Catholic Church Origins

[Elijah674]

I think that it was Paul or some non/catholic who was just not yet in the End Times who was "Inspired" to say something about the mystery of iniquity doth already work, huh? And even then in Christ day, it took Caesar to execute Christ as they cried.. We have no king but Caesar.

OK: What does that have to do with Rome? (catholic) If 'i' recall from my couple years of life, they tell the world worldwide that they have a Peter Pope?? Even with Christ telling us before He died, that it was the CHURCH BODY that had the 'keys to the kingdom'. Matt. 18:14-18

--Elijah

PS: And END TIMES?? If the mommy of daughter's is not END TIMES, what is????? + Rev. 18:4!
And ones USA Liberties to teach Christs Truth?? Whatever.

 

[Elijah674]

I think that it was Paul or some non/catholic who was just not yet in the End Times who was "Inspired" to say something about the mystery of iniquity doth already work, huh? And even then in Christ day, it took Caesar to execute Christ as they cried.. We have no king but Caesar.

OK: What does that have to do with Rome? (catholic) If 'i' recall from my couple years of life, they tell the world worldwide that they have a Peter Pope?? Even with Christ telling us before He died, that it was the CHURCH BODY that had the 'keys to the kingdom'. Matt. 18:14-18

--Elijah

PS: And END TIMES?? If the mommy of daughter's is not END TIMES, what is????? + Rev. 18:4!
And ones USA Liberties to teach Christs Truth?? Whatever.

PS: PS: Many find Dan. 2 telling of the 'Time Of The End' They teach Babylon, Meads & Persians, Greece & then Rome with the [TWO] legs as described here:
[40] And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
[41] And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
[42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
[43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
[44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
[45] Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Then Dan. 7 gives more insight & John in Rev. 13:1-4 is seeing this same truth in reverse from his [vision]. Anyway, this is how some 'few' see it! But who are they along beside the broadway ones, huh? ;)

--Elijah

 

[chestertonrules]

Regardless of Malcolm Muggeridge's acceptance of Catholicism, it is apparent that he failed to carefully examine the evidence.

He and I must have learned something that you have yet to learn. Perhaps many things.

Whatever you do, don't limit Jesus. Follow him wherever he leads.

 

[Elijah674]

I think that it was Paul or some non/catholic who was just not yet in the End Times who was "Inspired" to say something about the mystery of iniquity doth already work, huh? And even then in Christ day, it took Caesar to execute Christ as they cried.. We have no king but Caesar.

OK: What does that have to do with Rome? (catholic) If 'i' recall from my couple years of life, they tell the world worldwide that they have a Peter Pope?? Even with Christ telling us before He died, that it was the CHURCH BODY that had the 'keys to the kingdom'. Matt. 18:14-18

--Elijah

PS: And END TIMES?? If the mommy of daughter's is not END TIMES, what is????? + Rev. 18:4!
And ones USA Liberties to teach Christs Truth?? Whatever.

PS: PS: Many find Dan. 2 telling of the 'Time Of The End' They teach Babylon, Meads & Persians, Greece & then Rome with the [TWO] legs as described here:
[40] And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
[41] And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
[42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
[43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
[44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
[45] Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Then Dan. 7 gives more insight & John in Rev. 13:1-4 is seeing this same truth in reverse from his [vision]. Anyway, this is how some 'few' see it! But who are they along beside the broadway ones, huh? ;)

--Elijah

PS: PS: PS: This chapter in Acts has Stephen FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST in verse 55, and note in verse 38 here in Acts 7 that there is none other around than that of Israel!
[37] This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
[38] This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

And again, rome's two black iron legs were just an after prophesied thought!

 

[chestertonrules]

[
And again, rome's two black iron legs were just an after prophesied thought!

I have no idea what the means.

Can you tell me why Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom?

Have you read Isaiah 22? Please do, it will help you understand the significance of the keys.

