LUTHER: The 2003 film with Joseph Fiennes

[CatherineofA]

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:

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]

MY RESPONSE:
Well, perhaps I should start off by saying that I do not consult internet links to verify historical fact. So, I don’t feel a desire to check it out. I did my undergrad as a history major and the ills of internet history was hammered in enough to those of us in the department! In most cases, they do not footnote nor do they cite references. They can be viewed as opinionated commentary at best which is the same as posts we are making here on this thread.
Now, in regards to Ferdinand and Isabella, their motives were not completely honorable as “national security”. When Ferdinand and Isabella married, they helped to unite a divided Spain. In other words, they brought their own land holdings to the table. In addition to their collective lands, they also fought to take areas of Spain that had a high population of non-Christians that were also not part of the Christian regions they governed. Forcing individuals to renounce their own faiths did help in the unification process. However, Ferdinand and Isabella (particularly Isabella) were known as the “Catholic Princes” to western Europeans and their desire to spread and enforce Christianity as the “right religion” was a major consideration to them. Western Europeans had a well known dislike and hatred for Muslims based on the Crusades and ills that had hit eastern Europe. Especially with the fall of Constantinople and the rise of Istanbul. Christians also had antagonistic feelings towards Jews due to what they perceived as their rejection of Christ. Ferdinand and Isabella were able to do what they did in the eyes of other western Europeans because of the ethnic and religious background of the individuals involved. Had they been Catholic individuals, death and torture for religious reasons would have been a dead point.
Ferdinand and Isabella’s influence on the Catholic faith is not complex and is very to the point. Their own granddaughter was Mary I of England who burned many innocent people at the stake for Protestant beliefs. Thus, her nickname Bloody Mary. Many who discuss her attribute much of her rabid Catholicism to her ancestors the “Catholic Princes” as well as the sufferings under Henry VIII by her mother Catherine of Aragon. For a documented reference work on the two monarchs read, Ferdinand and Isabella by J. Edwards. Longman Press

 

[CatherineofA]

I think that the Catholic Church is one of the last ones that can point a finger at others who practice religious or ethnic prejudice.
As far as Luther’s anti-Semitism, what about the ills of many people who claim to represent ideals of faith? What about the Borgia papacy? Catholicism has had its strong fair share of evil doers. Thank goodness we look at a faith and not the individuals who claim to represent it.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Malachi4U:

The 2003 LUTHER movie is pure Hollyweird (i.e. Lutheran too) fiction and propaganda.

Simple question: Did you see the movie?

Malachi4U:

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.

This is the type of response i’m getting used to. A few years back, Catholic “attitudes” about Luther provoked me to study the issue in-depth.

In the frist part, Catholic authors with a severe negative bias toward Luther was discussed:

ntrmin.org/The%20Roman%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Martin%20Luther%201.htm

In part two, Catholic authors that have taken wiser steps in trying to understand Luther without ad hominem attacks will be addressed. There is a wealth of Roman Catholic authors whose opinions and research are worthy of a close look. As Richard Stauffer has noted, “If one wanted to sum up briefly the path Roman Luther-scholars have trodden since 1904, one could say that they passed from destructive criticism to a respectful encounter."

ntrmin.org/Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Luther%202.htm

It appears to me, your comments toward Luther would fall in-line with the outdated polemic I looked at in part 1. But, happily, the Roman Catholic Church produced some great well-informed contemporary scholars. To the work of these men, I am grateful.

James Swan

 

[CatherineofA]

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.

I look at films with an historical plotline as entertainment. They give you a visual about an historical person or event. I have found that they lead me to read more about what actually took place. I have heard people state that they have been lead to learn more about a person or event based on an energizing film. If anything, that is one good thing that comes out of historical fiction.

 

[TertiumQuid]

CatherineofA:

MY RESPONSE:
Well, perhaps I should start off by saying that I do not consult internet links to verify historical fact. So, I don’t feel a desire to check it out. I did my undergrad as a history major and the ills of internet history was hammered in enough to those of us in the department! In most cases, they do not footnote nor do they cite references. They can be viewed as opinionated commentary at best which is the same as posts we are making here on this thread.

Great point Catherine-

I view links cautiously. I try to apply as much fairness and scrupulosity as I possibly can. I tend to be a stickler for footnotes and accuracy. On the other hand, I have some fairly awful documented books as well!

What is one to do?

