WILLIAM TYNDALE, Covenant Theologian, Christian Martyr Part 1: Background and Early Biography

IIIM Magazine Online ^ | February 11, 2001 | Jules Grisham

[HarleyD]

There are some loose ends to be tied up on the history of the Reformation. While the Reformation does center a great deal around Luther, it is a mistake to think Luther was the cause of the Reformation. There was a great deal of similar things happening in England, France, Switzerland, Spain and even Italy to name but a few. Luther was the catalyst but there were hundreds of such men and women moving throughout Europe at exactly the same time. In Germany the issue was over indulgences but in Switzerland the issue was over saugages.

Tyndale is another great Reformer in his own way. Tyndale was a student of Wycliffe. (Remember article 3 of the History of the Reformation?)

Hopefully this article will help put into perspective how God was working in England while God was moving Luther in Germany.

[HarleyD]

History ping for William Tyndale.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank you, Harley. Looking forward to a Sunday morning read.

[Gamecock]

Thanks again for posting these Harley!

The meetings which began about 1520, at the White Horse Inn

Visit the radio program that carries on the tradition of the early Reformers:

[markomalley]

It should be pointed out here that:

• Timeline
  • Tyndale was put to death in 1536.
  • Henry VIII signed the "Act of Succession" in 1534. After that point in time, England's Church was under the autonomy of the King of England, not Rome. Any statements about the Church killing him or whatever needs to be kept in that proper context -- it was the context of the Church of England, not the Catholic Church. I am not making an accusation to the Church of England doing so or the Church of England excommunicating him and turning him over to the State as a heretic, I am not in a position to say anything about how the Church of England worked under Henry VIII.
• Vernacular versions of the Bible. By the time of Tyndale, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible out there. England was a fairly unique situation by the early 1500s than the rest of Europe. For example:
  • Italy: 1471
  • Spain: 1478
  • France: 1478
  • Germany: prior to 1477
  • Netherlands: 1475
  • Sweeden: 1373
  • Czech: 1363

  Please keep this in mind...

[HarleyD]

It is not my intentions to post world history forever here. However I do think some clarifications need to be made of what was happening to the Church for over a hundred years through Europe. I would even trace the efforts back to the Rome/Orthodox schima of 108?.

To make the distinction for our readers about the Church of England here is some excerpts.

CHURCH HISTORY
The Reformation in England
Dr. Jack L. Arnold

The Church of England was not directly related to Rome.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. The Reformation in England was unique, unlike reform that took place on the Continent. The change came by a king, not a Reformer. The movement had no great leader like Luther or Calvin. The initial break with Rome was more political than religious, but the end result was great religious power. The English Reformation stressed organization more than doctrine.

B. The Reformation in England is essential to understanding the history of Christianity in America, for the early religious beliefs of the U.S.A. came from England.

II. REFORMATION UNDER KING HENRY THE VIII (1509-1547)

It was under this condition William Tyndale lived and died.

A. There was a general dissatisfaction with the Roman Church throughout England, although most of the English people were thorough going Catholics. Latent within the English was a desire for reform because: (1) they resented the pope’s interference in English affairs; (2) the influence of Wycliffe in the hearts of the people was still strong; and (3) they objected to paying money to the pope.

B. The Reformation probably would have been long in coming to England had it not been that King Henry VIII applied to the pope for a divorce from his wife, Catherine of Aragon, because he was enamored with Anne Boleyn, and because Catherine had not given him an heir to the throne. But Pope Clement VII, under the influence of the powerful Charles V of Spain, would not agree to the divorce.

The patience of Henry grew short, and under his influence he was able to get Parliament to pass a law which decreed that the king had the right to be the supreme head of the Church of England. This Act of Supremacy brought the official break with the Roman Church in 1534. Thus, the Reformation began with a carnal motive on the part of Henry. He immediately appointed Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury.

