Posted on 10/12/2017 7:43:41 PM PDT by vladimir998
Agreed.
Nobody can help what was done in the past whether done by someone else or ourselves.
Best to learn from the mistakes and repent and move on.
“No one here is justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology, except you.”
That’s a flat out falsehood. You’ll demonstrate it’s a falsehood by being unable to substantiate it. What you are demonstrating is this: “To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (St. John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
“That’s a flat out falsehood... ‘To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation’”
Was it not Thomas More who paid money from the Church coffers to Henry Phillips to deceive and betray William Tyndale? Please feel free to correct the narrative here if it is wrong.
Is this the kind of falsehood and false witness you mean that propagated the Reformation?
It seems as if the murder of Christ was reenacted in some sort of a way with the death of His faithful martyr Tyndale. Just as Stephen’s martyrdom emulated the willing submission by Christ to the death appointed by His Father, so did Tyndale. And just as Christ prayed for mercy, and Stephen likewise upon their very enemies, so did Tyndale.
This supernatural love can only come from Christ. That is a Church tradition that gives authority to the testimony that the reformers were of God. Not so much of those clergymen, such as More, who attacked him.
There was a treacherous traitor who, like Judas betraying Christ with a kiss, turned over his “friend” to be tortured and killed. Only Henry Phillips did so with the point of a finger.
And just as the Pharisees paid Judas to betray Christ, so Thomas More paid Henry Phillips to betray William Tyndale.
Is that your idea of Church tradition? Reenactment of the Passion with real murders?
Who was the one using “falsehood” in this situation. Again, please correct the record if I am missing something.
“You’ll demonstrate it’s a falsehood by being unable to substantiate it.”
I already substantiated it in the post to which you just replied.
Those quotes I made were your statements, were they not?
You claim Tyndale was put to death for heresy, as determined by representatives of the Catholic Church, correct?
It’s written right here on this forum for all to see.
Maybe you could go back to those posts and report abuse on yourself to have those comments removed.
Or you could simply clarify that your position is that any representative of the church who knowingly and willfully cooperated with those who executed people for heresy were committing sin by doing so. Simply state that this is not Church tradition, and you do not agree with or condone such actions.
That’s pretty easy. But since you don’t have to fear being tortured or murdered for not doing so, it may be easy for you to just maintain your stated beliefs.
But your beliefs will remain heresies, not traditions of the apostles.
As Jesus told the Pharisees that their seeking to kill Him was not the kind of works Abraham did, so torturing and killing men for disagreeing with their theology is not something the apostles practiced.
It's absolutely wrong and it's reprehensible that you would post that without a little research. St. Thomas More and St John Fisher were already on their way to their executions before Tyndale was betrayed. Henry VIII is the most likely source of the funding.
You wrote: “No one here is justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology, except you.”
I said it was a falsehood. And now you’re proving it just as I said you would: “You’ll demonstrate it’s a falsehood by being unable to substantiate it.”
And you failed to do it as it was obvious you would.
I’m not Thomas More.
You said, “you”. Meaning me - vladimir998. Now, I call on you to either substantiate your claim that I was “justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology”.
If you can’t, then you’re bearing false witness. That’s a sin. And I think you know that too.
That account must be wrong since More was executed in July of 1535, and Tyndale was executed a full year later in 1536.
I don’t see how More could have had any hand in Tyndale’s death since he was dead for more than a year before Tyndale’s execution.
“It’s absolutely wrong and it’s reprehensible that you would post that without a little research. St. Thomas More and St John Fisher were already on their way to their executions before Tyndale was betrayed. Henry VIII is the most likely source of the funding.”
You may be right as I could not find any evidence supporting who paid the blood money. Some suspect it was John Stokesley.
I don’t feel I maligned More since he had numerous people tortured and killed based on his assessments of “heresy.” These include Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbery, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham.
He claims to have never tortured anyone, but even his supporters agree that he had these 6 men burned at the stake, and 3 of them were under his direct supervision.
It is clear that More passionately attacked Tyndale, writing long treatises against him and his translation of the Bible.
I guess you have no choice but to defend More since not doing so would undermine the claim that the Catholic Church is infallible when declaring people saints.
But it is quite troubling that doing so allows no room to renounce the practice of burning people to death because they disagree with your theology. Sounds like there are a number here that would gladly do so to members of this forum if they could find a way to get cooperation from the civil government.
“I don’t see how More could have had any hand in Tyndale’s death since he was dead for more than a year before Tyndale’s execution.”
You appear to be correct.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3594481/posts?page=207#207
“I’m not Thomas More.”
