The great doctrinal apostasy

[H. Richard]

That is a lie. See 817-820 and a straw man fallacy.

Ignoring lies is a good idea. "...upon this ROCK I will build my temporary CHURCH..." You are a biblical clown. Your opinion of the Early Church Fathers is unqualified. Not everything the ECF wrote is incorporated into magisterial teaching, your problem is thinking you know everything. "some institution", the Church, gave us the Bible in the first place. This is where bible cults like yours change the facts of history. You are also unable to tell the relationship between the ECF and Scripture, so you make things up.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. You are an anti-Catholic, plain and simple, and bashing Catholicism, that never did anything to you personally, is your religion. I don't see any Catholics bashing your UNKNOWN denomination, but you are quick to bash Catholicism (with lies) I'm still waiting for scholarly evidence that supports your hate speech.

If the Church were purely physical (as it has been asserted by Richard) , she would never have survived. If she were purely spiritual, she could not function. The Church is BOTH spiritual AND physical. A purely invisible church is not in the Bible.

By "scholarly evidence", I mean the work of a Ph.D. in history. It's unlikely a person who has devoted a good part of their lives in study is going to jeopardize their credentials by attaching their name to fairy tales. I say you can't do it, Richard. You have to rely on babbling idiots for your anti-Catholic polemics.

***

Ps 18:30-31
30 As for God, His way is perfect; The word of the Lord is proven; He is a shield to all who trust in Him.
31 For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?
NKJV

Ps 62:6-8
6 He only is my rock and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved.
7 In God is my salvation and my glory; The rock of my strength, And my refuge, is in God.
8 Trust in Him at all times, you people; Pour out your heart before Him; God is a refuge for us. Selah
NKJV

Ps 118:8-9
8 It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in man.
9 It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in princes.
NKJV

 

[bbyrd009]

ah, the unavoidable end of applying the Hegelian Dialectic to Scripture lol
our fave pastime, huh

 

[H. Richard]

That is a lie. See 817-820 and a straw man fallacy.

Ignoring lies is a good idea. "...upon this ROCK I will build my temporary CHURCH..." You are a biblical clown. Your opinion of the Early Church Fathers is unqualified. Not everything the ECF wrote is incorporated into magisterial teaching, your problem is thinking you know everything. "some institution", the Church, gave us the Bible in the first place. This is where bible cults like yours change the facts of history. You are also unable to tell the relationship between the ECF and Scripture, so you make things up.

So you think men gave us the Bible we have today. I guess God didn't have anything to do with it, right? I never said I know everything but you seem to to be saying you do.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. You are an anti-Catholic, plain and simple, and bashing Catholicism, that never did anything to you personally, is your religion. I don't see any Catholics bashing your UNKNOWN denomination, but you are quick to bash Catholicism (with lies) I'm still waiting for scholarly evidence that supports your hate speech.[/QUOTE]

My church is not located on this earth. It is in Heaven, Christ is the head and we are the body. You really ought to read what Paul wrote.

If the Church were purely physical (as it has been asserted by Richard) , she would never have survived. If she were purely spiritual, she could not function. The Church is BOTH spiritual AND physical. A purely invisible church is not in the Bible.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe the Holy Spirit would have let the Church Of Christ cause the death of those in the middle ages who refused to believe in the RCC.

By "scholarly evidence", I mean the work of a Ph.D. in history. It's unlikely a person who has devoted a good part of their lives in study is going to jeopardize their credentials by attaching their name to fairy tales. I say you can't do it, Richard. You have to rely on babbling idiots for your anti-Catholic polemics.[/QUOTE]

1 Cor 1:26-31
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.
30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God — and righteousness and sanctification and redemption —
31 that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."
NKJV

I will glory in the Lord. You do it in the man organized and ran church.

 

[OzSpen]

What a load of crap.

This kind of language causes me not to want to interact with you. I wonder how many others are turned off by this profane language.

