On the Jews and their Lies - Martin Luther

[Anonymous No.6656881]

>tfw this could never be published today

What's your favorite religious/spiritual work?

[Anonymous No.6656886]

>>6656881
>/pol/tards think irrationally hating jews is 'religious/spiritual' in any way

end your life OP

[Anonymous No.6656923]

>>6656881
>protestant heretic

Personally I'll stick with Saint Chrystostom OP.
He did it right first. Recommend this for it's great spiritual clarity

[Anonymous No.6656931]

>>6656923

My man. His prose is always on point.

[Anonymous No.6656935]

>>6656881

really admire his thoughts on the Jews and his bravery to write that. But his theology i disagree with

[Anonymous No.6656943]

>>6656881
>>6656923

Are these good for beginner Christians or no?


>>6656886

pathetic.

[Anonymous No.6656977]

amazon.com/gp/registry/
wishlist/1NTHK5AMH0JQ5

Please recommend books to add to my Christian wishlist. Cheap but solid editions preferable, since I am broke.

[Anonymous No.6656981]

>>6656886
religious/spiritual doings are irrational, yes

tldr get fucked kike

[Anonymous No.6656985]

>>6656886

>critiquing something means you irrationally hate it

hurrr all literary criticism is actually hate speech

[Anonymous No.6656987]

>>6656886
Judaism is filth.

Nothing wrong with the jewish people, Christ will embrace them too if they come to Him in earnest.

[Anonymous No.6656996]

>>6656987

>be a Christian
>hate the religion Christianity is based on

Only Christians can possess this much cognitive dissonance

[Anonymous No.6657007]

>>6656996
Practicing Judaism after the Ressurection is akin to paganism.

[Anonymous No.6657020]

>>6657007

Oh, just fuck off with those smug axioms.

[Anonymous No.6657038]

>>6656977

that's a good list, I'd recommend The Imitation of Christ, if u haven't read it.

More Kierkegaard:
Purity of the Heart
Practice in Christianity
Provocations

[Anonymous No.6657041]

>>6657020

he's right though
go shill somewhere else

[Anonymous No.6657051]

>>6657020
They willingly turned, and continue to turn their backs on God's truth manifest on Earth. I don't see why one shouldn't be skeptical of Judaism as a Christian.

[Anonymous No.6657053]

>>6656943
Thats a pretty jew.

[Anonymous No.6657061]

>>6657051
The real question is why should anyone be a christian at all.
Theist? Maybe. Christian? WHY?!

[Anonymous No.6657077]

>>6657061

because it is true and only in Christianity can man realize his full potential and overcome suffering with love. And only in Christianity is history and our world given true significance and meaning sub specie aeternitatis...

[Anonymous No.6657081]

>>6657077

rare pepe and dubs confirm for truth

[Anonymous No.6657092]

>>6657077
Icons...hhhrt TFU!

[Anonymous No.6657122]

>>6657092

icons are choice

[Anonymous No.6657180]

>tfw /lit/ is genuinely christian

[Anonymous No.6657194]

>>6657077
rare? seems rare as fuck to me

[Anonymous No.6657198]

>>6657180
I'll pray that one day, you too will know Him friend.

Go in peace and may you know happiness.

[Anonymous No.6657205]

>>6657198

thanks, I'm slowly seeing the light...one step at a time

[Anonymous No.6657213]

It would be easier to publish today with technology

[Anonymous No.6657233]

>>6657213
it would be academic suicide tbh

belive me i know a lot of about that

[Anonymous No.6657275]

>>6657180
Amen.

[Anonymous No.6657279]

>>6657205
Haha. From christian to youtube atheist to lit christian.
The plebs keep on spinning.