C. Not all Englishmen were willing to submit to the Act of Supremacy, so Henry passed the Law of Treason and Heresy which said that to refuse to acknowledge the king as head of the Church of England and to refuse to practice Catholic doctrine was heresy. Many Roman Catholics were executed, including two prominent men: John Fisher, bishop of Rochester; and Sir Thomas More. Sir Thomas More had been a zealous Roman Catholic and had caused many English Lutherans (Protestants) to be sent to the stake. Both Protestants and Romanists that opposed Henry were put to death.

D. Very little reform took place in Henry’s reign, although there was a closing of the monasteries for political reasons — he feared a revolt from organized Catholicism. Also, relics were no longer thought of as sacred.

E. When Henry died (1547) England was in a ferment, some wanting new ideas, others wishing to adhere to the medieval system.

III. REFORMATION UNDER EDWARD VI (1547-1553)

A. Edward took the throne at age ten and was trained by Archbishop Cranmer, a Protestant. King Edward was a Protestant, and the Protestant cause flourished. Transubstantiation was done away with and the clergy were permitted to marry. The mass and images were also scrapped.

B. It was during Edward’s reign that the First Prayer Book (1549) was written, which put the church service into English. This Prayer Book was mandatory for all the churches in England. Also, a doctrinal statement of Forty-Two Articles was set forth, which was definitely more Protestant than the Prayer Book. These articles were subscribed to by the King, but not by the Parliament.

C. Protestants who fled under Henry VIII began to returned to England, including Ridley, Coverdale, Hooper, Ponet, and Scory. These men proved to be much help to Archbishop Cranmer, and he made them bishops of the Church of England.

D. During this time, great persecutions of Protestants began on the Continent, and many fled to England for refuge. Men such as Martin Baucer, who became professor of Theology at Cambridge; Paul Buchlin, a brilliant Hebrew scholar; Peter Martyr and Bernard Ochino, both Italians; and John a Lasco, a Polish nobleman who was an excellent theologian, supported the reform movement as it was taught by John Calvin in Geneva. These men became known as “Puritans” because they wanted reform within the Church of England, consisting of more discipline and less ritual.

Because these men were aliens, they had the political freedom to set up independent congregations, especially in London. These churches became a rallying ground for Puritans in the time of opposition. The Puritans at this time were too small in number to be a threat to anyone.

E. In 1552 a Second Prayer Book was composed, revising the old Prayer Book and making the services of the Church of England more like those of the continental Reformers. This is essentially the same prayer book that the Anglican Church uses today.

F. Just when it looked like the Protestant cause would completely triumph in England, King Edward died of tuberculosis in 1553 at the age of sixteen. His sister Mary succeeded him to the throne of England.

IV. RETARDATION UNDER MARY TUDOR (1553-1558)

A. Mary, like her mother Catherine of Aragon, was a fanatical Roman Catholic. Her great aim was to bring England back under the yoke of the Roman Church. She married Philip II of Spain in order to bring political pressure on England to turn Roman Catholic. Her marriage proved to be unpopular with the English people and brought her much personal unhappiness. Fortunately, she was out of the country during much of her reign.

B. When she came to power, Mary had Cranmer, Ridley, Coverdale, Hooper and Latimer jailed. She replaced these men with bishops who favored Rome. At this time many Protestants fled to the Continent and were welcomed by Calvin in Geneva. This was a blessing in disguise, for these refugees would later return to be the backbone of Christianity in England.

C. In 1554, England was brought back under Papal authority. The former laws against heresy were invoked, and Roman Church liturgy and ceremony were brought back to England. Terrible persecutions broke out against Protestants.

During Mary’s reign 286 Protestants were burned at the stake and 1,200 were kept from ministering. Bishops Ridley and Latimer were burned for denying transubstantiation. As the flames curled around their bodies, Latimer spoke courage and comfort to his fellow martyr: “This day we shall light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”

D. Archbishop Cranmer also became a victim of “Bloody Mary,” for she had put great pressure on him and had him officially excommunicated from the Church. Cranmer weakened for a moment and declared that he recognized the authority of the pope over the Church in England. But Mary was fanatically bent on Cranmer’s death. Cranmer even signed a statement in which he denied Protestantism, but he was still put to death. On March 21, 1556, he was burnt at the stake. Just before he was to die, he renounced his denial, and once more in the strongest terms declared his Protestant faith. In dramatic fashion he showed how he felt about his denial of the Protestant cause. The hand which had signed the denial he held in the flames until it was burned to a crisp. Then the flames scorched his body, and he died the death of a martyr and a hero.

