Did you know about this?

[Yuanshen]

this is horrible!

Look at one of Christianity's greatest men said once about Jewish unbelievers:




Martin Luther 1543
On The Jews and Their Lies
What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.
First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...
Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home...If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination...
To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews...
Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to yourself: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods...
Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune.
I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnapped children, as related before. I have heard that one Jew sent another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood, together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew was found. There are many other similar stories. For their kidnapping of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as we already heard). I am well aware that they deny all of this. However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil, who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly. For this reason, I would like to see them where there are no Christians. The Turks and other heathen do not tolerate what we Christians endure from these venomous serpents and young devils...next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.
Translated by Martin H. Bertram, "On The Jews and Their Lies , Luther's Works, Volume 47"; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Martin Luther - 1543












And I found this, I know Hitler to be evil, very evil and look what he said!


"I believe that today I am acting in accordance with the will of Almighty God. As I announce the most important work that Christians could undertake and that is to be against the Jews and get rid of them once and for all. We are doing the work of the Lord and let's get on with it." Hitler stated, "Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life. Luther was a great man. He was a giant. Within one blow he heralded the coming of the new dawn and the new age. He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed and we're only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on." Hitler followed to the letter, Luther's treatise on how to exterminate the Jews. Martin Luther preached his last sermon avidly against the Jews and died four days later. Indeed, Nazi leader Striker at his Nuremberg trial stated, "I have never said anything that Martin Luther did not say".





I also found many other things that church fathers said, very hateful things about unbelievers who were Jewish. How can this be? Why did they say that? Why isn't there love? How can they talk about killing and destroying Jewish places of worship? They are not worshipping devil or anything. Why does Christianity say, oh Luther was great man - don't they know what he said? And what about all the other quotes from these Christian church leaders from olden days?

This really makes me sad. I don't want to be a part of those people. There were also quotes from Calvin and Augestine, more people. You cannot get into heaven hating others!

yuan

I found it all here:

http://oneinmessiah.net/

Then go to place that says "False Church Fathers."

[MrJim]

I was discipled amongst mennonites~Luther is no hero among them for the anabaptists suffered at Luther's hand.

[Yuanshen]

I was discipled amongst mennonites~Luther is no hero among them for the anabaptists suffered at Luther's hand.


So Luther hurt many people?

Why is he honored among Christian people?


This man is probably in hell. Why is he honored, he should be dishonored for what he has done.

yuan

[Abashag]

I'd heard that Luther was nasty to some people, but I never thought he was a pre-Nazi...
Oh well. Even if he was an evil man, God still used him for some good things. The nailing of his treatise against Catholicism on the door, for one.

God can use bad men for good things (like that pagan seer during Israel's wanderings, Baalam). Too bad Luther appears to have been a bad man :( Maybe he got some sense before he died... Hope so.

[MrJim]

So Luther hurt many people?

Why is he honored among Christian people?


This man is probably in hell. Why is he honored, he should be dishonored for what he has done.

yuan
I would hesitate to speculate on Luther's place in eternity...beware of sitting in judgment upon others~is Luther's sin worse than my own?

[ReformedChapin]

:sigh:

Why does everyone misrepresent Luther. He wrote his tratise on the Jews because they refused to accept Christ as their Lord and savior. Luther always had hopped that the the Jews would open their minds, but they never did so he was upset over it.

That being said, his tratise wasn't written over race issues but religious issues. He made a mistake, he was human...thats beside the fact that he tended to exagagerate a lot of things.

Hitler took what Luther said OUT OF CONTEXT and used it for his cause. That should be no surprise to anyone.

[Canuckmom]

Remember that Luther was a product of his time as we are of ours. We live in a time when we hear all about tolerance, too much tolerance in fact. Martin Luther lived in an intolerant time and came out of a persecuting church. He was a rough man, and I believe a more gentle person could perhaps not have stood up to the pope as he did.
Don't forget this was a translated piece.
My mother tongue is not English and I know there can be subtle changes when anything is translated into another language. Keep that in mind also.

[Abashag]

There's not taking what Luther said out of any proper context, even if it was merely a translation. He continues at length on this antisemitic rant. If it were merely a sentence on this, I could honor that argument. However, there are several paragraphs. There is no excuse for this type of mindset. He also persecuted several other Christian sects. Luther had some good things to say, but all in all, he wasn't really a good man.

I suppose Luther was probably looking at how God used the nation of Israel as an instrument of judgement against the wicked peoples of Canaan, and figured that his mission went along those lines. However, each time they were instructed to conquer, they heard God's voice audibly. I dunno about you guys, but it would take hearing God's voice in my very ears to make me go off like this. If you take it upon yourself to be God's instrument of judgment, He may use you anyway, but He will most certainly punish you or convict your heart for such murderous presumption.
My hope for Luther is that God got through to him and showed him his need for repentence from this sin, and Luther complied humbly.

[MrJim]

Remember that Luther was a product of his time as we are of ours. We live in a time when we hear all about tolerance, too much tolerance in fact. Martin Luther lived in an intolerant time and came out of a persecuting church. He was a rough man, and I believe a more gentle person could perhaps not have stood up to the pope as he did.
Don't forget this was a translated piece.
My mother tongue is not English and I know there can be subtle changes when anything is translated into another language. Keep that in mind also.
The apostles were men of their time~ancient roman empire wasn't anymore civilized than Luther's day~:confused:

[Canuckmom]

The apostles were men of their time~ancient roman empire wasn't anymore civilized than Luther's day~:confused:
That's hardly a fair comparison between the apostles that had seen and heard the Lord and had the Old Testament while Luther came from the darkness of Rome where physical suffering was meritorious and the Bible a forbidden book.

[Albion]

So Luther hurt many people?

Why is he honored among Christian people?


This man is probably in hell. Why is he honored, he should be dishonored for what he has done.

yuan

Luther was a great man of God. In his frustration at the Jews not at last converting to Christianity now that he'd freed it from the tyranny of Rome, he became uncharitable towards them. He also was known for his exceptional acts of kindness and consideration (which you didn't mention).

If you understood Luther and reformed Christianity, it would not be so easy to say that he is in hell. It's not a place for those who commit sin, or else everyone would be there, but for those who reject the Lord--which certainly cannot be said with any fairness about Luther who was keenly aware of all his failings but had an unshakable trust in God.

[Simon_Templar]

this is horrible!

Look at one of Christianity's greatest men said once about Jewish unbelievers:









And I found this, I know Hitler to be evil, very evil and look what he said!








I also found many other things that church fathers said, very hateful things about unbelievers who were Jewish. How can this be? Why did they say that? Why isn't there love? How can they talk about killing and destroying Jewish places of worship? They are not worshipping devil or anything. Why does Christianity say, oh Luther was great man - don't they know what he said? And what about all the other quotes from these Christian church leaders from olden days?

This really makes me sad. I don't want to be a part of those people. There were also quotes from Calvin and Augestine, more people. You cannot get into heaven hating others!

yuan

I found it all here:

http://oneinmessiah.net/

Then go to place that says "False Church Fathers."

I'm not an expert on this so you should go to the Lutheran forum here and ask them more about it.

I would say that what many of the Church father's were addressing was not Jewish as an ethnicity, but Jewish as a religion.

Today we have a very tolerant attitude that all religions must be permitted. Whether right or wrong, that attitude is very very recent in history. It was completely unheard of in the time of Martin Luther, and especially further back.

In fact, in those times, people who practiced false religions were viewed as the worst kind of terrorists because rather than harming people physically, they destroyed people's souls.

An example of the difference between Hitler and Luther is Hitler persecuted anyone who he deemed to be of lesser genetic race, no matter what their religion was. He persecuted many Christians as well as Jews. Luther would accept a person of Jewish race without concern for their genetics at all, it was only a matter of their religion, what they believed and taught that mattered to him.

His views may still be wrong, but its an important difference.

But you have to understand that it was common to view false religions and heretics, much like we view terrorists today, except worse because rather than doing temporary harm, they did eternal harm.


Going further back into the early Church, you must also realize that the Jews had been mortal enemies of the Christians, literally. The Jewish council of Jamnia in 90 AD declared all Christians to be apostate and cast out. Just as Paul had experienced years ealier. Christians were beaten and physically persecuted out of the synagogues. Those Jews who had become Christians were rejected by their own people and persecuted.

The jews went further though and often deliberately stirred up trouble against Christians with the local populations. This can be seen in the NT where Jewish synagogue leaders literally started riots in the city among the greeks against Paul.
That kind of thing only got worse and more wide spread. They spread rumors that Christians sacrificed children and were canabals and things like that. Many of the persecutions that the Christians suffered during the early period from the Romans, were effectively started by Jews spreading lies about the Church.

The Jews at that time were extremely anti-Christian, and anti-Christ. So it is no surprise that the Christians wrote very harshly against the Jewish religion. Keep in mind that many of the early Christians had been Jews ethnically, so when they are talking about Jews, they mean the Jewish religion, not the ethnicity.

Another one of the reasons they wrote so harshly against the Jews was because Jewish heresies often threatened to lead Christians astray. This goes back to the first thing I was explaining. To the men of that time, this was viewed as the Jews literally destroying people's souls.

This facet can still be seen today in that many of the messianic groups get off into the very heresies that Paul harshly condemns in the New Testament. In fact the very website you link endorses a number of the same false teahings that Paul harshly condemned.

Two wrongs don't make a right.. but when you put things in context, perhaps you can begin to understand why things were said.

[Simon_Templar]

There's not taking what Luther said out of any proper context, even if it was merely a translation. He continues at length on this antisemitic rant. If it were merely a sentence on this, I could honor that argument. However, there are several paragraphs. There is no excuse for this type of mindset. He also persecuted several other Christian sects. Luther had some good things to say, but all in all, he wasn't really a good man.

