A Lutheran Roadblock

[prism]

Right.

Luther was certainly not against the Old Testament. He (like virtually all Christians until very recently) was against religions and people who denied Christ and repudiated the Christian Gospel. And yes, those who embraced the Jewish religion of Luther's day (and those who embrace the Islamic religion of his day) did exactly that. This does not make Hitler correct to proclaim that Luther was against the Jewish RACE (regardless of their religion) - nor does it make it right for people today to continue this falsehood.


.

You'll probably have to define Jewish religion, since theirs include the OT which points to Jesus.

Romans 9:4-5 ESV
They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. [5] To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

 

[Lamb]

Josiah kept making the point that it was the 'religion' not the 'race'. My point was that the Jewish 'religion' (OT), pointed to Christ.

They pointed to A CHRIST. Not THE CHRIST. The Jews who reject Jesus as Savior are still waiting for A CHRIST to come, and deny that Jesus was the one.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah kept making the point that it was the 'religion' not the 'race'. My point was that the Jewish 'religion' (OT), pointed to Christ.

1. The Jewish Religion did not (and is not) the same thing as the Old Testament. The Jewish religion denied and denies that Jesus is the Christ and denies that because of this life, death and resurrection of Christ, those with faith in Jesus Christ have forgiveness and justification. THEY DID AND DO DENY THAT. And THAT is why Luther rejected and repudiated that religion.

2. The issue before us in this thread is whether Luther was antisemitic, ie ANTI-JEWISH RACE as Hitler claimed he was to support his own antisemiticism. This is not true. His antisemiticism does not need to be defended or explained, there is no need for Lutherans to "rally the wagons" around him to defend this antisemiticism simply because he was not antisemitic, he never repudiated the Jewish RACE. He - like all Christians until very recently when uber-relativism became popular - repudiated any position that denied Christ and the Christian Gospel.

3. There is no Lutheran Roadblock, there never was, because Hitler was wrong and those that echo him are wrong: Luther was not antisemitic.



.

 

[prism]

They pointed to A CHRIST. Not THE CHRIST. The Jews who reject Jesus as Savior are still waiting for A CHRIST to come, and deny that Jesus was the one.

The Jewish religion (OT) pointed to Thee Christ of Scripture. Just because they refused the true Jesus, doesn't make that 'religion' a false one. (iow, no need for Luther to attack it).

 

[prism]

1. The Jewish Religion did not (and is not) the same thing as the Old Testament. The Jewish religion denied and denies that Jesus is the Christ and denies that because of this life, death and resurrection of Christ, those with faith in Jesus Christ have forgiveness and justification. THEY DID AND DO DENY THAT. And THAT is why Luther rejected and repudiated that religion.

That false Jewish religion is called Judaism, not the Faith of Abraham, but Luther used the name 'Jews' not Judaism.

2. The issue before us in this thread is whether Luther was antisemitic, ie ANTI-JEWISH RACE as Hitler claimed he was to support his own antisemiticism. This is not true. His antisemiticism does not need to be defended or explained, there is no need for Lutherans to "rally the wagons" around him to defend this antisemiticism simply because he was not antisemitic, he never repudiated the Jewish RACE. He - like all Christians until very recently when uber-relativism became popular - repudiated any position that denied Christ and the Christian Gospel.

This thread has very little to do with Hitler. Hitler didn't write the book, "The Jews and Their Lies". ..Hitler may have used it as an excuse, but that's another thread.
Why for example, didn't Luther write something like The Arabs and their Lies? or "Islam and it's Lies"?

3. There is no Lutheran Roadblock, there never was, because Hitler was wrong and those that echo him are wrong: Luther was not antisemitic.

There has been for me and I never considered Hitler. God will be his (Hitler's) judge.

“Set fire to their synagogues or schools,” Martin Luther recommended in On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should “be razed and destroyed,” and Jewish “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them.” In addition, “their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.”

Luther also urged that “safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews,” and that “all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.” What Jews could do was to have “a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade” put into their hands so “young, strong Jews and Jewesses” could “earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.”

How do you differentiate religion from race with these type of comments?

 

[Josiah]

@prism

Why for example, didn't Luther write something like The Arabs and their Lies? or "Islam and it's Lies"?

He did. He equally repudiated Islam. But here too, he was not anti-Arab RACE, he was anti-Muslim RELIGION.

How do you differentiate religion from race with these type of comments?

