# Luther and the Jews



## Pete Williamson

It seems inevitable these days that any mention of Luther results in someone pointing out, "Yeah, but what about his anti-Semitism?" I've done some reading around - primarily on the internet - and I still can't shake the feeling that Luther's views aren't being fairly represented or understood; that we're reading Luther anachronistically rather than in the context of his own time (if that makes a difference). I'm fully willing to accept that Luther was not perfect and may have even been capable of the kinds of wickedness that he's accused of, but I'm not entirely convinced by what I've seen yet.

Two questions:
1. How do you view Luther's legacy, esp. in light of his writings against the Jews?
2. What resources (books, articles, audio) have you found to be helpful on this topic?


----------



## RamistThomist

1. He had the same view of the Jews as everyone in church history up to that time had, except for Peter Abelard. That's not to excuse it, of course, but it always seems like he gets singled out.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> 1. He had the same view of the Jews as everyone in church history up to that time had, except for Peter Abelard. That's not to excuse it, of course, but it always seems like he gets singled out.


He was a man of his times, when hatred towards the Jews as being the killers of Christ was very common, but still held views that were sinful and contrary to the scriptures.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Today's stalwart Lutherans are free and vocal in their strong criticism of Luther regarding his vituperative turn against the Jews.

And it was a turn, because at first in his looming-apocalyptical interpretation of world history he believed the Reformation moment was the hour of mass Jewish conversion. His disappointed frustration fueled his rhetoric. And that rhetoric was used to appalling effect, most notably by the Nazis: folk who had nothing but contempt for the theology of Luther and his religious emphases, and who were not above manipulating the masses by provoking their self-righteous sensibilities.

What people often do in an attempt to blunt Luther's harshness, is point out that it was not "racial" or "ethnic" hatred that motivated his writing. Unfortunately, this only sounds reasonable to people with a religious awareness. Because, the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming victims of the religious crusade were in some way _ethnically _identified.

There were Christians of Jewish extraction, and this (sometimes exclusively public) reaffiliation usually served to insulate them from hostility. But, any Jews who lived in community with their co-religionists were convenient targets, as they maintained their separate identity, customs, and (some ways) language. It's really impossible to escape the focused ethnic character of the persecution.

And in the 20th century we saw raised (out of many through time) just one colossal cenotaph to the logic of despising some group marked out as "trouble-makers" by birth. Not even Christian-Jews were exculpated by the Nazis, who weren't interested in distinctions of the mind or of the soul. Being fine scientific moderns, they classified their enemies (officially) according to the most rigorous eugenic screening they could employ. It was all very evolutionary.

If someone is determined to condemn another: who presently "identifies" in some way with Luther via the Reformation regardless of what he repudiates about Luther at the same time; then the one condemning has just committed the very sin he claims to be revolted by. He ignores the distinctions those "genetically" tied to Luther wish to make about themselves, and makes that connection an avenue by which to indelibly "taint" them with the crimes of their father.

This is the very essence of racial, ethnic, or similar prejudice; it is the claim that some guilty verdict is intergenerational and ineradicable. No man, this view asserts, may become "new" and be adopted (or adopt) an alternate association by a new federal union. The vaunted human will is powerless to make any such change; historic and genetic determinism has fixed his course. So for instance, mark the recent SJW blamefest: "whiteness."

We may be coming into days, when Jeffersonian political ideals must (according to the PC-patrol) be rejected with the man and all his influences root-and-branch, because he was a slave-owner, and a hypocrite. "Tear down his D.C. monument!" scream the all-or-nothing purity police. The Robespierrean virtue constabulary will settle for nothing less.

