Auschwitz vapautui 60 v. sitten

Olen eri mieltä kanssasi tuosta asiasta.


Siitä kirjasta vielä.
Onkohan tämä hyvä:
Nide / vol. 47 Luther Works'istä.

Niteessä on viittaukset Vanhan Testamentin kohtiin, joihin Luther viittaa.

Lutherin ilmaisemia periaatteita on löydettävissä juutalaisten omista pyhistä kirjoituksista. (VT:n puolelta. -> Viittaukset VT:n puolelle.)

vol 47 kirjoitti:

Olen eri mieltä kanssasi tuosta asiasta.


Siitä kirjasta vielä.
Onkohan tämä hyvä:
Nide / vol. 47 Luther Works'istä.

Niteessä on viittaukset Vanhan Testamentin kohtiin, joihin Luther viittaa.

Lutherin ilmaisemia periaatteita on löydettävissä juutalaisten omista pyhistä kirjoituksista. (VT:n puolelta. -> Viittaukset VT:n puolelle.)

Lue suoraan kirjasta sivu: 200 kuvaa hyvin Martin pyrkimyksiä.
Mikähän Marttiin meni?

tinotito kirjoitti:

Lue suoraan kirjasta sivu: 200 kuvaa hyvin Martin pyrkimyksiä.
Mikähän Marttiin meni?

En tiedä mikä olisi kaikkein oikeanlaisin kannanotto.
Tässä on yksi.
http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/555


Walther Library
Concordia Theological
Seminary
6600 N. Clinton St.
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825


3. Was Luther anti-Semitic?

Luther's attitudes toward the Jews can be found primarily in two works, That
Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523) and On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). Both of
these can be found in English translation in the American Edition of Luther's
Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House). At this time, neither of these
documents is available on the Internet legally.

A reading especially of the second work, On the Jews and Their Lies, written three
years before Luther's death, shows Luther saying much which today is regarded as
being intemperate, insensitive, and anti-Semitic. While examining Luther's
attitude towards the Jewish people and attempting to understand it, here are a few
things to keep in mind:

Luther was at one time or another during his life hostile towards just about
everybody, including his own parishioners, good friends, allies, opponents and,
himself. Like most geniuses, he often found it impossible to understand why
others could not comprehend what was, to him, obvious. His most obvious flaw
was his temper. He often berated himself for this, even in print.

Luther did not live in the 20th Century, where we have learned to deal gently
with each other in public. It was simply part of the times in which he lived that
one did not mince words. He was more abusive toward the papists and the
"Sacramentarians" (Reformed) for a longer period of his life than he ever was
toward the Jews, and these were fellow Christians. To this list we can readily add
the following: the Turks (Muslims), the rulers, the peasants, and many others.
While we should not excuse or emulate the extreme nature of Luther's polemical
language, it was part of the age in which he lived.





The Church and the State were closely connected in Luther's day. There was a
certain amount of toleration of unbelievers of whatever conviction as long as they
were quiet about it. But to publicly teach heresy or deny and insult the Christian
faith was not tolerated. Doing so could get one exiled, imprisoned, or worse.
Luther himself was never more than 50 miles away from death by burning at the
stake for his views. In Calvinist Geneva a notorious anti-Trinitarian was publicly
executed, although the Lutherans never went that far (except in the case of one
radical Schwaermer ["enthusiast"], but in this case the charge against him was
disturbing the peace and leading a revolt against the government, not false
doctrine as such, although the reason he had done those things was because of
religious conviction). The Jews who frustrated Luther later in his life were openly
criticizing the distinctive doctrines of Christianity, and Luther was simply advising
(albeit in intemperate language) that the laws against public blasphemy be carried
out.

One must keep in mind that Luther's whole approach was religious. Luther was
anti-Judaic, not anti-Semitic. He opposed Judaism as, from his perspective, a false
religion, which carries its followers off to hell. He did not oppose Jews and
heretics as persons--Luther is known, for example, for intervening with authorities
to protect individual Jews and, in at least one case, putting up his personal
Christian opponent, a former friend and a theological enemy, to protect that man
from the authorities.

So, what do we make of it all? First, we need to be fair and credit Luther for the
good things he did and said about the Jews. We also should abhor the intemperate
language and his cruel approach to opponents. All of this needs to be set against
the background of the time and place in which Luther lived. However, it is grossly
unfair to Luther to call him anti-Semitic.

--Rev. Timothy D. Schellenbach,
Pastor, Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church, Manhattan, KS
Rev. Robert E. Smith,
Electronic Resources Librarian
Rev. Richard Lammert,
Technical Services Librarian

Vol 47 kirjoitti:

En tiedä mikä olisi kaikkein oikeanlaisin kannanotto.
Tässä on yksi.
http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/555


Walther Library
Concordia Theological
Seminary
6600 N. Clinton St.
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825


3. Was Luther anti-Semitic?

Luther's attitudes toward the Jews can be found primarily in two works, That
Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523) and On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). Both of
these can be found in English translation in the American Edition of Luther's
Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House). At this time, neither of these
documents is available on the Internet legally.

