LUTHER: The 2003 film with Joseph Fiennes

[Milliardo]

Rand Al'Thor:

i find it interesting that luther was a monk (catholic clergy) and didnt seem to have any problem with the papacy until the pope didnt implement his reforms. then all of a sudden he’s the antichrist and has been tricking us with the interpretation of “you are peter.”
how is salvation by faith AND works (which is what the catholic church has always taught - living your faith) the work of the devil? if luther was so concerned about taking everything in the bible word for word, why did he change that passage when he translated it into german?
his “the jews and their lies” sounded like i was reading mein kampf with scripture being quoted. hitler was raised as a catholic and was an artist…and then later in his life blamed the jews for everything and began to hate them. that sounds a lot like luther, since at first as you say didnt hate the jews. frustration at not being able to convert someone (especially when you say that had you been a jew you wouldnt have converted either) is no excuse for hatred.

Exactly. Actually Hitler’s inspiration for “Mein Kampf” was Luther’s writing, “On Jews and Their Lies”. Luther was not merely against Jews because they were to blame for Jesus’ suffering and death; indeed, reading the work, he went even so far as to suggest the very things Hitler came to implement later on. Luther took anti-Jewishness to a whole new level; up to that time, most only went so far as to discredit them, but not propose to have them segregated and even extinguished. Luther made suggestions to that effect.

 

[Fidelis]

CatherineofA:

I think that it is important to remember that anti-semitism was a very strong sentiment amongst Catholics at that time as well. You only have to look at Ferdinand and Isabella and the Inquisition in Spain for one.

The motives of the Spanish crown were arguably those of national security in the wake of a just ended centuries old occupation, rather that ethnic or religious hatred. Just as the historical context surrounding the times of Luther is complex, so are those surrounding the times of Ferdinand and Isabella. For a fuller picture see this article:

The Spanish Inquisition: Fact Versus Fiction
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0026.html

As far as the move “Luther” goes, here is another review, this one from Catholic reviewer Steven Greydanus:

catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=20731

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

luther also accuses jews of “stealing ‘our’ money” (that certainly sounds like a personal attack, rather than against the religion itself, not to mention he calls them “children of the devil”) and such…a claim that hitler made and a claim that is still around even today.

i read that letter of his explaining the sola in his translation. first off, luther certainly thought a lot of himself. i thought pride was supposed to be a sin. he tries to justify changing that passage because he thinks that’s what it should say. do you understand what that means? he’s attempting to supercede Jesus and the apostles because he believes that it should say something other than what it does. if paul had meant to say “by faith alone” he would have said “by faith alone”. the fact is he did not say that. did Jesus not also say “if you love me, keep my commandments”? that makes it ridiculously clear that the way we live does indeed count for something when it comes to our judgement. the book of revalation also says “and all were judged according to what they had done” not “and all were judged according to whether they believed they were saved by faith alone”.
that is not the only thing he changed because he didnt agree with it. luther did not like the fact that the angel Gabriel said “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” he didnt like the fact that Mary was placed above other humans because she would be the mother of God. so what did he do? he changed it so that it sounded like any other greeting. and how does he justify it? by saying that was the way Gabriel greeted others. did he stop to think of why Gabriel would have greeted Mary differently than everyone else? no. he didnt believe that Mary was without sin, so he tried to convince people she wasnt by changing the words of the bible. luther also claimed that saints had been made into gods and that we prayed to them…another thing he obviously misunderstood, plus he used the term “Mariolatry” which also implies worship. he is mistaking reverence and honor for Mary being the mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior for the worship reserved for God alone.
the fact remains that it doesnt matter what any of us…even martin luther himself…think that the bible SHOULD say. the bible said what it said, and he took it upon himself to change it how he saw fit. i will agree that there was corruption in the church, but it was not the church itself that was corrupt. it was certain people in the church. and to call the pope the antichrist? that is a huge stretch, even for luther.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Rand Al'Thor:

he didnt like the fact that Mary was placed above other humans because she would be the mother of God. so what did he do? he changed it so that it sounded like any other greeting. and how does he justify it? by saying that was the way Gabriel greeted others.

