A Can of Worms
use to be a section of the inner city express way in Rochester NY called the "Can of Worms".
that's not what I talking about although I have been feeling sort of "home sick" lately. thank the LORD for the wonderful world of blogging which has reconnected me with some dear old friends (and one dear young one) from home.
in some of my blogging, i have encountered a few "facts" that intreguied me, and in some cases troubled me. since i have found myself in a whirlwind of anti catholic, anti reformed, post modern and emergent words, i have posed a few questions to which i am getting no clear answers. i never thought much of martin luther, until the movie about him was shown in a "small group" and he was proclaimed a great hero. one thing i heard from the anti reformed camp was that luther took out the apocrypha from the Bible. i had believed that this was done back in 400AD or so. for those people out there who rally under the Sola Scriptura banner, shouldn't that be a disturbing thing, worth looking into. ofcourse - and this really disturbs me - depending on who and what you choose to read, you can prove or disprove just about anything. there are and have been sincere Biblical scholars who have proclaimed and "proven" contradictory doctrines. So I run back to the words of Paul, to the Corinthians - And if I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing (means that one can have those things and still be nothing in the eyes of the LORD)...and to the Galatians, nothing means anything save faith working through love. Having said that (and here comes the can of worms) I lifted these words from a Catholic site concerning the apocrypha -
9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.
10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.
11) The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM
so?????
22 comments:
And John Calvin, the architect of today's version of predestination and election, also rejected the book of Revelation.
To me, this just proves that we ALL "see through a glass darkly", and we ALL "know in part, and prophesy in part".
Which, I would conclude, means we should walk, talk, and blog with humility and an always-learning attitude.
agreed!
and thanks for commenting.
When I first got into this blogging experience, I would often refer to verses like Titus 3:9 "shun follish controversies..." and 2Tim. 14, "not to wrangle about words."
yet I got all mucked up in it.
This is why we do not follow men. Luther was raised up by God to do what he did. If you will notice, after his initial impact, his importance faded. His opinions or Calvin's do not matter. (Hero worship?.) The RC's opinions most certainly do not matter. If you will notice the Scriptures have been intact since the days of the reformers. No one is arguing over what they thought about each book.
Some thoughts.
Define "foolish" controversies.
What words are we not to wrangle about?
The "new thing" is to take this to mean any and all debate.The assumption is any who do engage in debate are not loving. These are leftist-marxist-pseudo utopian theologies. By this definition Peter and Paul, all the Bible writers engaged in foolish debate since they offered theological argument and anti-gnostic debate.
Robby key words would be that "we know" whether in part or whatever. I see the general consensus to be ,we don't/can't know anything. So let's just let it all in. That is a flat out denial of the power of God since He is the one who reveals it to us and chooses to do so.
Always the main fact that is left out is,
God is sovereign, meaning He can say and do whatever He wants. The question is, what is He doing and saying. So we must refer to the Scripture, the only reliable source we have. Let's get off the idea that peace is the absence of conflict.
Maryellen - you said :"depending on who and what you choose to read, you can prove or disprove just about anything." - Good point!Especially here on the Net where conversations tend to be so impersonal, and people can lay out a perfect 10-point argument that would take you weeks to refute. Debates often become fruitless exercises.
Chris P. - you said: "I see the general consensus to be ,we don't/can't know anything. So let's just let it all in. That is a flat out denial of the power of God since He is the one who reveals it to us and chooses to do so." - I assume you mean among certain groups of Christians, which ones? I am very much committed to and believing in absolute truth, but I am not as convinced about our ability to be certain about it. My senses could be lying, I could be crazy and drugged up in an institution somewhere, I could be basing a belief on a wrong/poor interpretation of scrupture, or I could be under the influence of a demonic (or alien) force. I think the emphasis among some christians has been, "This is what we have faith is true, yet we are open to the possibility that we could be wrong (for whatever reason)." This doesn't seem like relativism to me, but rather (as robby says) like humility...
