Was Luther Anti-Semitic?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 дек 2018
- It is often claimed that Martin Luther was an anti-Semite because of some of his later writings on Jews. In this video, I address the connection between Luther, racism, and the nazis.
For further information, check out this video:
• Martin Luther, the Jew...
Also, this book:
www.amazon.com/Fabricated-Lut...
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
"it's not about the ethnicity of the jews, it's about their theology"
The problem is that they have created for themselves a theology that requires an ancestral link to Abraham. The apostle Paul rails against this in Romans 4 and Philippians 4. Their ancestry is conjoined to their religion in such a way that they can effortlessly label anyone who criticizes their theology as a racist or an anti-semite. It's a neat trick that makes even the most ardent white supremacist look like an amateur.
Ah yes, we Jews and our "tricks" I bet you tell everyone you are not bigoted
@@georgemuenz3844 cope, steinberg cohenovitz rosenbaum
Philippians 4?
@@georgemuenz3844well the talmud exposed your tricks
@@georgemuenz3844😂😂😂 So many labels are created for people who have brains and decide to use them.
Ya boy Luther sounds based and red pilled, if you ask me
He worked closely with Rabbis and saw what was going on at the time. He didnt come to these opinions for no reason
Ja Fi
Chad anti-semitic Luther -vs- Virgin Jewish sympathizers
What do the Medes, Macedonians, Romans, franks, and Habsburgs have in common?? They all blamed the shifty merchant for they’re problems, we should be cautious of such usury.
Interesting how they’ve always had the exact same accusations across history……. Maybe it wasn’t just scapegoating?🤷🏼♂️
@@medzuslovjansky3075 this is so anti Semitic
My boy been chillin wit sneako 😂
i mean 109 countries lads, what more do you need?
Here come all the Christians who've never studied Judaism, and have never worked with Rabbis in Israel, about to lecture the world on why not liking religion is evil, awful, and terrible.
Luther has legitimate criticisms of Jews in his writing. Instead of trying to make excuses for why he is explaining this, we should look at why he was.
Valid criticism, huh? Is that what you call it? Have you even read "On the Jews and their lies?"
I suppose in your view certain Adolf too had some "valid criticism."
@@Kurtlane Of course I've read it. I've also read the talmud, lol.
@@JohnnyCrack No, you haven't read the Talmud. Unless you can read Aramaic or Hebrew. Aramaic is the original language, and it has been translated into Hebrew very recently. It hasn't been translated into any other language.
It is also very large and complicated. Takes years to read through. Takes a lifetime to study.
What you probably read are lies about the Talmud. There are plenty of those. New ones are made up all the time.
@@Kurtlane How convenient. "You can't read my holy book unless you read the original one! Translations don't count because it doesn't preserve the message!" This is the same argument Muslims use about the Qu'ran, Mr. Sheklestein.
@@JohnnyCrack I didn't say that, Mr. Jewhater. I said it hasn't been translated to any other language (other than Hebrew). You're twisting what I said, Your Murderousness.
Now you can go ahead and learn Aramaic or Hebrew and then read it (in original or in translation) and try to understand it. It would take a looong time, probably most of your life, but nobody prohibits you from doing that.
The problem is that thousands of haters like you over the last 1400 years have invented hideous stuff about it without ever knowing what is there.
For example, look up Justinas Pranaitis, the author of "The Talmud Unmasked." He was to testify at the Beilis trial as an expert on "Talmudic hatred of Christians." When he was cross-examined, his credibility rapidly evaporated.. (read the Wikipedia article on him).
Nevertheless, his "The Talmud Unmasked" is still popular in your circles. Once a lie is born, it never dies.
Nice try.
How is it anti-Semitic to question the number of people killed in the holocaust? This is a question of factual accuracy or inaccuracy. The number could be what is commonly accepted or not, but whether it was whichever number cannot be called antisemitic in itself because factual records are not prejudiced.
Ah, we knew it would not take long for someone to tie this into holocaust denial and no one here seems to be offended by this.
The camera tracking your face is kind of hilarious, tbh. Nonetheless, great video!
Yeah, for whatever reason, it recorded like that. It does look a bit ridiculous.
😄
Especially in 1.5X lol
Glad the camera face tracking does not appear to have caught on. Good to experiment with formatting, but this one does not work. haha
Though I don't celebrate sin, I think given it's existence it's good that Luther was so imperfect. It is a reminder of who we all are, and not to idolize anyone.
calling out jews is not a sin, being a jew is sin
If we're going to say Luther was actually antisemitic or something, we've got to say that about St. John Chrysostom regarding his Homilies Against the Jews, as they are just as (if not moreso) against the Jews.
That's not a difficult claim for atheists to make.
WHAT LUTHER GOT WRONG
Martin Luther mis-interpreted Daniel 8: 25 to mean that he (Luther) would be the one to break the anti-Christ's power without hand.
The tidings from the East (Daniel 11: 44) and from the North will annoy him (Anti-Christ). Tidings means the sincere testimony of the Gospel. Those tidings (2 Thessalonians/Revelation 14: 6) make
Christ the dayspring from on high to shine forth. This will greatly upset the anti-Christ through the saints. The destroyers of Babylon shall come from the North says the Lord
(Jeremiah 51: 48). According to Luther, this was fulfilled when the spiritual tyranny of Babylon, as the kingdom of the anti-Christ is called in Revelation, was attacked from the North through Luther (Jeremiah 51: 27 and 33) by the hammer of God's word. Luther mentioned Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, and he placed the Ashkenaz as Germans. Ararat is where the ark of Noah landed, which signifies that after the spiritual flood, the Lord's ark is going to have a place there. The Gospel will be spread throughout the world from Ararat. The Askenaz were considered a minority. All of this is rightfully refuted as a mistake of Luther. See John Gerhard's "Theological," and Melanchthon's Speech Of The Life and Death Of Luther.
Another wrong, attributed to Luther, is the title page of Luther's German translation of the Bible. Twenty-three books in the New Testament are numbered, but Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation
are listed separately and un-numbered, below the numbered books.
Firstly, Luther takes Hebrews out of the Canon of Scripture. Luther does this because Hebrews has no written in author, though many scholars speculate it was Paul. Luther sees that Paul speaks elsewhere in his epistles, of repentance of sin, but Luther mis-interpreted Hebrews to be saying that after baptism, there is no repentance of sin. What Luther mistakes is the meaning of Hebrews 6: 1-6, and 10: 22-26, and 12: 17. The true context of these biblical passages is that if we sin willfully (Without repentance) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, because we reject God's Son. In other words, the person who continually rejects God's Son - Jesus, after they have been baptized (Or received the knowledge of God's truth) means that they have rejected Christ - the only sacrifice for their sins. As a result of Luther's mis-interpretation, he uses
"Higher criticism" and he says that he knows it's not the Bible, and his opinion was that Hebrews is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it doesn't deal with any one subject in an orderly way. Actually, Hebrews refutes Luther's opinion with 5 minutiae orderly chapters covering the Levitical Priesthood. Luther also mistakenly writes that the epistle of James is not the work of any apostle.
John Gerhard refuted Luther by saying, firstly, to Luther that the four books are Scripture Canon, because in the primitive Church, there was doubt not so much about their Canonical authority
(Holy Spirit), as there was doubt about the secondary author. Secondly, the author of those books were doubtful, not to all the churches and teachers, but only to some. Thirdly, the fathers, who acknowledge the apocryphal books of the Old Testsment, exclude no New Testament books from the Canon. By the time of
Martin Chemnitz, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were Canonical. Still, although the Westminster, Belgic, and Trent Catechisms all have a list of the Canonical books, the Lutheran confessions have no list of the Canonical books, which all goes back to Luther's Bible. Lutherans do list the creeds.
Luther once usurped the Biblical meaning of marraige, as between one man and one woman, while giving advice to Philip of Hesse.
Philip of Hesse was unhappy with his first wife, and he wanted to marry another. Luther advised that if Philip could not live in continuance, it would be better to imitate the prophets of the Old Testament and take a second wife, than to leave his first wife.
WHAT LUTHER GOT RIGHT, AND WHAT HE GOT WRONG
Essential parts of the Scriptures were expounded correctly, by
Luther, in the "Book of Concord," and it is in this exposition of God's Word that Luther is not self-willed. "Essential" means Biblical salvation, won for all humans, by Christ's merits alone, Biblical Christian worship practice, and Christian fellowship.
Though Luther is God-willed in the Book of Concord, he wrote
separate opinionative works that were self-willed (Titus 1: 7). One written work, by Luther, was the book entitled, "On The Jews And Their Lies (1543)." In this book, Luther expounds his own sinful ideologies about earthly punishment for the Jews. The inspiration, for Luther's book, is believed to have been inspired by his earlier reading of Anton Margaritha's book, "The Whole Jewish Belief(1530)." We know that Luther became angry with the Jews for their disbelief in Christ, but the Bible says to Luther and us Be angry; sin not (Ephesians 4: 26). In Luther's anger, he sinned like all humans sin, after what we "will" to do, proves to be sinful and outside God's will.
The term "Anti-semitic" was first used in 1860, by an Austrian Jewish Scholar - Moritz Steinschneider, so the term did not exist in Luther's time. Today, the punishments that Luther sinfully documented from his own will, in regards to how the Jews should be punished by Christians here on earth, serves as a support for the false doctrine and practice of what is now called anti-semitic. Though Luther's position stemmed from the Jewish rejection of Christ, the earthly punishments, that Luther said Christians should impose on Jews, were before and after carried out by world leaders, for any reason, and culminating further into today's state illegal sporadic human acts of self-willed prejudices supported not by God's word (Romans 12: 19) which says vengeance belongs to the Lord, but by those who support un-Godly hate doctrines.
Separate opinionative works by Luther, which reveal how Luther sinned against God's word, like the one described above, remain rejected from a verbal standpoint by all Lutheran Synods. Luther's writing "On The Jews And Their Lies" is considered, by Lutherans,
to be one of four errors, where Luther got it wrong. Let's look at the 3 other areas where Luther got it wrong.
St. John Chrysostom didn’t start a new branch of Christianity. That’s the difference.
