Martin Luther was so wrong!

[oogagoogaboo]

when luther called for the reformation of the Catholic Church when he saw the corruption and abuse of indulgences, he was right. The church was in bad shape and the fact that they tried to kill him doesnt help their case... However, after Prince Frederick "kidnapped" Luther, Luther translated the Bible to German. There is a couple of problems with this. 1) It cannot be translated directly from Greek because there are many important words that can be translated differently and Luther made sure that he translated all of them into a form that supported his theology. 2) Luther believed that the translation of the Bible to the language of his peoplewould make it so that everyone could read the Bible and see that his interpretation was more right than the Catholic understanding. He was very naive to think this, because people think in different ways and if given freedom to interpret the Bible freely, then everyone is going to have different biblical understandings. Luther also had a serious problem with the way that he called people heretics. For instance: Luther said that in an effort to reform universities, that all works by Aristotle should be banned for their heretical non-Christian sayings and biliefs. Luther is an idiot who was trying to get attention when he said this, because when Aristotle was alive, Christianity didnt exist yet, so of course his teachings weren't Christian. And my final point, if Luther believes the bible should be interpreted in a more literal sense then how the Catholic Church interprets it, why does he believe in the Holy Trinity? It is not once mentioned in the Bible and yet without it he wouldn't be Christian, so Luther contradicts his own teachings by having a belief not listed in the Bible.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Welcome to Forums Oogagoogaboo!!!

 

[zenzero]

Friend oogagoogaboo,

Welcome to RF!
Best Wishes.

Love & rgds

 

[rojse]

when luther called for the reformation of the Catholic Church when he saw the corruption and abuse of indulgences, he was right. The church was in bad shape and the fact that they tried to kill him doesnt help their case... However, after Prince Frederick "kidnapped" Luther, Luther translated the Bible to German. There is a couple of problems with this. 1) It cannot be translated directly from Greek because there are many important words that can be translated differently and Luther made sure that he translated all of them into a form that supported his theology. 2) Luther believed that the translation of the Bible to the language of his peoplewould make it so that everyone could read the Bible and see that his interpretation was more right than the Catholic understanding. He was very naive to think this, because people think in different ways and if given freedom to interpret the Bible freely, then everyone is going to have different biblical understandings. Luther also had a serious problem with the way that he called people heretics. For instance: Luther said that in an effort to reform universities, that all works by Aristotle should be banned for their heretical non-Christian sayings and biliefs. Luther is an idiot who was trying to get attention when he said this, because when Aristotle was alive, Christianity didnt exist yet, so of course his teachings weren't Christian. And my final point, if Luther believes the bible should be interpreted in a more literal sense then how the Catholic Church interprets it, why does he believe in the Holy Trinity? It is not once mentioned in the Bible and yet without it he wouldn't be Christian, so Luther contradicts his own teachings by having a belief not listed in the Bible.

Paragraphs, please! No one will want to read such a jumbled mess if you make no effort to structure your post.

1) State your sources for your assertation that Luther translated it merely to "to support his theology", rather than, say, a desire to help spread the word, a genuine belief that he could translate it more accurately than his counterparts, and so forth. The argument that the German language might did not have direct correlations between all words in German and in Latin could also be made for the English version of the Bible.

2) It could be argued that Luther desired merely to translate the Bible so that the everyday German people would be able to receive the word of God. And people interpret the English Bible a variety of ways; I do not see why it would be any different for the German version of the Bible.

You stop numbering your points here.

Luther argued against Aristotle because Luther believed that God was beyond logical analysis, and people could only learn about God though divine revelation. And I'd like to see a source saying that Luther wanted to ban Aristotle's teachings.

I'm not too experienced with the "Holy trinity" idea, so I can't argue with you about this one, but since the Bible often uses the phrase "the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" such a viewpoint could be entertained. And it is a common theological viewpoint in many branches of Christianity.