I suppose Luther was probably looking at how God used the nation of Israel as an instrument of judgement against the wicked peoples of Canaan, and figured that his mission went along those lines. However, each time they were instructed to conquer, they heard God's voice audibly. I dunno about you guys, but it would take hearing God's voice in my very ears to make me go off like this. If you take it upon yourself to be God's instrument of judgment, He may use you anyway, but He will most certainly punish you or convict your heart for such murderous presumption.
My hope for Luther is that God got through to him and showed him his need for repentence from this sin, and Luther complied humbly.
I don't believe in religious persecution.

However, at the same time, I find it some what hypocritical and I admit I question that today people think we should hunt down and kill terrorists who do physical harm to people, but they think we should do nothing to people who send souls to hell through deception and false teaching.

[MrJim]

I don't believe in religious persecution.

However, at the same time, I find it some what hypocritical and I admit I question that today people think we should hunt down and kill terrorists who do physical harm to people, but they think we should do nothing to people who send souls to hell through deception and false teaching.

Do ya wanna flesh that out? Sounds like maybe you could be talked into executing some heretics;)

[Simon_Templar]

Do ya wanna flesh that out? Sounds like maybe you could be talked into executing some heretics;)
hehe,

well, there is an answer to why we can execute terrorists, but not heretics. It is a simple but technical answer.

I was more getting at the fact that people see nothing wrong, infact they applaud killing terrorists, but yet they see killing a false prophet or a false teacher as a great moral evil. This, really, when you get down to it is itself based on a false morality and a false philsophy about reality.

The truth is that the false teachers and false prophets do far worse harm than the terrorists do, and biblically they are just as evil. At God's hands, I have no doubt they will suffer among the most severe penalties. I think God makes that clear in the bible.

The fact that we view a murderer as really evil and a false teacher as basically ok, and within a person's rights, is indicative of what we really believe as a society. It is an expression of our humanism and our naturalism.

The reason that we can execute murders and not heretics or false prophets, is that God alone has the right to take life, and he has delegated that right to mankind under specific circumstances.

God delegated the right to execute to governments for crimes such as murder. Under the Mosaic Covenant he gave the Jews authority to execute people for a whole host of crimes and offences.
But since that covenant came to an end, the authority to execute also came to an end. Thus that which remains is only that which was given to all people under Noah.

This does not include the authority to execute false prophets, or witches etc. Even though that authority was once given to the Jews.

thus it is wrong for us to execute heretics, and witches, and false prophets, because God has not given us the right to do it. It is ok for us to kill murderers because God HAS given us the right to do that.

The issue I was getting at was more in the moral viewpoint that Christians take. Even though we can't and shouldn't execute such people, we should absolutely remember that they are every bit as evil and as harmful as any terrorist.
They can be forgiven if they repent, just like a terrorist could be.. but that does not mean that the unrepentant are any better.

[MrJim]

hehe,

well, there is an answer to why we can execute terrorists, but not heretics. It is a simple but technical answer.

I was more getting at the fact that people see nothing wrong, infact they applaud killing terrorists, but yet they see killing a false prophet or a false teacher as a great moral evil. This, really, when you get down to it is itself based on a false morality and a false philsophy about reality.

The truth is that the false teachers and false prophets do far worse harm than the terrorists do, and biblically they are just as evil. At God's hands, I have no doubt they will suffer among the most severe penalties. I think God makes that clear in the bible.

The fact that we view a murderer as really evil and a false teacher as basically ok, and within a person's rights, is indicative of what we really believe as a society. It is an expression of our humanism and our naturalism.

The reason that we can execute murders and not heretics or false prophets, is that God alone has the right to take life, and he has delegated that right to mankind under specific circumstances.

God delegated the right to execute to governments for crimes such as murder. Under the Mosaic Covenant he gave the Jews authority to execute people for a whole host of crimes and offences.
But since that covenant came to an end, the authority to execute also came to an end. Thus that which remains is only that which was given to all people under Noah.

This does not include the authority to execute false prophets, or witches etc. Even though that authority was once given to the Jews.

thus it is wrong for us to execute heretics, and witches, and false prophets, because God has not given us the right to do it. It is ok for us to kill murderers because God HAS given us the right to do that.

The issue I was getting at was more in the moral viewpoint that Christians take. Even though we can't and shouldn't execute such people, we should absolutely remember that they are every bit as evil and as harmful as any terrorist.
They can be forgiven if they repent, just like a terrorist could be.. but that does not mean that the unrepentant are any better.

Good explanation~ya had me a little nervous:D

[drstevej]

Glad to see the Conservative forum is doing so well.

OP read Martyr's Mirror -- get an intro to the intolerance of the Sixteenth Century. Maybe then you would not fixate on one person as the whipping post.

[Abashag]

I don't believe in religious persecution.
Interesting. However, allow me to say this in response: I don't believe that you exist. You are a figment of everyone-interacting-with-you's imaginations. Ridiculous, isn't it?
Religious persecution is very real, friend, whether or not you believe in it.
Read an article printed in the Hong He County Newspaper on the matter of Christianity:

Our Country's Lawful Efforts to Punish Illegal Religious Activity in Luo En Township Meet with Initial Success
In order to maintain public order... our county has adopted strong measures. ...In recent years in various parts of our country, especially in the remote mountain regions inhabited by minority groups, a group of illegal religious organizations which violate the spirit of socialism and disrupt the construction of civilization have appeared. ....The religious groups active in Luo En township have not received permission from the appropriate government department nor have they received permission from the appropriate government department nor have they received the approval of recognized religious bodies. [Note: Christians have tried to register their churches, but have been denied.] A few lawless persons cloaked in religious garb and waving the banner of Christianity have, without authorization, established religious organizations and engaged in illegal religious activity. These people first seek to influence a family, then the members of the clan, and finally the extended family and their friends. They then reach out to influence the entire village and the outlying area. These methods have had a snowball effect and enabled them to form a network comprised of large groups, which meet together and which are also divided up into smaller groups. This network's influence extends to six administrative villages in Luo En (Niang Zong, Duo Jioa, Cao Guo, Pu Mi, Ci Nong, and La Bo), including 22 natural villages. A total of 18 meeting points have been utilized by the 235 families and 425 people engaged in these illegal religious activities. ...
At 2:00 am, early on the morning of the 13th, the work group [98 comrades] separated into three groups and boldly and powerfully launched their attack, rushing towards their prearranged objectives: the villages of Sun Ma, Yang Pu, and Tai An. Two believers in Suo Ma attempted to block the work group from carrying out their official business. These men were lawfully arrested. [Note: local believers indicate that the two men did not resist the officials once they realized they were government representatives.] At Yang Pu village in the home of the religious ringleader Chen Wen Qing, the work group discovered and seized over 20 illegal evangelistic books, including A Complete Bible (Old and new Testaments), The Three-Self According to Scripture, Hymns of Praise, and A Commentary on First Corinthians. The first phase of the enforcement work, meticulously directed by the county Communist Party Committee and government, dealt the ringleaders propagating religion a severe blow... [and] prepared the way for the next step. [End of article] (Exerpt from 'Stories from China (subscript) Fried Rice for the Soul' by Luke Wesley. Meditiation #21, pgs 57-58)

However, religious persecution against Christians is not something that has just popped up in remote regions of China recently. It's been in place since the Roman Empire. Read a couple of letters sent between Pliny the Younger, a govenor of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), and Trajan, the emperor:

Pliny to Trajan:
It is my rule, Sire, to refer to you in matters where I am uncertain. ... I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. I have hesitated a great deal on the question whether there should be any distinction of ages; whether the weak should have the same treatment as the more robust; whether those who recant should be pardoned, or whether a man who has ever been a Christian should gain nothing by ceasing to be such; whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name.
Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity [stubbornness] and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished.
Trajan to Pliny:
You have taken the right line, my dear Pliny, in examining the cases of those denounced to you as Christians, for no hard and fast rule can be laid down of universal application. They are not to be sought out; if they are informed against, and the charge is proved, they are to be punished, with this reservation-that if anyone denies that he is a Christian, and actually proves it, that is by worshipping our gods, he shall be pardoned as a result of his recantation, however suspect he may have been with respect to the past. (Quote from 'World History for Christian Schools', Bob Jones University Press, pg 113.)

To say that religious persecution is nonexistent is nothing more than the evidence of a lack of knowledge. After all, were the concentration camps in World War II not persecuting Jews for their heritage and religion? I would consider this religious persecution.

[MrJim]

[/FONT]
Interesting. However, allow me to say this in response: I don't believe that you exist. You are a figment of everyone-interacting-with-you's imaginations. Ridiculous, isn't it?
Religious persecution is very real, friend, whether or not you believe in it.
Read an article printed in the Hong He County Newspaper on the matter of Christianity:



However, religious persecution against Christians is not something that has just popped up in remote regions of China recently. It's been in place since the Roman Empire. Read a couple of letters sent between Pliny the Younger, a govenor of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), and Trajan, the emperor:



To say that religious persecution is nonexistent is nothing more than the evidence of a lack of knowledge. After all, were the concentration camps in World War II not persecuting Jews for their heritage and religion? I would consider this religious persecution.

I think he meant that he didn't believe in engaging in religious persecution~not that he didn't believe it existed; nevertheless an informative post:thumbsup:

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, Yuanshen, I knew this about Luther - I learned about this by accident after I learned many other things about Luther that made my hair stand up on end.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even before I had read of the Nazi's linking their beliefs about the Jews to Luther's words, I had already seen the similarities - his legacy which found fuition in Nazi Germany.

I found I could no longer view Luther as the 'great man of God' I had been taught he was. I had been presented with a whitewashed version of Luther and the Reformation,and boy, did the truth cause it all to come tumbling down might fast and hard.

It was a very difficult time, but it made me desirous of the truth and set me on the path of discovering so much I had never been taught by my protestant teachers and leaders.

When we are bold enough to take Luther and the Reformation they have been put on by so many, and look at things for what they really were, then we can be open to seeing how very destructive the reformation really was.

As you investigate Luther, you will see that he was personally responsible for the massacre of 100,000 peasants in the Peasant war. And the list goes on . . .