They represent authority and succession.

 

[Elijah674]

[
And again, rome's two black iron legs were just an after prophesied thought!

I have no idea what the means.

Can you tell me why Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom?

Have you read Isaiah 22? Please do, it will help you understand the significance of the keys.

They represent authority and succession.

Peter with 'KEYS'?? Not hardly! Matt. 18 follows Matt 16 with 'who Binds & who it is that Looses'. Signifing Eternal Life or Eternal DEATH, and it is the CHURCH BODY AS A WHOLE! (Even that is CONDITIONAL ON OBEDIENCE! Rev. 2:5 + Matt. 23:38 along with Rev. 3:16) Matt. 18:17-18.

If one has a poblem with that?? Go to Acts 9:1-18 & see where CHRIST SENT SAUL? (Paul to be) In verse 6. ibid Saul asked Christ 'WHAT MUST I DO? And Christ RESPONDED.. [IT SHALL BE TOLD WHAT YE 'MUST DO']..' Even then, we see the seriousness of Christ WHOLE 'PREVIOUSLY' ESTABLISHED CHURCH in Him [NOT JUST SPEAKING THE WORD OF HEALING], but having His just previous extended Church involved! (Matt. 10:5-6)

And Peter?? This mystery of SIN being taught was to be a later process. Note a couple verses of Inspiration. First from Peter: Acts 10:25-26 'And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.' (and todays one even has one kneel & kiss his ring )

And over in Rev. 22:8-9 we see the same Eternal Truth, but with Angels even OBEYING God Truth.
'And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship [before the feet] of the angel which shewed me these things. [AND HE SAYETH UNTO ME, SEE THOU DO IT NOT] for [I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethern the prophets, and OF THEM THAT KEEP THE SAYINGS OF THIS BOOK] ..',

And Daniel 7:25 was not introduced by satan quite at that time period yet. But was indeed prophesied to follow!

--Elijah

 

[nadab]

Regardless of Malcolm Muggeridge's acceptance of Catholicism, it is apparent that he failed to carefully examine the evidence.

He and I must have learned something that you have yet to learn. Perhaps many things.

Whatever you do, don't limit Jesus. Follow him wherever he leads.

The issue has not been nor will ever be that Muggeridge accepted Catholicism, but what is acceptable in God's eyes and how the Catholic church came into existence as a result of Constantine fusing both pagan and so-called Christianity together to keep his empire from crumbling, forming Catholicism or the "universal" church, whereby pagan customs and celebrations were given "Christian" names, such as Natalis Solis Invicti or "birthday of the invincible sun", Mithra, on December 25. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The date of December 25 does not correspond to Christ’s birth, but to the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti, the Roman sun festival at the solstice.â€

Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-90) wrote that "the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace.†Listing many church practices and holidays, he said they were “all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.â€

Even though he realized that pagan holidays and practices were received into the Catholic church, he remained with it, just as Muggeridge did. This is no different than realizing that you are working for something that is corrupt, such as the Mafia, but stays with it anyway.

The masses of people who accept Catholicism have, for the most part, never examined or questioned the history of the Catholic church, but, like people in every nation of the world who have accepted the status quo of their nation, the Catholic "faithful" have taken what has been offered without so much as a wimper in many cases. And those that have seen the paganism of the Catholic church and spoke up, as during the Spanish Inquisition, was forced into silence either by fear or by death.

Ones such as Michael Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553, for speaking against the trinity. Servetus’ historical and Biblical studies led him to the conclusion that Christianity had become corrupted during the first three centuries of our Common Era. He learned that Constantine and his successors had promoted false teachings that eventually led to the adoption of the Trinity as an official doctrine. At the age of 20, Servetus published his book On the Errors of the Trinity, a work that made him a principal target of the Inquisition.