He didn’t like 2 Maccabees 12:41-45 either. When John Eck brought that passage up to support purgatory, Luther said that book was not scripture. His basis for this is because the Palestinian Jews didn’t execpt it. How ironic is that? O, the Ethiopian Jews do accept it though, even today. So Luther took it upon himself to decide which books from the canon declared at the Council of Rome, and at each council since then, were inspired. Old and New Testament both.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Milliardo:

Exactly. Actually Hitler’s inspiration for “Mein Kampf” was Luther’s writing, “On Jews and Their Lies”.

Interesting- I confess i’m not the Hitler expert you are, so you may be correct. Perhaps you could share a little of your information here. I know that Luther’s treatises are primarliy theological. Were Hitlers? I really don’t know. Second, is it possible that Hitler may have misunderstood the theological nature of Luther’s writings? I am aware that the Nazi’s did use Luther’s criticism of the Jews occasionally, but far less than we might expect. They were not really interested in promoting the Christian faith, so they were often reluctant to use Luther too much. Kind of like the way some “hate” groups selectively use the Bible.

Milliardo:

Luther was not merely against Jews because they were to blame for Jesus’ suffering and death; indeed, reading the work, he went even so far as to suggest the very things Hitler came to implement later on. Luther took anti-Jewishness to a whole new level; up to that time, most only went so far as to discredit them, but not propose to have them segregated and even extinguished. Luther made suggestions to that effect.

I confess also i’m not an expert on the history of the Jews. However, I would really like to see some documentation here, especially since Gordon Rupp has noted,

"When in 1543, the Zurich pastors deplored Luther’s anti-Jewish apologetic, as more fitting for a swineherd than a shepherd, they might have remembered that the Cantons of Switzerland had long since got rid of their Jews, as well as having recently annihilated their Anabaptists. Beginning with Spain and Portugal in the 1490s —which was the great disaster—the Jews were driven from one country to another, until only in eastern Europe and in northern Italy had they a precarious peace and moderate prosperity. In Germany, political fragmentation into hundreds of tiny intermingling jurisdictions left it very much to the whim of particular rulers whether or not to implement imperial legislation. One after another the German cities—Cologne, Mainz, Ulm, Regensburg— closed their ghettos. In Nuremberg the Hebraist, Andrew Osiander, had to seek special permission for a rabbi to visit the city to give him lessons, while from the towers of Strasbourg a horn was blown every night warning Jews to leave a city where they might not stay over-night. Huddled in little companies in the villages outside the towns, insulated and isolated from society in a generally effective apartheid, no wonder that bitterness and recrimination were not all on one side. Crushed between the upper and nether millstones of the social order, unable to own land in the country or join the guilds in the towns, driven into usury and hated and envied for their prosperity—it was all a compost heap for malice. In all the literature there is an appalling absence of compassion, though possibly there was more humanity than laws and writings might reveal.

Source:Martin Luther and the Jews by
The Reverend E. Gordon Rupp, F.B.A., D.D

It appears to me then, severe anti-Jewish sentiment was in place long before Luther.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Psalm45:9:

He didn’t like 2 Maccabees 12:41-45 either. When John Eck brought that passage up to support purgatory, Luther said that book was not scripture. His basis for this is because the Palestinian Jews didn’t execpt it. How ironic is that? O, the Ethiopian Jews do accept it though, even today. So Luther took it upon himself to decide which books from the canon declared at the Council of Rome, and at each council since then, were inspired. Old and New Testament both.

If you have a reference for this, i’d like to see it.I’m familiar with this charge, but i’ve yet to find documentation for it (it may exist, if it does, I would like to see it).

I recall reading this same charge from Catholic apologist James Akin. Akin said,

“Why would Martin Luther cut out [2 Maccabees] when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament [book of Hebrews]? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.).”

Akin completely neglects the aspect of Luther’s historical and critical reasoning. Had Akin simply checked LW 35:352-353, he could have read Luther’s most explicit statement for rejecting 2 Maccabees:

“This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees—another or different, certainly, but not second. But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well.It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books. It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.”