If the above example proves that a man's better ideals can be favored by a later generation, which is free to criticize the man for his perceived faults--then Luther may also be honored for his excellences.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> Today's stalwart Lutherans are free and vocal in their strong criticism of Luther regarding his vituperative turn against the Jews.
> 
> And it was a turn, because at first in his looming-apocalyptical interpretation of world history he believed the Reformation moment was the hour of mass Jewish conversion. His disappointed frustration fueled his rhetoric. And that rhetoric was used to appalling effect, most notably by the Nazis: folk who had nothing but contempt for the theology of Luther and his religious emphases, and who were not above manipulating the masses by provoking their self-righteous sensibilities.
> 
> What people often do in an attempt to blunt Luther's harshness, is point out that it was not "racial" or "ethnic" hatred that motivated his writing. Unfortunately, this only sounds reasonable to people with a religious awareness. Because, the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming victims of the religious crusade were in some way _ethnically _identified.
> 
> There were Christians of Jewish extraction, and this (sometimes exclusively public) reaffiliation usually served to insulate them from hostility. But, any Jews who lived in community with their co-religionists were convenient targets, as they maintained their separate identity, customs, and (some ways) language. It's really impossible to escape the focused ethnic character of the persecution.
> 
> And in the 20th century we saw raised (out of many through time) just one colossal cenotaph to the logic of despising some group marked out as "trouble-makers" by birth. Not even Christian-Jews were exculpated by the Nazis, who weren't interested in distinctions of the mind or of the soul. Being fine scientific moderns, they classified their enemies (officially) according to the most rigorous eugenic screening they could employ. It was all very evolutionary.
> 
> If someone is determined to condemn another: who presently "identifies" in some way with Luther via the Reformation regardless of what he repudiates about Luther at the same time; then the one condemning has just committed the very sin he claims to be revolted by. He ignores the distinctions those "genetically" tied to Luther wish to make about themselves, and makes that connection an avenue by which to indelibly "taint" them with the crimes of their father.
> 
> This is the very essence of racial, ethnic, or similar prejudice; it is the claim that some guilty verdict is intergenerational and ineradicable. No man, this view asserts, may become "new" and be adopted (or adopt) an alternate association by a new federal union. The vaunted human will is powerless to make any such change; historic and genetic determinism has fixed his course. So for instance, mark the recent SJW blamefest: "whiteness."
> 
> We may be coming into days, when Jeffersonian political ideals must (according to the PC-patrol) be rejected with the man and all his influences root-and-branch, because he was a slave-owner, and a hypocrite. "Tear down his D.C. monument!" scream the all-or-nothing purity police. The Robespierrean virtue constabulary will settle for nothing less.
> 
> If the above example proves that a man's better ideals can be favored by a later generation, which is free to criticize the man for his perceived faults--then Luther may also be honored for his excellences.


Luther is a perfect example that all save Jesus Himself were flawed and had areas where they fell far short of thinking and acting as God demanded from His own.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell

I could be mistaken, but I've heard references lately to Herr Luther having a shift in view about Jews: that his opposition arose in response to Christians trying to adopt OT ceremonial aspects of the law. In his enthusiastic manner, he over-corrected to include Jews as disrupters of the faith. 

Sadly, the mainline US Lutherans are inviting priests into the pulpit and publicly repenting of the split with Rome


----------



## BG

Can someone quote Luther's anti Semitic statements?


----------



## RamistThomist

BG said:


> Can someone quote Luther's anti Semitic statements?



A lot of it is mainly anti-usury, which is actually encapsulated in the Larger Catechism (fairly certain that never comes up in Presbytery examinations).


----------



## SolaScriptura

Martin Luther's views on Jews are made much of because perhaps no single person in history has left as large a body of written documentation as he. He's a colossus of a man on the world stage, so his views are an easy target.

However, what were exceptional were not his later "hateful" views, but rather his earlier more warm-hearted ones. Just about everyone in his day disliked Jews (in 1523 Luther accused the Catholics of treating the Jews unfairly, like dogs). Shortly after Luther's death, his friend and successor, Melanchthon, dialed back to Luther's earlier positions arguing for graciousness and charity to be shown to the Jews. His reward? John Eck, Luther's opponent from years before, castigated Melanchthon for being a "Jew lover."

Anyway, Luther's later comments - while shocking and reprehensible to our sensibilities - reflect the status quo of his day, and in the worldview of that time, persecuting those who deviated was what you did.


----------



## BG

Ben, do you think that Luther hated the false religion of the synagogue of satan and the promotion of their false religion or was this just a unbiblical hatred of people that he was unwilling to share the gospel with?


----------



## Edward

BG said:


> or was this just a unbiblical hatred of people that he was unwilling to share the gospel with?



From my recollection, you have that backward. He hardened toward the Jews because they rejected his efforts and teachings when he reached out to them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pete Williamson

BG said:


> Can someone quote Luther's anti Semitic statements?



Here is an excerpt from "The Jews and Their Lies":

https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resou...e-history-of-the-relationship/273-luther-1543


----------



## BG

Pete Williamson said:


> Here is an excerpt from "The Jews and Their Lies":
> 
> https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resou...e-history-of-the-relationship/273-luther-1543




Does anyone know how Luther treated Jews who converted to Christianity?

Just to be clear, what exactly is anti-Semitism,is it any disparaging remark about the Jewish people, is it viewing them the way God views them? I’m not exactly sure how to define it.


----------



## Dachaser

I thought that is was due to them continually rejecting Jesus as their awaited messiah, and so Luther became more and more moving towards them as being unrepentant "Christ killers?"


