Martin accuses Jesus of sexual sins

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Was Marty guilty of fornication? He accused someone of something he did?

Isn't that why drunks spend so much time in bars drinking? Hope to get lucky?
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
"The sole manuscript containing this item is a quarto volume that found a final resting place in the State Library at Munich, where it was catalogued as Codex latinus 943. The page containing our item was copied from an earlier copy - possibly Schlaginhaufen's original manuscript-between November 4, 1551, and some time in 1567. The copyist may have been Schlaginhaufen's son-in-law, the Rev. John Oberndorfer of Ratisbon."

I would want to see more context from the manuscript.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
"The sole manuscript containing this item is a quarto volume that found a final resting place in the State Library at Munich, where it was catalogued as Codex latinus 943. The page containing our item was copied from an earlier copy - possibly Schlaginhaufen's original manuscript-between November 4, 1551, and some time in 1567. The copyist may have been Schlaginhaufen's son-in-law, the Rev. John Oberndorfer of Ratisbon."

I would want to see more context from the manuscript.
A person can read all that there is here.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
A person can read all that there is here.
Thanks. It sounds like he was theorizing about how Jesus became counted among the wicked, in line with Isaiah 53.

The main problem with the Luther quote in the OP seems to be the word "even." To say that the righteous Christ became guilty of fornication is workable in the Substiutionary Atonement framework. But to put the word even there makes it sound like it is saying that "even" Christ directly committed a sin.

The Christian idea of universal guilt of humanity at times comes across as a little clunky anyway, and this can help explain how one could confuse what Luther was trying to express.

For example,
Romans 3:23 KJV has:
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

James 3 says,
"For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body."
The idea in the first sentence in James' quote seems to be that every person sins, but it seems hard to think of how every one of all fetuses or infants sin.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
I could hit Luther with a lot of bullets. You're shooting into the air.
Probably one of the most potentially scandalous positions that he took in modern hindsight is certain aspects of his position on the Jews. Namely, when writing against the Jews, he took a biological understanding of Jews and the guilt that was passed down. This understanding matches Augustine's idea of the guilt of original sin being passed down biologically, but the Orthodox Church and Eastern Fathers don't share this concept of biological inheritance of sin. The upshot is that per Luther's system, Jews carry personal guilt for their ancestors' role in Christ's death. That is, Luther polemicized against Jews as an ethnicity. For the Eastern Church fathers, by contrast, criticism of Jews was relegated to the Jewish polity as a religious or national community, rather than directed along biological lines. Moreover, I found some quotes by him about measures against Jews like abolishing safety for them on highways and burning their houses: ( https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-39/was-luther-anti-semitic.html ) It is too much to blame Luther for the Holocaust, but I see how his biological perspective and punitive measures could play a role indirectly in its eventual development.

I asked one former Lutheran missionary about this in the context of comparing the Protestant Reformers, like comparing Luther to the harsh judgmentalist Calvin, and the missionary told me, "Luther was kind of like a familial crazy lovable eccentric uncle." I rather feel that way too about Luther at times.
 

Tertiumquid

Well-known member
Probably one of the most potentially scandalous positions that he took in modern hindsight is certain aspects of his position on the Jews. Namely, when writing against the Jews, he took a biological understanding of Jews and the guilt that was passed down. This understanding matches Augustine's idea of the guilt of original sin being passed down biologically, but the Orthodox Church and Eastern Fathers don't share this concept of biological inheritance of sin. The upshot is that per Luther's system, Jews carry personal guilt for their ancestors' role in Christ's death. That is, Luther polemicized against Jews as an ethnicity. For the Eastern Church fathers, by contrast, criticism of Jews was relegated to the Jewish polity as a religious or national community, rather than directed along biological lines. Moreover, I found some quotes by him about measures against Jews like abolishing safety for them on highways and burning their houses: ( https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-39/was-luther-anti-semitic.html ) It is too much to blame Luther for the Holocaust, but I see how his biological perspective and punitive measures could play a role indirectly in its eventual development.

