Nope, I don't feel like consulting Google to verify your new revelation that Luther hated Jews because they refused to accept his message, and not because of what the Bible blames them for.
I wasn't aware that Luther hated Jews and called for synagogues to be burnt etc because they refused to convert to Christianity - perhaps you have some references for this that I could look up to verify?
Ok, fair enough. I'll answer your question that Luther's contempt for the Jews resulted from their rejection of Protestantism - as opposed to your belief that Luther hated Jews because they killed Jesus, a belief that Luther held when he defended Jews and Judaism:
The first set of quotes are from wikipedia, on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_LiesLuther's attitude toward the Jews changed over his life. In his earlier period, until around 1536, he expressed concern for their situation and was enthusiastic at the prospect of converting them to Christianity, but in his later period, he denounced them and urged their harsh persecution and even murder.
Graham Noble writes that Luther wanted to save Jews, in his own terms, not exterminate them, but beneath his apparent reasonableness toward them, there was a "biting intolerance," which produced "ever more furious demands for their conversion to his own brand of Christianity" (Noble, 1-2). When they failed to convert, he turned on them.
In 1519 Luther challenged the doctrine Servitus Judaeorum ("Servitude of the Jews"), established in Corpus Juris Civilis by Justinian I in 529. He wrote: "Absurd theologians defend hatred for the Jews. ... What Jew would consent to enter our ranks when he sees the cruelty and enmity we wreak on them—that in our behavior towards them we less resemble Christians than beasts?"
In his 1523 essay That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, Luther condemned the inhuman treatment of the Jews and urged Christians to treat them kindly. Luther's fervent desire was that Jews would hear the Gospel proclaimed clearly and be moved to convert to Christianity. Thus he argued:
“ If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery...If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles ... When we are inclined to boast of our position [as Christians] we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are...If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. We must receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us, that they may have occasion and opportunity to associate with us, hear our Christian teaching, and witness our Christian life. If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either. [21]
In August 1536 Luther's prince, Elector of Saxony John Frederick, issued a mandate that prohibited Jews from inhabiting, engaging in business in, or passing through his realm. An Alsatian shtadlan, Rabbi Josel of Rosheim, asked a reformer Wolfgang Capito to approach Luther in order to obtain an audience with the prince, but Luther refused every intercession.[22] In response to Josel, Luther referred to his unsuccessful attempts to convert the Jews: "... I would willingly do my best for your people but I will not contribute to your [Jewish] obstinacy by my own kind actions. You must find another intermediary with my good lord."[23] Heiko Oberman notes this event as significant in Luther’s attitude toward the Jews: "Even today this refusal is often judged to be the decisive turning point in Luther’s career from friendliness to hostility toward the Jews;"[24] yet, Oberman contends that Luther would have denied any such "turning point." Rather he felt that Jews were to be treated in a "friendly way" in order to avoid placing unnecessary obstacles in their path to Christian conversion, a genuine concern of Luther.[25]
And from another online source I read through:
http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhist ... ejews.htmlSecond, there are seeds of philosemitism that regrettably do not grow into full form in those later works. “The Jews” in fact are “blood relatives” of Christ. Christians should deal kindly and gently with them – the Apostles, after all, were Jews who dealt with Gentiles in a “brotherly fashion.” Christians “must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love.”[37] He further recognizes that Christians are not the moral superiors of Jews. “If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either.”[38]
Thirdly, the venom of the “later Luther” is clearly absent here. Absent are the typical medieval accusations of host profanation, ritual murder, and usury. There are no crude or scatological references. This is not to suggest that direct confrontation is lacking in the work. The Jews are wrong, for example, about both Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ and the Genesis 49 prophecy that the sceptre (i.e., kingship) would depart from Judah when the Shiloh (i.e., Messiah) comes.[39] They, in fact, are guilty of crucifying Jesus.[40] Yet, never in this work does Luther descend into the depths of (irrational) antisemitism.
To be honest, I never knew that Luther's contempt for the Jews because they rejected him was a 'novel' belief as shafique put it.
shafique wrote:You have made the claim that his anti-semitism was borne out of a refusal to convert of the Jews he preached to. This is a stretch - and thus far no evidence has been produced of this novel view.
But I learn so much from shafique - such as Jesus' speech in the epistle of James, the beliefs and doctrines of Rabbinic Judaism, first century Judaism and Christianity, shafique's belief that Paul persuaded Peter to convert Cornelius in Acts 10, shafique's conclusions of the fourth crusade and now this.
So many pearls of wisdom. It's as if shafique has read every dot com website and wikipedia entry out there. I couldn't possibly compete with such a giant in the field of history and theology.
