[daniel1212]

Martin Luther hated the Jews. He was a leader the Nazis admired and they implemented his recommendations.

af_vet_1981, you are without excuse, You have at least twice laid this charge at Luther's feet and been exposed as ignoring the of antisemitism, or anti-Judaism as with Luther, of your own popes, which is abundantly substantiated.

Thus In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer states,

“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so”

• The crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.(Pope Innocent III, “Epistle to the Hierarchy of France,” July 15, 1205)

• It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas, “De Regimine Judaeorum”)

More .

Not that this excuses things Luther should not have said, but which is of little consequence to us, as unlike RCs, we do not follow men as popes.

However, if you want to invoke Luther and the Jews regarding his latter exasperated negativity,

then do the same with some of your

“The Popes Against the Jews,” Part 1

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 2: Roman Catholic Defenses and the Evasion of Responsibility Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 3: Positing the “Big Lie,” and getting people to believe it. Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 4: Church Councils Against the Jews Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 5: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 6: The Show So Far Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

[af_vet_1981]

Not that this excuses things Luther should not have said, but which is of little consequence to us, as unlike RCs, we do not follow men as popes.

I disagree. It seems to me if it were of little consequence to us, it would not evoke such heated denial and defense of Luther.

It seems to me Protestants/Evangelicals/Other are compelled to defend Luther for these reasons:
1. Luther essentially and historically (re)started their religions; if he is shown to be evil or mentally ill, all the doctrines traceable to him are undermined as the illegitimate work of a rebellious priest who went mad and sank into wickedness.
2. Their sense of salvation by grace alone is essentially based on Luther being saved; if Luther is shown to be a satanic enemy of the Jews who will not inherit the kingdom of God, then their salvation is threatened.
3. Luther was the foremost crusader against the Catholic Church. Some thirty million perished in religious wars triggered by his rebellion against his faith. If he is shown as evil or mentally ill, the antiCatholic crusade he launched is shown to be the work of a madman or a wicked rebel.

The temptation and need to rehabilitate Luther at the expense of the Anabaptists and the Jews is overwhelming and essential for the preservation of the reformation. If Luther is wrong, the Reformation is illegitimate. Then all they have left are the Catholic/Orthodox and the Independent Fundamental Baptists who reject the Reformation.