Context.

Again, the thing Hitler abused (and perhaps you are following this - many have after Hitler) is because in German (as in English), the word "JEW" may refer to two DIFFERENT things: it may refer to a RELIGION and those that embrace that - regardless of race, regardless of whether they are semitic or not. Sammy Davis Jr. ( a popular singer back in the '60's) was an African-American, a Black person, who was a Jew by religion- he embraced the Jewish RELIGION. Marylin Monroe - a popular actress in the 50's and 60's - was a Jew in religion for some years but not at all a Semitic, NOT a Jew by race. But the word can also refer to a RACE - a particular subset of Semitic people - regardless of their religion . I have a good friend whose ancestry and ethnicity is 100% Russian Jew on both sides of his parents but he's a Roman Catholic - he converted after he married a Catholic. It can refer to EITHER those who embrace a certain RELIGION (regardless of race, ethnicity, etc.) OR to a certain RACE (regardless of religion).

Luther doesn't refer to the RACE, he refers to the RELIGION. Indeed, he seems to rarely - if ever - even refer to that subset of the Semitic race. When those of the Jewish RACE were baptized and converted to Christianity (which happened in Luther's day as in our own), he FULLY embraced them as a FULL, equal brother or sisters in Christ. Obviously, he wasn't against their RACE If it was a RACE rather than religion issue.... if it was about their being semitic than anti-Christ, he would be equally "anti" Baptized, Christian semitic peoples as he was anti-Christ religions. But he wasn't. Just the opposite.



And again... yet again my friend.... NO ONE known to me REMOTELY defends the horrible, very polemic language and tone that Luther (and everyone else at the time) used. We now embrace uber, extreme "PC" language... we all like to sound like Mr. Rogers... and the tone he used down right offends us with our very, very MODERN attitude toward language, our PC-ism. I've said - repeatedly - I think the language he used was horrible and made things worse! NO ONE is defending the language and tone he used. No one. No Lutheran. BUT again, it's not Anti-Semitic, it's anti anyone and anything and any religion that denies Jesus and denies the Christian Gospel of salvation via specific faith in the specific life, death and resurrection of JESUS as our Savior. Luther believed in truth and he thought that Christianity is true and other religions are false, wrong, and should be repudiated and rejected. It was a very common view back before uber-relativism took over much of modern thought (and unfortunately, much of modern liberal Christianity).


Blessings on your Lenten journey...



.

 

[prism]

@prism




He did. He equally repudiated Islam. But here too, he was not anti-Arab RACE, he was anti-Muslim RELIGION.




Context.

Again, the thing Hitler abused (and perhaps you are following this - many have after Hitler) is because in German (as in English), the word "JEW" may refer to two DIFFERENT things: it may refer to a RELIGION and those that embrace that - regardless of race, regardless of whether they are semitic or not. Sammy Davis Jr. ( a popular singer back in the '60's) was an African-American, a Black person, who was a Jew by religion- he embraced the Jewish RELIGION. Marylin Monroe - a popular actress in the 50's and 60's - was a Jew in religion for some years but not at all a Semitic, NOT a Jew by race. But the word can also refer to a RACE - a particular subset of Semitic people - regardless of their religion . I have a good friend whose ancestry and ethnicity is 100% Russian Jew on both sides of his parents but he's a Roman Catholic - he converted after he married a Catholic. It can refer to EITHER those who embrace a certain RELIGION (regardless of race, ethnicity, etc.) OR to a certain RACE (regardless of religion).

Luther doesn't refer to the RACE, he refers to the RELIGION. Indeed, he seems to rarely - if ever - even refer to that subset of the Semitic race. When those of the Jewish RACE were baptized and converted to Christianity (which happened in Luther's day as in our own), he FULLY embraced them as a FULL, equal brother or sisters in Christ. Obviously, he wasn't against their RACE If it was a RACE rather than religion issue.... if it was about their being semitic than anti-Christ, he would be equally "anti" Baptized, Christian semitic peoples as he was anti-Christ religions. But he wasn't. Just the opposite.