I asked one former Lutheran missionary about this in the context of comparing the Protestant Reformers, like comparing Luther to the harsh judgmentalist Calvin, and the missionary told me, "Luther was kind of like a familial crazy lovable eccentric uncle." I rather feel that way too about Luther at times.

True, this charge against Luther has more weight than the inane nonsense "Martin accuses Jesus of sexual sins." The above comments though are typical wheel-reinventing. the issue of Luther's attitude towards the Jews has been conversed upon here ad nauseam, I have saved CARM discussions going back twenty years on this subject.

The element of difference in your comments is, that in my 20+ years of looking at this issue, I think you're the first (at least that I can recall) charging Luther with blatant biological 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 into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. It's tempting to cut-and-paste a large chunk of text to substantiate this, but you're spared, because I don't think most people take the time to read text-bombed posts (I typically do not).

There is a technical discussion on this that I'm doubtful you're aware of (based on your comments) in regard to the definition of anti-Semitism and its application to Luther. Sources available upon request.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
The element of difference in your comments is, that in my 20+ years of looking at this issue, I think you're the first (at least that I can recall) charging Luther with blatant biological 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 into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. It's tempting to cut-and-paste a large chunk of text to substantiate this, but you're spared, because I don't think most people take the time to read text-bombed posts (I typically do not).
It was 6-10 years ago that I researched this topic. One difference between the Church fathers was that whereas the Church fathers at most polemicized against the Jews as a religious or perhaps national community, they didn't see individual Jews as having their ancestors' guilt passed down biologically/through birth, nor did they propose state measures like burning houses or expulsion.

Luther of course would be fine with Jews who converted to Christianity, due to the Christian idea about baptism, repentance, and absolution/divine forgiveness removing sins.

Wikipedia notes that he said in his 1546 sermons,
Even so, I am concerned [that] Jewish blood may no longer become watery and wild.
Source:
It sounds like he means that he gas a sympathizing "concern" for them, wanting them to convert so that their blood is no longer "wild". Blood in continental European speech meant and can still mean not only literal blood, but could also be an idiom for physical lineague, as I take it here.

Summarizing Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies, Wikipedia has:
They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[17] afforded no legal protection,[18] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[19] He also writ[es] "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them".
Quoting his 1546 sermons, Wikipedia has
If not, then we would not permit them [to live among us],
The part in brackets is Wikipedia's interpretation.

Virtual Jewish Library cites On the Jews And Their Lies as saying,
"...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!"
 
Last edited:

rakovsky

Well-known member
In "The Evolution of the Idea of the Jewish Race from Medieval Spain to Nazi Germany", Deborah Coopersmith theorizes that racial views of Jews is especially connected to the Spanish blood purity laws:
...as the Spanish Reconquista took place, a wave of religious fanaticism swept through the Iberian Peninsula and religious toleration disappeared. As a result, many Spanish Jews converted. The Old Christians felt threatened by all the new converts and believed their conversion to be insincere. This led to the institution of the Spanish Inquisition and the development of Limpieza de Sangre laws. The creation of the first Limpieza de Sangre doctrine in 1449 was a pivotal moment in history as Judaism was no longer defined as a religion, but as a race.
...
In May 1523, Luther wrote to New Christian Bernard, “They [popes, priests, monks and universities] find fault with the Jews because they only pretend to be converted, but they do not find fault with themselves because they only pretend to convert them (Whitford 154).…” Luther, like the people in his time, believed that New Christians were still Jews even though their baptism was sincere. To further prove this point, Luther consistently referred to Mathew Adrian as a Jew despite the fact that Adrian was a New Christian who was helping Luther with the Protestant Reformation (Friedman 25).
...
Franklin Sherman, the editor and translator of Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies in the American Luther’s Works, writes,
  • ...Luther warned, even in his severest recommendations, ‘you must not harm their persons’ (Sherman 63-64).