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Does anyone know how Luther treated Jews who converted to Christianity?
> 
> Just to be clear, what exactly is anti-Semitism,is it any disparaging remark about the Jewish people, is it viewing them the way God views them? I’m not exactly sure how to define it.


It is when one see Jewish people as being less than fully human, as being inferior race. much the same way many here once viewed Black persons.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> It is when one see Jewish people as being less than fully human,



Did Luther actually say that?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Did Luther actually say that?


I don't know if he did or not, as was just answering what it means to be Anti Semitic.


----------



## Berean

Dachaser said:


> It is when one see Jewish people as being *less than fully human, as being inferior race.* *much the same way many here once viewed Black persons*.



You know us that well? Talk about a blanket indictment.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG

I don't know Luthers situation but, let's suppose he is talking about people who are the synagogue of Satan, is it wrong to hate these people? Is it wrong to hate the enemies of God?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I don't know if he did or not, as was just answering what it means to be Anti Semitic.



So if that is what it means to be anti-semitic, and if Luther didn't say that, then Luther isn't anti-semitic.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

Berean said:


> You know us that well? Talk about a blanket indictment.


I am so sorry about how was worded, as the part about how many here once viewed the jews and Blacks as being of an inferior race was referring to America say of the Civil War times, and NOT to ANY here on the puritan Board.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> I don't know Luthers situation but, let's suppose he is talking about people who are the synagogue of Satan, is it wrong to hate these people? Is it wrong to hate the enemies of God?


the Synagogue of Satan was actually a Church described in revelation, so why would that be bringing into this the Jewish peoples? And the Jewish spiritual leadership was really the main opposition to the Lord Jesus, as essentially all of the saved members in the first local assemblies were pretty much all Jewish.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> So if that is what it means to be anti-semitic, and if Luther didn't say that, then Luther isn't anti-semitic.


He was wrong though.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He was wrong though.



But not anti-semitic, given the current definition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

All Jews who reject Christ are a synagogue of Satan


----------



## Contra_Mundum

BG said:


> All Jews who reject Christ are a synagogue of Satan


"Synagogue of Satan" is a _strong _declaration, deliberately strong. Given the historical context of the creation of the designation, I'd argue that there are at least as many _churches _today that should wear the name "synagogue of Satan" as modern Jewish congregations.

Why do some Jews reject Christ, simply at a human level? Is it not partly on account of historic animosity between the Jewish party and the Christian? Partly due to past harshness from Christians? Is it not partly ignorance? It has been a long time, and I have to wonder whether Christians as a group, or Christian doctrine as Jewish heresy, often come up in their sermons; I suspect it is hardly common to have invective--like that of an Islamist tirade--on display.

When in Rev.2:9 & 3:9 the designation is given, it is to Christians who are suffering because of the persecuting hostility of particular Jews. It is less a _doctrinal _description as it is a _behavioral_. Yes, there is a link between beliefs, motives, and actions. But we should make a distinction between common levels of unbelief, and possession by evil spirits. Judas Iscariot was an unbeliever and apostate; but it is a _strong _declaration when Luke and John write that "Satan entered" him.

Jesus said that it was a special mark of hostility and resistance to the truth to declare that plain goodness was attributable to the work of demons. It takes a special kind of evil to devise murder against someone so evidently holy, so kind, so clear and truthful in speech.

So, it is inaccurate to simply declare all religious and observant Jews as those belonging to "synagogue of Satan." If it is one's habit to turn to hyperbole to describe ALL deviations in doctrine or religion as the work or agents of Satan, I think such language leaves little room for appropriate escalation of rhetoric when it is called for.

Put in context, we'd have to save this term for those who claim to follow the Torah zealously, and who exempt themselves from judgment for heinous acts of hostility and persecution that are contrary to the Law's expression; that is, we should have some evidence that certain people are under the _strongest _dominion or influence of Evil. Some so-called Christians might deserve such a name _by extension _or _application_.

But I suppose that run-of-the-mill legalists, cultural Jews, and any who reject Jesus as Messiah (whether poorly or accurately presented) for the many superficial reasons men in general do--even if they are Jews--do not deserve for reasons of simple identification to be classified as witting or unwitting Satanists. Let's save the term for any of and only those who precisely fit the bill.


----------



## Dachaser

I would agree with that, its just very unfortunate that the Nazi in Germany used some of His teaching regarding the Jews as a way to stir up hatred towards them before the Holocaust.


