Bonnie
Super Member
No, Jesus never sinned BUT:
2 Corinthians 5. Tell me, do you know what the bolded part truly means? Martin Luther did. Let us see if you do.
Martin accuses Jesus of sexual sins
- Thread starter Authentic Nouveau
- Start date
2 Corinthians 5. Tell me, do you know what the bolded part truly means? Martin Luther did. Let us see if you do.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
I don't want to sound like the weird postman in Cheers, but the Egyptians also found it a good way to store grain.
rakovsky
Well-known member
I don't want to sound like the weird postman in Cheers, but the Egyptians also found it a good way to store grain.
Ummm........................
Bonnie
Super Member
Cliff? But beer is a good way to "store" grain, and it was safer than drinking water sometimes, in the Middle Ages. Cities were filthy places.I don't want to sound like the weird postman in Cheers, but the Egyptians also found it a good way to store grain.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Last edited:
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
What something sounds like to you is a modernist approach to the study of history. How you may feel about something isn't necessarily what a document actually means.
The simple fact is that Luther's typical use of "Jews" and "blood" focused on the popular polemic that Luther believed: that Jewish blood was better in some sense to Gentile blood. Whether or not the Jews were actually making this claim is another subject entirely.
His discussions in his later tracts are riddled with this. Even in On The Jews and Their Lies, he says:
"They boast before God of their physical birth and of the noble blood inherited from their fathers, despising all other people, although God regards them in all these respects as dust and ashes and damned by birth the same as all other heathen." (LW 47:145)
Luther refutes this argument by claiming gentiles were just as much ancestors' of Abraham, and therefore of the same blood lineage:
"I could go back to the beginning of the world and trace our common ancestry from Adam and Eve, later from Shem, Enoch, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; for all of these are our ancestors just as well as the Jews’, and we share equally in the honor, nobility, and fame of descent from them as do the Jews. We are their flesh and blood just the same as Abraham and all his seed are. For we were in the loins of the same holy fathers in the same measure as they were, and there is no difference whatsover with regard to birth or flesh and blood, as reason must tell us." (LW 47:148)
Luther then argues, we are all born in sin:
"David lumps us all together nicely and convincingly when he declares in Psalm 51 [:5]: 'Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Now go, whether you are Jew or Gentile, born of Adam or Abraham, of Enoch or David, and boast before God of your fine nobility, of your exalted lineage, your ancient ancestry! Here you learn that we all are conceived and born in sin, by father and mother, and no human being is excluded. But what does it mean to be born in sin other than to be born under God’s wrath and condemnation, so that by nature or birth we are unable to be God’s people or children, and our birth, glory, and nobility, our honor and praise denote nothing more and can denote nothing else than that, in default of anything to our credit other than our physical birth, we are condemned sinners, enemies of God, and in his disfavor?" (LW 47:148)
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
You said earlier, "It was 6-10 years ago that I researched this topic." As your knowledge on Luther's attitude toward the Jews is now, I would not give you a passing grade.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.
German Question/Jewish Question
In this compelling narrative of antisemitism in German thought, Paul Rose proposes a fresh view of the topic. Beginning with an examination of the attitudes of Martin Luther, he challenges distinctions between theologically derived (medieval) and secular, "racial" (modern) antisemitism, arguing...books.google.com
Church fathers were nicer.
The comparison of Luther to "Church fathers" is somewhat of a red herring. First, the actual delineation you've put forth of "Church fathers" is entirely ambiguous. Perhaps Chrysostom isn't a "Church father"? Second, there are indeed worse offenders of the Jews and less offenders, but it depends on you're reference point. Pope Paul IV, Pope Pius IV, Clement VIII are worse offenders than Luther. The simple truth is that church history, including the ambiguous category of "Church fathers" displayed hostility towards the Jews. If one wants to appeal to "nicer" hostility, it's still hostility. It's not a position I would ever take... that "nicer" hostility is OK.
