ (because the Church is Jesus Christ's bride and His mystical body) and Christ is described as a rock a number of times in Scripture.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Additionally, we must always remember to read and interpret Scripture as a whole not as single verses in isolation. The rest of Scripture points towards Petrine Primacy, as well as refuting the notion of sola fides, as do non-Scriptural sources.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Also, Christ has named the man who was Simon Peter - meaning 'rock' already. He does not say on this I will build my Church (which might be ambiguous) but rather on this rock I will build my Church.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
So, if someone says, I own a motorbike and a car, and this is blue we believe that the car is blue. Saint Peter's declaration of faith in Jesus as the Messiah occurs in the sentence before, while the identification of Simon as Peter (rock) occurs immediately prior and in the same sentence.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Fortunately, refuting this notion is very simple. It is not even necessarily a matter of theology, but rather of grammar. When the word this is used in any language it generally refers to the noun which immediately follows.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Many nonCatholics will chooseto interpret the rock on which Christ builds His Church as the faith of SaintPeterThis supports the false notion of sola fides(faith alone)held to by a number of Protestants they say that Saint Peter's declaration of Jesus as the Messiah was the rock on which the Church was built and, therefore, all those who display faith in Jesus as the Messiah are in some way foundational to the Church. The Church in this scenario is built on faith, not on an individual.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Challenge 1 : this rock does not refer to Peter, but rather to his faith
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
But it is very important for the apologist to not become sidetracked or obsessed with the notion of defending this single verse as if it were the only support for the office of the pope. A correct understanding of the other Scriptural and non-Scriptural supports for Petrine Primacy is essential in order to avoid getting bogged down in verse-slinging.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
There are, however, many people who wish to discredit this verse by trying to prove that it does not mean what the Catholic Church (correctly) says it means. There are a number of techniques which they may choose to use, and as an apologist you should be ready to respond to all of them.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Even if this verse is taken in isolation (something which is not recommended we should do when reading Scripture) it reads as a very solid support of Petrine Primacy. While it contains no complex doctrines, it does make it very clear that the Church of Christ is built on Saint Peter as a person. Christ calls him a rock, and then says He will build His Church (singular, thus showing there is only one Church) on him.
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
In English, some of the impact of this phrase is lost the name Peter means rock and in many languages the same word would be used for both. So, a better understanding of what Christ actually said would be;
You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
While there is significant other support both scriptural and otherwise for the doctrine of Petrine Primacy (the teaching that Saint Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed a greater teaching authority than they did, being able to settle matters of contention and command their obedience namely, he was the first pope!) it is a single verse in the Gospel of Matthew that provides much perhaps the clearest and simplest statement of this role Saint Peter possessed
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
I take it you believe in Sola Scriptura which is false
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Thank you Martin Luther for deforming the Church...not reforming it!
Snotra 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
Remember leaders of different Christian sects, the will of God is undivided Christianity. Give up your churches, no more Catholic, Protestants, Adventist, JW etc. If you think that I am wrong then prove that you are right. Ive asked the Lord for the two simultaneous explosion of volcano in the U.S. within this month of December, pray that it wouldnt happen, if despite of your prayer it does happen, then know that God is with me therefore you have to listen to me.
.
conceil8 2 years ago
:) Liberal Catholic is not in communion with RC. Yes... Totally agreed with 2 Tim 3:16. It doesn't say "only scripture is". Go read up 2 Peter. Among the other books, Luther had troubles overcoming this, James and 2 Macc apart from Rev. Not to mention why he removed parts of Bible. Cheers!
qnnyw 2 years ago
I too am Catholic, but in the universal sense, not in the Roman Catholic sense.
Thanks for the ear
reformedtheologian00 2 years ago
Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone.
Read 2 Tim 3:16
Man is nothing but a sinner. If, we listen to man, then we are to blame. God, give us His Bible, and we are to read it. If, man contradicts the bible, then we are to obey the bible and not man. If, man says, the virgin mary was a virgin even after giving birth Christ, and the bible says otherwise, then we are not to listen to man. Bible (Scripture) Rules!!!!
reformedtheologian00 2 years ago
Dubbing should be banned... Aaargh! -_-
Thymonico 2 years ago 2
Catholics, there is no need to argue. Explanations were already given from day one. Until our separated brethren can prove Sola Scriptura exists and is sole authority, there is no need to answer further secular queries.
1 Timothy 3:15
qnnyw 2 years ago
Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone. don't forget 2 Tim 3:16
Thank for the ear
reformedtheologian00 2 years ago
my religion is catholic and always be...
LeN0Re18 2 years ago
For more of what Luther said/taught copy the following into youtube:
Martin Luther, the Devil and Denominations
iotaunam1 2 years ago
I dont need any of you...just me and Jesus.
Snotra 2 years ago
The Catholic church was made but our lord jesus Christ. Protestant was made but a man.
You Protestant's and ur made up jesus
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Protestantism was founded by Martin, a mere man and alongside him were Zwingli and Calvin. Even they had differences too. So a Theology founded by men. Read up more, not just commentaries by Protestants. All have different versions, their versions but in line with their own interpretations. One advice... Catholics teach and explain the Bible and its teachings. Likewise, to understand the Bible, its using Scripture to read Scripture. Not some scholar that interpreting it 500 years ago.
qnnyw 2 years ago
What A Fool Believes
bigchickenfu 2 years ago
The fruits of Luther's life are the division of Christianity in to 30,000 + denominations. 1 Cor 1 tells us that division is not of God. "I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas ...." to which can be added, "I am of Luther, I am of Calvin, I am of Zwingli......".
imromancatholic 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
Remember Christians, the will of God is no Catholic, Protestant,Orthodox, Penticostal, Adventist, JW, Etc. NO DIVISION, Only Christians, holy, helping and sharing instead of buying and selling.