Peter De Rosa, who states that he is a “patriotic Catholic,†said in his book Vicars of Christ—The Dark Side of the Papacy: “The church was responsible for persecuting Jews, for the Inquisition, for slaughtering heretics by the thousand, for reintroducing torture into Europe as part of the judicial process. . . . Popes appointed and sacked even emperors, demanded that they impose Christianity on their subjects under the threat of torture and death. . . . The cost to the Gospel message was horrendous.†The only “crime†of some who were murdered was that they possessed a Bible.

Regarding Pope Innocent III of the early 13th century, De Rosa stated: “It has been reckoned that in the last and most savage persecution under [Roman] Emperor Diocletian [third century] about two thousand Christians perished, worldwide. In the first vicious incident of Pope Innocent’s Crusade [against “heretics†in France] ten times that number of people were slaughtered. . . . It comes as a shock to discover that, at a stroke, a pope killed far more Christians than Diocletian. . . . [Innocent] had no qualms about using Christ’s name to do everything Christ objected to.â€

De Rosa noted that “in the pope’s name, [the inquisitors] were responsible for the most savage and sustained onslaught on human decency in the history of the race.†Of Dominican inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada in Spain, he says: “Appointed in 1483, he ruled tyrannically for fifteen years. His victims numbered over 114,000 of whom 10,220 were burned.â€

Thus, what Constantine established as the Catholic or "universal" religion, became known not only for its fusion of paganism and so-called Christianity, but for its ruling with an "iron fist", having a monumental history of bloodshed, a practice that Constantine himself had with the execution of at least seven of his relatives and close friends.

 

[chestertonrules]

Regardless of Malcolm Muggeridge's acceptance of Catholicism, it is apparent that he failed to carefully examine the evidence.

He and I must have learned something that you have yet to learn. Perhaps many things.

Whatever you do, don't limit Jesus. Follow him wherever he leads.

The issue has not been nor will ever be that Muggeridge accepted Catholicism, but what is acceptable in God's eyes and how the Catholic church came into existence as a result of Constantine fusing both pagan and so-called Christianity together to keep his empire from crumbling, .

This is pure fantasy. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. It formally came into existence at Pentecost.

Constantine accepted Christianity and ended the persecution of Christians. He didn't change the faith in any way. In fact, it is not even clear that Constantine ever converted, although his mother was a Christian.


What did Constantine have to do with Ignatius, who knew the apostle John and was Bishop of Antioch? Nothing, of course, but we can see that the Catholic Church was alive and well even in 110 AD:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[picklesbiz]

Holy Smokes, you guys sure can get hot under the collar. Honestly, I have learned a lot from this thread. I do have one statement and then a question for you. Statement: I have some great friends that are Catholic, especially one wonderful sweet old late that runs a prayer retreat. Question: I noticed a lot of emphasis on the Pope here (and no I'm not ignorant on the issue) but when it really comes down to it isn't it our own responsibility to develop a relationship with our Heavenly Father?

We get into a lot of trouble by looking at humans whatever the denomination.

p.s. I find the threat to close the post quite immature.

 

[chestertonrules]

Holy Smokes, you guys sure can get hot under the collar. Honestly, I have learned a lot from this thread. I do have one statement and then a question for you. Statement: I have some great friends that are Catholic, especially one wonderful sweet old late that runs a prayer retreat. Question: I noticed a lot of emphasis on the Pope here (and no I'm not ignorant on the issue) but when it really comes down to it isn't it our own responsibility to develop a relationship with our Heavenly Father?

We get into a lot of trouble by looking at humans whatever the denomination.

p.s. I find the threat to close the post quite immature.

A personal relationship with Jesus is crucial for all Christians. However, when it comes to matters of faith and morals, we find that personal interpretation leads to division and confusion. For example, some Christian Churches condone abortion, some claim that baptism is unnecessary, some claim that a one time conversion experience is sufficient for salvation, some claim that infant baptism is valid, etc.