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> "Synagogue of Satan" is a _strong _declaration, deliberately strong. Given the historical context of the creation of the designation, I'd argue that there are at least as many _churches _today that should wear the name "synagogue of Satan" as modern Jewish congregations.
> 
> Why do some Jews reject Christ, simply at a human level? Is it not partly on account of historic animosity between the Jewish party and the Christian? Partly due to past harshness from Christians? Is it not partly ignorance? It has been a long time, and I have to wonder whether Christians as a group, or Christian doctrine as Jewish heresy, often come up in their sermons; I suspect it is hardly common to have invective--like that of an Islamist tirade--on display.
> 
> When in Rev.2:9 & 3:9 the designation is given, it is to Christians who are suffering because of the persecuting hostility of particular Jews. It is less a _doctrinal _description as it is a _behavioral_. Yes, there is a link between beliefs, motives, and actions. But we should make a distinction between common levels of unbelief, and possession by evil spirits. Judas Iscariot was an unbeliever and apostate; but it is a _strong _declaration when Luke and John write that "Satan entered" him.
> 
> Jesus said that it was a special mark of hostility and resistance to the truth to declare that plain goodness was attributable to the work of demons. It takes a special kind of evil to devise murder against someone so evidently holy, so kind, so clear and truthful in speech.
> 
> So, it is inaccurate to simply declare all religious and observant Jews as those belonging to "synagogue of Satan." If it is one's habit to turn to hyperbole to describe ALL deviations in doctrine or religion as the work or agents of Satan, I think such language leaves little room for appropriate escalation of rhetoric when it is called for.
> 
> Put in context, we'd have to save this term for those who claim to follow the Torah zealously, and who exempt themselves from judgment for heinous acts of hostility and persecution that are contrary to the Law's expression; that is, we should have some evidence that certain people are under the _strongest _dominion or influence of Evil. Some so-called Christians might deserve such a name _by extension _or _application_.
> 
> But I suppose that run-of-the-mill legalists, cultural Jews, and any who reject Jesus as Messiah (whether poorly or accurately presented) for the many superficial reasons men in general do--even if they are Jews--do not deserve for reasons of simple identification to be classified as witting or unwitting Satanists. Let's save the term for any of and only those who precisely fit the bill.


I think that the lord Himself described for us what God sees that group of people being, as any who were so spiritually blinded, that they would see killing of Jesus, or persecuting his church, as a good thing, all in "the name of God". God must also see as far worse than unbelieving jews those claiming the name of Christ, assembling together, and yet preaching/teaching a false Jesus and afalse Gospel.


----------



## BG

Bruce, you are saying that all false religions are in fact satanic assemblies, right?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bill,
If you believe that is the truest description of all false religion, then is that how you describe your witnessing targets when talking to them? "Hey, you know you're worshipping Satan, right?" I'm going to guess you don't. Safe bet.

OK, so this description we were given in Rev. 2&3: was that _intended _by the Holy Spirit to be the most essential and accurate description of every false religion? Of all Jewish synagogue worship? Or was it a particular epithet? I think so.

Is all false religion _ultimately _connected with the father of lies? I'll grant it. I think idolaters end up serving demons, even though they seldom aim at such service. But there is a great variety in the level of direct/indirect demonic influence.

I think it's hard to make a good case that some relatively meek or peacenik Jews, Torah observant and quite serious about trying to be personally holy and against sin _as the Law defined it,_ who are not inclined to persecuting the church, are "satanic assemblies" by a biblical definition that all of us (in this discussion) can agree upon.

Our Confession speaks of some churches that have *so degenerated* the best description of them is: they've become "synagogues of Satan." That's a borrowing of the description from its original setting. It was particularly applicable to the irreformable, corrupt, and murderous (Jn.8:44; cf. 1Jn.3:12) Roman communion, which sought the literal destruction of gospel churches.

We should decide, with judicious care, which religious companies deserve such a name; and which are just wrong, which are (thankfully) not as bad as they could be, which are pathetic, and which are ridiculous. We should be glad Satan doesn't have the kind of limitless power that would let him free to make every false way an unholy temple, and every unbeliever a Gadarene demoniac.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think it's hard to make a good case that some relatively meek or peacenik Jews, Torah observant and quite serious about trying to be personally holy and against sin _as the Law defined it,_ who are not inclined to persecuting the church, are "satanic assemblies" by a biblical definition that all of us (in this discussion) can agree upon.



That's not most Jews, though (I realize the irony as I have a Jew as my avatar). Most of them are culturally Jewish but agnostic in belief.


----------



## RamistThomist

Though I think Revelation 2-3's epithet was directed against the Jews at that time, who were persecuting the church.


