how many lutherans have been called anti Semetic

[rockytrails]

I am not talking about Luther or Walther
but have you?

have you ever been called anti-semetic
it seems some protestant cults loves to do it now days.
It was real prevelant on some other christian forums and seems it is here to.

did it make make you feel .less christian?
or did you just concider the source?

i think the world is getting tired of being called anti-semetic.

and i think it is the protestant cults that have so missused the word they have desensatized the word
to such a degree . The world hardly notices it any more.

what do you think?

[RadMan]

The dispensationalists are pushing the anti semetic thing because they still believe the Jews are the chosen people. They are getting erratic about it.

[LilLamb219]

YES! I HAVE been called it by people and was totally confused. Do you know why I was called one? Because I insisted on by grace through faith in Christ Jesus.

[MagnusEmboden]

If you believe that the administration of the Mosaic covenant is, by itself, unable to save a person, then, to many, you are an anti-semite.

Sad but true.

If you believe that Judaism, since it has rejected the Messiah sent to her, now worships a God other than the One Who revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then, to many, you are an anti-semite.

[seajoy]

My parents think that all Jews are saved even if they don't believe in Christ. My mom could not understand how I could think differently.

[LilLamb219]

Too bad that people honestly believe that outside of Christ that there is salvation.

[maylor]

Yes, I've been called everything from "Anti-Semite" to "Racist", "Bigot", "Nazi"..BLAH BLAH BLAH.

I'm even a member of a political activist group that the ADL ( The folks who want to outlaw Christmas and teach homosexuality in our schools) officially classifies as a "HATE" group.

So what.

My parents think that all Jews are saved even if they don't believe in Christ. My mom could not understand how I could think differently.


It's the same with my father also. It's best that him and I refrain from talking about Israel or "the Jews", so that I don't end up breaking the Fourth Commandment!

[RegularGuy]

Yes, I've been called everything from "Anti-Semite" to "Racist", "Bigot", "Nazi"..BLAH BLAH BLAH.

I'm even a member of a political activist group that the ADL ( The folks who want to outlaw Christmas and teach homosexuality in our schools) officially classifies as a "HATE" group.

So what.



It's the same with my father also. It's best that him and I refrain from talking about Israel or "the Jews", so that I don't end up breaking the Fourth Commandment!
Are you mistaking the ADL and the ACLU?

[NordicLutheran]

Whats zionism? And what's the significance?

[Till]

Whats zionism? And what's the significance?

A political ideology and movement that lead to immigration of Jews to Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Was that your question?

[rockytrails]

ya know what i think . I think they have to believe every one else is antisemetic Because with out anti-sematism . their whole theology would go ka put!

[MagnusEmboden]

Theological Zionism is the belief among Christians and Jews that the current political entity called Israel is ideologically coterminous with the Israel of Scripture.

Historically the Church has understood herself to be the fulfillment and completion of Israel.

Proponents of Theological Zionism will say that this is "Replacement Theology" that those of us who believe it are replacing Israel with the Church but this is not accurate.

There is no "replacement". Israel has not been supplanted by another entity.

The Church is Israel because Israel is the People of God. It always has been and always will be and it could be no other way. Yahweh is not a bigamist and He is not a divorcé.

[LutheranMafia]

YES! I HAVE been called it by people and was totally confused. Do you know why I was called one? Because I insisted on by grace through faith in Christ Jesus.So then what about dogs, cats, and toddlers who die too young to have ever contemplated an ideology? Clearly the ancient fathers meant something much more broad than an intellectual ideology when they referred to belief. What is a belief of the heart, given the fact that the heart is incapable of believing or disbelieving an ideology? Believing in your heart is a hackneyed phrase in Christianity, and yet so few Christians understand why such emphasis is given to what would otherwise be a blatant self-contradiction. The intellect believes and disbelieves in ideologies, not the heart, yet what are we judged by, what is in our intellects, or what is in our hearts? Clearly it is the later, not the former. When you turn things on their heads and put what is in people's intellects above what is in their hearts, you end up with contorted logic that damns all pets and dead toddlers too Hell.

What about Jesus? He never renounced Judaism. Where does that leave him?

[maylor]

Are you mistaking the ADL and the ACLU?

