Originally posted by @fmfObviously Luther didn’t think that or he wouldn’t have done it. From what I understand, he was trying to get Jews to convert to Christianity and (obviously) went overboard - way overboard. One could argue his motivation was not evil at all - just the opposite, but his methods were. I guess he never heard of the honey and vinegar analogy.
I refer you to our past discussions on morality and "evil". My stance and my analysis has not changed.
Did Martin Luther think persecution of the Jews was "evil" according to his standard of morality and his Christian faith?
Originally posted by @fmfI don't know what he was thinking.
Did Martin Luther think persecution of the Jews was "satanic" according to his standard of morality and the tenets of his Christian faith?
You must have forgotten what you learned from the Bible, if you had learned it at all, but if you look at the lives of the many characters in scripture you'll see they were far from perfect. In fact some were down right bad hombres. David was a murderer and an adulterer, and the was no sacrifice for adultery and murder. Death was the sentence, yet God called David a man after His own heart.
Luther was way off base, and much of his diatribe against the Jews ultimately led to the slaughter of millions.
Not good. But Luther's failure to see that the Jews were God's people, basically because of the failure of His and his contemporaries during the reformation to understand Romans 9-11, and the prevailing view of replacement theology at that time, is no excuse for those that followed centuries later to seek the extermination of the Jews.
History bears testimony of God's pronouncement to Abraham that "I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you"(paraphrase) is still in effect.
The Jews are still here and their enemies are dead and gone.
Go to Israel. A Jewish tour guide will show you Roman ruins.
Originally posted by @secondsonI don't know what he was thinking. [...] Luther was way off base, and much of his diatribe against the Jews ultimately led to the slaughter of millions.
Not good. But Luther's failure to see that the Jews were God's people, basically because of the failure of His and his contemporaries during the reformation to understand Romans 9-11, and the prevailing view of replacement theology at that time, is no excuse for those that followed centuries later to seek the extermination of the Jews.
Are you sticking to your stance that Christians didn't persecute Jews for centuries?
Originally posted by @secondsonYou mean, for example, that Martin Luther ~ arguably a founding father of Protestant Christianity ~ is "dead and gone" and "the Jews are still here"?
The Jews are still here and their enemies are dead and gone.
Originally posted by @fmfNo. 😞
[b]I don't know what he was thinking. [...] Luther was way off base, and much of his diatribe against the Jews ultimately led to the slaughter of millions.
Not good. But Luther's failure to see that the Jews were God's people, basically because of the failure of His and his contemporaries during the reformation to understand Romans 9-11, and the prevailing v ...[text shortened]... ews.
Are you sticking to your stance that Christians didn't persecute Jews for centuries?[/b]
Still, I can't imagine how a Christian can persecute anyone. Then again I can. Christians aren't immune to ignorance.
Originally posted by @secondsonWas Martin Luther ~ arguably the founding father of Protestant Christianity ~ one of these "enemies" of the Jews you've mentioned?
The Jews are still here and their enemies are dead and gone.
Originally posted by @rajk999I'm not holding anyone on a pedestal. I merely remark that you have much presumption to suppose that your comprehension of Scripture surpasses that of the Church fathers and ordained bishops. Do you read and understand ancient Greek? ancient Aramaic? Hebrew? Do you know the process whereby the bishops at the Council of Nicea in 4th c. chose to canonize just those four gospels and not any of the others which were in wide circulation then? If not, I am entitled to doubt your claim to understand the teachings of Christ without any "input" as you call it. Anyone with any intellectual humility would admit that Scripture is often dumbfoundingly obscure.
I have come across some of these same wiser theologians who have found it necessary to conclude that the story of the Good Samaritan applies to Jesus Christ and not to us... a conclusion completely contradictory to the teachings of Christ. As far as I am concerned these are wise fools who have no guidance from God and are just fallible men with a twisted a ...[text shortened]... nferiority complex. I can read. I can understand. I dont need their input into my understanding.
1 edit
Originally posted by @secondsonWhatever else Luther may be famous, or infamous, for, here's one debt even atheists the world over owe him:
Luther was a genius. He translated the Latin vulgate into German in ten weeks using the most common words from fourteen German dialects essentially creating the German language in use to this day.
When you see Luther in the kingdom you can call him a fool to his face. Before you do come and get me first because I gotta see that.
http://www.americancraftbeer.com/beer-reformation-martin-luther-changed-beer-forever/
Scholar, theologian, practical chemist...
-Removed-For the record, I have stood with you - one of the few posters on here to do so. That Romans1009 is a big meanie!
But I have a question:
By creating this thread and your subsequent posts where you groveled, begged and pleaded for support, do you think you’re a “willie-waving attention seeker?”
Originally posted by @romans1009Brother, the irony is truly breathtaking
By creating this thread and your subsequent posts where you groveled, begged and pleaded for support, do you think you’re a “willie-waving attention seeker?”
Originally posted by @moonbusWhat is required to enter the Kingdom of God is to love God and your neighbour as yourself. The Good Samaritan will be in the Kingdom of God. No understanding of Greek and Hebrew neither the ability to read and interpret the scriptures is required.
I'm not holding anyone on a pedestal. I merely remark that you have much presumption to suppose that your comprehension of Scripture surpasses that of the Church fathers and ordained bishops. Do you read and understand ancient Greek? ancient Aramaic? Hebrew? Do you know the process whereby the bishops at the Council of Nicea in 4th c. chose to canonize just ...[text shortened]... nyone with any intellectual humility would admit that Scripture is often dumbfoundingly obscure.
Your socalled scholars which your clearly idolize are a complete waste of time. Jokers like Martin Luther and other church fathers, used their knowledge to twist the word of God and to turn the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles into foolishness. Even now in these times the church leaders are corrupt, greedy and worldly, using their great knowledge for evil.
Some parts of the scripture are dumbfoundingly obscure but none of those parts are remotely necessary for eternal life.
Originally posted by @rajk999You haven't the foggiest idea who I idolize or why. But, it's not about me. It's about the fact that certain people and certain institutions have a patent on Christianity. You can build a soapbox racer, if you want. You can call it a 'Lamborghini,' if you want. That doesn't make it a Lamborghini.
What is required to enter the Kingdom of God is to love God and your neighbour as yourself. The Good Samaritan will be in the Kingdom of God. No understanding of Greek and Hebrew neither the ability to read and interpret the scriptures is required.
Your socalled scholars which your clearly idolize are a complete waste of time. Jokers like Martin Luther a ...[text shortened]... ture are dumbfoundingly obscure but none of those parts are remotely necessary for eternal life.