Question to Protestants: is Martin Luther Christian?

[thomas t]

If Jews around him lied and blasphemed, I think it is not antisemitism to say it is wrong and that Christians should not do such things.

so lets consider there were some Jews hanging out telling some lies back then.
This must not be a reason for Luther or anyone else to incite violence.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

And here is another example of someone misinterpreting what I said.....out of all that I wrote, why did you isolate that without including the rest. That was simply an explanation as to why anti-Semitism exists in the minds of many Christians. The first Christians would have held immense animosity towards those who orchestrated the death of their teacher....not because he committed any crime, but because he told an inconvenient truth. Jesus himself condemned them. You can’t accuse Christians of being anti-Semitic without accusing Jesus as well. But nothing will justify that animosity turning into retaliation or violence.

The actions are what you dislike, not the people. Do you understand that this is what God does? By hating the sin and not the sinner, God makes room for the sinner to change his ways and to bring his thinking and actions into harmony with His stated requirements.


Again, you did not really read what I said. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews was personal. His plan to eliminate them served his own agenda and he manipulated his people by propaganda to hate them too. Hitler did not give a toss about anyone but himself....like many who had gone before him, the power of his position thoroughly corrupted him and he became a megalomaniac like other dictatorial despots. But the interesting thing about these despots is that, without the full cooperation and support of their minions, they would have been powerless.

I believe that the devil operates the same way. Propaganda works. Hate can spread like gangrene when you can persuade others to join in and make it appear to be a good and justifiable thing, when it is actually evil.....it can turn friends and neighbors, and even family members, into enemies. There is no excuse to “hate” or harm anyone, but you can hate what they do, and disagree strongly with what they believe.

Dear Deeje

Thanks for clarifying. I’m glad that I had simply misunderstood what you were trying to express.

However, the fact that quite a few of us did, suggests that what you wanted to say, is not coming across in your comment - that it is too easily misunderstood, basically.

This response, for example, is entire warranted:

This is an attempt at explaining anti-Semitism in general, as I see it.

However, by doing this you're lumping the Jews of back then together with those of today, as I see it.
This is anti-semitic itself, as I see it.
To me, your quote comes across as saying "if their ancestors killed him 2000 years ago, they would kill him today, too"... or it's like saying "they're all Messiah-killers!"

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Deeje]

Thanks for clarifying. I’m glad that I had simply misunderstood what you were trying to express.

However, the fact that quite a few of us did, suggests that what you wanted to say, is not coming across in your comment - that it is too easily misunderstood, basically.

I thought I was expressing myself quite clearly....but never mind....

This response, for example, is entire warranted:

You'll have to explain that one.....I have no idea what you just said......seems to be contagious....

 

[Kooky]

And here is another example of someone misinterpreting what I said.....out of all that I wrote, why did you isolate that without including the rest. That was simply an explanation as to why anti-Semitism exists in the minds of many Christians. The first Christians would have held immense animosity towards those who orchestrated the death of their teacher....not because he committed any crime, but because he told an inconvenient truth. Jesus himself condemned them. You can’t accuse Christians of being anti-Semitic without accusing Jesus as well. But nothing will justify that animosity turning into retaliation or violence.

The actions are what you dislike, not the people. Do you understand that this is what God does? By hating the sin and not the sinner, God makes room for the sinner to change his ways and to bring his thinking and actions into harmony with His stated requirements.

It certainly contributed to it, but antisemitism existed in the Roman Empire long before that, and there is good reason to believe that the gentiles who woud convert to Christianity since the 1st century AD simply took their already antisemitic views with them when they entered their new Christian communities. People have often liked to blame their problems on outsiders and minorities, and in Europe, Jews have always been both minorities, and seen as outsiders to first Roman, then Christian society, as they were not only forced to live apart by necessity, law and custom, but were often also transitory settlers, who would be forced to leave their former communities whenever things went bad. And so, we have a long ingrained tradition of both viewing Jews with suspicion and treating them differently than Christians, and of blaming them for other people's misery in times of crisis and hardship.

Antisemitism in Europe has taken many different forms since then, but that core seems to have always remained.

