That’s Positive Christianity: the belief that Paul was a Jewish corrupter of the faith is fundamental to that sect of Christianity, and you are staring at exactly that declaration. Pos. Chr. derived its tenets from Luther (like his entire program against the Jews, line by line) while abandoning Luther’s “mistakes.” Proving everything I have said. And showing again that you aren’t listening.

You can read it even in context (odd that you didn’t—why didn’t you?):

On p. 4 starts the section and title, explaining why Nazis reject the existing institutional churches for having corrupted Christianity (this is, incidentally, the view every Christian sect has of every other sect). It opens with explaining Catholicism is wrong, and has failed to “civilize” non-Aryan races.

It concludes on p. 5 (rough translation), “the Church has erected barriers where none should exist–for instance, between Germans of different denominations—while tearing down barriers that nature itself had established; it has blessed marriages between Aryans and Jews, Negroes and Mongols. It has diverted millions of valuable individuals from their God-ordained destiny, isolating them from the national community within monasteries and the priesthood. Its teachings have thus become a cause of the decline of races, peoples, and their cultures.”

Then, in support of the version of Christianity the manual then wants to defend it quotes the Catholic intellectual Meister Eckhart saying he can hear God’s will without “priests” and then moves to Luther’s critique (your out of context quote): “to resist those alien beliefs, Luther tells Christians to listen to their inner selves,” i.e. not Catholic authorities, “and act as their conscience commands; but (and therein lies the tragedy and fate of the Reformation, which began as a Germanic awakening) Luther ultimately reconnects conscience to the Jewish teachings of the Bible,” i.e. Luther incorrectly continued to trust the Jew Paul.

Hence the Posotive Christian rejection of Lutheranism is based on that one mistake; but before that mistake Luther was correct to say we should be Christians and free of dogmas and corruptions like the Papacy’s. He just failed to carry that point all the way through to rejecting the corruption of the true faith by Paul as well. And it then ties this to the opening thesis of the chapter on page 4: that Paul (and hence Catholicism) advocates equality of races which has been a failure; and therefore true Christians do not accept that mistake into their faith (this author is saying we should be Christians “without denominations” and thus without false “dogmas” added to that faith, sp. zur Kirche und der Glaube an ihr Dogma).

That, they argue, is the only way to hear God (not gods, but God: the author of this tract is a monotheist, not a pagan) and thereby do what God intended (and thus adhere to gottgewollten Bestimmung, “God-ordained destiny,” and gottgewollten Gesetze der Natur, “God-ordained laws of nature”), which the Aryan people might not have done “had God and Providence not bestowed the Führer upon us.”

That is the throughline and argument of that entire chapter.

So ask yourself:

Why do you not know this?

It’s literally in the tract you quote-mined.

“Luther heißt den Christen in sich selbst hineinhören und so handeln wie es sein Gewissen befiehlt; aber (und darin liegt die Tragik und das Verhängnis der Reformation, die als germanischer Aufbruch be- gann und als kleinlicher Dogmenstreit kläglich versandete) Luthen bindet schließlich das Gewissen wieder an *die jüdischen Lehren de Bibel.*” — Rassenpolitik Erarbeitung und Herausgabe: Der Reichsfuhrer SS, SS-Hauptamt (1943) p.5; Heinrich Himmler.

Your run on sentence is too garbled to assess.

I guess (?) you actually mean to be replying to my other comment.

The straightforward fact is that paragraphs exist to start new points.

So to understand each paragraph you have to read it; and understand that paragraph’s sentences in the context of the paragraph that that sentence is in, and the sentences around it, and what is in the sentence.

This is literally fourth grade reading here. So I’m perplexed as to why I have to explain it.

Wait so on the one hand at the top paragraph it says he is talking about catholicism and the Catholic Church attacking him therefore the bottom paragraph is abotu catholicism only, but on the other hand the bottom paragraph is a different thing and not following on from the top paragraph and isn’t Rosenberg reporting what the Führer said unlike in the previous Top Paragraph (so is therefore unrelated to that top Paragraph) but is rather attributed to some Gossiping Ladies?

Let’s call it A day then

None of these claims or arguments are logical; many don’t even correctly report what I said.

You’re so off the rails now I see no need to continue. Any rational observer can see you’ve lost the plot by now. Everything said upthread already refutes what you are trying to do here. And that’s sufficient to roll eyes and blow.

