Hate to pull a JF but

[Anonymous (69.143.68.103)]

I was looking for some info on Martin Luther, who seems to be a favorite of Jim Faucett. In the spirit of Jim's continued shots at Shelby Spong (who is no great hero of mine, I just agree with SOME of the stuff he's written), here's a few excerpts from one of Martin Luther's pamphlets, "On the Jews and Their Lies" (feel the love!):

"In truth, the Jews, being foreigners, should possess nothing, and what they do possess should be ours. For they do not work, and we do not give them presents. Nonetheless, they keep our money and our goods and have become our masters in our own country and in their Dispersion. When a thief steals ten guldens, he is hanged; but when a Jew steals ten barrels of gold through his usury, he is prouder than the Lord himself! He boasts of it and strengthens his faith and his hatred of us, and thinks: ‘See how the Lord does not abandon His people in the Dispersion. We do not work, we are idle, and we pass the time pleasantly; the cursed goyim must work for us, and we have their money: thus we are their lords and they our servants!’

To this day we still do not know what devil brought them into our country; surely we did not go to seek them out in Jerusalem!

No one wants them. The countryside and the roads are open to them; they may return to their country when they wish; we shall gladly give them presents to get rid of them, for they are a heavy burden on us, a scourge, a pestilence and misfortune for our country. This is proved by the fact they they have often been expelled by force: from France (which they call Tsarpath), where they had a downy nest; recently from Spain, (which they call Sepharad), their chosen roost; and even this year from Bohemia, where, in Prague, they had another cherished nest; finally, in my own lifetime, from Ratisbon [Regensburg], Madgeburg, and from many other places."

Martin doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk, too. Here's some novel suggestions he has to deal with the Jewish menace:

"In the first place, their synagogues should be burned down and what does not burn must be covered with mud. This must be done for the honor of God and Christianity, so that God may see that we are Christians and we have not simply tolerated or approved that His Son and His Christians have been subjected to lies, curses, and slander.

In the second place, their houses should be pulled down and destroyed. They must be housed in stables like gypsies, so that they realize they are not masters in our country, as they proudly say, but unfortunate prisoners, so they will complain to God continuously.

Third, their books should be taken from them. Fourth, rabbis should be forbidden to give any more lessons on pain of death. Fifth, they should not be allowed to move around freely. Let them stay home. Sixth, they should no longer be allowed to charge interest. The money that is taken from them should be spent to help Jews who agree to be baptized. Seventh, they should be put to work."

Wow, the Nazis didn't have to do much original thinking to come up with the Final Solution, did they?

Here's an excerpt from Luther's tome of tolerance, "Schem Hamephoras", another pamphlet:

"When Judas hanged himself and his bowels gushed forth, and, as happens in such cases, his bladder also burst, the Jews were ready to catch the Judas-water and the other precious things, and then they gorged and swilled on the merd among themselves, and were thereby endowed with such a keenness of sight that they can perceive glosses in the Scriptures such as neither Matthew nor Isaiah himself . . .would be able to detect; or perhaps they looked into the loin of their God “Shed,” and found these things written in that smokehole. . . .

The Devil has eased himself and emptied his belly again—that is a real halidom for Jews and would-be Jews, to kiss, batten on, swill and adore; and then the Devil in his turn also devours and swills what these good pupils spue and eject from above and below. . . .

The Devil, with his angelic snout, devours what exudes from the oral and anal apertures of the Jews; this is indeed his favorite dish, on which he battens like a sow behind the hedge."

Was Martin Luther also the first Nazi?

Sorry, but I just wanted to show that some of Jim's heroes have feet of clay as well. These writings also show where Jim got his love and tolerance for those that disagree with him.

This internet thingy is mighty scary!

Boss Martian

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

scary indeed...

[Bob Brinton (141.154.147.150)]

Good point, Boss. Isn't it interesting that prejudice always seems to claim a desire for purity to justify itself? You mean Jesus Himself hung out with those half-breed Samaritans and whores? Didn't He have any discernment?