A reading especially of the second work, On the Jews and Their Lies, written three
years before Luther's death, shows Luther saying much which today is regarded as
being intemperate, insensitive, and anti-Semitic. While examining Luther's
attitude towards the Jewish people and attempting to understand it, here are a few
things to keep in mind:

Luther was at one time or another during his life hostile towards just about
everybody, including his own parishioners, good friends, allies, opponents and,
himself. Like most geniuses, he often found it impossible to understand why
others could not comprehend what was, to him, obvious. His most obvious flaw
was his temper. He often berated himself for this, even in print.

Luther did not live in the 20th Century, where we have learned to deal gently
with each other in public. It was simply part of the times in which he lived that
one did not mince words. He was more abusive toward the papists and the
"Sacramentarians" (Reformed) for a longer period of his life than he ever was
toward the Jews, and these were fellow Christians. To this list we can readily add
the following: the Turks (Muslims), the rulers, the peasants, and many others.
While we should not excuse or emulate the extreme nature of Luther's polemical
language, it was part of the age in which he lived.





The Church and the State were closely connected in Luther's day. There was a
certain amount of toleration of unbelievers of whatever conviction as long as they
were quiet about it. But to publicly teach heresy or deny and insult the Christian
faith was not tolerated. Doing so could get one exiled, imprisoned, or worse.
Luther himself was never more than 50 miles away from death by burning at the
stake for his views. In Calvinist Geneva a notorious anti-Trinitarian was publicly
executed, although the Lutherans never went that far (except in the case of one
radical Schwaermer ["enthusiast"], but in this case the charge against him was
disturbing the peace and leading a revolt against the government, not false
doctrine as such, although the reason he had done those things was because of
religious conviction). The Jews who frustrated Luther later in his life were openly
criticizing the distinctive doctrines of Christianity, and Luther was simply advising
(albeit in intemperate language) that the laws against public blasphemy be carried
out.

One must keep in mind that Luther's whole approach was religious. Luther was
anti-Judaic, not anti-Semitic. He opposed Judaism as, from his perspective, a false
religion, which carries its followers off to hell. He did not oppose Jews and
heretics as persons--Luther is known, for example, for intervening with authorities
to protect individual Jews and, in at least one case, putting up his personal
Christian opponent, a former friend and a theological enemy, to protect that man
from the authorities.

So, what do we make of it all? First, we need to be fair and credit Luther for the
good things he did and said about the Jews. We also should abhor the intemperate
language and his cruel approach to opponents. All of this needs to be set against
the background of the time and place in which Luther lived. However, it is grossly
unfair to Luther to call him anti-Semitic.

--Rev. Timothy D. Schellenbach,
Pastor, Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church, Manhattan, KS
Rev. Robert E. Smith,
Electronic Resources Librarian
Rev. Richard Lammert,
Technical Services Librarian

Tässä on WELS:in kannanotto Lutherin kirjaa koskien:
www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/A/AlbrechtMartin/AlbrechtMartin.pdf


En tiedä millaisia CELC ja WELS ovat.
Mutta eiköhän noitakin kirjoituksia ole hyvä katsoa.

Vol 47 kirjoitti:

En tiedä mikä olisi kaikkein oikeanlaisin kannanotto.
Tässä on yksi.
http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/555


Walther Library
Concordia Theological
Seminary
6600 N. Clinton St.
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825


3. Was Luther anti-Semitic?

Luther's attitudes toward the Jews can be found primarily in two works, That
Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523) and On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). Both of
these can be found in English translation in the American Edition of Luther's
Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House). At this time, neither of these
documents is available on the Internet legally.

A reading especially of the second work, On the Jews and Their Lies, written three
years before Luther's death, shows Luther saying much which today is regarded as
being intemperate, insensitive, and anti-Semitic. While examining Luther's
attitude towards the Jewish people and attempting to understand it, here are a few
things to keep in mind:

Luther was at one time or another during his life hostile towards just about
everybody, including his own parishioners, good friends, allies, opponents and,
himself. Like most geniuses, he often found it impossible to understand why
others could not comprehend what was, to him, obvious. His most obvious flaw
was his temper. He often berated himself for this, even in print.

Luther did not live in the 20th Century, where we have learned to deal gently
with each other in public. It was simply part of the times in which he lived that
one did not mince words. He was more abusive toward the papists and the
"Sacramentarians" (Reformed) for a longer period of his life than he ever was
toward the Jews, and these were fellow Christians. To this list we can readily add
the following: the Turks (Muslims), the rulers, the peasants, and many others.
While we should not excuse or emulate the extreme nature of Luther's polemical
language, it was part of the age in which he lived.