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
Looks like you didn't actually read the context of Luther's words, so you missed that the comment you cite is a rhetorical argument. That's what happens when you use Wikipedia and not an actual primary source.
Luther in context is bombastically arguing against the oppression of the Jews, saying rather that: the Jews are oppressing the Germans! He presents the argument that it is they that are benefiting off German land, at the expense of the Germans. He further takes as true the rumors that the Jews were killing German children and poisoning wells. "We are at fault in not slaying them" is part of a ridiculous rhetorical argument in which Luther accepts the negative Jewish stereotypes of his day, then he attempts to present the case that despite these Jewish crimes, the Germans were gracious and kind to the Jews. One can disagree with Luther's argument (for it relies on false suppositions), but to claim he was literally saying to kill Jews is misreading the context.
Luther goes on to say a few pages later... not to "harm their persons":
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
The source is from someone named "Deborah Coopersmith" and when the source document is checked, it turns out to be an April 2021 paper submitted to an honors program at Yeshiva University. I could be mistaken, but this appears to be an undergraduate honors program. In other words, the information being referred to is being put forth by a college student. This doesn't necessarily make the information incorrect, but it does demonstrate that if someone is going to appeal to an authority, make sure that person is actually an authority and not simply a person on the Internet. Researching a topic has become looking up Wiki articles and taking snippets from college papers!
This is also an odd cut-and-paste put forth by Rakovsky. The first quote appears on page 2 with the second on pages 19-20. What links the 2 quotes together appears to be some sort of argument that Luther did not consider converted Jews to be Christians or full Christians.
I don't have any meaningful desire to research the first quote about Spanish Judaism. The second paragraph though does interest me. The Luther snippets don't actually reference a primary source (typical of Internet propaganda). They reference "Whitford" and "Friedman." Neither of these references is to an actual primary source... so if it were me grading Ms. Coopersmith's paper, she would be marked off.
In regard to the 1523 letter, Ms. Coopersmith leaves out the fact that the letter Luther wrote to the converted Jew Bernard was accompanied by his book That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew as a present. Bernard also was married to Carlstadt's maid. Read the letter, and notice that there's nothing at all relevant to how Luther felt about the "blood" or viewing converted Jews as not actual Christians. Luther ends the letter saying, "I hope by your labor and example Christ may be known to other Jews, so that they who are predestined may be called and may come to their King David..."
Ms. Coopersmith then says, "Luther, like the people in his time, believed that New Christians were still Jews even though their baptism was sincere." Ms. Coopersmith though leaves out the fact that Luther referred to all sorts of people by their nationalities, so this is an inane point. Even judged by today's standards, many converted Jews refer to themselves as "Jews for Jesus." Ms. Coopersmith then says, "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)." "Mathew" is a typo, so another demerit for Ms. Coopersmith. While I don't have access to "Friedman 25" (as far as I know), I did a cursory search of LW for "Matthew Adrian," of the three hits, only in one does Luther say in a letter, "Greetings. Matthew Adrian, a Jew from Louvain, has written to me..." In the context of letter, Adrian is brought up because he wanted to teach Hebrew at Wittenberg and wrote Luther. Luther speaks of his scholastic abilities in glowing terms. There's no hint that Luther had any predisposition of looking down on him as less than a Christian or having some sort of tainted blood.
Once again, if you're going to shoot at Luther, aim at the correct target. There's plenty to hit. Cut-and-pasting inferior college papers isn't a good weapon. it may backfire on you.
Last edited:
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
1. When "The History of Anti-Semitism, page 215" is checked from the link you provided, no reference for the Luther quote is given. The burden to provide an actual meaningful reference is yours: you're the person attempting to put forth accurate information.