 

[epostle1]

This kind of language causes me not to want to interact with you. I wonder how many others are turned off by this profane language.

So you think men gave us the Bible we have today. I guess God didn't have anything to do with it, right? I never said I know everything but you seem to to be saying you do.

Where did I say that? It is a serious error to think the Bible came to us without the aid of human beings.

"Many others" are turned off by your lies, misrepresentations, false histories and exaggerations. That's profane. Your obsession with the middle ages doesn't prove what you want it to prove. Plus, you are the one that refuses to back up your assertions with documented evidence; you are so knee deep in propaganda you can't tell tell truth from falsehoods.

You blindly ignore Protestant inquisitions while focusing on Catholic inquisitions, as if that's all there was. You cherry pick medieval history. That's why your posts are a load of crap. You are a typical unfair ant-Catholic.

"... It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.
The Inquisition | Catholic Answers

 

[epostle1]

Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.

Not "Bible Christians"

They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point—that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible—and conclude from it that these people were "Bible Christians." In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.
The Inquisition | Catholic Answers

 

[H. Richard]

This kind of language causes me not to want to interact with you. I wonder how many others are turned off by this profane language.

***

It has been my experience that those posters of the RCC are the most difficult to post with. They will always attack anyone that says a negative thing about the RCC making it personal. They show that if they were a Pharisee in the days Jesus walked on the earth, they would be among those crying crucify him. They also proves that the RCC did have people that did not believe their doctrines burned at the stake because that is the attitude that is required to do that.

It is a historical fact that the RCC had William Tyndale burned at the stake for publishing the Bible in the English language so that the masses could read it. Tyndale was executed by the RCC authorities as a Protestant heretic in Belgium. I truly believe that if those in the RCC could get it done they would have every person who says a negative thing about them killed. They have done it in the past and would do it again if they could. That is my opinion.

 

[H. Richard]

Where did I say that? It is a serious error to think the Bible came to us without the aid of human beings.

"Many others" are turned off by your lies, misrepresentations, false histories and exaggerations. That's profane. Your obsession with the middle ages doesn't prove what you want it to prove. Plus, you are the one that refuses to back up your assertions with documented evidence; you are so knee deep in propaganda you can't tell tell truth from falsehoods.

You blindly ignore Protestant inquisitions while focusing on Catholic inquisitions, as if that's all there was. You cherry pick medieval history. That's why your posts are a load of crap. You are a typical unfair ant-Catholic.

"... It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.
The Inquisition | Catholic Answers

***

You are correct. Calvin also engaged in inquisitions and executions. After all he had the role model of the RCC.

I suppose you think that if the reformers did it too that makes it okay. That is why I do not claim to be religious I claim no church or religion. All I claim is that my belief, faith, trust, and confidence is in the work of Jesus on the cross where the Son of God shed his blood and atoned for, paid for all the sins of the world, past, present, and future (Isa. 53:6). That includes my sins too.

 

[epostle1]

This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation [age] of grace.

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, “”I”” have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon...

1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus “”I”” have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of “”me“”. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of “”my”” ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of “””me,””” even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you...

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”

These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints under the law had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19)

Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:

"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practiced a mix of two dispensations, law and grace, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

This is exactly what happened: from among the Gentile believers of Asia, false teachers DID arise, DID speak perverse things and DID draw away disciples unto themselves. All within 100 years of Paul's death.

This post is a lot of nonsense. Yes, there were false teachers, and we have their names, you don't. You are claiming that doctrinal purity did not exist until when? Paul's death to...1517? All the early Church Fathers were UNANIMOUS on their teaching on baptism and the Eucharist, and it's never changed. Will quotes do any good?
Within 60 years of Martin Luther's nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "this is my body". No doubt there are hundreds more today. Which off-shoot of offshoots of offshoot is yours? This is doctrinal confusion, the opposite of what the Church has taught since the days of Jesus and the Apostles. So you bad mouth 1st century evidence. (Ignatius)

You bad mouth the Early Church Fathers out of prejudice and ignorance because their unanimous teachings don't agree with your man made system.