This isn't about putting Luther down, but about being truthful with ourselves and why we put such people on pedestals where they don't belong.

[drstevej]

Yes, Yuanshen, I knew this about Luther - I learned about this by accident after I learned many other things about Luther that made my hair stand up on end.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even before I had read of the Nazi's linking their beliefs about the Jews to Luther's words, I had already seen the similarities - his legacy which found fuition in Nazi Germany.

I found I could no longer view Luther as the 'great man of God' I had been taught he was. I had been presented with a whitewashed version of Luther and the Reformation,and boy, did the truth cause it all to come tumbling down might fast and hard.

It was a very difficult time, but it made me desirous of the truth and set me on the path of discovering so much I had never been taught by my protestant teachers and leaders.

When we are bold enough to take Luther and the Reformation they have been put on by so many, and look at things for what they really were, then we can be open to seeing how very destructive the reformation really was.

As you investigate Luther, you will see that he was personally responsible for the massacre of 100,000 peasants in the Peasant war. And the list goes on . . .

This isn't about putting Luther down, but about being truthful with ourselves and why we put such people on pedestals where they don't belong.


So this is what the Conservative Christian forum is about?
:sigh:

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Then go to place that says "False Church Fathers."



Luther is NOT a Church father. As noted earlier, he used to kill Anabaptists.

He was a founder of the protestant reformation, a new sect of Christianity from the 16th Century that arose from European nationalism.
He is well liked by some Christians because he started a noble project of reforming the problems in the Church that led to a creation of doctrine suited for the faith of the new mindset of Europe (nationalism). It ultimately resulted in division within Christianity, where problems are solved by dissolving communion with other Christians, not working through problems.

[MrJim]

It ultimately resulted in division within Christianity, where problems are solved by dissolving communion with other Christians, not working through problems.

...yeah we're pretty good with that splittin' thang:sorry:

[drstevej]

Glad to see the Conservative forum is doing so well.

OP read Martyr's Mirror -- get an intro to the intolerance of the Sixteenth Century. Maybe then you would not fixate on one person as the whipping post.

[Abashag]

I don't believe in religious persecution.
Interesting. However, allow me to say this in response: I don't believe that you exist. You are a figment of everyone-interacting-with-you's imaginations. Ridiculous, isn't it?
Religious persecution is very real, friend, whether or not you believe in it.
Read an article printed in the Hong He County Newspaper on the matter of Christianity:

Our Country's Lawful Efforts to Punish Illegal Religious Activity in Luo En Township Meet with Initial Success
In order to maintain public order... our county has adopted strong measures. ...In recent years in various parts of our country, especially in the remote mountain regions inhabited by minority groups, a group of illegal religious organizations which violate the spirit of socialism and disrupt the construction of civilization have appeared. ....The religious groups active in Luo En township have not received permission from the appropriate government department nor have they received permission from the appropriate government department nor have they received the approval of recognized religious bodies. [Note: Christians have tried to register their churches, but have been denied.] A few lawless persons cloaked in religious garb and waving the banner of Christianity have, without authorization, established religious organizations and engaged in illegal religious activity. These people first seek to influence a family, then the members of the clan, and finally the extended family and their friends. They then reach out to influence the entire village and the outlying area. These methods have had a snowball effect and enabled them to form a network comprised of large groups, which meet together and which are also divided up into smaller groups. This network's influence extends to six administrative villages in Luo En (Niang Zong, Duo Jioa, Cao Guo, Pu Mi, Ci Nong, and La Bo), including 22 natural villages. A total of 18 meeting points have been utilized by the 235 families and 425 people engaged in these illegal religious activities. ...
At 2:00 am, early on the morning of the 13th, the work group [98 comrades] separated into three groups and boldly and powerfully launched their attack, rushing towards their prearranged objectives: the villages of Sun Ma, Yang Pu, and Tai An. Two believers in Suo Ma attempted to block the work group from carrying out their official business. These men were lawfully arrested. [Note: local believers indicate that the two men did not resist the officials once they realized they were government representatives.] At Yang Pu village in the home of the religious ringleader Chen Wen Qing, the work group discovered and seized over 20 illegal evangelistic books, including A Complete Bible (Old and new Testaments), The Three-Self According to Scripture, Hymns of Praise, and A Commentary on First Corinthians. The first phase of the enforcement work, meticulously directed by the county Communist Party Committee and government, dealt the ringleaders propagating religion a severe blow... [and] prepared the way for the next step. [End of article] (Exerpt from 'Stories from China (subscript) Fried Rice for the Soul' by Luke Wesley. Meditiation #21, pgs 57-58)

However, religious persecution against Christians is not something that has just popped up in remote regions of China recently. It's been in place since the Roman Empire. Read a couple of letters sent between Pliny the Younger, a govenor of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), and Trajan, the emperor:

Pliny to Trajan:
It is my rule, Sire, to refer to you in matters where I am uncertain. ... I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. I have hesitated a great deal on the question whether there should be any distinction of ages; whether the weak should have the same treatment as the more robust; whether those who recant should be pardoned, or whether a man who has ever been a Christian should gain nothing by ceasing to be such; whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name.
Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity [stubbornness] and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished.
Trajan to Pliny:
You have taken the right line, my dear Pliny, in examining the cases of those denounced to you as Christians, for no hard and fast rule can be laid down of universal application. They are not to be sought out; if they are informed against, and the charge is proved, they are to be punished, with this reservation-that if anyone denies that he is a Christian, and actually proves it, that is by worshipping our gods, he shall be pardoned as a result of his recantation, however suspect he may have been with respect to the past. (Quote from 'World History for Christian Schools', Bob Jones University Press, pg 113.)

To say that religious persecution is nonexistent is nothing more than the evidence of a lack of knowledge. After all, were the concentration camps in World War II not persecuting Jews for their heritage and religion? I would consider this religious persecution.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

...yeah we're pretty good with that splittin' thang:sorry:

I'm glad you agree with me MrJim, otherwise I would have requested another congregational forum ;)

[MrJim]

<<stupid bug>>

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, Yuanshen, I knew this about Luther - I learned about this by accident after I learned many other things about Luther that made my hair stand up on end.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even before I had read of the Nazi's linking their beliefs about the Jews to Luther's words, I had already seen the similarities - his legacy which found fuition in Nazi Germany.

I found I could no longer view Luther as the 'great man of God' I had been taught he was. I had been presented with a whitewashed version of Luther and the Reformation,and boy, did the truth cause it all to come tumbling down might fast and hard.

It was a very difficult time, but it made me desirous of the truth and set me on the path of discovering so much I had never been taught by my protestant teachers and leaders.

When we are bold enough to take Luther and the Reformation they have been put on by so many, and look at things for what they really were, then we can be open to seeing how very destructive the reformation really was.

As you investigate Luther, you will see that he was personally responsible for the massacre of 100,000 peasants in the Peasant war. And the list goes on . . .

This isn't about putting Luther down, but about being truthful with ourselves and why we put such people on pedestals where they don't belong.

[thereselittleflower]

What I think is this.

If we can't confront the truth of our past and be honest about it, how can we move forward, especially collectively?

This means umasking the myths on all sides.

In coming into Catholicism, I had to confront the dark issues about Protestantism and Catholicism both. It is not an either/or thing.

[Criada]

People are human, none of us are perfect!
There is a tendency to assume that men who did great things for God were in some way 'holier' than the rest of us, and more likely to be right.... but it is not true.
Luther was a sinner, who got a lot wrong.. just like me, just like all of us.
David was a murderer and an adulterer.... and yet God described him as a man after His own heart.

I can't judge Luther's heart, only God can do that. But I would not condemn anyone for getting some things very wrong.
I am pretty sure that when we get to heaven we will all be surprised at how much we had wrong.... and amazed at the mercy of our loving Father who sees our love for Him, not our doctrinal disagreements!

[MrJim]

So this is what the Conservative Christian forum is about?
:sigh:

Sure is~it's not limited to Calvinist Only views of Conservative Christians~you'll find that at SR & most of the Baptist forum.

Conservative Christians from the entire spectrum of the Church are encouraged to give opinion, and TLF is what I would consider the quintessential conservative Catholic.

[drstevej]

I know TLF well (RepDaddy=drstevej).

So this forum is for conservatives to bash other conservatives?

Should I post an Inquisition thread? etc?

Thought this was a safe haven not an annex of GT.

[mont974x4]

Remember the the rcc was by and large antisemtic as well...and at times it seems it still is.

[MrJim]

I know TLF well (RepDaddy=drstevej).

So this forum is for conservatives to bash other conservatives?

Should I post an Inquisition thread? etc?

Thought this was a safe haven not an annex of GT.

I would say there is a difference between giving opinion and bashing~and there could be offense issues in the reader. For example I could consider the "calvinist only" views as bashing if I chose to, and yet that's probably not what most of them intend.

And besides, as a former mennonite I would agree with her assessment of Luther~though mennonite folk also have issue with the Catholic persecution of anabaptists at the same time. Yet much forgiveness has been granted over the centuries between these former adversaries within the body~same needs to be granted here. We live now and here, not 500 years ago when many of us would have been persecutors, persecuted, feared, hated~praise God for that!

In any event opinion and views are not all going to agree just because there is a general umbrella called "conservative christian". We simply have to remember that recalling history doesn't require us to pick up where they left off.

[drstevej]

Enjoy this forum, Jim.
Bye

[MrJim]

Enjoy this forum, Jim.
Bye

And you have yourself a nice one now y'hear;)

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Remember the the rcc was by and large antisemtic as well...and at times it seems it still is.

Nice, rather than addressing the issue, you create a distraction by accusing Catholics today of being largely anti-semetic.

[MrJim]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3a/180px-MythHitlersPope.jpg

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

It's fairly well documented that the Soviets worked very hard to spread propaganda against Pius XII.

[thereselittleflower]

What I think is this.