Literally yes
Love your videos and your insights...I became a Lutheran approximately 20 years ago.( I'm 60)I had visited alot of churches in my area and none seemed to have a strong biblical foundation until I came across the Lutherans...(just my personal experience) Love the videos! GOD BLESS!🙏❤
Marin Luther wrote in detail concerning blood libel, it was in his book “on the Jews and their lies” the one you said that you have read
Wowww quoting Martin Luther, John Chrysostom, and Augustine will get your comment removed guys. The merchants are at it again 👍 😂
Obviously there are Messianic ones, and as a Reformed Protestant I thank God for them. Having said that, Yes, most of them are sadly not saved. Pray!!
Amen.... so be it LORD JESUS!
Dear Patrick:
Essential parts of the Scriptures were expounded correctly, by
Luther, in the "Book of Concord," and it is in this exposition of God's Word that Luther is not self-willed. "Essential" means Biblical salvation, won for all humans, by Christ's merits alone, Biblical Christian worship practice, and Christian fellowship.
Though Luther is God-willed in the Book of Concord, he wrote
separate opinionative works that were self-willed (Titus 1: 7). One written work, by Luther, was the book entitled, "On The Jews And Their Lies (1543)." In this book, Luther expounds his own sinful ideologies about earthly punishment for the Jews. The inspiration, for Luther's book, is believed to have been inspired by his earlier reading of Anton Margaritha's book, "The Whole Jewish Belief(1530)." We know that Luther became angry with the Jews for their disbelief in Christ, but the Bible says to Luther and us Be angry; sin not (Ephesians 4: 26). In Luther's anger, he sinned like all humans sin, after what we "will" to do, proves to be sinful and outside God's will.
The term "Anti-semitic" was first used in 1860, by an Austrian Jewish Scholar - Moritz Steinschneider, so the term did not exist in Luther's time. Today, the punishments that Luther sinfully documented from his own will, in regards to how the Jews should be punished by Christians here on earth, serves as a support for the false doctrine and practice of what is now called anti-semitic. Though Luther's position stemmed from the Jewish rejection of Christ, the earthly punishments, that Luther said Christians should impose on Jews, were before and after carried out by world leaders, for any reason, and culminating further into today's state illegal sporadic human acts of self-willed prejudices supported not by God's word (Romans 12: 19) which says vengeance belongs to the Lord, but by those who support un-Godly hate doctrines.
Separate opinionative works by Luther, which reveal how Luther sinned against God's word, like the one described above, remain rejected from a verbal standpoint by all Lutheran Synods. Luther's writing "On The Jews And Their Lies" is considered, by Lutherans,
to be one of four errors, where Luther got it wrong.
WHAT LUTHER GOT WRONG
Martin Luther mis-interpreted Daniel 8: 25 to mean that he (Luther) would be the one to break the anti-Christ's power without hand.
The tidings from the East (Daniel 11: 44) and from the North will annoy him (Anti-Christ). Tidings means the sincere testimony of the Gospel. Those tidings (2 Thessalonians/Revelation 14: 6) make
Christ the dayspring from on high to shine forth. This will greatly upset the anti-Christ through the saints. The destroyers of Babylon shall come from the North says the Lord
(Jeremiah 51: 48). According to Luther, this was fulfilled when the spiritual tyranny of Babylon, as the kingdom of the anti-Christ is called in Revelation, was attacked from the North through Luther (Jeremiah 51: 27 and 33) by the hammer of God's word. Luther mentioned Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, and he placed the Ashkenaz as Germans. Ararat is where the ark of Noah landed, which signifies that after the spiritual flood, the Lord's ark is going to have a place there. The Gospel will be spread throughout the world from Ararat. The Askenaz were considered a minority. All of this is rightfully refuted as a mistake of Luther. See John Gerhard's "Theological," and Melanchthon's Speech Of The Life and Death Of Luther.
Another wrong, attributed to Luther, is the title page of Luther's German translation of the Bible. Twenty-three books in the New Testament are numbered, but Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation
are listed separately and un-numbered, below the numbered books.
Firstly, Luther takes Hebrews out of the Canon of Scripture. Luther does this because Hebrews has no written in author, though many scholars speculate it was Paul. Luther sees that Paul speaks elsewhere in his epistles, of repentance of sin, but Luther mis-interpreted Hebrews to be saying that after baptism, there is no repentance of sin. What Luther mistakes is the meaning of Hebrews 6: 1-6, and 10: 22-26, and 12: 17. The true context of these biblical passages is that if we sin willfully (Without repentance) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, because we reject God's Son. In other words, the person who continually rejects God's Son - Jesus, after they have been baptized (Or received the knowledge of God's truth) means that they have rejected Christ - the only sacrifice for their sins. As a result of Luther's mis-interpretation, he uses
"Higher criticism" and he says that he knows it's not the Bible, and his opinion was that Hebrews is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it doesn't deal with any one subject in an orderly way. Actually, Hebrews refutes Luther's opinion with 5 minutiae orderly chapters covering the Levitical Priesthood. Luther also mistakenly writes that the epistle of James is not the work of any apostle.
John Gerhard refuted Luther by saying, firstly, to Luther that the four books are Scripture Canon, because in the primitive Church, there was doubt not so much about their Canonical authority
(Holy Spirit), as there was doubt about the secondary author. Secondly, the author of those books were doubtful, not to all the churches and teachers, but only to some. Thirdly, the fathers, who acknowledge the apocryphal books of the Old Testsment, exclude no New Testament books from the Canon. By the time of
Martin Chemnitz, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were Canonical. Still, although the Westminster, Belgic, and Trent Catechisms all have a list of the Canonical books, the Lutheran confessions have no list of the Canonical books, which all goes back to Luther's Bible. Lutherans do list the creeds.
Luther once usurped the Biblical meaning of marraige, as between one man and one woman, while giving advice to Philip of Hesse.
Philip of Hesse was unhappy with his first wife, and he wanted to marry another. Luther advised that if Philip could not live in continuance, it would be better to imitate the prophets of the Old Testament and take a second wife, than to leave his first wife.
Luther read the Talmud and was horrified, then he wrote his book. Its okay to speak out against the Jews and we should. Zionism has no place in the Church.
God bless you brother/sister
I guess you don’t understand what’s wrong with your comment.
This comment is showing no peace in your relation with G-d.
Um... no. First, your own anti-Semitism isn't cool. It's a sin. It's a violation of the Eighth Commandment, and you need to repent. THAT is what has no place in the Church, and the topic of Zionism has nothing to do with the issue. That so many people have given a "thumbs up" to your shameful post is a scandal in itself.
Secondly, while it's true that Luther was disgusted- and rightly so- by some of the things the Talmud said about Jesus, he was more influenced by self-serving claims by Jewish converts that all sorts of widespread anti-Semitic slurs about what went on in the Jewish community were true. Even more, as Dr. Cooper says, Luther was discouraged by the failure of the Jews to convert despite what he, as primarily an Old Testament scholar, saw as the obvious fact that Christ is the Messiah foretold by the Old Testament.
Most of all, it needs to be remembered that he wrote all of these things in the last three years of his life. As Roland Bainton pointed out, his health was poor at that point, and he said far more savage things about his own congregation than about the Jews or even the Pope.
It's sad that all many people know about Luther today is that he wrote "On the Jews and their Lies." As Bainton also wrote, one could wish that he had died before writing it. But it's even sadder that alleged Christians should harbor such bigotry and hate against the people into which our Savior was born. Anti-Semitism and racism are both far too common among Christians, and specifically among Lutherans, and both your post and the responses to it are good examples of that..
@@RobertEWaters there is a very fundamental aspects you do not understand. Us Jews do not believe in jesus. So anything you say about Jesus will not convince me.
You can certainly tell most people in the comments have an American protestant bias.
American Christians are being brainwashed by Jews
Luther's "On the Jews and their lies" is not an interreligious argument. It is a vile foam-at-the-mouth harangue. It's not racist, since the notion of racism in modern sense did not yet exist. One might say it is religious, but considering that it targets all Jews, it is really tribal.
What made him write it? It was not "The Times" (whatever that means), since Luther himself did not start as a Jew hater. He was very welcoming to Jews when he hoped they would mass convert into his new teaching.
However, they politely said, "Thank you, but no. We are what we are, and we are fine with that." (Exactly the same answer was given to Mohammed hundreds of years earlier in a different place.)
Which made Luther furious and hateful. You see, God Almighty gives people free will and a choice to make up their own decisions. But Luther, at least when it came to Jews, was not so magnanimous.
Well, boo-hoo. Whose weakness is that, the Jews' or his own?
I am too distracted by your beard. Does your beard have it's own facebook page? Or youtube channel?
It should.
@@DrJordanBCooper By the way, good explanation of Luther being an anti-semite. I highly respect Luther being Reformed, I enjoy learning from him and Lutherans, blessings bro!
Dumb
Untrimmed hair and beards, seen on the majority of Eastern Orthodox clergy, is rooted in Orthodox piety, which takes the position of Holy Tradition outlined in the Old Testament - Leviticus 21: 5/
Numbers 6: 5-6/Exodus 39: 27-31(Headcoverings). Moses gave instructions about wearing a beard(Leviticus 19: 27), and from this, it is believed that Moses had a beard. Aaron had a beard(Psalm 133: 2).
Samson said, in Judges 16: 17, that if he be shaven, then his strength
would go from him. Because Jesus fulfilled Mosaic Law, He also would
have worn a beard, along with His apostles. Christ, who is depicted as a suffering servant in Isaiah 50: 6, is spoken of as having a beard.
From 1 Samuel 21: 13, we know that David had a beard. Anyone who took a Nazarite vow kept their hair uncut, during the duration of them fulfilling the vow(Numbers 6: 5).
A group of Hebrews, known as the Nazarites, kept their hair uncut until a particular vow had been fulfilled(Numbers 6: 18). Those who took the Nazarite vow also had to abstain from eating grapes or any product made from grapes, like juice, raisins, and so on(Numbers 6: 3/Amos 2: 12);
they could not be in the same room with a dead body neither
(Numbers 6: 9). During the Nazarite's period of separation, if they violated any of the mentioned prohibitions, they had to wait for the seventh day to shave their heads, as the first part of the cleansing, the second part being accomplished on the eighth day(Numbers 6: 9-12).