Just because he then refers to what the Führer said (“he’s a Heathen”) in a new paragraph doesn’t mean it wasn’t still refering to what the Führer further said to him following from the last paragraph.

we see this in other parts of the Diary:
From: October 30 [1936]:
“Yesterday and today I lunched with the Führer and reported about these things. The Führer was very satisfied. He asked me to make a record of the Jewish representatives of our firms in Romania. He wants to prohibit the Reich Economics Ministry from that [i.e., appointing Jewish representatives] for good.
*Of my memorandum about my discussed assignment he said*: It is generous, which I understand and take for granted. This demand, however, that you could recruit from a ministry the official you designate, seems quite unusual and not enforceable in this form. I explained that it was meant this way: I am not the one designating the official; instead, the person who is designated by the ministry in question to deal with eastern questions is supposed to be the liaison to my office and to report to me. The Führer opined that the matter will require about 30 conversations, for resistance from various quarters will have to be overcome, of course; also in the case of the task “concerning the ideological leadership of Germany [über die weltanschauliche Leitung Deutschlands],” as he phrased it, in order to incrementally include all areas…”

See, how a paragraph seperator doesn’t mean to seperate the fact that it si still relaying the words he was saying to him in the same conversation from the previous paragraph.

And he also uses the phrase “with a laugh” in other parts of the Diary not in a way that makes the thing he is discussing become sarcastic because of the usage of the phrase.

December 20th 1939:
“Q[uisling] thanked me warmly for my vital assistance and immediate comprehension of the entire plan. I answered *with a laugh* that my patronage of the Nordic Society had been meant only as psychological groundwork. That Finland and the Baltic states are excluded for the moment is an unfortunate coincidence. As for the rest, I am glad to be able to visit Scandinavia at last, which was not possible in light of the previous governments. We shook hands and probably will see each other again only if the campaign is successful and the name of Norway’s prime minister is Quisling.”

July 29, 1944:
“We all were moved by the death of Generaloberst Dietl. 1050 Two days before his disaster, I saw him in Sonthofen where I gave a talk to 200 generals about the German-English relationship. He thanked me on their behalf with his traditional warmth. Afterward I asked him to sit next to me at dinner. At S[onthofen] it is customary to alternate pupils and others at table, for example, an Adolf Hitler School pupil next to a Party leader or a general. That has always given the officers great pleasure. The youthful, sincere boys asked questions and talked away energetically and demonstrated the good results of the educational methods that are currently in their early stages. Dietl, with a laugh, looked at them and said: They are the ones we’re fighting for.—I told him something he could not possibly know, the political prehistory of the Norwegian undertaking: that the old government had practically concluded a landing agreement with the French and English, and their representatives, among other things, had also been in Narvik to determine the size of the cross section of the tunnels (heavy artillery, etc.) and the depths of the Narvik harbor.”

So it doesn’t always have a Sarcastic content to it!!

Plus you ignored that he says “and the time will come when the christian poisoning will come to an end…” right after stating that he was a heathen, this additional statement of believing a time will come when teh christian poisoning will come to an end mean the whole statement (“Now, with a laugh, he repeatedly emphasised he has been a Pagan all along, and the time will come when the Christian Poisoning will come to an end.”) is in fact not a simple sarcastic joke that he has heard.

Also it seems to something he heard himself – rather than being what he heard some gossiping women claim he (the Führer) said – since he notes that the Führer “repeatedly emphasised” that he is a heathen and that christian-poisioning will die off. unlikely (though not absoloutely rule-outable, but again, highly unlikely) detail for those “gossiping women” to have known.

The reason why he did statethe statement with a laugh is due to how this is him relaying his private thoughts about that he has to conceal about the matter from the Public…. That’s why there is a laughing-matter to it. He literally refers to shielding political beliefs – for years prior to the time of the Diary Entry Date (28th June, 1934) – in this case in regards to Rosenberg’s in teh prior sentence to this: “The Führer has always had mine over the years consistent point of view, so far he could do that given his position.” His (the Führer’s) views on “the Christian-Poisoning coming to an end…” are then in the following sentencee to that one (the sentence about it “coming to an end”) said to statements that were to be “remained as top secret” (but this failed). He had to keep the remarks private so as to not cause conflict with the Church as they would cause major problems if they properly and undeniably got out to the public then. That is why it is simply a laughingmatter.

And no, I didn’t shift the GoalPosts by referring to two instances as recorded by Rosenberg the Führer later said about Positive Christianity, I made an additional point challenging your point about the Führer allegedly endorsing positive Christianity in Private. No GoalPost shifting there.

So the passage (“he said he is a Heathen….” in its Paragraph isn’t all to vague after all.

You are quoting a different conversation (“in the first paragraph,” with a more obviously real answer from Hitler). He has moved on in the next paragraph. You are thus still ignoring context after complaining that I warned you you were ignoring context, which is starting to look like tinfoil hat now.

And yes, if someone answers a known pagan with a laughing answer about also being a heathen, that is a joke. It’s called hyperbole. And the context of what Hitler says everywhere else proves it. Even if Hitler said that, and Rosenberg’s vaguebooking paragraph does not give me confidence that he is actually reporting words he heard from Hitler as he is in the previous paragraph. This all makes you look extremely gullible. Ignoring literally all the stacks of evidence against you (literally every other statement from Hitler in private, all the context here, everything) to just “believe” the one unreliable vague statement that you can spin to your conclusion but doesn’t actually support it.