But you are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake for disagreeing with your theology.
“Now, I call on you to either substantiate your claim that I was ‘justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology.’”
Your words were “he [William Tyndale] was executed for his heresy.”
You were specifically contradicting me that he was martyred.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3594481/posts?page=185#185
Like I said, that’s like a member of the KKK telling a black descendent of slaves that when his ancestors were raped and tortured, they had it coming. Except you’re doing it in the name of Jesus.
Do you or do you not agree with the Church having Tyndale arrested and burned at the stake for the supposed crime of heresy?
I’ve been called a heretic by some self-identified Catholics here. Do you think that I ought to be burned at the stake for my beliefs? Do you think the Constitution was poorly drafted to exclude such possibilities?
“But you are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake for disagreeing with your theology.”
SHOW. ME. WHERE.
“Your words were “he [William Tyndale] was executed for his heresy.””
That is a statement of fact.
1) Tyndale arrested for heresy.
2) Tyndale had been tried for heresy.
3) Tyndale was executed for heresy.
If you read and good biography of Tyndale you’ll discover he was first accused of heresy many, many years before he was ever arrested and executed. Did you also know he opposed Henry VIII’s divorce and second marriage? That would have meant the death penalty for him just as it did for many Catholics. Tyndale was also a proponent of a type of psychopannychism. Is that not viewed as heretical by your sect? You might want to ask your pastor about that if you don’t know or don’t know what it is.
Whether you think it is heresy or not is irrelevant to the fact that he was executed for heresy. I made a statement of fact. I in no way in that statement did any “justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology.”
Now, again, I ask you TO SHOW ME WHERE I was “justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology.”
Can you do it or not?
“You were specifically contradicting me that he was martyred.”
Because he wasn’t. That’s your subjective point of view. If you want to accuse me of having one as well, feel free to do so. But do not tell an OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD that I was “justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology” is simply wrong.
And, please note, that in the very post you linked to (#185), I wrote: “Actually he was executed for his heresy but if you want to call that his faith, fine.”
“Like I said, that’s like a member of the KKK telling a black descendent of slaves that when his ancestors were raped and tortured, they had it coming.”
No, it is not.
1) “Tyndale was executed for his heresy.”
2) “Blacks, who whites considered inferior because of their race and their primitive cultures, were enslaved by whites and sometimes raped and tortured by them.”
Both of those statements are true. I don’t expect Protestants to like the former nor Blacks to like the latter but both are true.
And if you don’t like it, you can pound sand. It won’t change. What should change is that you should stop posting completely false things you can’t substantiate. Apparently you’re just fine with bearing false witness. It’s your soul. You’ll have to live with it. . . and you’ll have to die with it as well. There’s still time. Do the right thing.
“Do you or do you not agree with the Church having Tyndale arrested and burned at the stake for the supposed crime of heresy?”
Do you or do you not agree that you are repeatedly bearing false witness against me by insisting I said something I did not say and that you cannot substantiate? Are you just making it worse now for yourself by insisting on deflecting that fact and attacking me again when you’ve been wrong all along. Also, if you say “supposed crime of heresy” you’re making two mistakes. 1) Heresy was not a “supposed” crime, but an actual “on-the-books” crime. 2) You are tacitly admitting he was executed for heresy. And that is exactly what I said: “Actually he was executed for his heresy but if you want to call that his faith, fine.” Thanks for essentially admitting I was right all along. I already knew it, but for you to torpedo your own facile argument that conveniently is just icing on top, you know?
Tyndale was accused of heresy. He was tried for heresy. He was executed for heresy. By the way, you know he wasn’t actually burned at the stake, right? He was strangled. His body was burned. The inquisitors actually thought he was a decent man. They turned him over to the secular arm to be executed because HE WAS A HERETIC. If you don’t believe me, just read David Daniell’s book. I did.
“I’ve been called a heretic by some self-identified Catholics here.”
I probably would not do that to you. But what do you care? You would just bear false witness against me apparently and say I did say it when I didn’t, right?
“Do you think that I ought to be burned at the stake for my beliefs?”
No. But I do think a man who bears false witness REPEATEDLY against another man and doesn’t repent is risking the fires of hell. Do you think otherwise? Proverbs 12:22 You still have time to change your life and repent. Do it. By the way, if there are marshmallows and S’mores involved, I might reconsider the burning. Priorities.
“Do you think the Constitution was poorly drafted to exclude such possibilities?”
