Luther and the Jews

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Messianic Judaism is not a race but a religion or denomination. The term is somewhat new...1920s I think it began and then had a revival in the 60s? I can't remember and I just finished reading about it (d'oh).
It's not really even a denomination. It merely means that a person who practiced Judaism or who has Jewish ancestry now recognizes Yeshua as Messiah. The theology of these believers is as varied as any others in Christianity.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,633
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's not really even a denomination. It merely means that a person who practiced Judaism or who has Jewish ancestry now recognizes Yeshua as Messiah. The theology of these believers is as varied as any others in Christianity.

On another site I was on it is labeled as a "faith movement" and I suppose that is a more accurate description than denomination.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
On another site I was on it is labeled as a "faith movement" and I suppose that is a more accurate description than denomination.
I don't see it that way. One could label "Jews for Jesus" as a faith movement or denomination, but a Messianic Jew isn't necessarily a member of Jews for Jesus.
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
From the OP, it's interesting that Luther's view was:

"Consequently, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles..."

Which I don't disagree with - but he goes on:

"...except that Moses later separated this people from the Gentiles by a different form of worship and political regime".

So Luther sees it as an act of Moses, this separation, rather than an act of God to separate a people to Himself. Likewise, it's viewed through a worship and political lens, rather than spiritual.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,676
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
From the OP, it's interesting that Luther's view was:

"Consequently, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles..."

Which I don't disagree with - but he goes on:

"...except that Moses later separated this people from the Gentiles by a different form of worship and political regime".

So Luther sees it as an act of Moses, this separation, rather than an act of God to separate a people to Himself. Likewise, it's viewed through a worship and political lens, rather than spiritual.


I can't find that quote in the OP at all,

It should be kept in my mind that Luther’s later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current concept of anti-Semitism. Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews fully into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews” as a race. He had something against their religion because he believed it denied Christ.

Dr. Heiko Oberman points out, “One thing must be clearly understood: Luther was anti-Jewish in his repeated warnings against the Jews (of any race) because of it denied the Christian Gospel and thus Christ. But Luther was not an anti-Semite or racist of any kind because- to apply the test appropriate to his time- for him a baptized Jew is fully Christian and because it matters not at all to him whether an advocate of the Jewish religion was Jew or Gentile."

Lutheran scholar Eric Gritsch echoes Oberman’s point: “Luther was not an anti-Semite in the modern racist sense. His arguments against the Jews were theological, not biological or racist." Gritsch goes on to point out the origin of biological anti-Semitism: “Not until a French cultural anthropologist in the nineteenth century held that humankind consisted of ‘Semites’ and ‘Aryans’ were Semites considered inferior. Alfonse de Gobineau’s views were quickly adopted by European intellectuals and politicians, and Jews became the scapegoats of a snobbish colonialist society in England, France, and Germany. The rest is history- including the Jewish holocaust perpetrated by Adolf Hitler and his regime. National Socialists abused Luther to support their new racist anti-Semitism, calling him a genuine German who had hated non-Nordic races.”

In his article “Luther’s Attitudes toward Judaism,” Carter Lindberg provides an excellent example proving Luther’s anti-Jewish writings were not motivated by biological racism. Lindberg says, “More to the point is Luther’s stance on religious intermarriage. In his criticism of the medieval Catholic canonical prohibition against a Christian marrying a Jew, Luther wrote, "Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid it. You will find plenty of Christians—and indeed the greater part of them—who are worse in their secret unbelief than any Jew. A heathen is just as much a man or a woman—God's good creation—as St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Lucy, not to speak of a slack and spurious Christian."

Rather than being motivated by biological factors, Luther’s criticisms were motivated by theological concerns. Luther directed intensely abusive language against Anabaptists, lawyers, the papacy, and the Jews, the issue never being race but theology. The Jews had a religion based upon works righteousness. When Luther attacked these groups, he felt he was attacking the devil- the underlying spirit of works righteousness.