If we can't confront the truth of our past and be honest about it, how can we move forward, especially collectively?

This means umasking the myths on all sides.

In coming into Catholicism, I had to confront the dark issues about Protestantism and Catholicism both. It is not an either/or thing.

[Criada]

People are human, none of us are perfect!
There is a tendency to assume that men who did great things for God were in some way 'holier' than the rest of us, and more likely to be right.... but it is not true.
Luther was a sinner, who got a lot wrong.. just like me, just like all of us.
David was a murderer and an adulterer.... and yet God described him as a man after His own heart.

I can't judge Luther's heart, only God can do that. But I would not condemn anyone for getting some things very wrong.
I am pretty sure that when we get to heaven we will all be surprised at how much we had wrong.... and amazed at the mercy of our loving Father who sees our love for Him, not our doctrinal disagreements!

[Canuckmom]

Glad to see the Conservative forum is doing so well.

OP read Martyr's Mirror -- get an intro to the intolerance of the Sixteenth Century. Maybe then you would not fixate on one person as the whipping post.

Amen to that!!

Hitler was much more influenced by Charles Darwin than anyone else. Remember that Hitler had no use for anyone that wasn't Aryan. That included Gypsies, slavic, and all colored people not just Jews. That is pure Darwinism folks.

Was Luther's attitude to the Jews influenced by what was said about them in the past? Who was it that called the unbelieving Jews a "generation of vipers" see Matt. 3:7 and "Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of you father ye will do."John 8:44, and "ye fools"; Woe unto you Pharisees! ";Hypocrites"
In case that upsets anyone, I didn't say it!

There are only two kinds of people on earth; those that believe Christ and those that don't. We are All sinners in need of God's grace as was Luther and the other reformers. God used the reformers to shake the papal throne and uncover the long hidden Gospel light when they uanashamedly proclaimed that salvation is by grace ALONE, through faith ALONE,through Christ ALONE, without the works of the law or the mediation of men and man made saints.

The just shall live by faith. :wave:

[FundamentalistJohn]

Yes, Yuanshen, I knew this about Luther - I learned about this by accident after I learned many other things about Luther that made my hair stand up on end.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even before I had read of the Nazi's linking their beliefs about the Jews to Luther's words, I had already seen the similarities - his legacy which found fuition in Nazi Germany.

I found I could no longer view Luther as the 'great man of God' I had been taught he was. I had been presented with a whitewashed version of Luther and the Reformation,and boy, did the truth cause it all to come tumbling down might fast and hard.

It was a very difficult time, but it made me desirous of the truth and set me on the path of discovering so much I had never been taught by my protestant teachers and leaders.

When we are bold enough to take Luther and the Reformation they have been put on by so many, and look at things for what they really were, then we can be open to seeing how very destructive the reformation really was.

As you investigate Luther, you will see that he was personally responsible for the massacre of 100,000 peasants in the Peasant war. And the list goes on . . .

This isn't about putting Luther down, but about being truthful with ourselves and why we put such people on pedestals where they don't belong.
Luther was a man, no more no less. Would you like to compare the words and actions of Luther with some of the Popes? Believe me there were a number of Popes who wrote just as despicably and acted just as inhumanely.

FJ

[Albion]

Luther was a man, no more no less. Would you like to compare the words and actions of Luther with some of the Popes? Believe me there were a number of Popes who wrote just as despicably and acted just as inhumanely.

FJ

Ahh, but the difference is that Protestants don't idolize Luther, knowing him to be a man who had strong points and weak ones. Their faith is based upon something Luther pointed to, but not merely because Luther pointed to it. But suggest that any of the "Holy Fathers"/Popes weren't saintly and correct in their views and you'll be asking Catholics to deny their faith.

[synger]

This supposed antisemitism of Luther's was one of the issues that deeply troubled me when I began studying Lutheran history and doctrine (I was raised Reformed, and was an elder in the Presbyterian church before my change to Lutheranism a few years ago).

Yet the more I studied that era of history the more a few things struck me about it:

Medieval people did not have "antisemitism" the way modern people think of the term. Luther was not focusing on Jews as a race. I think the concept of racial Jewry would have been completely foreign to him. His focus, every time, was on whether they understood and believed the Gospel of Christ. Early in his career, he seems to have fully believed that once the Jews heard the Gospel preached clearly, they would convert en masse. In his 1520 exegesis of Ps. 14:7 he wrote, “Damnable is the rage of some Christians (if indeed one can call them Christians) who believe they are doing God a favor by persecuting Jews in the most hateful manner, entertain wicked thoughts about them, and mock their misfortune with pride and contempt.”

When the Jews did not convert, however, his attitude seems to have changed considerably. When a Jew DID convert to Christianity, he doesn't seem to have considered them a Jew at all any longer. So the "Antisemitism" claim doesn't really fit in the way we use this modern term.

Lutherans have tried to ignore these writings, but occasionally they come up again. In 2004 the issue was raised when The Passion of the Christ came out, with all the attendant accusations of antisemitism. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod offered an interesting article about it, which goes into some detail about Luther's writings as well. http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Lutheran%20Witness/Apr04.pdf (page 12)

In addition, I see Luther's harsh wording Jews as very similar to other writings of the time. Luther was a product of the Medieval culture, and had a medieval cultural outlook on life and the world. To us today, he sounds terribly superstitious, obsessed with demons and Satan, and prejudiced against non-Christians (in which classification he included the Anabaptists, mentioned above). But in comparison with his contemporaries, he is pretty much the norm for the attitudes and wordings he used. He lived in a time when rhetoric was big and bold. He used earthy language to describe things. The terminology he used against the unrepentant Jews was similar to terminology used by other preachers of the time against their unrepentant peoples. This was centuries before any concept of "polite conversation", let alone the "political correctness" of the last century. When I read his contemporaries, it really struck me how similar his phraseology was to theirs... and how much pulpit and teaching speeches changed in the next 200 years or so.

(If you're interested in the subject, I recommend American Sermons. It starts with the Puritans, not medieval Europe, but you can see how the rhetoric changes through the centuries)http://www.amazon.com/American-Sermons-Pilgrims-Library-America/dp/1883011655

Another great resource is expository sermons, which focus on a text from the Bible... I find it fascinating to read what Calvin said, for instance, and compare it to what Piper said on the same text
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Sermons-By-Book/ (a Reformed resource)

[Yuanshen]

Luther was a man, no more no less. Would you like to compare the words and actions of Luther with some of the Popes? Believe me there were a number of Popes who wrote just as despicably and acted just as inhumanely.

FJ


Yes, I know...and those men should not be admired today either.

yuan

[synger]

I think it's important to separate to a degree what a person says in matters of doctrine and Scripture, which is timeless, and what a person says in matters of politics and culture, which is and must be framed by their time, situation, and mindset.

There are cultural and social ideas that my modern mind and sensibilities absolutely cringe at when I read many of the great men of the Church -- Jerome, Augustine, St. Basil, Aquinas, St. Bernard, Calvin, Edwards, and yes, Luther.

Their viewpoints of the culture around them can be vastly different from modern viewpoints. But their writings on Scripture and doctrine are usually amazing, and worthy of study. There is a reason these men are leaders of the Church, and why their influence is felt centuries after they are gone.

And it's not because of what they might have written about women, or infanticide, or Jews, or Pagans, or other Christian sects of their time.

It's because they loved and taught Scripture with a depth and knowledge that touches us even today. They served God and man to their utmost, even in their sinful, flawed ways.

I will continue to admire these men of God. And ignore their more obvious cultural biases. And I pray that history treats the leaders of this century's Church with as much understanding.

[RadMan]

Well mudsliging seems to be the order of the day so I'll just join the fray. One thing---Luther didn't kiil any Jews.

"ANabaptists according to Williams,185 (http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_004.html#fn185) the followers of John of Batenburg -- the leader of the 'Sword-Minded Muensterites' -- were even more radical than the 'Davidjorists.' For the Batenburgers "believed that all who did not join with them, had to be killed. They sanctioned the plunder of churches, and divorce was obligatory for anyone whose spouse refused to join the group."

"After Matthys was killed in one of the predictable skirmishes, Beukels immediately took over and proclaimed a yet stricter form of communism. He enforced the death penalty even for merely complaining, and then established polygamy.166 (http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_004.html#fn166) On this, we shall now let Harvard's G.H. Williams tell the story.
"John Beukels," explained Williams,167 (http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_004.html#fn167) "established polygamy.... All who resisted it were to be considered reprobates (and therefore in danger of execution).... Rothmann followed John's polygamous example, and eventually acquired nine wives.... Beukels had himself anointed, and crowned...as 'a king of righteousness over all'...."

"During most of church history, the "gospel" was preached from the end of a sword, convert or die was the "good news." (Ask a Jew). During the great early "crusades" the Christian mobs who went to "save" Jerusalem killed and plundered Moslems, Jews, and other Christians alike. They plundered many Christian Greek Orthodox cities and killed their inhabitants."

"During the inquisition, the church invented some of the most cruel and sadistic instruments of torture man could conceive. The priests of Christendom mutilated thousands of human beings to "test" them to see if their faith was pure.
During the reformation, hundreds of thousands of Christians killed other Christians and condemned each other to hell. Catholics against Huguenots, Lutherans against Anabaptists, Anglicans against Presbyterians, Reformed against Catholics, etc. "

"In "evangelizing" the New World, the priests first took all their gold, then converted them with the sword and gunpowder. Their gold is still decorating the Vatican."

"French Huguenots, 8000 slaughtered on St. Bartholomew's day; 30000 in all. SOme quote 100,000."

"Some fifty millions of Baptists were mercilessly slaughtered at the hands of the Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians, yet, as their persecutors fell on them with still crueler methods of torture and death. "

Anyway that's just a few instances I've seen by just quickly crusing the net.

The whole idea is that supposed Christians have killed supposed CHristian all through history and no one person or group is to blame except from our bloody forefathers from the past.