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Fidelis:

The motives of the Spanish crown were arguably those of national security in the wake of a just ended centuries old occupation, rather that ethnic or religious hatred. Just as the historical context surrounding the times of Luther is complex, so are those surrounding the times of Ferdinand and Isabella. For a fuller picture see this article:

Fair enough. I appreciate your desire to see historical context. You and I are on the same page in a way. We can all look back in saddness towards what those who came before us have done- indeed, i’m no supporter of everything Luther did or said (and i’m not even Lutheran).

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Psalm45_9]

TertiumQuid:

If you have a reference for this, i’d like to see it.I’m familiar with this charge, but i’ve yet to find documentation for it (it may exist, if it does, I would like to see it).

I recall reading this same charge from Catholic apologist James Akin. Akin said,

“Why would Martin Luther cut out [2 Maccabees] when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament [book of Hebrews]? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.).”

Akin completely neglects the aspect of Luther’s historical and critical reasoning. Had Akin simply checked LW 35:352-353, he could have read Luther’s most explicit statement for rejecting 2 Maccabees:

“This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees—another or different, certainly, but not second. But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well.It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books. It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.”

Regards,
James Swan

Thank you, Saul also is recorded dieing in different ways, so Luther contradicted the Protocanonicals as well. The book begins with two letters, the rest is an essay based off of a five volume book written by Jason of Cyrene.

As to why it is called 2nd Maccabees, that’s just what it’s called. It is not a contiunation of the 1st, there are two books about Judas Maccabeeus, that is it. The first one was written more from the view of the Saducees, the 2nd more from the view of the Pharisees.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Psalm45:9:

Thank you, Saul also is recorded dieing in different ways, so Luther contradicted the Protocanonicals as well. The book begins with two letters, the rest is an essay based off of a five volume book written by Jason of Cyrene.

As to why it is called 2nd Maccabees, that’s just what it’s called. It is not a contiunation of the 1st, there are two books about Judas Maccabeeus, that is it. The first one was written more from the view of the Saducees, the 2nd more from the view of the Pharisees.

Thank you for the interesting information. I’m off to work at the “salt mines” in a minute- what really interests me is historical documentation for your coment earlier:
Psalm45:9:

He didn’t like 2 Maccabees 12:41-45 either. When John Eck brought that passage up to support purgatory, Luther said that book was not scripture. His basis for this is because the Palestinian Jews didn’t execpt it. How ironic is that? O, the Ethiopian Jews do accept it though, even today. So Luther took it upon himself to decide which books from the canon declared at the Council of Rome, and at each council since then, were inspired. Old and New Testament both.

While discussing particular aspects of 2 Maccabees is interesting, I am really interested in finally tracking down the historical information to substantiate the above.

Hope you can help!
James Swan

 

[deb1]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: The smileys to the right represent me banging my head against a wall over my own stupidity. I posted the wrong link. I can only plead that I was looking up two things at one time: a catholic review and the name of a particular book that Luther wrote. SOmehow I got the two websites totally confused. When you are searching on the web, and you look over several sites they do tend to blur together. I, personally, didn’t like the site I posted. I am so sorry.
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ244.HTM This is the website that I meant to post. Please read its review. I believe that it was fair. I just can’t believe that I would do something so increadibly dumb as posting the wrong site.:crying: :crying:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ244.HTM

 

[puzzleannie]

I have the same problem when I see any movie dealing with a historical personage or event. I get hung up on the accuracy of the historical research and presentation, and do not give due weight to the rest of the film on its merits. For this film (if we are talking about the same one) Luther is depicted as supporting the peasants’ revolt, when in historical fact he denounced the revolt and advocated brutal punishment for the revolutionaries. My reasoning is that if the film can make such egregious errors about an easily accessible historical truth, it must be full of other errors, even though I am not aware of them. the second problem with historical dramas (the films of Mel Gibson are big offenders in my book) is the failure, due in part to the constraints of length and production values, that the people and situations are seldom placed in the proper historical context, but portrayed using language, judgements, values, and attitudes of contemporary American culture rather than in their own culture.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

TertiumQuid:

It appears to me then, severe anti-Jewish sentiment was in place long before Luther.

i know. i didnt mean to sound like luther was the first; he certainly wasnt. my point was just that he talked about ALL jews and from what i read, he didnt just attack their religion, but attacked them personally.
and i didnt mean to make it seem like luther was hitler’s inspiration or anything, just that it sounded a lot like the things that hitler wrote. i havent even read mein kampf, just a couple pieces of it, but i’ve read several of hitler’s letters and he mentions numerous times that jews have stolen money from the germans and that they should be ousted from the country.