Each of these issues is very contentious for some Christians. Don't you think Jesus meant it when he prayed that we be one as he and the Father are one? If so, then a hierarchical Church led by a single person who acts for Jesus through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit makes sense.

I used to hold the position that you hold today, by the way, and I think it is appealing. However, I don't think it stands up to biblical, historical, or logical study.

Best Regards

 

[Elijah674]

Holy Smokes, you guys sure can get hot under the collar. Honestly, I have learned a lot from this thread. I do have one statement and then a question for you. Statement: I have some great friends that are Catholic, especially one wonderful sweet old late that runs a prayer retreat. Question: I noticed a lot of emphasis on the Pope here (and no I'm not ignorant on the issue) but when it really comes down to it isn't it our own responsibility to develop a relationship with our Heavenly Father?

We get into a lot of trouble by looking at humans whatever the denomination.

p.s. I find the threat to close the post quite immature.

But you can be sure that the 'threat' is in process, huh? When one is learning.. look out! But that to me is like a 'jesuit' tactic. 2 Cor, 4:2

--Elijah

 

[picklesbiz]

Sigh..... This whole arguing thing is going to get boring real quick. It feels like you are debating over what denomination is better or whether a hierarchal system is the best or not. Look even the Pope said that the American Catholic church is essentially apostate or something like that. Basing your argument on others having unbiblical beliefs is not valid. For even within the Catholic church there are a myraid of beliefs many unbiblical and ungodly. Not to mention the abuses within. But to be fair there are abuses and unbiblical beliefs (dogma if you will) within every denomination. From Assembly of God to Non-Denominational to Catholic.

As we grow into a personal relationship with God we find Him removing these worldly (ungodly) beliefs. The key is and always has been the relationship, not the dogma, not human reasoning, but the life changing power of God to redeem and change a man's nature, transforming and sanctifying him. We can debate forever on how God does this, but the truth is, it ultimately depends on the relationship for without the personal relationship there is nothing.

A person may say that they believe something because someone in authority over them says they are supposed to, but that doesn't mean they will in their heart. Compliance through threats and intimidation always creates animosity and ultimately division. Where as Agape compels a willing response from the heart.

 

[picklesbiz]

Hah, I was just reviewing my first post and read... "one very nice sweet old late..." No wonder the spell checker didn't catch it. Obviously it's supposed to be "lady".

 

[Elijah674]

Rev.17
[1] And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
[2] With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
[3] So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
[4] And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:[5] And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
And when history is studied, it is not hard to spot this woman!

Personally for myself, 'i' do not even find this very confusing?? It seems as prophesy has documented, that the daughters are as seen, having gone by by back to their mommy ! And now?? we will see the daughters do romes thing, huh?

 

[chestertonrules]

Sigh..... This whole arguing thing is going to get boring real quick. It feels like you are debating over what denomination is better or whether a hierarchal system is the best or not. Look even the Pope said that the American Catholic church is essentially apostate or something like that. Basing your argument on others having unbiblical beliefs is not valid. For even within the Catholic church there are a myraid of beliefs many unbiblical and ungodly. Not to mention the abuses within. But to be fair there are abuses and unbiblical beliefs (dogma if you will) within every denomination. From Assembly of God to Non-Denominational to Catholic.

As we grow into a personal relationship with God we find Him removing these worldly (ungodly) beliefs. The key is and always has been the relationship, not the dogma, not human reasoning, but the life changing power of God to redeem and change a man's nature, transforming and sanctifying him. We can debate forever on how God does this, but the truth is, it ultimately depends on the relationship for without the personal relationship there is nothing.

A person may say that they believe something because someone in authority over them says they are supposed to, but that doesn't mean they will in their heart. Compliance through threats and intimidation always creates animosity and ultimately division. Where as Agape compels a willing response from the heart.

Nothing personal, but you shouldn't post anything about the Catholic Church.