[Anonymous No.6657288]

>>6657279

>my 12 year old self was right about everything; I never change opinions

[Anonymous No.6657298]

>>6657288
>animu
your 12 year old self too

[Anonymous No.6657301]

>>6656923
>Saint Chrystosom

That's not his name you retard

[Anonymous No.6657308]

>>6657180
>/lit/ is one person and that person happens to be someone I want to be

[Anonymous No.6657320]

>>6656935>>6656981
>>6656996

>>6656881
>>6656987

You guys know luther was just butthurt because he thought the Jews would convert once he "fixed" the church, right? Before that he wrote a couple of pamphlets defending Jews.

[Anonymous No.6657335]

>>6657320
And?

Being critical of Judaism is entirely consistent and reasonable for a Christian, but that is not to say that anti-semitism is.

[Anonymous No.6657337]

>>6657007
>implying Paul didn't say the Jews can achieve justification without Christ
>implying Paul didn't tell the Jews to continue following the Law

[Anonymous No.6657339]

Was the ever a crusade against Jews? Would've been so fun to deus vault against them

[Anonymous No.6657342]

>>6657051
>>6657051
>>6657335

See
>>6657337

[Anonymous No.6657344]

>>6657337
>>implying Paul didn't say the Jews can achieve justification without Christ

citation

[Anonymous No.6657345]

>/pol/ edgelords in /lit/
Absolutely disgusting. Go read Maimonides.

[Anonymous No.6657352]

>>6657345
Fuck off back to reddit, if you can't handle intelligent discussion then maybe you should go back to your circle jerk

[Anonymous No.6657355]

>>6657345

umm no

[Anonymous No.6657363]

>>6657337
>implying Paul didn't say the Jews can achieve justification without Christ
Where?
>>6657337
>implying Paul didn't tell the Jews to continue following the Law
Messianic judaism/Jewish christianity != Judaism.

[Anonymous No.6657365]

>>6657345

as a Jew (half jew on father side) I always preferred Christian morality and values to ours.

I'd be a christian myself I just can't accept the supernatural claims. This thread was pretty good until someone really butthurt got triggered

[Anonymous No.6657366]

>>6657352
>intelligent discussion
>HURR KIKES

Yeah, no.

[Anonymous No.6657371]

>>6657352
>this thread
>intelligent discussion
>joos and dues vult

Maybe Intelligent for /pol/

[Anonymous No.6657376]

>>6657077
>because it is true and only in Christianity can man realize his full potential and overcome suffering with love. And only in Christianity is history and our world given true significance and meaning sub specie aeternitatis...

This sounds interesting can...can you elaborate?? I want to learn

[Anonymous No.6657381]

>>6657366
>>6657371
>ooh we can't handle non pc views
>let's just call our opponents nazis
Typical.

[Anonymous No.6657387]

>>6657371
>>6657366
>something like two shitposts like that
>THIS THREAD IS SHIT AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD FOR POSTING IN IT YOU NAZIS
Stop ruining our thread.

[Anonymous No.6657389]

>>6657381
Trying to frame your views as non-PC is the taint of an edgelord. There's nothing intelligent in that. The way you retort with sarcasm just proves the point.

/pol/ is that way

[Anonymous No.6657390]

>>6657381
That's the thing, you do not have any "views", you're just throwing around insults. You're too easy to spot, try camouflaging with pseudo-intellectual posturing or something.

[Anonymous No.6657392]

>>6657376

You should read The Imitation of Christ, by Kempis.

It's great regardless of where you are on the
path, beginner or advanced.

>>6657366
>>6657371
>>6657337

Grow up kid. Stop forcing a "shitpost" session.

>>6657339

Yes the romans had several wars against the jews due to jewish shenanigans and cruelty. Who do you think kicked them out of Israel and destroyed their temple? Romans.
They were nomads ever since...until WW2

[Anonymous No.6657395]

>>6657365
I've got nothing inherently for Christian or Jewish thought, /lit/ is a place to debate. But when the debate is just a smokescreen for /pol/tards, one has to raise the issue. They already have their own boards to shitpost.

[Anonymous No.6657400]

>>6657339
Of course not, the jews hadn't owned land for centuries at that point.