Again, you did not really read what I said. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews was personal. His plan to eliminate them served his own agenda and he manipulated his people by propaganda to hate them too. Hitler did not give a toss about anyone but himself....like many who had gone before him, the power of his position thoroughly corrupted him and he became a megalomaniac like other dictatorial despots. But the interesting thing about these despots is that, without the full cooperation and support of their minions, they would have been powerless.

I believe that the devil operates the same way. Propaganda works. Hate can spread like gangrene when you can persuade others to join in and make it appear to be a good and justifiable thing, when it is actually evil.....it can turn friends and neighbors, and even family members, into enemies. There is no excuse to “hate” or harm anyone, but you can hate what they do, and disagree strongly with what they believe.

Hitler's antisemitism itself drew upon an antisemitic tradition that was already deeply rooted in German intellectual life. Since many Ashkenazi Jews in Germany had converted to Christianity, or had simply integrated into modern industrial society, the antisemites had come up with a new justification for their antisemitism, a way to single out Jews even after they had become a normal part of industrial European society: "Scientific" antisemitism, or race-based antisemitism. Even conversion and assimilation would keep a Jew Jewish, or so they theorized, because Jews were simply a different race than Germans - intrinsically different in their genetic makeup.

And so, they could justify their antisemitism even in the face of Jews being regular folks who didn't differ in any significant way from their fellow German citizens. But because you couldn't tell a Jew from a Christian at first glance any more, the new racial antisemitism also opened the door to a new paranoia, that of the "secret Jew" lurking in the shadows, taking part in secret conspiracies to be the cause of crisis and hardship, just like they'd always accused the Jews of being cause for crisis and hardship.

Hitler wasn't the first who would use antisemitism for political gain. He wasn't the first antisemite who would link hatred of Jews to nationalism and nationalistic pride. He wasn't even the first antisemitic nationalist who would argue for a genocide against Jews and other "undesirables".
He was simply the most successful of the bunch.

 

[Deeje]

It certainly contributed to it, but antisemitism existed in the Roman Empire long before that, and there is good reason to believe that the gentiles who woud convert to Christianity since the 1st century AD simply took their already antisemitic views with them when they entered their new Christian communities. People have often liked to blame their problems on outsiders and minorities, and in Europe, Jews have always been both minorities, and seen as outsiders to first Roman, then Christian society, as they were not only forced to live apart by necessity, law and custom, but were often also transitory settlers, who would be forced to leave their former communities whenever things went bad. And so, we have a long ingrained tradition of both viewing Jews with suspicion and treating them differently than Christians, and of blaming them for other people's misery in times of crisis and hardship.

Antisemitism in Europe has taken many different forms since then, but that core seems to have always remained.

Hitler's antisemitism itself drew upon an antisemitic tradition that was already deeply rooted in German intellectual life. Since many Ashkenazi Jews in Germany had converted to Christianity, or had simply integrated into modern industrial society, the antisemites had come up with a new justification for their antisemitism, a way to single out Jews even after they had become a normal part of industrial European society: "Scientific" antisemitism, or race-based antisemitism. Even conversion and assimilation would keep a Jew Jewish, or so they theorized, because Jews were simply a different race than Germans - intrinsically different in their genetic makeup.

And so, they could justify their antisemitism even in the face of Jews being regular folks who didn't differ in any significant way from their fellow German citizens. But because you couldn't tell a Jew from a Christian at first glance any more, the new racial antisemitism also opened the door to a new paranoia, that of the "secret Jew" lurking in the shadows, taking part in secret conspiracies to be the cause of crisis and hardship, just like they'd always accused the Jews of being cause for crisis and hardship.

Hitler wasn't the first who would use antisemitism for political gain. He wasn't the first antisemite who would link hatred of Jews to nationalism and nationalistic pride. He wasn't even the first antisemitic nationalist who would argue for a genocide against Jews and other "undesirables".
He was simply the most successful of the bunch.

Thank you for that interesting background information Kooky, but it simply reinforces the outcome of cause and effect IMO.

This is how I see the situation through my “Christian” eyes.....

