Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[josie_L]

Well I would first note that the gentleman here does not seem to be the most objective sort you could meet and I don’t believe he actually cited his claims. Setting that aside for a moment I would say yes. The topic of anti Semitism in Christianity would merit a thread of its own but here is a quote I found very quickly to give an example.

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)
We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.
The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.

I wonder what Trypho said to him.

 

[josie_L]

Also, Justin was speaking at a time when the Church was being persecuted, possibly even by Jews, I do not know the context in which you take that quote. I am curious to read this dialogue in its entirety. I did notice however that he is refering to God’s judgement, and not that he himself wished to destroy or burn and/or persecute Jews.

 

[GKC]

That, in my oppinion, is quite an understatment.

John has been defended by those who say that his most anti-semitic comments were aimed, not at Jews in general, but to those of his folk who were Christian Judaizers, who still participated in Jewish ritual, after conversion.

I have no particular knowledge of the situation, beyond that.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Inquisition (I suppose you are refering to the Spanish Inquisition) was set up by a temporal court, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. They had just if you recall won the war against the Moors, but there were problems still remaining. This had to do with protecting Spain more than it had to do with the CC.

So where did they get the ecclesiastical personnel for it ? What authority has a non-ecclesiastical authority to set up ecclesiastical courts ? It’s a pretty odd defence of the Inquisition that relies on attributing to the “Catholic Kings” the very same authority as Henry VIII is blamed for exercising. Are we supposed to believe the Popes had no involvement in supplying any of the legal or ideological basis for the Inquisition, & none of the clerics required for it ? This defence is sheer fantasy. And why is it so important that the Church should not be involved ? Quite a few contemporaries of the Catholic Kings regarded the Inquisition as good and holy & worthy of praise - shouldn’t you be praising it, & regretting the failure of the Popes to have, as you say, anything at all to do with it ?​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

done waht? what is offensive is having to view an image of violence while reading your posts…

Only one other poster agrees with you so far - besides, I can think of signatures for which I don’t much care, but my opinions of them are beside the point; those whose signatures they are, are not violating TOS, & no one else seems to object to them, & people have the liberty (within wide limits) to think what they like, even if it bothers another poster. If I & others can see that, why can’t you ? Some of these signatures include “an image of violence” - but if others don’t complain about those (& why should they ?), why complain about mine ?​

I don’t understand why the Mods don’t do something about that because they certainly don’t let other things go, things that are FAR less offensive…
In any case… it is ridiculous to postulate that a religious system is possessed…

Is it any more ridiculous than the old saying, very often said until forty or so years ago, that “error has no rights” ? As to the Mods, no one is stopping you complaining yourself.​

People are possessed, not systems… and needless to say, many things on this CAF are not verifiable but are opinions, as i stated that my thought was. I did not state it as fact… so don’t understand why you bring up non-issue of having to verify it…

Then go back to the post.​

Even so, my opinion is well-documented by what i have read…

i think a lot of people are virtually or completely possessed… I think anyone who suspects the Catholic Church is the real one and doesn’t join it is possessed… and i guess if he ends up in Hell… well, that would be “verification”…

That sort of attitude is a good reason for giving Catholicism a very wide berth. If I were trying to undermine a Church, that is the sort of argument I would use. It is probably no co-incidence that many atheists are far more “Christian” than many who trust in their orthodoxy or piety.​

Of course being in Hell is not verification. If you don’t understand, as you say you don’t, why bother replying ? Verification is not a non-issue. If it were said you were a multiple murderer, a serial rapist, & that you sacrificed children to Satan, presumably you would object. Since - AFAIK - you do none of these things, it would be grossly immoral (as well as illegal on several counts) to say you do them. If you were told, “Oh, verifying what one says is a non-issue”, would that not be a very irresponsible answer ? Of course it would - because the right to free speech is not a right to say any old thing, however damaging to another it might be: no such right exists, nor can it. Just it is absolutely wrong to accuse someone of those enormities unless one can verify that they have been committed by the accused, so it is with assertions about people being possessed - one cannot say that, & expect not to be challenged to verify what one claims. It’s a terrible thing to say.

big deal… Who said all we can post is historically-verifiable information? And even if that was a criterion … How does anyone know exactly waht happened way back when? We have only books and must take what they say on faith… I didn’t live 500 yrs ago and neither did you…

Then so much for the NT, which is much older than that.​

Surely it is self-evident that verification is essential if one is going to say something intended to be an accurate statement about the past. Can anything be said, however irresponsible, unfounded or untrue it is ? That you posted a reply, shows you don’t really think so.