 

[Who]

If nothing else, I believe he got more people to read the Word than had ever done so prior to his revolt against the Roman Catholic Church. More people getting the Word is good. I support anyone who questions the religious status quo; ask questions, get answers, study the Word... when done with an open heart to God can only be a good thing. He was flawed, a human, like all of us.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

I agree he got more people to read the Bible than had ever done so before because before the German translation, it was only written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, none of which were spoken widely during Luther's lifetime. I just believe that he was naive to think that if he made it readily available, then everyone would interpret it in his point of view when there are sooooo many possible interpretations.

Luther wrote that he believed that the universities needed a thorough reformation as well in An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate- Proposals for Reform: Part III; No. 25 (1520). Its all about his feelings on the writings of Aristotle

 

[oogagoogaboo]

Oh and by the way, thank you for the welcome wishes!

 

[LoTrobador]

1) It cannot be translated directly from Greek because there are many important words that can be translated differently

Which is a problem of every Bible translation.

and Luther made sure that he translated all of them into a form that supported his theology.

Which is quite a bold statement, isn't it?

2) Luther believed that the translation of the Bible to the language of his peoplewould make it so that everyone could read the Bible and see that his interpretation was more right than the Catholic understanding. He was very naive to think this, because people think in different ways and if given freedom to interpret the Bible freely, then everyone is going to have different biblical understandings.

Whether you think it's naive or not, it seems that Luther did genuinely believe that the Bible and its message isn't that hard to understand, with minimal reliance on extra-scriptural sources, and such view is arguably a cornerstone of whole Protestantism.

Luther also had a serious problem with the way that he called people heretics. For instance: Luther said that in an effort to reform universities, that all works by Aristotle should be banned for their heretical non-Christian sayings and biliefs. Luther is an idiot who was trying to get attention when he said this, because when Aristotle was alive, Christianity didnt exist yet, so of course his teachings weren't Christian.

I would say it's quite a logical thing, in a way - if you consider Biblical teachings as normative and authoritative, any teachings that contradict them, well... contradict them.

And my final point, if Luther believes the bible should be interpreted in a more literal sense then how the Catholic Church interprets it, why does he believe in the Holy Trinity? It is not once mentioned in the Bible and yet without it he wouldn't be Christian, so Luther contradicts his own teachings by having a belief not listed in the Bible.

Personally, I don't think the sola Scriptura teaching is highly internally consistent in the first place, but that's how Luther viewed particular Biblical passages - as presenting, though maybe not explicitly, the doctrine, which centuries after the being revealed had been formally explained at the Council of Nicaea.

I agree he got more people to read the Bible than had ever done so before because before the German translation, it was only written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, none of which were spoken widely during Luther's lifetime.

There were other translations published before the Luther's Bible.

And welcome to the Forum!

 

[oogagoogaboo]

Whether you think it's naive or not, it seems that Luther did genuinely believe that the Bible and its message isn't that hard to understand, with minimal reliance on extra-scriptural sources, and such view is arguably a cornerstone of whole Protestantism.

Doesn't that just help to show the flaw in Protestantism? The fact that there are so many types of Protestantism seems to prove that people will understand things differently if given free interpretation of the Bible. If all Protestants can't even agree on the interpretation of the Bible, that just appears to prove that Luther made a wrong assumption when he translated the Lutheran Bible.

 

[LoTrobador]

Doesn't that just help to show the flaw in Protestantism? The fact that there are so many types of Protestantism seems to prove that people will understand things differently if given free interpretation of the Bible. If all Protestants can't even agree on the interpretation of the Bible, that just appears to prove that Luther made a wrong assumption when he translated the Lutheran Bible.

Or one could argue why his particular understanding is the accurate one.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

But the reason for why he translated the Bible into German was that he honestly thought everyone would read it and see it in the same light, and his position on why to translate the Bible was proven to be a false hope for agreement when people like John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli started popping up at the same time throughout Europe with their own interpretations of the Bible (which they got from Luther). Therefore, Luther's Bible, although translated for his own version of reformed Christianity, can also be viewed differently, which is why Protestantism is such a broad spectrum of many different denominations, not just Lutherans.