Equally, he was opposed to any sense of racial superiority. In his last expositions on Genesis in 1544, Luther makes it explicit that no one has the right to boast on their race or lineage: “Accordingly, the Jews have no grounds for boasting; they should humble themselves and acknowledge their maternal blood. For on their father’s side they are Israelites; but on their mother’s side they are Gentiles, Moabites, Assyrians, Egyptians, Canaanites. And by this God wanted to point out that the Messiah would be a brother and a cousin of both the Jews and the Gentiles, if not according to their paternal genealogy, at least according to their maternal nature. Consequently, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, except that Moses later separated this people from the Gentiles by a different form of worship and political regime. Moreover, these things were written to make it known to all that the Messiah would gather the Gentiles and the Jews into one and the same church, just as they are joined by nature and consanguinity.”

In his commentary on Galatians 3:28, Luther explains we are all equal. No particular people has any right to claim special privilege before God: “ ‘There is neither magistrate nor subject, neither professor nor listener, neither teacher nor pupil, neither lady nor servant.’ For in Christ Jesus all social stations, even those that were divinely ordained, are nothing. Male, female, slave, free, Jew, Gentile, king, subject—these are, of course, good creatures of God. But in Christ, that is, in the matter of salvation, they amount to nothing, for all their wisdom, righteousness, devotion, and authority.”

Luther’s most well known anti-Jewish writing was On The Jews and Their Lies. It is often quoted and cited as the clearest example of Luther’s anti-Semitism. Interestingly though, this very document proves that Luther was not a biological anti-Semite, he was not against the Jews as people, nor did he seek for their extermination. In that treatise, Luther launches into a long section against any notion that the Jews are better than anyone else. He puts forth an alleged popular anti-Jewish argument that they thanked God that they were not born gentiles or women. In arguing against this caricature, Luther mocks those who think any one particular people is better than another: “…[T]he Greek Plato daily accorded God such praise and thanksgiving—if such arrogance and blasphemy may be termed praise of God. This man, too, praised his gods for these three items: that he was a human being and not an animal; a male and not a female; a Greek and not a non-Greek or barbarian…Similarly, the Italians fancy themselves the only human beings; they imagine that all other people in the world are non-humans, mere ducks or mice by comparison.”
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sorry, it was a small snippet from here:

Equally, he was opposed to any sense of racial superiority. In his last expositions on Genesis in 1544, Luther makes it explicit that no one has the right to boast on their race or lineage: “Accordingly, the Jews have no grounds for boasting; they should humble themselves and acknowledge their maternal blood. For on their father’s side they are Israelites; but on their mother’s side they are Gentiles, Moabites, Assyrians, Egyptians, Canaanites. And by this God wanted to point out that the Messiah would be a brother and a cousin of both the Jews and the Gentiles, if not according to their paternal genealogy, at least according to their maternal nature. Consequently, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, except that Moses later separated this people from the Gentiles by a different form of worship and political regime. Moreover, these things were written to make it known to all that the Messiah would gather the Gentiles and the Jews into one and the same church, just as they are joined by nature and consanguinity.”

Also, when he speaks of "acknowledging their maternal blood", is he speaking of...?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Also, when he speaks of "acknowledging their maternal blood", is he speaking of...?
The Patriarchs took wives from people outside the decendents of Abraham, Issac and Jacob (Israel) and God even continued to bring Gentiles into the lineage of the Messiah right up to the Moabitess Ruth, grandmother of King David. The Jews should takes less pride in their paternal roots and more humility in sharing the same maternal roots as the rest of us.

[My best guess of Luther's intent].
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,515
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
On another site I was on it is labeled as a "faith movement" and I suppose that is a more accurate description than denomination.

I think that's right. Most people who identify themselves with this movement attend other churches. What binds them together is an idea, and it's fueled by literature, websites, and personal contacts, not an institution like an ordinary church or denomination. To that extent, Messianic Judaism is like being a charismatic Christian or a British Israelist (Christian who believes that the British people are the lost tribes of Israel).
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Can someone respond to post 11? Preferably the link where Luther expresses violent action towards the Catholic church? Not trying to get off topic but like Luther on the Jew I think its fair to address his other extreme intolerance as well. I figure this thread is somewhat centered on luther and his mindset and not his followers but his reasoning, any Lutheran wish to comment on his statements on violently attacking the Papacy just like he did the Jew?
(I chose "violent" because it is but im not bias on this topic, just want to know how one could respond to those particular statements)

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Two points can be raised here.