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

CatherineofA:

I think that the Catholic Church is one of the last ones that can point a finger at others who practice religious or ethnic prejudice.
As far as Luther’s anti-Semitism, what about the ills of many people who claim to represent ideals of faith? What about the Borgia papacy? Catholicism has had its strong fair share of evil doers. Thank goodness we look at a faith and not the individuals who claim to represent it.

Hi Catherine,

Agreed, good point.- This thread has been an interesting sociological experience for me.

My guess is that most of the people that responded here in this thread very negatively toward Luther did not see the movie. So instead of actually discussing this movie, we chatted about Luther’s attitude toward Judasim. You are correct- anti-judaic thought has been a gross problem for both Catholics and Protestants. Ok. Well, what does this have to do with the movie, right? Nothing.

This is a common tactic in discussing Luther with those who dislike him. Rather than talk about the politcal/socio-religious abuse he fought against (as portrayed in the movie), lets try and dig up the worst things we can find about Luther. Interestingly, previous to the rise of Nazi Germany, this tactic was also used, without usually making that big of a deal about Luther’s attitude toward the Jews. But once Nazi Germany happened, this became a focal point. Those here that don’t want to come to terms with their own Roman Catholic history will always try and deflect a discussion away from the actual issues.

I noted earlier in this thread, I think the Luther movie is a good movie for all interested parties- if anything it points out what even Roman Catholic historians have noted- the corruption within the 16th Century Church. I think serious Catholics and Protestants can stand together against any corruption in any church, Protestant or Catholic. Similarly, we can stand against anti-semitism wherever it happens.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

TertiumQuid-

i apologize if i came off as just hating luther. i actually think that he had some good ideas about theology (such as the quote in your sig, which i agree with). there are more things that i disagree with him on, however, and those are the things i was trying to address in this thread. my arguements in this thread were based off of his writings and as far as the anti-semitism, the way he sounded to me (which to me personally did seem to attack jews and not just their religion). i cant in good consience think that the reformation was a good thing in the least, so i admit that i do have some bias in that.
i just want to make sure you know that i’m not arguing this stuff just because i dont like luther; it was what he wrote that i was arguing.

peace be with you.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

TertiumQuid:

I think serious Catholics and Protestants can stand together against any corruption in any church, Protestant or Catholic. Similarly, we can stand against anti-semitism wherever it happens.

i agree. a couple weeks ago on my campus, there was a table for a republican students organization right next to the table for our catholic students association. one of the guys from the republicans group came over and said he wanted to have some of the catholic students write about things like abortion (the catholic group had a right to life display up) in their newsletter. he said “i’m not catholic; i’m a protestant christian. but if we work together we can do a lot.” needless to say, we agreed with him.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Rand Al'Thor:

TertiumQuid-

i apologize if i came off as just hating luther. i actually think that he had some good ideas about theology (such as the quote in your sig, which i agree with). there are more things that i disagree with him on, however, and those are the things i was trying to address in this thread. my arguements in this thread were based off of his writings and as far as the anti-semitism, the way he sounded to me (which to me personally did seem to attack jews and not just their religion). i cant in good consience think that the reformation was a good thing in the least, so i admit that i do have some bias in that. i just want to make sure you know that i’m not arguing this stuff just because i dont like luther; it was what he wrote that i was arguing.peace be with you.

Actually, I was impressed that you read through the link from Luther I provided and passionately commented on it. That’s the way to deal with things- read the actual source, and then formulate an opinion.

Take Care,
James Swan

 

[Malachi4U]

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

Gods peace be with you azcelt,

Could you please give me a list of the mysterious items you imply were corrupt? Please list each corruption Luther cited and Luthers fix. Also name each aleged corruption Luther actually fixed inside the Catholic Church. Please give sources and references too. Be specific too, no generalities.

You could start by giving an example of each of Luthers 95 Thesis points. Where they really accurate on the Church or just some clergy in the Church?

You obviously are an expert so this should be very easy for you.

Please give us examples to back up your bold statements.

PS Members of the Church did have some problems but the Dogma, Faith and Morals of the Church were never, and could never change (be reformed) away from what Jesus gave us in His Gospel. The Black Plague wipped out 2/3 of the Catholic clergy because they went to the sick and helped them - and as a result they got sick and died. This led to a shortage of well educated Clergy in the effort to fill the gap that led to some poor understanding by clergy of those days, Luther included.

 

[deb1]

TertiumQuid:

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

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I am usually more careful.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Malachi4U:

Gods peace be with you azcelt,
Could you please give me a list of the mysterious items you imply were corrupt? Please list each corruption Luther cited and Luthers fix. Also name each aleged corruption Luther actually fixed inside the Catholic Church. Please give sources and references too. Be specific too, no generalities.

