Bloody Marty

Status
Not open for further replies.
What does any ‘peasant’s war’ have to do with the thread topic? ‘Peasant’s war’ is what is non sequitur.
No, that's not it. The peasants war was another instance of misguided souls who were trying to implement their misinterpretation of the gospel by force.

The pattern of your posts in this thread follow the common pattern as that of those who mistakenly want to tie Luther to the deaths of the peasants. The problem for them, and your posts in this thread, is that Luther was not a Pope, did not respond as a Pope, nor was he a civil magistrate, and he had no power or influence over the civil magistrates involved.

Even so, there are people who have made a cottage industry of trying to blame Luther for what happened in the peasant's war.
Bloody Marty having peaceful resistance put to death is the thread topic. Alleged anabaptist violence over 200 miles away in Münster is also non sequitur. We are talking about Bloody Marty’s turf here, not 200 miles away.
The logic in your posts is this, although Luther was just an Augustinian monk, condemned by the Pope, and whose life was consequently forfeit he was, "having peaceful resistance put to death." That is an illogical and false assertion on it's face.

It is a further illogical and false assertion to say Luther had a, "turf," as if he was some kind of civil ruler.
 
LOL..water baptism saves? Wow. No. That is another gospel, and whoever preaches it is accursed. Galatians 1:8-9. Says it 2 verses in a row, = serious business.
Why do you bother to quote the Bible when you deny what it says through gross misinterpretation? For example, just continue reading Paul's letter to the Galatians and when you read him drilling down on cause you will find the last cause he lists is baptism into Christ.

“26. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Galatians 3:26-27, NASB)

Again note that the persons baptized are passive. Jesus saves. God saves. Baptism into Christ is the work of God for you.

If you are a KJV fan then know that the translation of Acts 2:40 is unfortunate and misleading translation. It translates a passive verb as an active. Instead of, "be saved," it translates it as, "save yourselves."

So are you trying to tell me that an incoherent baby who is sprinkled with water and grows to be a Luciferian pedophile and murderer who denies and hates Christ to the moment he dies is saved? Just because he had some water drops tossed on him as a baby? LOL! Manmade religion is absurd!.
The Scriptural basis of your response is absurd. You want to condemn a hypothetical sinner because of the hypothetical works you assign to him when Jesus came to save real sinners. Real sinners like you and me, and everyone else who is not God incarnate crucified and raised for the sins of the world.

Maybe you've responded to what 1 Peter 3:21-22 actually says, but I haven't yet seen it. So let's look at another passage which teaches about baptism, Mark 16:16.

“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16, NASB)

That is a promise to the baptized disciples of Christ who are about to go out into the world discipling all peoples. The participles translated as believed and baptized, which do not indicate a necessary order, inform the baptized disciples of the verb translated as shall be saved.

When a person who doesn't understand or denies that the union with Christ, God incarnate, which occurs in baptism saves reads that passage they read it legalistically. They read it as things people must do rather than gifts which God gives to you and for you.

What is the common move of those read it in a legalistic manner? They imagine a relative pronoun and other things into the passage. They read it something like this, "He who believed [this other thing] and [then] is baptized shall be saved. He that believed not [this other thing] shall be condemned."

Their condemnation is just because to deny that baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ is to either deny the person and work of Christ, God incarnate, for them, or deny that God saves in the manner in which He plainly says, by uniting them with Christ in His death and resurrection.

Since baptism into Christ is the work of God for you it's promises and gifts can only be received through faith.
Also, quit trying to deny it. Bloody Marty told the authorities in his area to execute peaceful resistance, and he staunchly advocated violence on peaceful Anabaptists and peaceful Jews as well. It’s in his writings for all to see his sick, demonic mind. He was a hate-filled murderer. It is insane to me how anyone could believe in the doctrines of a hate-filled killer. Oh well, to each their own.
Stop trying to deny it, your posts don't demonstrate a right understanding of Scripture with regard to baptism. Also, since you now want to introduce claims regarding the Jews, Luther wrote not to harm their persons. And you should know that what you are referring to was a theological response in which the law was being applied to a lesser degree to those who wanted to be under the law and who turn away from the LORD. See Deuteronomy 13.

