Where did we get The Bible? - A IN-DEPTH STUDY

[JunChosen]

Not to boast but i have read every book of the New Testament, i thank God i was able to, i did skip alot of acts, but every other book in the new testament i have read @JunChosen.

Yes, but it does not mean you understood what you've read.

You may believe and decree as you will, i have nothing more to say.

The things I wrote on this thread was by design so that you may get the gist of what you were reading. Of course we know in part and prophesy in part. No one has a perfect understanding of Scripture! But we must not forget what Peter said:

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17 For [it is] better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

 

[MatthewG]

Thank you for your encouragement, @JunChosen.

 

[JunChosen]

Thank you for your encouragement, @JunChosen.

I pray you are not being facetious. I apologize if you didn't.

Romans 3:10 doesn't mean no one is righteous, it means among the wicked, no one is righteous. Calvin was wrong.

Sorry, but Romans 3 is actually dictating that no one is righteous (without exception). And, does Not pertain to the wicked only!

Before we became saved, we were enmity with God.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Augustin56]

I would first start with the Old Testament, since it was written first. There were actually two versions of the Old Testament floating around when the Bible was compiled into one book in the late fourth century. One was Hebrew and one was Greek. Before Jesus was incarnated, there was a large contingent of Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt, as merchants. Alexandria was a large port city on the Mediterranean Sea. The common language of the Mediterranean countries with regard to commerce and literature, at that time, was Greek. The Jews, being good merchants, worked there for generations and more or less begin forgetting their Hebrew. But, they knew Greek. So, they contacted Israel and asked for a copy of the existing Scriptures to be translated into Greek, which they did. After Jesus came, and rose to heaven, the Apostles and new Christians begin converting Jews to Christianity, using the Old Testament Scriptures. This, of course, upset the Jewish leaders, who then decided to create an official canon (list of books) for their Old Testament. They purposely left out seven books that had previously been there. So, we now had two versions of Scripture. In the late fourth century, the Catholic Church held three councils to determine which of the 300+ books, documents, letters, etc., that were in circulation were worthy of being considered Scripture. Of all of those, they came up with the 27 that almost everyone agrees are the books of the New Testament. They then chose the Greek version of the Old Testament. Bible scholars have studied both versions of the Old Testament and have determined that 80-85% of the direct and indirect references in the New Testament to the Old Testament point to the Greek version. Therefore, we can conclude that the Greek version was the one Jesus and the Apostles used most often.

Now, for the New Testsament... When Jesus walked the earth, he taught orally. He never wrote a book, nor did He recommend to anyone that they write a book, as far as we knonw. Divine Revelation, which Jesus taught the Apostles, was done orally. This makes sense since the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until the most recent 100 or so years in history. Anyway, eventually, the Aposltes started to die out, as did some of their successors, so some of what was taught orally was written down. But there was no intent to make a "book of the Bible" when they were doing so. These were stand-alone documents. They were just inspired, by God, to write what they knew. In all, there were about 300+ documents in circulation amongst Christians until the late 4th century, when the Church decided to discern which of these 300+ writings were worthy of being considered Scripture. So, at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), they prayed to the Holy Spirit and analyzed all the writings, coming up with the 27 that we all consider the New Testament today. There were some writings that they were sure would make the cut, but didn't, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache.

 

[Grailhunter]

Really??? Surprise!!?? Scripture claims "As it is written, There is none righteous no, not one. "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

Your opinion goes down the drain!

Man, in and of himself, does not have the power to seek after God!!!

And the scriptures say, you must hate your father and mother to be a disciple of Christ. Did the Apostles hate their parents....are we suppose to hate our parents.

Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.... Are you going to give that a try? Let us know how that turns out for you.

For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it. A few! Back then! I guess we might as well give up!