1. Are the “quotes” from Luther’s writings one sees quoted elsewhere on the internet – sickening quotes, including one expressing his potential mutilation of his wife – actually true?

If so, that says much about the man and his attitudes.

2. Were his tirades balanced? That is, were they aimed evenly at all non-Christian groups, including Muslims? Or was there a concentration on a particular religio-ethnic group – “the Jews”? Did Luther advocate the burning down of Muslim houses, for instance?


If the answer to question 1 is Yes, and the answer to question 2 is No, then much of what has been presented in support of Martin Luther can be seen to be one-sided. (Another word for that is dishonest.)

==============================================================================================

There are few religions in the world that have an almost exclusive bi-directional bond with ethnicity. Judaism is one of them.

An attack on the Jewish religion is an attack on the people practising it. Burning their houses as promoted by Martin Luther is more than just a pertinent example; it constitutes a direct attack. On specific people.

The fact that Lutheran churches, leaders and people don’t advocate the same actions as Martin Luther did, points to one of two things:
1. Lutheranism totally repudiates Martin Luther’s words and attitudes with respect to Jews; OR
2. Lutheranism still harbours veiled antipathy towards Jews. (Possibly evidenced by a form of “Replacement Theology”, denying the indelibly recorded promises of God to that nation).

Pedrito asks: which of the two is true?
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Right? And not just against the Jew but he also pronounced some deranged statements against the catholic church.

"The Pope and the Cardinals . . . since they are blasphemers, their tongues ought to be torn out through the back of their necks, and nailed to the gallows!" (Against the Papacy of Rome, Founded by the Devil)*

"It were better that every bishop were murdered . . . And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods . . . that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed are God's dear children and true Christians." (Werke, Weimar, v.28, pp.142-201 Against the Falsely Called Spiritual Order of the Pope and the Bishops)

"...these Cardinals, these Popes, and that whole abomination of the Romish Sodom . . . why do we not wash our hands in their blood?" (Werke, Erl., v.2, p.107 On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher).

I understand Paul converting after the fact but I'm a bit on the bench seeing how he profoundly wishes against the command "thou shall not kill"... I always thought protestants held highly to that in which gave them so much nobility and credit?

Still yet to hear (read) the response to the latter as I see the former (Jew hatred) has been rejected as "those were days" and "we do not follow those teachings even though the Jew was blasphemous against our Lord Jesus Christ"...

No hard feelings here just want an answer

(A simple statement is all I wish to hear since I found nothing elsewhere, not condemning the faith just seeking the official unofficial response) ... Dont word hurt me please lol [emoji3] stay in cheer mode, simple silly question is all
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,633
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Two points can be raised here.

1. Are the “quotes” from Luther’s writings one sees quoted elsewhere on the internet – sickening quotes, including one expressing his potential mutilation of his wife – actually true?

If so, that says much about the man and his attitudes.

2. Were his tirades balanced? That is, were they aimed evenly at all non-Christian groups, including Muslims? Or was there a concentration on a particular religio-ethnic group – “the Jews”? Did Luther advocate the burning down of Muslim houses, for instance?


If the answer to question 1 is Yes, and the answer to question 2 is No, then much of what has been presented in support of Martin Luther can be seen to be one-sided. (Another word for that is dishonest.)

==============================================================================================

There are few religions in the world that have an almost exclusive bi-directional bond with ethnicity. Judaism is one of them.

An attack on the Jewish religion is an attack on the people practising it. Burning their houses as promoted by Martin Luther is more than just a pertinent example; it constitutes a direct attack. On specific people.

The fact that Lutheran churches, leaders and people don’t advocate the same actions as Martin Luther did, points to one of two things:
1. Lutheranism totally repudiates Martin Luther’s words and attitudes with respect to Jews; OR
2. Lutheranism still harbours veiled antipathy towards Jews. (Possibly evidenced by a form of “Replacement Theology”, denying the indelibly recorded promises of God to that nation).