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

I never said he was perfect, and it is always interesting that you historically ignorant types always seem to buzz like flies on dung to these particular writings of Luther's. Some Jews in Germany at the time were making huge profits financing who would be able to buy the next open Roman bishoprick--making a person able to weild both political and religious power. Some of them were also openly critical and opposed the Reformation. Luther's response was not good. He was a man of peasant roots and a medieval mind. God used him as he did many other flawed men.

You will find that Neitzche was a greater influence on Hitler than Luther and that the most influential Lutheran of the day, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, went to his death opposing Hitler. Richard Wurmbrand, who opposed Ceaucescu in Romania was also a Lutheran.

Luther was a bold man who never shied away from strong language or feeling when he wrote. Interesting that you are not noble enough to put that side of him forward which express his greatest strengths--Christian doctrine. You would not be an American with the freedoms you now have if not for the theology of Martin Luther. Here is an excerpt from one of his more influential works:


Christian faith has appeared to many an easy thing; nay, not a few even reckon it among the social virtues, as it were; and this they do because they have not made proof of it experimentally, and have never tasted of what efficacy it is. For it is not possible for any man to write well about it, or to understand well what is rightly written, who has not at some time tasted of its spirit, under the pressure of tribulation; while he who has tasted of it, even to a very small extent, can never write, speak, think, or hear about it sufficiently. For it is a living fountain springing up unto eternal life, as Christ calls it in John iv.

Now, though I cannot boast of my abundance, and though I know how poorly I am furnished, yet I hope that, after having been vexed by various temptations, I have attained some little drop of faith, and that I can speak of this matter, if not with more elegance, certainly with more solidity, than those literal and too subtle disputants who have hitherto discoursed upon it without understanding their own words. That I may open then an easier way for the ignorant—for these alone I am trying to serve—I first lay down these two propositions, concerning spiritual liberty and servitude:—

A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none, a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.

Although these statements appear contradictory, yet, when they are found to agree together, they will make excellently for my purpose. . . .

Let us examine the subject on a deeper and less simple principle. Man is composed of a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily. As regards the spiritual nature, which they name the soul, he is called the spiritual, inward, new man; as regards the bodily nature, which they name the flesh, he is called the fleshly, outward, old man. The Apostle speaks of this: "Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day " (2 Cor. iv. 16). The result of this diversity is that in the Scriptures opposing statements are made concerning the same man, the fact being that in the same man these two men are opposed to one another; the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.

We first approach the subject of the inward man, that we may see by what means a man becomes justified, free, and a true Christian; that is, a spiritual, new, and inward man. It is certain that absolutely none among outward things, under whatever name they may be reckoned, has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or liberty, nor, on the other hand, unrighteousness or slavery. This can be shown by an easy argument.

What can it profit the soul that the body should be in good condition, free, and full of life; that it should eat, drink, and act according to its pleasure; when even the most impious slaves of every kind of vice are prosperous in these matters? Again, what harm can ill health, bondage, hunger, thirst, or any other outward evil, do to the soul, when even the most pious of men, and the freest in the purity of their conscience, are harassed by these things? Neither of these states of things has to do with the liberty or the slavery of the soul.

And so it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred vestments, or dwell in holy places, or be occupied in sacred offices, or pray, fast, and abstain from certain meats, or do whatever works can be done through the body and in the body. Something widely different will be necessary for the justification and liberty of the soul, since the things I have spoken of can be done by any impious person, and only hypocrites are produced by devotion to these things. On the other hand, it will not at all injure the soul that the body should be clothed in secular clothing, should dwell in secular places, should eat and drink in the ordinary fashion, should not pray aloud, and should leave undone all the things above mentioned, which may be done by hypocrites.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.13)]

Wow I thought I was the only one who read that on Martin Luther. I thought it was funny how they gave such honor and reverence to ML in the GG Newark school. I remember reading his stance on the Jews while studying Hitler No less. I just sort of snickered and wondered if they wanted me to throw that in while I was teaching about ML to the Newark "Pastahs" kids lol

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

martin luther king

[Anonymous (69.143.68.103)]

The point I want to make is that in spite of Martin Luther's obvious issues, he did some great things. He has some terrible beliefs about Jews. Should we reject everything the man had to say because he had his head up his ass concerning the Jews? Is it possible to agree with Martin Luther on some of his views and disagree on others?