Do you think God was wrong to order the Levites to kill thousands of people who worshiped the Golden Calf? I respect the U.S. Constitution (probably much more than you do), but I know my God is God and no constitution is God. The constitution saves no souls. No constitution can save the soul of a man who bears false witness and refuses to repent. You still have time. Do the right thing.
You wrote a detailed post which seems to convey a couple of simple points:
1. you still accuse me of bearing false witness
2. you refuse to condemn the actions of taking the life of William Tyndale
It is ironic that Tyndale was defending himself against accusations which he denied. Likewise More defended himself against accusations of torturing people, a claim he also denied. Now here we are accusing and defending ourselves in a similar manner.
“I probably would not do that [accuse of being a heretic] to you.”
“No, [you ought not to be burned at the stake for your beliefs].”
That’s a little comforting.
Perhaps our argument is partially due to a communication breakdown. I’m not sure.
To me there is a big difference between historically describing a man being burned at the stake for heresy versus the same man being burned at the stake because he was branded a heretic.
So, for clarity, would you also describe Joan of Arc as being burned at the stake / executed for heresy?
I would describe her as being accused of heresy to delineate between supporting such a crime as her being killed for her beliefs. Or if I mistakenly misled someone to think I actually agreed that this was a just punishment, I would hastily clarify that I do not.
“But I do think a man who bears false witness REPEATEDLY against another man and doesn’t repent is risking the fires of hell.”
There is a difference between errors, lies, false witness, mistakes, simple disagreements of opinions, and differences of personal preferences and convictions. A witness is someone who testifies what he has seen or heard. A false witness is someone who lies about it. The connotation is also that such a witness may cause harm to the person wrongly accused by a false witness.
I have stated why my understanding is that your position supports torturing and murdering people for disagreeing with your theology. I have given you multiple opportunities to clarify the meaning of your statements. And yet you are still, even now, refusing to do so. Why?
“That is a statement of fact.
1) Tyndale arrested for heresy.
2) Tyndale had been tried for heresy.
3) Tyndale was executed for heresy.”
It is in dispute whether Tyndale was an actual heretic. Therefore, it is not a fact. It is merely your opinion that he was a heretic. And, even those who may have been heretics and were executed for their beliefs were executed unjustly. Again, by comparison, I would not expect to hear someone say that a particular runaway slave was tortured and executed for being a runaway slave. That might be historically and technically accurate in the way you are defending your statement. However, it conveys that the author of such words considers such acts as legitimate. Another way to say it would be that a slave was tortured and murdered for running away. And we could also say that Tyndale and Joan of Arc (from my limited understanding of history) were murdered for their beliefs.
Heresy is not a civil matter. Or, at least, it shouldn’t be. The punishment prescribed in the Bible for grievous, public, unrepentant sin by a professing follower of Christ is excommunication. Sin did sometimes result in death in such cases, but it was God Himself who always carried this out. Further, judging and punishing people outside of the Church is not within the jurisdiction of the Church’s authority, at least here presently on the earth. Christ entrusted the keys to the kingdom to the Church. He did not do so with the keys to hell and death. He testified in Revelation that He possessed those keys.
“[That Tyndale was martyred for his faith is] your subjective point of view.”
Yes, it is. And that Tyndale was a heretic is your subjective point of view, not a fact. It is a fact he was called a heretic.
“By the way, you know he wasn’t actually burned at the stake, right? He was strangled. His body was burned.”
That’s debatable. The record I’ve read is that he was tied to the stake, and someone strangled him from behind, and then he was set on fire. It is possible but uncertain whether he experienced the pain of the fire. It is certain that many were burned at the stake with no such relief for accusations of similar crimes.
“It won’t change. What should change is that you should stop posting completely false things you can’t substantiate. Apparently you’re just fine with bearing false witness. It’s your soul. You’ll have to live with it. . . and you’ll have to die with it as well. There’s still time. Do the right thing.”
It is up to you to clear up the matter. You could have done so long ago. Your answer to my interpretation of your statement is to essentially say “prove it.”
That’s the weakest of denials.
“And that is exactly what I said: ‘Actually he was executed for his heresy but if you want to call that his faith, fine.’ Thanks for essentially admitting I was right all along.”
I will concede that I misunderstood and misconstrued your words if you also state that Joan of Arc was executed / burned at the stake for heresy.
Or we could agree to call these “executions” state-sanctioned murders. They were also done with the complicity of people claiming to be following Christ in their actions.
“Do you think God was wrong to order the Levites to kill thousands of people who worshiped the Golden Calf? I respect the U.S. Constitution (probably much more than you do), but I know my God is God and no constitution is God. The constitution saves no souls.”
