I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the rebellion, for I said that they should be slain

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
But Luther did not stop here. On the seventh of August, 1536, a synod was convened at Hamburg to devise the best means of exterminating the Anabaptists…Not one voice among all the delegates was raised in favor of the Anabaptists. Even Melancthon voted to put all those to death who should remain, obstinate in their errors…The ministers of Ulm demanded that heresy should be extinguished by fire and sword. Those of Augsburg said: ‘ If we have not yet sent any Anabaptists to the gibbet, we have at least branded their cheeks with red iron!’ …

From this exceedingly tolerant council emanated the following exceedingly liberal decree…

”Whoever rejects infant baptism…shall be punished with death,As for the simple people, who have not preached or administered baptism, but who were seduced to permit themselves to frequent the assemblies of the heretics, if they do not wish to renounce Anabaptism, they shall be scourged, punished with perpetual exile, and even with death if they return three times to the place whence they have been expelled.” (Bennett, pp. 843-845)

Watch various churches wash their hands. "we didn't slaughter anabaptists"


I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the rebellion, for I said that they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head. But I cast it on the Lord God, who commanded me to speak this way (Werke, Erl. Edition, lix, p. 284 ‘Table Talk’ as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.96).

God never spoke to Luther to slaughter.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
Two quick questions.

1. Did Luther actually attend the 1536 synod?

2. Are you using the word "Anabaptists" as synonymous with the word "peasants"?

Thanks.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Watch various churches wash their hands. "we didn't slaughter anabaptists"




God never spoke to Luther to slaughter.
Well, that is an amusing and confused recital of pagan and RC propaganda. Did you bother to check the sources and context? What is your goal in repeating the above propaganda?

The only thing I haven't yet checked is the context of the Tischreden since I haven't yet found vol 59 online. If I don't find it then I will look it up in the WA.
 
Last edited:

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Watch various churches wash their hands. "we didn't slaughter anabaptists"




God never spoke to Luther to slaughter.
lol! Sometimes a person can be his own best object of humor. I would have saved a lot of time if I had started withe English. ☺️

Here is a little bit of context to the Luther quote. Prepend this to what you quoted to get a better understanding of what he is reported to have said. "Preachers are the greatest murderers because they admonish the ruler to do his duty and punish the guilty." LW, AE, Table Talk 2911b, v54, (c) FP

Here are a few items for the bonus round. 1) Anyone who reads Stoddard's propagandist work will find a partial list of the crimes being committed by the peasants.

2) The slaughter of the peasants occurred in RC land, the same area in which Lutherans were martyred by the RC. Do modern RCs really want to say that the RCs bowed to the will of Luther (Just putting a common RC propagandist spin on Luther.) in their slaughter of the peasants?

3)The above falsifies the sometimes RC claim that they were persecuted but were not persecutors.
 
Last edited:

Tertiumquid

Active member
I believe Luther tried to stop the revolt but his message arrived too late, if I have that right?

That's correct. Luther's Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (the very document in which Luther called for the slaying of the peasants) was actually published after the peasants war began. The treatise was delayed, and did not have an immediate role during the war.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
lol! Sometimes a person can be his own best object of humor. I would have saved a lot of time if I had started withe English. ☺️

Here is a little bit of context to the Luther quote.
THE OP is mish-mash of typical anti-Luther propaganda. First, it includes a selective cut-and-paste of someone else's work. 2) It does a slight-of-hand with "Luther did not stop there" by conflating it with a 1536 synod Luther did not attend, nor was he the one that called for the synod (and it also leaves out his comments on Melanchthon's conclusions). 3) The OP includes a summary statement from the synod (so was it Luther that "slew all the peasants" or was it the synod? 4) The OP includes an undocumented assertion attributed to "various churches" allegedly denying participating in the persecution of Anabaptists (which churches are denying what??) 5) The OP links to a "continuing Church of God" blogger, whose apparent area of expertise in not in Reformation studies, but in Herbert W. Armstrong studies. 6) The OP uses a Tabletalk comment, not something Luther actually wrote, but is alleged to have said. 7) The OP appears to not know how to parse out the difference between "Anabaptists" and "peasants." These groups do overlap, but they are not the same thing, particularly in the 16th Century. 8) Given this is a discussion board that does not make demands for response, the OP (so far) appears to be a drive-by shooting or a hit and and run. If the author would like to interact with the responses given, I've yet to see any proof of that. Until then, it appears to me to be a mud throw at the Lutherans.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
Given this is a discussion board that does not make demands for response, the OP (so far) appears to be a drive-by shooting or a hit and and run. If the author would like to interact with the responses given, I've yet to see any proof of that. Until then, it appears to me to be a mud throw at the Lutherans.
Yep, "hit and run."
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
Yes, this plus the shenanigans in other recent posts makes it feel like a stroll down memory lane. ☺️
I wouldn't mind a civil discussion about Reformation era intolerance. It's a complicated topic, especially from our "modern" and Western perspective. Most of the CARM Schwärmereien (if I've got that plural tense right!) have no interest in meaningful dialog but rather simply spew out their feelings and quixotic agendas... they really don't want to interact, they want to pound you with their own narcissism.

