-3 votes

As a Lutheran, I condemn antisemitism

I condemn every aspect of antisemitism. We are all created in God's image, though that image has fallen due to original sin. Because we are God's children, we must love one another as Christ loved us. However, we Christians have fallen into traps of hate. My hero, Martin Luther, did. After advocating treating Jews well and trying to spread the message to them, he was betrayed to the Catholic Church by them. This caused him to be greatly embittered toward Jews, and unfortunately, he became a great and influential to antisemites everywhere.


I agree that calling Luther an antisemite is an anachronism at best. However, eugenicist and hatemongers everywhere have misused his diatribes to empower their positions.

Six million Jews died in the Holocaust. Many more also died under Stalin. Jews and Christians are being killed in the Middle East as our government installs Islamic dictatorships as they over through the moderate secular regimes like Qaddafi's and so on.

I recall an episode of Family Guy where they were taking a tour in Germany. The historical tour left out 1930-1944. The tour guide's response was they were all on vacation. I think that the antisemitic Holocaust deniers on here just think that 6 million Jews went on vacation during the Third Reich.

I am greatly ashamed of this. We need to stand with both Jews and Palestinians because NO ONE wins in war, not even the people who think they will win.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
deacon's picture


are an off shoot of Catholicism
this group has purged more christians
off this planet,than the jewish people
did to themselves by turning in christian
jews to hitler during ww2
this group(catholics)changed the words and took
whole books out of the bible(Nicene creed)
this same group thinks little boys can be molested
by priests,and most major religions use the same bibles

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

And as a

believer in a higher power, I say anyone claiming to be "superior" to other races or "chosen" to lead others not like them is the ultimate racism.

As a Christian, you do a dis-service to Christians and all others by accepting you are inferior to those who claim the right to rule over you.

You let your Christian religion get pummelled in public repeatedly and turn the other cheek and accept it as free speech. However, any criticism of Judaism results in both Christians and Jews decrying anti-Semitism and accusations of hate speech. We still call this free speech in America.

How about we just make any criticism of any race, ethnicity, or religion a hate crime and be done with it. I don't think you'll like it though!

I myself

as an adherent to the Red Road, uphold and affirm your words. Hau Oyasin.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

It all sounds like collectivism to me

Here are my 2cents.

Khazar History

Youtube video "Biblical Israelites"

The Khazar link has been UTTERLY disproven.

DNA provides the evidence refuting it. Sorry.

It's amazing how people here downvote irrefutable scientific



That's the second time you

That's the second time you said that.

Actually, newer research disproves what you said.

What you are waving about is research that says there is *some* link. But there is also evidence that we are all related to one another in some way.

The problem with your research is it doesn't say how much. .1% semetic is not very related.

It's really clear that blond jews from eastern europe - I've met a few, do not have a very semitic lineage. The sephardic jews are much more eastern.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The LATEST DNA studies disprove it.

The ones tracing the Y gene which has the lowest amount of mutation.

NO CONNECTION between Jews and Khazars any more than between you and Khazars, you and me or me and Khazars.

Sorry. Nice try though.

I figured you might argue that the blond jews are the "real jews", since you know more about jewish genetics than anyone around here, incl. nobel prize winning DNA scientists who study the subject.

You sound like some type of

You sound like some type of extremist. Real science never uses absolutes like that. It speaks meekly and in terms of odds.

This issue doesn't interest me in the least. You aren't Jewish because of genetics, you are Jewish because of your beliefs, in any way that matters to this discussion having a purpose. The majority of Jewish people rejected their savior two millenium ago. Their inheritance, if they don't repent, is hell, not the heavenly kingdom.

But no, the very brief amount of time I looked at it has convinced me there is not the genetic link many Jewish people would like there to be. Intermarriage over TWO THOUSAND YEARS has caused that, as well as adoption of numerous people into the fold - like ethiopian jews. Ethiopian jews are hardly semitic either.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I was only refuting the Khazar link.

There isn't one. No extremism. Science is black and white with regards to where data falls on the bell curve. If 99.9998 (six sigma or greater) distribution shows data AGAINST your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is considered to be FALSE.

I couldn't give a **** about the truth of falsehood of the other aspects of people's posts on this thread (except for BurningSirus's who is spot on.)

I'm only addressing this ridiculous "real Jew" vs "fake-Khazar Jew", where the "fake" Khazars are today's Ashkenaz, theories on this thread which have been irrefutably demonstrated to be false by hard science, i.e. there is NO LINK WHATSOEVER between the Jews of the Khazar empire and the Ashkenaz Jews.


Does that make the Ashkenazi

Does that make the Ashkenazi jews true then?

I'm just asking because proving an assertion false doesn't prove another assertion true. All you claim to have proved to yourself is Khazar Jews (which really existed) are not Ashkenazi jews, not that Ashkenazi jews are any more Jewish then the Khazar jews.

I'm asking you to think, because I've read enough to realize our enemy really likes the lies that are based on logical errors like that. I've seen too much to convince me that discussions like this are noise to hide some very serious bad going on.