 

[H. Richard]

This post is a lot of nonsense. Yes, there were false teachers, and we have their names, you don't. You are claiming that doctrinal purity did not exist until when? Paul's death to...1517? All the early Church Fathers were UNANIMOUS on their teaching on baptism and the Eucharist, and it's never changed. Will quotes do any good?
Within 60 years of Martin Luther's nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "this is my body". No doubt there are hundreds more today. Which off-shoot of offshoots of offshoot is yours? This is doctrinal confusion, the opposite of what the Church has taught since the days of Jesus and the Apostles. So you bad mouth 1st century evidence. (Ignatius)

You bad mouth the Early Church Fathers out of prejudice and ignorance because their unanimous teachings don't agree with your man made system.

***
My study of apostasy started this thread.

LOL and you bad mouth me because I don't believe your religion so there! Ha! Ha!

The religious churches brought into the Gospel of God's grace two rituals which they claim a person must do in order to be saved. Under the gospel of grace that Paul was sent to proclaim it had no such requirements. Water washing was a part of the Jewish laws. The Lord's Supper was something that people could do in remembrance of Jesus. It was a memorial supper ONLY. It had nothing to do with salvation. Jesus had to be water baptized because, under the Jewish Law anyone doing the job of a priest had to perform it. Jesus is our high priest in heaven.

In your religion and in all the others salvation has to be earned by what man does in religions. It is purchased by doing works. So that makes salvation to be in the hand's of men if they can purchase it by works. But according to my Bible and Paul's Gospel Jesus finished (purchased) our salvation by His work on the cross. Man's religions want to take the glory for a person's salvation for themselves and never tell those in their churches that their sins have already been paid for by Jesus. Therefore they do not give Jesus ALL the glory.

By the way, your throwing mud at everyone who dis agrees with you is not helping your cause.

 

[epostle1]

William Tyndale- a great hero?

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities who proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. (not by the Pope) His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas — not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (the Douay-Rheims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

Library : Tyndale's Heresy <<that's called providing a source.

If Christ had intended that men should learn Christianity from the New Testament, what about the hundreds who lived before the first Bible was given to the world by the Catholic Church?

Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.

***

You are correct. Calvin also engaged in inquisitions and executions. After all he had the role model of the RCC.

You will never be able to prove that.

I suppose you think that if the reformers did it too that makes it okay.

No, that is not what I think. People 1000 years ago thought differently, had different values, it doesn't measure up to 21st century standards. A person could be hung for damaging shrubbery on public property. You commit the fallacy of presentism constantly.

That is why I do not claim to be religious I claim no church or religion.

Yes, you are your own pope in a church of one. That much is obvious.

All I claim is that my belief, faith, trust, and confidence is in the work of Jesus on the cross where the Son of God shed his blood and atoned for, paid for all the sins of the world, past, present, and future (Isa. 53:6). That includes my sins too.

Start with the sin of pride that keeps you from being subject to a superior authority.

***

You are correct. Calvin also engaged in inquisitions and executions. After all he had the role model of the RCC.

More phony psychotic hate speech with no evidence. Everything the Church ever did is recorded in history in various forms, most of it is on line. Where is evidence of a role model? Here is a clue, Richard: Calvin was a second generation reformer. So when were all these inquisitions and executions taking place? Before or after the fact? We have admitted our sins of the past, which is more than can be said for funnymentalists who continue to unjustly persecute Catholics, mostly with lies.
When are you guys going to grow up?

I suppose you think that if the reformers did it too that makes it okay.

No, I do not. I'm trying to level the playing field against a zillion lies.

That is why I do not claim to be religious I claim no church or religion. All I claim is that my belief, faith, trust, and confidence is in the work of Jesus on the cross where the Son of God shed his blood and atoned for, paid for all the sins of the world, past, present, and future (Isa. 53:6). That includes my sins too.

