Rosenberg is a good source to me. I know no better source, than someone who actually saw it.
Care to revisit your erroneous claim about the Nazis conducting a great purge of Catholics? Some evidence of your claim of it having occurred in countries other than Poland, perhaps? Because the Nazis were murdering and ethnically cleansing Polish Catholics because they were Polish, not because they were Catholic. Or perhaps you have some explanation for why the Nazis constrained their targeting and persecution of Catholics to Poland and did nothing in other countries with majority or large minority Catholic populations that they conquered, ran, or allied with such as for example France, the Benelux countries, Norway, Hungary, Germany itself, or I don’t know, Italy? Because Italy didn’t murder, arrest or deport its Jewish population to the Germans; it wasn’t until the Italian surrender on September 8, 1943 that the Germans began rounding up and murdering the Jewish population of Italy. Yet oddly for your claim, they did nothing to target or purge Catholics in the epicenter of Catholicism when they ran it after the Italian surrender.
But the Rosenberg cite isn’t him “seeing it happen,” it’s him saying, “This is what we should do.” But there’s no evidence at all that anyone followed Rosenberg’s advice and actually banned the NT.
Or the old one, for that matter.
Just about everything not written by me in this forum, is an erroneous claim. Save one comment.
I’m done, though. I really am. You can very easily do the research yourself. I’m not your grandma. I’m not going to spoon feed you what you should already know.
Just look up for yourself whether what you said is true. I’m sure a Wikipedia Article will show you’re the one who’s making the erroneous claim.
Goodbye.
What do I do if I do the research, and the research disagrees with nearly every single thing you’ve posted in this thread?
When one comes across a good source, it behooves oneself to read said source.
It is a quaint custom of this group that the person making the claim has the responsibility to provide the evidence. If it’s worth the effort to make the claim, the tiny bit of extra effort to provide the evidence should be no trouble.
Well, I know it doesn’t, so either you’re lying, or didn’t actually do the research.
I mean, if you followed everything I actually said, you’d see a very well reasoned argument, substantiated by facts. Most of it is common knowledge, or at least it used to be.
So, frankly, again, I’m done. I understand that everyone’s first gut instinct is to believe what they want. But, I literally used to watch a video, which doesn’t exist anymore on the Internet, where I watched Nazis tear down church crucifixes, and the OP even quotes a source about book banning which was used for the Documentary. Which, probably didn’t get repeated in that book, because it would be redundant.
So, generally, I understand Nazi Ideology—which I explained to you ad nauseam. And if you still want to believe what you do, that’s your own bias. But, it’s not substantiated by the evidence.
Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany - Wikipedia.
Have at it. There’s probably a dozen sources in there alone.
You’re telling me, you couldn’t do that on your own? No, because you’re all dishonest.
Surely you have a particular reference in mind? What’s the best evidence in your mind supporting your specific claim?
Your grandmother does your research? Well, I guess that does explain some things.
So long!
I thought you already left? Leaving again so soon?
That’s not how the internet works, or how evidence and arguments work. “I saw it once on a video that has been purged from the internet” isn’t evidence, and isn’t how the internet works.
You very clearly don’t understand Nazi ideology, as you’ve repeatedly shown in this thread. Oh, and you haven’t explained Nazi ideology even once in this thread, much less ad nauseam, nor has anything you’ve said been supported by any evidence at all. Still waiting for a cite on those hundreds of thousands or millions of non-Polish Catholics that you claim the Nazis purged from their territories during the war. Actually, I’m not waiting, because said evidence doesn’t exist because they didn’t do it.
Here’s a discussion of the Nazi attempts to alter the Bible
Operating from 1939 until 1945, the so-called “Institute for the Study and Elimination of Jewish Influence on German Church Life” was founded with the purpose of “defense against all the covert Jewry and Jewish being, which has oozed into the Occidental Culture in the course of centuries,” as written by one of its directors, George Bertram. According to him, the institute was dedicated not only to “the study and elimination of the Jewish influence” but also had “the positive task of understanding the own Christian German being and the organization of a pious German life based on this knowledge.”
The institute, based in Eisenach, was organized with the participation of eleven German Protestant churches. It was an outgrowth of the German Christian movement, which sought to turn German Protestantism toward Nazi ideals.
In the version of the Bible produced by the institute, the Old Testament was omitted and a thoroughly revised New Testament featured a whole new genealogy for Jesus, denying his Jewish roots. Jewish names and places were removed, while any Old Testament references were changed to negatively portray Jews. Jesus was depicted as a military-like Aryan hero who fought Jews while sounding like a Nazi.
Per this reference, a significant number of Christians worked with the NDSAP to pervert (rather than ban) the Bible.
And, that’ll be an official Warning. I suspect that it will be your last one, before we completely ban you. We do not personally attack other posters on this board. Unfortunately, it appears that you are unwilling to engage in any other sort of argument. Learn to debate civilly, and with evidence, or your stay here will be very short.
Inclusion of the OT wasn’t without some debate, right from the start. Marcion believed that the new religion should, really, just follow the works of St. Paul and that his teachings were at complete contradiction with the portrayal of God in the Old Testament.
I, personally, believe that the Gospel of Mark is a variant of the synoptic gospels that was edited down by Marcion to remove Jewish elements. We see, for example, that Jesus is not linked back to King David in Mark; Mark doesn’t call Jesus “God”; Mark calls Jesus a son of man; in Mark, Jesus says, “The Sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath”; etc. Later writers try to deny that Marcion was a member of their team, and yet they also say that he was kicked out and would have been allowed back in had he not apologized.
It’s quite possible that Marcion is a part of today’s Christianity.
In opposition to him, Tertullian encouraged people to continue and extend the Jewish faith:
Whether it was the strength of arguments like this or the necessity of gaining the acceptance of the Jerusalem church, that caused the early Christians to choose to maintain the OT, I can’t say. But it certainly wasn’t a given that it would be included.
I know an expert on this subject (well, she’s an expert in Bible history, not specifically on Nazis and the Bible). I’ll ask her and see what she says.
I know I’m going to regret asking this but why would such a video, if it were a truthful and accurate depiction of historical events, be purged from the internet?
Copyright would be my best guess.
The Wikipedia does have a page for this:
It’s rather strange, though, that there’s no German language version - and that makes it difficult to confirm, since what we would like is to find the actual text of the decrees. What were they called in German?
Chucking some guesses into Google, I’m seeing a few notes about conflict between the Catholic Church and the Nazis - as well as some criticism about the church buckling under and largely keeping quiet against the atrocities that were occurring.
My sense would be that the church was being threatened to play along. Outspoken churches would find themselves getting bullied by the authorities, using laws like this as a legal justification, for saying anything in opposition to the regime.
Anything larger and I think we’d see more record of it.
My take is that it was an effort to bully the churches into submission, not to remove the church. But I’m happy to change that view given better information.
That context certainly makes more sense than @B.K.Neifert seems to be saying.
The Sulzbergers who owned the Times are Jewish, but that doesn’t make it a Jewish paper.
BTW I toured a church in Berlin which got bombed during the war, and was rebuilt leaving some of the burned out portion. They did not mention any Nazi oppression of Christianity, and mainstream Germans today are not exactly sympathetic to the Nazis anymore. I said mainstream. Churchmen who spoke out against the Nazis were of course oppressed and in danger.