[LilLamb219]

Luther killed Anabaptists? Are you sure about that? :scratch:

Do you have proof for this little jab?


Luther is NOT a Church father. As noted earlier, he used to kill Anabaptists.

He was a founder of the protestant reformation, a new sect of Christianity from the 16th Century that arose from European nationalism.
He is well liked by some Christians because he started a noble project of reforming the problems in the Church that led to a creation of doctrine suited for the faith of the new mindset of Europe (nationalism). It ultimately resulted in division within Christianity, where problems are solved by dissolving communion with other Christians, not working through problems.

[ReformedChapin]

Yes, Yuanshen, I knew this about Luther - I learned about this by accident after I learned many other things about Luther that made my hair stand up on end.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even before I had read of the Nazi's linking their beliefs about the Jews to Luther's words, I had already seen the similarities - his legacy which found fuition in Nazi Germany.

I found I could no longer view Luther as the 'great man of God' I had been taught he was. I had been presented with a whitewashed version of Luther and the Reformation,and boy, did the truth cause it all to come tumbling down might fast and hard.

It was a very difficult time, but it made me desirous of the truth and set me on the path of discovering so much I had never been taught by my protestant teachers and leaders.

When we are bold enough to take Luther and the Reformation they have been put on by so many, and look at things for what they really were, then we can be open to seeing how very destructive the reformation really was.

As you investigate Luther, you will see that he was personally responsible for the massacre of 100,000 peasants in the Peasant war. And the list goes on . . .

This isn't about putting Luther down, but about being truthful with ourselves and why we put such people on pedestals where they don't belong.
He was? Source...

Please no catholic biases...thanks.

[ReformedChapin]

What I think is this.

If we can't confront the truth of our past and be honest about it, how can we move forward, especially collectively?

This means umasking the myths on all sides.

In coming into Catholicism, I had to confront the dark issues about Protestantism and Catholicism both. It is not an either/or thing.
Persecution was the thing to do in during reformation


:D

[FundamentalistJohn]

I would like the reference for Luthers responsibility for Anabaptist deaths as well.

[Edial]

I was pleasantly surprised to see so many non-Lutherans not accepting things that Martin Luther was evil and stuff like that.

People here also see that Hitler used some statements of Martin out of context in order to justify his anti-semitism.

Some Catholics presented that Luther is evil. And I understand them, since Martin challenged the very Catholicism itself - the papacy.

I see some Lutherans already contributed to this thread.

synger presented Luther's positive comments concerning the Jews. So, he is clearly not antisemitic.

Radman also presented the flavor of the times, among other things.

Thanks, :)
Ed (the Lutheran :))

[thereselittleflower]

He was? Source...

Please no catholic biases...thanks.

When Luther was taken to task by his friend Erasmus for the slaughter of the peasants, he did not show any sorrow or remorse for his words, but instead said that their blood was on his head, that he had spoken as the oracle of God.

This is not Catholic bias, this is known from his own words found in his famous "Table Talk". :)
“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" (Tischreden (Table Talk); Erlanger Ed., Vol. 59. p. 284 ).

[Albion]

When Luther was taken to task by his friend Erasmus for the slaughter of the peasants, he did not show any sorrow or remorse for his words, but instead said that their blood was on his head, that he had spoken as the oracle of God.



This is not Catholic bias, this is known from his own words found in his famous "Table Talk". :)“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" (Tischreden (Table Talk); Erlanger Ed., Vol. 59. p. 284 ).

It would be quite a feat for Luther or anyone to personally kill 100,000 people, wouldn't you say?

Of course that's nearly impossible for anyone to accomplish, yet you and others state it with a "straight face."

IMO, it's shameful for anyone to try to pass off Luther's comments as literally accurate. The man had no intention of inspiring the peasants into rebellion, had no responsibility for it, and took steps to stop the bloodshed. He called for the restoration of order and the end of rebellion!

That's what this is all about. And it's not as if the princes were doing nothing, awaiting Luther's permission to fight the peasant rebels who had gone on a rampage of killing and destruction. Both sides were already at it.

His cause was entirely a matter of opposing erroneous doctrine, not anything that should have led anyone to think it was political, let alone insurrectionary.


But the mark of Blessed Martin is that he felt so deeply that these people were lost, even though he had nothing really to do with it that he should speak so remorsefully.

How very different is this, to deeply regret something not actually your fault, particularly when we have the example today of Roman Catholics
brazenly denying the facts of history and claiming that the Vatican had NOT helped the Nazis to power with the subsequent loss of tens of millions of lives.

[ReformedChapin]

When Luther was taken to task by his friend Erasmus for the slaughter of the peasants, he did not show any sorrow or remorse for his words, but instead said that their blood was on his head, that he had spoken as the oracle of God.



This is not Catholic bias, this is known from his own words found in his famous "Table Talk". :)“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" (Tischreden (Table Talk); Erlanger Ed., Vol. 59. p. 284 ).
Actually there is. Luther is showing how even the blood of the peseants was needed to spread God's truth. Luther never wanted the death of anyone, but HAPPENED because the peseants took the reformation to another extent that Luther intended.

You are just showing a partial quote...where is the rest...

*sigh* catholicism will do and say anything to try to rationlize their views...

[Radiata]

I'm very late, and I should be studying, but I have justification for Luthers stand against the Jews. People who have kids or a wife should understand this. If the person you admire is insulted, you become angry. If that person is important to you, you will fight for them. You care so much about their wellbeing, that their pain becomes your own. Martin Luther saw this in Jesus, and he cared so much for Him. He saw the Jews mock and deny Him, and he was filled with anger to the point that he lashed out at them. You can not fault him for this.

Back to homework.

[MrJim]

I'm very late, and I should be studying, but I have justification for Luthers stand against the Jews. People who have kids or a wife should understand this. If the person you admire is insulted, you become angry. If that person is important to you, you will fight for them. You care so much about their wellbeing, that their pain becomes your own. Martin Luther saw this in Jesus, and he cared so much for Him. He saw the Jews mock and deny Him, and he was filled with anger to the point that he lashed out at them. You can not fault him for this.

Back to homework.

:eek: ...really? And this is justified by what NT teaching? Yeah, I can fault him for it if that is the rationale...

[MrJim]

Actually there is. Luther is showing how even the blood of the peseants was needed to spread God's truth. Luther never wanted the death of anyone, but HAPPENED because the peseants took the reformation to another extent that Luther intended.

You are just showing a partial quote...where is the rest...

*sigh* catholicism will do and say anything to try to rationlize their views...

...calvinists are never guilty of that:P :P

[Radiata]

:eek: ...really? And this is justified by what NT teaching? Yeah, I can fault him for it if that is the rationale...
No, not biblical justification. That's a given. But he is human and he acted out of emotions that I consider to be normal.

[thereselittleflower]

Actually there is. Luther is showing how even the blood of the peseants was needed to spread God's truth. Luther never wanted the death of anyone, but HAPPENED because the peseants took the reformation to another extent that Luther intended.

You are just showing a partial quote...where is the rest...

No, it is not partial. If you think it doesn't say what it says, then please produce the evidence.

And no, that was not what Luther was doing. He was justifying his words to the nolbility and their result, this slaughter, this massacre.

If you believe something else was going on, produce the evidence.

It is perfectly in line with Luther's prior words that called for the hacking, stabbing, slaying of the peasants, promising the prinices sand those who aided them that it is would be easier to gain heaven through the shedding of blood in this matter than through prayer.

I can produce those quotes too if you like.

*sigh* catholicism will do and say anything to try to rationlize their views...

Catholicism? I was not aware that the Table Talks and historical evidences of Luther's own words had anything to do with Catholicism. :)

[Simon_Templar]

I guess I really don't have a problem with the Luther supporting the suppression of a violent peasant rebellion. Which itself began essentially as a religious war to kill and subjugate those not of their own sect.

Pretty much any figure in europe at the time would have done the same.

I find it somewhat hypocritical for Catholics to take Luther to task over this considering they did exactly the same things.

The fact is there is no reformation sect of Christianity which did not violently supress and persecute opposing sects.

[thereselittleflower]

It would be quite a feat for Luther or anyone to personally kill 100,000 people, wouldn't you say?

If you want to ignore his words to the noblity and his own admission of his role and culpability, even such grandiose beliefs as he did as God commanded him to do in caling for their hacking, stabbing, slaying, then that is your choice.

I found I couldn't ignore this. It was a major nail in the coffin for me.

Of course that's nearly impossible for anyone to accomplish, yet you and others state it with a "straight face."

Of course he accomplished this - leaders can accomplish a great deal. To suggest this would be impossible is to ignore the power leaders have. He gave the green light to the nobility to do just this in horrific terms.


IMO, it's shameful for anyone to try to pass off Luther's comments as literally accurate. The man had no intention of inspiring the peasants into rebellion,

No one suggested he did. . ..

had no responsibility for it, and took steps to stop the bloodshed. He called for the restoration of order and the end of rebellion!

Only on the peasants side - and gave the green light to the nobility to hack, stab, slay the peasants as if they were rabid dogs.

Now, for those peasants who stopped and listened to his calls to stop participation in the rebellion, he counseled that they be unharmed. But once you release the violence, it is not so easily controlled in this way.

All that aside, Luther did call for the horrendous bloodshed visited on the peasants by the nobility, and this Luther took full responsibility for and claimed thier blood was on his head, and transferred this to God claiming it was God who told him to say such things.

Sorry, God never did that - and that should raise serious concerns in everyone's mind as to what was going on in Luther's.


That's what this is all about. And it's not as if the princes were doing nothing, awaiting Luther's permission to fight the peasant rebels who had gone on a rampage of killing and destruction. Both sides were already at it.

But the all out furry had not been unleashed until Luther's words giving the nobility the green light to hack, stab, slay the peasants.

This is simply a part of history.

Only those who don't want to face such realities try to gloss over thsse hard issues. Whitewashing such things is not going to help anything.

His cause was entirely a matter of opposing erroneous doctrine, not anything that should have led anyone to think it was political, let alone insurrectionary.