If someone wants to say that Luther also wrote some stupid wrong stuff which he shouldn't have then I doubt anyone would disagree.

Its insane to think that people think that people in a church where Scripture is recognized as lord and master over all other writings on earth, "believe in the doctrines of a hate-filled killer."

"Oh well, to each their own."
 
Last edited:
Yeah Christ is the truth but manmade religion preaches a false christ who was born on Dec. 25..same day as the pagan Roman sun deity Sol Invictus. The ‘jesus’ of the religious system is a false pagan idol. A white Italian dandy boy prancing around in women’s hair.
That's a misunderstanding of the church calendar. The church calendar is a set of place holders. The intent of the church calendar is not to say that this event occurred on this or that day.
 
No, that's not it. The peasants war was another instance of misguided souls who were trying to implement their misinterpretation of the gospel by force.

The pattern of your posts in this thread follow the common pattern as that of those who mistakenly want to tie Luther to the deaths of the peasants. The problem for them, and your posts in this thread, is that Luther was not a Pope, did not respond as a Pope, nor was he a civil magistrate, and he had no power or influence over the civil magistrates involved.

Even so, there are people who have made a cottage industry of trying to blame Luther for what happened in the peasant's war.

The logic in your posts is this, although Luther was just an Augustinian monk, condemned by the Pope, and whose life was consequently forfeit he was, "having peaceful resistance put to death." That is an illogical and false assertion on it's face.

It is a further illogical and false assertion to say Luther had a, "turf," as if he was some kind of civil ruler.
I appreciate your patience in responding to these anonymous people that show up here from time to time to blast away at Luther.

Certainly, I can understand someone does not like Luther's views on the death penalty or his harsh comments about the Jews (I also do not like them). On the other hand, Luther was not a "civil magistrate" as you succinctly point out. He did not kill anyone. All of this "bloody Marty" stuff is babble. It's the typical Internet propaganda spewed out by those with zeal without knowledge.

JS
 
That's a misunderstanding of the church calendar. The church calendar is a set of place holders. The intent of the church calendar is not to say that this event occurred on this or that day.
True. On Holy Days, we celebrate the Event--Like our Lord's birth, Resurrection, etc.--not a date on a calendar.
 
I haven’t misrepresented scripture at all. That’s a false accusation.
Well, for example, from your interpretation of Galatians you tried to exclude the clear teaching from Scripture that baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ. I pointed out from Galatians that when Paul was drilling down cause, the last cause he listed, the bedrock is that those that were baptized, something done to them, have put on Christ.

Another example is that contrary to Scripture you deny infant baptism because they can't jump through whatever legalistic hoop you or your teachers have imagined.

The Scriptural witness is that God is active in baptism and the one being baptized is passive. Since the one being baptized is passive there is nothing the one being baptized does or can do to earn or merit the promises and gifts given in baptism.

An easy way to categorize or think of righteousness is, one: before God, a passive righteousness, and two: before men an active righteousness. An even easier way is to think of righteousness vertically, and righteousness horizontally.

If it is before God, or vertically, it is a passive righteousness because it is given or credited to men by God on account of Christ and His shed blood for all men, for you.

If it is before men, or horizontally, it is active because it is what you do in service to your neighbor.
And the truth is, from what I have observed (mind you I am no expert on denominational religion, I am not part of that manmade system), the Anabaptists tend to be more doctrinally sound than your religion, which holds on to more practices of the Roman Catholic religion and in modern times has gone on to embrace worldly values such as sodomy and feminism. Meanwhile the anabaptists tend to be more conservative.
Then it is time to broaden your theological horizons. We are literally an open book. A person can find what we believe, teach, and confess on the controverted points and some others of the sixteenth century in the Book Of Concord.