The ADL, the most well funded "civil rights" organization in the United States. A Zionist organization as well.

http://www.adl.org/

At the release of Mel Gibson's movie Passion of the Christ, the head of the ADL, Abe Foxman predicted widespread anti-semitic violence would follow. He was wrong, of course, but that didn't stop thousands of terrified Jews from sending him money.

[Studeclunker]

Christians are the 'Bride Of Christ', the Jews or Hebraic peoples are the 'Chosen Of God', both are the 'seed of Abraham'. If you ask me how this can be I'll ask if you really ever open your bible!:scratch: The apostle Paul answers this replacement nonsense numerous times. We, the Christians, were adopted or grafted into the family tree, of Abraham. Therefore, Christians and Jews are the chosen peoples. Both are the same and neither replaces the other.

This is one reason why the fanatic Muslims hate us. They hate the Jews and consider Christians to be a sect of Judaism. I often offend a lot of Christians by stating that all Christians are just completed Jews. ;) I've never been accused of being anti-semitic. Weird, yes, anti-semitic, no (LOL).:tutu:

[RegularGuy]

The ADL, the most well funded "civil rights" organization in the United States. A Zionist organization as well.

http://www.adl.org/

At the release of Mel Gibson's movie Passion of the Christ, the head of the ADL, Abe Foxman predicted widespread anti-semitic violence would follow. He was wrong, of course, but that didn't stop thousands of terrified Jews from sending him money.
Oh, I know what the ADL is. I just wasn't aware that they "want to outlaw Christmas and teach homosexuality in school."

In fact, I don't think they do.

[MagnusEmboden]

Christians are the 'Bride Of Christ', the Jews or Hebraic peoples are the 'Chosen Of God', both are the 'seed of Abraham'. If you ask me how this can be I'll ask if you really ever open your bible!:scratch: The apostle Paul answers this replacement nonsense numerous times. We, the Christians, were adopted or grafted into the family tree, of Abraham. Therefore, Christians and Jews are the chosen peoples. Both are the same and neither replaces the other.

This is one reason why the fanatic Muslims hate us. They hate the Jews and consider Christians to be a sect of Judaism. I often offend a lot of Christians by stating that all Christians are just completed Jews. ;) I've never been accused of being anti-semitic. Weird, yes, anti-semitic, no (LOL).:tutu:

How many times in the Old Testament is Israel referred to as Yahweh's bride?

I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. For the sake of discussion I will assume that you are disagreeing with me.

:)

You seem to be suggesting that there are two entities (Israel and the Church), which make up the people of God, one being designated the "chosen" and the other the "Bride of Christ".

But the Bible sees no such distinction, the terms are used interchangeably. The New Testament often speaks of the Church as God's chosen and Israel was, again, in the Old Testament, constantly called the (often adulterous) bride of Yahweh.

There is no distinction. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Sacrifice for the remission of sins and God has only one people, the Church; that is, Israel.

You're right that in the New Covenant believing Gentiles have been grafted into the tended tree, but it remains also to be pointed out that in this New Covenant, circumcision and the burden of the Law have been removed; the very things that make Jews Jewish and which constitute the ultimate theological reasons why those who resist the Gospel actually do so.

[DaRev]

One of the points that Paul makes in Galatians and other places is that the "chosen" people of God (called "Israel") are those chosen in Christ. They are not "chosen" based upon any bloodline. "There is neither Jew nor Greek... for all are one in Christ Jesus."

[MagnusEmboden]

One of the points that Paul makes in Galatians and other places is that the "chosen" people of God (called "Israel") are those chosen in Christ. They are not "chosen" based upon any bloodline. "There is neither Jew nor Greek... for all are one in Christ Jesus."

Amen.

Christ is our only pedigree.

[Qoheleth]

but it remains also to be pointed out that in this New Covenant, circumcision and the burden of the Law have been removed; the very things that make Jews Jewish and which constitute the ultimate theological reasons why those who resist the Gospel actually do so.


I believe Paul's point is that a Jew did not stand a better chance at justification simply because they were Jews. All have sinned--both Jew and Gentile. All need the faithful death of Jesus Christ in order that their sins might be atoned for and they might be redeemed.