Pedrito asks: which of the two is true?

Lutherans don't "follow" Luther. Luthers words aren't our dogma. That should answer both of your questions.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,676
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The 16th century was not the 21st. The extreme, uber - PC'ism that reigns today was just not the case 500 years ago. And it's good to keep that in mind. We should not evaluate historic figures AS IF they lived in our country and in our time.

It was true then that people often wrote in strong polemics, in language that to those raised on Mr. Rodgers and in a world of extreme Political Correctness, well.... can seem shocking. But it's just how people in Europe spoke and wrote 500 years ago. And remember, NO ONE in all this realized that what they said would be reported and put into books and be read 500 years later in cultures VERY different than their own. The press, the printing press, books... they were all very new. Luther CLEARLY was unaware most of the time that what he said was being written down and certainly it never crossed his mind that it would be published and read for centuries. Occasionally (it's not often), people wrote FORMAL letters which they intended to be public - and we see that even then, people would be very careful about the wording and rather gracious in their expressions. But since that was very rare, that's not what we tend to read today. It's important that historical people and events and documents be seen in context of their time and culture.

As Lamm pointed out above, Lutherans do not follow Luther and what Luther said has little to no relevance to Lutherans. He is seen as a very learned scholar (especially in the biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek) and a well loved parish pastor - but he was a mere mortal and CLEARLY a sinful one at that. A bloat who put on his pants one leg at a time. A man who could be right.... and could be wrong, just like very one I know (with the exception of Jesus). I've read some things he (supposedly) said - and I'm shocked and dismayed. But then I've probably said some stupid stuff too, lol. He was just a man.... a sinful man...... he was and is the Authority for nothing. Lutherans look to Scripture (and UNDER THAT the Ecumenical Creeds and Councils and UNDER THAT the Confessions) - not to Luther. It's what Luther insisted that we do, by the way.


Back to the issue....



- Josiah
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I sense that Pedrito is not going to get an answer. To say that "well, it was just the way things were 500 years ago, and, besides, who woulda' known we'd be reading this today anyway" surely doesn't address it. I think Pedrito's questions spoke directly to the issue that the OP would like to get back to. To say whom a person does or does not follow would be fine for the erstwhile corner preacher with a flock of 50, perhaps, but for the founder of the Reformation - well...
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Two points can be raised here.

1. Are the “quotes” from Luther’s writings one sees quoted elsewhere on the internet – sickening quotes, including one expressing his potential mutilation of his wife – actually true?

If so, that says much about the man and his attitudes.

2. Were his tirades balanced? That is, were they aimed evenly at all non-Christian groups, including Muslims? Or was there a concentration on a particular religio-ethnic group – “the Jews”? Did Luther advocate the burning down of Muslim houses, for instance?


If the answer to question 1 is Yes, and the answer to question 2 is No, then much of what has been presented in support of Martin Luther can be seen to be one-sided. (Another word for that is dishonest.)

==============================================================================================

There are few religions in the world that have an almost exclusive bi-directional bond with ethnicity. Judaism is one of them.

An attack on the Jewish religion is an attack on the people practising it. Burning their houses as promoted by Martin Luther is more than just a pertinent example; it constitutes a direct attack. On specific people.

The fact that Lutheran churches, leaders and people don’t advocate the same actions as Martin Luther did, points to one of two things:
1. Lutheranism totally repudiates Martin Luther’s words and attitudes with respect to Jews; OR
2. Lutheranism still harbours veiled antipathy towards Jews. (Possibly evidenced by a form of “Replacement Theology”, denying the indelibly recorded promises of God to that nation).

Pedrito asks: which of the two is true?

https://www.charismanews.com/opinio.../43161-a-deadly-anti-israel-theological-error

https://www.charismamag.com/life/culture/17717-not-everyone-rejoices-when-a-jewish-soul-is-saved
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,633
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I sense that Pedrito is not going to get an answer. To say that "well, it was just the way things were 500 years ago, and, besides, who woulda' known we'd be reading this today anyway" surely doesn't address it. I think Pedrito's questions spoke directly to the issue that the OP would like to get back to. To say whom a person does or does not follow would be fine for the erstwhile corner preacher with a flock of 50, perhaps, but for the founder of the Reformation - well...