Then you have no business pointed out anybody's sins of 1000 years ago, as if it's relevant and important today. Catholics are not accountable for the sins of our forefathers and neither are Protestants.[/QUOTE]
I see you dropped the Tyndale myth like a hot potato
Maybe we should revisit the "murder of millions" myth, that's one of my favorite myths. Does God inspire you to bear false witness?
Deuteronomy 5:20

 

[H. Richard]

William Tyndale- a great hero?

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities who proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. (not by the Pope) His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas — not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (the Douay-Rheims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

Library : Tyndale's Heresy <<that's called providing a source.

If Christ had intended that men should learn Christianity from the New Testament, what about the hundreds who lived before the first Bible was given to the world by the Catholic Church?

Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.
You will never be able to prove that.

I suppose you think that if the reformers did it too that makes it okay. Start with the sin of pride that keeps you from being subject to a superior authority.

More phony psychotic hate speech with no evidence. Everything the Church ever did is recorded in history in various forms. Where is evidence of a role model? Here is a clue, Richard: Calvin was a second generation reformerThis is just bigotry. We have admitted our sins of the past, which is more than can be said for funnymentalists who continue to unjustly persecute Catholics.
When are you guys going to grow up?

I suppose you think that if the reformers did it too that makes it okay. That is why I do not claim to be religious I claim no church or religion. All I claim is that my belief, faith, trust, and confidence is in the work of Jesus on the cross where the Son of God shed his blood and atoned for, paid for all the sins of the world, past, present, and future (Isa. 53:6). That includes my sins too.

[/QUOTE]

***
John Wycliffe (1328-1384) was a leading English philosopher in religion and politics during the middle ages. His challenges to religious and political practices remained influential long after his death.

Wycliffe was educated at Oxford University and became a professor there at Balliol College in 1360. At one time he served as a parish priest bu he was best known as a professor of philosophy.

He was driven to become a reformer because of conditions in Europe, the black death, the hundred years of war between England and France. Throughout the 1300’s a violent struggle for power occurred between the popes and clergy on one side and the kings and nobles on the other and neither one of them seemed to care about the common people.

The struggle was this, on one side could the civil government be able to tax the church and punish a wicked bishop or priest. On the other side was the pope lord over kings and government.

Wycliffe dealt with thes issues in his lectures and books. His chief political idea was summarized in the statement , “Dominion is founded in grace.” He meant that unjust rulers could not claim that people must obey them because obedience was God’s will. After Wycliffe applied thes idea to the popes and bishops he was tried several times in the church courts. Each time the English Royal family saved him from condemnation.

Wycliffe translated the scriptures into English in 1382 and then revised it later in 1388. The write up did not say if it was translated from the Greek or Hebrew text..

The above is taken from the “WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA”.. There is no mention
of how Wycliffe died. Since he became the writer for the Royal family perhaps we can guess that the RCC could not put him to death.

*****From the same reference books: “William Tyndale 1494-1536”

He is best known for translating the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew into English. His work later became important as a basis for the King James Version of the Bible.

Tyndale was born in Gloucestershire. He studied at Oxford and Cambridge universities from 1510 to about1521 and was ordained a priest. Tyndale was executed by the RCC authorities as a Protestant heretic.

Now we know why no priest or Bishop teaches anything else than RCC doctrine.

 

[epostle1]

Tyndale was executed by the RCC authorities as a Protestant heretic.

Wrong. He was executed by secular authorities, not the Church. The Emperor and the Pope had different jurisdictions.

Now we know why no priest or Bishop teaches anything else than RCC doctrine.

