One does not have to apply "modern" "humanist" definitions in order to see "The Jews and Their Lies" for the virulently anti-semetic screed that it is.
The think the LCMS statement answers this well:
Q. What is the Missouri Synod's response to the anti-Semitic statements made by Luther?A. While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as "a rabid anti-Semite." The LCMS, however, does not seek to "excuse" these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther's theology). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism. The text of this resolution reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world; and
WHEREAS, Some of Luther's intemperate remarks about the Jews are often cited in this connection; and
WHEREAS, It is widely but falsely assumed that Luther's personal writings and opinions have some official status among us (thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements, if not complicity in them); but also
WHEREAS, It is plain from scripture that the Gospel must be proclaimed to all people--that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18-20); and
WHEREAS, This Scriptural mandate is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism; therefore be it
Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further
Resolved, That we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine and practice are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such; and be it further
Resolved, That while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther's negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite ant-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment; and be it further
Resolved, That in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament (often labeled "Yahwism") with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about "Jews" in the Old Testament ("Israelites" or "Hebrews" being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ; and be it further
Resolved, That we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts; and be it finally
Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther's final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).
As I've said before, Martin Luther's anti-semetism was in large part a product of his times; while I hold him accountable for it and take it into account when I weigh his writings, I'm not out to paint him as a monster. But neither will I pretend that the man was perfect and that his writings were divinely inspired and free of bias.
Actually, Luther's anti-semetic times were not his principle problem. His principle problem was ego. He originally thought that the Jews would rush to convert when they saw that he was different from the Pope and thought that he would be the fulfillment of the promise of Romans 11:25--which he did originally apply to national Israel, btw. When they didn't convert, he got ticked off at them.
A similar bout of ego led to his Augustinian overemphasis of God's sovereignty when Erasmus challenged him.
Regardless, the point is this: Might it be possible that a man who spent the greater portion of his writing years with such an attitude against the Jewish people might just misunderstand a few things about the Jewish Messiah, as imparted by a Jewish rabbi of the sect of the Pharisees (Sha'ul) and other Jewish men (the Apostles)?
Of course it is.
And is it possible that a theology built upon an anti-semetic base might be similarly tainted?
Again, of course.
Now, I'm not accusing you personally of anti-semetism, so don't get your dander up. Nor am I saying that we should just dismiss everything written for the last 2000 years. Luther's commentary on the book of Romans, for example, has the most beautiful definition of a living faith that I've yet found.
What I am saying is that one cannot raise a commentary by anyone since the Apostles to the level of sacred Scripture. Instead, we must continually re-examine them and their presupposing biases in the light of Scripture, eating the meat and spitting out the bones (Ac. 17:11). And the system of allegorizing away all of God's promises to the natural descendants of Abraham on the basis of a handful of verses, ripped from their context and poorly applied, from a single author (Sha'ul) is most definitely the bones of Scriptural exegesis.
In regards to your other post, I've seen it, but I haven't had the chance to write a response yet. I'll get one to you later this evening.