The people that site the..... "there is none righteous, no not one".....scripture do so with malicious intent to confuse and discourage Christians. Christianity and the Bible is all about righteousness. What else would it be!?
The word righteous appears in the Bible 545 times. None of the scriptures say, don't even try because you cannot do it.
When the word righteous is used it is generally referring to people that are righteous....telling people to be righteous and then the Saints which means holy ones referred to in the Old and New Testament.....can you be a holy one without being righteous?

Beyond that your post seems a little Calvinist. I am robot I cannot seek God without a command! Danger! Will Robertson! Danger! The Bible says differently. Anyone has the free-will to seek God.

Calvinist Robot

 

[Illuminator]

I pray you are not being facetious. I apologize if you didn't.

Sorry, but Romans 3 is actually dictating that no one is righteous (without exception). And, does Not pertain to the wicked only!

Then you must deny Romans 3:10 references the Psalms, that Paul knew well. See 5 cross references.

Romans 3:10 - There is No One Righteous

As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one.

biblehub.com

Calvin was wrong.

"Reply To Calvin" #1: The Elect

One of a series of replies to all of 500+ page Book IV of "Institutes of the Christian Religion," by John Calvin (1509-1564); this one on "the elect."

www.patheos.com

Before we became saved, we were enmity with God.

"enmity" is first mentioned in Genesis 3:15, enmity between the serpent and the woman. We are all made in the image and likeness of God, saved or not. Logically, their must be some innate goodness in every human being that would enable them to receive the grace of conversion in the first place.
Calvin got that wrong too.

 

[Illuminator]

I would first start with the Old Testament, since it was written first. There were actually two versions of the Old Testament floating around when the Bible was compiled into one book in the late fourth century. One was Hebrew and one was Greek. Before Jesus was incarnated, there was a large contingent of Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt, as merchants. Alexandria was a large port city on the Mediterranean Sea. The common language of the Mediterranean countries with regard to commerce and literature, at that time, was Greek. The Jews, being good merchants, worked there for generations and more or less begin forgetting their Hebrew. But, they knew Greek. So, they contacted Israel and asked for a copy of the existing Scriptures to be translated into Greek, which they did. After Jesus came, and rose to heaven, the Apostles and new Christians begin converting Jews to Christianity, using the Old Testament Scriptures. This, of course, upset the Jewish leaders, who then decided to create an official canon (list of books) for their Old Testament. They purposely left out seven books that had previously been there. So, we now had two versions of Scripture. In the late fourth century, the Catholic Church held three councils to determine which of the 300+ books, documents, letters, etc., that were in circulation were worthy of being considered Scripture. Of all of those, they came up with the 27 that almost everyone agrees are the books of the New Testament. They then chose the Greek version of the Old Testament. Bible scholars have studied both versions of the Old Testament and have determined that 80-85% of the direct and indirect references in the New Testament to the Old Testament point to the Greek version. Therefore, we can conclude that the Greek version was the one Jesus and the Apostles used most often.

Now, for the New Testsament... When Jesus walked the earth, he taught orally. He never wrote a book, nor did He recommend to anyone that they write a book, as far as we knonw. Divine Revelation, which Jesus taught the Apostles, was done orally. This makes sense since the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until the most recent 100 or so years in history. Anyway, eventually, the Aposltes started to die out, as did some of their successors, so some of what was taught orally was written down. But there was no intent to make a "book of the Bible" when they were doing so. These were stand-alone documents. They were just inspired, by God, to write what they knew. In all, there were about 300+ documents in circulation amongst Christians until the late 4th century, when the Church decided to discern which of these 300+ writings were worthy of being considered Scripture. So, at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), they prayed to the Holy Spirit and analyzed all the writings, coming up with the 27 that we all consider the New Testament today. There were some writings that they were sure would make the cut, but didn't, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache.

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the "you make void the word of God by your tradition" passage), didn't Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture?