----------



## BG

I don't think it is an understatement to say that even the most non religious so called Jews have an animosity against christians and an outright hatred of Christ. YouTube is full of their venomous hatred. I don't normally start off evangelistic conversations by telling people they are under Gods judgment and influenced by Satan but I do think that. The goal of evangelism is to bring them out of darkness (Satans control) and into light.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

BG said:


> I don't think it is an understatement to say that even the most non religious so called Jews have an animosity against christians and an outright hatred of Christ. YouTube is full of their venomous hatred. I don't normally start off evangelistic conversations by telling people they are under Gods judgment and influenced by Satan but I do think that. The goal of evangelism is to bring them out of darkness (Satans control) and into light.



I don't know. We worship in a temple and always have opportunities to speak with the Jews. I've never felt hated or even unliked. Just my opinion though.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> We worship in a temple and always have opportunities to speak with the Jews.



Do you worship with Jews?


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> Bill,
> If you believe that is the truest description of all false religion, then is that how you describe your witnessing targets when talking to them? "Hey, you know you're worshipping Satan, right?" I'm going to guess you don't. Safe bet.
> 
> OK, so this description we were given in Rev. 2&3: was that _intended _by the Holy Spirit to be the most essential and accurate description of every false religion? Of all Jewish synagogue worship? Or was it a particular epithet? I think so.
> 
> Is all false religion _ultimately _connected with the father of lies? I'll grant it. I think idolaters end up serving demons, even though they seldom aim at such service. But there is a great variety in the level of direct/indirect demonic influence.
> 
> I think it's hard to make a good case that some relatively meek or peacenik Jews, Torah observant and quite serious about trying to be personally holy and against sin _as the Law defined it,_ who are not inclined to persecuting the church, are "satanic assemblies" by a biblical definition that all of us (in this discussion) can agree upon.
> 
> Our Confession speaks of some churches that have *so degenerated* the best description of them is: they've become "synagogues of Satan." That's a borrowing of the description from its original setting. It was particularly applicable to the irreformable, corrupt, and murderous (Jn.8:44; cf. 1Jn.3:12) Roman communion, which sought the literal destruction of gospel churches.
> 
> We should decide, with judicious care, which religious companies deserve such a name; and which are just wrong, which are (thankfully) not as bad as they could be, which are pathetic, and which are ridiculous. We should be glad Satan doesn't have the kind of limitless power that would let him free to make every false way an unholy temple, and every unbeliever a Gadarene demoniac.


There are varying degrees within most religions, and churches, of how "satanic" their belief systems really would be. the averageMuslim would bea peaceful and sincere, but deluded individual in regards to salvation, but the Radical Islamist such as Isis have crossed over into being really satanically motivated and controlled.
Same way with Jewish groups, as many jews just been taught that the Christians have prosecuted them badly over years as being labeled as Christ killers, but most of them just once again spiritual ignorant and in the dark.
So that label of "Synagogoue of Satan" should be reserved only towards those religions and even churches that have pretty much totally ignored and active against Christianity in a manner that would be revealing really is satanically motivated and empowered..

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Though I think Revelation 2-3's epithet was directed against the Jews at that time, who were persecuting the church.


I think that it would be against a group such as the Pharisees who were really spiritual blind and incited against Jesus due to having the father the devil behind their attacks upon Him . Not directed towards the jews who were not doing that to Him or his church at this time.


----------



## Dachaser

the Jews faced the Holocaust, which to many of them was done under Hitler, who was claimed as a good Christian by some, and they also saw the Church of Rome pretty much turning a blind eye to it. They also have experienced severe trials and tribulations under so called Christians and churches as being Christ Killers, so that might explain much of what you have been seeing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

BayouHuguenot said:


> Do you worship with Jews?



No. We have been invited by them to interdenominational services but we were the ones to decline.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> No. We have been invited by them to interdenominational services but we were the ones to decline.



Your post said "we worship" in a temple.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I think that it would be against a group such as the Pharisees who were really spiritual blind and incited against Jesus due to having the father the devil behind their attacks upon Him . Not directed towards the jews who were not doing that to Him or his church at this time.



But all of Judaism received a covenantal death sentence. And the Pharisees wouldn't have been operative in Asia Minor, as they were a Jewish ruling body.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

BayouHuguenot said:


> Your post said "we worship" in a temple.



That is correct. We as a church rent the temple from the Jewish and use their temple as our building. They are very kind to us. As well, a Jewish couple I work with will regularly worship at Christian services. We love each other and they know I am a devout Christian.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> That is correct. We as a church rent the temple from the Jewish and use their temple as our building. They are very kind to us. As well, a Jewish couple I work with will regularly worship at Christian services. We love each other and they know I am a devout Christian.



I see. That makes sense.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> But all of Judaism received a covenantal death sentence. And the Pharisees wouldn't have been operative in Asia Minor, as they were a Jewish ruling body.