Hi There Malachi,

One of the ground breaking biographies of Luther was written by the great Roman Catholic historian Joseph Lortz. He is perhaps the most famous Catholic Luther scholar of the twentieth century. His two-volume work, The Reformation in Germany, is praised by both Catholics and Protestants alike.

Lortz takes a bold stand on the state of the church during the sixteenth century. It was in need of an overhaul. It was filled with abuse and theological ambiguity: “[Lortz held that] the reformation is a Catholic matter in that Catholics share the responsibility and the guilt for its happening. So we must make it a concern for us Catholics. We must accept our guilt… It was this state of things within the catholic Church at the beginning of the sixteenth century that made Luther and the reformation possible, even in a certain manner historically necessary.”

Lortz said:

“Theological confusion within Catholic theology was one of the specially important preconditions which precipitated a revolution in the Church. It is one of those keys which to some extent unlocks the riddle of the colossal apostasy.”

“Theological confusion revealed itself even more profoundly however, amongst the guardians of the doctrine of the Church.”

“The darkness [religious life before the Reformation] became all the more ominous because Catholics suffered from the illusion that Catholic doctrine had long since been settled on the disputed points. Few theologians were exempt from this illusion. In the polemic of the day- as we shall see- most of them used the unanimous consensus of the Church as an argument, whereas, in fact, on important questions only a more or less hazy opinion was the substitute for sure knowledge. The deliberations at Trent are proof of this.”

“In Luther’s search for a gracious God he came to stand outside the Church without intending to do so. And it was no prearranged revolutionary programme, and no ignoble impulses and desires which led him to desire or seek a break with the Church.”

Richard Stauffer, in Luther As Seen By Catholics, says also, “[The Church] needed to be reformed, [Lortz] affirms. Moreover, if Luther attacked and repudiated the Church of his day it was because he did not find true faith in her. Following Newman, Lortz thinks that the Romanists were also to be blamed for the sixteenth-century schism. But he does not stop at admitting the need for a reformation. Anticipating Congar, he laments the fact that protest and reform have not a free course in his Church, for, he writes, “the possibility of a true protest” which is neither a movement of insubordination nor a renunciation of unity "is necessary to the full development of any organism” (p.40). Atkinson agrees: “[Lortz] conceded that the Church of the sixteenth century needed reformation, and granted the validity of Luther’s attack on it, granting him the status of historical necessity. He deplores the fact that protest and reform have no free course in the Roman Catholic Church even today, and argues the possibility of a true protest being neither an act of insubordination nor a destruction of unity. Luther was in fact a creative genius, so complex that after four hundred years scholars are still unable to arrive at any common general assessment of his real significance Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic, 22-23].

Now this information might not be specific enough for you, but I only chose to focus on doctrinal ambiguity (there are word limits in these posts!). I commend the book(s) by Lortz to you.

Just so you know, Lortz considers Luther a heretic. “It is interesting to notice that Lortz still considered Luther a “heretic.” He explained Luther psychologically: In spite of Luther’s many wonderful sides, Luther was an “Erregungstyp” (“emotional character”). Luther formed his theology out of his own experience and therefore was unable to integrate other theological aspects which were contrary to his inner life and thoughts” [Johann Heinz, “Martin Luther and His Theology in German Catholic Interpretation Before and After Vatican II,” 147-148].

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Fidelis]

CatherineofA:

Fidelis:

Well, perhaps I should start off by saying that I do not consult internet links to verify historical fact. So, I don’t feel a desire to check it out. I did my undergrad as a history major and the ills of internet history was hammered in enough to those of us in the department! In most cases, they do not footnote nor do they cite references. They can be viewed as opinionated commentary at best which is the same as posts we are making here on this thread.

Perhaps you should judge articles and their sources on their own merits instead of dismissing them out of hand. One might suspect you are simply avoiding facing an alternative viewpoint than the one you hold. If you were a history major as you claim, it should be no problem for you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

When Ferdinand and Isabella married, they helped to unite a divided Spain. In other words, they brought their own land holdings to the table. In addition to their collective lands, they also fought to take areas of Spain that had a high population of non-Christians that were also not part of the Christian regions they governed. Forcing individuals to renounce their own faiths did help in the unification process. However, Ferdinand and Isabella (particularly Isabella) were known as the “Catholic Princes” to western Europeans and their desire to spread and enforce Christianity as the “right religion” was a major consideration to them. Western Europeans had a well known dislike and hatred for Muslims based on the Crusades and ills that had hit eastern Europe. Especially with the fall of Constantinople and the rise of Istanbul. Christians also had antagonistic feelings towards Jews due to what they perceived as their rejection of Christ.