 

[Eden]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: The smileys to the right represent me banging my head against a wall over my own stupidity. I posted the wrong link. I can only plead that I was looking up two things at one time: a catholic review and the name of a particular book that Luther wrote. SOmehow I got the two websites totally confused. When you are searching on the web, and you look over several sites they do tend to blur together. I, personally, didn’t like the site I posted. I am so sorry.
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ244.HTM This is the website that I meant to post. Please read its review. I believe that it was fair. I just can’t believe that I would do something so increadibly dumb as posting the wrong site.:crying: :crying:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ244.HTM

Deb1 - thanks! It was well worth the wait. This was the most in-depth Catholic analysis that I have seen so far.

 

[TertiumQuid]

deb1:

I posted the wrong link. I can only plead that I was looking up two things at one time: a catholic review and the name of a particular book that Luther wrote. SOmehow I got the two websites totally confused. When you are searching on the web, and you look over several sites they do tend to blur together. I, personally, didn’t like the site I posted. I am so sorry.
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ244.HTM This is the website that I meant to post. Please read its review. I believe that it was fair. I just can’t believe that I would do something so increadibly dumb as posting the wrong site

Hi Deb,

I thought either it was joke or a mistake. I am one of those folks who usually reads the links people provide. I recall reading DA’s review when he wrote it (I believe he sent me an e-mail asking me to look it over). I haven’t read it since then, so some time today I will look it over.

Somewhere in this very thread I posted a review which decribes many of the historical problems with the movie. If I recall, DA mentions similar problems.

Take care,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

puzzleannie:

For this film (if we are talking about the same one) Luther is depicted as supporting the peasants’ revolt, when in historical fact he denounced the revolt and advocated brutal punishment for the revolutionaries. My reasoning is that if the film can make such egregious errors about an easily accessible historical truth, it must be full of other errors, even though I am not aware of them.

Agreed… to an extent. The Peasant’s Revolt is another one of the complicated issues, easily misunderstood. You will note first of all, that somewhere above I mentioned this very problem:

The Uprising of the Peasants made Luther so angry that he called for their killing as a divine mandate since the peasants identified the freedom in the gospel with violent liberation from their feudal landlords. About 5000 peasants were finally massacred in the so-called battle of Frankenhausen, Saxony; their “noble” opponents lost six men. The spiritual leader of the rebellious peasants in Saxony was not Carlstadt, but Thomas Müntzer who was executed. All rebellious peasants in German territories numbered about 60.000. About 6000 were killed, not 100.000 or more, as the film alleges.

On the other hand, to indict Luther with no study is simply unfair. Luther first published “The Admonition to Peace” (prior to the peasant’s war). In the first section, Luther blames the princes and rulers for the unstable state of affairs. Luther said to them:

“We have no one on earth to thank for this disastrous rebellion, except you princes and lords, and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks, whose hearts are hardened, even to the present day. You do not cease to rant and rave against the holy gospel, even though you know that it is true and that you cannot refute it. In addition, as temporal rulers you do nothing but cheat and rob the people so that you may lead a life of luxury and extravagance. The poor common people cannot bear it any longer. The sword is already at your throats, but you think that you sit so firm in the saddle that no one can unhorse you. This false security and stubborn perversity will break your necks, as you will discover.

“Well, then, since you are the cause of this wrath of God, it will undoubtedly come upon you, unless you mend your ways in time.”