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

INFO: The sources of theology

 

[St. SteVen]

I would first start with the Old Testament, since it was written first. There were actually two versions of the Old Testament floating around when the Bible was compiled into one book in the late fourth century. One was Hebrew and one was Greek. Before Jesus was incarnated, there was a large contingent of Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt, as merchants. Alexandria was a large port city on the Mediterranean Sea. The common language of the Mediterranean countries with regard to commerce and literature, at that time, was Greek. The Jews, being good merchants, worked there for generations and more or less begin forgetting their Hebrew. But, they knew Greek. So, they contacted Israel and asked for a copy of the existing Scriptures to be translated into Greek, which they did. After Jesus came, and rose to heaven, the Apostles and new Christians begin converting Jews to Christianity, using the Old Testament Scriptures. This, of course, upset the Jewish leaders, who then decided to create an official canon (list of books) for their Old Testament. They purposely left out seven books that had previously been there. So, we now had two versions of Scripture. In the late fourth century, the Catholic Church held three councils to determine which of the 300+ books, documents, letters, etc., that were in circulation were worthy of being considered Scripture. Of all of those, they came up with the 27 that almost everyone agrees are the books of the New Testament. They then chose the Greek version of the Old Testament. Bible scholars have studied both versions of the Old Testament and have determined that 80-85% of the direct and indirect references in the New Testament to the Old Testament point to the Greek version. Therefore, we can conclude that the Greek version was the one Jesus and the Apostles used most often.

Now, for the New Testsament... When Jesus walked the earth, he taught orally. He never wrote a book, nor did He recommend to anyone that they write a book, as far as we knonw. Divine Revelation, which Jesus taught the Apostles, was done orally. This makes sense since the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until the most recent 100 or so years in history. Anyway, eventually, the Aposltes started to die out, as did some of their successors, so some of what was taught orally was written down. But there was no intent to make a "book of the Bible" when they were doing so. These were stand-alone documents. They were just inspired, by God, to write what they knew. In all, there were about 300+ documents in circulation amongst Christians until the late 4th century, when the Church decided to discern which of these 300+ writings were worthy of being considered Scripture. So, at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), they prayed to the Holy Spirit and analyzed all the writings, coming up with the 27 that we all consider the New Testament today. There were some writings that they were sure would make the cut, but didn't, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache.

Thanks for posting this little known info.

 

[St. SteVen]

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

That's a very interesting view.
Can you think of an example of a scripture that should be rejected on that basis? (apostolic tradition)

 

[Wrangler]

• And what was his stance on what he called, Sola Scriptura giving the world of Christianity?
• Instant Denominations. Instant infighting. Instant wars.
• Sola scriptura, has never produced unity of the faith but has actually produced the opposite - disunity in the faith, even hatred! - over such small things as water baptism.

Another denomination bashing thread. Implied is the idea that ignorance is bliss.

I just finished reading Judges, which ended in "grace" to the tribe of Benjamin in the form of kidnapping and raping and keeping as concubines Shiloh dances. Such grace is hard for us to grasp in today's feminized society. Focus on the good that came from the printing press, people being able to read God's word in their native tongue, denomination and the benefits to billions.

 

[Illuminator]

That's a very interesting view.
Can you think of an example of a scripture that should be rejected on that basis? (apostolic tradition)

There was no complete Bible as we know it for the first 300 years of Christianity. There were plenty of fake scriptures going around that the early Christians thought were inspired. The Church slowly developed strict criteria for proving inspiration, with centuries of prayer, discernment and debate. The Didache was 100% apostolic, but it didn't make it into the Bible because it it could not be proven to be written by an Apostle. Without looking anything up, there were some 15 books of Acts and several false gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary or the Epistle of Barnabus because there were some heresies in them mixed with truth that had not yet been discerned by the Church, and some people thought they were inspired, because "some people" didn't have the authority to make determinations. Remember, this process took 3 centuries, the Bible did not fall from the sky bound in black leather in King James English. In fact, English wasn't even a language at this time.

The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James)[Note 1] is a second-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the couple to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and events immediately following.[2][3] It is the earliest surviving assertion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during and afterwards,[4] and despite being condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500, became a widely influential source for Mariology.[5]​

wikidpedia
Even most Catholics don't know The Gospel of James, although reliable history, was never official Church teaching.

Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, a broad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible’s self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpreting maxim of perspicuity.

Allow me to explain how the bible was proven to be inspired in the 3rd century, not the 15TH OR THE 21st., using the facts of history. There is a summary below.

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels.

We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries,

We then take that and together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility.

Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

This Catholic Church tells us the

(2)Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the (1)Church is infallible.

Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—
(1)that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—
(2)that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

I took most of the information from http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp , and reformatted for the sake of simplicity.

Dizzy? This SUMMARY of a summary of a summary should clarify:
1) On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2) From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3) And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
4) This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),
5) and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know with 100% certainty which books were inspired and which were not. Without the Apostolic Tradition of the episcopate, we wouldn't have a Bible at all.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

op: Where did we get The Bible?:
From God! And, More Important ( stopping all useless arguments/disputations/controversies ), in
faith, is this:

Handling The Word Of Life

Amen.

 

[Grailhunter]

@Illuminator
You were doing pretty good there and then you got into Catholic rhetoric.

And on my point, that people choose what books to consider??? And that is just fine. When I was in the 2nd grade the nuns were reading the infancy Gospels to us. Very interesting. Looking at the Bible as the foundation of Christianity is the correct way to look at it. But is the Bible the it and the all? No. There were other writings going on and a lot happened after the biblical era where God was interacting with humanity and performing miracles.

There were writings that were labeled Gnostic but the term Gnostic and cult can sometimes simply mean….we don’t like that. Some of the ECF’s had interests in these books that were labeled Gnostic. The Gospel of John was scrutinized because it had a Gnostic flavor. For example; The Gnostics had connections to Greco-Roman schools of thought and the Logos was a Greek concept from the 6th century BC. As well as the preexisting Christ being the creator God takes away from God the Father…..Between John and some other scriptures it demotes God the Father to a janitor with a broom. This is very Gnostic like. If the Gospel of John had not been contributed to John it might not have made the canon. In fact some scholars suggest that the storyline appears to be missing sections and these deletions may have been done so it would be acceptable….but even they admit that this is speculation.

And again you are using the word church….did the church buildings have steeples? No buildings. When you use these words it causes misconceptions for those that don’t know better.

Christ did not start a church….He started a sect….sort of…we can get into the apparent twin ministry, that gets more involved. Openly His ministry was to the Jews. This is one of the big misunderstandings of the Gospels. There is a reason why the Jews were coming to Him to talk to Him about the Mosaic Law and His ministry….because openly His ministry was a Jewish sect….He was a Jew and His Apostles were Jews. The problem with this is that Christians read the Gospels and think those conversations with the Jews are directly about Christianity and that is not always the case.

Then you have the Secret Messiah aspect….that reads into the Gospels like it is the same ministry...this can be confusing…for example….Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:19-20 Unless you understand this duel ministry thing this verse does not fit in. First off at that time Christ is not telling people that He is the Son of God. So baptizing people in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost would have got everyone involved stoned. Three Gods, the Jews were and are strictly monotheists. None of the Old Testament prophesies were written to suggest that the Son of God was going to be the Messiah….if so it would have filled the prophetic books on nearly every page…not something you would have to search for with a fine tooth comb. The shocking truth that He was the Son of God was something that He could not say to the Jews. So it appears that Christ was sending disciples out to convert Pagans......Gentiles even before Paul.

 

[St. SteVen]

What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know with 100% certainty which books were inspired and which were not. Without the Apostolic Tradition of the episcopate, we wouldn't have a Bible at all.

Thanks for such a thoughtful and complete reply. And the "SUMMARY of a summary of a summary" - LOL

I'm torn. Not sure if I should burn my Bible or not.
What good is it if you have to depend on the Catholic Church to tell you what it means?
No point in reading it, or studying it, unless I am missing something here.