We could debate the extent to which such Old Testament principles apply today or in the Church. But that is a separate issue. It seems like an odd defense for what’s under discussion.
Of course we both agree that the Constitution does not save souls. However, because of the Constitution, the Gospel has been freely preached in this land, and many have been saved by that. Further, because this land has been predominantly Christian, it has sent missionaries throughout the world and financed the spread of the Gospel, as well as the translation of the Bible, throughout the world.
But your reply skirts the issue of the morality of a Christian group cooperating with civil authorities to have people executed for disagreeing with their doctrines or theology.
In my opinion, God has supernaturally blessed this nation because the founders were listening to the lessons of this shameful history of Christendom. It is understandable how the Bible and early church writings could be misconstrued, misinterpreted, and misapplied to justify killing in the name of Christ. That, however, does not make it morally right. And a lesson was learned or should have been learned about these actions. They are not of God. They do not represent the teachings or traditions of Christ, the apostles, or the true Church of God.
Catholics AND Protestants sinned and were seriously in error on this issue. Governmental officials were wrong. We all should have learned the lesson. Thankfully, that lesson learned is enshrined in our Constitution.
But back to the issue of your accusation against me of being a false witness against you. For clarification, what I know is only the words you posted and I read. I can not see your heart. I can not bear witness to what is in your heart. You did add the words “but if you want to call that his faith, fine.” It is a reasonable defense for you to say that this supports that you did not claim killing people for disagreeing with your theology is ok. You did not say so explicitly.
However, you have only denied having said such a thing, but you have not denied holding such a view. Another good thing about our Constitution is that you can not be compelled to testify against yourself. That was in response to other abuses by “Christians” surrounding the same events we have been discussing.
I still perceive your choice of words, along with your additional defense of killing in the Old Testament, to mean that you consider Tyndale’s execution to be justifiable. Again, I am not bearing false witness. I am stating what I perceive. I can not see your thoughts. I am not claiming to know things I do not know, or to have seen or heard something I have not seen or heard. But, again, you can easily clear this up, if I am misperceiving your views. So far, you’ve issued a non-denial denial.
According to the Bible, not only does what we say demonstrate our character and beliefs, but also what we do not say is an indicator. See 1 John 4:3.
You could simply say, in your opinion, taking Tyndale’s life was not justifiable. Doing so is not consistent with the teachings of Christ or the apostles. Nor was such the tradition practiced in the early Church.
“You wrote a detailed post which seems to convey a couple of simple points:”
Seems to convey?
“1. you still accuse me of bearing false witness”
Because that’s EXACTLY what you have done.
“2. you refuse to condemn the actions of taking the life of William Tyndale”
And you refuse to stop bearing false witness. Remember, you wrote: “But you are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake for disagreeing with your theology.”
Again, I ask you: SHOW. ME. WHERE.
“So, for clarity, would you also describe Joan of Arc as being burned at the stake / executed for heresy?”
So, for clarity, would you also describe unlearner as being guilty of bearing false witness?
“There is a difference between errors, lies, false witness, mistakes, simple disagreements of opinions, and differences of personal preferences and convictions.”
And this is CLEARLY BEARING FALSE WITNESS: “But you are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake for disagreeing with your theology.”
I have asked you repeatedly to SHOW. ME. WHERE. and you have failed to do it and it’s obvious why - because I never did it.
Sin is evil. Stop now. Repent.
“So, for clarity, would you also describe unlearner as being guilty of bearing false witness?”
No, I have not. I have stated my opinions. And I have cited the facts about what you stated. And I have made a clear case for how I reached my conclusions. And if they are false (i.e. wrong and incorrect, since it is a true fact that they are my opinions), then you can PROVE them to be false by stating the opposite. And if you do, I will make a clear retraction stating that my assumption was false that you consider burning heretics at the stake to be justifiable. I will not need to repent of bearing false witness because what I “witnessed” (the precise statement I quoted from you) is correct, and it would then be only my conclusion that proved to be incorrect. But I will certainly admit my error if you can bring yourself to delay no further and clear this matter up.
It is a terrible form of hypocrisy to preach repentance in the name of Jesus for the very sin you are openly committing.
I answered every syllable of every word of your broken-record, falsely-accusing post. Yes, you are falsely accusing me of falsely accusing you. When you refuse to state your true position, which is supposedly different from the conclusion I’ve drawn about you, the “false witness” label is nothing more than name calling. As Jesus said, bear witness of the evil. Prove me wrong, and I’ll concede that I’ve misjudged you.