2. Saying Luther is "apparently expressing a biological hypothesis" ... is... simply your opinion of interpreting a primary context I doubt you've actually read. If you have read the quote in context, provide a reference, and then demonstrate your opinion by exegeting the quote in context (and also in the overarching context) of the entire source. As far as I know, Vom Schem Hamphoras has not been translated into English in Luther's Works (yet). There is an English translation: Gerhard Falk, The Jew in Christian Theology: Martin Luther's Anti-Jewish Vom Schem Hamphoras, Previously Unpublished in English, and Other Milestones in Church Doctrine Concerning Judaism (North Carolina: McFarland and Company, 1992). There is also a polemical blogger called, "Back To Luther" who has produced a layman's translation, so consider these references my gift to you.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Here you judge me. I see what you do.
Bonnie
Super Member
I'm sorry, BJ, but I have no idea what this is in reference to.Yes.
The Village Of Our Lady The Queen Of The Angels and SF are going medieval.
Please elucidate.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
That last line looks like something the main stream news outlets might have in their employee manuals.
The highlighted portion is silly to anyone familiar with Luther's right understanding of Scripture. Luther knew and repeatedly reflected that the one Church of the one Lord God has one faith.
I didn't have any coffee yet so I'm not sure how I got there but Luther's Warning adds historical context on this matter.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Oh, sorry. The Village Of Our Lady The Queen Of The Angels was the legal name of Los Angeles before it was shortened. SF referred to San Francisco and going medieval referred to how filthy those cities are becoming. There are maps that show the places and routes to avoid because of human waste, needles, etc. Oh, and I left out warnings by a Dr of a possible return of medieval disease because of the proliferation of rats. Yuck.I'm sorry, BJ, but I have no idea what this is in reference to.
Last edited:
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
As I said earlier, The element of difference Of Rakovsky's comments is, that in my 20+ years of looking at this issue, I think he (she?) was the first (at least that I can recall) charging Luther with blatant biological anti-Semitism... which amounted to arguing Luther believed Jews were inferior in some sense due to biology or "blood" or whatever... even with converting to Christianity. It's obvious that whoever is making such a charge is cherry-picking from Luther's written corpus rather actually being familiar with Luther's written corpus. When one cherry picks, rhetorical comments can turn into dastardly literal comments (as was demonstrated above with the Vom Schem Hamphoras quote).
rakovsky
Well-known member
Can you link or post to one of fthem?
I like maps.
Jesus never Himself became a sinner, as he stayed sinless and was forever God and man!
BJ Bear
Well-known member
I'd rather not, but if you're looking for an introduction to part of the problem then search on SF poop patrol.
rakovsky
Well-known member
I'm a "he". Luther's nasty anti-Semitism is not really a pleasant topic for me.
I was referring to how one of Lutheranism's and Catholicism's Augustinian doctrines is that the personal guilt of a sin committed by a biological parent is passed down from a biological parent to a biological offspring. One scenario where this doctrine comes up is the Catholic teaching about the Immaculate Conception. Since Augustine taught that personal guilt was passed down from parent to physical offspring (that is what I meant by "biological"), the Catholic Church considered the issue of whether May and Christ were born inheriting the guilt of their biological parents. Catholicism solves this issue by proposing that Mary had an "Immaculate (sinless) Conception" that miraculously prevented the guilt of her sin from being passed down biologically.
In contrast, the Orthodox-Lutheran Joint Commission noted:
"The Orthodox Church does not hold that humanity inherited the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve and is therefore worthy of eternal damnation..."
"To depict his vitriol as “theological” anti-Judaism is reductionistic and does not suit all of the evidence."
Probst, Christopher. “Martin Luther and ‘The Jews’: A Reappraisal.” http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/lutherandthejews.html
Interesting sidenote:
On November 16, 1998, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America adopted a resolution which was prepared by its Consultative Panel on Lutheran-Jewish Relations. The resolution urged that any Lutheran church which was presenting a Passion play should adhere to its Guidelines for Lutheran-Jewish Relations, stating that "the New Testament ... must not be used as a justification for hostility towards present-day Jews", and it also stated that "blame for the death of Jesus should not be attributed to Judaism or the Jewish people."
Jewish deicide - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
rakovsky
Well-known member
I saw an SF sewage map once that what you are saying reminded me of.