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:9-21)
.
conceil8 2 years ago
Catholicism is wrong. God is the only omnipresent how can you pray to the saints we was people cannot be everywhere at the same so then how can everyone pray to the "saint mary" she was a blessed women but thats all. she fufilled her purpose in GOD'S plan. she was predestined as so was Luther and the apostles. Remember Jesus said the only way to the father was through him. so i dont know how the whole thing of praying to the saints came up. and yes i am a reformed christian
Sniping4Killz 2 years ago
Where do we claim Mary is omnipresent? It does not require her omnipresence to hear prayers. We don't have to be present to hear President Oboma speak so why do you think they can do less in heaven than we. We can't request the prayers of others? That is what we do when we pray to Mary. We request her prayers "pray for us sinners". You don't ask others to pray for you?
imromancatholic 2 years ago
"If Moses should intimidate you with his stupid 10 commandments tell him go chase yourself out to the Jews"
-Martin Luther
DavidVelezPerez 2 years ago
Typical Protestant. Your Pastors always teach you to hate.
DavidVelezPerez 2 years ago
what is your concept when Jesus told to peter "thou art peter upon this rock i will build my church"?did Jesus told to martin that???
utangki 2 years ago
Was the Catholic church still built upon that rock? Don't forget the Great Schism from 1378-1417, when three people claimed to be the Pope at the same time. Did Christ's authority survive that in tact? I understand why Martin Luther felt that going back to the Bible was the only way to return to the teachings of Christ. I would have lost faith in the Pope's authority too. That's not to say that Catholics were all corrupt. Plenty of them were good people, but the church was just a little misled.
canadarox14 2 years ago
I used to be a DIE - HARD Catholic, and I loved it for years.
But then, I researched about the stuff Catholicism is teaching, and the practices - it is heresy.
I had to leave Catholicism - it is dangerous. It is nothing comforting.
And if Catholics are furious with me for leaving Catholicism, I cannot help this. I do get mocked, and shunned - but then, so was Christ.
KAMIKAZR 2 years ago 3
I am a Catholic and I am not angry at you. I feel sorry for you. It's too bad you chose to separate from Christ's Church. I would recommend doing some research on this subject. Start with the Bible. I will pray for you and all other people who fell under the spell of Luther and his followers.
hobbymodeler1 2 years ago
Don't you dare call my religion a "spell."
Why are you so smug that your religion, and none other, is "Christ's Church?"
Outeast92 2 years ago
Do you really understand the Bible well enough?
qnnyw 2 years ago
@KAMIKAZR: Not furious, yet you probably just didn't research that well. I mean I've placed 2 years of research, and I can see how it's the truth..
RockyBalboa211 1 year ago
@KAMIKAZR Its your soul not ours that is in danger for leaving. What is dangerous is getting information about the church outside of the Church From heretics. Pax
rcarnes1988 1 year ago
Luther was a giant with feet of clay, especially when it came to Jews, women and the German peasants who revolted.
If someone today, held the views that Luther did concerning the above, We would's think him a nominal Christian. We can't take from him the fact, that he stood against the might of Rome, and was responsible for the reformation. We must praise Luther for the good that he did, and condemn him for the bad.
togglesblock 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the eaerth is the proper distance from the sun for life which shows God is merciful to life and is good,therefore a good reason to believe in a good God.Jesus dying in the place of sinners on a cruel cross, and all we have to do is put our faith and trust in Jesus as our God and saviour and turn from our sins, to inherit eternal happiness in paradise,also shows Gods love
bibliosca 2 years ago
Luther's works were used by Nazis but why Luther was anti Semitic and why the Nazis were anti - Semitic are for completely different reasons. Luther disliked the Jews because of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. Hitler and the Nazis, on the other hand, hated Jews based on their race. So to flippantly link Luther to Hitler shows an absolute lack of historical intelligence.
paul197604 3 years ago 8
I agree, when stating an historical fact that is so widely well known get the facts straight.
GrassNLuna 3 years ago
@paul197604 Yeah, Luther was at first actually a friend of the jews. He wrote works defending them against their abuse by the pope. He at first held the position that the jews refused to convert because of their ill treatment by so called "Christians" throughout the centuries. But later, after he realized they refused to convert and even attacked his works after he had defended them his disposition towards them changed.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@paul197604 People often bring up "On the Jews and Their Lies" but do they ever mention, "Servitus Judaeorum" or "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew" which were written by Luther in defense of the jews? "On the Jews and Their Lies" was actually influenced by the work "The Whole Jewish Belief" which was written by the racial Jew Anton Margaritha.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@paul197604 "On the Jews and Their Lies" wasnt even necessarily an attack on the jewish race per se as much as it was an attack on the Talmud and talmudic thought. We would all do well to take heed of Luthers warnings against talmudism and its twin brother jesuitism. The eugenic racial ideologies of the nazi's were worlds away from Luthers Bible Believing worldview. Luther wanted to bring the jews to the saving Grace of Jesus (if that were even possible), the nazi's wanted to kill them.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
Comment removed
paul197604 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Black people are destroying your sons and daughters.
"Rap Music" is destoying your sons and turining your daughters into whores.
They are raping your daughters at your universities.
55 percent of our prisons are black.
4/10 black girls before age 18 have STDS
7 out of 10 black children do not even know their father.
and so many more stats...
Black people do not like to be accountable.
Black people, if they had the opportunity would enslave all races unto their will.
ScrewtapeLiberal787 3 years ago
My religion is Lutheran and always be.
leenie6000 3 years ago
Martin Luther was a good man
QueenieLizzie 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ML was a heretic & an anti-semite whose works were revered by Hitler.
piefrance 3 years ago