BTW in biblical studies circles there is still plenty of debate about the scriptures. Most of it surrounds authorship or historical accuracy, but even some who think that 2 Peter wasn't written by Peter and that the book of Job was, in fact, a fable (as I do) believe them both to be canonical, inspired scripture. So "no one is arguing over what they thought about each book" may not be true everywhere.
Cheers,
Dan-D from Canada
Robbymac and Grey Owl - I love your comments!
I heard a great analogy today - and although it seems a little off the topic, I think it's related so I'm going to give it a shot. I am told this is a true story: At a fishing pier in Northern California the pelicans would come and eat the discarded entrails from the fishing boats. The fishermen eventually stopped discarding the fish parts in this manner,and soon the pelicans began to starve. You see, they lost their ability to forage for food. The government had to import pelicans from other areas to show these poor starving pelicans how to feed themselves!
It seems we are so spoiled! We have complete access to a hundred (maybe a thousand) different bibilical translations. I have probably 20 bibles in my house. World literacy is at an all-time high. Yet we sit and wait for others to feed us the Word -- instead of reading it and digesting it ourselves. So many compete to feed us -- we need to eat it their way. THIS is what it means. THIS is what it says. THIS is the correct translation. So many battling to feed us that we are starving to death.
It is amazing that generations of believers managed to follow God without the benefit of a household bible or even the ability to read it. Perhaps we are all just a bunch of fat pelicans that need to be reminded how to forage for food.
The Holy Spirit is accessible and in Christ we have all we need.
1 John 2:20-21 says "But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth."
++Father God, I know that you live, I know that you love us, I put my faith in You. If everything we trust in was to fade away, I know that You would remain. We want so much to know you -- and in time we all will see you face to face. May the words you whisper be "well done, oh good and faithful servant". May it be for all who seek you.
As always, thanks for your thoughful and provocative posts, Maryellen. God Bless you.
Kim, i like what you posted on Chris's blog about the historical meaning of "the elect".
I'm gonna cut, paste and save that for further reference...blessings
Maryellen,
Kim and I aren't done yet. :-)
Dear One Sharp etc.
I thought you kicked the dust of my blog off your feet because I was hopeless - didn't you use the word evil? Funny, I agree with a lot of what you say. Although the Scriptures - the Bible did exist before the Church, 2 Timothy 3:14 -17. I think we would agree more if you weren't a pre-vatican II catholic, and some of your comments elsewhere seem to hint at an anti-semitic attitude. more and more, as I walk through this faith issue, I am beginning to realize that it is important to remember that Jesus was a Jew, as were the apostles...when paul was talking to Timothy about the Scriptures, the Sacred Writings, he was talking about Genesis to Second Machabees.
I do not like to censor my commentors, however, once again, I must delete a comment made by onesharpbroadhead because I can not leave a curse against the jewish faith or jewish people to remain on my blog. Pastor Art's comment may not make much sense without onesharpbroadhead's comment to refer back to...but
All of you claiming to follow Christ, and beyond him the same God whom Christ himself referred to. Yet there is still such warfare.
I will not deny that you will see "witch wars" erupt from time to time, but if you begin to research the pagan population, you will find that we tend to get along. Perhaps because we are the minority.
Then does the majority give you the right to throw stones? Who amongst you is without sin? When will you all turn back to the scripture and let he who is without sin cast the stones? When will judgement be given over to the higher power whom you all claim is the only one knowledgeable enough to judge?
Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or Atheist (yes I know I left groups out, so in fairness I left my own out as well) who are you to judge? The label means nothing compared to the question of who has helped the homeless. Who stands and who kneels means nothing beside who has risked their own comfort and health to help the hurricane victims. "Yahweh", "Jesus" or "Mary help us" means nothing beside "God, I am trying to walk in your path, please, tell me when I stumble."