The ultimate point - why someone would take both sides of this issue and argue against the middle - is the question is irrelevant. Arguing either side encourages thinking it is relevant. Who was Jewish people in the Bible was never deemed important as doctrine. That's a doctrine of the pharisees refuted by Jesus Christ and also John the Baptist.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Now you ask a reasonable question.

The unfortunate thing for some of the commenters on this list is the concept of race, Semitic, Nordic, Indian or otherwise, that has been around since the 1800s has come to an abrupt end with the advent of Y-chromosome dna genetics and haplogroup tracing.

You'll be sad to know, I imagine, that there are "Semitic" genes in the Nordics, in the Celts, on the British Isles over 2000 years old.

And, yes, the Ashkenaz, generally speaking, are closest to the Sephardim, than to Asians (Khazars were Asian) or anyone else. Of course, you can not extrapolate from the whole to the individual, but generally speaking. And yes, those genes are Abramic.

I'm really sorry to relay that current scientific method, public knowledge, though perhaps not yet common knowledge, has buried the traditional concept of "race" once and for all.

Now, it's all about haplogroups. Haplogroups have completely replaced the concept of "race". And, fortunately or unfortunately, for many commenters here, they will find themselves likely closer to the "race" (i.e. haplogroups) of Jews than probably anyone else, were they to get their Y-chromosome genetically tested.

Anyone can do it for very inexpensively at familytreedna.com

So, there you have it! All the time spent b*tching about Jews, down the drain.

Only Pharisees ever cared about jewish racial purity

All this is is a bunch of words without knowledge, spitting at the wind (or similar metaphor).

There is no "semitic gene". Semitic is a language group -originally, of which yiddish, related as you said to german, certainly is not.

Proving someone is related more closely to sephardic jews does not prove either of those groups are semitic with any direct connection from 2 to THREE THOUSAND years ago either. It's the same logic problem, and with the same problem as the other, this time with the Carthaginians instead of the Khazars.

Intermarriage will do a lot over TWO THOUSAND YEARS. I don't need seeing blond jews from eastern europe or black jews from Africa to see that.

And the question is totally irrelevant. As Jesus Christ - and John the baptist said, your genetic ancestry is totally irrelevant to the kingdom of God. It was only to the pharisees and their modern decendents that questions of "racial, jewish purity" were important.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

"Racial Purity" and Jews was cared about by more than Pharisees.

Let's check recent history, for example, Nazi Germany and their racial purity laws.

I agree with you on the fact that the above doesn't matter one iota vs. the gospel and the Kingdom of Heaven as you say.

But you're wrong about saying that only Pharisee's cared as you can see by the comments on this thread and many others.

Either way, I didn't want to get drawn into a broader discussion on this and I'm sorry I did. My only purpose in commenting was to demonstrate that this silly, ridiculously ignorant theory about "Khazar Jews" and "fake Jews", descending presumably therefrom, being the Ashkenaz is absurd and scientifically, demonstrably, irrefutably false.

Sorry off topic

You PMed me last night. I was at work. PM me again, or email me. I have my contact info on my profile page. Let me know what you wanted to talk to me about.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius

Scientifically absurd?

I just found this looking for something entirely different - ie what did Jesus look like and how did jewish people REALLY wear their hair in Biblical times; in the Jewish encyclopedic. But it demonstrates that using scientific absurdity to explain away things has been going on for a long time. I bolded some of the nonsense parts.

Jewish encyclopedia, 1905
Cause of Blond Hair.
The true explanation of the existence of Jewish blonds has been the subject of lively discussions among anthropologists. Some believe that it is due to climate and environment (Pruner, Bey, Pritchard, Jacobs), while others attribute it to racial intermixture, particularly to the admission of Aryan blood into modern Jewry (Broca, Virchow, Schimmer, Ripley, and others). Elkind shows that the color of the hair is independent of the cranial index. Virchow's investigations show that in the eastern or darkest provinces of Germany the proportion of blond types among Jews does not decrease; whereas in the Prussian provinces, which are predominantly blond, the Jews show the highestproportion of brunettes, and in Silesia, where the non-Jewish population is of very dark complexion, the Jews have a high percentage of blonds. The same has been shown by Schimmer to be the case in Austria. Andree ("Zur Volkskunde der Juden," pp. 34-40) points out that the fact that red and blond Jews are found in North Africa, Syria, Arabia, Persia, etc., is proof that intermarriage has had little to do with the production of the blond type in eastern Europe. He is of the opinion that there were blonds among the ancient Hebrews, and that the modern red and blond Jews are their descendants. Luschan agrees in this view. Jacobs attributes the erythrism of the Jews to defective nutrition, and shows that it is present not only among the European Jews, but also among those in Algiers, Tunis, Bosnia, Constantinople, Smyrna, and Bokhara, where the presence of Aryan blood could not be admitted.

Defective Diet? Environmental factors? Cranial factors? These have ANYTHING to do with blond hair? And all this absurdity to explain away any possibility of intermarriage with ArYaNs.

And this is 1905 in the the Jewish Enclopedia, well before WWII. Isn't intermarriage the easier explanation? Does being racial pure and not having any blond European blood, matter so much? Should it?

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I'm not claiming the Nazi's

I'm not claiming the Nazi's weren't racist.