Why would anyone think that those who proclaim the person and work of Christ according to the Scriptures is less doctrinally sound than those who don't, and in fact explicitly deny the person and work of Christ? They try to replace what God has done and does for all men with what they think they do.
Also, the 8th commandment is do not steal (Exodus 20:15). I haven’t stolen anything. Guess you all go by the pagan Catholic commandments, they eliminated the 2nd so that they can worship statues of their pagan moon goddess named ‘Mary’ (also known as Semiramis, Ishtar, Astarte, Asherah, Ashtoreth, etc) and divided the 10th commandment into 2. Sorry, what were you saying about misrepresenting scripture?
Well, you are again misrepresenting Scripture. There are more than ten imperatives in the ten commandments in Scripture, and there is no numbering listed. You are again asserting your man made tradition or imagination as Biblical truth.
No need for that link. Not interested in denominational indoctrination. I have a bible.
There is definite need for that link. If a person listens to it he will see that John is speaking of objective truth and assurance consequent to the baptism of his initial intended recipients of the letter.

The listener will also hear how a person without that assurance often misreads that section of Scripture, that is, they imagine words into the text and make it subjective, make it about them.

Lastly, there is a clear proclamation of the deity of Christ through Hebrews, the OT, and all Christians should recognize through Matthew 28:19-20.
How can you virtue signal about ‘joy’ and ‘peace’ while defending a man who advocated violence and hatred? Seems strange.
What virtue signal? How is there not joy and peace in being united with God incarnate in your baptism into Him. For example, through your baptism Psalm 23 is true of you because Jesus is with His baptized disciples always.

It is your privilege to cling a false view of Scripture, history, and Luther. Even so, here is more Anabaptist history. Prior to Prince John concluding that kindness and letters would not work with Münzer he and his brother sat through one of Münzer's in which he said, "The Godless have no right to live. The rulers should do their duty boldly." Brecht, p. 153.
 
I appreciate your patience in responding to these anonymous people that show up here from time to time to blast away at Luther.
God brings them here so that they will be better informed about Christ, and acquire a more accurate perspective of Luther.
Certainly, I can understand someone does not like Luther's views on the death penalty or his harsh comments about the Jews (I also do not like them). On the other hand, Luther was not a "civil magistrate" as you succinctly point out. He did not kill anyone. All of this "bloody Marty" stuff is babble. It's the typical Internet propaganda spewed out by those with zeal without knowledge.
Agreed. There are enough posts left for me to respond to that I will probably be able to introduce direct evidence of Anabaptist women involved in battle.

On a relaxing note, while I was reading of Friesland(sp?), the Bobby Fuller Four popped into my head. That made me think of The Crickets which made me think of Buddy Holly. It made for a great afternoon of listening. :cool:
 
God brings them here so that they will be better informed about Christ, and acquire a more accurate perspective of Luther.

Agreed. There are enough posts left for me to respond to that I will probably be able to introduce direct evidence of Anabaptist women involved in battle.

On a relaxing note, while I was reading of Friesland(sp?), the Bobby Fuller Four popped into my head. That made me think of The Crickets which made me think of Buddy Holly. It made for a great afternoon of listening. :cool:
It appears I've been through some of the cut-and-pasted material in the OP before, though I don't recall it. I did though order a copy of Valentin Weigel (1533-1588): German Religious Dissenter, Speculative Theorist, and Advocate of Tolerance (mentioned in the OP). I doubt the material cited from this book was anything more than a cut-and-paste of someone else's reading and posting, however, I'm curious to see the documentation the author provides.

That's some great music!
 
It appears I've been through some of the cut-and-pasted material in the OP before, though I don't recall it. I did though order a copy of Valentin Weigel (1533-1588): German Religious Dissenter, Speculative Theorist, and Advocate of Tolerance (mentioned in the OP). I doubt the material cited from this book was anything more than a cut-and-paste of someone else's reading and posting, however, I'm curious to see the documentation the author provides.
I'm thinking that is probably a great catch. After rereading some of Brecht, and Vedder's biography of Balthasar Hübmaier, something seems off kilter.

