Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Don't find anything confirming your contention about how Luther was influenced (the wikipedia conjecture that maybe he read that book doesn't prove much) but found some confirmation of my own view:The Bible Believers website shows many references to the Talmud in Luther's writings, and makes the following statement that the Talmud was the dividing line between Luther's earlier friendly attitude and his later attitude of denunciation: Here he refers to blasphemies against Christ and his mother: No specific passage is quoted but I know I've seen quotes referring to Jesus as illegitimate. That WAS the common Jewish idea, I see no reason why it would have been dropped, and the reference to the blasphemy defamation and curses against Jesus and "his dear mother" above, certainly suggest something along those lines. I don't see any reason to spend more time at this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am unable to find a single actual quotation from the Talmud in Luther's On The Jews And Their Lies. How about you?And where, exactly, does he claim to have read it himself?

Ohl.. that 'bible beleivers' web site.Well, you could not have picked a more bigoted and deceitful , and frankly hateful web site as a source of information. It makes strong lies about the Talmud, it clams Islam is a 'moon cult', it has 'illuminati' conspiracy theories, saying the pope was seduced by them..It is very telling you use that site as a source.

I don't know anything about the site. They have some references to Luther's Lies of the Jews, you know QUOTES and things. Deal with the CONTENT if you have anything to say.

Why would they lie about his reading it? Why do they have to quote him saying he did?

So you don't know whether they are telling the truth or lying to you in the most outrageous manner.As I had learned it, Martin Luther approached the Jews in friendship with the hope of converting them. When that failed, he became virulently anti-semitic. Kind of like you are when you fail to convert us.

I'd heard it was his discovery of their blasphemous writings and that's what that website suggests as well.

Yeah, and I heard it was because he could not convince them to convert.What I had heard is so much more typical of religious zealots.Of course, you could quote those "blasphemous writings" that you keep going on about. Hmm?We've already seen that you depend entirely upon ignorance when it comes to geology. I'm sure that that is not the only area in which you depend upon ignorance. You only need to show us wrong. Quote directly from the Talmud. That massive work the size of an encyclopedia, lacking an index, because it's all memorized.Quotes. Specific quotes. That we can verify.

Oh.. Quotes and things.You know.. the things they actually LIE about??? Sorry... but one thing people get judged on is the sources they use.Now, yes, Luther was a bigoted piece of Crap.. and that's because he accepted things about the Jews that were written by a liar and creep.Using that site to promote your bigotry doesn't do your credit any good.

Well, you heard wrong. Apparently, he got it second hand.....But, you have to repeat the whole 'The Jews are blasphemous ' charge.. without checking up on it yourself.

I didn't mention the website full of crazy that you linked to. As to why they would lie, perhaps they are misinformed. Or perhaps ... y'know ... anti-semites have been known to lie now and then.Did you see the bit at the bottom of the page, the stuff in red, which explains how the Reformation was a Jewish plot and how Calvin was a Jew backed by Jewish financiers?It's just possible that not everything on that website is 100% accurate.

I closed the thread about Francis as it was going off topic, so I wanted to give you an opportunity to express yourself here.

Evangelical/fundamentalist groups love to tell the tale Faith tells at the top of this discussion. They like to think of it as history.Actually, the story is myth. It follows a classic mythical pattern. The story is a 'Golden Age' myth. Golden Age narratives fall out in a broad three-part form. A
Once upon a time life was great. Peace reigned, milk and honey flowed, and the chiefs were wise.

​

B
Some vile false chiefs came along and corrupted everything. They brought forth The Dark Times: long years when evil reigned and everything sucked.

​

A'
Heroes have recently arisen to bring back the Golden Age. Their invigorating ideas are on the move. Soon the restoration of the Golden Age will be manifest to all.We see the Golden Age myth repeated in many stories and legends. Academics and scientists have hardly been immune to its charms. The first scientists labeled medieval centuries as 'the dark ages' and labeled their own time as the 'Renaissance (rebirth)' in a now classic example of Golden Age thinking.Something about the myth holds deep appeal to our species. The structure is pleasing aesthetically. As a narrative it makes one feel one is living in important times. Psychologists see it as projection onto the environment of a pattern we universally experience as individuals: the safety of infancy, the perils of adult life, the longing for safe harbour.Golden Age myths have their uses. But one of them is not writing history. The Pietist Golden Age StoryFaith's Golden Age folk tale is one she learned from her teachers. It's the founding myth of her tribe, the just-so story of How Our People Got Here. A
Life in the first century was golden. Believers were close in time to Jesus. They could work miracles. The community was united. Its leaders were literally infallible.

​

B
Nefarious villains brought about the dark age. People lost their salvation because of vile new false doctrines. For centuries Catholicism reigned and life sucked.

​

A'
Heroic individuals started bringing back the Golden Age. True truth is on the move. The restoration of the Golden Age will soon will be manifest to all.It's a neat story. Alas, real history has a way of resisting organisation into symmetrical storybook forms.Missing from Faith's narrative are a number of important and very real events. The conversion of Constantine gets short shrift. A giant missing piece is any mention of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. There's a reality that affects millions. Orthodox traditions predate the Reformation by centuries.The most urgently missing detail in Faith's case is any mention of Pietism. This belongs in the story because Faith's own subset of Christianity is Pietist. For the sake of accuracy she should disclose this.Pietism was a development in European Protestantism in the late 17th century. It began in Germany and spread to England and other countries. The identifying marks of Pietism may be seen today across the variety of movements known as 'evangelical'.An Introduction to German Pietism | Hopkins PressFaith probably didn't withhold the information on purpose. It's more likely that her teachers failed her. They didn't mention Pietism because they preferred that she go through life ignorant of her own subgroup's historical origins. They preferred that she think of its distinctly Pietist characteristics as simply the way things ought to be, the way all 'true Christians' act. She was never to be told of the long and rich history that preceded the fairly recent arrival of her own subgroup. She was never to learn of the existence of any Christians outside of it.Faith learned her flawed lessons well. She is here repeating her Pietist pieties and shining her Pietist light--unthinkingly, uncritically, like the good girl her teachers expected her to be.Edited by Archer Opteryx, : syntaxEdited by Archer Opteryx, : detail

My Reformed Protestant teachers tend to denounce the Pietist movement that arose in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, so there's nothing to "disclose" about how I'm supposedly a Pietist. I do happen to like some of the Pietist writings, but I consider myself to be a solid Reformed Protestant, Calvinist version.As for your claim that I was repeating a myth, it would be work to muster the documentation, but it's history, not myth. The only myth making on this thread is Archer's masterful reinvention of history. In fact he seems to be extremely adept at mythmaking.Had some Jesuit training, Archer?ABE: All that should be required to show that I'm talking about actual history is the writings of the Reformers who broke away from the Catholic church and struggled in some cases to get to the point of realizing they needed to break away they were so ensnared by its false theology. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your comprehension skills continue to be atrocious. You have missed the whole premise of Archer's post.The writings of the "reformers" don't mean crap. You need to show there was some sort of Golden Age before the rise of the Catholic church. Do you even know what the Eastern Orthodox Church is and what it's relationship to Catholicism is?I realize that you and your church honor and revere ignorance but this is just sad. You are a hateful thing aren't you. Trying to turn Jesuit into a pejorative. How utterly idiotic. I actually had some college professors that were Jesuits also spent some time at youth retreats run by Jesuits. They were the most intelligent and enlightened religious people I have ever met. I owe my grasp, understanding and ability to research history to a Jesuit. Though I may have never agreed with his religious views his views of life and history were profoundly influential on me.