Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen) Martin Luther.
Was Martie a troo Lutheran?
Moved from SEP board--about Martin Luther
- Thread starter Authentic Nouveau
- Start date
Was Martie a troo Lutheran?
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Luther like all other Christians was simul justus et peccator, simultaneously just and sinner.
You aren't going to complain about Moses, are you?
Bonnie
Super Member
Plus, several times, James Swan has posted on here why Luther wrote that nasty little treatise--he was responding to a Jewish man who wrote that Mary was a whore and Jesus, her whoreson. Luther saw red about that and thus, responded in kind, unfortunately. He should NOT have reacted as he did. He should just have calmly refuted him, or ignored that letter/publication, or whatever it was.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Markus 12:28-31
Luther Bibel 1545
28 Und es trat zu ihm der Schriftgelehrten einer, der ihnen zugehört hatte, wie sie sich miteinander befragten, und sah, daß er ihnen fein geantwortet hatte, und fragte ihn: Welches ist das vornehmste Gebot vor allen?29 Jesus aber antwortete ihm: Das vornehmste Gebot vor allen Geboten ist das: "Höre Israel, der HERR, unser Gott, ist ein einiger Gott;
30 und du sollst Gott, deinen HERRN, lieben von ganzem Herzen, von ganzer Seele, von ganzem Gemüte und von allen deinen Kräften." Das ist das vornehmste Gebot.
31 Und das andere ist ihm gleich: "Du sollst deinen Nächsten lieben wie dich selbst." Es ist kein anderes Gebot größer denn diese.
Love thy neighbor as yourself is in the Luther translation.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Are you implying he didn't always do what is right or best? That is not news. "If we say we have no sin then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins then God is faithful and just to forgive us our sons." 1 John 1:8-9
Btw, someone is pulling your leg since what you are quoting is not Luther's German. It is modern German.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Martie was no Moses.
Moshe Rabbenu (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ )
I am sure Martie had issues with Moses' Israelite heritage.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
There are at least nine large volumes of his lectures on Moses that have been translated into English, eight on Moses 1 which he worked on from from 1535 until his death, and one on Moses 5, completed in 1525. You should read them sometime for a better understanding of Moses and the faith once delivered to the saints. As a side benefit you will also recognize the error of your claim.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Thanks so much for introducing how Lutherans teach the development of false doctrine.
Moses. You people leave out his disobedience. he was chosen and disobeyed. If you are an advocate of disobedience, you will leave out how God commanded Moses to speak to the rock to bring hydration to the Israelites. He disobeyed and struck the rock. They got hydration, and
Moses was banished from entering the Promised Land. He got shut down. Learning opportunity for you.
Mormons also do finger pointing to whitewash the sins of their founder.
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
What's your main point in continually disparaging (and frankly: you're mocking) Luther and the Lutherans, while at the same time mentioning above, "Love thy neighbor as yourself?" Do you strive to actually follow the paradigm of "Love thy neighbor as yourself," or do you have some sort of theology that exempts you from it?
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
What is your surety based on? I would be interested to see any documentation that Martin Luther "had issues" with Moses' "Israelite heritage."
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
Hmm. This comparison is unjustified on a meaningful level:
See this link.- "While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jewish people."
The editors of Luther’s Works included On the Jews and Their Lies in their compilation of Luther's writings in English. There was no attempt to hide the material from the public eye. They explain his anti-Jewish writings "played so fateful a role in the development of anti-Semitism in Western culture. Such publication is in no way intended as an endorsement of the distorted views of Jewish faith and practice or the defamation of the Jewish people which this treatise contains" (LW 47:123).
“In the spirit of that truth-telling, we who bear his name and heritage must with pain acknowledge also Luther's anti-Judaic diatribes and violent recommendations of his later writings against the Jews. As did many of Luther's own companions in the sixteenth century, we reject this violent invective, and yet more do we express our deep and abiding sorrow over its tragic effects on subsequent generations. In concert with the Lutheran World Federation, we particularly deplore the appropriation of Luther's words by modern anti-Semites for the teaching of hatred toward Judaism or toward the Jewish people in our day” (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). “ See: Documents from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (1994) and The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (1995).