E. Mary died a bitter woman, hated by England, hated by the pope, and hated by her husband.

V. REFORMATION UNDER ELIZABETH I (1558-1603)

A. Elizabeth was the sister of Mary and had been educated under Archbishop Cranmer. She was a Protestant at heart, although she loved the pomp and ritual of Rome.

B. Under Elizabeth, persecution of Protestants was stopped and refugees from the Continent flooded back to England. Even Puritans, at first, were welcomed back to the Church of England. However, Elizabeth disliked the theology that came from Geneva and treated the Puritans very badly. The Puritans were the Calvinists within the Anglican Church.

Elizabeth loved the pomp and ceremony of Rome, and she is primarily responsible for the liturgy in the High Church of England today.

C. Elizabeth was somewhat tolerant of the Puritans (Calvinists) because she needed them politically. She had to fall back on all Protestants for survival, for Italy, France and Spain all felt she was not the legal heir to the throne. She disliked John Knox, the Calvinistic Reformer of Scotland, with a passion, but history shows it was the Scottish Covenanters under Knox that saved Elizabeth’s throne.

[vladimir998]

There are several misconceptions that are routinely put out to the public about Tyndale. Here is the truth:

1) Tyndale was not a martyr. Heretics cannot be martyrs except in their own minds and in the minds of their heretical fellow travelers.

2) Tyndale was not executed (nor even tried) for translating the bible. Translating scripture was not a crime in the Church. Proof of this is easily found in the fact that Tyndale was being accused of heresy YEARS before he became known for his translation. He was accused of heresy before even leaving England, for instance.

3) Tyndale was betrayed by his own fellow English citizens and government to the inquisitional tribunal on the continent that tried him.

4) As odd as this may sound to us today, Tyndale was greatly respected and even admired by those who tried him. They respected his fine education and admired his manners and Christian piety. He was convicted anyway because he was a heretic. They tried to convince him to renounce his errors, but he refused to do so. Even according to Protestant wannabe hagiographers, like Foxe, Tyndale's judges did not enjoy fulfilling their duties in this regard in the least. They simply didn't want heretics like Tyndale running around destroying more souls.

5) He was condemned to death under the anti-heresy laws of the empire, which had been around since at least the 13th century.

6) Tyndale was not really a student of Wycliffe in any important way. All heretics from England glommed onto Wycliffe's memory as a way to twit the Church. If Tyndale had really been a student of Wycliffe he would have been a supporter of Wycliffe's bizarre and stupid Donatist-like doctrine of dominion.

[markomalley]

Good queen Bess was hardly a wonderful person. In addition to executing her own cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, she also had her own persecutions...

In the last years of Elizabeth's reign, Catholics were cruelly persecuted and many were put to death.

QUEEN MARY I of England is called Bloody Mary because she persecuted Protestants during her short reign (1554-58). Her sister, Elizabeth Tudor, persecuted Catholics during her long reign (1558-1603) and she is called Good Queen Bess. Mary is criticized because she burned Protestants whom she considered heretics, but Elizabeth is praised as shrewd for persecuting Catholics, who did not accept laws passed during her reign making her both secular and spiritual ruler. Violations of these laws were considered an act of treason punishable by hanging, drawing, and quartering. 1 Mary's love of England has been questioned because she believed in a universal Christian church united under the Bishop of Rome, and because she married a Spaniard. Elizabeth has been called a nationalist because of her assumption of spiritual authority over Christians in England, because of her protection of English pirates who raided towns and cities in the Americas under the sovereignty of the Spanish [End Page 117] Crown, and because of her support of those who revolted against the Spanish Crown in Europe. The year 2003 marked the 400th anniversary of the death of Elizabeth Tudor, and most likely there will be many books, documentaries, and academic conferences singing her praises. But, as Richard Harrison has written in the 3 January 2003 issue of theLondon Times, the fact is that she persecuted minorities, encouraged the systematic pillaging of foreigners' property, and suppressed dissent. 2