When the Nazarite vow separation ended(Numbers 6: 13), the Nazarite shaved off the hair that he dedicated(Numbers 6: 18). Though the vow period was usually temporary, Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist
were perpetual in their vow, which was life-long. Nazarite vows were transgressed, by those who separated themselves, so cleansing rituals, already spoken of, had to be in place. This accounts for one example for mankind's inability to fulfill all area's, of God's Law, without error.
God the Son - Jesus Christ came to Earth, by becoming human, to fulfill Mosaic Law and all of God's Law, for mankind, without transgression, and He became the sacrifice for sin; He died on a cross, was buried, and arose from the dead as the only sacrifice that could cleanse mankind from sin, once and for all. Christ's fulfillment of God's Law ultimately ending in His suffering, death, and resurrection, established a New Covenant - a new beginning, and the termination or conclusion of failed human effort to fulfill Old Testament laws. Jesus lived in Nazareth and he was called a Nazarene; He drank wine and touched dead bodies and was the reason why those who He rose from the dead, were never considered dead, but alive. Therefore, Christ did not transgress the Nazarite vow to not touch or be in the presence of a dead human body. Christ drank His wine with temperance - the way that the Nazarites would have failed to do, had they been allowed to drink or eat
anything from the grapevine. Christ fulfilled the Old and established the new - A completion of the Old Covenant, while making the transition to the New Covenant. The shaving off of the beard signified an end and a new beginning. Paul ended his Nazarite vow and cut off his hair
(Acts 18: 18), at which time he ended his stay at Corinth, and began anew by moving on to Ephesus and Antioch. Paul took four men
(Acts 21: 23-25)whose time came for purification - The four men had made a vow, and Paul joined them in their purification rites, and paid
their expenses to have their heads shaved, to prove to the Jews of Paul's obedience to the Law. The burden of circumcision was not to be laid upon the Gentile believers, by the Jewish believers. The Gentile believers were not to be burdened with anything beyond them being required to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood and the
meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality(Acts 15: 18-29).
Pauline or Gentile Christianity did not subscribe to Mosaic Law, yet
Greeks(Gentile Christians) were allowed in the Temple, to fellowship with Jewish Christians who were circumcised under Mosaic law.
Shortly before the time of Christ, it became the fashion for Romans and Greeks to shave. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11: 14-15, used the language of the cultural norms of the Romans and Greeks, and they believed that a man with long hair looked effeminate and weak, but this met with the opposing view of the Mosaic Law. Unshaven faces of male priests, in the Jewish tradition, distinguished males from females; it was required for male priests to not shave their heads or beards as a show of power.
Under the New Covenant, morality neither mandates nor forbids the action
(Adiaphora) of shaving. Under the Old Covenant, the only time a male could shave was at the time of mourning, when the end was indicative of a new beginning(Genesis 41: 4/Numbers 6: 9,10/Job 1: 20); see also
Deuteronomy 14: 1 and Jeremiah 41: 4-5. Deuteronomy 21: 12 contains
a law that explains when females are required to shave.
Shaving was part of the ritual by which the Levite was set apart for priestly service(Numbers 8: 7). The Israelites were not to shave their hair so closely, that they resembled heathen gods who had shaved heads,
nor were they to resemble the Nazarites who refused to cut their hair at all(Ezekiel 44: 15 and 20). The Egyptians were among the earliest people to require shaving, so that their appearance reflected Egypt's
gods. When Joseph's(Genesis 41: 14) stay in prison ended, he shaved and changed his clothes, which is evidence of conformance to the Egyptian custom, as he stood before the Pharaoh, to begin a new phase. As was said earlier, in light of the New Testament, either shaving or growing a beard, this now constitutes an action that morality neither
mandates nor forbids. Paul's vow ended in Greece - Not the Temple, and animal sacrifice was not connected with it. Paul, in obedience to James, submitted to an Old Testament ritual(Acts 21: 18-26) which no longer had any real meaning in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, for every Christian had now been consecrated to accepting a lifetime vow of service in the royal priesthood of believers, who receive the sacrament
of the baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Because Christ conquered death, New Covenant believers are not defiled by death.
The custom of shaving was particularly strong in the Western Roman Empire, where Rome was. Even in the Eastern part of the Empire beardless priests were still common up until the fifth century, but in the East, beardless clergy had disappeared by the eighth century.
Orthodox monks were shaved on the crown of the head, leaving hair on the sides of the head in a halo-like appearance; this is called tonsure.
Tonsuring fell out in the fifteenth century, for the custom of long hair and a beard, even for married clergy. For Orthodox clergy, long hair and wearing of a beard, has come from the desire to physically resemble Christ. Without exception, and up until the early twentieth century, Orthodox clergy in Greece, Russia, Romania, and other Orthodox countries, are seen in photographs wearing untrimmed hair and beards. Only after World War 1 do we observe cropped hair and beardless clergy;
reasons for this change was not wanting to offend clergy in other denominations(Ecumenism), or the desire to flow with contemporary fashion. Aside Eastern Orthodoxy placing conditions on grooming, clergy attire is also adherent to Old Testament instructions.
Recently found your work and I’ve enjoyed it until this one popped up. You should go watch Europa The Last Battle
The very same thing He accuses the jews for today is what I see as a problem aswell, I guess I'm just as "CRAZY" as him huh?
Dear Commenters: Another way to help people understand how Luther, himself, was not anti-semitic,can be explained in the following way:
We know that Luther became angry with the Jews for their disbelief in Christ, but the Bible says to Luther and us Be angry; sin not (Ephesians 4: 26). In Luther's anger, he sinned like all humans sin, after what we "will" to do, proves to be sinful and outside God's will. Luther himself did not build a doctrine around his failures, and therefore he himself could not be considered antisemitic. Though Luther was not antisemitic, later on, world leaders and white supremacists would make Luther's mistaken words their central doctrine of belief, causing later world leaders and modern hate groups to be antisemitic.
Contrast Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho the Jew and Martin Luther's treatment of the Jews in his works.
Martin didn't see persecution by Jews like Justin did, yet Justin could love his enemies.
How can Martin Luther have an accurate understanding of the Gospel, if he can't even appropriately apply one of the simplest teachings Jesus gave (Matt 5:38-48, Romans 12 etc.), which was universally applied for the first three centuries the church?
Luther didn't say anything that isn't already said by the prophets in the old testament and didn't come even close to what Jesus Christ said about them (calling them children of the devil and synagogue of satan). Anyone that rejects Jesus Christ is lost and is not in the Lamb's Book of Life, whether they are Roman church or Jews or anyone else that rejects our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Read Ezekiel, how they are called whores who pay their johns and it is so graphic makes what Luther said very tame. READ YOUR BIBLE.
@@moniquemonicat Yeah but... Jesus was a Jew, so I don't think Jesus was making blanket condemnations of all Jews in the words we have in the BIble.
You really copped out .
He makes me want to vomit
But was he wrong? That's the real question. Was what he said true at the time and place he said it or did he just make it up
He was right and is still right but he won’t say it because he’s a coward
@@user-qn1ng4hx1k agreed💯🤷🏼♂️ people who don’t like it, oh well, things aren’t true cause you “like” it
Intellectual honesty. So nice to have back in Christendom.
Instead of acknowledging the truth of Luther’s antisemitism, you bend backwards trying to justify it. How about putting Luther’s writings up against those of Jesus? I believe that should be the standard here.
Thanks for this interesting comment! You are making a crucial point here, i.e. how important it is to take into consideration the (general) historical context! I myself discussed precisely this issue in my PhD about the life and the work of a 17th century author.
Kind regards,
A.
Which author was that?
@@DrJordanBCooper
Thank you for your interest! I guess you haven’t heard about this author, since she isn’t as famous as one of those universally known ones, such as Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc. Her name is Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Actually, she was a Catholic nun who lived in New Spain-broadly speaking, modern Mexico as well as some parts of other Central American countries, and Texas (USA)- and composed mostly poems, besides a few plays (i.e. comedies, dramas, etc.). The reason why (since the 20th century) she has been converted into a so-called “feminist” by numerous contemporary scholars is that she wrote several letters to the Bishop of Puebla in which she defended her right to study. In these texts, she also touched on some theological issues, something that many understood as a clear sign of her exceptional intellectual capacity, but also as an evidence of her battle for women’s rights, in general.
Well, in my humble opinion, to call her a “feminist” is disregarding her cultural background and, especially, the overall historical context. I would need to write a whole article in order to explain all the details … However, in case you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask me!
Kind regards,
Anna
PS: I apologize for any odd expressions and mistakes! English is-unfortunately!-not my native language …
@Anna-mc3ll I have heard of her, actually. Though I haven't read any of her work myself, my wife has. She wrote a paper on her work when we were dating in college.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thank you for your reply! If I may ask you: did your wife publish her paper about Sor Juana? If so, could you possibly indicate the title? And finally, could you suggest another nun who has written theological texts, but whose work is less known? I don’t mind what Christian Tradition she belongs to, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.
I would greatly appreciate your comments!
Kind regards,
Anna
Historical context? Luther was in a CHRISTIAN society. Now we are in a JEWISH society. That's why it feels wrong to criticize
One only has do some reading in the Talmud to understand some of the general attitude toward the Jews in Europe. You reap what you sow. The Talmudic attitude toward gentiles is often no better than the nad-zs toward Jews. Talmudic Judaism does historically descend from the party of the Pharisees.
Same for the lutherist religion..descended from the party of the Pharisees. Denying Christ in favor of baby baptism, a practice of wiccans.
Did the Jews in Europe ever commit anything described in the Talmud?
Doesn't Luther's concept of Law/Gospel transcend time periods?
Men why are you questioning Luther? Why are the jews disliked everytime everywhere?
Jews are disliked for the same reason many other groups of people are. The answer is a dominant culture always wants to maintain power, and this is done by exploiting other groups. The guy in this video is really giving a PG version of history.
@@thedude9941 what other groups are universally disliked?
@@gabrielaaugusto4972 Black people, Muslims, Romanis, to name a few.
More importantly, was Luther wrong tho 🤔
yes anti-semitism is very hateful. Hate is a sin
No.
@@ligetisspaghetti5763so us israel killing Palestinians wrong and the racism in the talmud
@@jakekgope1061 why are you more worried about a miniscule amount of Muslim lives than the hundreds of thousands of Christians in Egypt Nigeria Lebanon getting murdered in the hands of Muslims
Don't judge Martin Luther, by today's standards. Judge him by the standards set by the Law of Christ (Mat. 5-7, Luke 6, Romans 12, etc.).