The Jews were always a hated minority because of their beliefs in a single God and their religious customs, so their history is one of bloody conflict with their enemies who always wanted their choice land and to challenge their only God. When they were obedient to their God, he supported them with victory even when they were hopelessly outnumbered.

However, when they strayed from the path of obedience (which was a common problem through all their history) God left them to be conquered by their enemies, not to mention the many times that God punished them with death at his own hand, often thousands at a time. So Jewish history is warts and all, recorded for our benefit as we can see why they lost God’s favor on a regular basis.

On two occasions, they lost their Temple (the very symbol of God’s presence among them) to occupying forces in order to demonstrate his extreme displeasure with them. The first time he allowed a “remnant” of them to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild their Temple and resume their worship....but as Jewish history attests, they could never stay on track. They always managed, through poor leadership, to adopt false worship and when God sent his prophets to correct them, he found them to be resistant to that correction. Jesus called them, “the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her” so this sums up their history and the reason why he said....”your house is abandoned to you”. His next statement was significant because he said that they would ‘not see him again until they blessed the one who comes in Yahweh’s name”. (Matthew 23:37-39)

We can see that this is not something that the Jews as a nation have done for almost 2,000 years, and judging from their own words down to this day, there is no acknowledgement of Jesus as that one. Nor have they ever been commanded to rebuild their Temple. If God was still supporting his nation, they would have evidence of his blessing as they had experienced in the past. But without their Temple, they are unable to offer to God the sacrifices prescribed under their Law, which they say is still in force.

From my own perspective, I do not see the religious Jews as having any evidence of their God’s favor. It seems that they rely on their political allies to protect them, just as the Israelite Kings did in the past, incurring God’s anger for their reliance on foreign powers rather than on Him. I honestly cannot see how they can still cling to their beliefs in the vain hope that God is still with them....they are members of the United Nations Organization, which makes them part of the world....something God never allowed them to be....something Jesus specifically taught his own disciples to avoid. (John 17:16; John 18:36)

So its not anti-Semitism that gives the Jews ongoing grief.....IMO it is a case of the leopard never changing its spots. They are as committed to doing things their own way as they ever were, but the “new covenant” that Jesus instituted on the night before his death, meant that the “old covenant” that governed their lives, is no longer binding.....But because they refused to recognize their Messiah because he did not fit the profile that they gave him, they remain in a spiritual “no man’s land” being as a much a “part of the world”....and as guilty of bloodshed, as any other political nation. (Isaiah 1:15)

The latest news of the stampede by religious devotees in Israel has to be a wake up call, because where was God in that situation? As long as the ancient Jews kept God’s laws, they received his protection from their enemies and He blessed their sincere worship at his Temple.....I do not see that today.....do you?

That is not anti-Semitism, but IMO, simply an acknowledgment of their present state being a result of their well documented past history.

 

[Kooky]

Thank you for that interesting background information Kooky, but it simply reinforces the outcome of cause and effect IMO.

This is how I see the situation through my “Christian” eyes.....

The Jews were always a hated minority because of their beliefs in a single God and their religious customs, so their history is one of bloody conflict with their enemies who always wanted their choice land and to challenge their only God. When they were obedient to their God, he supported them with victory even when they were hopelessly outnumbered.

However, when they strayed from the path of obedience (which was a common problem through all their history) God left them to be conquered by their enemies, not to mention the many times that God punished them with death at his own hand, often thousands at a time. So Jewish history is warts and all, recorded for our benefit as we can see why they lost God’s favor on a regular basis.

On two occasions, they lost their Temple (the very symbol of God’s presence among them) to occupying forces in order to demonstrate his extreme displeasure with them. The first time he allowed a “remnant” of them to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild their Temple and resume their worship....but as Jewish history attests, they could never stay on track. They always managed, through poor leadership, to adopt false worship and when God sent his prophets to correct them, he found them to be resistant to that correction. Jesus called them, “the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her” so this sums up their history and the reason why he said....”your house is abandoned to you”. His next statement was significant because he said that they would ‘not see him again until they blessed the one who comes in Yahweh’s name”. (Matthew 23:37-39)

We can see that this is not something that the Jews as a nation have done for almost 2,000 years, and judging from their own words down to this day, there is no acknowledgement of Jesus as that one. Nor have they ever been commanded to rebuild their Temple. If God was still supporting his nation, they would have evidence of his blessing as they had experienced in the past. But without their Temple, they are unable to offer to God the sacrifices prescribed under their Law, which they say is still in force.