 

[LoTrobador]

I think one could argue, that the differences in interpretations are due not to the Bible's lack of clarity, but e.g. to inappropriate methods of exegesis, inaccurate translation, one's philosophical background, some kind of "bias" or insufficient knowledge of the Bible. As for Calvin and Zwingli relying on Luther's Bible, they both studied Greek, so they've been able to read the Septuagint and the New Testament independently of Luther's translation.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

I don't think it's lack of clarity, so much as it is Luther's inability to see that his Bible, just like the Catholic Bible, has the possibility of more than one interpretation and that not everyone sees things the same way as an OCD monk who was relieved of his duties to the priesthood

 

[LoTrobador]

I don't think it's lack of clarity, so much as it is Luther's inability to see that his Bible, just like the Catholic Bible, has the possibility of more than one interpretation

I don't think the Protestant view is that there cannot be different readings of the Bible; but I imagine one could simply argue, that his particular interpretation is more accurate and in agreement with the text itself than other interpretations.

and that not everyone sees things the same way as an OCD monk who was relieved of his duties to the priesthood

What makes you think that Martin Luther had OCD and what bearing does in your opinion being relieved of priestly duties have on one's ability to interpret the Scripture?

 

[oogagoogaboo]

But Luther translated his Bible with the intention for there to only be his one interpretation, not for everyone to start interpreting it their own way.

And historians are fairly confident that he had OCD based on some psychological symptoms, such as an unbelievable obsession with keeping his bowels clean and refusing to eat foods that would not help his bowels.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

And im not actually sure why i put the not being apriest thing in there, because that was only done to protect him from the Catholic Church, as his abbot was no longer responsible for turning him in.

 

[LoTrobador]

But Luther translated his Bible with the intention for there to only be his one interpretation, not for everyone to start interpreting it their own way.

I think the intent Luther had was to make the Bible available to all Germans in their own language. As for his view on the interpretation, you might be interested in A. Skevington Wood's article Luther's Principles of Biblical Interpretation.

And historians are fairly confident that he had OCD based on some psychological symptoms, such as an unbelievable obsession with keeping his bowels clean and refusing to eat foods that would not help his bowels.

I think one could argue that what could be perceived as symptoms of Luther's OCD, might be also attributed to other causes, and as Karl Adam wrote: On the other hand, it cannot be doubted, in face of Luther's tremendous achievements in thought, decision and action, that despite this tension he was psychically healthy to the core.

And im not actually sure why i put the not being apriest thing in there, because that was only done to protect him from the Catholic Church, as his abbot was no longer responsible for turning him in.

What's interesting is that Luther, despite his criticism of religious orders and eventual marriage with Katharina von Bora, for a long time after being relieved of his vows thought he himself should remain celibate.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

He did interpret the Bible for everyone to read it, it was just that he planned for everyone to read it and understand it the way that he did, but obviously the Lutheran Church is not the only Protestant Church, and that means that Luther failed to get everyone on the same page about how the Catholic Church was doing things that the Bible didn't advocate

And I did not know that he intended to remain celibate that's a very interesting piece of information, Thank you for furthering my knowledge.

 

[rojse]

Doesn't that just help to show the flaw in Protestantism? The fact that there are so many types of Protestantism seems to prove that people will understand things differently if given free interpretation of the Bible. If all Protestants can't even agree on the interpretation of the Bible, that just appears to prove that Luther made a wrong assumption when he translated the Lutheran Bible.

Christianity started to schism the moment that more than one person belonged to it. I don't see any reason to denounce Christianity for this.

And the different denominations of Protestantism merely show that people are willing to do more with their faith than simply accept other's religious beliefs.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

I dont wish to denounce Christianity.

I merely wanted to make the point that I think that Luther was very right to call for the reform of the extremely corrupt Catholic Church. However, his method of reformation, to me at least, was a little flawed, because he wanted everyone to read the Bible so they could see things his way on their own instead of him having to tell people and they just listen.

If given free reign to read the Bible, people will obviously follow Luther, but there will of course be those people who see things more or less the same but yet slighty differently who will call themselves Lutherans until eventually they branch into other churches to form other denominations.

All I'm really trying to say, is that Luther may have thought people would see things his way, but he was extremely naive (to put it nicely) to think that was the case.

I do like the thought thought that it shows the nature of humans to think for themselves than too follow what people say, and this is a very prime example for that.