You can believe this if you want, but it has nothing to do with actual reality.

He had his own ideas of what erroneous doctrine was, even though he was wrong and went off in left field.

He definitely wedded the political with the spiritual. The secular authority was the hand of God delivering justice and judgement.


But the mark of Blessed Martin is that he felt so deeply that these people were lost, even though he had nothing really to do with it that he should speak so remorsefully.

Speak so remorsefully? I see no remose in his words. And I see nothing "blessed" about Martin Luther.


How very different is this, to deeply regret something not actually your fault, particularly when we have the example today of Roman Catholics
brazenly denying the facts of history and claiming that the Vatican had NOT helped the Nazis to power with the subsequent loss of tens of millions of lives.

Oh for goodness sakes .. ..

Albion, stop these rediculous revisionist historical fabrications.

Even the Jews don't believe such nonsense.

If you need some help with this, my I recommend to you the book:

The myth of Hitler's pope: How Pope Pius XII rescued Jews from Nazis By David G. Dalin

Are you aware that David Dalin is a rabbi?

[thereselittleflower]

I guess I really don't have a problem with the Luther supporting the suppression of a violent peasant rebellion. Which itself began essentially as a religious war to kill and subjugate those not of their own sect.

Pretty much any figure in europe at the time would have done the same.

I find it somewhat hypocritical for Catholics to take Luther to task over this considering they did exactly the same things.

The fact is there is no reformation sect of Christianity which did not violently supress and persecute opposing sects.


I found Luther's position to be unique, in that he is hailed as being sent from God to lead people to the truth.

I see no historical precedent for such a claim, or God using someone like this in such a way in the Christian Church.

And as we have seen above, fabrications, exagerations, and out right lies about the Catholic Church abound. So unless you want to discuss some actual evidence, there is nothing more to say about your claims about the Catholic Church.

But in regards to the various denominations and sects spawned from the reformation, yes, what is known as the "Protestant Inquisitions" is quite horrific.

Nothing like it is found in Catholicism.

[Simon_Templar]

in the interest of historical accuracy, I can't speak to the interactions between Hilter and the Pope, because I never really studied them. However, during the period of the Nazi's rise to political power, the german Catholic political party was one of the Nazi's main opponents.

The reason the Nazi's were eventually able to take power was because they formed a coalition with the National conservative party (the aristocratic and hardline nationalist party). The national conservatives thought they could control and exploit the Nazi's and use their populist support to shore up the national conservative's own waning support. In the end their allience proved to only strengthen the Nazi's and catapult them into power.

The main opposition was from the Catholic centrist party with their own coalition of smaller parties.

the communists formed a third, but smaller group.

[Simon_Templar]

how about the albigensian crusades that wiped out the cathars in southern france?

The more commonly referenced spanish inquisition was insituted by the spanish crown of course, not the Church but it did have support from spanish Catholics.

Of course there is also the suppression of the templars, which again was initially instigated by the french crown, but later approved and validated by the papacy.

In most cases the supression of heretical sects (including much torture and death) was carried out by civil authorities, but it was tacitly and verbally approved by the Church.

Which is exactly the case here with Luther.

I don't want you to get me wrong.. I don't think the Catholic Church is some great monster because of the suppressions they either directly or tacitly approved of. That was simply what was done in that age.
I'm just saying that Luther wasn't some awful monster either.

Of course, I also don't think Luther is God's divine messenger, or anything like that. I think he had some good points and he was very intelligent, and human.

[ReformedChapin]

No, it is not partial. If you think it doesn't say what it says, then please produce the evidence.

And no, that was not what Luther was doing. He was justifying his words to the nolbility and their result, this slaughter, this massacre.

If you believe something else was going on, produce the evidence.

It is perfectly in line with Luther's prior words that called for the hacking, stabbing, slaying of the peasants, promising the prinices sand those who aided them that it is would be easier to gain heaven through the shedding of blood in this matter than through prayer.

I can produce those quotes too if you like.



Catholicism? I was not aware that the Table Talks and historical evidences of Luther's own words had anything to do with Catholicism. :)
You're catholic interpretation is getting in the way. You produce a partial quote and you speculate that he wants to kill a bunch of people.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

[thereselittleflower]

how about the albigensian crusades that wiped out the cathars in southern france?

The more commonly referenced spanish inquisition was insituted by the spanish crown of course, not the Church but it did have support from spanish Catholics.

You are, of course, aware of the BBC documentary "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition".

I know this subject has come up many times, and we have discussed this before.

If you will remember that the Spanish Inquisition was famous for its justice and fairness, and that the Protestant polemical attacks against it were exagerations, fabricaitons, etc, which is what has come down to us in popular history.

In contrast, the Inquisitional jails and trials were far superior than the secular ones, and where being placed in jail in the secular system amounted to a death sentence, that of the Inquisition was much different - clean cells, cloths, bedding, water, and a fair justice system. People would even blaspheme to get their cases transferred to the Inquisitional system.

It was the Spanish Inquisition that stopped the insanity of the witch trials from entering into Spain.

There is no comparison between this and what happened in the Protestasnt Inquisitions.

And in regards to the Abingensian heresies, they were very destructive, threatening the stability of kingdoms.

The heresy was a type of gnostiicism and taught:
that the spiritual world is essentially good, and the material world (including the human body) is essentially evil,
that the evil god (Satan) imprisoned spirits in material bodies, so whatever one can do to be released from that prison (including suicide) is good,

that since matter is evil, marriage and the procreation of mankind is evil,

that that Christ was not truly a man, and therefore, neither was Mary truly the Mother of God,

and that the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ were only illusions, and consequently the whole concept of the cross in the Christian life was rejected


As to the crusade, this was driven by the threat this heresy poised to the integrity of France, as, even though the Church waitied in hipesthat this would gradually pass away as it led by peaceful example, the government of the south of France got caught up in supporting the heresy, and so this became a political issue and one of National integrity.


The Church continued to wait in promises of the Count of Toulouse, a strong supporter of this heretical movement, that he would exile the leaders, etc - which he never intended. The heretical counter church had taken over large areas of the South of France. This was becoming a strongly political issue which poised great threat to the kingdom of France. This is something the King of France had to do. Fact is, the Church gave every opportunity before acknowledging the only way to deal with this was through such action after the Papal Legate, Castelnau, was murdered.

The crusade was led by the King of France - he had to preserve his kingdom.

Battling such dangerous heresy taking over one's country politically is not anything like what Luther was dealing with and neither can the two situations be just;y compared.


Of course there is also the suppression of the templars, which again was initially instigated by the french crown, but later approved and validated by the papacy.

In most cases the supression of heretical sects (including much torture and death) was carried out by civil authorities, but it was tacitly and verbally approved by the Church.

And yet, for all that, the myths abound and the Catholic Church is charged with things it has never been guilty of.

Again, I refer you to the documentary "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition".

Which is exactly the case here with Luther.

Which is exactly NOT the case here with Luther.

Luther was not dealing with any heresies.

His own words stirred the Peasants up - they had no learning to help them deal with his strong rhetoric - they took him at his word. His own words stirred them into action.

Then he tried to stop them, and when they wouldn't listen, he turned on them with viscious words to the nobility to hack, stab, slay them . . .

Nothing like this happened in the Catholic Church. What you see as sameness are really only superficial similarities where there is no real legitimate comparison.

You would have to throw out the fish symbol of christiainty for the same reasoning, because pagans use it.

The comparison has to be legitimate. There is no legitimate comparison here.

And the same with the other comparisons you offered.


I don't want you to get me wrong.. I don't think the Catholic Church is some great monster because of the suppressions they either directly or tacitly approved of. That was simply what was done in that age.

The Albingensian heresy was hundreds of years before Luther - it was not in his day. It was a very dangerous heresy taking over France and threatening its very stability and existance.

We have two very disparate situations here that you are trying to compare. They are not comparable.


I'm just saying that Luther wasn't some awful monster either.

Without getting into what I think Luther was, mo one called him an "awful monstor" . . I think he was a man with a lot of problems, but never have I called him this.

It is simply that his behavior and words are antagonistic to the claim made about him, that he was a chosen vessel of God.

No, he wasn't, and never do we find any example of such a "vessel" being chosen by God to restore truth to the christian people.


Of course, I also don't think Luther is God's divine messenger, or anything like that. I think he had some good points and he was very intelligent, and human.

We agree, he wasn't a God given messenger, which makes his words above that his calling for the hacking, stabbing, slaying of the peasnats the command of God to him even that much more troubling . . . . . . Just because he had some good points and was human doesn't excuse what he did, neither should it be reason for history surrounding him to be whitewashed as it has been for hundreds of years.

[thereselittleflower]

You're catholic interpretation is getting in the way. You produce a partial quote and you speculate that he wants to kill a bunch of people.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

no, I have met my burden of proof, Now it shifts to you to prove your claim that he didn't say what it is clearly there.

And you are gravely mistaken about my "catholic interpretation" getting in the way.

In fact, that you say this without all the facts in hand only demonstrates it is your own anti-catholic biases that are getting in the way.

I was solidly protestant when I came to my conclusions about Luther . . . . nothing Catholic about it at all. :)

[Edial]

...Without getting into what I think Luther was, mo one called him an "awful monstor" . . I think he was a man with a lot of problems, but never have I called him this.

It is simply that his behavior and words are antagonistic to the claim made about him, that he was a chosen vessel of God.

No, he wasn't, and never do we find any example of such a "vessel" being chosen by God to restore truth to the christian people.

We agree, he wasn't a God given messenger, which makes his words above that his calling for the hacking, stabbing, slaying of the peasnats the command of God to him even that much more troubling . . . . . . Just because he had some good points and was human doesn't excuse what he did, neither should it be reason for history surrounding him to be whitewashed as it has been for hundreds of years.
If Luther would be the messenger of God, Lutherans would believe everything Luther taught and said.