From my own perspective, I do not see the religious Jews as having any evidence of their God’s favor. It seems that they rely on their political allies to protect them, just as the Israelite Kings did in the past, incurring God’s anger for their reliance on foreign powers rather than on Him. I honestly cannot see how they can still cling to their beliefs in the vain hope that God is still with them....they are members of the United Nations Organization, which makes them part of the world....something God never allowed them to be....something Jesus specifically taught his own disciples to avoid. (John 17:16; John 18:36)

So its not anti-Semitism that gives the Jews ongoing grief.....IMO it is a case of the leopard never changing its spots. They are as committed to doing things their own way as they ever were, but the “new covenant” that Jesus instituted on the night before his death, meant that the “old covenant” that governed their lives, is no longer binding.....But because they refused to recognize their Messiah because he did not fit the profile that they gave him, they remain in a spiritual “no man’s land” being as a much a “part of the world”....and as guilty of bloodshed, as any other political nation. (Isaiah 1:15)

The latest news of the stampede by religious devotees in Israel has to be a wake up call, because where was God in that situation? As long as the ancient Jews kept God’s laws, they received his protection from their enemies and He blessed their sincere worship at his Temple.....I do not see that today.....do you?

That is not anti-Semitism, but IMO, simply an acknowledgment of their present state being a result of their well documented past history.

If you don't think antisemitism is giving Jews ongoing grief, then how do you explain the Shoa in Christian terms?

 

[Clara Tea]

Inspired by this thread: Question to Catholics: Is Adolf Hitler a Christian?
A question for the Christians - especially Protestants in one of the traditions that traces back to Martin Luther - who consider Hitler "not Christian":
If Hitler's antisemitism is enough to make him not Christian, what about the author of this?
On the Jews and Their Lies

HITLER:

I should say a word about Hitler before embarking on an answer about Luther. Hitler most certainly was raised Christian, and made to attend church. Once Hitler rose to power, Hitler wanted absolute power, and the church wouldn't give it to him. That is why Hitler opposed the churches. But even before Hitler left the religion, he was doing very unchristian things, and the pope was helping him.

Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust - Wikipedia

Link says (RE: Pope Pius XII helping Hitler): "Some post-war critics have accused Pius of either being overly cautious, or of "not doing enough", or even of "silence" in the face of the Holocaust. Yet, supporters have held that he saved thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews by ordering his Church to provide them with sanctuary and aid, and that he provided moral and intellectual leadership in opposition to the violent racism of Nazi ideology."

I think that it is a matter of 3 blind men feeling an elephant....blindness limited the amount of info that each man had, so the elephant seemed like a tree, a rope, and a hose to each of the men. With sufficient knowledge of Hitler, I think that no one could deny that any pope who helped Hitler at all was not going to make it into heaven.

Newly Unsealed Vatican Archives Lay Out Evidence of Pope Pius XII's Knowledge of the Holocaust | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

Newly revealed documents, which had been held by the Vatican, have been released and now shed light on the relationship of the pope at Adolph Hitler. The pope had been informed of the slaughter of Jewish prisoners, but chose to deny it (source: Smithsonian magazine website, above). The pope was urged to ignore reports from Jews because, his aides said, the Jews are liars.

////////////////////
MARTIN LUTHER:

Luther was antisemitic. Obviously this is against the teaching of Jesus (who, himself, was Jewish on mom's side.....and perhaps on dad's side, as well). Therefore, not all of the teachings of Luther were Christian.

Was Luther Anti-Semitic?

Link says that Luther said:
"“Set fire to their synagogues or schools,” Martin Luther recommended in On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should “be razed and destroyed,” and Jewish “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them.” In addition, “their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.” Still, this wasn’t enough.