Yet, Paul never encourages Jews to stop observing the Jewish law in its particulars. Only when purity regulations came into conflict with more essential principles like the unity of the body of Christ did Paul "fudge" on aspects of the Jewish law (Gal. 2:11-14) In fact, Paul explicitly denies that we make void law because of faith (3:31). Faith thus does not even remove the principle of law!(Schneck)


Q

[MagnusEmboden]

I believe Paul's point is that a Jew did not stand a better chance at justification simply because they were Jews. All have sinned--both Jew and Gentile. All need the faithful death of Jesus Christ in order that their sins might be atoned for and they might be redeemed.

Yet, Paul never encourages Jews to stop observing the Jewish law in its particulars. Only when purity regulations came into conflict with more essential principles like the unity of the body of Christ did Paul "fudge" on aspects of the Jewish law (Gal. 2:11-14) In fact, Paul explicitly denies that we make void law because of faith (3:31). Faith thus does not even remove the principle of law! (Schenck)


Q


This is a good point but it is also worth mentioning that Paul did not use the expression "Law" monolithically.

While he never clearly articulates a distinction, he seems to differentiate between the moral and ceremonial aspects.

Wright points out (and though he wasn't the first to do so, I think he has a point) that the expression, "works of the Law" can almost be seen as Pauline shorthand for circumcision and other ceremonial requirements.

I cannot, of course, follow Wright et al to what I believe to be their conclusions from this but the initial point is certainly worth making.

It is true that Paul "never (explicitly) encourages Jews to stop observing the Jewish law in its particulars", but his disdain for "the judaizers", his constant insistence on real unity in the Body of Christ and the disestablishment of barriers between Jew and Gentile in the Church and so on certainly make clear (to me anyway) that when he says there is no distinction between them he is referring not only to their standing but to their "walk".

[LilLamb219]

Lutherans believe in by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. No one comes to the Father except through me is what Christ said. Faith is something that grasps onto the forgiveness of sins, and it's not about this head or heart knowledge mumbo jumbo. It's about how God works through means to bring us to faith (remember by grace) so that we may have eternal life. It points to Christ and what happened on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. This is not contradictory.

As for dogs and cats, where does it even state that they need salvation??? :doh::scratch:

Jesus didn't renounce judaism, but there are Jews who deny Christ and damn themselves. Just as there are Lutherans who damn themselves because they do not believe.

So then what about dogs, cats, and toddlers who die too young to have ever contemplated an ideology? Clearly the ancient fathers meant something much more broad than an intellectual ideology when they referred to belief. What is a belief of the heart, given the fact that the heart is incapable of believing or disbelieving an ideology? Believing in your heart is a hackneyed phrase in Christianity, and yet so few Christians understand why such emphasis is given to what would otherwise be a blatant self-contradiction. The intellect believes and disbelieves in ideologies, not the heart, yet what are we judged by, what is in our intellects, or what is in our hearts? Clearly it is the later, not the former. When you turn things on their heads and put what is in people's intellects above what is in their hearts, you end up with contorted logic that damns all pets and dead toddlers too Hell.

What about Jesus? He never renounced Judaism. Where does that leave him?

[LilLamb219]

One of the points that Paul makes in Galatians and other places is that the "chosen" people of God (called "Israel") are those chosen in Christ. They are not "chosen" based upon any bloodline. "There is neither Jew nor Greek... for all are one in Christ Jesus."

Excellent reference, Rev! :thumbsup: We ARE Israel.

[Studeclunker]

If you will forgive me a rather long post/quotation, I believe it will illustrate my position. In the following Paul writes to the Romans explaining that they have been grafted into the family tree of Abraham:

Rom 11:11-27
11 Israel's Rejection Not Final

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
NKJV


Please note the two bolded sections above. I quoted the entire chapter, as it was important to quote in and with context. We, the Christians, have been grafted into Abraham's family. This family still includes the Jewish peoples. They have the same option of refusing the gift of salvation through Christ just as we do. Nevertheless, we are not differentiated from them, except through the choice we have made, that of the free gift of salvation (I'm not going to be dragged into a discussion on the doctrine of the mechanics of this choice, who, how, whatever, please stick to the OP).

I find it very poignient that Paul points out to us that we must not become arrogant in our position. He points out that we are orphans, adopted into Abraham's family and we can be cast out just as easily as we were adopted. This arrogance, is the error that I see many Christians committing. Anti-semitism is very dangerous. We cannot at any time hate or abuse our Brothers and Sisters, the Jews. They are the natural children or branches. We are the adoptees or grafted branches. Both may be pruned equally. Both are equal to one another.