And again... yet again my friend.... NO ONE known to me REMOTELY defends the horrible, very polemic language and tone that Luther (and everyone else at the time) used. We now embrace uber, extreme "PC" language... we all like to sound like Mr. Rogers... and the tone he used down right offends us with our very, very MODERN attitude toward language, our PC-ism. I've said - repeatedly - I think the language he used was horrible and made things worse! NO ONE is defending the language and tone he used. No one. No Lutheran. BUT again, it's not Anti-Semitic, it's anti anyone and anything and any religion that denies Jesus and denies the Christian Gospel of salvation via specific faith in the specific life, death and resurrection of JESUS as our Savior. Luther believed in truth and he thought that Christianity is true and other religions are false, wrong, and should be repudiated and rejected. It was a very common view back before uber-relativism took over much of modern thought (and unfortunately, much of modern liberal Christianity).


Blessings on your Lenten journey...



.

Jew, non Jew, Arab, semite, antisemite, Lutheran, RC, Communist, Capitalist, it doesn't really matter for all have sinned and Luther should have known better and as he said, "I have done nothing. So it happened that while I slept or while I drank a glass of Wittenberg beer with my friend Philip [Melanchthon] and with Amsdorf, the papacy was weakened as it never was before by the action of any prince or emperor. I have done nothing; the Word has done and accomplished everything.…

Luther’s Works, Volume 44, p xi

Why the Book (The Jews and Their Lies)? As Luther had said, 'just preach God's Word and let the Word do it's work'.
Did Luther lose faith in the power of God's Word?

 

[Lamb]

The Jewish religion (OT) pointed to Thee Christ of Scripture. Just because they refused the true Jesus, doesn't make that 'religion' a false one. (iow, no need for Luther to attack it).

There is one God and Jesus is God. Refusing Jesus, the Messiah who came, rejects God. So they are not believers and damn themselves. Are you saying otherwise?

 

[prism]

There is one God and Jesus is God. Refusing Jesus, the Messiah who came, rejects God. So they are not believers and damn themselves. Are you saying otherwise?

The Scriptures (OT) have clearly revealed (through types and prophecy) Jesus, who declared Himself as their Messiah with miraculous proofs witnessing His claims. The Jews, for the most part, rejected Him and in turn they have been cursed (Deut 28:15-68; notice only 14 verses of blessings but 53 verses of curses-which essentially began in 70AD). So Luther was only partially fulfilling these curses by urging his followers to carry out his own curses in his book. I guess God uses means and God used Luther in help carrying out His Deuteronomy 28 curses. I guess we are just pots on the potter's wheel.

 

[Lamb]

The Scriptures (OT) have clearly revealed (through types and prophecy) Jesus, who declared Himself as their Messiah with miraculous proofs witnessing His claims. The Jews, for the most part, rejected Him and in turn they have been cursed (Deut 28:15-68; notice only 14 verses of blessings but 53 verses of curses-which essentially began in 70AD). So Luther was only partially fulfilling these curses by urging his followers to carry out his own curses in his book. I guess God uses means and God used Luther in help carrying out His Deuteronomy 28 curses. I guess we are just pots on the potter's wheel.

Jesus is the world's Messiah, not just for the Jews. In Luther's time, those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah did not have salvation and damned themselves, just like the Turks who rejected the Savior and damned themselves. Just like today, anyone who rejects Jesus, rejects salvation and damns himself. I really don't understand if you agree or disagree with that.

I don't understand what you mean by: So Luther was only partially fulfilling these curses by urging his followers to carry out his own curses in his book. I guess God uses means and God used Luther in help carrying out His Deuteronomy 28 curses. I guess we are just pots on the potter's wheel.

 

[Andrew]

How do Lutherans here get over the hurdle of Luther's diatribe "The Jews and Their Lies", especially working from his lens of Law/Gospel?

Modern "Judaism" is newer than Christianity. It's "Rabbanic Judaism" and it was started by the Pharisees. They have nothing to do with the ancient Judaism, which is now literally Christianity as a continuation of the Old Testament Judaism. I would actually prefer if the Bible was without seperation, do away with the classifications of old and new and make it just one Holy Bible.
If Luther seems wrong for saying such, then it's only because he called for violence in general. God is literally going to pour out His wrath of judgment on them so I wouldn't put much thought into Luther's anger toward the Synagogue of Satan, albeit we are in a time of grace and they have opportunity to repent so pray it so, many of them are being saved daily

 

[prism]

I don't understand what you mean by: So Luther was only partially fulfilling these curses by urging his followers to carry out his own curses in his book. I guess God uses means and God used Luther in help carrying out His Deuteronomy 28 curses. I guess we are just pots on the potter's wheel.