In this article I revisit religious persecution in sixteenth-century England under Elizabeth Tudor. In addition to those Catholics condemned to death, I discuss the persecution of Catholics by fining and imprisonment in Elizabethan England. Furthermore, I analyze the identification of Protestantism and patriotism in a supposed struggle for survival of a peace-loving England against an aggressive Spanish...

http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/logos/v007/7.1tarrago.html

---

The Penal Laws began with the two Statutes of Supremacy and Uniformity by which Queen Elizabeth, in 1559, initiated her religious settlement; and her legislation falls into three divisions corresponding to three definitely marked periods:

1558-70 when the Government trusted to the policy of enforcing conformity by fines and deprivations;
1570-80 from the date of the excommunication to the time when the Government recognized the Catholic reaction due to the seminary priests and Jesuits;
from 1580 to the end of the reign.
To the first period belong the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity (I Eliz. 1 and 2) and the amending statute (5 Eliz. c. 1). By the Act of Supremacy all who maintained the spiritual or ecclesiastical authority of any foreign prelate were to forfeit all goods and chattels, both real and personal, and all benefices for the first offence, or in case the value of these was below 20 pounds, to be imprisoned for one year; they were liable to the forfeitures of Praemunire for the second offence and to the penalties of high treason for the third offence. These penalties of Praemunire were: exclusion from the sovereign's protection, forfeiture of all lands and goods, arrest to answer to the Sovereign and Council. The penalties assigned for high treason were:
drawing, hanging and quartering;
corruption of blood, by which heirs became incapable of inheriting honours and offices; and, lastly
forfeiture of all property.
These first statutes were made stricter by the amending act (5 Eliz. c.1) which declared that to maintain the authority of the pope in any way was punish able by penalties of Praemunire for the first offence and of high treason, though without corruption of blood, for the second. All who refused the Oath of Supremacy were subjected to the like penalties. The Act of Uniformity, primarily designed to secure outward conformity in the use of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, was in effect a penal statute, as it punished all clerics who used any other service by deprivation and imprisonment, and everyone who refused to attend the Anglican service by a fine of twelve pence for each ommission. It should be remembered that the amount must be greatly multiplied to give their modern equivalent.
Coming to the legislation of the second period, there are two Acts directed against the Bull of Excommunication.:

13 Eliz. c.1, which, among other enactments, made it high treason to affirm that the queen ought not to enjoy the Crown, or to declare her to be a heretic or schismatic, and
13 Eliz. c. 2, which made it high treason to put into effect any papal Bull of absolution, to absolve or reconcile any person to the Catholic Church, or to be so absolved or reconciled, or to procure or publish any papal Bull or writing whatsoever.
The penalties of Praemunire were enacted against all who brought into England or who gave to others Agnus Dei or articles blessed by the pope or by any one through faculties from him.
A third act, 13 Eliz. c. 3, which was designed to stop Catholics from taking refuge abroad, declared that any subject departing the realm without the queen's licence, and not returning within six months, should forfeit the profits of his lands during life and all his goods and chattels. The third and most severe group of statutes begins with the "Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's subjects in their obedience" (23 Eliz. c. 1), passed in 1581. This made it high treason to reconcile anyone or to be reconciled to "the Romish religion", prohibited Mass under penalty of a fine of two hundred marks and imprisonment for one year for the celebrant, and a fine of one hundred marks and the same imprisonment for those who heard the Mass. This act also increased the penalty for not attending the Anglican service to the sum of twenty pounds a month, or imprisonment till the fine be paid, or till the offender went to the Protestant Church. A further penalty of ten pounds a month was inflicted on anyone keeping a schoolmaster who did not attend the Protestant service. The schoolmaster himself was to be imprisoned for one year.
The climax of Elizabeth's persecution was reached in 1585 by the "Act against Jesuits, Seminary priests and other such like disobedient persons" (27 Eliz. c. 2). This statute, under which most of the English martyrs suffered, made it high treason for any Jesuit or any seminary priest to be in England at all, and felony for any one to harbour or relieve them. The penalties of Praemunire were imposed on all who sent assistance to the seminaries abroad, and a fine of 100 pounds for each offence on those who sent their children overseas without the royal licence.

