“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”
***
Have a bonus. No more treats until you actually can prove that you’ve read what I’ve written instead of whining ‘I reject it.’
Cherry-picked bullshit coming from the same bullshit artist as the first one.
Here’s the Bible verse that Luther is referring to. “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
So of course that makes sense, by taking the adultery of the women onto himself and to the cross, he was punished for that sin of adultery.
Oh, and lest we forget, this quote was from the volumes of Table Talk, which are little more than scribbled notes of Luther’s students and have no context whatsoever.
Considering all the other places where Luther praises the holy sinless Son of God, your source is full of crap.
Heck, you’re not even using Luther’s theological works to justify your hatred. You’re using hearsay.
And just because the next one is so, so easy...
“It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters”
Not only is this quote never found in Luther’s works but only in Erlangen and Wiener (neither of whom can possibly be considered unbiased sources, especially considering their rampant cherry-picking, misquotes, and outright stated goals of bashing Dr. Luther).
In context, they’re probably referring to Dr. Luther’s reply to Dr. Karlstadt, in which Karlstadt was arguing that the Sacrament of Holy Communion should not be honored because Christ never honored it in the way that the Catholics do.
And Luther says, paraphrased, ‘Did Christ forbid the elevation of the Sacrament? No? Then pay attention to what Jesus teaches.’
The irony for this part is that you’re hating Dr. Luther for defending a Roman Catholic position.
The quote does appears outrageous, but there are some thing to note. First, the quote has no context. One does not know what exactly Luther had in mind. Was he kidding? Was he summarizing someone else's argument? Was he using hyperbole? It's really hard to say. If taken literally, it certainly is at odds with his other statements about Christ. Therefore, even though one can't know exactly why he said this, we can have a strong assurance he didn't mean it literally. The editors of Luther's Works include a footnote for this comment of Luther's, and they offer the following speculation:
This entry has been cited against Luther, among others by Arnold Lunn in The Revolt Against Reason (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1951), pp. 45, 257, 258. What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer. (LW 54:154, fn. 100)
If you run across a Roman Catholic citing these words against Luther (or any obscure comments from Luther's Table Talk) I commend to you also these words by Roman Catholic Scholar Thomas O’Meara:
“…Catholics are using inaccurately rhetorical arguments when they make the value of Luther’s theology and reform depend upon his table-talk language. Rhetoric appeals to the mind- but it appeals through emotions. It reaches the mind not through a purely intellectual act, examining the case thoroughly and logically, but by leaps and bounds, driven by emotions and will, faculties incapable of a calm judgment of what is true” [Thomas O’Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 5].
I always caution Roman Catholics to be careful with Luther’s Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of comments from Luther written down by Luther’s students and friends. Thus, it is not in actuality an official writing of Luther's and should not serve as the basis for interpreting his theology. Even anti-Luther Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar has pointed out, “Of course, it must not be overlooked that the Table Talks are ephemeral—‘children of the moment.’ While they correctly and vividly reproduce the ideas of the speaker, minus the cool reflection which prevails in the writing of letters and still more of books, they contain frequent exaggerations and betray a lack of moderation. The lightning-like flashes which they emit are not always true. The momentary exaggerations of the speaker at times beget contradictions which conflict with other talks or literary utterances. Frequently humorous statements were received as serious declarations. Humor and satire of a very pungent kind play a great part in these talks” [Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work (Maryland: Newman Press, 1950), 481].http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery.html
Your vain attempt to slander Luther by relying upon the website you have is equivalent to liberals relying upon the Onion or PMSNBC as authoritative resources in debates with conservatives.
If I were Luircin, I wouldn't waste my time in addressing any quotes you pull from that website.
And here I thought Tim Staples was a poor Roman Catholic apologist....you've replaced him.
Now, go get that help.
So now you're claiming that Luther said Christ had sexual relations with the woman at the well, yet He had no sin?
Read up ahead to Luther's heresies about the Ten Commandments in the link I posted above.
No. The irony is that many non-Catholics cherry-pick Luther's beliefs, even if some of them were still Catholic beliefs:
6 Beautiful Quotes on Mary You Won’t Believe Are From Martin Luther