You said that Tyndale was executed for heresy. You did not say he was murdered or that he was executed on the dubious grounds of so-called heresy. No, you’ve given specific examples of how Tyndale’s theology is different from yours and that of other Christians. You have argued that Tyndale was not merely accused of heresy, but he is, according to you a heretic. And, as far as the justifiability of such executions, you have not denounced them, but have instead cited scriptures which justify the killing of those who engage in false religion such as idolatry.
Any reasonable person can see that the position you are hiding (because it is so repugnant you can not state so openly) is that men like Tyndale deserved to be burned at the stake for their heresy against the belief system that you hold to. And all you have to do to correct my conclusion, if it is wrong, is to just simply state the obvious: it was wrong to kill Tyndale for holding beliefs that deviated from those of his accusers.
What conclusion about your beliefs do you expect people to make? That you are a fan of Tyndale? That you support his efforts to translate the Bible? I draw a conclusion, state how I did so, and you are accusing me of being a false witness for doing this. If my inference is wrong, explain the fault in my logic. What other logical conclusion can a person reach? If my conclusion is wrong, then change my mind by stating plainly that it is not your position. Otherwise, stop with the “bearing false witness” nonsense. It is your own words and stubborn refusal to answer that are witnessing against you.
I have explained in explicit detail exactly how I reached my conclusion about your position. I said plainly what I saw, i.e. witnessed. I explained my deductive reasoning behind the conclusion I drew about your views.
Then I gave you not one or two, but several opportunities to simply state otherwise, but you refuse.
In Biblical terms, that means you “confess not.”
I cited the Bible passage that explains this.
Either you are simply skipping everything I’ve said, or you are doing this knowingly.
Either way, it has become more than a mere difference of opinion. It is blatant dishonesty on your part. I am now starting to come to the conclusion that you are not even aware of this but are deceiving your own self because you can not bring yourself to verbalize the true belief that you have. Thus you appear to have a desperate need to lash out at the one who draws it to the surface. You are frightened by the implications of your own deeply held beliefs. You do not want to acknowledge them because they are frightful.
Again, these are not things I am “witnessing” against you. They are simply things I feel to be true about you. I do not claim, and have not claimed, the ability to look into your heart. Whether I am right or wrong, God knows. And you may possibly know, too (if you are honest with yourself).
If you truly and sincerely want me to acknowledge that the conclusion I have drawn about you is false, then you can simply go on the record right now, for the first time, and state plainly what your position is.
That will prove my assumption wrong.
The assumption I stated about your views is based on your statements, which I did plainly see on this forum, and which you do not deny, and you have not renounced or recanted. It remains my opinion about you. It may not be an observable fact. But it is a fact that it is my opinion. And you disliking and being angry with my opinion of you does not constitute “bearing false witness.”
It is perfectly up to the reader of these posts to judge for his or her self whether my assessment is reasonable or unreasonable. I contend that it remains a reasonable conclusion because any reasonable person being accused of such a position would outright deny it rather than just claim the accusation has no observable basis, which is the only argument you’ve given. Otherwise show me and I will happily recant and admit my error. But you can not show me where you’ve posted this because such a statement from you has yet to happen.
Or go ahead and do so now, and you can WIN the argument. I am ready to happily concede that my conclusion about your views is wrong. But you’re going to have to state them. Don’t hide them under a bushel.
Jesus did not defend Himself against His accusers. He went like a lamb to the slaughter. But Paul gave a defense when he was accused. Jesus knew He was supposed to lose the phony trial against Him. And remember that Jesus gave no reply at all. He did not call His accusers false accusers (which they were). He simply allowed their accusations to stand. But Paul did not. He gave a strenuous defense. It served no purpose to let his accusers win. It serves no purpose for you not to defend your position and beliefs, unless your goal is hide them behind phony outrage.
It appears you are angry with me because I hold a poor opinion of you based on the conclusion I came to from your own words. For this reason alone you are attacking me. Sure, the conclusion I openly shared is hurtful. But it should be hurtful if it is true. It is a highly offensive view to hold that justifies killing people for heresy. If that is not your position, clear your good name and say so.
I asked if you also felt that Joan of Arc was executed for heresy? That’s a simple question. You confessed not.
I asked if you consider Tyndale’s death to be murder? You confessed not.
I asked for you to condemn the killing of Tyndale. You confessed not.
“No, I have not. I have stated my opinions.”
False.
This is what you wrote: “But you are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake for disagreeing with your theology.”
If I say, “You, unlearner, justify child molestation rather than condemning child rape” is that TRUE or FALSE?