Lutherans do not follow everything Luther taught and said.

And if violence is your litmus test for disqualifying one as a messenger of God, wouldn't you agree that this disqualifies papacy as well?

Thanks,
Ed

[thereselittleflower]

If Luther would be the messenger of God, Lutherans would believe everything Luther taught and said.

Lutherans do not follow everything Luther taught and said.

And if violence is your litmus test for disqualifying one as a messenger of God, wouldn't you agree that this disqualifies papacy as well?

Thanks,
Ed

Ed, the Papacy is not a person. So that is a false comparison that doesn't hold up.

2nd, if Luther wasn't a messager from God, then why did people follow him in his rebellion against the Catholic Church?

Either he was sent by God or not.

Which is it?

[Edial]

Ed, the Papacy is not a person. So that is a false comparison that doesn't hold up.

2nd, if Luther wasn't a messager from God, then why did people follow him in his rebellion against the Catholic Church?

Either he was sent by God or not.

Which is it?
They did not follow Luther, but his thoughts against the role and claims of papacy and salvation from grace through faith that is apart from works.

Lutheranism does not follow Martin Luther.

We follow his clarification on the Bible.

And concerning this statement "Ed, the Papacy is not a person. So that is a false comparison that doesn't hold up.", I would say that Popes represent papacy.

I heard some popes were called bad popes and some as good popes.

IF the office of papacy would be divinely instituted and made to lead people to the truth, the election of popes would also be divinely instituted.

And since bad popes got to occupy the highest Christrian office in order to lead the Christendom to the truth, I would say that the elections of bad popes were not divinely instituted, since Christ would never lead His sheep astray.

And, if the election process was not divinely instituted in at least these instances, how would one know that it is true in it's very spiritual structure?

Thanks,
Ed

[thereselittleflower]

They did not follow Luther, but his thoughts against the role and claims of papacy and salvation from grace through faith that is apart from works. How is that not following a person? Even the name of the denomination indicates that it follows Luther - Lutheran.

One doesn't have to follow every word of someone to folow them in principle.

Of course Lutherans follow him, they follow the principles he laid down. Why else do they call themselves Lutheran?

[Simon_Templar]

Therese,

I'm not misrepresenting the situation by comparing apples and oranges. You are misrepresenting the history of the peasants war.

The peasants war was not an expression of Lutheran theology, or Luther's teachings. It was influenced rather by radical anabaptist teachings of Thomas Munzer and some other "prophets".
In addition, the uprising was not solely religious in nature, that is a vast over simplification. The fact was there were numerous social considerations that played into causing the revolt. However, the primary religious issue was that anabaptist "prophets" had come in teaching anabaptist beliefs and using the already existing discontent, they stirred up the revolt in an attempt to start their own communal religious state.

Luther's initial involvement with the movement that lead to the revolt was to counsel caution and compassion in dealings with the anabaptists. It was not until they pushed their radical in some cases apocalyptic beliefs to the point of violent revolt that Luther sided with the state in approving the suppression of the revolt.

Further, the revolt occured mainly in southern and central germany. Southern germany is and was at that time predominantly Catholic, not Lutheran. Many of the princes involved in putting down the revolt had lutheran ties or leanings, but it was done under the santion of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was Catholic.

Munzer was a contemporary of Luther's and some people might alledge even a follower of Luther. However, the fact is that Munzer's first interaction with Luther was a confrontational disagreement, and after that Munzer went off and developed his own doctrines which were heavily influenced by anabaptist beliefs, not Lutheran.

The revolt itself was not a bunch of misguided peasants who had been stirred up by Luther. Far from it. The revolt began in the south and the west, where Luther's influence was the least. Luther wasn't even aware of what was going on until Melancthon sent word to him asking for advice on how to deal with the arrival of the anabaptist prophets, and their growing influence.

This particular group, were communalists, and apocalyptic in their views. The purpose driving their revolt was to establish a theocratic commune in anticipation of the end. They rejected the civil law of the HRE.

So in my opinion they were every bit as dangerous as the Cathars/Albigensians. In fact some of the parallels between their social views are remarkable.

One a more general note, its not really proper to judge ideas and teachings based on the abuse of said ideas or teachings. If that tactic is used there is quite literally nothing that will escape destruction.
This is a common tactic that is used against Christianity as a whole, attempting to show that there is really no difference between Christianity, and Islam for example.

You have to judge ideas based on what they actually teach, and produce, not what their abuse produces.

The fact is Lutheran teaching did not produce the radical anabaptists like Munzer. Even if you argue that Luther's arguments initially spurred them on. They very very quickly rejected Luther and his teachings and went totally in their own direction.

[thereselittleflower]

They did not follow Luther, but his thoughts against the role and claims of papacy and salvation from grace through faith that is apart from works.

Lutheranism does not follow Martin Luther.

This is a distinction without a difference.


We follow his clarification on the Bible. ]Again, if you follow his teachings, you are following him . .you cannot divorce Luther from his teachings - that is impossible.

They are his. They are his thoughts, his ideas. If you accept them and follow them then you are following him.

And concerning this statement "Ed, the Papacy is not a person. So that is a false comparison that doesn't hold up.", I would say that Popes represent papacy.

They occupy an office, like the president occupies an office.


I heard some popes were called bad popes and some as good popes.

IF the office of papacy would be divinely instituted and made to lead people to the truth, the election of popes would also be divinely instituted.

And, if the one occupyng chooses not to live up to the expectations of his office, does that invalidate the office?

No - if we have a bad president, does that invalidate the office of the president?

Of course not.

You are not looking at this objectively.


And since bad popes got to occupy the highest Christrian office in order to lead the Christendom to the truth,

That is where you are wrong.

They do not occupy this office to lead chrsitiandom to the truth.

The Apostles led christiandom to the truth, for they were promised the ALL Truth and were given all truth. That being deposited with the Church through those they ordained who followed in their footsteps, there is no longer any need to be led into the truth.

We have it. All of the truth that was promised to be revealed.

The Popes do not start again as if there is something lacking in the truth. There is nothing lacking in the truth.

I would say that the elections of bad popes were not divinely instituted, since Christ would never lead His sheep astray.

Since no pope has ever changed any of the depopsit of faith, the issue you have raised has nothing to do with the reality of what actually happens.

The Holy Spirit protects this deposit of faith throuth this office as well as the whole of the Magesterium. If any pope, good or bad, were to try to change this deposit of faith, he would be prevented as has happened in history.

One of the greatest popes got it in his head that he could produce a perfect translation of the scriptures and it would be the only translaton ever needed again. He was ready to promolgate this by infallible decree. The problem is his translation was full of error and he had no training or talent for translating the ancient languages.

On the eve of his intended promulation of this translation, he was taken seriously and severely ill = he died some time later. Before this, he was strong and in good health.

The problem with your pov is that it entirely fails to take into account the protection of the Holy Spirit.

What individuals do that do not change the teaching of the Church is something else, and we all have free will.

A pope does not loose his free will just because he becomes pope. He can sin just alike anyone else. He can be wrong just like anyone else. The only time he is infallible is when he meets the criteria, which includes intent to be making such a proclamation. This is very, very rare.

All we have to do is look back at the bad high priests in the time of Israel to see that just because God has created a divinely appointed office, that does not mean that the occupiere of that office will be "good" as proof of its divine appointment.

So your logic isn't holding, otherwise, you would have to hold that God did not divinely appoint the office of High Priest.

It doesn't follow. . . . .


And, if the election process was not divinely instituted in at least these instances, how would one know that it is true in it's very spiritual structure?

Thanks,
Ed

You have simply failed to understand the nature of the office, and the above does not apply. :)

[Edial]

How is that not following a person? Even the name of the denomination indicates that it follows Luther - Lutheran.

One doesn't have to follow every word of someone to folow them in principle.

Of course Lutherans follow him, they follow the principles he laid down. Why else do they call themselves Lutheran?
We did not choose that name.
It was given to us by the enemies of Luther as a demeaning name ... Lutheran.
So, it stuck.

But time changed the demeaning flavor of it.
So, the intended stain of shame became a badge of honor, in a way.

We are Lutherans and like that name ... yet did not choose it.

In actuality it includes the evangelical, catholic and orthodox teachings (in the lower case).

The Book of Concord is what Lutheranism is about.
It contains her confessions.
It does not use a word Lutheran to describe the church's teachings.

Thanks,
Ed

[thereselittleflower]

Therese,

I'm not misrepresenting the situation by comparing apples and oranges. You are misrepresenting the history of the peasants war.

The peasants war was not an expression of Lutheran theology, or Luther's teachings. It was influenced rather by radical anabaptist teachings of Thomas Munzer and some other "prophets".
In addition, the uprising was not solely religious in nature, that is a vast over simplification. The fact was there were numerous social considerations that played into causing the revolt. However, the primary religious issue was that anabaptist "prophets" had come in teaching anabaptist beliefs and using the already existing discontent, they stirred up the revolt in an attempt to start their own communal religious state.

Luther's initial involvement with the movement that lead to the revolt was to counsel caution and compassion in dealings with the anabaptists. It was not until they pushed their radical in some cases apocalyptic beliefs to the point of violent revolt that Luther sided with the state in approving the suppression of the revolt.

Further, the revolt occured mainly in southern and central germany. Southern germany is and was at that time predominantly Catholic, not Lutheran. Many of the princes involved in putting down the revolt had lutheran ties or leanings, but it was done under the santion of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was Catholic.

Munzer was a contemporary of Luther's and some people might alledge even a follower of Luther. However, the fact is that Munzer's first interaction with Luther was a confrontational disagreement, and after that Munzer went off and developed his own doctrines which were heavily influenced by anabaptist beliefs, not Lutheran.

The revolt itself was not a bunch of misguided peasants who had been stirred up by Luther. Far from it. The revolt began in the south and the west, where Luther's influence was the least. Luther wasn't even aware of what was going on until Melancthon sent word to him asking for advice on how to deal with the arrival of the anabaptist prophets, and their growing influence.