Actually, the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to a point, and the soviets were also racists and wanted to move populations around to get more ethnic purity. WWII was a sick time. There were also Jewish collaborators in the death camps, perhaps indicating some jews weren't jewish enough.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

And if you note the genocide

And if you note the genocide list I posted from another site, which isn't complete, one of the genocides in WWII was committed by the Japanese. Ethnic cleansing is far too common to narrow the debate to the Jewish genocide.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Original sin is not Biblical.

Original sin is not Biblical. That is a Catholic invention. If you don't believe me, and down voted me, read Jesus's parable on the blind man, and how he was not cursed because of his parent's sins. That is just one of many biblical references that contradicts the Original Sin doctrine.


Have you even read Genesis? The incident with the blind dude doesn't go against Original Sin at all. Original sin is the fact that all human beings are inherently sinful; Jesus was simply pointing out that a physical condition (being blind, in this case) is not necessarily punishment for something, whether done by himself or his parents. At that time, a common belief among the Jews was that sickness and disease were punishment for sins, and Jesus was explaining the flaws in that.

Have you even read the

Have you even read the Catholic Orginal Sin doctrine? It states that whoever is born in this world are born with Adam and Eve's sin, that Eve took the forbidden fruit, which is only forgiven through a Catholic baptism. As you can see, I have read Genesis, not only that, but the whole Bible, as well as the Book of Enoch, Book of Judas, and all other extra biblical writings found outside the Bible.

I don't give a crap...

...about Catholic doctrine. I concern myself with what the Bible says, not the Pope. For the most part, it is accurate (except for the baptism part - baptism is not necessary but is very important symbolism). I fail to see how the incident with the blind man contradicts original sin.

I assume being from North

I assume being from North Carolina, you are most likely a Southern Baptist, or another Protestant, who came out of Reformers like the Calvinist and the Church of England, who broke off of the Catholic Church because Henry VIII couldn't divorce his wife. So in your Protestant beliefs there is still some carry over from the Catholic Church. The incident with the blind man contradicts the Catholic's teaching of Original Sin, and as I said before, this man being Lutheran still has many of the Catholic Church's doctrine in it. Another point, you said that Baptism is not necessary, well I guess Jesus thought it was, since he went way out into the wilderness to find John the Baptist to baptise him, plus all his apostles were Baptised. When the Apostles set out on their journey to other nations, they had everyone baptised. Read about the Enuch, who they baptised. I can give you more references, but I'm too lazy to search and give you the exact references from the Bible, but I think you get the idea if you are educated on the Bible.

The wages of sin is death!

Gen 3:17-19

17 Then to Adam He said,"Because you have heeded the voice of your wife , and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it':

"Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return."


Rom 8:11

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned — 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death , even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6

6:1 Dead to Sin, Alive to God

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death ? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death , that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death , certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 From Slaves of Sin to Slaves of God

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death , or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death . 22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death , but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 7

7:1 Freed from the Law

Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another — to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death . 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 Sin's Advantage in the Law

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death . 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
13 Law Cannot Save from Sin

Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death ? 25 I thank God — through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 8

8:1 Free from Indwelling Sin

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death . 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death , but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

"The soul that sinneth, it

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." ---Ezekiel 18:20

"Everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child-both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die....he will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin." ---Ezekiel 18:4

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." ---Deut. 24:16

" But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for thr fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." --- 2 Kings 14:6


Don't forget this one

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

It says nothing of his

It says nothing of his descendants being born of original sin. So are you saying that whoever is born and doesn't get the opportunity to learn about Jesus go to Hell? What about people in China who have never heard of Jesus? Are they condemned as well?

Anti-semitism is a tool.

We must separate these sadistic Zionist leaders whose only goal is "utter destruction" from the rest of the Jews (their "lesser brethren" as they call them). Most Jews are just as helpless as we are, if not moreso, because Jews who speak out often do so at the risk of excommunication or death.

The word "antisemitism" is a tool used to impose an "us vs them" mentality on the "lesser brethren," to keep them always feeling separate and "persecuted" (necessary for control), while at the same time ensuring that any discussion about the Zionist's plans will always be dismissed as racial or religious persecution.
Likewise for the holocaust myth. Nowhere near six million Jews died, there was no mass extermination program, no ovens or gas chambers, and the Jews were not the only ones to be put in camps. But these lies are necessary to propagate the "us vs them" narrative.

I agree with you religion is used as

a method of dividing. But are you really going to call the holocaust a myth?

I have researched it and yes

I have come to the conclusion that the official story as we have been told is a myth. No ovens, no homicidal gas chambers, no human soap or lampshades, no Führer order for the extermination, nothing. In some parts of Europe, you will even be jailed if you doubt any part of the story. Tell me, if there is nothing to hide, why are people not permitted to discuss it openly?

Now, some people will point out there is no way that all Jews lied about the "holocaust". And that's true. They didn't. But only the liars were given voice by the media and offered profitable book and movie deals. Here are some Jewish people who told the truth about the so-called "death camps." Their testimonies never made it past the cutting room floor


And here is a faker being confronted and admitting that he and his wife lied