If you can’t see why verification is of such great importance, morally as well as intellectually, I can’t help you

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Are you stating that the early Church fathers proposed such things?

Destroying synagogue & - later on - confiscating & burning Talmuds were popular sports among Christians. The really zealous Christians launched pogroms & massacres.​

For your reading pleasure, here are the sentiments of John Chrysostom on the Jews:

• [Medieval Sourcebook: Saint John Chrysostom (c.347-407)](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Also, Justin was speaking at a time when the Church was being persecuted, possibly even by Jews, I do not know the context in which you take that quote. I am curious to read this dialogue in its entirety. I did notice however that he is refering to God’s judgement, and not that he himself wished to destroy or burn and/or persecute Jews.

That’s not a defence - aren’t Christians supposed to love [their] enemies, & to render to no man evil for evil, but rather, good ? It’s immaterial whether Christians were persecuted by Jews or not. And it is not in the slightest a defence for the centuries of suffering they Jews were subjected to, for far more than a thousand years.​

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Shocking things everyone should know about people:

1. They do bad things.
2. Those of their church/tribe/family/etc. try to justify their bad things.
3. Those outside their church/tribe/family/etc. condemn their bad things.
4. Some members of their church/tribe/family/etc. find they can feel better about themselves if they condemn their bad things.

 

[ConfusedTim]

Shocking things everyone should know about people:

1. They do bad things.
2. Those of their church/tribe/family/etc. try to justify their bad things.
3. Those outside their church/tribe/family/etc. condemn their bad things.
4. Some members of their church/tribe/family/etc. find they can feel better about themselves if they condemn their bad things.

Ok lets assume that Luther was as bad as everyone else in his anti semitism - not a good trait. But if you also read your history he encouraged bigamy because it siuted his needs and also encouraged the perpatrator to lie.

Many people would imagine someone who is so holy that he could produce inspirational thoughts that set Christianity straight might actually have more reverence than being as bad or worse that Jo Blo of his time.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Ok lets assume that Luther was as bad as everyone else in his anti semitism - not a good trait. But if you also read your history he encouraged bigamy because it siuted his needs and also encouraged the perpatrator to lie.

Many people would imagine someone who is so holy that he could produce inspirational thoughts that set Christianity straight might actually have more reverence than being as bad or worse that Jo Blo of his time.

Well, my post was just a general observation about human behavior. As to whether or not Luther was a good guy, he did do some things I certainly think were wrong. It is just interesting to me that Catholics will attack Protestant leaders, such as Luther, while explaining away the faults of their own leaders. It is also interesting that Protestants will attack Catholic leaders, while explaining away the faults of their own leaders. This is something people do.

 

[ConfusedTim]

Lambic

You are right - we ALL do awful things - I suppose coming from a Catholic background we feel that we are always under attack and that our leaders are at times misguided but more often misunderstood by the general population.

I have read quite a bit on Luther and actually feel pity for hime more than anything. I have always been a bit of a rebel and if i was around at the time i would probably have endorsed his ideas because the church had so mant reprehensible characters at the time. Si i think he did some good to help the church re-think its modus operandi but i do not believe that he was a god inspred man.

 

[reteeks21]

What “rectification” is this ? And how can they ***possibly ***be rectified ? Can Christians raise all the dead Jews they have butchered, & unsay all the lies & libels they have uttered against them ? If there were any justice, Christians would be made to pay for what they have done to them. The “religion of love” has no sense of shame or decency; it should not exist any longer, not after such wickedness. Centuries of Christian hatred of Jews led to the gas-chambers - how can that be forgiven, or “rectified” ? ​

Sorry if I didn’t word it properly. I know it took a lot of time to do the mean faces, so this time I will try and be a little more specific. The Christian church has been the one that said “I’m sorry” for their sins. At least they have asked for forgiveness. Your opinion is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but to blame Christians for the gas chambers is a little far-fetched. If you want to see that Christians are punished, have at it. I never said all should be swept under the rug. All I did was point out that at least the Christian church has offered apologies and sought forgiveness unlike other religions that have committed terror in the name of God.