Then, being refuted, you move the goalposts and switch to a different paragraph where Hitler is talking about the Catholic Church again in exactly the way all Positive Christians did. Thus confirming my conclusion, not yours. And again you ignore every lesson, everything we told you about what these words mean and what they refer to in that context. Indeed, even here, Hitler explicitly says he is talking about institutions, not beliefs. And yet you get exactly the opposite out of it.

I am getting tired of this.

You are not exhibiting any competent judgment here.

Linking me Rosenberg’s Diary (from Amazon) is pointless; since I already have it and have already read it.

Rosenberg literally indicates in the first paragraph that he is talking about an interaction with the Führer:

“I told him that I would have to *speak to the Führer about it*, but anything public could be interpreted only as weakness. Now the Führer, with the utmost energy, underscored this point of view”…

the fact that he emphasised he was pagan ‘with a laugh’ doesn’t mean it was a joke in light of how he then says ‘and the time will come when the christian poisoning will come to an end.’ This doesn’t sound simply like a joke…

The term Heathen would encompass all major religions anyway. so he wouldn’t belong to any religion by that term…

BTW… since you mention Positive Christianity. Here is another passage from the Diary: Alfred Rosenberg’s Diary; December 14th 1941, p. 269….

“Today we learned that Kerrl had died, that is, the very minister and Party member whom the Führer characterized so sarcastically yesterday. The Führer said that Kerrl’s motives surely were nothing but noble, but the endeavor to unite National Socialism and Christianity was simply a hopeless one. I: People have tried to salvage the “pure teaching” so many times already, but all these experi- ments have now failed. The Führer: This restoration of early Christianity would indeed be the worst thing, despite all their moral failings, Julius I1827 and others, who acted as patrons of great artists, are still less dangerous than early Christianity. Jokingly: Don’t you want to take on Kerrl’s office? Aghast, I waved my hand in disapproval, and he said: Indeed, you certainly do have another ofhce. But I dont want to hand over the church affairs to the Ministry of the Interior. After my presentation we returned to the topic of Christianity. After the war, the Führer said, I also want to tackle this problem decisively. *Elimination of their education of minors.* Only adults should be permitted to commit to a church, and someone should be allowed to decide on a career in the priesthood only after serving in the Wehrmacht. Finally: Christianity was introduced long ago by human instruments of power, and he will likewise not shy away from using instruments of power, if necessary.” –

This is line with another statement by the Führer from September 16th, 1940: “The Führer speaks ironically of Kerrl’s efforts to put things in “order” again, as the “attempts at harmonization” made by this min- ister of church affairs of ours give rise only to a pitying smile everywhere today.”

For the context see here. This is in a discussion of opposition from the Vatican. He is talking about the Catholic Church, not Christianity or even Christian beliefs. As I said.

It is also not clear to me this is something Rosenberg actually heard from Hitler as he appears to attribute it to gossiping women. Even if heard directly, Nilsson rightly says this sounds like a joke (hence the reference to a laugh). But I suspect Rosenberg is engaging in personally aggrandizing hyperbole. All the evidence direct from Hitler (even secretly) contradicts it in any literal sense, as I’ve already noted and documented.

This is why these things have to be checked in context and against more reliable evidence. As I told you.

But even on the most charitable view (that this is a direct quote spoken by Hitler directly to Rosenberg, and not Rosenberg’s reinterpretation or relayed gossip), this is a reference to Vatican political power (the church and its interference with Nazi control), not belief in Christianity (that’s clear from Rosenberg’s entire entry for that date and the point of this digression). Every time Hitler directly speaks of Christian poison or madness (as in the Table Talk), he makes clear he means Catholic influence and dogmas, not “Christian belief.” He always directly in private defended Positive Christianity and its critique of other Christian dogmas and institutions.

So even assuming Hitler laughingly said to Rosenberg “he’s always been a Heathen” (and that’s doubtful), he would mean a free man, not someone subject to church control. He does not mean pagan “beliefs.” The word Heide did not only or directly mean pagan as a belief system but also meant variously heathen (countryfolk, men of the heath) and even non-Jewish Christian (Gentile) and was like “infidel” in English, a joking reference to being against the church, not necessarily Christianity. Because every time we hear Hitler explain what he means, that’s what he tells us he means.

And Hitler himself is a more reliable source than a vague joke related by Rosenberg.

Rosenberg has obvious reasons to want to skew anything Hitler said to support his own views rather than reliably relate Hitler’s. One thing I noted Nilsson documents in his book on the Table Talk is that Nazis were routinely liars. So you can never just believe anything they say. It has to be checked against other evidence and their own biases and desires. All as already explained.