Papist violence and secular power is one of the things ruining Christianity though.
>>6657392
>I don't know what a crusade is.

[Anonymous No.6657401]

>>6657381
If it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck

>/pol/ is only about nazis

[Anonymous No.6657403]

>>6657344
Read Lloyd Gaston/John Gager/any of the other "radical new perspective" scholars. Basically Paul says that even though Jews have rejected the gospel, they are "beloved on account of the patriarchs" (Romans 11:28) - in other words, God will uphold His End of the Covenant, even though Israel has neglected their half of the deal.

"Paul does not envision Israel's eschatological salvation as its absorption into the Gentile-Christian Church ... Israel has a special eschatological destiny for Paul ... [salvation is] through Christ for Grntiles, through the Law for Israel" - John Gager, "Reinventing Paul" page 59

[Anonymous No.6657406]

>>6657395
>when the debate is just a smokescreen for /pol/tards
Maybe that was the OP intention, but that is not at all how the thread developed.

[Anonymous No.6657416]

>>6657363
See
>>6657403
As for your bit about messianic Judaism, I'm not sure what your point is. Paul makes it pretty clear that Jews will be justified through the covenant regardless of whether or not they accept Christ.

[Anonymous No.6657422]

>>6657403

>Romans 11:28
>"beloved on account of the patriarchs"

says nothing of their salvation being simply a matter of following "laws"

It says Israel is partially hardened, for the sake of the fullness of Gentiles, and then Israel will be saved as well. So it sounds like Gentiles are getting priority...and then eventually Israel will have it's turn.

It doesn't say what you want it to say about salvation having a different criteria for jews.

[Anonymous No.6657435]

>>6657422
This thing of different criteria shows up in Jewish thought as well. To put it shortly, the gentiles can be saved by following the Noahide laws only, and a Jew will only be saved if he follows 613 mitzvot, commandments if you will.

[Anonymous No.6657444]

>>6657435
>>6657435
>This thing of different criteria shows up in Jewish thought as well.

That has no bearing on Christianity or Paul's writings though.

[Anonymous No.6657459]

>>6657444
I'm not who you're arguing with, it just felt fitting to mention. It would fit a mold if Christian thought had the same relationship to Jews as Jewish thought has to Christians.

[Anonymous No.6657460]

>"On the Jews and their Lies"
>mfw jews saying they can be saved without Christ in this thread

[Anonymous No.6657466]

>>6657460
Well of course they believe that, otherwise they wouldn't be jews. therefore, it's not a lie.

[Anonymous No.6657471]

>>6657422
>says nothing of their salvation being simply a matter of following "laws"
"For Paul, as for other Jews, the Law was and remained valid for Jews" Peter Tomson, "Paul and the Jewish Law" page 237
"For Jews and for Jewish proselytes the Mosaic law, as Paul sees it, retains its full and unaltered validity" Pinchas Lapide, "Paul: Rabbi and Apostle" page 42.

>>6657444
why not? there are people who argue that Paul remained a Torah-observant Jew his entire life.

[Anonymous No.6657474]

>>6657460
I'm not a Jew, I'm just up to date on my Pauline studies and can recognize that people have been taking Paul out of his historical context for millenia.

[Anonymous No.6657475]

>>6657471
>Paul remained a Torah-observant Jew his entire life.
A messianic jew.

[Anonymous No.6657479]

>>6657475
exactly. What's the issue?

[Anonymous No.6657480]

>>6657466

they're saying Paul said that, as if it's a Christian belief not simply a judaism thing

[Anonymous No.6657493]

>>6657471
>Peter Tomson says this about Paul
>there are people who argue who say
>so and so thinks this about the Bible

what a lazy way to argue.

[Anonymous No.6657497]

>>6657480
That's one guy, and he apparently takes it from two different books on Paul. He's also probably not jewish, why would jews read books about Paul?

[Anonymous No.6657500]

>>6657475
>Paul
>A messianic jew.