I'm sure it is based on ignorance, but it could appear to others as lies. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[picklesbiz]

This thread is bringing out more Christlike traits all the time. We have progressed from threats to implied character assassination. What's next? Do we break out the dueling pistols? Or maybe we should have a few good old fashioned burnings at the stake?

No wonder we are proving ineffective showing Christ to the world. We shoot each other every chance we get.

A wise man once said "If you are in a place where there is some guy acting arrogant and like he knows it all then you are probably in the wrong place. For that is not the humble nature of Christ and Christ is not there."

As I wipe the dust off my feet.

 

[chestertonrules]

This thread is bringing out more Christlike traits all the time. We have progressed from threats to implied character assassination. What's next? Do we break out the dueling pistols? Or maybe we should have a few good old fashioned burnings at the stake?

No wonder we are proving ineffective showing Christ to the world. We shoot each other every chance we get.

A wise man once said "If you are in a place where there is some guy acting arrogant and like he knows it all then you are probably in the wrong place. For that is not the humble nature of Christ and Christ is not there."

As I wipe the dust off my feet.

I didn't imply anything. I merely pointed out the fact that you are posting falsehoods. I assume it is based on ignorance.

You can attempt to support the information you posted, or you can admit that you might have been in error.

 

[Elf]

If so, is there evidence that he mixed pagan beliefs with Christian beliefs, and thus you get some of the unusual Catholic practices?

In your studies keep in mind that emperors declared their empires and lands christian, so everyone who lived there had to be a christian, or at least they claimed to be.
Consider all the pagan temples destroyed and these people had to flock to the nearest Catholic church, do you think they gave up all those practices just because they were ordered to?
History proves they did not. Saint worship, Mary worship and many other practices came about because of this.

I have been studying Catholicism from a knowledge only stand point, and it seems they use doctrine and tradition when they can't find their belief support in scripture.

That's correct. They have to.
If you are interested in studying the Roman Catholic Church get together some books of the history of the christian church, the Reformation, and so on. Don't look for books by Roman Catholics. Though some may be accurate.

Now I am not going to sit here and bash them, however, how could anyone in their right mind blindly go along with some of those things when the Bible clearly dictates otherwise?

They have been taught throughout the years not to question the authorities in their church. They believe their church holds the keys and salvation is in no other church. Consider also the Roman church also didn't want their assemblies reading scripture for themselves, their claim has been only their Pope and the Church can interpret scripture accurately.

We have any Catholics that could meet me in a 1 on 1 and answer some questions, or toss around a debate?

That would be a good part for your education on the subject.

Do I count? I was a Roman Catholic for about 21 or so years. I am no longer though.

I have studied the history of the Church and Roman Catholicism for many years.

 

[Elf]

The Catholic Church started in 33AD here:

The Catholic church yes, but not the Roman catholic Church.
Luther for one tried to reform the Roman church back to the teaching of the scriptures and the Catholic church, but to no avail.

 

[chestertonrules]

The Catholic Church started in 33AD here:

The Catholic church yes, but not the Roman catholic Church.
Luther for one tried to reform the Roman church back to the teaching of the scriptures and the Catholic church, but to no avail.

There is no difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. 'Roman' was added as an insult by protestants, but nobody found it insulting. The Church is the Catholic Church, and it includes 22 rites, including the latin rite.

Luther was less concerned with scriptures than he was with Luther. He wanted power and he didn't want to have to worry about his behavior. He felt entitled to change the books or words of the bible as suited his personal dogma.

Luther on Luther:

My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ" (O'Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916--1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204).

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).



Luther: Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).

The bible: For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:26-27).


Regarding the Book of James:

St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).

and

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).


Perhaps none of Martin Luther's writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote,

About this book of the Revelation of John...I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).

Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning,

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).


Martin Luther did not care for several books in the Old Testament either:

"Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book."…

"Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it...Solomon did not, therefore, write this book."…

"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."

"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." (as quoted in O'Hare, p. 202).