Or judge him by the example and teaching of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century Christians. For example: Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras of Athens, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Novation, Lactantius, Melito of Sardis (who was a Jew himself), etc.
All of these guys taught and lived out Jesus' commandment to "love you're enemies" and "turn the other cheek", and "do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good", and "put away you're sword, whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword". All this being the case in the 1st and 2nd century C.E. where Christians were the ones persecuted to death by unbelieving Jews, not the other way around. Yet, they didn't fight back, but followed Jesus' commandment and example of love for the enemy and non-resistance.
Read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Justin points out that the Jews persecuted the Christians to death, but he stated that the response of the Christians was to love their enemies/persecutors and not fight back.
Read what the church taught about these matters in the Pre-Nicen period of church history. They were unanimous in not taking up the sword in self-defense, let alone persecuting another group.
In Martin Luther's defense the persecution of Jews and the hatred for the enemy in general had been commonplace in the church for a long time by the 16th century. Ambrose back in the fourth century defended Christians who burnt down Jewish synagogues in retaliation to Jews burning a church building. That's a very different attitude and conviction than the Christians had in the first three centuries of the church.
You confuse turn the other cheek, with speaking truth. Luther didn't go around beating and putting to death Jews. Jesus spoke much more harshly against the Jews than Luther, yet Jesus is the one that said turn the other cheek. He meant not to seek revenge, He didn't mean not to speak the truth. As I said before, read Ezekiel (the entire book) and get back to us. Speaking truth is not what turn the other cheek means. Jesus forgave them AND spoke the ugly truth about them too. It's not one or the other, a person can speak truth AND be loving. Just why do you think the Christian martyrs were burned to death? Sure they turned the other cheek not to seek vengeance, but no, they did not cease speaking the truth and that truth was highly insulting to those who burned them at the stake.
@@moniquemonicat Luther wrote in his "On the Jews and Their Lies":
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
Is it distantly linked to the faith of Christian martyrs? Not at all!
@@moniquemonicat Luther said the Jews were a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth" and that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine", and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".
This was very helpful, thank you. I'm preparing to join LCMS & had heard about the so-called Anti-Semitism of Luther. I'm much clearer now. Good job!
So-called? We Jews would tell you that it was as vile Jew Hatred as you can get.
@@georgemuenz3844 of course you would lmao
@georgemuenz3844 of course you would. You have a perpetual victimhood mindset that causes you to view any criticism, no matter how slight, as antisemitic. That, combined with the false doctrine of evangelical Christian Zionism, has greatly worked in your people's favor. By the way, I've read what the Talmud says about Christ and His followers. It's some pretty messed up and hateful stuff. You guys really do hate Christians, but you certainly love our money.
I wish more people acknowledged what you state in this video. Namely, we can't judge the past by the standards of today. Hopefully more and more people will be open to view the Catholic Church in light of this too, often the target of many attacks of this sort.
One flaw in such reasoning when it comes to Rome is that Rome claims to have maintained pure and unchanged doctrine since the beginning of the church, so when false doctrine is called out in the Middle-ages, Rome cannot say they were wrong, but are, instead, forced to attempt to justify it.
@@-_--_-7460 It rarely has to do with doctrine, it's usually related to issues like the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Trasatlantic Slave Trade or the Trial of Galileo... historical approaches to unique past situations. No one really pays attention when someone says: "you Catholics are a disgrace! how can you base the Real Presence in such a pagan concept like Transubstantiation?". I agree... orthodox doctrine, be it Rome's or Luther's, should never be something to be judged by such changing standards.
God’s standards aren’t bound by time. In short wrong is wrong regardless of the time period.
Are they only standards of today? Did everyone hate Jews in Germany or was Luther among a particular group?
What time period is anti semitism wrong?
@@xandro2445 it’s always time for anti-Semitism.
Let's take a closer look at Martin Luther. Following is a quote from convicted Nazi war criminal Julius Streicher, during the International Military Tribunal in Nurnberg, placing the blame on Martin Luther: “Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants’ dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the prosecution. In the book, “The Jews and Their Lies”, Dr Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent’s brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them…”
ruclips.net/video/c0P6Whss_Ak/видео.html Phillip Cary answers that here.
No, RUclips. I'm not a bot. I actually wanted to forward that link to a RUclips video. Anyhow, Phillip Cary answers that objection in a RUclips video.
You're trying very hard to propogate the lie. There is no hard evidence proving conclusively that Luther actually wrote the Jews and their lies.
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Also Yes
Also, did he say he was denying the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust at 0:30 ? I wanna ask because I may be misunderstanding him
Those apologists will never hold aquinas, justin martyr, barnabas etc to the same standard
I'm sure the video is good. Its impossible to concentrate because the camera appears to be tracking your eyes.
What's the definition of the word Semitic?
AFROOOOOOOOOOOO 👀
Saying the truth about the Jewish bible don't make you "antisemitic".
Thank you. A good and sound historical explanation. We cannot condemn those who, with in their time, arrived at different conclusions than we do. This is the problem of our modern age. We hold those of the past to contemporary standards that they will never achieve.
I'm firmly Lutheran.
Dr. Phillip Cary, a very enthusiastic Luther scholar, proves that harsh criticism of Luther's writings about Jews is valid. This is because the Lutheran Princes and Elector _censored_ those writings. They knew that those writings would lead to a pogrom and public unrest.
He says in one video, "He's my favorite theologian in the Christian tradition, outside the Bible, and I think he's the only great Christian theologian I know of who's written stuff that I think is just positively wicked."
ruclips.net/video/c0P6Whss_Ak/видео.html
@@Mygoalwogel Well put. Dr. Cooper chuckling about Luther being grumpy is unsettling to me.
Today the Daily Mail ran an artical on whether Milk is racist.
I mean you don’t see people questioning believing prophets who killed idol worshiping priests with the sword.....
What did Luther say about Islam?
I would challenge the idea that Luther carried out these actions, because of his "culture and time in history." Luther was clearly wrong towards the end of his life and turned away from the example that Christ left for his followers. There is no such excuses for his actions and such actions are contrary to the gospel of Christ.
There is clear examples of his contemporaries that taught against such ideas such as Sebastian Castellio and Balthasar Hubmaier.
Very watered down, and blatantly false interpretation of the meaning of the book, "On The Jews And Their Lies." Luther was anti-Semitic only going by the Jews claim that they were of the lineage of the line of Abraham. He goes by them. And, he stated clearly how much animosity he had towards them...this guy makes it seem like it wasn't a big deal in the book - IT was,and he wrote a book on the damn subject...It was that much of a big deal.
I get the claim that Luther wasn't anti semitic because it was before the term was invented, but IMO it doesn't really hold that much water.
I agree. Sure, context is needed in terms of cultural norms, but hating a people a group is still going a people group, call it this or that or whatever, but that’s what it is. 2 more things: I appreciate that Mr. Cooper has studied him so much, but do you think it would be as least semi-professional to cite some type of quote, at least one on the actual work! I am new to the channel, I admit, and maybe this is what he does, but for a serious academic it is highly skeptical at best. Also, all the Lutheran traditions have blatantly rejected OTJATL? That says something right there.
Dear mr. Maximus:
Congratulations! You're the one that should be doing this youtube! Maximus, I wrote you some mor support. Read it, it's good for your soul!
Essential parts of the Scriptures were expounded correctly, by
Luther, in the "Book of Concord," and it is in this exposition of God's Word that Luther is not self-willed. "Essential" means Biblical salvation, won for all humans, by Christ's merits alone, Biblical Christian worship practice, and Christian fellowship.
Though Luther is God-willed in the Book of Concord, he wrote
separate opinionative works that were self-willed (Titus 1: 7). One written work, by Luther, was the book entitled, "On The Jews And Their Lies (1543)." In this book, Luther expounds his own sinful ideologies about earthly punishment for the Jews. The inspiration, for Luther's book, is believed to have been inspired by his earlier reading of Anton Margaritha's book, "The Whole Jewish Belief(1530)." We know that Luther became angry with the Jews for their disbelief in Christ, but the Bible says to Luther and us Be angry; sin not (Ephesians 4: 26). In Luther's anger, he sinned like all humans sin, after what we "will" to do, proves to be sinful and outside God's will.
The term "Anti-semitic" was first used in 1860, by an Austrian Jewish Scholar - Moritz Steinschneider, so the term did not exist in Luther's time. Today, the punishments that Luther sinfully documented from his own will, in regards to how the Jews should be punished by Christians here on earth, serves as a support for the false doctrine and practice of what is now called anti-semitic. Though Luther's position stemmed from the Jewish rejection of Christ, the earthly punishments, that Luther said Christians should impose on Jews, were before and after carried out by world leaders, for any reason, and culminating further into today's state illegal sporadic human acts of self-willed prejudices supported not by God's word (Romans 12: 19) which says vengeance belongs to the Lord, but by those who support un-Godly hate doctrines.
Separate opinionative works by Luther, which reveal how Luther sinned against God's word, like the one described above, remain rejected from a verbal standpoint by all Lutheran Synods. Luther's writing "On The Jews And Their Lies" is considered, by Lutherans,
to be one of four errors, where Luther got it wrong.
Martin Luther mis-interpreted Daniel 8: 25 to mean that he (Luther) would be the one to break the anti-Christ's power without hand.
The tidings from the East (Daniel 11: 44) and from the North will annoy him (Anti-Christ). Tidings means the sincere testimony of the Gospel. Those tidings (2 Thessalonians/Revelation 14: 6) make
Christ the dayspring from on high to shine forth. This will greatly upset the anti-Christ through the saints. The destroyers of Babylon shall come from the North says the Lord
(Jeremiah 51: 48). According to Luther, this was fulfilled when the spiritual tyranny of Babylon, as the kingdom of the anti-Christ is called in Revelation, was attacked from the North through Luther (Jeremiah 51: 27 and 33) by the hammer of God's word. Luther mentioned Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, and he placed the Ashkenaz as Germans. Ararat is where the ark of Noah landed, which signifies that after the spiritual flood, the Lord's ark is going to have a place there. The Gospel will be spread throughout the world from Ararat. The Askenaz were considered a minority. All of this is rightfully refuted as a mistake of Luther. See John Gerhard's "Theological," and Melanchthon's Speech Of The Life and Death Of Luther.