 

[Seamus_L]

Where are the apologies from Jews for persecuting Christ’s church throughout history and consistently siding with it’s enemies ? All we ever hear is how Christians persecuted Jews. St Paul told us how they persecuted the early church, yet we’re supposed to believe that all came to an end after the 1st Century, the Bolshevik Revolution and Spanish Civil War say otherwise though.
Amazing how even amongst Catholics you can say very negative things about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc, but the moment you mention Judaism, people become aghast.

 

[josie_L]

So where did they get the ecclesiastical personnel for it ? What authority has a non-ecclesiastical authority to set up ecclesiastical courts ? It’s a pretty odd defence of the Inquisition that relies on attributing to the “Catholic Kings” the very same authority as Henry VIII is blamed for exercising. Are we supposed to believe the Popes had no involvement in supplying any of the legal or ideological basis for the Inquisition, & none of the clerics required for it ? This defence is sheer fantasy. And why is it so important that the Church should not be involved ? Quite a few contemporaries of the Catholic Kings regarded the Inquisition as good and holy & worthy of praise - shouldn’t you be praising it, & regretting the failure of the Popes to have, as you say, anything at all to do with it ?​

I stated by who and why the Inquisition was started. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella had political reasons for inquiring (hence the reason it was an Inquisition) into the new found faith of certain converts. There was the real possibility that these conversos were infiltrating higher positions within the Court, only to damage it. The Pope at the time issued a bull allowing for such an inquisition, and Dominican priests were supplied because they were well-educated in law and theology. Torture was rare during the Inquisition, and people in general were treated more humanely than they would have been in secular courts. However, the inquisition was not under papal authority.

Here is an exerpt by Robert Lockwood’s article in Secrets of the Spanish Inquisition Revealed:

“But even at this early point in the history of the Spanish Inquisition, the papacy was having second thoughts. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) complained about the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. But, as throughout much of Europe, the papacy had lost much control over the actions of local inquisitions. Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) complained fruitlessly as well. The inquisition in Spain was controlled by Spanish authorities, not the authority of the papacy.”

You seem to want to think the worst of the Catholic Church, and content to believe the legends written by people bitterly opposed to our faith. If you wish to read anything worthwhile on the Spanish Inquisition, try Henry Kamen (He is reknowned for his knowledge of this time period and he is Jewish). Just look it up on Amazon.

 

[East_Anglican]

I think it is important that we know as much as we can about a persons character before we make judgements about whether he is fit to lead and preach. Many people for example do not realise that Luther (at least towards the end of his life) was shockingly ant-semitic. In his book “On the Jews and their Lies” Luther (1540s) makes some disgusting ascertations. Luther suggests that the German people should:

1. set fire to synagogues and schools
2. burn houses
3. confiscate all Jewish religious writings
   4)forbid Rabbis from teaching
   5)make the Jews slaves of germans

I personally find the above remarks outrageous and could never imagine that a person who could espouse them could be permitted to preach let alone help forumlate theology.

In that case those who authorised the crusades and inqusitions shouldn’t have been permited to preach.

We’re all sinners but God loves us anyway.

 

[jake23]

Funny, actually. I too have learned the original languages (fourth semester student - still taking Hebrew classes), and I have become LESS convinced that the RC church is right in the crucial issues that seperate it from the rest of Christendom because of it.

That the RC church itself should be perfect is a matter of faith, and not one that is supported by Scripture. Unless, of course, one regards the “the gates of Hell will not…”-passage as being about the RC church, but to say that, one must believe that the RC church is the Church that Christ established, which is also a matter of faith. And the whole “The Bible was written by RCs”-reasoning is dependant on this…

I’ve heard RCs use reasoning akin to “The RC church is perfect because the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it, and the reason that passage in Matt is about the RC church is because the RC church says so”, which is of course circular reasoning. I expect better from a fellow theologian, and look forward to what you have to say on this, and other, subjects.