I also found a collection Münzer's works at prdl. Rather than read through that guessing at what the author might have used I was just at going to ask for the citations from the OP.
That's some great music!
Yeeaahh. 😊
 
Last edited:
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”
Acts 20:29

“Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.“
Jeremiah 23:1

Valentin Weigel (1533-1588): German Religious Dissenter, Speculative Theorist, and Advocate of Tolerance (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), written by Andrew Weeks, Professor of Languages, Literatures and Cultures at Illinois State University:

Of the various studies of Reformation-era intolerance, those of [Paul] Wappler and [Nikolaus] Paulus document conditions in Saxony . . . In Luther’s part of Saxony, there were executions for the offense of rebaptism as early as 1527 (before the imperial mandate of 1529), and afterward in the years 1530, 1532, and 1538. [60] Unlike the milder regime in Hessen, where as a rule only the openly rebellious dissenters were sentenced to death, the Wittenberg reformers soon came to support capital punishment even against peaceful heretics. [61] (p. 22)

There is evidence that as early as November 1529 Luther and Melanchthon sanctioned the death penalty for Anabaptists in an opinion to their Elector in response to the imperial mandate. [69] (p. 24)

By 1536, Luther, Bugenhagen, and Cruciger were advising Landgraf Philipp of Hessen to execute by the sword any Anabaptists apprehended in his territories. [74] Melanchthon was frankly encouraging capital punishment for heresy with or without rebellion. [75] (p. 25)

45 people killed in Lutheran Saxony for the “seditious” crime of being an Anabaptist, between 1527 and 1538.

1) “Beutelhans, Wolf Schominger (Schreiner), and ten other men besides a woman” were beheaded in the district of Königsberg, a Saxon enclave in Würzburg territory: March 1527. [13]

2) Six Anabaptists (Andreas and Katharina Kolb, Christoph Ortlep, Katharina König, Elsa Kuntz, and Barbara Unger) were imprisoned at Reinhardsbrunn and put to death on 18 January 1530. [6]

3) Berlet Schmidt, Hans Eisfart, and his wife, in the Hausbreitenbach district, which was under the joint jurisdiction of Saxony and Hesse; in 1532. [3]

4) Georg Köhler and an Anabaptist woman at Sangerhausen in the territory of Mühlhausen in September 1535. [2]
5) Hans Sturm of Steyer: 1535(?) or 1536(?) in Schweinitz near Wittenberg. [1]
6) Hans Peissker of Kleineutersdorf, after a minute cross-examination, attended by Melanchthon, was beheaded with Heinz Kraut and Jobst Möller in Jena on 26 January 1536. [3]
7) Heinrich Möller at Neustadt an der Orla, c. February 1536. [1]
8) Peter Pestel of Linz was beheaded on 16 June 1536 in Zwickau. [1]
9) Klaus Ernfart in 1536. [1]

10) Jakob Storger and Klaus Scharf besides eight women drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern on 8 November 1537. [10]
11) Hans Hentrock of Amra and Ottilia Goldschmidt, a Mühlhausen girl, drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern on 17 January 1538. [2]
12) Hans Köhler of Eyerode and Hans Scheffer of Hastungsfelde, at Eisenach, at the end of January 1538. [2]

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”
Matthew 10:16

“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.“
2 Timothy 2:24-26

“If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master, namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman]."
Source: Martin Luther, Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530
(Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27

“...when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then ... we conclude that ... the stubborn sectaries must be put to death."
(Janssen, X, 222-223; pamphlet of 1536)

“...set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.”

“I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.”

“I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.”

“I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.”

Source: Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)

“Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.”
James 3:12

“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”
1 Thessalonians 5:22

“That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;”
Philippians 2:15

“Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.”
1 Corinthians 14:20

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.”
Romans 16:17-19

“For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.”
Luke 21:15

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Matthew 7:15-23

Just to clarify, I am not an adherent of the anabaptist religion, the Roman Catholic religion, or any other denomination. It is just rather troublesome to see such a person with a streak of violence and hatred uplifted by the modern religious system, some denominations even carry the name of this man, which increases him, thus decreasing Christ, opposing John 3:30-31.

Let’s say you come across a news article online that states recently some man having a religious movement had people put to death for disagreeing with his doctrine. Your average person would think ‘evil cult leader’, safe to say. Yet this man is wrongfully uplifted as some hero of the Christian Faith.

“But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.”
James 3:17

“But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”
James 2:9

Maybe that is why Bloody Marty wanted to take James out of the Word.
If the numbers between brackets in the OP are footnote references then would you please post the information regarding each citation.