In Schem Hamephoras, he wrote:
"Cursed goy that I am, I cannot understand how they manage to be so skillful, unless I think that when Judas Iscariot hanged himself, his guts burst and emptied. Perhaps the Jews sent their servants with plates of silver and pots of gold to gather up Judas' piss with the other treasures, and then they ate and drank his offal, and thereby acquired eyes so piercing that they discover in the Scriptures commentaries that neither Matthew nor Isaiah himself found there....
Quoted in The History of Anti-Semitism, page 215.

Although Luther is writing with dark humor, he is apparently expressing a biological hypothesis of corruption being passed down, ie. that Jews ate Judas' waste and then they got special eyes, which were acquired by their descendants who wrote commentaries on the OT.


Summarizing Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies, Wikipedia has:
"...He also writ[es] "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them"."
Paul Rose translates Luther as saying in that tract,
"We are at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and Churches and... the blood of the children which they have shed since then, and which still shines forth from their Jewish eyes and skin. We are at fault in not slaying them.
I am inclined to think that Luther is referring to the "Blood Libel", but I don't really feel like spelling out Luther's full meaning in the passage above, sorry.

Church fathers were nicer. :)
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Thanks. It sounds like he was theorizing about how Jesus became counted among the wicked, in line with Isaiah 53.

The main problem with the Luther quote in the OP seems to be the word "even." To say that the righteous Christ became guilty of fornication is workable in the Substiutionary Atonement framework. But to put the word even there makes it sound like it is saying that "even" Christ directly committed a sin.

The Christian idea of universal guilt of humanity at times comes across as a little clunky anyway, and this can help explain how one could confuse what Luther was trying to express.

For example,
Romans 3:23 KJV has:
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

James 3 says,
"For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body."
The idea in the first sentence in James' quote seems to be that every person sins, but it seems hard to think of how every one of all fetuses or infants sin.
Christians shouldn't have a problem with it if they were catechized properly or closely read Scripture, but an unbeliever will most likely not know of or understand original sin.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
In "The Evolution of the Idea of the Jewish Race from Medieval Spain to Nazi Germany", Deborah Coopersmith theorizes that racial views of Jews is especially connected to the Spanish blood purity laws:


In Schem Hamephoras, he wrote:

Quoted in The History of Anti-Semitism, page 215.

Although Luther is writing with dark humor, he is apparently expressing a biological hypothesis of corruption being passed down, ie. that Jews ate Judas' waste and then they got special eyes, which were acquired by their descendants who wrote commentaries on the OT.



Paul Rose translates Luther as saying in that tract,

I am inclined to think that Luther is referring to the "Blood Libel", but I don't really feel like spelling out Luther's full meaning in the passage above, sorry.

Church fathers were nicer. :)
I have a habit disregarding or ignoring anything quoted from Wikipedia. However, while passing through this morning what was quoted caught my eye. For the record, in OTJATL Luther explicitly wrote not to harm their persons.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Christians shouldn't have a problem with it if they were catechized properly or closely read Scripture, but an unbeliever will most likely not know of or understand original sin.
The way that I would try to deal with his proposed measures against Jews would be to say that Luther's theological system doesn't demand implementing his proposal. By analogy, Luther was foul mouthed when talking against the Pope and Jews, but just because he was doesn't mean that Lutherand must be too. To give another example, in his 95 Theses, Luther affirmed Purgatory, which he later rejected. So Luther's writings aren't considered all infallible for Lutherans like the Bible is.

The Augustinian(And Thus RC)/Lutheran/Calvinist etc. idea of sin guilt being passed down biologically does seem to imply that the Descendants of those who killed Jesus (eg. Roman soldiers, et. al.) and did not have the sin cleansed via repentance etc. would bear personal guilt for it. I am not sure where Anglicans/Methodists stand on this.