ALL religions in the world received a death sentence after the Cross of Christ, as the Christian one is the only true one, but does not mean that automatically all Jewish groups/temple assemblies fall under that one being of Satan.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

BayouHuguenot said:


> I see. That makes sense.



One time though, I was told there was a Jewish man who didn't like me because of my faith.

Have you had bad experiences? Is that why you seem to think they all hate Christians?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> ALL religions in the world received a death sentence after the Cross of Christ, as the Christian one is the only true one, but does not mean that automatically all Jewish groups/temple assemblies fall under that one being of Satan.



Israel was God's bride in the Old Covenant. Because she became a whore, God divorced her and destroyed the Temple.

I didn't say all Jews today were synagogue of Satan.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Have you had bad experiences? Is that why you seem to think they all hate Christians?



I don't think I said that. Jewish opposition to Christians is more subtle and institutional. They do their damage via the p8rn industry, the Media, the Supreme Court, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't think I said that. Jewish opposition to Christians is more subtle and institutional. They do their damage via the p8rn industry, the Media, the Supreme Court, etc.


I would see the Jewish persons in those areas much more into secularizing the culture, not so much anti christian!


----------



## BG

There is no neutrality you either love Christ or you hate Christ there is no middle ground!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> There is no neutrality you either love Christ or you hate Christ there is no middle ground!


true, but there are levels to being against Jesus, as one can against Him in the sense of being ignorant of Him, not knowing the scriptures, and there can be being against him as in denying His claims, and then by being almost energized by Satan to be against Him and His people, as Isis is today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I would see the Jewish persons in those areas much more into secularizing the culture, not so much anti christian!



I'm fairly certain they are targeting what they see as the Christian roots of our society. I doubt they are targeting Buddhists or Hindus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm fairly certain they are targeting what they see as the Christian roots of our society. I doubt they are targeting Buddhists or Hindus.


Maybe, but still see them targeting more the overall worldview of there being no God, and that morals and attitudes should be changed based upon more of a subjective measuring system .


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Maybe, but still see them targeting more the overall worldview of there being no God, and that morals and attitudes should be changed based upon more of a subjective measuring system .



Which is evil. Though their p8rn industry is a continuation of themes found within their Talmud.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> true, but there are levels to being against Jesus, as one can against Him in the sense of being ignorant of Him, not knowing the scriptures, and there can be being against him as in denying His claims, and then by being almost energized by Satan to be against Him and His people, as Isis is today.


All unbelievers are at enmity with God. Even the "good" citizen who helps the old lady across the road, gives to charity, etc., does these things with the wrong motives, never for the glory of God. Yes, unbelievers _hate_ God with every breath they draw. Their indifference or ignorance is but one of the more odious forms of hate for the first book, creation, testifies that God _is_.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## OPC'n

Is this the type of language that people feel is anti-Semitic from Luther?

"Now I am going home, and perhaps I will never preach to you again, and I have blessed you and prayed you to stay always close to God's Word ... I see the Jews are still among you. Now we have to deal with them in a Christian manner and try to bring them to the Christian faith that they may receive the true Messiah who is their flesh and blood and of the seed of Abraham—though I am afraid Jewish blood has got watery and wild these days. Yet they must be invited to turn to the Messiah and be baptized in him ... If not then we must not suffer them to remain for they daily abuse and blaspheme Christ. I must not, you must not be a partaker of the sins of others. God knows I have enough to do with sins of my own, but if they will give up usury and receive Christ we will willingly receive them as our brethren . . . but if they call Mary a whore and Jesus her bastard still we must exercise Christian love towards them that they may be converted and receive our Lord . . . this I tell you as your Landeskind not to be partakers of the sins of others. If they turn from their blasphemies we must gladly forgive them, but if not we must not suffer them to remain!"[WA. 51. 195-6 as cited in: Gordon Rupp, _Martin Luther and the Jews_ (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 21].

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

OPC'n said:


> Is this the type of language that people feel is anti-Semitic from Luther?
> 
> "Now I am going home, and perhaps I will never preach to you again, and I have blessed you and prayed you to stay always close to God's Word ... I see the Jews are still among you. Now we have to deal with them in a Christian manner and try to bring them to the Christian faith that they may receive the true Messiah who is their flesh and blood and of the seed of Abraham—though I am afraid Jewish blood has got watery and wild these days. Yet they must be invited to turn to the Messiah and be baptized in him ... If not then we must not suffer them to remain for they daily abuse and blaspheme Christ. I must not, you must not be a partaker of the sins of others. God knows I have enough to do with sins of my own, but if they will give up usury and receive Christ we will willingly receive them as our brethren . . . but if they call Mary a whore and Jesus her bastard still we must exercise Christian love towards them that they may be converted and receive our Lord . . . this I tell you as your Landeskind not to be partakers of the sins of others. If they turn from their blasphemies we must gladly forgive them, but if not we must not suffer them to remain!"[WA. 51. 195-6 as cited in: Gordon Rupp, _Martin Luther and the Jews_ (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 21].