The Church and the State were closely connected in Luther's day. There was a
certain amount of toleration of unbelievers of whatever conviction as long as they
were quiet about it. But to publicly teach heresy or deny and insult the Christian
faith was not tolerated. Doing so could get one exiled, imprisoned, or worse.
Luther himself was never more than 50 miles away from death by burning at the
stake for his views. In Calvinist Geneva a notorious anti-Trinitarian was publicly
executed, although the Lutherans never went that far (except in the case of one
radical Schwaermer ["enthusiast"], but in this case the charge against him was
disturbing the peace and leading a revolt against the government, not false
doctrine as such, although the reason he had done those things was because of
religious conviction). The Jews who frustrated Luther later in his life were openly
criticizing the distinctive doctrines of Christianity, and Luther was simply advising
(albeit in intemperate language) that the laws against public blasphemy be carried
out.

One must keep in mind that Luther's whole approach was religious. Luther was
anti-Judaic, not anti-Semitic. He opposed Judaism as, from his perspective, a false
religion, which carries its followers off to hell. He did not oppose Jews and
heretics as persons--Luther is known, for example, for intervening with authorities
to protect individual Jews and, in at least one case, putting up his personal
Christian opponent, a former friend and a theological enemy, to protect that man
from the authorities.

So, what do we make of it all? First, we need to be fair and credit Luther for the
good things he did and said about the Jews. We also should abhor the intemperate
language and his cruel approach to opponents. All of this needs to be set against
the background of the time and place in which Luther lived. However, it is grossly
unfair to Luther to call him anti-Semitic.

--Rev. Timothy D. Schellenbach,
Pastor, Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church, Manhattan, KS
Rev. Robert E. Smith,
Electronic Resources Librarian
Rev. Richard Lammert,
Technical Services Librarian

Tietenkään kirkon nykyjohto ei halua tunnustaa sitä tosiasiaa,että Martti Lutherin kirjat ja mielipiteet vaikuttivat niin voimakkaasti yleiseen mielipiteeseen ja huipentuivat
keskitysleireillä.
Lukekaa itse mitä Martti oli mieltä.Natsit ja Hitler olivat samaa mieltä Lutherin kanssa,siitä lopullisesta ratkaisusta.
Antisemitismistä ja antijuutalaisuudesta SE ON TÄSMÄLLEEN SAMA ASIA.JUUTALAINEN KANSA USKOO JUUTALAISEEN USKONTOON. Jos et käänny niin kuolet..../ joudut helvettiin

tinotito kirjoitti:

Tietenkään kirkon nykyjohto ei halua tunnustaa sitä tosiasiaa,että Martti Lutherin kirjat ja mielipiteet vaikuttivat niin voimakkaasti yleiseen mielipiteeseen ja huipentuivat
keskitysleireillä.
Lukekaa itse mitä Martti oli mieltä.Natsit ja Hitler olivat samaa mieltä Lutherin kanssa,siitä lopullisesta ratkaisusta.
Antisemitismistä ja antijuutalaisuudesta SE ON TÄSMÄLLEEN SAMA ASIA.JUUTALAINEN KANSA USKOO JUUTALAISEEN USKONTOON. Jos et käänny niin kuolet..../ joudut helvettiin

"Antisemitismistä ja antijuutalaisuudesta SE ON TÄSMÄLLEEN SAMA ASIA.JUUTALAINEN KANSA USKOO JUUTALAISEEN USKONTOON. Jos et käänny niin kuolet..../ joudut helvettiin"

Nyt rinnastat vääriä asioita.
Natsit tuhosivat kaikki juutalaista rotua olevat, myös kristityiksi kääntyneet. Se ei ollut uskontokysymys lainkaan natseille.

Raamatun mukaan juutalainenkin pelastuu tunnustamalla Jeesuksen Jumalan pojaksi.

päässeet elämän peruskysymysten äärelle.
Siis ihmisten välinen sukupuolielämä ja ihmissuvun jatkaminen.
Tuollaisen luonnollisen tapahtuman vatvominen on todella sairasta toimintaa kirkkojenkin taholla.

Sen ymmärtää, että katoliset askartelevat noiden asioiden kanssa mutta että luterilaisetkin.
Ortodokseista en tiedä, eivät taida moisia pohtia.

kirkot ovat kirjoitti:

päässeet elämän peruskysymysten äärelle.
Siis ihmisten välinen sukupuolielämä ja ihmissuvun jatkaminen.
Tuollaisen luonnollisen tapahtuman vatvominen on todella sairasta toimintaa kirkkojenkin taholla.

Sen ymmärtää, että katoliset askartelevat noiden asioiden kanssa mutta että luterilaisetkin.
Ortodokseista en tiedä, eivät taida moisia pohtia.

Tuomitessaan kirjanoppineet ja fariseukset kirkko ja papisto(pääsääntöisesti) toimivat itse heidän tavallaan.
Martti ei armoa juutalaisille antanut,itse siihen kuitenkin luotti ja siihen perusti oppinsa.