Of course you can. Just like I can agree with some of Shelby Spong's views and disagree with others.

Of all the "Founding Fathers", I admire Thomas Jefferson the most. Yet, his views on slaves and slavery are pretty terrible. Jefferson was NOT a Christian, but a Deist. Should we reject every word out of Jefferson's mouth and pen because of this? I don't think so.

Jim has attempted to do this with Shelby Spong and discredit EVERY word he says. It's too simplistic.

Boss Martian

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

John Shelby Spong has nothing of value to say about the Christian faith. EVERYTHING he has to say needs to be rejected when it comes to Christ. Very obviously, Luther was not a politician nor was he a diplomat. He was extremely hot-headed in an age where the world needed one to come up against the Pope of Rome and the selling out of the Christian gospel at the time. Luther's theology and doctrine are orthodox, most of the time his behavior was admirable even under pressure during the Diet of Worms where he faced possible death. To compare Luther and Spong is just plain silly.

Offered below without prejudice is another of Spong's newsletters. Let the readers judge for themselves.


Sherry from Reno, Nevada writes:
"What was the essence of the Resurrection experience for early Christians?"

<FONT COLOR="0000ff">Dear Sherry,

That is a question that even the Bible has a hard time answering. Paul suggests that the essence of the Resurrection is best described by the suggestion that God raised Jesus from death into the being and eternity of God. Mark, the first Gospel, never has the raised Christ appear in his entire narrative. He rather confronts his readers with the empty tomb and suggests that Jesus will go before the disciples into Galilee and that is where they meet him. Matthew says they did meet him in Galilee on top of a mountain, but Jesus appeared out of the sky clothed with the authority of the Son of Man and gave the disciples the great commission. He did not appear to them as a resuscitated body that had walked out of a tomb.

Luke says that Jesus appeared to his disciples only in Jerusalem, never in Galilee, and that he was very physical. He ate, walked, taught and interpreted Scripture. He also seemed to have had the ability to appear and disappear at will. He the ascended into the sky of a three-tiered universe, Luke says, some 40 days later.

John says that the risen Jesus appeared only to Magdalen at the tomb and forbade her to touch him. Then on that same Easter Day, he ascended to God and it was from out of heaven that he appeared mysteriously that evening to the disciples in Jerusalem, where he demonstrated the power to walk through locked doors and closed windows and to invite Thomas to feel his very physical wounds. Much later, John says he appeared again in Galilee to a group of disciples who were fishing and there confronted and reclaimed Peter. How can one talk about the essence of Easter if the authors of the New Testament are in great disagreement when they tried to explain what the Resurrection means?

All I can say was that the Easter experience was and is real. It was powerful and life changing. Whatever else Easter meant, the disciples believed that it conveyed the truth that death could not contain all that he was and is. This was the experience that transformed lives and continues to do so today. To put more flesh on these bare bones than this would require a whole book. I attempted to do that when I wrote "Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop Rethinks the Origins of Christianity." It took me about 350 pages. My conclusions were that the Easter experience was real and that the explanations in the Bible are at best mythology. It is a theological tightrope that I believe Christians must walk in the 21st century.

-- John Shelby Spong</FONT>

[Anonymous (67.242.153.199)]

Jim, I don't know why you persist in dogging Spong. I certainly don't worship the guy. I don't know why you find him so dangerous. If your beliefs are the real truth, Jim, then truth will prevail, no? Oh well.