Thanks.
 
Lol! I searched on the one source provided and it linked to a site listing the usual suspects with which you are very familiar.
As I mentioned above:

“...when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then ... we conclude that ... the stubborn sectaries must be put to death."
(Janssen, X, 222-223; pamphlet of 1536)
For the record, Luther did not write "pamphlet of 1536."

In the link you provided, notice it's very similar documentation!
 
As I mentioned above:
Aye.
For the record, Luther did not write "pamphlet of 1536."
Aye.
In the link you provided, notice it's very similar documentation!
Aye.

If you don't mind, when you've read the work cited in the OP would you please post whether the author uses the characterizations in the OP?

If anyone wants to read what was actually written by the Wittenbergers in the sixteenth century in this regard then a lot of the writings against the Anabaptists can be found in the St Louis Edition of Luther's Works, Vol 20. The writings from the 1530s start around the early1700s. There you will find Weimar references and other locations where the writings have been found.

Fwiw, the machine translation into English will give a person a good sense of what was written. Most typos and errors are obvious.

Tip of the hat to the backtoluther site for their work in this regard.
 
Last edited:
If you don't mind, when you've read the work cited in the OP would you please post whether the author uses the characterizations in the OP?
I think the book is showing up around May 1- it will be interesting to see the documentation.

The interesting thing about this discussion here currently is that I see definite reoccurring pattern by those who post the "bloody Marty" stuff. The pattern is thus:

Luther had people killed.
The Bible says not to kill people.
Therefore, Luther was evil.

The first two premises have a lot of baggage. In the first premise, there is no evidence Luther ever killed anyone. The second premise, when fleshed out, really comes down to whether or not secular authorities are ordained to use the sword according to the Bible. Further complication in the second premise is that church and state have been intermingled in certain periods of history, and heresy was seen at times as a punishable offense by the state. The folks that continually use the sparse argument outlined above typically are not interested in discussing this, but rather simply wish to express their myopic view of reality... and often function like modern day "heavenly prophets" (to borrow a phrase from Luther!).
 
So let’s see a bodycount that documents their ‘violent behavior’. Post it up here I want to see it. All I am seeing is accusations and no proof. ‘
A person can start his search on "peasants war 1525".

It started in 1524 and continued to spread. Obviously, they were successful enough to provoke a response. They initiated what you wrongly accuse Luther of doing.
 
The second premise, when fleshed out, really comes down to whether or not secular authorities are ordained to use the sword according to the Bible. Further complication in the second premise is that church and state have been intermingled in certain periods of history, and heresy was seen at times as a punishable offense by the state. The folks that continually use the sparse argument outlined above typically are not interested in discussing this, but rather simply wish to express their myopic view of reality... and often function like modern day "heavenly prophets" (to borrow a phrase from Luther!).
Indeed. Melanchthon's writing in 1536 (StL v 20, 1752-58) addresses the question of the role of government to the Anabaptists. Additionally, the writings of the Wittenbergers in the 1530s on the topic of the Anabaptists recognize that people were Anabaptists for varying reasons and to varying degrees, therefore, their treatment and punishment should also vary.
 
What mischaracterization? Bloody Marty’s own writings advocate violence and putting peaceful opposition to death.
Once again, Luther didn't put anyone to death. Burning a chapel or church, killing, stealing, etc. all in the name of God, or the gospel, isn't peaceful opposition.
What is illogical is trying to deny Bloody Marty’s actual character, his own writings confirm his violent and hate-filled ways.
It was the Anabaptists who were the initial aggressors in the name of the gospel. You haven"t read the sixteenth century writings of the Wittenbergers about the Anabaptists. If you had then you wouldn't mistake the writing of others for Luther, and you would be aware of the measured response to the Anabaptists.

On the other hand, you have denied the role of government in suppressing sedition and anarchy.
 
Once again, Luther didn't put anyone to death. Burning a chapel or church, killing, stealing, etc. all in the name of God, or the gospel, isn't peaceful opposition.

It was the Anabaptists who were the initial aggressors in the name of the gospel. You haven"t read the sixteenth century writings of the Wittenbergers about the Anabaptists. If you had then you wouldn't mistake the writing of others for Luther, and you would be aware of the measured response to the Anabaptists.