Another wrong, attributed to Luther, is the title page of Luther's German translation of the Bible. Twenty-three books in the New Testament are numbered, but Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation
are listed separately and un-numbered, below the numbered books.
Firstly, Luther takes Hebrews out of the Canon of Scripture. Luther does this because Hebrews has no written in author, though many scholars speculate it was Paul. Luther sees that Paul speaks elsewhere in his epistles, of repentance of sin, but Luther mis-interpreted Hebrews to be saying that after baptism, there is no repentance of sin. What Luther mistakes is the meaning of Hebrews 6: 1-6, and 10: 22-26, and 12: 17. The true context of these biblical passages is that if we sin willfully (Without repentance) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, because we reject God's Son. In other words, the person who continually rejects God's Son - Jesus, after they have been baptized (Or received the knowledge of God's truth) means that they have rejected Christ - the only sacrifice for their sins. As a result of Luther's mis-interpretation, he uses
"Higher criticism" and he says that he knows it's not the Bible, and his opinion was that Hebrews is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it doesn't deal with any one subject in an orderly way. Actually, Hebrews refutes Luther's opinion with 5 minutiae orderly chapters covering the Levitical Priesthood. Luther also mistakenly writes that the epistle of James is not the work of any apostle.
John Gerhard refuted Luther by saying, firstly, to Luther that the four books are Scripture Canon, because in the primitive Church, there was doubt not so much about their Canonical authority
(Holy Spirit), as there was doubt about the secondary author. Secondly, the author of those books were doubtful, not to all the churches and teachers, but only to some. Thirdly, the fathers, who acknowledge the apocryphal books of the Old Testsment, exclude no New Testament books from the Canon. By the time of
Martin Chemnitz, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were Canonical. Still, although the Westminster, Belgic, and Trent Catechisms all have a list of the Canonical books, the Lutheran confessions have no list of the Canonical books, which all goes back to Luther's Bible. Lutherans do list the creeds.
Luther once usurped the Biblical meaning of marraige, as between one man and one woman, while giving advice to Philip of Hesse.
Philip of Hesse was unhappy with his first wife, and he wanted to marry another. Luther advised that if Philip could not live in continuance, it would be better to imitate the prophets of the Old Testament and take a second wife, than to leave his first wife.
Since they are in the past and have different views than we do today, the people who shipped the slaves across the Atlantic, nor the African warlords slavers. They were just getting rid of competition.
I know this response is kind of crass, and I do understand and value considering a writers context they are in, but it's also good to acknowledge that people are human and can be wrong/misguided/etc.
Luther even though at his time Jewish Khazar's behaviors had left bad tastes in Europe's mouth, Luther still said vile things about Jewish people that aren't reflected anywhere in scripture. While he may not have called for eradication of Jews, he still did very much not like them.
I'm far more interested in whether he was correct (he was)
no antisemite
@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 cringe
Are you aware of the actual content of Luther's book? If yes, I am afraid God may send you, where you don't expect to go
I'm half Jewish and a LCMS congregant. I read this book a couple of years back. It is pretty rough. He called for Jews to be thrown into slavery and have all their property taken from them. It was a harsh read. The Nazis exploited his writing but they merely carried out what Luther called for. Whatever his motivation, Luther was a bit of a shit.
Most protestants have no idea where it came from or who pushed the movement/reformation. Luther is a heretic that is now burning in the deepest pits of hell. He pushed the "faith alone" nonsense that is regurgitated by the cowards behind the pulpits, that call themselves pastors. Even went as far as to say that 8 books out of the new testament should be "ripped out And burned". Of course, the books he opposed , went against his twisted brand of justification, due to his own insecurities of how to attain salvation. The clown in this video, is trying to justify luthers actions. Sorry buddy, there is no rationalizing of luthers evil , pathetic beliefs, that many still hold today.
Indeed.
9:57 My Dad was a Theology professor and then joined the US Army to offer his services as a mentor, confident, and counselor to many war torn soldiers.
And he served in the US Army for many years ( 44 yrs total) … many times he would have to challenge Lutheran chaplains. Always said they committed ,.. but extremely arrogant and couldn’t escape the fact the antisemitism of Luther is / was a gift to the Nazi Party.
And this guy calls himself a “ Lutheran “ … and says “ we don’t necessarily follow all of Luther’s theology…..”
Yep . Yes you do . Or you’d NOT yourself a “ Lutheran “ ….
There it is …
Btw my Dads mentor was the famous DL Moody’s grandson
Why is it that jews, for 2,000 years, have avoided to talk about WHY people always had a problem with them?
The fact that it took so long for the LCMS to reject Luther's statements in the second half of the 20th century is more objectionable than Luther's medieval writings. The LCMS should have published such a statement much earlier.
No,he wasn't racist he was right.
By modern standards, being called a racist means you're right in a number of issues. And I mean even when you have no racial hatred.
You can be both
Its one of those questions that is worth knowing for historical perspective but is ultimately kinda irrelevant anyway. If he was, all it does is mean he was an imperfect human being from hundreds of years ago. It wouldn't really mean anything beyond that....
There are two different ways to look at the question of who was responsible for the crucifixion. Both are valid perspectives, but the Jewish elders did have far more reason to WANT Jesus dead than Pilate did. That is NOT anti-Semitic. Those who were anti-Semitic, were emboldened by that point of view, unfortunately. I'm not an apologist for Martin Luther. I believe he was an heretic.
Martin Luther could have looked back into the history of the church (first three centuries) and seen that the type of hatred that he was peddling has no place in the Church of Christ and is contrary to the commandments of Jesus.
He had no excuse, he had the scriptures and could have reasoned from jesus's commandments alone that you cannot hate someone because they are wrong on their theology or religion. it doesn't mean you have to tell them that they are right you can still call them out for being wrong, but that doesn't mean you can hate them.
@@basedincali8707 if you believe that loving one's enemies means you're an effeminate man then you slander Jesus, the Anointed King and Son/Word of God, of being effeminate. (Matthew 5:38-48)
Well said. 💯
We should not compare past cultural ideas to contemporary standards, but all cultures should submit to Biblical standards, which will result in unity on the primary issues.
In historical context shouldn't we expect our "heros" to rise above common prejudices and lead the rest and not be as ignorant as the rest? Why revere someone who couldn't even do that?
Parthasarati Dileepan no. Think about the lineal perspective of time.
Jews are a theology. Not a race.
Semitism is a language group, not a Race.
Is it bad to be honest about a group of people not matter what epoch you’re in.
Because no one does that.
George washington had some racial tendencies, Lincoln would be a homophobe, MLK's would be considered a bigot today.
If you want heroes of the past you must judge them by their context, not ours.
Would love to hear your take on the Lutheran branch of Protestant scholasticism.
I wrote my dissertation in defense of Lutheran scholasticism.
Jordan Cooper Oh I didn’t know! Is it available? I’d love to check it out.
The argument seems to be “Luther didn’t suggest genocide therefore we shouldn’t cal him anti Semitic… and also Lutherans denounce all of his positions on the Jews just because”
What a video
A weak answer. But I understand your argument. I don't think anyone can give a satisfactory answer. We're stuck with what Luther has written and have to deal with it.
Another question: If Luther can be wrong about the Jewish people, what's to prevent him from being incorrect theologically, say, on justification?
I agree on most of what you're saying except for the "religious freedom" part.
I think its clear that Jesus didn't want us to fight with carnal weapons. Whether I'm right or wrong, I judge historical figures who advocated for the death penalty regarding matters of doctrine.
May I call your attention to this comment by Dr. Christopher Probst in "Martin Luther and the Jews": "Acceptance of the now-commonplace division of 'theological anti-Judaism' from 'racial antisemitism' has led many a historian - and many a theologian - to the erroneous conclusion that Luther’s vitriol is almost solely 'theological' in nature." Your analysis of Luther's rhetoric against the Jews is far too easy on Luther, relying on historical context/practices to quasi-excuse him.
Of course he was... like many many people throughout history...and for good reason.
You're talking about a different time period... but they're still doing the SAME THINGS today. They will never learn.
What about Turkish people? We also know he hated even they sang hyms against Ottoman Turkish..
Right, and that was also not a racial issue, but a religious one. He prayed against the further advance of the Islamic world. And I think we should do the same.
@@DrJordanBCooper judaism is a religion! Not a race, not a ethnicity but a dirty supremacist evil philosophy!
If Boeing a jew is being pary of a race, tham it is the same for islam, christianity...
@Gilgamesh i do
B.K. You sound like a Catholic/Lutheran
You can only become a jew if your mother is jewish so you could argue that it is a "race." They themselves believe that a gentile can't become one of them only by changing beliefs, they believe you only become a jew by your bloodline
Bro what part of “nor should we try to convert them” are you not getting.
Why can’t we just say that Martin Luther taught some right things as well as some wrong things? Why is there such a need for people to paint him as 100% bad or reach so hard to justify his actions?
It’s not like Christians can screw up from time to time, but what Martin Luther taught about Jews is undeniably hateful (going by the timeless standards of the Bible). He should have repented and never engaged in such behaviour again.
LINK: "Martin Luther and antisemitism" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Luther wrote extreme things on Jews, Papists (Roman Catholics) and others, so it wasn't just the Jews. Luther didn't nail that rebuke to the church door against Jews--it was against the Roman Church. So let's stop sniveling that he also called out the hypocrisy of the Jews. Besides, the bible--both old and new testament--are both much more extreme against the Jews--so to cite Luther for "being anti-Semitic" is to close ones eyes to what the bible itself teaches.
If Luther is anti-Semitic then so are the prophets of the old testament who said far worse things (Ezekiel comes to mind calling them whores who pay their Johns and worse). So is it okay for the writers of the bible to say it and just not a preacher like Luther? That's the hypocrisy Luther points out--and he points out the wicked hypocrisy of the Roman church as well: keep in mind it is they who convicted Luther to be burned alive! Not for what he said about the Jews but for what he said about the Roman church (papacy).