I am not the one playing high and mighty in this thread, actually. And I’m not intimidated by the “take it up with me!”-roar. Bring it on!

Might I suggest, though, moving this discussion to PMs where the vulgus indoctum can’t derail it?

I dont need to PM I more than happy to share with everyone! Everything on here is already derailed by Protestants! this is a forum to answer questions to compare with what you have been taught yet all you have done is come on here to breed hate and persecutes Christ church! If you are a smart person and are telling the truth about your education than you would find support towards the catholic church, not the other way around!and the whole bring it on roar comments just show what I already know and thats you lack the knowledge of Christs! it is superficial and darn near blasphemous for your behaviour. So… mr. student I told you to begin the duscussion in one of the three languages of your choice so begin! Though it is sad that you take time in your life to attack christinas on there forums, but I will be more happy to defend them and Christ church through you littel debate!

 

[JonNC]

=ConfusedTim;4905329]Ok lets assume that Luther was as bad as everyone else in his anti semitism - not a good trait. But if you also read your history **he encouraged bigamy because it siuted his needs **and also encouraged the perpatrator to lie.

Please document how Luther’s needs were served by bigomy, and when he testified to his needs being served by it. A reliable source, Catholic or not, is just fine. He’s mine:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=philip+of+hesse
Luther

As regards the other matter, my faithful warning and advice is that no man, Christians in particular, should have more than one wife, not only for the reason that offense would be given, and Christians must not needlessly give, but most diligently avoid giving, offense, but also for the reason that we have no word of God regarding this matter on which we might base a belief that such action would be well-pleasing to God and to Christians. Let heathen and Turks do what they please. Some of the ancient fathers had many wives, but they were urged to this by necessity, as Abraham and Jacob, and later many kings, who according to the law of Moses obtained the wives of their friends, on the death of the latter, as an inheritance. The example of the fathers is not a sufficient argument to convince a Christian: he must have, in addition, a divine word that makes him sure, just as they had a word of that kind from God. For where there was no need or cause, the ancient fathers did not have more than one wife, as Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and many others. For this reason I cannot advise for, but must advise against, your intention, particularly since you are a Christian, unless there were an extreme necessity, as, for instance, if the wife were leprous or the husband were deprived of her for some other reason. On what grounds to forbid other people such marriages I know not"

Many people would imagine someone who is so holy that he could produce inspirational thoughts that set Christianity straight might actually have more reverence than being as bad or worse that Jo Blo of his time.

Or high-powered Catholic theologians of his time.

Jon

 

[josie_L]

In that case those who authorised the crusades and inqusitions shouldn’t have been permited to preach.

We’re all sinners but God loves us anyway.

Read my post above yours, concerning the Inquisition. And I won’t even bother with the Crusades, a little knowledge on your part would make it clear as to why the Crusades were necessary.

Anyway, for me to believe a man like Luther would be an impossibility. I am not convinced of his theology (for many reasons) mostly because he did not act like a man being led by the Holy Spirit. By their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[Ockham]

Luther was a deeply angry and disturbed man. Most of his followers are good people, but the dubious ones follow in his footsteps much too closely. Why anyone would practice an offshoot form of Christianity founded 1500 years after Christ walked the earth is for them to account for some day.

 

[josie_L]

That’s not a defence - aren’t Christians supposed to love [their] enemies, & to render to no man evil for evil, but rather, good ? It’s immaterial whether Christians were persecuted by Jews or not. And it is not in the slightest a defence for the centuries of suffering they Jews were subjected to, for far more than a thousand years.​

Boy, you really know how to blow things out of proportion, especially since my post focused only on Justin Martyr’s comments to Trypho, Since, I don’t know the entirety of the dialogue between Justin and Trypho,I will not stand in judgement of a man who suffered and was killed for his faith (may I have the courage to do the same).

P.S. Are you sure you’re Catholic?