I’m sure you’ll say it’s false. (And I agree with you.) And if you demanded I substantiate that accusation, I would fail terribly - just as you did - because it is patently false and there’s no logical way anyone could not know it is false simply by looking at your posts.
Here’s something else that is false and completely obvious just looking at my posts: “But you are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake for disagreeing with your theology.”
I asked you to: SHOW. ME. WHERE.
And you failed to do so - of course! It’s patently false and cannot be written off as an opinion. It’s a falsehood. It’s bearing false witness.
Also, posting obvious and in-vain attempts at deflection simply won’t work. Your feelings don’t matter. Tyndale was executed for heresy. That’s a fact.
And before you whine about my not having answered your irrelevant and entirely deflective questions let me remind you about Tyndale’s psychopannychism. Be honest: Did you even know he held that heretical belief? You don’t have to answer that (and it’s pretty obvious you won’t). There’s a good chance even your sect would consider it a heresy. If so, that means even your sect knows Tyndale was a heretic.
Inescapable.
You’re repeating yourself. Even though there is nothing you’ve asked or stated that I have not addressed, you seem to be pretending that you did not hear the many questions I asked.
“If I say, ‘You, unlearner, justify child molestation rather than condemning child rape’ is that TRUE or FALSE?”
It’s false, as you already pointed out. But if someone were to say that Muhammed is despised for having consensual sex with his 9-year-old wife, then it might be reasonable to make such an accusation.
And that’s what you’ve done. Except when confronted your response is simply to claim you’re being falsely accused, and you make a non-denial denial.
What would you think of someone who made such a statement? What would you think if you asked that person if he would condemn Muhammed for this action and he refused? What would you say if he told you Muhammed was legally married, and that it was a historical fact? What would you say if he argued that the sex was legally consensual? And how would you respond if that person simply kept repeating that you were bearing false witness about his beliefs?
You refuse to denounce Tyndale’s execution as murder. You refuse to critique the actions of the representatives of the Church. Why is that? What do you have to hide?
You also hide behind your claim that “Tyndale being executed for heresy” is simply a historical fact. But you refuse to answer whether the same is true of Joan of Arc. Why is that? What do you have to hide?
You keep saying that I did not show where you made the statements which I based my opinion on. Yet I have repeatedly.
“posting obvious and in-vain attempts at deflection simply won’t work.”
I’ve answered everything specifically and explicitly.
You, on the other hand, have refused to answer my questions. All of your screaming and name calling can not obscure this simple truth.
“Tyndale was executed for heresy. That’s a fact.”
Tyndale was murdered for translating the Bible. And you will not say that Joan of Arc was executed for heresy, probably because you don’t believe she was a heretic, and you don’t consider her death to merely be execution. Looks like a lot of hypocrisy and deception.
I’ve given you many, many chances to PROVE me wrong. I’ve said clearly how you can prove my opinions to be wrong. I’ve explained what you can say which, if what you claim to be true actually is true, you should have no problem saying. But you won’t do it.
You are right that I can not PROVE that you hold the views I think you do. I am only inferring them from what you’ve posted. So, unless you disprove what I suspect to be your positions, then I will continue to think this about your views. As I said, you can easily clear this up, but you’ve repeatedly refused to do so. Why is that? What do you have to hide?
If a guy approached you at a gas station while he was dressed in what you perceived to be gangster clothing, he looked rough, and appeared to have a gun under his shirt, would you be wrong to suspect he had a gun? Would you be wrong for taking some defensive action to be sure you were prepared if he did create a threat? If someone described this person as being armed, would you call that being a “false witness?” Do you think any judge would treat such an honest opinion as perjury in a criminal trial? What if evidence later supported that the man was unarmed?
“Let me remind you about Tyndale’s psychopannychism. Be honest: Did you even know he held that heretical belief? You don’t have to answer that (and it’s pretty obvious you won’t).”
Tyndale was such a man of devout faith that if he believed in some form of soul sleep, I would take a serious look at his arguments to see if they were persuasive. I don’t agree with that view.
You build your Catholic religion over such issues which have little to do with practical obedience to the commands of Christ or the apostles.
You claim a consistent tradition back to the apostles, but most Catholics have zero familiarity with Church doctrine on this or any number of issues. Most can not tell you the basic tenets of the Gospel or how salvation is received.
It’s like the issue of whether Christ had power to forgive sins. His ability to supernaturally heal was a confirmation that His claims about forgiveness were true. Anyone can CLAIM to forgive sins. But whether they are actually forgiven is subjective and a matter of faith. The proof will happen when we stand before God and He declares out eternal fate.