Jesus is the Son of God, to this day the Jews still crucify and reject him. That's just fact. And what can we say about a religion that continually rejects the Messiah and who reject that the Messiah came in the flesh. John, a Jew said that is the definition of anti-Christ. Jews cannot have it both ways, either they are spirit of anti-Christ, as defined by John, or they accept that the Messiah came in the flesh YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
Dear moniquemonicat:
Essential parts of the Scriptures were expounded correctly, by
Luther, in the "Book of Concord," and it is in this exposition of God's Word that Luther is not self-willed. "Essential" means Biblical salvation, won for all humans, by Christ's merits alone, Biblical Christian worship practice, and Christian fellowship.
Though Luther is God-willed in the Book of Concord, he wrote
separate opinionative works that were self-willed (Titus 1: 7). One written work, by Luther, was the book entitled, "On The Jews And Their Lies (1543)." In this book, Luther expounds his own sinful ideologies about earthly punishment for the Jews. The inspiration, for Luther's book, is believed to have been inspired by his earlier reading of Anton Margaritha's book, "The Whole Jewish Belief(1530)." We know that Luther became angry with the Jews for their disbelief in Christ, but the Bible says to Luther and us Be angry; sin not (Ephesians 4: 26). In Luther's anger, he sinned like all humans sin, after what we "will" to do, proves to be sinful and outside God's will.
The term "Anti-semitic" was first used in 1860, by an Austrian Jewish Scholar - Moritz Steinschneider, so the term did not exist in Luther's time. Today, the punishments that Luther sinfully documented from his own will, in regards to how the Jews should be punished by Christians here on earth, serves as a support for the false doctrine and practice of what is now called anti-semitic. Though Luther's position stemmed from the Jewish rejection of Christ, the earthly punishments, that Luther said Christians should impose on Jews, were before and after carried out by world leaders, for any reason, and culminating further into today's state illegal sporadic human acts of self-willed prejudices supported not by God's word (Romans 12: 19) which says vengeance belongs to the Lord, but by those who support un-Godly hate doctrines.
Separate opinionative works by Luther, which reveal how Luther sinned against God's word, like the one described above, remain rejected from a verbal standpoint by all Lutheran Synods. Luther's writing "On The Jews And Their Lies" is considered, by Lutherans,
to be one of four errors, where Luther got it wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to creating your own facts. Jews may reject Jesus as the Son of God, so what? To this day, Jews still crucify him? Really? How so? Not to burst your bubble, the Jews aren't fixated on Jesus or the Messiah for that matter. The Jewish religion is about the creation of a meaningful life, fulfilling mitzvot, and being a light to the nations. Jesus knew that, he was completely embedded in the Jewish world of religious practice and piety.
You just confirm Christian hate towards Jews. Millions of our people were murdered because we wanted to maintain our faith. You support all those murderers.
WHAT LUTHER GOT WRONG
Martin Luther mis-interpreted Daniel 8: 25 to mean that he (Luther) would be the one to break the anti-Christ's power without hand.
The tidings from the East (Daniel 11: 44) and from the North will annoy him (Anti-Christ). Tidings means the sincere testimony of the Gospel. Those tidings (2 Thessalonians/Revelation 14: 6) make
Christ the dayspring from on high to shine forth. This will greatly upset the anti-Christ through the saints. The destroyers of Babylon shall come from the North says the Lord
(Jeremiah 51: 48). According to Luther, this was fulfilled when the spiritual tyranny of Babylon, as the kingdom of the anti-Christ is called in Revelation, was attacked from the North through Luther (Jeremiah 51: 27 and 33) by the hammer of God's word. Luther mentioned Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, and he placed the Ashkenaz as Germans. Ararat is where the ark of Noah landed, which signifies that after the spiritual flood, the Lord's ark is going to have a place there. The Gospel will be spread throughout the world from Ararat. The Askenaz were considered a minority. All of this is rightfully refuted as a mistake of Luther. See John Gerhard's "Theological," and Melanchthon's Speech Of The Life and Death Of Luther.
Another wrong, attributed to Luther, is the title page of Luther's German translation of the Bible. Twenty-three books in the New Testament are numbered, but Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation
are listed separately and un-numbered, below the numbered books.
Firstly, Luther takes Hebrews out of the Canon of Scripture. Luther does this because Hebrews has no written in author, though many scholars speculate it was Paul. Luther sees that Paul speaks elsewhere in his epistles, of repentance of sin, but Luther mis-interpreted Hebrews to be saying that after baptism, there is no repentance of sin. What Luther mistakes is the meaning of Hebrews 6: 1-6, and 10: 22-26, and 12: 17. The true context of these biblical passages is that if we sin willfully (Without repentance) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, because we reject God's Son. In other words, the person who continually rejects God's Son - Jesus, after they have been baptized (Or received the knowledge of God's truth) means that they have rejected Christ - the only sacrifice for their sins. As a result of Luther's mis-interpretation, he uses
"Higher criticism" and he says that he knows it's not the Bible, and his opinion was that Hebrews is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it doesn't deal with any one subject in an orderly way. Actually, Hebrews refutes Luther's opinion with 5 minutiae orderly chapters covering the Levitical Priesthood. Luther also mistakenly writes that the epistle of James is not the work of any apostle.
John Gerhard refuted Luther by saying, firstly, to Luther that the four books are Scripture Canon, because in the primitive Church, there was doubt not so much about their Canonical authority
(Holy Spirit), as there was doubt about the secondary author. Secondly, the author of those books were doubtful, not to all the churches and teachers, but only to some. Thirdly, the fathers, who acknowledge the apocryphal books of the Old Testsment, exclude no New Testament books from the Canon. By the time of
Martin Chemnitz, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were Canonical. Still, although the Westminster, Belgic, and Trent Catechisms all have a list of the Canonical books, the Lutheran confessions have no list of the Canonical books, which all goes back to Luther's Bible. Lutherans do list the creeds.
Luther once usurped the Biblical meaning of marraige, as between one man and one woman, while giving advice to Philip of Hesse.
Philip of Hesse was unhappy with his first wife, and he wanted to marry another. Luther advised that if Philip could not live in continuance, it would be better to imitate the prophets of the Old Testament and take a second wife, than to leave his first wife.
Wow...first of all, your struggle to get to your points, says as a great deal about how uncomfortable you really are with your explanations. All the hemming and hawing is telling. There are so many gaps and errors in your logic. To many to address here, but I'll mention a couple.
. You say we cant judge luther in the context of today's norms. Well, you admit in his earlier life he wasn't as antisemitic. So clearly, that was as an acceptable social norm, as as abdcyuu you say antisemitism was the norm. . Then there's really no norm. Rathee, Each person chooses. He chose antisemitism in a society where not being antisemitic was an acceptable position. Under your logic, we shouldn't judge nazism as that would be out of context today. That's Reducukous. Another thing, you seem to make Luther out to be a sort of victim of the nazis. What? The implication that it was the nazis that should be held responsible for his writings and they somehow unfairly used him. That makes zero sense. Lastly, you better go back and take a look at how the German Lutheran church (most not all) digested and spewed nazi propaganda from the pulpit. In essence most acted as a nationalistic marketing arm for the party. It's just facts. It takes very little effort to Google plenty of pictures if swastikas hanging in and on Lutheran churches. Stop with the apologetics. Its extremely transparent and does damage to the integrity if your church.
this comment is incomprehensible lol
Luther was BASED af
Everyone is flawed. The thought about Jewish traits is based upon human traits,
It would be more honest for you to actually present the contents of Luther's, "Concerning the Jews and their Lies". Here are some of his recommendations:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], “You are Peter,” etc., inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.
Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home.
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.
See Dr. Phillip Cary on this topic.
Even as a catholic, I like his book on the (()) question, and I think he was right.
U ain't catholic then fam
You should do a video on secularism
What about secularism?
@@DrJordanBCooper Martin Luther mis-interpreted Daniel 8: 25 to mean that he (Luther) would be the one to break the anti-Christ's power without hand.
The tidings from the East (Daniel 11: 44) and from the North will annoy him (Anti-Christ). Tidings means the sincere testimony of the Gospel. Those tidings (2 Thessalonians/Revelation 14: 6) make
Christ the dayspring from on high to shine forth. This will greatly upset the anti-Christ through the saints. The destroyers of Babylon shall come from the North says the Lord
(Jeremiah 51: 48). According to Luther, this was fulfilled when the spiritual tyranny of Babylon, as the kingdom of the anti-Christ is called in Revelation, was attacked from the North through Luther (Jeremiah 51: 27 and 33) by the hammer of God's word. Luther mentioned Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, and he placed the Ashkenaz as Germans. Ararat is where the ark of Noah landed, which signifies that after the spiritual flood, the Lord's ark is going to have a place there. The Gospel will be spread throughout the world from Ararat. The Askenaz were considered a minority. All of this is rightfully refuted as a mistake of Luther. See John Gerhard's "Theological," and Melanchthon's Speech Of The Life and Death Of Luther.
Another wrong, attributed to Luther, is the title page of Luther's German translation of the Bible. Twenty-three books in the New Testament are numbered, but Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation
are listed separately and un-numbered, below the numbered books.
Firstly, Luther takes Hebrews out of the Canon of Scripture. Luther does this because Hebrews has no written in author, though many scholars speculate it was Paul. Luther sees that Paul speaks elsewhere in his epistles, of repentance of sin, but Luther mis-interpreted Hebrews to be saying that after baptism, there is no repentance of sin. What Luther mistakes is the meaning of Hebrews 6: 1-6, and 10: 22-26, and 12: 17. The true context of these biblical passages is that if we sin willfully (Without repentance) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, because we reject God's Son. In other words, the person who continually rejects God's Son - Jesus, after they have been baptized (Or received the knowledge of God's truth) means that they have rejected Christ - the only sacrifice for their sins. As a result of Luther's mis-interpretation, he uses
"Higher criticism" and he says that he knows it's not the Bible, and his opinion was that Hebrews is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it doesn't deal with any one subject in an orderly way. Actually, Hebrews refutes Luther's opinion with 5 minutiae orderly chapters covering the Levitical Priesthood. Luther also mistakenly writes that the epistle of James is not the work of any apostle.