“If it is still possible to give you advice, my lords, give way a little to the will and wrath of God. A cartload of hay must give way to a drunken man—how much more ought you to stop your raging and obstinate tyranny and not deal unreasonably with the peasants, as though they were drunk or out of their minds Do not start a fight with them, for you do not know how it will end. Try, kindness first, for you do not know what God will do to prevent the spark that will kindle all Germany and start a fire that no one can extinguish.”

Luther also previous to the peasant’s war, ventured into peasant lands to preach against the false prophets that were leading them into rebellion. They heckled him and interrupted his sermons. He thought he was lucky to get away from them without injury or being killed. It was after this encounter he wrote “Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.” Even in this, Luther was only exhorting “bad” peasants, or those who were using the gospel as a means of causing political chaos. Luther was convinced that the peasants that had produced the “Twelve Articles” were lies presented in the name of the gospel. It is against those peasants that were using the gospel to cause rebellion that Luther opposed. To put it bluntly, they were the devil’s agents, leading people away from the gospel. Luther said:

“The peasants are not content with belonging to the devil themselves; they force and compel many good people to join their devilish league against their wills, and so make them partakers of all of their own wickedness and damnation. Anyone who consorts with them goes to the devil with them and is guilty of all the evil deeds that they commit, even though he has to do this because he is so weak in faith that he could not resist them. A pious Christian ought to suffer a hundred deaths rather than give a hairsbreadth of consent to the peasants’ cause.”

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Rand Al'Thor:

luther also accuses jews of “stealing ‘our’ money” (that certainly sounds like a personal attack, rather than against the religion itself, not to mention he calls them “children of the devil”) and such…a claim that hitler made and a claim that is still around even today.

See Mark U Edwards book, Luther’s Last Battles. Particularly pages 131-132 which discusses Luther’s faulty notion that Christians were “being held captive by Jewish usury.” Indeed, Luther was badly mistaken, but, if a Jew had converted from Judaism, Luther’s rhetoric would have changed, because again, Luther had nothing against Jews as “Jews” as modern day anti-Semitism does. I can suggest many books on this topic if you are interested.
Rand Al'Thor:

i read that letter of his explaining the sola in his translation. first off, luther certainly thought a lot of himself. i thought pride was supposed to be a sin.

One of the interesting facts about Luther’s translation is the amount of attacks he received from Roman Catholics. I’m not sure if you’ve ever been to court, or been in some situation in which you were continually slandered and attacked. It’s simply dreadful. In Luther’s case, I can understand the anger he must’ve felt. Add to that Luther’s wit and rhetorical skills, and you’ve got the background for that treatise.

The editors of Luther’s Works point out:

Ever since its first publication in 1522 Luther’s translation of the New Testament had been drawing not only wide approval but also certain narrow and often envious criticism. Among his sharpest critics was the notorious Jerome Eraser (1478–1527), theologian, lawyer, and for over twenty years secretary to Duke George of Saxony. Like certain other rulers in the empire, Duke George had forbidden the circulation of Luther’s German New Testament in his territory. However not to be left without a New Testament in German, the Duke had commissioned Emser to provide a reliable Roman version. Emser obliged and, in the year of his death, lived to see the publication of his traditionalist version of the New Testament in German.

Outwardly it looked almost identical with the folio edition of Luther’s translation, even down to some of the Cranach woodcuts. But its introductions and glosses were all designed to cancel out those which accompanied Luther’s version. The text of Emser’s New Testament was based not on the original Greek text of Erasmus, which Luther had used, but on the Latin Vulgate and the late medieval German Bible. With these traditional sources as his base, Emser proceeded to “correct” the errors in Luther’s German New Testament; he did not claim to offer wholly a “new” version.

Emser’s translation, however, was not as traditional as might be supposed. Actually he had plagiarized much of Luther’s translation and then palmed off the finished product as his own. Hence the deep scorn and hostility which surges through Luther’s open letter, here before us.
Rand Al'Thor:

he tries to justify changing that passage because he thinks that’s what it should say. do you understand what that means? he’s attempting to supercede Jesus and the apostles because he believes that it should say something other than what it does. if paul had meant to say “by faith alone” he would have said "by faith alone.

