tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post6255411349714974882..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Why Luther Removed 2 Maccabees from the BibleJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-74156266023899230622024-03-06T10:11:39.964-05:002024-03-06T10:11:39.964-05:00It's always good to maintain a sense of wonder...It's always good to maintain a sense of wonder.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52396073522133770422024-03-06T02:47:19.539-05:002024-03-06T02:47:19.539-05:00I wonder if Luther made it to purgatory.I wonder if Luther made it to purgatory.James Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14111037364653005571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88730117707529005322023-12-06T00:47:35.793-05:002023-12-06T00:47:35.793-05:00Wow a comment on a blog post from 2011. Amazing.
...Wow a comment on a blog post from 2011. Amazing. <br /><br />True, I purposefully use "Roman Catholic" - and that's because I think those obedient to the pope in Rome are outside of the "catholic" church.<br /><br />Yes, I'm very familiar with Luther's writings about the Jews, simply use the search engine for this blog. <br /><br />I don't have any issues with Jesuits being expelled.<br /><br />JSJames Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25667732892225068232023-12-05T09:32:49.133-05:002023-12-05T09:32:49.133-05:00There is "NO" Roman Catholic Church, the...There is "NO" Roman Catholic Church, the name is the "Catholic Church", study your history, it was the English that coined that term. Paul, Archaeologist and Historian. Remember, Luther had a problem with Jews as did Bismark. Martin Luther’s writings, “On the Jews and Their Detestable Lies”. And it's in that writing that Luther unleashes his rhetoric against the Jews and is very forceful in his rhetoric which some believe he mirrored Germany’s “Iron Chancellor” Otto von Bismarck staged the first act of the ‘tragedy of German Jewry. He pursued a Kulturkampf (cultural struggle) against Catholics, by placing parochial schools under state control and expelling the Jesuits. In 1878 Bismarck relented, allying with the Catholics against the growing socialist threat.<br />Francis1https://www.blogger.com/profile/09525059265485894578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-19773936412612506062023-10-11T11:12:03.083-04:002023-10-11T11:12:03.083-04:00Hello Anonymous,
I know this is a very old post a...Hello Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>I know this is a very old post and you probably wont reply,</i><br /><br />Your first error. This is a reply.<br /><br /><i>but have you ever actually read Luther's "on the jews and thier lies" and "vom schem hamphoras"</i><br /><br />Your second error. I have read Luther extensively on his attitude towards the Jews. I have composed a multitude of blog entries on the subject over the last 20 years. Even on the sidebar there is a link to an extensive paper I did on the subject. <br /><br /><i> or did you just read a few quotes on google completly lacking all context? </i><br /><br />Your third error... an error which demonstrates you have absolutely no idea who you are accusing of using contextless quotes found on Google. Yours is the typical nature of anonymous comments: they are put forth by pathetic people that should not have access to a keyboard. <br /><br /><i>Seems you are completely unfamiliar with the jewish talmud as well. </i><br /><br />Your fourth error. How would you know someone "completely" is "unfamiliar" with something based on a blog post that isn't about the Talmud?<br /><br /><i> Not to mention you don't seem to know what murder is.</i><br /><br />Your fifth error. This old blog post was about Martin Luther and 2 Maccabees, not an exposition of the term, "murder." <br /><br /> James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58514100854903550172023-10-10T12:07:42.078-04:002023-10-10T12:07:42.078-04:00I know this is a very old post and you probably wo...I know this is a very old post and you probably wont reply, but have you ever actually read Luther's "on the jews and thier lies" and "vom schem hamphoras" or did you just read a few quotes on google completly lacking all context? Seems you are completely unfamiliar with the jewish talmud as well. Not to mention you don't seem to know what murder is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37383248460297442102023-02-10T12:19:40.846-05:002023-02-10T12:19:40.846-05:00Strong candidate for a Life Verse even.Strong candidate for a Life Verse even.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61342040026000326692023-02-10T12:18:48.112-05:002023-02-10T12:18:48.112-05:00If it is well written and to the point, that is wh...<i>If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.</i><br /><br />Great memory verse to learn!James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-19581903517581305732023-02-10T10:12:54.617-05:002023-02-10T10:12:54.617-05:00I would hasten to add that 2 Maccabees excludes it...I would hasten to add that 2 Maccabees excludes itself from being considered a book breathed out by an infallible all-knowing God:<br /><br />2 Macc 15:<br />37<br />Since Nicanor’s doings ended in this way, with the city remaining in the possession of the Hebrews from that time on, I will bring my story to an end here too.<br />38<br />If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.<br /><br />Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3441417178919043962023-02-10T10:09:30.383-05:002023-02-10T10:09:30.383-05:00You need to read the attached link to know exactly...<i>You need to read the attached link to know exactly how and why Luther removed the deuterocanonicals which he called apocrypha from the Bible: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/defending-the-deuterocanonicals-996.</i><br /><br />I did just that many many years ago. Here's what I stated: (https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#_ednref10) <br /><br />James Akin confuses Luther’s use of appendices with thorough removal (or, at least wrongly uses these words interchangeably). He mistakenly concludes, “. If you want to find [certain apocryphal stories], you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament -- in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible” [James Akin, “Defending The Deuterocanonicals”]. In the same article, Akin says, “Why would Martin Luther cut out [2 Maccabees] when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament [book of Hebrews]? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well).”<br /><br />Akin completely neglects the aspect of Luther’s historical and critical reasoning. Had Akin simply checked LW 35:352-353, he could have read Luther’s most explicit statement for rejecting 2 Maccabees: “This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees—another or different, certainly, but not second. But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well. It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books. It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14[:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.”<br /><br />James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-41487767420086575392023-02-10T06:18:27.993-05:002023-02-10T06:18:27.993-05:00You need to read the attached link to know exactly...You need to read the attached link to know exactly how and why Luther removed the deuterocanonicals which he called apocrypha from the Bible: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/defending-the-deuterocanonicals-996.<br /><br />To Kate, I just wanted you to know that I see what you’re saying clearly. There are many Protestants who converted to Catholicism in our church. But, whatever church we belong, we should not focus on debating our differences (work of the evil one) but on our faith in Jesus Christ. We are all followers of Christ and we should always encourage one another, <br /><br />May the peace and grace of God be with us always. 🙏Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66166061546278985262019-08-14T15:42:25.102-04:002019-08-14T15:42:25.102-04:00Hi Joe, on my sidebar is a link to a Beggars All F...Hi Joe, on my sidebar is a link to a Beggars All Facebook page. I maintain it sporadically. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-73943055726654776192019-08-14T10:53:36.469-04:002019-08-14T10:53:36.469-04:00JS
Do you have any social media for Beggars All?JS<br /><br />Do you have any social media for Beggars All?Joe Gallagherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340421807149887860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-9777787224263440452019-08-10T00:27:26.794-04:002019-08-10T00:27:26.794-04:00Hi Joe,
Thanks for leaving your comment on this o...Hi Joe,<br /><br />Thanks for leaving your comment on this old blog entry (2011, Tempus Fugit!). I don't really recall all the minutiae from this blog post, so I skimmed it over. You ask,<br /><br /><i> When referencing the anachronism and the comment of there being no set definition of purgatory, that is inaccurate. There councils of Florence AND Trent stated sixty years earlier on the existence of purgatory and it's purpose. What could then be up in the air to debate?</i><br /><br />So, I went to that part of the entry in which I used the word, "anachronism." I stated, " There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence... upon Purgatory. Until that was defined, theologians were able to debate on it, which is exactly what Luther did." Do you see the difference in what you're asking and what I'm saying? <br /><br />You then asked about "<i>scripture being the 'sole infallible rule of faith.'</i>." Unless I missed it, this was not a subject in the blog entry proper, but rather one of my comments under the entry (Jan. 2, 2015)? You ask specifically:<br /><br /><i>How can something be labeled as an "infallible rule" when it does not provide direct teachings on a subject?</i><br /><br />I would simply parrot back the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 to you: <br /><br />"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."<br /><br />The point being that Scripture has direct and indirect teaching, and this in no way is contrary to the notion the the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. The Trinity (which you mentioned) is a great example.<br /><br />Thanks again for stopping by. <br /><br />JS James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-64818103301216062722019-08-09T12:41:14.694-04:002019-08-09T12:41:14.694-04:00I do feel lucky
I am aware that this is an older ...I do feel lucky<br /><br />I am aware that this is an older blog post, but I do have a comment or two that I'd like answered. When referencing the anachronism and the comment of there being no set definition of purgatory, that is inaccurate. There councils of Florence AND Trent stated sixty years earlier on the existence of purgatory and it's purpose. What could then be up in the air to debate?<br /><br />The other question is that of scripture being the "sole infallible rule of faith." It is obvious that scripture contains multiple doctrines that simply come as concepts. For example, the word "trinity" never appears in Scripture, yet is a universal belief (minus SOME further leaning beliefs) that God is a trinity. How can something be labeled as an "infallible rule" when it does not provide direct teachings on a subject? <br /><br /> "Does it say it in the bible?"<br /> "Nope"<br /> "Then it is not pertinent to our salvation and thus up for debate!"<br /><br />This type of thinking seems so damaging because there is a plethora of teachings, traditions, and rituals that stem from scripture that are not "listed." So, with this thinking, how could scripture be the "sole infallible rule of faith?"Joe Gallagherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340421807149887860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-450695391988015802018-11-05T11:36:16.098-05:002018-11-05T11:36:16.098-05:00Hi Daniel:
First, I note your avoidance of the ac...Hi Daniel:<br /><br />First, I note your avoidance of the actual topic of this blog post. <br /><br />Second, Let's play in Rome's world for a minute: Luther was, like Erasmus and Cajetan, a sixteenth century Biblical theologian. All three of these men commented on the nature of the canon. These men formed their opinions and debated canon issues previous to the Council of Trent, as did scholars at... the Council of Trent. See my links here:<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/08/new-catholic-encyclopedia-canon-was-not.html<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-were-some-of-best-scholars-at.html<br /><br /> <br />Third, Rome is not the infallible church, nor the subject of 1 Tim. 3:15. See John Bugay's old entry here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/pillar-and-support-of-truth.html<br /><br />Fourth, please review my link here in regard to Jamnia:<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/francis-beckwith-ets-shows-sympathies.html<br /><br />James<br /><br />James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-39474091093822447192018-10-31T14:08:57.189-04:002018-10-31T14:08:57.189-04:00The Jewish Council of Jamnia which affirms the boo...The Jewish Council of Jamnia which affirms the books of OT took place around year 100 way after the Christ resurrection and founding of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church replaced the authority of the Old Covenant so the Church of the New Covenant whose authority is from Christ does not recognize other authorities in matter of religion. It would be absurd to think the Christians need to follow Jamnia to reject the Gospels. 1 Timothy 3:15 says it is the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Just like the U.S. Supreme Court is the authority on how to interpret and apply the U.S. Constitution the Church is the authority of the canon of the Bible and the doctrines (how to interpret the Bible). The question is "Was Luther to spokesman of the Church on the matter of Canon of the Bible?" or a better question "Who is the "Church" in 1 Timothy 3:15"? or "Does this Church in 1 Timothy 3:15 still exist today or it cased to exist after the death of the last Apostle?"Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12671892880322948113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-63362039123294998902018-10-31T04:47:53.374-04:002018-10-31T04:47:53.374-04:00Even more Daniel Pan ... Trent was affirming the c...Even more Daniel Pan ... Trent was affirming the canon of the two councils that have 27 books in New Testament.<br /><br />Luther by removing Maccabees was in one sense following a council, namely that of Laodicea, but that one not only has a Protestant OT canon, but also an incomplete NT canon.<br /><br />Luther found obviously prayers for the dead (probably implying purgatory) very well attested in II Maccabees 12.<br /><br />Jews also reject those seven books, they would find Incarnation of God's Wisdom too well attested in Baruch 3.<br /><br />Now, who has authority?<br /><br />Matthew 16 and 28, Acts 15, and one of the Epistles of Timothy (I, I think) would involve a very good hint of "who" in the plural : those exercising the authority of the Apostles in the Church which has continued. And will do so to doomsday.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-4529510752245052522018-10-30T13:53:47.741-04:002018-10-30T13:53:47.741-04:00Thanks for your comment Hans. So you don't th...Thanks for your comment Hans. So you don't think Luther had the authority to determine which books should be in the Bible? So who had or has the authority then? Trent was reaffirming the canon determined by two Church Councils in the 4th century not changing anything. Do you know on what ground Luther believed the 7 books in the OT are not inspired writing? Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12671892880322948113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-46446186451374152012018-10-30T09:33:53.704-04:002018-10-30T09:33:53.704-04:00I second the latter observation by James Swan.
In...I second the latter observation by James Swan.<br /><br />Individuals do not have such authority.<br /><br />As to the historical question, while there were some Bibles printed without Maccabees before Luther, they were in a minority which is why Trent decided for keeping both of them.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-11638473815220102542018-10-30T00:05:50.275-04:002018-10-30T00:05:50.275-04:00Daniel: the topic of this old blog post is why cer...Daniel: the topic of this old blog post is why certain defenders of Rome over on the Catholic Answers discussion forum thought Luther removed books from the Bible. So your comments and questions are not specifically related to this old blog post. <br /><br />That said, to engage your tangent: I don't believe Luther took books out of the Bible. Nor do I believe an individual "has the authority to add or take out books to come up with our own Canon of the Bible."<br /><br /> James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58084825342960557352018-10-29T14:39:02.187-04:002018-10-29T14:39:02.187-04:00Thanks for your reply James. You subject is to di...Thanks for your reply James. You subject is to discuss why Luther took out some books in the OT. So my question is do you believe he or anyone like you or me has the authority to add or take out books to come up with our own Canon of the Bible in the first place. If the answer is affirmative then it is legitimate to discuss the reason why Luther took out some books in the OT. Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12671892880322948113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-89260721591322559022018-10-29T01:49:54.194-04:002018-10-29T01:49:54.194-04:00Daniel, I'm not sure how your comment follows ...Daniel, I'm not sure how your comment follows from my previous reply to you. How does it logically follow that if I note your "most important point" was not the topic or emphasis of this blog entry that it necessarily indicates I " believe anyone including you and me would have the authority to decide which books are inspired therefore belong to the Bible?" <br /><br />James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42052728191786983182018-10-29T00:40:31.226-04:002018-10-29T00:40:31.226-04:00Thanks for your reply, James. So you believe anyo...Thanks for your reply, James. So you believe anyone including you and me would have the authority to decide which books are inspired therefore belong to the Bible?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12671892880322948113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-47972275713772317822018-10-28T23:34:36.902-04:002018-10-28T23:34:36.902-04:00Hi Daniel:
That may be your "most important ...Hi Daniel:<br /><br />That may be your "most important point," but it was not the point of this old blog entry.<br /><br />JamesJames Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com