The deal is Jim that all of these guys are just plain old men. Just like you and me. They may have done some great things, but just like you and me, they do and say some pretty ignorant and stupid things.

No matter what Martin Luther did, it doesn't take away from the fact that he was a bigot. The fact that he was a bigot doesn't take away from the fact that he led a significant reform movement in Christianity. I find it interesting that the denomination he founded also bears his name. Were they called Lutherans while he was alive? I wonder how many people worshipped him like the people worship Carl Stevens?

The quote from Spong above? Well, I have read each and every account of Christ's death and ressurection, and yes, they differ. The King James and the NSV are the only two Bibles that I read the accounts in, but I'm pretty sure those translations are pretty representative of what's out there. Now I'm sure you're going go berserk and post about ten pages of commentary, in which making all those stories line up will be done in such a manner to make Bill Clinton look like an amateur.

That passage in no way, for me at least, challenges the idea that Christ died and was ressurected. What it does show, and in this I agree with Spong, the authors of the Gospels and Paul had a little trouble describing what they experienced. That's all. The question was "what was the EXPERIENCE like for early Christians?" Not whether Christ was the Son of God or whether he died and was ressurected.

GGWO is falling apart Jim, and that's what it's all about for me. I never came here looking for my faith or instructions on how to believe. Once it crumbles, you'll never hear from me again. No more heretics sharing your air supply. I only deal with Fundamentalists when forced to. Or in this case, for a cause.

Boss Martian

[Anonymous (205.188.117.12)]

Boss M,
YOU are the one who brought up Spong, who is obviously a heretic. He is calling the bible mythology and you agree with him! You are a spiritual moron.
Martin Luther completely transformed Christianity, despite his faults. Your logic is flawed and the points you attempt to make are nonsense.
Do yourself a favor and stop making a fool of yourself by posting.

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

Here, Boss, is my long flowing angry post.

Spong is not now, and has never been a Christian. On his best day he is miles beneath the stature of Luther.

Luther was a Christian, accepted by grace through faith by his Savior Jesus Christ and justified by Him. On his worst day, he was supremely better off than Spong.

If you cannot be bothered to study the scriptures and work out these seeming "difficulties" for yourself I cannot be bothered to explain them to you, however easily that might be accomplished. The truth is that you are both unteachable and unentreatable, and you infect others with those qualities and you will stand before a Judge one day and answer to Him for your intransigence.

Reports of the "death of GGWO" are likely to be greatly exaggerated. Christ is building His church, in whatever form it takes, on the Rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

[Anonymous (69.143.68.103)]

Jim,

You are the only one here that's trying to recruit. I don't advocate anyone following my personal religious beliefs. That is a matter between them and God. I am not seeking followers nor do I think I am qualified in the least to lead others. I am HIGHLY qualified to pray, however, and read the Bible, pray some more, and go where the Holy Spirit leads ME.

Christ is certainly building His church. That's why a church dedicated to the worship of a man is crumbling.

And I have studied these scriptures Jim. The Bible is supposed to stand on its own. I am quite aware that there are many people, yourself included that have MUCH to say on these differences. I have had a face to face sit down with more than one fundamentalist over these differences in scripture and I remain unconvinced, yet open to discussion. Just not with you.

The line of reasoning goes like this: the fundamentalist has already come to the conclusion that the Bible is totally without error. Therefore, the fundamentalist, when encountering differences in the Bible, instead of wondering why there are differences, makes every effort to prop up the conclusion that the Bible is without error. There is no reasoning, no logical examination, just a closed mind and heart.

I find it remarkable that inconsistencies of the sort in the Bible would be picked apart without mercy if found in a book about the life of George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc. If a book on their relatively inconsequential lives had Ronald Reagan at two different places at the same time or had four different accounts of who was present at a meeting, there would be some serious critcism and questioning. And such a book is NOT used to instruct, rebuke, etc., as the Bible is.