The Lord has preserved his people, the Jews, for a particular reason. He hasn't completely revealed his reason and won't till it suits him. Therefore, we must remember that we are sisters and brothers in this, the faith of the living God. Though the Jews have become somewhat wayward (refusing for whatever reason the gift of salvation in Christ), they are still our brothers and sisters and should be treated lovingly in that accord.

[Studeclunker]

So then what about dogs, cats, and toddlers who die too young to have ever contemplated an ideology? Clearly the ancient fathers meant something much more broad than an intellectual ideology when they referred to belief. What is a belief of the heart, given the fact that the heart is incapable of believing or disbelieving an ideology? Believing in your heart is a hackneyed phrase in Christianity, and yet so few Christians understand why such emphasis is given to what would otherwise be a blatant self-contradiction. The intellect believes and disbelieves in ideologies, not the heart, yet what are we judged by, what is in our intellects, or what is in our hearts? Clearly it is the later, not the former. When you turn things on their heads and put what is in people's intellects above what is in their hearts, you end up with contorted logic that damns all pets and dead toddlers too Hell.

What about Jesus? He never renounced Judaism. Where does that leave him?

I believe you have a salient point in this argument. However, you must leave animals out of your arguments. They are not imputed the same sin that we are. Have you forgotten that the blood of animals was used to cover sins in the Abrahamic covenant? Were not two turtle doves' blood used to cover any sin connected with the birth of our Lord himself (not that there was sin, just a requirement of the law)? Animals don't sin. Therefore they aren't damned. As for toddlers, they are covered by your baptism, as is stated by Paul in first Corinthians. Personally, and I may be wrong here, it seems to me that coverage goes forward as well as backwards. IE: a child born to you before your salvation is saved through your baptism. Thus the toddler is covered by their parents, the pets have no sin imputed, and thus the argument is void.

As to believing in the head or heart? Even the demons believe in Christ as the son of God. Many of them state such in the encounters mentioned in the Gospels. The difference is acceptance, contrition, and obediance. In otherwords; the heart makes the difference.

[LutheranMafia]

I believe you have a salient point in this argument. However, you must leave animals out of your arguments. They are not imputed the same sin that we are.
Well, rocks are without sin and yet have no eternal life either. The issue is not whether they have sinned, but rather, whether or not man is still loyal to his best friend in the afterlife.

Have you forgotten that the blood of animals was used to cover sins in the Abrahamic covenant? Were not two turtle doves' blood used to cover any sin connected with the birth of our Lord himself (not that there was sin, just a requirement of the law)? Animals don't sin. Therefore they aren't damned.
OK, forget damned, that is muddling the issue, but do they have eternal life?

One of the most moving experiences I ever had in church as a child was when our youth minister told us about a Twilight Zone episode in which an old man dies with his dog. When they come too the Pearly Gates St. Peter welcomes the old man in, but then says that he can’t bring his dog in. The old man is thunderstruck, and can’t imagine leaving his dog behind like that. St. Peter goes on at length trying to convince the man, but he is overwhelmed with sadness and can’t consider it.

With his head hung low he continues walking until he runs into a smiling stranger. The stranger informs the old man that he has just come from the gates of Hell, not Heaven, and that was actually the Devil, not St. Peter. The stranger then tells him where the real Pearly Gates are and assures him that they most definitely do take dogs in Heaven.

As for toddlers, they are covered by your baptism, as is stated by Paul in first Corinthians. Personally, and I may be wrong here, it seems to me that coverage goes forward as well as backwards. IE: a child born to you before your salvation is saved through your baptism. Thus the toddler is covered by their parents, the pets have no sin imputed, and thus the argument is void.
That is a technical loophole in which the demand for ideological belief is circumvented, not satisfied. Either way, ideological belief is quite clearly not required in every condition.

As to believing in the head or heart? Even the demons believe in Christ as the son of God. Many of them state such in the encounters mentioned in the Gospels.
But do they believe in their head or their heart? You didn’t really address the distinction.