On the other hand, you have denied the role of government in suppressing sedition and anarchy.
Again, you keep rambling off topic about things that happened 250 miles away, trying to deflect LOL. This thread subject isn’t about alleged violence 250 miles away..this thread is about the tyranny of Bloody Marty, and what occurred on his turf. A tyrant who had peaceful opposition put to death. Maybe your reading comprehension is a little off, or maybe your idolatry of Bloody Marty is interfering, either way, you seem to have difficulty understanding that everyone who was put to death in that body count I posted was peaceful resistance. Don’t be such a fanboy, either stay on the topic of the thread or go make a new thread. Maybe you could try reading the OP again, try to get a grasp of what it entails, try reading it slower if need be and try to concentrate on its contents rather than your religious tradition oriented biases and preconceived notions. The writing in the op isn’t very difficult to understand. Just go slow, and try to take it in little by little, maybe take a small break after each couple of paragraphs and meditate on it if need be.

I also didn’t mistake the writings of others for Bloody Marty..just because he didn’t write the entire pamphlet doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain some of his writings. Nice try, but fail. His writing featured in that pamphlet is also consistent with his violent, hate-filled, maniacal writings that can be found elsewhere. Or are you going to try and deny that Bloody Marty wrote ‘The Jews and Their Lies’ also? LOL..

Anyways, it’s clear that your idolatry of a violent, hate-filled, very unchristian man is more important than coming to the truth and you have had a very difficult struggle with staying on topic.
 
Again, you keep rambling off topic about things that happened 250 miles away, trying to deflect LOL. This thread subject isn’t about alleged violence 250 miles away..this thread is about the tyranny of Bloody Marty, and what occurred on his turf. A tyrant who had peaceful opposition put to death. Maybe your reading comprehension is a little off, or maybe your idolatry of Bloody Marty is interfering, either way, you seem to have difficulty understanding that everyone who was put to death in that body count I posted was peaceful resistance. Don’t be such a fanboy, either stay on the topic of the thread or go make a new thread. Maybe you could try reading the OP again, try to get a grasp of what it entails, try reading it slower if need be and try to concentrate on its contents rather than your religious tradition oriented biases and preconceived notions. The writing in the op isn’t very difficult to understand. Just go slow, and try to take it in little by little, maybe take a small break after each couple of paragraphs and meditate on it if need be.
That reply is a non sequitur. Use a GPS and locate Allstedt.

Also, let us know when you've read Luther's Admonition To Peace.
I also didn’t mistake the writings of others for Bloody Marty..just because he didn’t write the entire pamphlet doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain some of his writings. Nice try, but fail. His writing featured in that pamphlet is also consistent with his violent, hate-filled, maniacal writings that can be found elsewhere. Or are you going to try and deny that Bloody Marty wrote ‘The Jews and Their Lies’ also? LOL..
That is another non sequitur on multiple levels. It is a matter of record that Melanchthon took credit for the 1536 doc. And if you had read On The Jews And Their Lies, 1542, then you would know that Luther wrote not to harm their persons.

Have you never read Moses? Paul wasn't making up stuff in Romans 13 regarding the rulers bearing the sword on God's behalf. He wrote that stuff about the rulers who would later put him to death.
Anyways, it’s clear that your idolatry of a violent, hate-filled, very unchristian man is more important than coming to the truth and you have had a very difficult struggle with staying on topic.
There is no idolatry, and the so-called truth you would like Evangelicals or Lutherans to come to about baptism is flat out contrary to Scripture.

Listen to Paul again, “1. O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed among you, crucified? 2. This only I desire to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of law or by hearing of faith? 3. Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you now perfect yourself in the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1-3, LITV)

According to Paul, they received the Spirit in their baptism, that is, when Paul drills down assigning cause later in the letter the bedrock is baptism into Christ. “26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:26-27, KJVA)

You would have people deny what the LORD God has repeatedly given people to believe in the Scriptures.
 
That reply is a non sequitur. Use a GPS and locate Allstedt.