John Gerhard refuted Luther by saying, firstly, to Luther that the four books are Scripture Canon, because in the primitive Church, there was doubt not so much about their Canonical authority
(Holy Spirit), as there was doubt about the secondary author. Secondly, the author of those books were doubtful, not to all the churches and teachers, but only to some. Thirdly, the fathers, who acknowledge the apocryphal books of the Old Testsment, exclude no New Testament books from the Canon. By the time of
Martin Chemnitz, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were Canonical. Still, although the Westminster, Belgic, and Trent Catechisms all have a list of the Canonical books, the Lutheran confessions have no list of the Canonical books, which all goes back to Luther's Bible. Lutherans do list the creeds.
Luther once usurped the Biblical meaning of marraige, as between one man and one woman, while giving advice to Philip of Hesse.
Philip of Hesse was unhappy with his first wife, and he wanted to marry another. Luther advised that if Philip could not live in continuance, it would be better to imitate the prophets of the Old Testament and take a second wife, than to leave his first wife.
@@DrJordanBCooper Essential parts of the Scriptures were expounded correctly, by
Luther, in the "Book of Concord," and it is in this exposition of God's Word that Luther is not self-willed. "Essential" means Biblical salvation, won for all humans, by Christ's merits alone, Biblical Christian worship practice, and Christian fellowship.
Though Luther is God-willed in the Book of Concord, he wrote
separate opinionative works that were self-willed (Titus 1: 7). One written work, by Luther, was the book entitled, "On The Jews And Their Lies (1543)." In this book, Luther expounds his own sinful ideologies about earthly punishment for the Jews. The inspiration, for Luther's book, is believed to have been inspired by his earlier reading of Anton Margaritha's book, "The Whole Jewish Belief(1530)." We know that Luther became angry with the Jews for their disbelief in Christ, but the Bible says to Luther and us Be angry; sin not (Ephesians 4: 26). In Luther's anger, he sinned like all humans sin, after what we "will" to do, proves to be sinful and outside God's will.
The term "Anti-semitic" was first used in 1860, by an Austrian Jewish Scholar - Moritz Steinschneider, so the term did not exist in Luther's time. Today, the punishments that Luther sinfully documented from his own will, in regards to how the Jews should be punished by Christians here on earth, serves as a support for the false doctrine and practice of what is now called anti-semitic. Though Luther's position stemmed from the Jewish rejection of Christ, the earthly punishments, that Luther said Christians should impose on Jews, were before and after carried out by world leaders, for any reason, and culminating further into today's state illegal sporadic human acts of self-willed prejudices supported not by God's word (Romans 12: 19) which says vengeance belongs to the Lord, but by those who support un-Godly hate doctrines.
Separate opinionative works by Luther, which reveal how Luther sinned against God's word, like the one described above, remain rejected from a verbal standpoint by all Lutheran Synods. Luther's writing "On The Jews And Their Lies" is considered, by Lutherans,
to be one of four errors, where Luther got it wrong. Let's look at the 3 other areas where Luther got it wrong.
I am a Confessional Lutheran and I find this highly offensive how anyone with no intellectual integrity would resort to slandering Martin Luther. This borders on slander and libel, and it is outrageous how disparagers would tarnish Luther's character and for that matter other early Church Fathers.
WHAT LUTHER GOT RIGHT, AND WHAT HE GOT WRONG
Essential parts of the Scriptures were expounded correctly, by
Luther, in the "Book of Concord," and it is in this exposition of God's Word that Luther is not self-willed. "Essential" means Biblical salvation, won for all humans, by Christ's merits alone, Biblical Christian worship practice, and Christian fellowship.
Though Luther is God-willed in the Book of Concord, he wrote
separate opinionative works that were self-willed (Titus 1: 7). One written work, by Luther, was the book entitled, "On The Jews And Their Lies (1543)." In this book, Luther expounds his own sinful ideologies about earthly punishment for the Jews. The inspiration, for Luther's book, is believed to have been inspired by his earlier reading of Anton Margaritha's book, "The Whole Jewish Belief(1530)." We know that Luther became angry with the Jews for their disbelief in Christ, but the Bible says to Luther and us Be angry; sin not (Ephesians 4: 26). In Luther's anger, he sinned like all humans sin, after what we "will" to do, proves to be sinful and outside God's will.
The term "Anti-semitic" was first used in 1860, by an Austrian Jewish Scholar - Moritz Steinschneider, so the term did not exist in Luther's time. Today, the punishments that Luther sinfully documented from his own will, in regards to how the Jews should be punished by Christians here on earth, serves as a support for the false doctrine and practice of what is now called anti-semitic. Though Luther's position stemmed from the Jewish rejection of Christ, the earthly punishments, that Luther said Christians should impose on Jews, were before and after carried out by world leaders, for any reason, and culminating further into today's state illegal sporadic human acts of self-willed prejudices supported not by God's word (Romans 12: 19) which says vengeance belongs to the Lord, but by those who support un-Godly hate doctrines.
Separate opinionative works by Luther, which reveal how Luther sinned against God's word, like the one described above, remain rejected from a verbal standpoint by all Lutheran Synods. Luther's writing "On The Jews And Their Lies" is considered, by Lutherans,
to be one of four errors, where Luther got it wrong.
He was a man of his time! Like Calvin,Zwingli,Henry the VIII,Cranmer and the Roman churchmen they tussled with.
Luther was not anti-semitic, because he built his belief around the Scriptures in their context of truth. Luther built doctrine around the true context of the essential Biblical subjects seen in the Book of Concord. Luther shows, in the Book of Concord, that he understood what the Scriptures were saying. In a separate opiniative work, Luther left true doctrine, and he cursed the Jews for their continued disbelief.
Luther did not build a doctrine of practice around his separate opinion, and he knew his curse was out of fellowship with what is Biblical practice.
It has only been in modern times, that some groups of Lutherans try to build a separate doctrine around Nationalist False Doctrine.
Take a look at the most recent occurrence :
Corey Mahler was or is a parishioner of First Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Knoxville, Tennessee. The said congregation called the police
on Corey when he tried to attend services. Corey Mahler, is a white nationalist who has sought to move the congregation in the direction of his cause. He was ejected from church grounds for causing what his pastor called “harm and division to the body of Christ.”
Ryan Turnipseed, as well as a variety of other characters have either partnered with Mahler or have enabled his rise to prominence in Lutheran circles. Ryan Turnipseed is or was a member of First Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Ponca City, Oklahoma.
Ryan is the treasurer and a co-founder of the Old Glory Club, where he regularly writes.
Ryan Turnipseed first outlined 15 objections within the essay collection and urged Lutherans to contact Harrison with their concerns.
For example, Turnipseed took issue with an essay from Concordia Seminary St. Louis professor Joel Biermann, claiming that the fifth commandment (in the Lutheran tradition, the instruction against murder) denies a biblical foundation for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
“The recognition of a legitimate place for the use of the sword within God’s plan for His creation … certainly does not provide a scriptural foundation for a right to bear arms,” Biermann wrote.
The new Large Catechism also includes an essay from pastor and LCMS Black Clergy Caucus president Warren Lattimore on the fifth commandment, with Lattimore writing in a footnote that “the deaths of a number of unarmed Black citizens at the hands of white individuals or police officers sparked widespread protests and turmoil in recent years and especially in 2020. Many churches sought ways to promote racial justice and healing.”
Lutheran pastor and blogger Larry Beane called this description “a leftist interpretation of the George Floyd riots, and a deliberate cherrypicking of crime statistics involving racial breakdowns.”
In a blog post entitled the “Large CRTechism,” Beane said the essays contained “a lot of wokeism” and “a disturbing amount of political leftism being put forth on political hot-button issues.” David Ramirez, pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Union Grove, Wisconsin, agreed and called out “pretty clear terminology and red flags.”
There are many apologists for Luther on RUclips. What do Jews think about Luther's writings? After all his words were directed at Jews. The answer is self evident. Read it for yourself.
Better question: WHAT DO JEWS THINK OF JESUS CHRIST, the Holy Son of God? John said the definition of spirit of antichrist are those that do not believe the Messiah came in the flesh. What religion is it that says the Messiah has not yet come? It's not important what the Jews think of Luther, it's important what the Jews think of Christ. Your priority is backwards. Jesus is LORD not the Jews.
@@moniquemonicat God spoke to Moses and to the more or less 3 million Jews present. I read in the Torah in God's own words, who He is and what He is not. I have peace now, knowing who the true and living God is. For me it is not about a RUclips contest of whom could make the best claims in delivering the best rhetoric. I am confident that there is only One God, and He cannot have made it clearer of what He meant by One. There is no mention of "The Messiah" in the Bible. The Tanach speaks of a future king, not a god, but a Davidic king, and everybody will know he is that king whom the Tanach speak of. There is absolutely zero chance of Jesus being that king.
@@kobusvanzyl7222 delusional
Virulent antisemitism was the norm throughout Europe at this time. The Jews were still banned from England.
If you were alive then, you would also likely be antisemitic.
While I appreciate Luther's conviction of conscience, he still fails to fully understand the very apostle he admired so much, that of Paul. Luther, and his contemporaries, did not it seems, come to grips with Paul's intent and knowledge of the revelation of the mystery of the Gospel of Grace, and in doing so, has created as much spiritual confusion as ever within the various denominational and institutional churches. Luther continued with a fair degree of Catholicism relating to ritual and tradition, or at least his followers did, and to this day ritualistic practices hold high importance within the liturgical practices of worship. This is evident from his inability to reconcile the books like James that challenged salvation by grace through faith alone. Had he been able to rightly divide scripture as Paul implores Timothy to do, then all of Christendom today may well be better off.
This is out of question-he was it
Short answer: No
Long answer: Sort of, but really no
in my humble opinion i dont think Luther was anti-semitic....from what i understand in Luther's day others were anti-semitic, Luther didnt go around and telling the Jews in Germany convert or die, the Roman Catholic Church did forced conversions of the Jews under the threat of death
Lol so because others were racist that means luther wasnt?
So, if he doesn’t personally recommend their extermination, he’s NOT an anti Semitic?
Plenty of people in England hated Catholics and had them drawn and quartered. That’s ok?! And, please, ‘context’ doesn’t rationalize his hatred of Jews....he got ‘grumpy’ in his old age?! What a cop out.
@@toninewilson651 he read the Talmud and saw how much the Sages of Israel hate “The Nations” in which they resided.
The Roman Catholic Church did not do ‘forced conversions’ - the popes spoke specifically against that.