If a 5 point Calvinist professor were to teach Arminianisn he would quickly be out of a job. Your insults are pathetic. Tyndale was tried and executed under the Roman Emperor (not the Pope) in 1536 because his bible translation was corrupt beyond repair; it was causing problems.
It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of Scripture existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but encouraged. All this law did was prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

When discussing the history of biblical translations, it is common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don't approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale's or Wycliff's. These were corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.
Library : Tyndale's Heresy

 

[OzSpen]

Wrong. He was executed by secular authorities, not the Church. The Emperor and the Pope had different jurisdictions.
If a 5 point Calvinist professor were to teach Arminianisn he would quickly be out of a job. Your insults are pathetic. Tyndale was tried and executed under the Roman Emperor (not the Pope) in 1536 because his bible translation was corrupt beyond repair; it was causing problems.
It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of Scripture existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but encouraged. All this law did was prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

When discussing the history of biblical translations, it is common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don't approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale's or Wycliff's. These were corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.
Library : Tyndale's Heresy

epostle1,

John Wycliffe was not executed by anyone. This is how John Wyclif died:

John Wycliffe died of his stroke on the last day of the year [1384]. The religious authorities had never excommunicated him because they feared public opinion--the people loved John and his fame was international. So he was buried in consecrated soil. But about thirty years later, the Council of Constance revenged itself on his criticism by condemning his teachings and ordering his bones to be dug up and burned.

But the burning of such a man's bones could not end his influence. As John Foxe said in his book of martyrs, "though they digged up his body, burnt his bones, and drowned his ashes, yet the Word of God and the truth of his doctrine, with the fruit and success thereof, they could not burn; which yet to this day...doth remain" (John Wycliffe on his death bed, Diana Severance, Christianity.com, July 2007).

So, Wycliffe was not martyred by the Church or Roman authorities. He died of natural causes but the Church dug up his bones and burned them.
​

Oz

​

 

[OzSpen]

"Many others" are turned off by your lies, misrepresentations, false histories and exaggerations. That's profane. Your obsession with the middle ages doesn't prove what you want it to prove. Plus, you are the one that refuses to back up your assertions with documented evidence; you are so knee deep in propaganda you can't tell tell truth from falsehoods.

epostle1,

Please document where I have done these on this forum,

• told lies;
• promoted misrepresentations;
• given false histories and exaggerations;
• been profane by the above actions;
• been obsessed with the middle ages;
• I refuse to back up my assertions with documented evidence;
• I am knee deep in propaganda; and
• I can't tell truth from falsehood?

Thank you for providing this evidence.

Sincerely,
Oz

 

[H. Richard]

***
John Wycliffe (1328-1384) was a leading English philosopher in religion and politics during the middle ages. His challenges to religious and political practices remained influential long after his death.

Wycliffe was educated at Oxford University and became a professor there at Balliol College in 1360. At one time he served as a parish priest bu he was best known as a professor of philosophy.

He was driven to become a reformer because of conditions in Europe, the black death, the hundred years of war between England and France. Throughout the 1300’s a violent struggle for power occurred between the popes and clergy on one side and the kings and nobles on the other and neither one of them seemed to care about the common people.

The struggle was this, on one side could the civil government be able to tax the church and punish a wicked bishop or priest. On the other side was the pope lord over kings and government.

Wycliffe dealt with thes issues in his lectures and books. His chief political idea was summarized in the statement , “Dominion is founded in grace.” He meant that unjust rulers could not claim that people must obey them because obedience was God’s will. After Wycliffe applied thes idea to the popes and bishops he was tried several times in the church courts. Each time the English Royal family saved him from condemnation.

Wycliffe translated the scriptures into English in 1382 and then revised it later in 1388. The write up did not say if it was translated from the Greek or Hebrew text..

The above is taken from the “WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA”.. There is no mention
of how Wycliffe died. Since he became the writer for the Royal family perhaps we can guess that the RCC could not put him to death.

*****From the same reference books: “William Tyndale 1494-1536”

He is best known for translating the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew into English. His work later became important as a basis for the King James Version of the Bible.