Messianic judaism started in the 1900s. Paul died long before.

[Anonymous No.6657502]

>>6657493
What are you a protestant?

Not that guy but your counter is just as, if not lazier than his argument.

[Anonymous No.6657508]

>>6657500
Jewish Christian then, it's so analogous it's barely worth distinguishing.

[Anonymous No.6657513]

>>6657480
It isn't "simply a judaism thing." this is a biblical scholarship thing - it's pretty clear people have been misinterpreting Paul for centuries. If that represents some existential threat to your faith, you might have bigger problems. Christian belief should be informed as much by reason as by >muh tradition

[Anonymous No.6657524]

>>6657508
>Jewish Christian
Paul wasn't any kind of Christian - Christianity didn't exist yet. Paul was a Jew, just like Jesus.


>>6657493
boo hoo

[Anonymous No.6657537]

this thread is dildos

[Anonymous No.6657539]

>>6657513

Why do you think a couple out of context quotes and an appeal to authority is a reasonable way to argue?

[Anonymous No.6657542]

>>6657524
>Paul wasn't any kind of Christian - Christianity didn't exist yet. Paul was a Jew, just like Jesus.
Nothing but extremely lazy casuistry tbh

[Anonymous No.6657544]

>>6657524
>Paul wasn't any kind of Christian - Christianity didn't exist

Paul said he was beating up Christians before he found Christ. So ya, there were Christians running around...

>mfw this thread title is 100% accurate

[Anonymous No.6657552]

>>6657539
because these faggots
>>6657344
>>6657363
lliterally asked me for citations?
this is literally entry-level Pauline studies

[Anonymous No.6657560]

>>6657552
>entry-level Pauline studies

Where? Tel Aviv University?
Go to a Christian Church and study Paul there.

[Anonymous No.6657566]

>>6657552

Citations means Biblical citation, along with some justification for your argument.

Not just quoting some guy who shares your opinion.

[Anonymous No.6657576]

>>6657544
>Paul said he was beating up Christians before he found Christ. So ya, there were Christians running around...
Paul doesn't use the term "Christian" anywhere, and there's no reason to assume that Paul considered himself or his fellow Christ-followers to be members of a new religion.

[Anonymous No.6657599]

>>6657560
dude, any Christian seminary (okay, maybe not evangelical ones) will teach you this stuff.

>>6657566
>citations mean biblical citation
that's the problem, though - you need to look beyond just the epistles and look at the historical context, ortherwise you're simply projecting modern ideas onto the past.

[Anonymous No.6657604]

>>6657566
But here are some passages from Romans that should get you started :^)

>Do we overthrow the Law through faith? By no means! On the contrary we uphold the law (3:31)
>Is the Law sin? By no means! (7:7)
>Has God rejected his people? By no means! (11:1)

[Anonymous No.6657607]

>>6657576

>Paul doesn't use the term "Christian" anywhere

People were referring to them as Christians, Luke did.
"The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts 11:26

being a Christ-follower is the definition of the new religion, so it doesn't matter how you title it really. Sometimes they were called Nazarenes...Paul differentiated between regular jews and the Church of Jesus-followers, so ya in his mind there was a difference. New convenant and all.

[Anonymous No.6657609]

>>6657604

the law is love, not juridical hebrew law :^)
foods aren't unclean anymore chaim

[Anonymous No.6657630]

>>6657604

God hasn't rejected the Jews, they are offered the same chance for salvation as gentiles. He hasn't turned his back on them, he is re-educating them. Giving them another chance.

Simple.

[Anonymous No.6657649]

>>6657337
Huh. I thought early christians were Jews? This almost implies Christianity was a designer religion to subjugate outsiders, removing virtues like honor and pride from the our glorious pagan ancestors and mentally enslaving them.
Seriously though, from a clas war perspective its like most fundaments of Christianity were meant to supress rebellion and encourage obedience. Turn the other cheek and whatnot. Or maybe that was the Romans doing when they unified the religion?