Luther also urged that “safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews,” and that “all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.” What Jews could do was to have “a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade” put into their hands so “young, strong Jews and Jewesses” could “earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.”"

One cannot behave like Hitler and still be a Christian.

 

[Clara Tea]

This is an attempt at explaining anti-Semitism in general, as I see it.

However, by doing this you're lumping the Jews of back then together with those of today, as I see it.
This is anti-semitic itself, as I see it.
To me, your quote comes across as saying "if their ancestors killed him 2000 years ago, they would kill him today, too"... or it's like saying "they're all Messiah-killers!"

Two modern popes stated that Jews didn't ask for Jesus to be murdered (or crucified). Rather it was Roman practice to get approval from crowds to do the heinous things that they did, and that spread the blame to the crowds. I reiterate....Jews didn't kill Christ (it was a generic crowd, not Jews, who agreed with Romans to kill Jesus).

But, Romans would have also killed anyone who opposed them (so if someone said that they don't want Christ killed, they would have been killed too, along with all of their family members). So, that assured complete agreement with the brutal Romans.

 

[Clara Tea]

Adolf Hitler was not a Christian....NOT because he was anti-Semitic, but because he was a genocidal murderer. The Catholic church backed him up, proving that they were not Christians either. (John 17:16; James 4:4)

It helps to have a wider view of these questions IMO.....anti-Semitism stems from an intense dislike of those who denied Jesus as the Christ, and orchestrated his death.....did God love them for that? I don't think so. Jesus didn't think so either. (Matthew 23:37-39)

It was the religious leaders of the day whom Jesus condemned because it was they who led the people to clamor for his death and claim responsibility for shedding his blood. (Matthew 27:23-26) It was the Romans who executed Jesus, but only because the Jews had threatened Pilate's political career.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not the Jews whom Jesus begged his Father to forgive, because he had already consigned them to "Gehenna". (Matthew 23:13-15; 33; Luke 23:33-34)

Was Jesus anti-Semitic? Is the Bible therefore anti-Semitic when it criticizes the Jews for their repeated departures from pure worship? Was God anti-Semitic when he wanted to exterminate this stiff-necked people? (Exodus 32:9-10)

Martin Luther saw corruption in his church and spoke out about it.....he was certainly more "Christian" than those who were promoting false worship and extorting money from those who sought to pay for forgiveness. These persecuted and excommunicated him for telling the truth. He was responsible for toppling the Catholic church off the pedestal upon which it had perched itself. All those who gained access to the Bible through his efforts are grateful to him.

The pope let Hitler continue with atrocities, and the pope, having been fully informed of atrocities, said that he had no knowledge of it (claiming later that Jews were notorious liars (as it says in documents of the Vatican released in the year 2020)).

The pope was said to have saved some Jews during Nazi occupation. But, the pope also made his presence known at Nazi gatherings (as your pictures show). Some priests actively sought out Jews for slaughter.

The Vatican has traditionally been soft on crime in recent times (allowing Mafia, Hitler, molesting priests, et al) to evade justice, and not pressure them (through excommunication) to mend their ways. They feared that driving heinous monsters from the church would render the church even more powerless in their affairs. Yet, to have such a light pressure is to allow heinous acts to continue. It seems like a judgement problem, rather than actual cooperation in most cases.

 

[firedragon]

Inspired by this thread: Question to Catholics: Is Adolf Hitler a Christian?

A question for the Christians - especially Protestants in one of the traditions that traces back to Martin Luther - who consider Hitler "not Christian":

If Hitler's antisemitism is enough to make him not Christian, what about the author of this?



On the Jews and Their Lies

Not a fair analogy. I can't comment about who is a Christian or not, but I can state that your comparison is flawed. If you read this same cut and paste, you will see that Martin Luther is saying that they cannot take revenge, Luther goes on to explain his counsel of how to handle this situation, avoiding synagogues, schools, and he says "we must warn people against them".

Hitler on the other hand convinced his toy people that they were of a higher aryan race. And he got innocent people killed directly.

BUT. Martin Luther got people killed indirectly. The "protest" resulted in the deaths of far far far more people than hitler. And these sentiments like "warn people against them" is obviously racist if not a better word and instills thoughts that is very dangerous. We dont know how many people were killed in the persecution of Jews of the time. They ran, and kept running.