These matters have been endlessly debated. We’re not going to reach any consensus on them.
You feign worry over a Protestant having an erroneous view of some minuscule religious matter, but you ignore the reality that the majority of Catholics, who attend services regularly, remain ignorant of what their Church teaches, do not care to learn, and willfully reject anything they don’t like. You give these people false comfort that they are part of the Church, even though they have never believed or even understood the basic Gospel message.
Yet your words treat men like Tyndale, who is the single man most responsible for the Bible being translated into English, as a terrible criminal. Tyndale had more influence over the language we are now communicating in than did William Shakespeare. His translating did not lead men into false beliefs. It resulted in the masses being able to see the lies and abuse of power within the Church.
God commended the Bereans for being people who, when hearing the Gospel message of Paul, searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true and right. Yet the clergy of the Catholic Church demands NOT to search the scriptures for ourselves to verify their claims. Some representatives of the Catholic Church tried to prevent the translation of the scriptures into the common language of the people. The clergy of the Catholic Church claims authority above the scriptures and demands unquestioning allegiance to whatever they say whether it contradicts the scriptures or not.
Acts 17:11
These [Bereans] were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word [i.e. message of Paul and Silas] with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Such Catholic doctrine is worse than “heresy.” It’s apostasy. It’s reprobation. It’s an abomination. It is an anti-Christ spirit. It is the leaven of the false religious system that leads men to hell, of which Jesus warned His disciples to beware.
Matthew 16:6, 12
Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees...” Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Luke 12:1a-4
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops. And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
John 16:2
They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.
Again, I missed the scriptures and early church writings where the doctrine and tradition of the Church was to have men killed for disagreeing with Church doctrine and tradition.
I did however see where it is what commonly happened to the apostles and other men and women of God who followed their example. The pattern with Tyndale seems to match more with true seekers of God from Able all the way to John the apostle. Proponents of false religion always seem to want to kill those who truly seek God and have a relationship with Him.
It is the kind of leaven filled doctrine that allows some religious men to have others arrested and executed for disagreeing with their views, and justifying these deeds as serving God. The fact that you refuse to denounce such actions from the past speaks volumes about your present state, doctrine, and beliefs.
1) You said: “But you are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake for disagreeing with your theology.”
THAT WAS FALSE. You refuse to deal with the fact that it was false. You refuse to repent of your false witness. All you do is make excuses instead. Sophistry will not help you.
2) Tyndale’s belief in psychopannychism means he was a heretic. You refuse to deal with that fact as well. Tyndale was executed for heresy. That’s what he was charged with - heresy. That’s what he was convicted of. That’s what he was guilty of. You make excuses rather than deal with the reality of what actually happened. Tyndale’s belief in psychopannychism means he was a heretic. Case closed.
3) The rest of your posts are just long-winded attempts to excuse heresy, deny reality and history, and attack Catholics and the Catholic Church. None of that undoes your false witness. None of that changes the fact that Tyndale was a heretic.
Everything I said in this thread is true: Tyndale was executed for heresy and was in fact a heretic according to what even most Protestants think. This fact apparently forces you to resort to saying “You feign worry over a Protestant having an erroneous view of some minuscule religious matter...” as if the soul were a minuscule matter.
Remember: “Thou shalt bere no false witnesse agest thy neghboure.” That’s how Tyndale translated it, but you apparently don’t practice it.
I’ll just keep posting the same irrefutable facts. What you post is of no relevance whatsoever.
1) Wrong. You are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake. And you are still doing it.
2) Tyndale was martyred for translating the Bible. You justify killing him for heresy.
“Case closed.”
Not until judgment day.
3) You defend the actions of Catholic clergymen against Tyndale rather than condemning them.
“as if the soul were a minuscule matter.”
The soul is not saved by affirming some list of religious tenets as if they were an incantation. You exchange the Gospel of Christ for a manmade religion. The real tradition of the Church and the doctrine and example of Christ are exemplified by the life of William Tyndale who sacrificed everything to spread the word of God.
The nature of false religion is illustrated in the Bible by people such as Cain, Nimrod, Jannes and Jambres, Balaam, Jezebel and Ahab, the Herodians, the Saducees, the Pharisees, and the idol-making metal workers during the acts of the apostles. All these persecuted the true worshippers of God. And so did the religious clergymen who killed men like Wycliffe and Tyndale.
Matthew 15:9
In vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
It is NOT bearing false witness to post the obvious and logical conclusion of your words. That conclusion is true. And you have provided zero evidence otherwise.