The difference is acceptance, contrition, and obediance. In otherwords; the heart makes the difference.It is more than that, the head and the heart “believe” in completely different things. The use of the word “believe” is in general an entirely inappropriate word to describe convictions of the heart, since belief in terms of the heart implies doubt and uncertainty. “I believe I love you…”, the man said shortly before she smacked him and walked away. “I believe I am happy.” (‘You don’t know whether you’re happy or not…?’ comes the reply.)

I think the most important thing about Christian faith is that it adds to theism the conviction that, not only is there a God, but that God is also not an absentee landlord or an armchair quarterback. God incarnates along side us and shares our suffering. He does not judge presumptuously like an Ivory Tower intellectual. Ultimately it is just another supporting point for the argument that God is just and fair. And ultimately all belief in God is simply an expression of the conviction that good always triumphs over evil in the end.

Everyone who believes that good will always triumph over evil in the end ultimately believes essentially the same thing. They all believe in a God of justice who eventually calls everyone to account for their actions.

As John says in 1 John 1, if you believe in love then you believe in God because God is Love. Since even little babies believe in love too, then that is a much less contrived universal obligation that makes perfect sense for God to demand. Demanding ideological lip service is on the other hand an extremely shallow requirement that sounds more like the demands of a political dictatorship.

[LilLamb219]

But do they believe in their head or their heart? You didn’t really address the distinction.

I think you're missing the point of what faith truly is... Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true.
Hebrews 11:1

Either we have faith or we don't. Faith comes from God Himself and He uses means to bring us to faith so we might have eternal life. Man damns himself when he rejects that faith. Faith is directly connected to the cross and Christ Jesus who died on that cross for the forgiveness of our sins.

Rocks weren't created so that God could save them. That's ridiculous.

[LutheranMafia]

I think you're missing the point of what faith truly is... Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true.
Hebrews 11:1To hope implies doubt and uncertainty, whereas Hebrews 11:1 does not make the slightest allowance for this.

Either we have faith or we don't.Babies don’t have the slightest shred of ideological faith, which you are incorrectly trying to pigeon whole these biblical passages into. Your notion of faith here simply doesn’t cover all the bases, or dead babies would be hopelessly damned. Your one size fits all definition clearly fails the test of basic justice and fairness.

People don’t want to have to think very hard, they like to have nice simple formulas that they can plug-and-play without taxing their mind too much. God doesn’t give a hoot if true love makes you uncomfortable and blows away your nice neat definitions of how people that don’t think like you are not saved. That is the whole point, such heartless and prideful definitions are the very antithesis of genuine faith in God. It is an expression of egotism, condemnation and judgment, not an expression of love and an attempt to understand someone’s heart. It is an act of sweeping compassion under the rug.

Faith comes from God Himself and He uses means to bring us to faith so we might have eternal life. Man damns himself when he rejects that faith. Faith is directly connected to the cross and Christ Jesus who died on that cross for the forgiveness of our sins.Faith in an ideology? There are many dozens of Biblical passages that vehemently reject this notion with a clear and unequivocal voice. Faith in God is not an intellectual ideology. That is intellectual egotism, faith in one’s own pride, not even remotely faith in God.

Do you understand the difference between a conviction of the heart and an intellectual belief full of egotism, as is so common in academia? That is the critical question I keep asking here, what is the difference between false intellectual “faith” and real faith that is a conviction of the heart?

Rocks weren't created so that God could save them. That's ridiculous.I never even remotely suggested that. I apologize if I have angered you, your last comment here seems much more emotional than rational. This is a hot button issue for me because I think that religious bigotry gives both God and Christianity a black eye. It portrays God as heartless, thoughtless, arbitrary, egotistical, and despotically autocratic. Perhaps I was overly emphatic in my last two messages, because I feel like God needs a helping hand and doesn’t like being made to look like a petty human suffering from issues with the desire to abuse authority. I apologize if I was too harsh and condemnatory. That has only made things worse since that is the very thing I’m trying to counter.

[maylor]

Oh, I know what the ADL is. I just wasn't aware that they "want to outlaw Christmas and teach homosexuality in school."

In fact, I don't think they do.

If you're actually interested, Google:

ADL gay rights in school

ADL christmas in school

[LilLamb219]

Do you understand the difference between a conviction of the heart and an intellectual belief full of egotism, as is so common in academia? That is the critical question I keep asking here, what is the difference between false intellectual “faith” and real faith that is a conviction of the heart?

