Should Martin Luther have refrained from posting his 95 theses and "waited on Jehovah?" (page 2)

Amazing

Burn,

Good points ... I agree. Also, while you were typing and submitting your post, I added some more material about Luther and his final fate ... you may find it enjoyable.

gubberningbody

Oh, and the really ridiculous thing is that you're supposed to wait how long?

Sorry, that 1 day for Jah is 1k years isn't going to wash.

I don't have that much time.

I can wait the amount of time it takes for a reasonable reply to come to a question. After that it's too damn long.

Sorry, I don't get born again catholicism. I was a catholic, went to catholic schools, altar boy etc.... There isn't any way all that stuff practiced then or now has any objective justification outside of the god-talk kind of linguistic game played ala Everquest-and-I'm-A-Wizard.

I'm interested in MORE than internal game-theory consistency.

sir82

More to the point of this topic: Should CT Russell have written books and started his own magazine? Shouldn't he have just waited on Jehovah and remained loyal to the "faithful and discreet slave"?

Say, wait a minute...who exactly was the "faithful and discreet slave" in 1870? Hmmm.....

BurnTheShips

The prophets in the Bible were like Luther in criticizing the immorality and injustice of members of the priesthood and throne. However, none of the ones in Scripture suggested ending or splitting the religion that Jah gave Moses. Even the Apostle Peter treated the high priest with respect in the Sanhedrin.

Good points ... I agree. Also, while you were typing and submitting your post, I added some more material about Luther and his final fate ... you may find it enjoyable.

Luther was very sick when he died. By then he was afraid he had opened a Pandora's box where any milkmaid could start her own church with her own teachings. He was right. There are tens of thousands of sects now.

BTS

gubberningbody

Peter did that NOT because of his (the high priest's) dubious religious authority, but rather because of social sensitivity and his recognition of him as a secular authority.

gubberningbody

Good points sir. Of course he was just 25, enthusiastic and rich - a late "60's theocratic hippie (1860's, that is) with some posters to paint, slogans to chant and a paradise to ring in.

Deputy Dog

Burn

Luther was right in many things regarding abuses. But nearly all his complaints have long since been addressed by the Catholic Church. He also took upon himself things that he had no authority to do, like stripping 6 books out of the Bible, and leaving only 66. Maybe he was acting in his own conscience, and that deserves respect, but Paul killed Christians too once, thinking it was a duty.
BTS

I guess the Catholic Church thought he had the authority, since they felt the need to... recanonize? those books at Trent. That's if you buy the Catholic version of history.

drew sagan

If you reject Sola Scriptura, Luther loses some relevance.

I suppose, but as long as you hold onto some good ol' anti-semitism he's timeless

Deputy Dog

Drew

I suppose, but as long as you hold onto some good ol' anti-semitism he's timeless

Luther didn't have a problem with Jews as a people, it was his hatred of their faith that got him that lable.

Should Martin Luther have refrained from posting his 95 theses and "waited on Jehovah?"

Share this