How many Jews today actually call Mary a Whore and see Jesus as being a false Messiah, as many of them are secular, and jews just by birthright, and not by theology?


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> All unbelievers are at enmity with God. Even the "good" citizen who helps the old lady across the road, gives to charity, etc., does these things with the wrong motives, never for the glory of God. Yes, unbelievers _hate_ God with every breath they draw. Their indifference or ignorance is but one of the more odious forms of hate for the first book, creation, testifies that God _is_.


That is indeed the truth, but there are vary degrees of opposition to Jesus though in different religions, as many say Muslims and Jews would see Him as either a prophet or a teacher, but not as true messiah, while others have a real hatred towards Him.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> That is indeed the truth, but there are vary degrees of opposition to Jesus though in different religions, as many say Muslims and Jews would see Him as either a prophet or a teacher, but not as true messiah, while others have a real hatred towards Him.


Not sure how this makes any difference in what I have posted, David.

One cannot be a "little" pregnant.
One cannot hate God a little and have God wink at their "little" hatred. 

Muslims and Jews hate God, for if they loved Him they would be worshipping He Who is revealed in Scripture.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Not sure how this makes any difference in what I have posted, David.
> 
> One cannot be a "little" pregnant.
> One cannot hate God a little and have God wink at their "little" hatred.
> 
> Muslims and Jews hate God, for if they loved Him they would be worshipping He Who is revealed in Scripture.


Many Muslims though honor Jesus, at least in their own minds as a prophet, so they would be deluded and wrong, but not outright evil like isis is.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## BG

People either love the living and true God or hate him. There is no middle ground. The idea that there are very nice respectable people somewhere in the middle is a fallacy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

They deny that God came in the flesh, which makes them Antichrist. Yes, some Muslims are "civically" better than ISIS. Several generals in Iran and Syria have killed thousands of Wahabbis and ISIS and humanity rejoices with them. They still deny that God came in the flesh.

Same applies to Jews.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Many Muslims though honor Jesus, at least in their own minds as a prophet, so they would be deluded and wrong, but not outright evil like isis is.


"Outright evil"?

Thomas Boston, _Works_, 1:463-464:

Here we may see the horrid and hateful evil of sin, which no other sacrifice could expiate but the blood of the Son of God. As the strength of a disease is known and seen by the quality and force of the medicine that is made use of to cure it, and the virtue of a commodity by the greatness of the price that is laid down to buy it, so is the matter here. The sufferings and death of Christ express the evil of sin far above the severest judgments that ever were inflicted upon any creature. The dying groans of our blessed Redeemer set forth the horrid nature of sin, and loudly proclaim how hateful it is in the eye of an infinitely pure and holy God. How much evil must there be in sin, that made Christ to groan and bleed to death to take it away!​
Let's not attempt to rehabilitate the evil of all sin into something less than it truly is.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## BG

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> "Outright evil"?
> 
> Thomas Boston, _Works_, 1:463-464:
> 
> Here we may see the horrid and hateful evil of sin, which no other sacrifice could expiate but the blood of the Son of God. As the strength of a disease is known and seen by the quality and force of the medicine that is made use of to cure it, and the virtue of a commodity by the greatness of the price that is laid down to buy it, so is the matter here. The sufferings and death of Christ express the evil of sin far above the severest judgments that ever were inflicted upon any creature. The dying groans of our blessed Redeemer set forth the horrid nature of sin, and loudly proclaim how hateful it is in the eye of an infinitely pure and holy God. How much evil must there be in sin, that made Christ to groan and bleed to death to take it away!​
> Let's not attempt to rehabilitate the evil of all sin into something less than it truly is.



I nominate that Thomas Boston quote for quote of the month

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> People either love the living and true God or hate him. There is no middle ground. The idea that there are very nice respectable people somewhere in the middle is a fallacy.


They are not nice , as all are sinners, but there are those such as Muslims who revere Jesus falsely as just a prophet, and those in Isis who behead Christians and also burn then alive.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> "Outright evil"?
> 
> Thomas Boston, _Works_, 1:463-464:
> 
> Here we may see the horrid and hateful evil of sin, which no other sacrifice could expiate but the blood of the Son of God. As the strength of a disease is known and seen by the quality and force of the medicine that is made use of to cure it, and the virtue of a commodity by the greatness of the price that is laid down to buy it, so is the matter here. The sufferings and death of Christ express the evil of sin far above the severest judgments that ever were inflicted upon any creature. The dying groans of our blessed Redeemer set forth the horrid nature of sin, and loudly proclaim how hateful it is in the eye of an infinitely pure and holy God. How much evil must there be in sin, that made Christ to groan and bleed to death to take it away!​
> Let's not attempt to rehabilitate the evil of all sin into something less than it truly is.