But here we have a book that has been used to put people to death, and the inconsistencies are either glossed over or extreme measures are employed using an unwieldy ladder of logic to reject any evidence to the contrary in order to prove what is a foregone conclusion in the mind of the fundamentalist, (Sorry for the run-on sentence.)

I mentioned in a thread that I read the book "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism". That's it, Jim. For some reason, that one post has lit a colossal fire under your butt and you have started several threads critical of Spong. I find it interesting that he bugs you so much, but Spong is not my idol. Spong has MORE of an effect on YOU than me! I have never had a man as an idol, Jim. Not being a product of GGWO like you, I'm not familiar with the practice. Just because I find some things a person has written or said to be of use to me, doesn't mean that I agree with it all.

I am not even comparing Luther to Spong, at least in the way that you assume I'm comparing the two. These two men aren't an "either-or" choice. Spong doesn't have a denomination named after him, for instance. The point I'm trying to make is that Luther, in spite of the good things he did, is a bigot. I find that abhorrent. You on the other hand, much like the Carl worshippers (of which you still seem to be), will justify any amount of evil behaviour as just as long as (supposedly) souls are getting saved. I have ethical problems with that line of reasoning.

Another thing I find strange coming from someone who insists that the Bible is wholly without error and suitable for instruction, etc., also insists that I can't possibly be studying it by READING it and praying about it. If I have to have YOU or CARL STEVENS to explain it to me, then it must not do a very good job of standing on its own! Thankfully, I do believe that it stands on its own.

Carl Stevens had a great interpretation of the Bible. He has used it to convince people that he's somehow above any sort of accountability. He read Watchman Nee's commentary. According to Nee, Carl is to never be questioned.

Spong is NOT my hero. I don't worship him or any other man. But I do frequent this forum and I can't stand by while some beligerent fundamentalist continues in an attempt to highjack Christianity without putting my two cents worth in. More to the point, I'm not going to let someone like Jim Faucett present his point of view as if it's the only valid one out there.

205, please explain how my LOGIC is flawed. You will have to employ logic to counter my flawed logic. Dumb it down so even a spiritual moron such as myself can understand it. Please help me not to make a fool of myself!

Jim, GGWO IS falling apart. Your former god Carl is grasping at straws. And it's all happening because people are coming to the realization that this liar and common criminal has attempted to use God to justify his evil behaviour. God is definitely working, but on His timetable. GGWO is not God's church, it's Carl's.

And finally, I am very ready to stand before God, at least over my beliefs. The sins I have committed, now that's another story. But as far as considering you and those who believe as you do to be the control freaks that you are, I have absolutely no problem facing God over that. I sleep SOUNDLY at night (and take naps, too!)

Thanks for getting me through a boring morning. This is better than coffee! Well, almost. Actually, not really.

Boss Martian
I believe there's a storm a brewin'!

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

Boss, you are truly the Danny DeVito of both Factnet and theology, I will concede that.

No one ever said Bible study was always easy.

If you believe in Christ and can't believe in the Scriptures that He said spoke of Him in every part, then do you really believe in Christ? Or are you just making one up you can believe in?

I didn't say you "recruited" others, I said you infected them--you know, like a disease, not like a head-hunter for Haldane.

Before you bragged that you had read "one" book not just "a" book.

I never said that my point of view was the only one, however, I am in agreement with most orthodox believers--whereas you are not by your own admission. While the umbrella of orthodoxy may have somewhat of a broad coverage--you are out in the rain.

The points of view that I have posted lately are not devised by "me" or a small camp of "us four and no more," but rather a great breadth of representation from all sorts of denominations. These are not rabid foaming-at-the-mouth unreasoning zealots but reasonable scholars with years of study and involvement with God's church. You have yet to say if you even attend church. Your lack of study and understanding of the Word of God is blatantly obvious.