So far as priests were concerned, the effect of all this legislation may be summed up as follows: For any priest ordained before the accession of Elizabeth it was high treason after 1563 to maintain the authority of the pope for the second time, or to refuse the oath of supremacy for the second time; after 1571, to receive or use any Bull or form of reconciliation; after 1581, to absolve or reconcile anyone to the Church or to be absolved or reconciled. For seminary priests it was high treason to be in England at all after l585. Under this statute, over 150 Catholics died on the scaffold between 1581 and 1603, exclusive of Erizabeth's earlier victims.

The last of Elizabeth's laws was the "Act for the better discovery of wicked and seditious persons terming themselves Catholics, but being rebellious and traitorous subjects" (35 Eliz. c. 2). Its effect was to prohibit all recusants from removing more than five miles from their place of abode, and to order all persons suspected of being Jesuits or seminary priests, and not answering satisfactorily, to be imprisoned till they did so. The hopes of the Catholics on the accession of James I were soon dispelled, and during his reign (1603-25) five very oppressive measures were added to the statute-book. In the first year of his reign there was passed the "Act for the due execution of the statue against Jesuits, seminary priests, etc." (I Jac. 1, iv) by which all Elizabeth's statutes were confirmed with additional aggravations. Thus persons going beyond seas to any Jesuit reminary were rendered incapable of purchasing or retaining any lands or goods in England; the penalty of 100 pounds on everyone sending a child or ward out of the realm, which had been enacted only for Elizabeth's reign, was now made perpetual; and Catholic schoolmasters not holding a licence from the Anglican bishop of the diocese were fined forty shillings a day, as were their employers. One slight relief was obtained in the exemption of one-third of the estate of a convicted recusant from liabilities to penalties; but against this must be set the provision that retained the remaining two-thirds after the owner's death till all his previous fines had been paid. Even then these two-thirds were only to be restored to the heir provided he was not himself a recusant.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11611c.htm

---

BAPTISTS PERSECUTED IN THE DAYS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH I

Queen Elizabeth I followed the Roman Catholic Queen Mary and established the Church of England on a more Protestant footing.

1. Though Elizabeth gave freedom to Protestants and treated the Catholics leniently (even though they continually plotted against her throne and even her life), she treated the Baptists severely.

2. Baptists had increased in England and were scattered in many parts of the country. Langley, in his English Baptists before 1602, mentions churches in nine counties that trace their origin to the days between 1576 and 1600. These had grown up from the native preaching that had been going on for a long time. They also began to emigrate from Holland, from France, and other places hoping that a Protestant Queen in England would grant them more liberty than existed in their home countries.

3. Encouraged by the bishops of the Church of England, within months of coming to the throne, Elizabeth issued a proclamation that Anabaptists should be located and transported out of England, and if they did not leave, they would be punished. She said the Anabaptists were “infected with dangerous opinions.”

On February 4, 1559, the High Commission Court was established by Parliament. The Queen issued an injunction against the preaching of any doctrine contrary to the Church of England.

She forbade the printing of any “heretical” book. She also set up “royal visitations” whereby representatives of the Crown were to go throughout the country in circuit with the power to search out all heretics.

By the end of 1559, the Act for the Uniformity of Religion was put into effect. It made the doctrine and practice of the Church of England the law of the land.

4. In June 1575, two Dutch Anabaptists were burned to death at Smithfield. Eleven had originally been condemned to burn after a trial in the consistory of St. Paul’s Cathedral, but nine were banished instead.

One of those who were burned was HENDRICK TERWOOKT. He was a young man, about 25, who had been married only a few weeks. He had fled to England to escape persecution in Fleming, thinking the Protestant Queen Elizabeth would be merciful.