 

[St. SteVen]

I'm torn. Not sure if I should burn my Bible or not.
What good is it if you have to depend on the Catholic Church to tell you what it means?
No point in reading it, or studying it, unless I am missing something here.

There is some level of tyranny here in the idea that God will not speak
to me personally, but only to the appointed leaders.

The Church is law. Excommunication = eternity in hell.
The reign of terror and fear. Love, or hate?

They take the office of Prophet/Priest to dictate to the people what God says.
The people are only to obey the Church.
To the people... the Church is God. What's wrong with this picture?

And I suppose it is even worse than that.
They nullify/pervert the original message by relying on the interpretation
provided by select "Fathers" that came after the fact to blaze the trail for us.
The outsiders were labeled as heretics. Some forced to recant, or burn.

The veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus is a good example.
The New Testament does not call her the Mother of God. Right?
Nor does it support perpetual virginity. This came later.
Thus the Apostolic Tradition of the early Fathers overwrote the scripture.

 

[St. SteVen]

op: Where did we get The Bible?:
From God!

God says, "Nope. Don't blame that on me!" - LOL

 

[JunChosen]

"enmity" is first mentioned in Genesis 3:15, enmity between the serpent and the woman. We are all made in the image and likeness of God, saved or not. Logically, their must be some innate goodness in every human being that would enable them to receive the grace of conversion in the first place.
Calvin got that wrong too.

Some goodness in every human being???

Apparently, you have NOT read Genesis Chapter 18???!!!

 

[Illuminator]

There is some level of tyranny here in the idea that God will not speak
to me personally, but only to the appointed leaders.

I agree.

The Church is law.

No, it is not.

Excommunication = eternity in hell.

Your dead wrong.

The reign of terror and fear. Love, or hate?

They take the office of Prophet/Priest to dictate to the people what God says.
The people are only to obey the Church.
To the people... the Church is God. What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong is that many good Christians actually believe we think this garbage.

And I suppose it is even worse than that.
They nullify/pervert the original message by relying on the interpretation
provided by select "Fathers" that came after the fact to blaze the trail for us.
The outsiders were labeled as heretics. Some forced to recant, or burn.

Wow, did someone **** on your cornflakes this morning?

The veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus is a good example.
The New Testament does not call her the Mother of God. Right?
Nor does it support perpetual virginity. This came later.
Thus the Apostolic Tradition of the early Fathers overwrote the scripture.

Thus the post-enlightenment modernist liberals of the 18th century infected Protestantism with venom, starting small and growing like a malignant cancer. No Protestant church on the planet taught this crap. Concerned conservative Protestant leaders held a meeting to cement 5 fundamental principles that was the beginning of the fundamentalists' movement in 1908 in reaction to Modernism. Pope Pius deemed Modernism "the synthesis of all heresies." In a sense, we were all on the same side.

 

[St. SteVen]

Wow, did someone **** on your cornflakes this morning?

Seems so; quite a rant. (sorry)

 

[Illuminator]

The veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus is a good example.
The New Testament does not call her the Mother of God. Right?
Nor does it support perpetual virginity. This came later.
Thus the Apostolic Tradition of the early Fathers overwrote the scripture.

SEE THE LINK: http://www.mariology.com/sections/reformers.html FOR THE FULL ARTICLE


7. THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

Perpetual Virginity: Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin." Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

The Immaculate Conception

• Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn).
• Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity,
• perpetual virginity
• and Immaculate Conception.

Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694.

Assumption: Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.

Honor to Mary

Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."
Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.

John Calvin:
It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine .

Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."
John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."
John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

Ulrich Zwingli:
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

Ulrich Zwingli "Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin." Ibid.
Ulrich Zwingli "It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother." Ibid.
Ulrich Zwingli "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."
Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.

We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation.

The Reformers themselves (see above) took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine - although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation.

Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles.

Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era, which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.

Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences.

Seems so; quite a rant. (sorry)

St. Steve, fuggetaboutit, we are all at different stages in our apologetic development.