True faith is something that comes from God. It doesn't originate in our hearts or our heads. God opens up our hearts and puts faith there, but He also feeds us with the knowledge of what that faith is. Stop trying to pit the two against each other and just realize what faith truly is, a gift from God that saves.

[DaRev]

To hope implies doubt and uncertainty, whereas Hebrews 11:1 does not make the slightest allowance for this.

That's an English language problem. We go by the Greek text. The Greek word "elpis" does not at all indicate "doubt and uncertainty".


Saving faith that comes from God requires no intellectual understanding.

[RegularGuy]

If you're actually interested, Google:

ADL gay rights in school

ADL christmas in school

Actually, yes, I was interested. So I did the google thing. I think you overstate your case, but I now see where you are coming from.

Concerning gay rights, it seems that this is not the agenda of the ADL as a whole. It is certainly a focus of Director Foxman and may be a concern of some of the local branches.

And about outlawing Christmas, what I read leads me to think that the ADL is not anti-Christmas but that they do not want the public schools used as a platform to promote the Christian faith exclusively. I can't say I blame them for this.

I grew up in an urban neighborhood that had a majority Jewish population. In December, in school, we sang Christmas songs, and Hannukah songs and secular winter songs. I think those programs would still meet the requirements of church/state separation. On the other hand, if we had sung only Hannukah songs, I'm sure my parents and my church would have been every bit as unhappy about it as the ADL is about Christmas programs in public schools.

Anyway, as I said, I think I now see where you are coming from.

[RadMan]

Anti-semetism is somewhat founded on the idea of money lending which was the basis of Jewish existence and generating a lively-hood for hundreds of years. This idea of existing was taken from Deuteronomy “You shall not lend on interest to your countryman . . . You may charge interest to a foreigner, but not to your countryman, that the Lord, your God, may bless you . . .” Even though Christians and noblemen considered money lending a sin they still wanted the luxuries and would borrow from the Jews. Jews could not own property in most countries and not work the land so they got into the lending institution to survive.

"During the Middle Ages, long before anybody acknowledged the fact of the time value of money. Feudal lords, for example, needed money to plant their crops, at a season when they might not have much cash on hand. At the same period of time, Jews were generally not permitted to own or work the land, which was really the only way to support a family back then. With regret, Jews often turned to the practice of lending money to gentiles on interest. The Torah permitted the practice, but Jewish money lenders knew that their business was viewed as less than noble. Moreover, the practice of money lending often cast Jews in a bad light, in the eyes of their Christian neighbors. Too many times in history, Jewish people were persecuted, even murdered or expelled from their homes, when the Christians to whom they lent money could not repay the loans. Even more often, when wealthy medieval lords faced an economic crunch, they continued to live high on the hog, while their serfs suffered. When the poor workers would begin to rebel, they would be told not to blame the wealthy Christian land owners, but rather that the fault rested with supposedly greedy Jewish money lenders. Inevitably, a pogrom would ensue, as understandably angry serfs, their rage displaced, would attack the Jewish village. Tragically, these violent outbreaks of anti-Semitism were not isolated and did not end in the pre-modern era."

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am not talking about Luther or Walther
but have you?

have you ever been called anti-semetic
it seems some protestant cults loves to do it now days.
It was real prevelant on some other christian forums and seems it is here to.

did it make make you feel .less christian?
or did you just concider the source?

i think the world is getting tired of being called anti-semetic.

and i think it is the protestant cults that have so missused the word they have desensatized the word
to such a degree . The world hardly notices it any more.

what do you think?

Yes. As a group Lutherans have been called anti-semitic, but usually it's fundamentalist Christians doing the name calling, not Jews.

I heard this morning that the Pope is "softening " the wording of a prayer for the conversion of the Jews that has traditionally been part of the Good Friday liturgy in the RC Church.

Interesting to note that we also have a "soft" version of this prayer in TLH. It's #23, page 104. I don't believe that there is such a prayer in any of our subsequent hymnals (although there may be in the Agenda or Altar Books). Probably just as well in light of your question.

Mark

[LutheranMafia]

That's an English language problem. We go by the Greek text. The Greek word "elpis" does not at all indicate "doubt and uncertainty".


Saving faith that comes from God requires no intellectual understanding.
Yes, that was my point.