The other man, JAN PIETERS, was an older man with a wife and nine children dependent on his labors. His first wife had been martyred in Flanders, and his current wife was the widow of a martyr. Now she was made a widow of a martyr the second time.

The death warrants for these two men by the Protestant Queen were almost exactly the same as those issued by the Catholic Queen Mary.

“The queen would not relent. On the 15th of July she signed the warrant for the execution of two of them, commanding the sheriffs of London to burn them alive in Smithfield. A copy of the warrant is now before me. There is also before me a copy of the warrant for the burning of Archbishop Cranmer in Queen Mary’s days. These warrants are substantially alike. In fact, they are almost couched in the same language, word for word. Mary, the Papist, dooming to death the Protestant, and Elizabeth, the Protestant, ordering the execution of the Baptist, advance the same pretensions and adopt the same forms of speech. Both of these call their victims ‘heretics.’ Both assume to be ‘zealous for justice.’ Both are ‘defenders of the Catholic faith.’ Both declare their determination to ‘maintain and defend the holy church, her rights and liberties.’ Both avow their resolve to ‘root out and extirpate heresies and errors.’ Both assert that the heretics named in the warrants had been convicted and condemned ‘according to the laws and customs of the realm.’ Both charge the sheriffs to take their prisoners to a ‘public and open place,’ and there to ‘commit them to the fire,’ in the presence of the people, and to cause them to be ‘really consumed’ in the said fire. Both warn the sheriffs that they fail therein at their peril” (John Cramp, Baptist History, 1852).

The queen had no excuse for claiming that these men were dangerous to her throne. They had submitted to her the following statement of faith:

“We believe and confess that magistrates are set and ordained of God, to punish the evil and protect the good; which magistracy we desire from our hearts to obey, as it is written in 1 Peter 2:13, ‘Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.’ ‘For he beareth not the sword in vain’ (Romans 13:4). And Paul teaches us that we should offer up for all ‘prayers, and intercessions, and giving of thanks; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires that all men should be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:1-4). He further teaches us ‘to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, and to be ready to every good work’ (Titus 3:1). Therefore we pray your majesty kindly to understand aright our meaning; which is, that we do not despise the eminent, noble, and gracious queen, and her wise councils, but esteem them as worthy of all honor, to whom we desire to be obedient in all things that we may. For we confess with Paul, as above, that she is God’s servant, and that if we resist this power, we resist the ordinance of God; for ‘rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.’ Therefore we confess to be due unto her, and are ready to give, tribute, custom, honor, and fear, as Christ himself has taught us, saying, ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’ (Matt. 22:21). Since, therefore, she is a servant of God, we will kindly pray her majesty that it would please her to show pity to us poor prisoners, even as our Father in heaven is pitiful (Luke 6:36). We likewise do not approve of those who resist the magistrates; but confess and declare with our whole heart that we must be obedient and subject unto them, as we have here set down” (Von Braght, Martyr’s Mirror, p. 929).

5. In 1593 two puritan ministers, Copping and Thacker, were hanged for nonconformity (J.J. Stockdale, The History of the Inquisitions, 1810, p. xxx).

6. About the time of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, Elizabeth appointed John Whitgift as Archbishop of Canterbury. In his zeal to bring all men into conformity with the Church of England, he filled the prisons with Baptists. “...eventually, some fifty-two were held for long periods in the ‘most noisome and vile dungeons’, without ‘beds, or so much as straw to lie upon.” In his sermons, Whitgift called Anabaptists “wayward and conceited persons.” Some fled the country, but many remained and were persecuted.

7. The persecution largely drove the Baptists out of sight during Elizabeth’s reign, but we know they continued to exist. The historian Strype describes a church in London in 1588 with “anabaptistical” views. He says they met together regularly on Sunday, preached the Word of God, took up offerings, sent assistance to their persecuted brethren in prison, did not regard the Church of England as a true church, rejected infant baptism, and held that the government should not meddle in religious beliefs.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/protestant-persecutions.html

---

So the bottom line was during the reign of Elizabeth I, if you were an Anglican, you had little or no persecution to fear. Otherwise...the story is a little different!