The idea that its dangerous to judge people of the past according to todays sensibilities is dangerous. Most people have never needed help with baseline morality principles. We know what is right and wrong. Now are we too cowardly or too greedy or too comfortable to be honest with ourselves about whats wrong and how we are all perpetuating to it? Sure. But i dont think history needs to hold a special place for the go-alongs.
We only follow leaders as they follow Christ. No exceptions. Luther said some hideous and reprehensible things. No whitewash .
Luther was not an anti-semite. Nonetheless, he went overboard when he advocated for their burning of their homes and synagogues because they rejected the Gospel of the Messiah. But many ethnic Jews have over the years since the Reformation have indeed accepted Jesus the CHRIST as the Messiah. I have visited Israel both in 2008 and 2010 and met many Messianic Jews. Baruch HaShem Yeshua HaMosiach!
Dear BelieveOnlyJesus:
Essential parts of the Scriptures were expounded correctly, by
Luther, in the "Book of Concord," and it is in this exposition of God's Word that Luther is not self-willed. "Essential" means Biblical salvation, won for all humans, by Christ's merits alone, Biblical Christian worship practice, and Christian fellowship.
Though Luther is God-willed in the Book of Concord, he wrote
separate opinionative works that were self-willed (Titus 1: 7). One written work, by Luther, was the book entitled, "On The Jews And Their Lies (1543)." In this book, Luther expounds his own sinful ideologies about earthly punishment for the Jews. The inspiration, for Luther's book, is believed to have been inspired by his earlier reading of Anton Margaritha's book, "The Whole Jewish Belief(1530)." We know that Luther became angry with the Jews for their disbelief in Christ, but the Bible says to Luther and us Be angry; sin not (Ephesians 4: 26). In Luther's anger, he sinned like all humans sin, after what we "will" to do, proves to be sinful and outside God's will.
The term "Anti-semitic" was first used in 1860, by an Austrian Jewish Scholar - Moritz Steinschneider, so the term did not exist in Luther's time. Today, the punishments that Luther sinfully documented from his own will, in regards to how the Jews should be punished by Christians here on earth, serves as a support for the false doctrine and practice of what is now called anti-semitic. Though Luther's position stemmed from the Jewish rejection of Christ, the earthly punishments, that Luther said Christians should impose on Jews, were before and after carried out by world leaders, for any reason, and culminating further into today's state illegal sporadic human acts of self-willed prejudices supported not by God's word (Romans 12: 19) which says vengeance belongs to the Lord, but by those who support un-Godly hate doctrines.
Separate opinionative works by Luther, which reveal how Luther sinned against God's word, like the one described above, remain rejected from a verbal standpoint by all Lutheran Synods. Luther's writing "On The Jews And Their Lies" is considered, by Lutherans,
to be one of four errors, where Luther got it wrong.
Martin Luther mis-interpreted Daniel 8: 25 to mean that he (Luther) would be the one to break the anti-Christ's power without hand.
The tidings from the East (Daniel 11: 44) and from the North will annoy him (Anti-Christ). Tidings means the sincere testimony of the Gospel. Those tidings (2 Thessalonians/Revelation 14: 6) make
Christ the dayspring from on high to shine forth. This will greatly upset the anti-Christ through the saints. The destroyers of Babylon shall come from the North says the Lord
(Jeremiah 51: 48). According to Luther, this was fulfilled when the spiritual tyranny of Babylon, as the kingdom of the anti-Christ is called in Revelation, was attacked from the North through Luther (Jeremiah 51: 27 and 33) by the hammer of God's word. Luther mentioned Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, and he placed the Ashkenaz as Germans. Ararat is where the ark of Noah landed, which signifies that after the spiritual flood, the Lord's ark is going to have a place there. The Gospel will be spread throughout the world from Ararat. The Askenaz were considered a minority. All of this is rightfully refuted as a mistake of Luther. See John Gerhard's "Theological," and Melanchthon's Speech Of The Life and Death Of Luther.
Another wrong, attributed to Luther, is the title page of Luther's German translation of the Bible. Twenty-three books in the New Testament are numbered, but Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation
are listed separately and un-numbered, below the numbered books.
Firstly, Luther takes Hebrews out of the Canon of Scripture. Luther does this because Hebrews has no written in author, though many scholars speculate it was Paul. Luther sees that Paul speaks elsewhere in his epistles, of repentance of sin, but Luther mis-interpreted Hebrews to be saying that after baptism, there is no repentance of sin. What Luther mistakes is the meaning of Hebrews 6: 1-6, and 10: 22-26, and 12: 17. The true context of these biblical passages is that if we sin willfully (Without repentance) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, because we reject God's Son. In other words, the person who continually rejects God's Son - Jesus, after they have been baptized (Or received the knowledge of God's truth) means that they have rejected Christ - the only sacrifice for their sins. As a result of Luther's mis-interpretation, he uses
"Higher criticism" and he says that he knows it's not the Bible, and his opinion was that Hebrews is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it doesn't deal with any one subject in an orderly way. Actually, Hebrews refutes Luther's opinion with 5 minutiae orderly chapters covering the Levitical Priesthood. Luther also mistakenly writes that the epistle of James is not the work of any apostle.
John Gerhard refuted Luther by saying, firstly, to Luther that the four books are Scripture Canon, because in the primitive Church, there was doubt not so much about their Canonical authority
(Holy Spirit), as there was doubt about the secondary author. Secondly, the author of those books were doubtful, not to all the churches and teachers, but only to some. Thirdly, the fathers, who acknowledge the apocryphal books of the Old Testsment, exclude no New Testament books from the Canon. By the time of
Martin Chemnitz, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were Canonical. Still, although the Westminster, Belgic, and Trent Catechisms all have a list of the Canonical books, the Lutheran confessions have no list of the Canonical books, which all goes back to Luther's Bible. Lutherans do list the creeds.
Luther once usurped the Biblical meaning of marraige, as between one man and one woman, while giving advice to Philip of Hesse.
Philip of Hesse was unhappy with his first wife, and he wanted to marry another. Luther advised that if Philip could not live in continuance, it would be better to imitate the prophets of the Old Testament and take a second wife, than to leave his first wife.
He literally made a whole antiemetic book about Jews. Lmao. Luther is In Hell, he literally said he’d baptize a Jew with a stone over a bridge.
it wasn't just because of their rejection of Christ, It was because of their hatred for Christ and His people. Read the actual book he wrote on the subject.
@@ProtestantKing7 lol angry juden, get over it whiny baby, antisemitism is made up anyways LOL
Read the Talmud. You'll see all the awful, evil, satanic and disgusting things written in there. Martin Luther said what needed to be said about modern rabbinic judaism, which is definitely not the same faith practiced by the Israelites and the patriarchs of the old testament.
In what was perhaps the only popular revolt in German history, the peasant uprising of 1525, Luther advised the princes to adopt the most ruthless measures against the ”mad dogs,” as he called the desperate, downtrodden peasants. Here, as in his utterances about the Jews, Luther employed a coarseness and brutality of language unequaled in German history until the Nazi time. The influence of this towering figure extended down the generations in Germany, especially among the Protestants. Among other results was the ease with which
German Protestantism became the instrument of royal and princely absolutism from the sixteenth century until the kings and princes were overthrown in 1918. The hereditary monarchs and petty rulers became the supreme bishops of the Protestant Church in their lands. Thus in Prussia the Hohenzollern King was the head of the Church. In no country with the exception of Czarist Russia did the clergy become by tradition so completely servile to the political authority of the State.
* To avoid any misunderstanding, it might be well to point out here that the author is a
Protestant.
William L. Shirer - THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, A History of Nazi Germany
That’s interesting because the Roman Emperor was the head of the Church from Constantine to at least the Great Schism (longer if you just count Orthodox)
I have to call BS brother. "Take their property and evict them from your towns" is a far bit more than grumpy.
Also, the Bible is unchanging. Any reader from any Era should sufficiently see the error in burning synagogues and disposessing jews.
Also, the "everyone was discriminating" defense is deplorable.
The issue today comes from Judaism and being a jew are so intertwined. Me saying Judaism is a false doctrine and heresy, which it is, would get me in trouble. But Judaism is different from being an ethnic Jew. Thete are Jewish Christians. Brothers and sisters in Christ that were born in an ethnically Jewish family.
Luther was an EXTREMELY anti-Jewish and called for their extermination. "Oh, he was a product of his times." The commandment against murder was already there. (Of course he did say that the ten commandments were stupid so maybe he thought he was exempt from pesky moral laws.)
@@andersongoncalves3387what straw man? Luther left you a book on the subject. Go read it.
@@marzmarch my apologies. I misread the original comment. I was thinking he said something else
I'll have to read his writings myself. I heard from my Christian pastor about wanting them exterminated yet other theologians just say he 'said' harsh things. Why can't everyone that says they are Christians just speak the whole truth. :( Especially those leading theological lectures. Double sad.
Luther against Jews because they were not Christians. They rejected Jesus.
Just admit Luther was a raging Anti Semite and change the name of your Denomination.
Yes he was. same bro
They didn't believe his theology and he turned on them plain and simple. Luthers theology is wrong on many points anyway and he got many things wrong.
Read Demonizing the Jews by Christopher Probst, he would strongly push back on your views.
If you are talling racism, you are talking modern cultural values which accepts homosexuality as good and loving as well as trans stuff. Find it in the Bible described as sin, then we should be discussing it as an evil brlief/action.
I am not agree with you because a man just like Luther who read a bible those things are not sportive because if he live in indifferent culture and time, we all have moral values so how we judge Luther according to kind and un racet people live before him in your logic the racism in black Americans in 19 century is correct we should not cover some one bad behaviour because of that person live in the past but if they are antisemitic they are antisemitic if they are not they are not specially some one like Luther who claimed holy spirit reviled the truth way we should judge him according to the bible which he say he believes and practice his entire life so what we get for that he is a evil and un exemplary person hi is hietler befor hietler
A German church for some German people, An Anglican church for some English people, and on and on in the world of freelance religion. All kinds of theology, make it up as you go: abortion okay, divorce okay, sodomy okay, whatever. WHY should anyone believe in Christianity at all? None agree on the truth. You cannot claim the Christian ruth and dispute it. Christ was right in the garden He saw it. The world will not believe. Congrats.
He's telling the truth to those people over there because they fake and they hate Jesus
Best interpretation ever.