 

[firedragon]

Originally Christian meant a disciple of Jesus and a disciple of Jesus is a person who remains in the words of Jesus.

…in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

I don’t know did Luther do that. But, by what I know, he seems to have done that better than many. If Jews around him lied and blasphemed, I think it is not antisemitism to say it is wrong and that Christians should not do such things.

Why did you change it to "some"? "Some Jews"! Thats not what he is saying.

Before you defend someone, at least try to read about the topic. Dont just defend with some assumptions just because he is the reformist and the father of the protestant movement.

Lets say as you say "Some Jews" lied and blasphemed. Alright? Just for the sake of argument. Then, to condemn "Jews" as he does, he has to be a bigot, or/and this is bigotry.

Luther says "Moses writes in Deuteronomy that where a city practiced idolatry, it shouldbe entirely destroyed with fire and leave nothing. Ifhe were living today he would be the first to put fire to the Jew schools and houses. [Followed by proofs from Scripture.]Secondly, that you also refuse to let them own houses among us. For they practice the same thing in their houses as they do in their schools. Instead, you might place them under a roof, or stable, like the Gypsies, to let them know that they are not lords in our country as they boast, but in exile as captives; like with out ceasing they howl bloody murder and complain about us before God."

 

[Deeje]

If you don't think antisemitism is giving Jews ongoing grief, then how do you explain the Shoa in Christian terms?

If giving the Jews ongoing grief is anti-Semitism, then God is anti-Semitic because he gave them a lot of grief through their sad and sorry history. They cannot deny this as it is all written in their Scriptures. God only withdrew his protection when they disobeyed him and lost his favor.....he only allowed their Temple to be destroyed when he really wanted to make a point. There has been no Temple for almost 2,000 years. Make of that what you will....

When Peter and the other Apostles appealed to the Jewish people to change their thinking about Jesus, he used some pretty straight language....
Acts 2:36-38....
"Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".
The responsibility for Jesus' death was laid squarely at the feet of "the house of Israel".

When Pilate tried to free Jesus after finding him not guilty of any capital offense, he offered the Jews the choice of two prisoners because it was a custom at the festivals for the Governor to release a prisoner.
Matthew 27:20-26....
"20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!” 23 And he said, “Why? What evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified!”
24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified." (ESV)

Now if the Jews had repented of that miscarriage of justice as Peter said they must, what of those who didn't?

When they basically cursed themselves and their children with Jesus' blood, who is to blame for any lingering animosity? To this day the Jews deny that Jesus was the seed of Abraham sent by God to bless all the nations, which is their choice and their right to believe as they wish.

That is their story and it has been for millennia. But it is still a bone of contention for some people down to this day.
I have no ill feelings towards anyone of any faith but I can understand the feelings of some who may still see it as a sore point. Its one thing to have thoughts about it...but another entirely to uphold violence of any sort on any innocent people who happen to be born into a particular nation or religion.

Its a tragic story and the Holocaust was an horrendous episode in Jewish history, but Jews weren't the only ones that Hitler targeted. If the churches had not supported him, then perhaps more lives could have been saved. A few brave souls did what they could, but by and large, the churches were silent. If that was a form of anti-Semitism then they have to bear that on their own consciences.

Just for the record, Jehovah's Witnesses stood up to Hitler and exposed his killing machine long before the liberation. They were persecuted by Hitler second only to the Jews. We were there in the camps with them as the Holocaust Museum will attest....

 

[thomas t]

Two modern popes stated that Jews didn't ask for Jesus to be murdered (or crucified). Rather it was Roman practice to get approval from crowds to do the heinous things that they did, and that spread the blame to the crowds. I reiterate....Jews didn't kill Christ (it was a generic crowd, not Jews, who agreed with Romans to kill Jesus).

But, Romans would have also killed anyone who opposed them (so if someone said that they don't want Christ killed, they would have been killed too, along with all of their family members). So, that assured complete agreement with the brutal Romans.

there is no scripture you could use to back this up.
To the contrary, Bible teaches otherwise: Matthew 21:38.