Well, I think Luther explains himself quite well, and I don’t think his reasoning is attempting to “supercede Jesus and the apostles.” I get the feeling you’ve been in this discussion before, so I’m tempted to say that it won’t matter what I say. I think Calvin sums up the Protestant position quite accurately:

(Roman Catholics) dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added. Is it so? What answer, then will they give to the words of Paul, when he contends that righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous? How can it be gratuitous, and yet by works? By what cavils, moreover, will they evade his declaration in another place, that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested? (Rom. 1:17). If righteousness is manifested in the Gospel, it is certainly not a partial or mutilated, but a full and perfect righteousness. The Law, therefore, has no part in its and their objection to the exclusive word alone is not only unfounded, but is obviously absurd. Does he not plainly enough attribute everything to faith alone when he disconnects it with works? What I would ask, is meant by the expressions, “The righteousness of God without the law is manifested;” “Being justified freely by his grace;” “Justified by faith without the deeds of the law?” (Rom. 3:21, 24, 28).

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Rand Al'Thor:

that is not the only thing he changed because he didnt agree with it. luther did not like the fact that the angel Gabriel said “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” he didnt like the fact that Mary was placed above other humans because she would be the mother of God. so what did he do? he changed it so that it sounded like any other greeting. and how does he justify it? by saying that was the way Gabriel greeted others. did he stop to think of why Gabriel would have greeted Mary differently than everyone else? no. he didnt believe that Mary was without sin, so he tried to convince people she wasnt by changing the words of the bible. luther also claimed that saints had been made into gods and that we prayed to them…another thing he obviously misunderstood, plus he used the term “Mariolatry” which also implies worship. he is mistaking reverence and honor for Mary being the mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior for the worship reserved for God alone.

Interestingly, I have done a lot of work on Luther’s theology of Mary:

ntrmin.org/Luthers%20Theology%20of%20Mary.htm

ntrmin.org/Respone%20to%20Armstrong%20on%20Luther%20and%20Mary.htm

Most Roman Catholics attempt to argue quite the opposite of some of your conclusions.

Throughout his career, one finds Luther expressing the rich Christ- centered usage of Theotokos when discussing the incarnation or Christ’s Deity. Luther thought of Mary as particularly special. Luther was to call her “Mother of God, exalted above all mortals” when he considered she was given the great gift of being mother to the Messiah.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Malachi4U]

The 2003 LUTHER movie is pure Hollyweird (i.e. Lutheran too) fiction and propaganda. Hitler’s men would be envious of the propaganda and missleading depiction in this film. Imagine a historical film that never mentioned the Jews or the final solution and made Hitler out to be a poor picked on leader who was persecuted by the rest of the world for bringing Germany greatness and freedom?

To see a better film about Luther try the 1974 version with Stacey Keach. It was also written by a Protestant but is more realistic and balanced. Even this film is biased for Luther but it gives a fair taste of his mental illnesses and the false doctrines he invented to aid Satan by tearing apart Christians from the true body of Christ, His Catholic Church.

Say a rosary for poor old Martin and those Protestants he decieved with Satans help and influence.

 

[JP2ImissU]

Malachi4U:

The 2003 LUTHER movie is pure Hollyweird (i.e. Lutheran too) fiction and propaganda. Hitler’s men would be envious of the propaganda and missleading depiction in this film. Imagine a historical film that never mentioned the Jews or the final solution and made Hitler out to be a poor picked on leader who was persecuted by the rest of the world for bringing Germany greatness and freedom?

To see a better film about Luther try the 1974 version with Stacey Keach. It was also written by a Protestant but is more realistic and balanced. Even this film is biased for Luther but it gives a fair taste of his mental illnesses and the false doctrines he invented to aid Satan by tearing apart Christians from the true body of Christ, His Catholic Church.

Say a rosary for poor old Martin and those Protestants he decieved with Satans help and influence.

That’s pretty harsh.

 

[azcelt]

obviously ol malachai is ignorant of the corruption of the catholic church during luther,s time,if luther hadn,t stood up to it god only knows for how long these abuses would have been tolerated and the good news of the gospel been obscured. in christ,celt