I'm not a preterist and believe curses like Deut 28:37 (their return prophesied in Ez 38:8) are ongoing even after 70AD. Luther was just being used by God in fulfilling his curses (Deut 28:15-68) to the Jews for rejecting Christ...God's sacrificial Lamb. (See also Rom 11:25)

 

[prism]

Modern "Judaism" is newer than Christianity. It's "Rabbanic Judaism" and it was started by the Pharisees. They have nothing to do with the ancient Judaism, which is now literally Christianity as a continuation of the Old Testament Judaism.

True, I tried explaining that in post #85

I would actually prefer if the Bible was without seperation, do away with the classifications of old and new and make it just one Holy Bible.

Agreed again. I would agree with Luther here, the Bible should be understood in terms of law and gospel.

If Luther seems wrong for saying such, then it's only because he called for violence in general. God is literally going to pour out His wrath of judgment on them so I wouldn't put much thought into Luther's anger toward the Synagogue of Satan, albeit we are in a time of grace and they have opportunity to repent so pray it so, many of them are being saved daily

Agreed, when I read the curses in Deut 28:15-68 they made Luther's rant seem mild...Then again, God has that right over the people of His pasture.

 

[prism]

An interesting observation:

From Luther's preface to Commentary on Galatians:
"For the Jews, as St. Paul says, did not know their Messiah; otherwise they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But the Church of the Gentiles has accepted Christ and confesses him to be the Son of God, who has been made our righteousness; and this it publicly sings, reads and teaches.

Yet the Scriptures give a detailed (true) account of the culprits:

Acts 4:26-28 (KJV) The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

So there appears to be a bias as early as 1519.

 

[Lamb]

An interesting observation:

From Luther's preface to Commentary on Galatians:
"For the Jews, as St. Paul says, did not know their Messiah; otherwise they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But the Church of the Gentiles has accepted Christ and confesses him to be the Son of God, who has been made our righteousness; and this it publicly sings, reads and teaches.

Yet the Scriptures give a detailed (true) account of the culprits:

Acts 4:26-28 (KJV) The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

So there appears to be a bias as early as 1519.

What you pointed out was that Luther was speaking to their religion (beliefs), which is what we've been telling you in this entire thread.

 

[prism]

What you pointed out was that Luther was speaking to their religion (beliefs), which is what we've been telling you in this entire thread.

Rather Luther is parroting a medieval belief saying 'the Jews killed Jesus where Acts 4:26-28 shows that the Gentiles, Jews, Pilate, Herod and even God were complicit in the death of Jesus Christ... not just the Jews.

 

[Lamb]

Rather Luther is parroting a medieval belief saying 'the Jews killed Jesus where Acts 4:26-28 shows that the Gentiles, Jews, Pilate, Herod and even God were complicit in the death of Jesus Christ... not just the Jews.

Maybe you should know that Luther also said THIS about who killed Christ:

You should deeply believe, and never doubt, that in fact you are the one who killed Christ. Your sins did this to Him. When you look at the nails being driven through His hands, firmly believe that it is your work.

Meditating on the Passion of Christ - The Canadian Lutheran

by Martin Luther (translation by Paul T. McCain) When we meditate on the Passion of Christ the right way, we see Christ and are terrified at the sight. Our conscience sinks in despair. This feeling of terror needs to happen so that we fully realize...

www.canadianlutheran.ca

 

[prism]

Maybe you should know that Luther also said THIS about who killed Christ:

You should deeply believe, and never doubt, that in fact you are the one who killed Christ. Your sins did this to Him. When you look at the nails being driven through His hands, firmly believe that it is your work.

Meditating on the Passion of Christ - The Canadian Lutheran

by Martin Luther (translation by Paul T. McCain) When we meditate on the Passion of Christ the right way, we see Christ and are terrified at the sight. Our conscience sinks in despair. This feeling of terror needs to happen so that we fully realize...

www.canadianlutheran.ca

Yes, we are the guilty ones, yet I gave a source for my Luther quote, does this have one?

 

[Lamb]

Yes, we are the guilty ones, yet I gave a source for my Luther quote, does this have one?

Open the link in the post. It gives the title of the writing by Luther.

 

[prism]

Open the link in the post. It gives the title of the writing by Luther.

It just doesn't give the source that Paul McCain translated it from Luther as far as I can see. (which isn't very far).
I ask, because Luther changed from the subjective/mystical (as this (sermon?) to more objective/non mystical around 1517-1518.