One possible way to deal with this problem could be analogous to the way that I heard Luther dealt with Predestination. I heard that he theoretically agreed with Predestination, but he didn't make a big deal out of it or turn its possible implications into key doctrines.

For example, Ezekiel wrote that God wishes not that the wicked die, but rather that the wicked turn and live. In his commentary on Ezekiel, Calvin accepted Ezekiel's plain declaration that God wishes all the wicked to turn and live. But then he continued his commentary by theorizing that God wants the wicked to perish and does not want the wicked to convert, because if God wanted the wicked to convert, then God would have performed this task.

Supposedly Luther on the other hand did not get into these kinds of potential dark implications about the combination of God's foreknowledge, omnipotence, and irresistible will. Personally I find Luther's system generally more positive and happier, even though he went into this dark streak about Jews.
 

Tertiumquid

Well-known member
LOL! Well, I will then give it the benefit of broken clock syndrome. :)
I recently referred to Wiki as as cesspool of information. I don't necessarily have a problem with all the info Wiki presents, rather, it's the method of collection that bothers me: no one is actually responsible for the material and it can be edited and deleted at whim. Plus, they're notorious plagiarizers that often rely on cut-and-paste research.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
The way that I would try to deal with his proposed measures against Jews would be to say that Luther's theological system doesn't demand implementing his proposal.
That would indeed be confusing the two kingdoms. I also don't think some of his analogous remarks to those of Moses were meant to be taken literally or acted upon.
By analogy, Luther was foul mouthed when talking against the Pope and Jews, but just because he was doesn't mean that Lutherand must be too.
True.
To give another example, in his 95 Theses, Luther affirmed Purgatory, which he later rejected. So Luther's writings aren't considered all infallible for Lutherans like the Bible is.
Luther is not considered infallible in any sense. The Symbols in the Book of Concord are the normed norm. Luther is affirmed when he rightly reflects Scripture.
The Augustinian(And Thus RC)/Lutheran/Calvinist etc. idea of sin guilt being passed down biologically does seem to imply that the Descendants of those who killed Jesus (eg. Roman soldiers, et. al.) and did not have the sin cleansed via repentance etc. would bear personal guilt for it. I am not sure where Anglicans/Methodists stand on this.
Since original sin was part of the dispute with the Papacy it isn't accurate to include them with that group. For example, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, written in response to Confutatio Pontificia, there is a lengthy article on original sin which says in part, "5]For some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruption in the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality [not an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, or burden], which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guilt of another [namely, Adam’s sin], and without any depravity of their own. Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on account of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman are slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, but because of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, they are born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not an innate evil, but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but we are not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace]."
One possible way to deal with this problem could be analogous to the way that I heard Luther dealt with Predestination. I heard that he theoretically agreed with Predestination, but he didn't make a big deal out of it or turn its possible implications into key doctrines.
He didn't understand it the way others do because of the context in which others consider the matter, that is, they consider it apart from Christ.
<snipped that which is by Confession blasphemous>
...
Supposedly Luther on the other hand did not get into these kinds of potential dark implications about the combination of God's foreknowledge, omnipotence, and irresistible will.
They're thinking of the matter in a non Luther[an] matter. One of my favorite sayings of his goes something like, "The man that seeks God apart from Jesus seeks and finds the devil." The context was with regard to those who have an access to Scripture.
Personally I find Luther's system generally more positive and happier, even though he went into this dark streak about Jews.
The Gospel of Jesus' Christ is indeed get happy time. :)
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I recently referred to Wiki as as cesspool of information. I don't necessarily have a problem with all the info Wiki presents, rather, it's the method of collection that bothers me: no one is actually responsible for the material and it can be edited and deleted at whim. Plus, they're notorious plagiarizers that often rely on cut-and-paste research.
True. I use it mainly for the links it has in it and the footnotes on the bottom, so I can check out, if possible, the sources for the entry.
 
Top