The evidence is clear and unassailable:
1) You have repeatedly called Tyndale a heretic.
2) You have repeatedly stated that it was for this heresy he was executed.
3) You have refused to denounce his execution as wrong.
You have supported the morality and legality of his execution by claiming that Tyndale’s execution for heresy is merely a historical fact (though you do not say the same about Joan of Arc), that his execution was legal (and you refuse to call it murder), and that the Bible supports killing people for false religious practices (it was in this exact context that you quoted the Bible about putting to death idolaters in the Old Testament).
It is the inescapable conclusion of any sane and rational mind that you justify the killing of people for disagreeing with your religious tenets. You have yet to provide a solitary shred of evidence to support otherwise. You have failed to demonstrate ANY means by which a person can argue the positions you have and still not hold the opinions which are logically derived from those positions.
You do not condemn Tyndale’s murder because you essentially argued that it was not murder and was a justifiable execution. You have posted the same defense of these heinous acts as the NAZI guards in Nuremberg: it was legal, we were just following the law.
You are hiding a murder weapon under your religious cloak. The bulge is showing. You angrily deny that it is there, claiming I am “bearing false witness” against you. But when asked to expose it to the light you refuse. Your charge of bearing false witness would not hold up in any court of law, nor will it hold up in the Heavenly courts of God, the righteous judge. And though I can not see the weapon you are hiding with my eyes, God can and does. I can not see your heart, but God does.
You will not be able to hide your murderous weapon of the religion of Cain when you appear before God. There will be no religious cloak to hide it. In His court, your will be disarmed, and your secrets exposed.
For now, you can continue to hide your secrets for whatever reason you’ve decided to do so. You have neither answered the questions I’ve asked nor given even the slightest defense or explanation as to WHY you stubbornly refuse to answer them.
I remain confident of the reason. You have some dark and sinister views which you wish to hide from scrutiny. You do hold views which justify the torture and killing of those who disagree with your religion.
Feel free to clear your name and prove me wrong as I have repeatedly given you the opportunity to do.
Again, you failed to answer my question of whether Joan of Arc was executed for heresy.
Again, you failed to answer whether you would condemn the actions of those who had Tyndale put to death.
Condemn the murder of Tyndale. Or state that Joan of Arc was “executed for heresy” historically as you claimed about Tyndale. Or give some explanation or defense as to why you can not do either of these two things. Otherwise, you are just a broken record protesting my conclusions and name calling to distract from your own abominable views.
1) You falsely accused me of something I never did. You proved it was false by never being able to substantiate it no matter how many opportunities you were given to do so.
2) Tyndale was a heretic - as even most Protestants would admit if they already agree that psychopannychism is heretic.
3) Tyndale was executed for heresy. He was NOT executed for translating the Bible since that was not heresy.
4) I don’t have to approve or condemn Tyndale’s execution. His heresies, his trial and his execution having nothing to do with me. You’re doing something similar in one sense:
I have repeatedly pointed out that Tyndale believed in psychopannychism yet you have not condemned him for his heresy.
And more importantly:
You repeatedly bear false witness against me and yet you don’t see the injustice or sinfulness of your actions yet your snowflake feelings seem so hurt that I don’t bother to explicitly approve or condemn Tyndale’s execution 500 years ago - as it matter whether I do or don’t either one. It’s not 500 years ago. Your responsible for bearing false witness NOW - yet you just make excuses.
You just keep proving John Henry Newman right: “To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
Wow, I didn’t even see this embarrassing mistake of yours:
Luther would be horrified by the world he forged
10/17/2017, 5:36:41 PM · 208 of 218
unlearner to FourtySeven
“I don’t see how More could have had any hand in Tyndale’s death since he was dead for more than a year before Tyndale’s execution.”
You appear to be correct.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3594481/posts?page=207#207
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies
Incredible.
You didn’t know the timeline - but that didn’t stop you from repeatedly posting in error.
You apparently didn’t know about Tyndale’s heretical beliefs, but that doesn’t stop you from saying he wasn’t executed for heresy when anyone who actually reads about him knows his belief in psychopannychism means he was a heretic.
You falsely claim he was executed for translating the Bible when all the charges against him were for heresies and not about translating the Bible.
Your failure on the facts is complete. Yet you bear false witness against me.
Was Joan of Arc executed for heresy?
Do you think it would be immoral today for the Church to substantiate criminal charges of “heresy” whereby professing Christians are burned alive?
Not 500 years ago. Today, if it were the “law” of the land.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.