The second official dialogue between the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations and the Lutheran World Federation stated in 1983, “We Lutherans take our name and much of our understanding of Christianity from Martin Luther. But we cannot accept or condone the violent verbal attacks that the Reformer made against the Jews. Lutherans and Jews interpret the Hebrew Bible differently. But we believe that a christological reading of the Scriptures does not lead to anti-Judaism, let alone anti-Semitism. We hold that an honest, historical treatment of Luther's attacks on the Jews takes away from modern anti-Semites the assumption that they may legitimately call on the authority of Luther's name to bless their anti-Semitism. We insist that Luther does not support racial anti-Semitism, nationalistic anti-Semitism and political anti-Semitism. Even the deplorable religious anti-Semitism of the 16th century, to which Luther's attacks made important contribution, is a horrible anachronism when translated to the conditions of the modern world. We recognize with deep regret, however, that Luther has been used to justify such anti-Semitism in the period of national socialism and that his writings lent themselves to such abuse. Although there remain conflicting assumptions, built into the beliefs of Judaism and Christianity, they need not. And should not, lead to the animosity and the violence of Luther's treatment of the Jews. Martin Luther opened up our eyes to a deeper understanding of the Old Testament and showed us the depth of our common inheritance and the roots of our faith. Yet a frank examination also forces Lutherans and other Christians to confront the anti-Jewish attitudes of their past and present. Many of the anti-Jewish utterances of Luther have to be explained in the light of his polemic against what he regarded as misinterpretations of the Scriptures. He attacked these interpretations, since for him everything now depended on a right understanding of the Word of God. The sins of Luther's anti-Jewish remarks, the violence of his attacks on the Jews, must be acknowledged with deep distress. And all occasions for similar sin in the present or the future must be removed from our churches… Lutherans of today refuse to be bound by all of Luther's utterances on the Jews. We hope we have learned from the tragedies of the recent past. We are responsible for seeing that we do not now nor in the future leave any doubt about our position on racial and religious prejudice and that we afford to all the human dignity, freedom and friendship that are the right of all the Father’s children” [Statement as cited by Kenneth A. Strand, “Current Issues And Trends In Luther Studies,” (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 1984, Vol. 22, No. 1), 144-146].
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
That was part of it, it has a lot of layers. In terms of responsibility though, Luther was certainly responsible for his own words and actions, regardless of who wrote what. No one forced him to write what he did, he chose to write what he did.
I caught the ending of To Kill a Mockingbird last night, and was intrigued again by the feel of emotion when Bob Ewell spits in the face of Atticus Finch, and the passive response of the later. I suspect the majority of people watching the film would have hoped Finch punched Ewell back, or worse. The passive response is an unnatural response. Luther does not appear to have excelled at verbal passivity. Take into account as well that most of the folks in the 16th century would get banned from CARM for the way they wrote to each other. Their style was polemical, and Luther was a master at trouncing his opponents.
There is a tension in Scripture between broad retribution and broad passivity, and it's not always easy to navigate through it. For instance, Jesus, in the way of a servant, washed the feet of his betrayer. On the other hand, Ananias and Sapphira don't fare as well under church discipline. Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek, yet, a number of people end up eternally separated from God, who does not turn the eternal, "other cheek." Tension, for sure.
Let me haphazardly apply this to Luther.
I could probably "argue" (in the technical sense) that Luther was wrong and sinful for writing what and the way he did against a number of his foes. It wasn't just the Jews, he had harsh polemic against a number of people / groups. At times, he personally attacked with his words.
I could probably "argue" (in the technical sense) that Luther was correct in some of his negativity towards those he opposed, though not all of it (particularly when he attacked the people themselves rather than their ideology). Check out this article, in which the writer links Luther's polemic to his view of salvation. The view being espoused rests on an older understanding of a sharp separation between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, while a newer understanding morphs anti-Judaism as part of anti-Semitism.
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
This is a tactic I learned from Rome's defenders: who made you an authority to determine "the development of false doctrine"? Is there ordaining in the Authentic Nouveau Church? Have you been trained in a seminary?
Why do you become the standard to determine "the development of false doctrine"? Do you answer to any authority other than your own? Do you ascribe to me in the woods under a tree by myself interpreting the Bible theology?
CharismaticLady
Well-known member
BJ are you Lutheran? Isn't just and sinner opposites of one another. That is like saying a sterile surgical knife is dirty.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
I was referring to the five books of Moses, but since I wasn't more specific I am partly responsible for the comically illogical and false reply above.
Even so, what is basis of your silly claim above? Does your fake 1545 Luther Bible omit the passages regarding the disobedience of Moses? No. That's not it.
Did you find a hymnal with the service of Moses whitewash? You know, the one in which the pastor instructs the congregation to take their favorite brand of white out and apply it to the verses regarding the disobedience of Moses? No. That's not it.
Did Luther fail to comment on the disobedience of Moses? No. That's not it either.
Do you think it is news that Moses is not the Christ, the sinless one? It is not.
Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of Moses Scripture refers to him as the faithful servant in God's house.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Yes, I am.
No, it is not like your example. Unlike a knife which can't be sterile and dirty at the same time in the same way simul justus et peccator refers to what a person is reckoned by God in Christ through faith and what a person is reckoned by God in and of himself or herself. It is just as 1 John states.
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
Yeah BJ, shouldn't the Bible make perfect sense on everything? (yes, that's a softball for you to knock wherever you want and let the team run around the bases for a while, enjoy).
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Lol! Softball? By the time I got done defining terms, honing the claims and arguments, and addressing some of the common misunderstandings and objections it would seem more like the rock of Sisyphos. It is a good thing others have already addressed the topic directly or indirectly.
A personal favorite of this type of work is Siegbert W. Becker's The Foolishness Of God, (c)NPH.
A personal sum of the matter is that if the Christian revelation made perfect sense then the Christian revelation would be beneath us and therefore unnecessary.
Thank you and excuse me while I walk the bases.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Lol! Its just amazing what one can learn on the internet.
CharismaticLady
Well-known member
So do you believe as Luther did that you can commit willful sins of lawlessness and they not be counted against you? That you are still justified?