Also, let us know when you've read Luther's Admonition To Peace.

That is another non sequitur on multiple levels. It is a matter of record that Melanchthon took credit for the 1536 doc. And if you had read On The Jews And Their Lies, 1542, then you would know that Luther wrote not to harm their persons.

Have you never read Moses? Paul wasn't making up stuff in Romans 13 regarding the rulers bearing the sword on God's behalf. He wrote that stuff about the rulers who would later put him to death.

There is no idolatry, and the so-called truth you would like Evangelicals or Lutherans to come to about baptism is flat out contrary to Scripture.

Listen to Paul again, “1. O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed among you, crucified? 2. This only I desire to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of law or by hearing of faith? 3. Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you now perfect yourself in the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1-3, LITV)

According to Paul, they received the Spirit in their baptism, that is, when Paul drills down assigning cause later in the letter the bedrock is baptism into Christ. “26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:26-27, KJVA)

You would have people deny what the LORD God has repeatedly given people to believe in the Scriptures.
Lol, so, someone who has been desperately trying to change the direction of the thread, and topic of the thread is labeling posts as ‘non sequitur’ haha. I am sorry you feel that way. But that isn’t how things work. You can’t just try and deflect away from the topic of the thread then label anything that doesn’t comply with your own narrative as ‘non sequitur’. It’s pretty desperate tbh.

You also seem to have trouble understanding that document did indeed contain some of Bloody Marty’s writings, such as the passage I posted. Seems to be that your definition of ‘non sequitur’ = “if it doesn’t align with my personal feelings and biases, it’s all wrong and invalid.” That isn’t how things work. That passage I posted here out of that pamphlet also contains this key term in there, ‘WE’, and that pamphlet of 1536 was also signed by Bloody Marty himself. In another memorandum written 5 years earlier the same violence advocating and tyranny advancing sentiments are all there as well, and that document was also signed by Bloody Marty. No amount of excuses, deflections, trying to change the subject, going after the messenger or parroting ‘non sequitur’ whenever something doesn’t align with your feelings can change that. Bloody Marty advocated violence, he also co-signed to violence.

Don’t even try to say Bloody Marty didn’t advocate violence against Jews. Apparently you didn’t try reading the OP again. But if you did, you missed this quote posted from it, taken from “The Jews And Their Lies”, I will highlight parts in bold so hopefully that helps make it easier to understand.

“I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb

Seems to be that Bloody Marty certainly is calling for violence there. Another ‘non sequitur’?

You also don’t seem to understand that passage in Romans makes it clear that authorities are only ministers of God as far as executing wrath upon those who do evil (Romans 13:4). Pay close attention to the last part “those who do evil” and focus really hard on it. Now, try and remember the OP that lists several dozens of people who were put to death. Then try and understand that list contains people who were peaceful resistance. That word ‘peaceful’ is a big deal. Definitely not a non sequitur. The peaceful resistance is also the topic of this thread. Is it all coming together for you yet? Has the lightbulb moment happened at this point?

If not, then it must be due to your religious bias of baby water baptizing which isn’t scriptural at all. Which doesn’t save at all, try as you may to twist and distort the scriptures to align with that manmade dogma. Only Christ saves. You also added in that claim yourself in Galatians 3:1-3. There’s nothing whatsoever in that passage about water baptism. You can’t just add things into the scripture to make it say what you want. Especially in an attempt to justify putting peaceful people to death. By your logic, you’re just fine with Christian women and girls being put to death by muslim authorities for failure to comply with their religion...they’re doing it on God’s behalf according to you. Nuts. Or is it only the authorities who take religious orders from those you idolize who qualify to be tyrants? It is clear here you are a supporter of tyranny.

I also like how you cited Galatians 3:26, faith in Christ..can an infant baby have faith in Christ? LOL! Can a baby repent? (Luke 13:3). Can a baby have godly sorrow (1 Corinthians 7:10). This is getting silly, can we just agree to disagree? Water baptism never saved anyone. Never will. By your ‘logic’ an atheist sodomite serial killer is all set for heaven because he had some water sprinkled on him as an infant. That is insane. Christ saves, not religious rites and manmade doctrines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top