This particular group, were communalists, and apocalyptic in their views. The purpose driving their revolt was to establish a theocratic commune in anticipation of the end. They rejected the civil law of the HRE.

So in my opinion they were every bit as dangerous as the Cathars/Albigensians. In fact some of the parallels between their social views are remarkable.

One a more general note, its not really proper to judge ideas and teachings based on the abuse of said ideas or teachings. If that tactic is used there is quite literally nothing that will escape destruction.
This is a common tactic that is used against Christianity as a whole, attempting to show that there is really no difference between Christianity, and Islam for example.

You have to judge ideas based on what they actually teach, and produce, not what their abuse produces.

The fact is Lutheran teaching did not produce the radical anabaptists like Munzer. Even if you argue that Luther's arguments initially spurred them on. They very very quickly rejected Luther and his teachings and went totally in their own direction.
Contrary to your assertions, history contradicts your claims that try to distance Luther from the Peasant revolt - it is commonly recognized that Luther had a direct impact on its evolution and outcome. The Anabaptist effect was limited and only in some areas.

Here is summary of the earliest known eye witness account of the peasant revolt:
The rebellion in Franfurt drove Cochlaeus, in April 1525, to Cologne where he published this answer to Luther's "Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants" composed in May of 1525. This was first issued as an appendix to another work and then in German. However, to give it a wider audence outside of Germnay, the author translated it into Latin. Cochlaeus not only criticizes Luther's ambigious position towards the peasants. He includes Luther's text with a refutation and an account of the rebellions in various parts of southern Germany. This is considered the earliest printed contemporary account of the Peasant's War. The author accuses Luther of first inciting the peasants with seditious sermons and then betraying their rebellion. Cochlaeus was the son of a peasant who matriculated at the University of Cologne. He was appointed rector of the Latin school at Sankt Lorenz in Nuremberg in 1510. From 1518-1519 he was in Rome where he was ordained a priest. He returned to Germany and emerged as a widely read leading Catholic controversialist.

Summary of contents from COCHLAEUS, Johannes (1479-1552).
ADVERSUS LATROCINANTES ET RAPITORIAS COHORTES RUSTICORUM. Mar Lutherus. Responsio Iohannis Cochlei Wendelstini. Cathalogus tumultuum & Praeliorum in superiori Germania nuper gestorum. CXXXII. Articuli, excerpti ex chlei ad singilos. Anno MDXXV. Mense Augusto. Haec omnia et Teutonico in latinum translata.


Luther incited the peasants with his tracts such as "On Authority":
"...the poor man, in excitement and grief on account of the damage he has suffered in his goods, his body and his
soul, has been tried too much and has been oppressed by them beyond all measure, in the most perfidious manner. Henceforth he can and will no longer put up with such a state of things, and, moreover, he has ample reason to break forth with the flail and the club as Karsthans threatens to do."

To All Christians, 1522

In Exhortation To Keep The Peace:
Arrogant princes, blind bishops, mad priests and monks. The common man has run out of patience. His sword is at your throat. You must change your ways or the peasants will do it for you. And if you defeated them all, God would merely rouse others. For it is not the peasants who are about to turn on you, it is God Himself who will now punish you for your tyranny.


.....The spirit of this rebellion does not originate with me but with those false and murderous prophets who oppose you and me alike. I have prayed for you and upheld your authority among the common people regardless of how you have treated me. If I wanted revenge I could now sit back and gloat, or even join the peasants. But I will not. My dear Lords, be you friend or foe, do not reject my loyal counsel, and do not take lightly this ominous threat. If you can still be guided: for God's sake please give a little. Remember, a hay wagon should yield to a drunken man. Before you fight them try to reason with them, lest you strike a spark that will set fire to all of Germany. They have formulated twelve demands, some of them so reasonable that you should grant them at once and be absolved of your past stupidities. Foremost, you must grant them the right to elect their own preachers. Secular authority may, however, prevent the teaching of rebellion and lawlessness. The demands concerning the peasants' material welfare are also just. You were not placed in office to line your own pockets.


He tells the peasants in the same work that the rulers deserve a "hard kick in the ass"

You can see that Luther was quite involved in this whole process. The nobles accused him of being the originator of these troubles with the peasants. The peasants turned to Luther as to an arbitrator seeking help with their 12 Articles. In his reply to the 12 Articles, he acts as judge between the two parties. (See pg 106 Life of Luther)

Luther acknowledged this role requested of him in his own words:
"I feel singularly emboldened by this declaration fo theirs to publish to the world my opinion also on the subject in question.."

He goes on to castigate the nobles in very harsh terms that cannot be lost on the peasants.

No matter how you try to spin history to make it appear tha Luther was a bystander, history adn his own words show that he was anything but.

If one wants to read these words online, a work that is aavailable through google books is The Life of Martin Luther, Gathered from His Own Writings By Martin Luther, Jules Michelet

http://books.google.com/books?id=8f6AYjYdDBQC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=luther+%22on+authority%22+princes&source=web&ots=sBWzpMPHQI&sig=fv7gIjMrIy78JfP9nie0BBRQII4&hl=en#PPA107,M1

[Edial]

This is a distinction without a difference.

]Again, if you follow his teachings, you are following him . .you cannot divorce Luther from his teachings - that is impossible.

They are his. They are his thoughts, his ideas. If you accept them and follow them then you are following him.
Martin Luther did not come up with new teachings, but removed the veil of corruption that hid the teachings of Christ.

The very Bible that is supposed to keep the church at bay, was swallowed by the church that claimed ther her own teachings are at par or even above that of the authority of the Scriptures.

Martin Luther just removed that veil.

We try to follow the Scriptures.

They occupy an office, like the president occupies an office.

... if we have a bad president, does that invalidate the office of the president?
President is elected by secular people.

Presidency is not intended to lead the sheep to the truth, as the position of the shepherd of a church would be.

And, if the one occupyng chooses not to live up to the expectations of his office, does that invalidate the office?
If the office assumes a position of a Vicar of Christ it assumes a lot.

They do not occupy this office to lead chrsitiandom to the truth.
Then the occupant of this office cannot be called a Vicar of Christ.
Christ always led the sheep and protected all of His sheep.

The Apostles led christiandom to the truth, for they were promised the ALL Truth and were given all truth. That being deposited with the Church through those they ordained who followed in their footsteps, there is no longer any need to be led into the truth.
If there is no longer a need to be led into the truth since the Apostle had it, why then the papacy invented it's own additional rules and elevated it's supremacy to that of the Vicar of Christ while dictating these new rules?

We have it. All of the truth that was promised to be revealed.

The Popes do not start again as if there is something lacking in the truth. There is nothing lacking in the truth.

Since no pope has ever changed any of the depopsit of faith, the issue you have raised has nothing to do with the reality of what actually happens.
Of course Catholic Church has the truth as well as the EO and others - we all have the teachings of the Apostles as revealed in the Bible.

The problem is not with not having the truth, but that with covering it, that what Martin Luther pointed out.



The Holy Spirit protects this deposit of faith throuth this office as well as the whole of the Magesterium. If any pope, good or bad, were to try to change this deposit of faith, he would be prevented as has happened in history.

One of the greatest popes got it in his head that he could produce a perfect translation of the scriptures and it would be the only translaton ever needed again. He was ready to promolgate this by infallible decree. The problem is his translation was full of error and he had no training or talent for translating the ancient languages.

On the eve of his intended promulation of this translation, he was taken seriously and severely ill = he died some time later. Before this, he was strong and in good health.

The problem with your pov is that it entirely fails to take into account the protection of the Holy Spirit.

What individuals do that do not change the teaching of the Church is something else, and we all have free will.

A pope does not loose his free will just because he becomes pope. He can sin just alike anyone else. He can be wrong just like anyone else. The only time he is infallible is when he meets the criteria, which includes intent to be making such a proclamation. This is very, very rare.

All we have to do is look back at the bad high priests in the time of Israel to see that just because God has created a divinely appointed office, that does not mean that the occupiere of that office will be "good" as proof of its divine appointment.

So your logic isn't holding, otherwise, you would have to hold that God did not divinely appoint the office of High Priest.

It doesn't follow. . . . .
High Priest of the OT did not refer to himself as the Vicar of God.


You have simply failed to understand the nature of the office, ...
Perhabs.

Thanks,
Ed

[ReformedChapin]

no, I have met my burden of proof, Now it shifts to you to prove your claim that he didn't say what it is clearly there.

And you are gravely mistaken about my "catholic interpretation" getting in the way.

In fact, that you say this without all the facts in hand only demonstrates it is your own anti-catholic biases that are getting in the way.

I was solidly protestant when I came to my conclusions about Luther . . . . nothing Catholic about it at all. :)
WHAT FACTS? YOU POSTED ONE PARTIAL QUOTE?

[Albion]

At first, we had a legitimate question about Luther.

Now the thread has been hijacked for the purpose of telling a series of falsehoods about the man and about the Lutheran churches. None of that has anything at all to do with the OP's concern. Luther killed no one, and the only reason--as noted--that Lutheran churches came to be called by his name is that Catholics chose to do so as an insult. End of discussion.

Let's either return to the topic, if there is something more to add there, or decline to continue this off-topic exchange.

[LilLamb219]

Actually, Lutherans follow biblical beliefs that were just pointed out as truth by Luther that the Catholics had hidden away from the peoples for way too long.

How is that not following a person? Even the name of the denomination indicates that it follows Luther - Lutheran.

One doesn't have to follow every word of someone to folow them in principle.

Of course Lutherans follow him, they follow the principles he laid down. Why else do they call themselves Lutheran?

[LilLamb219]

You're right. It's sad when threads go this direction.

At first, we had a legitimate question about Luther.

Now the thread has been hijacked for the purpose of telling a series of falsehoods about the man and about the Lutheran churches. None of that has anything at all to do with the OP's concern. Luther killed no one, and the only reason--as noted--that Lutheran churches came to be calle