I take your post as presumption about this issue. Maybe the one of the two popes, too.

 

[stvdv]

Hitler's anti-Semitism was based on 'scientific' racialist ideas were Jews could not change their genetics so would always be a threat to German 'racial purity'.

Ouch... my guess is that Atheist Scientists won't frubal you for this

 

[Kooky]

If giving the Jews ongoing grief is anti-Semitism, then God is anti-Semitic because he gave them a lot of grief through their sad and sorry history. They cannot deny this as it is all written in their Scriptures. God only withdrew his protection when they disobeyed him and lost his favor.....he only allowed their Temple to be destroyed when he really wanted to make a point. There has been no Temple for almost 2,000 years. Make of that what you will....

When Peter and the other Apostles appealed to the Jewish people to change their thinking about Jesus, he used some pretty straight language....
Acts 2:36-38....
"Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".
The responsibility for Jesus' death was laid squarely at the feet of "the house of Israel".

When Pilate tried to free Jesus after finding him not guilty of any capital offense, he offered the Jews the choice of two prisoners because it was a custom at the festivals for the Governor to release a prisoner.
Matthew 27:20-26....
"20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!” 23 And he said, “Why? What evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified!”
24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified." (ESV)

Now if the Jews had repented of that miscarriage of justice as Peter said they must, what of those who didn't?

When they basically cursed themselves and their children with Jesus' blood, who is to blame for any lingering animosity? To this day the Jews deny that Jesus was the seed of Abraham sent by God to bless all the nations, which is their choice and their right to believe as they wish.

That is their story and it has been for millennia. But it is still a bone of contention for some people down to this day.
I have no ill feelings towards anyone of any faith but I can understand the feelings of some who may still see it as a sore point. Its one thing to have thoughts about it...but another entirely to uphold violence of any sort on any innocent people who happen to be born into a particular nation or religion.

Its a tragic story and the Holocaust was an horrendous episode in Jewish history, but Jews weren't the only ones that Hitler targeted. If the churches had not supported him, then perhaps more lives could have been saved. A few brave souls did what they could, but by and large, the churches were silent. If that was a form of anti-Semitism then they have to bear that on their own consciences.

Just for the record, Jehovah's Witnesses stood up to Hitler and exposed his killing machine long before the liberation. They were persecuted by Hitler second only to the Jews. We were there in the camps with them as the Holocaust Museum will attest....

Yes, that makes perfect sense, and I find it a disgusting and reprehensible argument. Thank you for your time.

 

[Starlight]

He was a bad christian

 

[1213]

Why did you change it to "some"? "Some Jews"! Thats not what he is saying.
....
Luther says "Moses writes in Deuteronomy that where a city practiced idolatry, it shouldbe entirely destroyed with fire and leave nothing. Ifhe were living today he would be the first to put fire to the Jew schools and houses...

I think he doesn’t mean all possible Jews and I think that quote about Moses proves it. However, the number is irrelevant. If Jews do bad things, should we also do bad things? I think the point of Luther is that Christians should not do the same bad things. Is that, not right? Should Christians lie and blaspheme, if Jews do so?

 

[1213]

so lets consider there were some Jews hanging out telling some lies back then.
This must not be a reason for Luther or anyone else to incite violence.

I agree, Christians should never be violent, for example because:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

If Luther really wanted to people to be evil and do bad things, it is sad and wrong.

 

[firedragon]

I think he doesn’t mean all possible Jews and I think that quote about Moses proves it. However, the number is irrelevant. If Jews do bad things, should we also do bad things? I think the point of Luther is that Christians should not do the same bad things. Is that, not right? Should Christians lie and blaspheme, if Jews do so?

He does mean all the Jews. And not just "Christians should not do the same". Please read it. 1213, dont just make assumptions.

 

[thomas t]

I agree, Christians should never be violent, for example because:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

If Luther really wanted to people to be evil and do bad things, it is sad and wrong.

yes, he really meant that people should burn the synagogues and so on, quoting the OP:

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy.

[...]

I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians.

[...]

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

[...]

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home.

[...]