Replies

False. You introduced Luther in post 5681 with respect to arguing he was not antiSemitic.

Wrong, as it is you who first introduce Luther with "a notorious anti-Semite that re-formed the religion," which is what i responded to in 5681 by merely saying "You keep trying the anti-Semite card only to be shown how much popes were like Rome in this attitude, to which they added actions. Do you want to see it again?"

I thus said nothing about Luther not being antiSemitic, and the only reference to him after that is the quote by Ratzinger to do with the contextual mess leading up to the Reformation, which related to the progressive deformation of the church in response to your assertion that the world must have been effectively lost for at least thirteen hundred years if the church was so deformed.

And which was the topic in which you resorted to trying to discredit by invoking Luther's words against the Jews, as if he was some maverick in this, ignoring similar animus Rome evidenced.

Which is typical for RCs, just as they imagine Luther was some maverick and did not have scholarly and historical RC company in judging apocryphal books as not being Scripture, whom they charge left them out of his Bible.

You keep trying the anti-Semite card only to be shown how much popes were like Rome in this attitude, to which they added actions. Do you want to see it again?

I agreed to your invitation to debate Luther's antiSemitism.

You immediately blamed the Jews and the Catholics for Luther's antisemitism and I will continue to respond as I get bandwidth and time opportunities.

Meaning affirmation of his bitterness ,

but the fact that this was provoked, yet that this bitterness and its expression was contrary to saving faith as Luther had himself defined it,

and arguing that the iniquities of a leader does not necessarily impugn all the beliefs of that church,

and listing some of Rome's anti-Jewish words and actions, since you never indict her in your rabid anti-Protestantism, somehow translates a defense of Luther's inquiry or even render into Luther being blameless?

Does Catholic testimony to the iniquities of the Jews help understand the ill treatment by Rome of them, and defend it? No, but as with different kinds of crimes, it defends against a greater charge such as unprovoked cold blooded murder, versus that which was the result of provocation and passion.

But a lynch will have none of this.

Try to stay out of jury service. Your rabid response makes it obvious your conclusion is determined by your bias and animus.