[Anonymous No.6657711]

>>6657649


>Or maybe that was the Romans doing when they unified the religion?

by unified you mean stopped outlawing and persecuting christians?

[Anonymous No.6657719]

>>6657607
>People were referring to them as Christians, Luke did.
>"The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts 11:26

You are aware that the author of Luke/Acts was writing 40 years after Paul died, right? At which point a Christian community had emerged. And the author of Luke/Acts is not an entirely reliable narrator. Paul would have been totally unfamiliar with the term "christianity"

>being a Christ-follower is the definition of the new religion, so it doesn't matter how you title it really. Sometimes they were called Nazarenes...Paul differentiated between regular jews and the Church of Jesus-followers, so ya in his mind there was a difference. New convenant and all.

All of this took place within the context of traditional talmudic judaism, though. Paul never saw himself as anything but a talmudic jew.

>>6657609
>the law is love, not juridical hebrew law :^)
except in both those quotes he's explicitly discussing hebrew law - if you look at the surrounding verses I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

>foods aren't unclean anymore chaim
For the millionth time, I'm not jewish, and in anycase you're misunderstanding Paul. The Law is only upheld for the Jews - Gentiles do not need to follow the law (in fact, they shouldn't even try - gentiles who "rely on works of the law are under a curse" (Gal 3:10))

>>6657630
>God hasn't rejected the Jews, they are offered the same chance for salvation as gentiles
Where does Paul say this? [spoiler alert: he doesn't say it anywhere, you're just projecting centuries of church dogma and assumptions back onto him]

[Anonymous No.6657744]

>>6657649
keep in mind that Paul wasn't really thinking about long-term social impacts - he thought the world was going to end within his lifetime:

> I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. 1 Corinthians 7:29-31.

[Anonymous No.6657835]

>>6657719
>You are aware that the author of Luke/Acts was writing 40 years after Paul died, right?

Paul himself referred to persecuting the "church" aka the followers of Jesus. So a distinction existed in his time already, even if he had no name. And he joined that Church, and tried to get Jews and Gentiles to join it as well, that was the whole point of his epistles.

>Where does Paul say this?

read any of his epistles. Salvation is universal not culturally or racially specific.
Salvation is via faith/obedience in Christ for all.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight...." (Rom. 3:19).

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested...." (3:20).

"Being justified freely by his grace...." (3:24).

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justified the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (4:5).

"...God imputeth righteousness without works" (4:6).

Therefore it is of faith that it might by grace...." (4:15).

Paul was addressing those who were trusting in their own works or obedience rather than trusting Christ alone for salvation. The jews don't have their own special covenant with God that bypasses the need of Christ. Christ died for all, not just gentiles. And he came first for the Jews, second for the gentiles. The jews need him. Their "laws" are not salvific.

[Anonymous No.6659954]

>>6656996
Christ didn't happen to be too fond of the Jews either, my man.

[Anonymous No.6659966]

This one:

https://archive.org/details/TheCollectionOfTheWordsOfTheLordJacobFrank

[Anonymous No.6661590]

>>6659954
>Christ wasn't fond of the Jews
>didn't even bother trying to save any Gentiles
>specifically said he came to save Israel

[Anonymous No.6661614]

>>6656881
yfw Luther was actually jelly of the jews

[Anonymous No.6661618]

>>6657835
>"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight...." (Rom. 3:19).
>"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested...." (3:20).
>"Being justified freely by his grace...." (3:24).
>"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justified the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (4:5).
>"...God imputeth righteousness without works" (4:6).
>Therefore it is of faith that it might by grace...." (4:15).

But Paul isn't talking to the Jews in any of those. He's only addressing Gentiles

[Anonymous No.6661621]

>>6656985
In the case of literary criticism that's actually true, cf Nabokov.

[Anonymous No.6661919]

>>6657337
>implying that Paul did anything but corrupt Isa ibn Maryam's Gospel