FWIW, I've tripped, fallen, and bloodied myself going down memory lane. I use a navigation app to avoid it at all costs!
 
Last edited:

BJ Bear

Well-known member
I wouldn't mind a civil discussion about Reformation era intolerance. It's a complicated topic, especially from our "modern" and Western perspective. Most of the CARM Schwärmereien (if I've got that plural tense right!) have no interest in meaningful dialog but rather simply spew out their feelings and quixotic agendas... they really don't want to interact, they want to pound you with their own narcissism.

FWIW, I've tripped, fallen, and bloodied myself going down memory lane. I use a navigation app to avoid it at all costs!
lol! You are very high tech. (I just lost the first version of this reply while trying to make a kb do umlauts. One day I will probably go back to linux.)

Yes. I genrally listen to podcasts while doing something else so I can't remember who said it or where, but someone made the analogy of a medieval notion of society with some current middle eastern societies in terms of religious tolerance.

I could be wrong but I would have gone with Schwarmerei. I think the difference is enthusiasts vs enthusiasms (If that is an English word.).
 

Nic

Well-known member
So you have no idea what Anabaptists are.
As I read the exchange, the poster in part was attempting to allow you to define what you understand as "Anabaptist." The word itself simply means one who is of the practice of baptizing again. Even the Orthodox will re-baptize individuals from time to time for various reasons, but we don't typically view the Orthodox church as an anabaptist group.

Nic🙂
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
As I read the exchange, the poster in part was attempting to allow you to define what you understand as "Anabaptist." The word itself simply means one who is of the practice of baptizing again. Even the Orthodox will re-baptize individuals from time to time for various reasons, but we don't typically view the Orthodox church as an anabaptist group.

Nic🙂
Hi Nic:

I asked the question about the word "Anabaptists" and word "peasants" for two reasons.

1). The OP begins by discussing Luther's opposition to Anabaptists and then it ends with a second-hand Luther comment on the peasant's rebellion. The two terms are not synonymous. While some of the peasants had leanings towards Anabaptism, they were not all Anabaptists. The OP also appears to indicate Luther was responsible for a "1536 Synod." As far as I understand that "synod," Luther did not call for (in terms of authority), facilitate, or even attend that synod. I haven't though really looked closely at the details of that historical event.

2) My questions were meant to determine if the OP was meant to inspire a serious discussion or whether it had some other nefarious intentions. So far, the later is prevailing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Well, that is an amusing and confused recital of pagan and RC propaganda. Did you bother to check the sources and context? What is your goal in repeating the above propaganda?

The only thing I haven't yet checked is the context of the Tischreden since I haven't yet found vol 59 online. If I don't find it then I will look it up in the WA.
You must be a Lutheran?

What is your pet propaganda source?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
THE OP is mish-mash of typical anti-Luther propaganda. First, it includes a selective cut-and-paste of someone else's work. 2) It does a slight-of-hand with "Luther did not stop there" by conflating it with a 1536 synod Luther did not attend, nor was he the one that called for the synod (and it also leaves out his comments on Melanchthon's conclusions). 3) The OP includes a summary statement from the synod (so was it Luther that "slew all the peasants" or was it the synod? 4) The OP includes an undocumented assertion attributed to "various churches" allegedly denying participating in the persecution of Anabaptists (which churches are denying what??) 5) The OP links to a "continuing Church of God" blogger, whose apparent area of expertise in not in Reformation studies, but in Herbert W. Armstrong studies. 6) The OP uses a Tabletalk comment, not something Luther actually wrote, but is alleged to have said. 7) The OP appears to not know how to parse out the difference between "Anabaptists" and "peasants." These groups do overlap, but they are not the same thing, particularly in the 16th Century. 8) Given this is a discussion board that does not make demands for response, the OP (so far) appears to be a drive-by shooting or a hit and and run. If the author would like to interact with the responses given, I've yet to see any proof of that. Until then, it appears to me to be a mud throw at the Lutherans.
So your people not prepared to discuss the serial killings?

Are you a troo disciple of Martin Luther?
 
Top