Up to this point, I’m pretty much with you.

Ferdinand and Isabella were able to do what they did in the eyes of other western Europeans because of the ethnic and religious background of the individuals involved. Had they been Catholic individuals, death and torture for religious reasons would have been a dead point.
Ferdinand and Isabella’s influence on the Catholic faith is not complex and is very to the point. Their own granddaughter was Mary I of England who burned many innocent people at the stake for Protestant beliefs. Thus, her nickname Bloody Mary. Many who discuss her attribute much of her rabid Catholicism to her ancestors the “Catholic Princes” as well as the sufferings under Henry VIII by her mother Catherine of Aragon.

This view of the “Black Legend” has been pretty much put to rest by modern scholars. I could take the time to provide some helpful links but – well, you know.

For a documented reference work on the two monarchs read, Ferdinand and Isabella by J. Edwards. Longman Press

And of course we know books can never have inaccuracies or biases.

 

[Eden]

Having not seen “Luther”, can someone please tell me if the film ever attempts to explain why Luther believed he had the authority to speak for God?

 

[Malachi4U]

Good links that help understand the new Luther movie.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ244.HTM

elca.org/co/culture/rothaar.html (Protestant site)

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ503.HTM

I shall leave you with a few quotes. Do you know which of the so called great reformers said them?

“Either God must be unjust, or you, Jews, wicked and ungodly. You have been, about fifteen hundred years, a race rejected of God.”

“What shall we Christians do now with this depraved and damned people of the Jews? … I will give my faithful advice: First, that one should set fire to their synagogues. . . . Then that one should also break down and destroy their houses. . . . That one should drive them out the country.”

“Their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more.”

“Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.”

“The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.”

“Be a sinner and sin vigorously… Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice; sin must be committed.”

So who said these horrible things? A Christian? A great reformer? A heritic? Easy, all these were from Luther. True we all are sinners, but are these the words of a great reformer or a great DE-former? Was Luther just an excuse and a pawn of the rich and powerfull to steal the wealth from the people and Christs body, His Catholic Church? Even the Lutherans today I went to church with refuse to use the abridged and edited/plagerized bible Luther miss-wrote. (Yes, I attended a Luhteran church for a long time. My wife left it for a Baptist church so I went with her. I guess the winds changed that day? I can safely say I’d be Lutheran today had not the Baptists led me Home to Rome!)

Perhaps we should make a movie about Luther that includes his sinnfullness and his hatred of Jews? How he was used by the nobles to steal wealth from the Church? How he switched sides in the Peasent Revolt to save his own hide? Etc…

We are all sinners and I hope to see everyone in heaven, even Martin and Calvin and Zwingli, etc… Lets all say a prayer for Jesus to have mercy on the souls of all the reformers and that we all can find Gods grace and everlasting love for each other.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Malachi4U:

I shall leave you with a few quotes. Do you know which of the so called great reformers said them?

“Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.”

Hi There Malachi-

I can’t tackle all your quotes this morning. And besides, some of the issues have already been dealt with. The above quote though serves as an excellent example of how to present Luther in a negative light and prove one doesn’t understand his theology. It also serves as an excellent example of how not to quote Luther (or anyone for that matter). Simply yanking a quote out of a context is not a way to treat a person’s work.

Luther rejected the medieval use of the logical, “ergo” (therefore). He thought that theology is not systematic theological reasoning. It is not simply the matter of moving from one human conclusion to another. Theology is always a matter of “denote” expressed by his use of “nevertheless.” Those familiar with Luther’s way of expressing the paradox will understand what I mean.

Luther rejected the popular “prove it” mentality found in the popular theology of his day. The popular theology demanded “signs” (empirical epistemology), and also demanded “wisdom” (rational epistemology). In Luther’s concept of the “theology of the cross,” he posited a different presupposition about human knowledge and salvation. In terms of knowledge, God has placed himself above human control; He reveals Himself in the promise that elicits faith. In terms of salvation, Luther posited the “joyous exchange” in which sinners die in Christ and receive a new creation, a new life. He also expressed the magnificent dual: sinners as enemies are eliminated by Christ through death and resurrection.