Who amongst you is faithful, versus those amongst you who are in a gang? I assure you that stoning Catholics or Protestants won't get you into heaven. Are you sure in your righteousness you haven't invoked one of the highest powers: the tears of God himself?
Maybe the tower of babel (sp?) was a lesson for a different reason. Maybe we speak different languages to slow our destroying each other with our spite, rather than plotting to reach the level of God as suggested.
Wanderer, all I can say, is ouch and amen...
and hey you guys, listen up!
his "theology" may be off, but sight is sight and wisdom is wisdom...
and this has been my point in the past
who is reading what we write, and what are our words saying to those who are looking for the LIGHT...i'm afraid sometimes they say, look somewhere else.
and I'll add this, for what its worth, I was exactly where Wanderer is spiritually speaking, when I was his age. it's all about the journey?
I have been following these threads for some time and never posted, but i feel the need this time.
I read the post by onesharpbroadhead before it was deleted , and was rather surprized that it was deleted before there was any comment on it, and i also looked at the link that she posted and the article was indeed a genuine article from the New York Times official web-site.
It is highly unlikely that it is untrue, because if it was, you can be sure that the New York times would be sued for libel if it were not true.
Maryellen, why would you delete her post, if you had simply went to the link that she provided, you would have found that it was true?
Or do you believe it is true, but think it is correct for these men to circumsize baby boys and then suck the penis of these babies until the bleeding stops?
I don't know what bible these men read, but my Old Testament does not say anything about this "oral suction".
I would agree that the terms that she used were strong and harsh, but after reading the article, I can see why she used such words. This practice is appalling and should be outlawed as child molestation!
I think it was wrong to delete the reply that was given, there was no personal attack against you or anyone else in the blog, and no personal attack even against Jews. It seems to me it was an attack against a disgusting practice by a religion.
It is too bad that there was no time for other people to comment on it, i would have loved to hear from someone who defends this practice and where it is in the Bible.
Onesharp - i am sorry that your post was deleted, at least one person read it and checked out the link and saw that it was true.
first of all, one sharp etc is a man not a woman, not that that matters, second, regardless of the souce of his comments, i still will not allow anti-semetic statements on my blog...many an autrocity has been committed by religious zealots in the name of God...and all religions have blood of some kind or another on their hands...still, the word of God says to pray for the peace of jerusalem and warns that God will bless those who bless her and curse those who curse her.that is my stand, those are my reasons.
Thank you anonymous for your comments. Onesharpbroadhead is a very knowledgeable man and is not anti-anything except satan and evil. He has his own blog and would welcome your comments.
MaryEllen you do have the right to delete anyone you want but does that really serve the purpose of a blog - which is the free exchange of ideas in the hope that someone will learn the truth. Someone is right and someone is wrong and by deleting the ones that you think are wrong you really do everyone a disservice. Just my two cents.
Bridget
Bridget -
Theoretically, by this format, the administrator of the blog sets the tone and the others comment. MaryEllen has the right to choose the tone, it is her blog.
Regardless of whether it was anti-semetic or not (I don't know, I didn't read it) I haven't seen anything on this circumcision subject as a subject matter yet on her blog. Still, onesharpbroadhead is obsessed with sharing the concept with us. I would agree wholeheartedly with your comments if he was referring to the topic that everyone else was on. Then it might be construed as a censorship issue (although still MaryEllen's right). However that was not the case.
If you visit my blog you would find that one of the regular posters has left little imagination necessary to see the obscenity in several of his comments. I have left them. Partially because I believe it harms me none to allow someone else to speak. However, also because he is actually interacting in regards to the subject at hand.
In short: MaryEllen's blog, her choice. Look at all that has been shared, including my right to post here before you accuse her of impeding on a plethora of different ideas on the quest for truth.
thanks wanderer...
like i said, i don't like to censor my commentors, especially since i myself have been censored and banned from a particular site, however, as "administrator" i reserve the right...