I agree with what is written here, but was just saying though that not all sins are equal in the sense of harm done to others. A deluded Muslim , lost in their sins, but wants to be at peace with Christians far different than someone in Isis who runs people over in delivery truck.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I agree with what is written here, but was just saying though that not all sins are equal in the sense of harm done to others. A deluded Muslim , lost in their sins, but wants to be at peace with Christians far different than someone in Isis who runs people over in delivery truck.



Right, but your earlier posts seemed to posit the Jews (qua Jews) as a lesser class of sinners, perhaps deserving of our respect (and maybe tax dollars).


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Right, but your earlier posts seemed to posit the Jews (qua Jews) as a lesser class of sinners, perhaps deserving of our respect (and maybe tax dollars).


I was just suggesting that among those who refuse Jesus as their Messiah, that there are varying degrees of behaviors among them, as there are sincere and deluded Jews and Muslims who still are lost, but are not nearly as crazy acting as Isis terrorists are in the name of their god.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> but are not nearly as crazy acting as Isis terrorists are in the name of their god.



Jews don't film beheading videos on youtube, to be sure, but if you read the Talmud they do not like Christians, to put it very mildly.


----------



## BG

Dachaser said:


> They are not nice , as all are sinners, but there are those such as Muslims who revere Jesus falsely as just a prophet, and those in Isis who behead Christians and also burn then alive.




Radical Muslims want to kill us, moderate Muslims want radical Muslims to kill us.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

BG said:


> Radical Muslims want to kill us, moderate Muslims want radical Muslims to kill us.



Radical Sunnis are on the CIA's payroll.
Radical Shi'ites are on the FSB's payroll.

ISIS and Wahabbis are radical Sunnis.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Radical Muslims want to kill us, moderate Muslims want radical Muslims to kill us.


I would need to see proof on that part for the moderate Muslims though, as most of them seem to want so get along with us. Many American Muslims , at least the nominal ones, are more like people whop attend a church and go through motions, but not really saved.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I would need to see proof on that part for the moderate Muslims though, as most of them seem to want so get along with us. Many American Muslims , at least the nominal ones, are more like people whop attend a church and go through motions, but not really saved.



A better way of phrasing it, and not using terms like "radical" and "moderate," is to see where Sunnis and Shi'ites fit in the current geopolitical scene. Western countries finance terror groups in Saudi Arabia and the Levant. They are predominantly Sunni.

Iranian Shi'ites, while perfectly willing to carry out terror attacks against America, would much rather kill CIA-sponsored Sunni terrorists.


----------



## Dachaser

So you would see the main distinction between them being that one would agree to finance and supply what is needed to kill, but the others do the actual killing?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> So you would see the main distinction between them being that one would agree to finance and supply what is needed to kill, but the others do the actual killing?



No. Shi'ites have Russian backing and ISIS/Sunnis have Israeli/Saudi/US backing. 

Moderates are those who water down some of their teaching so they can better fit in with capitalist world.


----------



## Haeralis

This issue, in my experience, has always been a way that the adherents to the Church of Rome can deflect attention away from the theology of the Reformation by clinging to Luther's personal failings. Unlike Rome, however, no Protestant would claim that Luther or anyone else--however esteemed they are in Church history--is infallible and without sin. 

Anti-Semitism is not an indispensable part of the Protestant tradition just because Luther said some bad things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Does anyone know if Luther ever said that we should kill the Jews simply because they are Jews.


----------



## RamistThomist

BG said:


> Does anyone know if Luther ever said that we should kill the Jews simply because they are Jews.



I'm almost 100% he didn't say that. Remember, the official definition of anti-semitism today, as given by the Anti-Defamation League, includes the New Testament.


----------



## BG

My question about Luther is really was he anti-semitic or did he simply tell the truth and we find that unpalatable?


----------



## RamistThomist

BG said:


> My question about Luther is really was he anti-semitic or did he simply tell the truth and we find that unpalatable?



He had the same views of Jews as everyone from Ireland to Moscow to the Middle East had of Jews. It's a fact of life. It's not pleasant, but it's no worse than the official Roman dogma, codified at the 4th Lateran Council, which mandated that Jews be put in ghettos in each city.


----------