The point I was driving at was that Tyndale was excuted under an Anglican king (the first one)....just to keep the record straight here!

[P-Marlowe]

Tyndale was not a martyr. Heretics cannot be martyrs except in their own minds and in the minds of their heretical fellow travelers.

FWIW Jesus was considered a heretic and that is why the Jewish Authorities requested that the Romans put him to death.

Carry on.

[vladimir998]

P-Marlowe,

Nice try, but you're wrong. Christ was condemned as a blasphemer by Jewish leaders, not as a heretic.

Maybe if you had ever read the Bible you would know this.

Matthew 26:64-66 (New King James Version) 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken BLASPHEMY! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”

Or how about Mark? Mark 14:63-65 (New King James Version)
63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the BLASPHEMY! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

Even before He was tried He was accused of BLASPHEMY: John 10:32-34; 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?

The same was said of Stephen when he was stoned to death:
Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. 11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak BLASPHEMOUS words against Moses and God.” ... 13 They also set up false witnesses who said, “This man does not cease to speak BLASPHEMOUS words against this holy place and the law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”

[P-Marlowe]

heretic

n 1: a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church [syn: misbeliever, religious outcast] 2: a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field (not merely religion)

I'd have to say that on both counts Jesus could be considered a heretic.

[vladimir998]

P-Marlowe,

In case you have not realized it yet, what you think is essentially irrelevant in regard to what scripture actually tells us in this matter.

Jesus was considered a blasphemer.

Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer.

The penalty for blasphemy was death.

You were wrong. Accept that reality or continue to embarrass yourself as you please, but the scriptures show you were wrong.

Also, I should point out that your "definition" -- and wherever you got it from -- is inaccurate. That is not the proper definition of heretic. I bet you didn't even know that now did you? Please continue to post.

[Conservative til I die]

More Protestant mythmaking? These hagiographies are entertaining.

[Conservative til I die]

FWIW Jesus was considered a heretic and that is why the Jewish Authorities requested that the Romans put him to death.

Carry on.

Jesus is Lord and God. Tyndale was not Jesus.

[P-Marlowe]

You were wrong. Accept that reality or continue to embarrass yourself as you please, but the scriptures show you were wrong.

Sorry vlad, but the scriptures prove I am right.

Jesus was a heretic to those who wanted him crucified. One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy.

Heresy

1Co_11:18-19. Schisms (Greek: "schisma") meant "divisions" through differences of opinion of recent standing. "Heresies" meant "schisms inveterate". "Sect" (Greek "heresy") Act_5:17; Act_15:5. Paul means by "there must be heresies among you," that sin must bear its natural fruit, as Christ foretold (Luk_17:1), and schisms (compare 1Co_12:25) must eventuate in mattered secessions or confirmed schisms. "Heresy" did not yet bear its present meaning, "doctrinal error". However see its use in Act_24:14.

Faucett's Bible Dictionary

Paul actually noted in Act 24:14 that the Church itself was considered a Heresy.

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.

So the fact is that Paul was being accused of heresy when in fact he was preaching the truth. Simply because someone calls another a heretic does not mean that it is the alleged heretic who does not believe the Truth.

I suspect that Tyndale was much closer to the truth than those who unscriptually ordered him executed for his beliefs.

[P-Marlowe]

Jesus was considered a blasphemer. Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer. The penalty for blasphemy was death.

So, in your opinion was Jesus a heretic or was he a blasphemer?

[vladimir998]

P-Marlowe

You wrote: "So, in your opinion was Jesus a heretic or was he a blasphemer?"

In my opinion Jesus was, and is, Lord. He is the Christ. He is the Savior. He is the Son of the Living God. He cannot be a blasphemer since He is all holy. He cannot be a heretic since He is perfect.

[P-Marlowe]

He cannot be a heretic since He is perfect.

But you stated that he was not being crucified because he was a heretic, but because he was a blasphemer.