Wanderer, again i must comment,
1. i appologize to onesharpbroadead, as i thougth he was a she.
2. While "maryellen" does indeed reserve the right to delete the truth from her blog, it does not make it right. (what he posted was indeed true)
3. It was maryellen who brought up the Jews in her comment to onesharpbroadhead, here is exactly what maryellen said:
"and some of your comments elsewhere seem to hint at an anti-semitic attitude. more and more, as I walk through this faith issue, I am beginning to realize that it is important to remember that Jesus was a Jew, as were the apostles"
If you could have read the post by onesharpbroadhead - you would have seen that he simply responded by saying that Judaism as is practiced today was never practed by Jesus or the apostles, and he gave the example of the New York Times story about rabbis sucking the privates of babies!
Do you think that Jesus and the Apostles did this?? Do you think that they approved of this??
I think not. Onesharpbroadhead, while i have not read all of his comments, was certainly not in the wrong on this issue and post.
for anyone who wants to hear the truth about the issues of Faith, Christ, and the relationship of Christianity to Judaism - visit:
http://www.forchrist-contramundum.blogspot.com/
The truth will never be deleted on this blog!
even truths that we don't like to admit!
I got some flack for deleting a comment by onebroad... because I felt it was anti-semetic. On another posting I deleted another of his comments where he said he was dusting the dirt of my blog off his feet and called me evil.
So far I've been called evil by both pre-vatican two Catholics and Reformed protestants...wow, I just can't please anybody...another commentor has appeared claiming to have the "Truth" about Jews and I did link to his site. I won't delete his comment, but I will warn against his take on the "truth". He has an article on the symbolism and origin of the "star of David" maybe my friend the pagan might want to comment on that one, I was willing to accept that as perhaps factual, although i did comment on the apparent worship of the graven image of the Virgin, and later thought of how some protestants view the crucifix on which hangs the graven image of our crucified LORD. But the next posting is nothing but a scarey story - grim fairy tale - told by racist people, and kept alive by fear and hate. Please remember, you can not believe every thing you read out here in the blog world...even if it seems to be authenticated by impressive sounding scholars or resources. Stick to the Word of God.
I posted on the comments regarding the Star of David on the other web site. I will post them immediately following this one on MaryEllen's blog.
Why the separate post? Because I would be the first to agree and applaud if she determined, regardless of merit, that the post didn't apply to her blog. Especially presuming she leaves this one so the others can clearly find the other one for as long as it is left on the other site.
Hexagram refers to the number six. Six has long been considered unholy by the church. Incomplete. Almost seven. The number of the beast and all of that. The term hex came from this association with the number in general, no stretch to the Star of David.
It is true that Pagans consider the Star of David to be holy. We consider the cross the same, and many other powerful symbols. They meet the standard: people believe. In belief there is power. While I can't speak for certain on the origin of the Star of David, I can say the following:
I am familiar with Astarte, (Ashtoroth, Ashtarthis, etc...) and as such do not recall any association between her and the six pointed star. Nor in ritual work have I ever noted the six pointed star. While recognizing the power of the symbol, for our works the sixth point would make no sense. The pentagram has lasted the ages for a reason. It points to reason.
The star of david take the holy power of the number three as venerated in Jewish and Christian custom and combines the triangles to form a star. A celestial symbol indicative of the unknown realm controlled by God.
The crime you accuse the Jews of happened two thousand years ago. Don't you think of God was that concerned about it he would have handled them himself by now? Or are the stories of Sodom, Gomorrah, The Great Flood and others just fairy tales.
Grow up. Hating people for simply being who they are is the sign of greatest insecurities. Talk to God, and listen to him. Let him wrap you in his arms and allow you to drop this foolishness.
Thank you very much Wanderer...
I knew I was "opening" a can of worms when I started this, but I do think it's time we closed the can and moved on...
Post a Comment