As for a storm, you are your very own--tempest in a teacup.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.147.150)]

Was Jesus in agreement with most 'orthodox' believers in His day?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Boss, this is not directed at you. This is posted for informational purposes:




Carol via the Internet writes:
"Ben Witherington reviewed the book "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N. T. Wright for Bible Review (February 2004, page 44). He says that Wright stands "foursquare on the side of the traditional, orthodox view that Jesus rose bodily from the grave in about 30 A.D." I have read your book Resurrection: Myth or Reality? and know that you think that was not the understanding of the resurrection by early Christians. My question is how does our belief either way affect our lives? I have my own ideas on the answer to this question but I would like t hear your opinion."

Dear Carol,

N. T. (Tom) Wright is an English evangelical with an encyclopedic mind for biblical details. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams recently appointed him Bishop of Durham. He is a popular lecturer on both sides of the Atlantic.

Many of his followers would think of him as a scholar. He has written a number of books and in religious circles his name would be recognized. To me, however, a scholar is one who pursues the truth come whence it may, cost what it will. Tom Wright does not pursue the truth because, typical of the evangelical mindset, he believes he already possesses it. I regard him, therefore, as a propagandist rather than a scholar. His study is totally directed by the task of defending what he already believes is the truth. Like so many evangelicals, he follows a convoluted thinking process in order to put together a rationale for believing what he calls traditional Christianity. He uses the Bible in a way that few biblical scholars would support. He refuses to deal with the questions of our modern and postmodern world because they do not fit into his biblical worldview. He defends such stories as the Virgin Birth as the basis for the doctrine of the Incarnation, though I know of no reputable scholar, Catholic or Protestant who views the birth narratives found only in Matthew and Luke as history. He defends the physical resuscitation of the body as the meaning of Easter not because scholarship led him to this conclusion but because his faith system asserts that it is so. He seem not to understand that neither of these traditions is an original part of the Christian faith, both having been introduced no earlier than the ninth decade of the Christian era. One will look in vain for support of either tradition in Paul or Mark the earlier traditions on which the later gospels built.

Tom Wright still lives in a world of divine revelation and divine intervention. I do not read his work any longer because I consider it so badly dated. I did read and even endorsed the book he coauthored with Marcus Borg where each sets his view of Christianity side by side with Borg's. My hope in endorsing that book was that Wright's evangelical readers might be persuaded to read Borg's contrasting views in order to read this book by their hero. The comparison I found quite enlightening. Borg glides, Wright struggles. Borg is open; Wright is closed. Borg embraces the world; Wright seeks refuge from the world.

You ask whether these differences really matter? I think they do. Truth is never found at the end of defensive propaganda. Can any human mind embrace the mystery of God? Does the wonder of God fit into small, defensive, evangelical minds? Can the resurrection really be viewed as an event in history that could be photographed? Did people see Jesus' resurrection with the 20/20 vision of physical eyesight or was it seen with second sight or insight? Can things be real if they are not physical? Those would be the questions that Tom Wright should be asked.

The Christianity that Tom Wright espouses is encased inside a control system that cannot live in today's world. He attacks first and then tries to caricature those who disagree (which is the entire world of genuine biblical scholars) and when those tactics fail he retreats into an isolated ghetto and refuses to engage the data. I have long been the object of his attacks, so have my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar.

When I wrote Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop Rethinks the Origins of the Christian Faith, I sought to maintain the power of the transformation that gave birth to the Christian movement without being bound to a literal reading of the developing myths that mark the later gospels. I still agree with that position. It is in the experience of resurrection not in the explanations of resurrection in which the power lies. I believe in that power and seek to live inside it. I agree with Paul that if Jesus be not raised then our faith is in vain. If you read Paul carefully, however, you will discover that this assertion was not related to a resuscitated body that walked out of a tomb. Easter is far more profound than that, but this is something that I have no idea that Tom Wright would understand.

-- John Shelby Spong

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

You are becoming "Spong" Bob Square Pants, Jim....*LOL*