I apologize, I had thought it was said in 1544, but I was mistaken…I was not using the following quote as a contradiction. I was simply stating what he stated elsewhere.
There’s no need to apologize.There is a tremendous amount of misinformation floating around cyberspace… and that Luther held a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception of Mary is misinformation. While he may have held to some form of it early in his life, after 1527 he no longer did.
Luther did grow up in an anti-Judaic society (there were certainly many Catholics that were antisemitic), and he seems to have written several anti-Judaic works, which I consider him to be anti-Judaic (as I do with anyone, even Catholics, that were antisemitic).
Terms are very important here. “anti-Judaic” is not the same thing as “antisemitic.” Luther’s arguments against the Jews were based on theological premises, not biological premises. If theological arguments are said to be antisemitic, then the New Testament could be said to be antisemitic.
I had read of it, but I could not find any specific instances (that I could fully understand myself). I again apologize.
That’s because Luther’s argumentation is complex in
de Servo Arbitrio, and on this subject one needs more than a few quotes from his writings to define his position. One needs to understand the theological constructs he operated with. In other words, the question of Luther’s view on predestination takes time to flesh out.
I was simply stating that upon translating the German from Luther’s Bible (from 1534) into English, the word “only” is added, which is not included within the Douay-Rheims Bible. I apologize.
… and as I explained, Luther’s translation was at times dynamic, not formal. This is an acceptable practice in translating.
I was stating that he attempted to remove them (which he did), but in the end he left them in his translation (although at the end of his 1534 translation of the New Testament). What is the issue with stating he attempted to remove them (which he did)? I am stating facts.
He didn’t attempt to remove anything. He was a 16th Century theologian that questioned the canonicity of the same New Testament books that 16th Century Catholic theologians did also (Erasmus, Cajetan).
Again, I read that he attempted to remove Esther from his canon (into his Apocrypha) due to his questioning of its canonicity (as he questioned the canonicity of the four New Testament books above). I may have been misinformed.
I would certainly like to know what you read saying this. There is no evidence I’m aware of that Luther ever sought to remove Esther from the Bible.
I indeed read many of my sources from Wikipedia, but I did not copy-and-paste anything (other than specific quotes from Luther himself).
I mentioned this because when I Googled this sentence of yours: “…four hundred years after it had been written, Nazis displayed On the Jews and Their Lies at the Nuremberg Rallies,” I found
the following on Wikipedia:
“
Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazis displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies…”
Some of the other information you posted about Luther and Jews appears to be taken from the same source. While Wikipedia can be helpful at times, it needs to be carefully consulted. I’ve found more than a few errors on Wikipedia over the years.
I apologize if I seemed misinformed. I have an outsider’s view of Lutheranism and thus I would not know everything about him. I simply stated what I read (after I had verified it through other sources). I agree with Michael57 in that this thread should be closed as it seems to be spiraling into being uncharitably towards others.
Once again, there isn’t any need to apologize, especially to me. Nor do I intend anything I post to be
uncharitable towards you or anyone here. Having a dialog about the facts of history is just that… a dialog about the facts of history. It need not be confrontational.
Bye everyone!