Tyndale was born in Gloucestershire. He studied at Oxford and Cambridge universities from 1510 to about1521 and was ordained a priest. Tyndale was executed by the RCC authorities as a Protestant heretic.

Now we know why no priest or Bishop teaches anything else than RCC doctrine.[/QUOTE]
***

A further note about Tyndale and Wycliffe. Wycille's translations were never printed. They were hand copied. Tyndale's translation were printed on the printing press which came into use in 1440 by the work of Johannes Gutenburg and his associates. who made removable text letters.

 

[H. Richard]

epostle1,

Please document where I have done these on this forum,

• told lies;
• promoted misrepresentations;
• given false histories and exaggerations;
• been profane by the above actions;
• been obsessed with the middle ages;
• I refuse to back up my assertions with documented evidence;
• I am knee deep in propaganda; and
• I can't tell truth from falsehood?

Thank you for providing this evidence.

Sincerely,
Oz

***
I think epostle1, is looking in a mirror when he types

 

[H. Richard]

Wrong. He was executed by secular authorities, not the Church. The Emperor and the Pope had different jurisdictions.
If a 5 point Calvinist professor were to teach Arminianisn he would quickly be out of a job. Your insults are pathetic. Tyndale was tried and executed under the Roman Emperor (not the Pope) in 1536 because his bible translation was corrupt beyond repair; it was causing problems.
It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of Scripture existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but encouraged. All this law did was prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

When discussing the history of biblical translations, it is common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don't approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale's or Wycliff's. These were corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.
Library : Tyndale's Heresy

***

Then how do you explain the fact that the dead sea scrolles show that the scriptures in the Bible are correct copies?

Your statement that they he was executed by secular authorities is just a cop out. Jesus was not executed by the Jewish religious authorities either. They just had the Roman civil authorities do it for them.

 

[bbyrd009]

i shouted out "Who killed the Kennedys?"
when after all, it was you and me

 

[tabletalk]

***
John Wycliffe (1328-1384) was a leading English philosopher in religion and politics during the middle ages. His challenges to religious and political practices remained influential long after his death.

Wycliffe was educated at Oxford University and became a professor there at Balliol College in 1360. At one time he served as a parish priest bu he was best known as a professor of philosophy.

He was driven to become a reformer because of conditions in Europe, the black death, the hundred years of war between England and France. Throughout the 1300’s a violent struggle for power occurred between the popes and clergy on one side and the kings and nobles on the other and neither one of them seemed to care about the common people.

The struggle was this, on one side could the civil government be able to tax the church and punish a wicked bishop or priest. On the other side was the pope lord over kings and government.

Wycliffe dealt with thes issues in his lectures and books. His chief political idea was summarized in the statement , “Dominion is founded in grace.” He meant that unjust rulers could not claim that people must obey them because obedience was God’s will. After Wycliffe applied thes idea to the popes and bishops he was tried several times in the church courts. Each time the English Royal family saved him from condemnation.

Wycliffe translated the scriptures into English in 1382 and then revised it later in 1388. The write up did not say if it was translated from the Greek or Hebrew text..

The above is taken from the “WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA”.. There is no mention
of how Wycliffe died. Since he became the writer for the Royal family perhaps we can guess that the RCC could not put him to death.

*****From the same reference books: “William Tyndale 1494-1536”

He is best known for translating the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew into English. His work later became important as a basis for the King James Version of the Bible.

Tyndale was born in Gloucestershire. He studied at Oxford and Cambridge universities from 1510 to about1521 and was ordained a priest. Tyndale was executed by the RCC authorities as a Protestant heretic.

Now we know why no priest or Bishop teaches anything else than RCC doctrine.

***

A further note about Tyndale and Wycliffe. Wycille's translations were never printed. They were hand copied. Tyndale's translation were printed on the printing press which came into use in 1440 by the work of Johannes Gutenburg and his associates. who made removable text letters.[/QUOTE]


I think Wycliffe translated much of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate, the official Catholic translation.