The fact is that the Romans crucified him because they had evidence that he was claiming to be the King of the Jews. That would be treason. The stated reason that the Jewish Authorities had sought to kill him was because he allegedly blasphemed. But the Jews had no authority in Roman Palestine to have anyone executed for blasphemy. So they trumped up a charge of treason. In actuality the Jewish Authorities probably could have cared less that Jesus claimed to be God, but their concern was that he, like Luther and Tyndale who followed, was a threat to their Religious authority. He directly challenged the authority of the religious leaders of his day and claimed that their traditions had made the word of God of no effect. For that reason the Jewish Authorities wanted him dead. They needed him dead. He was upsetting the apple cart.

In the eyes of those who crucified him Jesus was a heretic. Paul stated categorically that what he considered "the way" to worship God was what was referenced by his accusers as "heresy". In that sense Paul was a heretic. In that sense I too am a heretic.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "Sorry vlad, but the scriptures prove I am right."

No, look again. I proved with more than one verse that Christ was condemned for blasphemy. We were not talking about Paul.

"Jesus was a heretic to those who wanted him crucified. One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy."

Incorrect. We KNOW that Christ was condemned for blasphemy. We KNOW that Tyndale was condemned for heresy.


Your verses merely prove my point. The very word is a Greek word used by Christians. It was rarely used and it was never used against Christ except indirectly in Acts 24:5 and 24:14 and not as "heresy" but as "sect". In other words, the word was used as a description of a group, not as a description of an idea, or doctrine. Nice try.

You ignore that "hairesis" was used inthe same way to describe the "sects" of Judaism: Acts 5:17, 15:5. And Christians, 28:22. And almost typically you ignore Matthew 26:65.

"So the fact is that Paul was being accused of heresy when in fact he was preaching the truth."

Paul was accused of being a member of a sect -- and that is how he described it to Luke in Greek. Note that the word BLASPHEMER was used against Jesus, not HERESY.

"Simply because someone calls another a heretic does not mean that it is the alleged heretic who does not believe the Truth."

A mere person did not call Tyndale a heretic when he was condemned. A tribunal empowered with such decisions convicted him of heresy.

"I suspect that Tyndale was much closer to the truth than those who unscriptually ordered him executed for his beliefs."

That was the punishment for the crime. The punishment was carried out. Their action may have been wrong or excessive, but they were certainly right to convict him of heresy in the first place.

[vladimir998]

P-Marlowe,

You wrote:

"But you stated that he was not being crucified because he was a heretic, but because he was a blasphemer."

No, I stated why He was condemned by Jewish leaders. I never mentioned His crucifixion or the Romans. Disagree with what I say, not what your mind imagines I said.

"The fact is that the Romans crucified him because they had evidence that he was claiming to be the King of the Jews."

And that is entirely irrelevant to what we are talking about since that is neither about His condemnation by Jews or about heresy or blasphemy. Care to stay on topic?

"That would be treason. The stated reason that the Jewish Authorities had sought to kill him was because he allegedly blasphemed. But the Jews had no authority in Roman Palestine to have anyone executed for blasphemy. So they trumped up a charge of treason. In actuality the Jewish Authorities probably could have cared less that Jesus claimed to be God, but their concern was that he, like Luther and Tyndale who followed, was a threat to their Religious authority."

Tyndale was not a threat to anyone's "Religious authority". His ideas were a threat to souls.

"He directly challenged the authority of the religious leaders of his day and claimed that their traditions had made the word of God of no effect. For that reason the Jewish Authorities wanted him dead. They needed him dead. He was upsetting the apple cart."

And they condemned Him for blasphemy, and not heresy.

"In the eyes of those who crucified him Jesus was a heretic. Paul stated categorically that what he considered "the way" to worship God was what was referenced by his accusers as "heresy". In that sense Paul was a heretic. In that sense I too am a heretic."

No. The word was used to describe a group and not an idea. You are comparable to Paul in beliefs -- except in the lacking way. Your ego is as immense as your lack of knowledge is obvious.