Luther needs to be read in the following ways...

to whom was Luther addressing?
in what period was Luther writing?
at what age in his life was Luther writing?

You see, Luther changed his views on things throughout his life. We need to look at the history and culture to correctly view some things. But we also have to look at the man and what stage of his life he wrote things. Toward the end of his life he was not very well and when people don't feel well they lash out at everything and everyone.

It has been stated here already in the thread that Lutherans don't follow Luther. So in our regard to Jews, unless they trust in the Lord Jesus the Christ as their Savior then they are unsaved...nonbelievers and damning themselves to hell just as any other individual who has no faith in the Savior who is Jesus or Yeshua whichever name you feel like using.
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Luther needs to be read in the following ways...

to whom was Luther addressing?
in what period was Luther writing?
at what age in his life was Luther writing?

You see, Luther changed his views on things throughout his life. We need to look at the history and culture to correctly view some things. But we also have to look at the man and what stage of his life he wrote things. Toward the end of his life he was not very well and when people don't feel well they lash out at everything and everyone.

It has been stated here already in the thread that Lutherans don't follow Luther. So in our regard to Jews, unless they trust in the Lord Jesus the Christ as their Savior then they are unsaved...nonbelievers and damning themselves to hell just as any other individual who has no faith in the Savior who is Jesus or Yeshua whichever name you feel like using.

At least Lutherans distance themselves of things he said. I've seen ppl in evangelical churches who have no clue what he even said and treat him and Calvin like fantastic big faith hero's.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,633
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
At least Lutherans distance themselves of things he said. I've seen ppl in evangelical churches who have no clue what he even said and treat him and Calvin like fantastic big faith hero's.

Luther and Calvin both said some amazing things that point to the Savior. But they were just men like the rest of us (men meaning mankind) in that none of us are perfect and none of us have our faith perfected yet. Don't look to the Christians for faith. Look to the Savior.
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pedrito in Post #21 30:
An attack on the Jewish religion is an attack on the people practising it. Burning their houses as promoted by Martin Luther is more than just a pertinent example; it constitutes a direct attack. On specific people.

The fact that Lutheran churches, leaders and people don’t advocate the same actions as Martin Luther did, points to one of two things:
1. Lutheranism totally repudiates Martin Luther’s words and attitudes with respect to Jews; OR
2. Lutheranism still harbours veiled antipathy towards Jews. (Possibly evidenced by a form of “Replacement Theology”, denying the indelibly recorded promises of God to that nation).

Pedrito asks: which of the two is true?

The response in Post #32 was:
Lutherans don't "follow" Luther. Luthers words aren't our dogma. That should answer both of your questions.

Which obviously it did not.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito has warned about the technique of deflection before – steering attention away from “dangerous” questions and statements because the truths they represent are considered unsavoury – and here we have another clear example.

So clear is that deflection, that the Poster of Post #34 offered:
I sense that Pedrito is not going to get an answer...

So, to address the issue even more head on, Pedrito will expand the two former either-or questions into three specific questions, requesting a definitive “Yes” or “No” to each. The first two pertain to Martin Luther’s overt hatred of Jews and the sickening language he used to express the depth of that hatred.

Remember, Yes or No.

1. Does the Lutheran Church totally and publicly repudiate Martin Luther’s words and attitudes with respect to Jews?
2. Does the Lutheran Church still harbour antipathy towards Jews in any overt (directly stated) or covert (veiled) form?
3. Does the Lutheran Church teach that Israel as a nation has no place in God’s revealed future for Mankind (as indirectly stated in Post #36)?

Who would like to prove the Poster of Post #34 wrong by issuing direct, truthful answers to the above three questions?
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Lutherans don't "follow" Luther. Luthers words aren't our dogma. That should answer both of your questions.
Who wrote the Concord...
 
Top Bottom