In Luther’s theology, faith is a gift from God. God is in charge of our hearing His Word and our learning of Him. God controls access to Himself. The human heart responds to God by faith. God must step out of “hiding” and reveal himself to us. He doesn’t reveal Himself with signs or wisdom (through empirical epistemology or rational epistemology). He reveals Himself with a promise that invites faith. We know God only by the faith that He creates in us. Faith is active and embraces God. Faith places us at the mercy of God.

In a “traditional” concept of faith, faith is put into something that we can empirically or rationally verify. With this mind, Luther says by looking at the God of the Bible, one comes to know a “weak and foolish God,” since this God is not known by wisdom and signs (or by a process we can control). The God of the Bible reveals himself in what “reason” would think is foolishness: God is found in a crib, and on a cross.

Luther though, must not be seen as rejecting human reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning, but reason was always to play the role of a servant. Hence, when one reads strong statements by Luther against reason (say, in some anti-Luther work from the late 19th Century), one must keep in mind that Luther valued reason, but it must be the “handmaid” to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther didn’t understand the use of “reason,” it is simply the fact that “reason” must be kept in its place in theological matters.

For an excellent synopsis of Luther and reason, see: Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972. See particularly Part 1 Chapter 8 “Reason” p.64-71. Althaus explains this with precision. Althaus highlights how Luther saw reason as a gift from God, but yet fallen man by use of reason will never understand the gospel. althaus says that for Luther, “Reason must be miraculously renewed before it can believe the gospel” (p.69).

I’ve read articles in which its asserted that Luther did not understand Aristotle or Aquinas, but I have some great articles (somewhere) which clearly demonstrate that Luther had a good understanding of both. It is argued that had Luther understood these men better, he would never have formulated his theology as he did. This is simply false. If anyone is interested, perhaps it would be worth me digging up the material.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

you know, going with that “reason” quote, i think it would have been very interesting had luther lived during the enlightenment. i wonder what he would have to say about that time period if he had been alive then.

 

[Eden]

Eden:

Having not seen “Luther”, can someone please tell me if the film ever attempts to explain why Luther believed he had the authority to speak for God?

If it does not, can someone tell me why Luther had that authority?
I know that biblically we have had saints, prophets and apostles but Luther did not indentify himself as any of these.

 

[CatherineofA]

Fidelis:

CatherineofA:

Perhaps you should judge articles and their sources on their own merits instead of dismissing them out of hand. One might suspect you are simply avoiding facing an alternative viewpoint than the one you hold. If you were a history major as you claim, it should be no problem for you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Up to this point, I’m pretty much with you.

This view of the “Black Legend” has been pretty much put to rest by modern scholars. I could take the time to provide some helpful links but – well, you know.

And of course we know books can never have inaccuracies or biases.

Again, the majority of internet links do not footnote nor do they list a bibliography of sources. This is what makes them opinionated commentary. My being a former history major is what makes me able to distinguish the “wheat from the chaff” as you put it and my background has shown me that most internet links on historical events is mostly balderdash. If the average undergraduate presented a paper in the format of most internet articles they would be run up and down until their behinds were sore from the tongue lashings.
What is sad is that most people who want to discuss history or learn about it get almost alll of their information on these bogus and undocumented websites.
You have appeared to misunderstand my comments on books and journal articles. Many such authors have been cut down to size by the people in the community they aim to hit or rub shoulders. What they can be inspected for that many an internet web page can’t are footnotes and a bibliography. In hard copy forms the author has to present his facts and they have to agree with what is accepted about the period as well as the documentation available about the period. Books and articles lend themselves to investigation and the burdon of proof that an interent write-up almost never provides. The next time you use such a site look for the footnotes and references. If they are not there and clear as to location, then it’s a commentary.
As far as the modern scholars interpretation of Ferdinand and Isabella, you need to consult some real sources. Not viewpoints. Mary I and Catherine of Aragon and the “Catholic Princes” are not a legend. They were know for their devotion to Catholicism and spreading the faith and erasing alternative views. Spain and its need to unify helped Ferdinand and Isabella. The measures they used could have never been used had they not been dealing with undesirables-Muslims and Jews. To insinuate that the people were not harrassed due to cultural and religious differences is ludicrous. Had they been western European Catholics, there would have been no Inquistion. Whatever the motive, it happened due to the backgrounds of the persecuted group. What took place and how it took place happened due to the culturs and backgrounds of the persecuted group. It could not have happened the way that it did otherwise.

 

[CatherineofA]

Eden:

Having not seen “Luther”, can someone please tell me if the film ever attempts to explain why Luther believed he had the authority to speak for God?

The movie does touch on that. It is an interesting film even with the Hollywood twist.