Tyndale and defying the Pope

[MoreCoffee]

My mistake. As Erose has already pointed out, the terms were those of Sixtus of Sienna, who used them to distinction between his native Jewish canon and that of the Catholic Church, and whose writings widely used in the Bellarmine era.

In any case, the distinction goes back at least as far as Athanasius' 39th festal letter.

The distinction between Greek canon and a Hebrew list of inspired books probably goes back as far as the mid second century AD (some claim it originated at a 'council' held in Jamnia after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD but before the end of the first century on the first of January 101 AD). The Catholic Church has long recognized all of the deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture, and that is why Catholic Bibles have 73 books (46 Old Testament, 29 New Testament). Protestants, beginning with Martin Luther, rejected the Old Testament deuterocanon in the 1500s, and that is why their Bibles have only 66 books, plus shorter versions of Esther and Daniel. The Eastern Orthodox accept the 73 books Catholics accept, plus Psalm 151, 3 and 4 Maccabees, a book of Esdras (called 3 Esdras in Slavonic and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix), and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The words proto-canon and deutero-canon originated, as far as I know, some time after the excommunication of Martin Luther in 1520 AD.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Actually, Bibles in the Church of England and endorsed by the Church of England still include the Apocrypha as a separate section. The New Revised Standard Version annotated study editions put out by Cambridge and Oxford are good examples. Moreover, the lectionary schedule in the Book of Common Prayer includes readings from the deuterocanon as Old Testament readings.

I'd blame America before I blamed Britain. The Puritans (who wanted to purify the Church of England of all the "papist" elements, like the deuterocanon and the liturgy and... singing...) and the various other Protestant groups that ended up in the colonies wanted "purified' Bibles of the Reformed/Puritan type, and as I recall were the ones who began publishing King James Versions without the Apocrypha section.

I'd be curious to know if Bibles published during the Commonwealth reign of Oliver Cromwell, the height of Puritanism within the Church of England, contained the Apocrypha section. The Westminster Confession, authored after the Roundhead victory in the English Civil War, does not include them, but it seems no King James Bible was published without the Apocrypha until 1666.

Also, English Bibles published for the Church of Scotland (a Reformed church) probably never included the deuterocanon.

And does anybody know about the original Methodist Bibles? I mean, John Wesley was a high church Anglican after all. When did Methodists cut it off?

But as for Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, free church and organized evangelicals, well, that's the Reformed heritage, from the continent through the Puritans to the whole of the English-speaking world.

Anyways. Tyndale!

I'd still blame England and their former residents, the Puritans can have a share in that blame. Until publishing got going, mainly in Penn. as I understand, English Bibles would have been imported... from England at that time. Evidence of this besides the Bibles which were not dated usually, are the copies of the BoCP which were used by Methodist and Anglicans for some time; these were imported also... so were Clergy.

I have a (not super early) German Lutheran Bible set in Fraktur, published in Pittsburgh, which is a copy of Luther's and which does indeed have the apocrypha.

Tyndale!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Must be a good thread, it has 1000% more views per post than any of my other subscribed threads. Why aren't there more posts??????????

 

[Serpentslayer]

There was a statement that Tyndale was quoted as saying that if you give the Holy Bible in the hand of the farmer boy, he will end up knowing more about scripture than the priest.

William Tyndale

 

[Rick Otto]

Tyndale!

 

[brinny]

he was a courageous man. My appreciation of Godly men is growing.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There was a statement that Tyndale was quoted as saying that if you give the Holy Bible in the hand of the farmer boy, he will end up knowing more about scripture than the priest.

William Tyndale

Yes, and one of my favorite quotes from him:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7495160-43/#post55593096

Originally Posted by Mr Dave

Nothing more justified than his quote there.
​

Thank you Mr Dave
This part struck out at me more than any other quote by the early Reformers struggling against Rome and the Papacy.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html


......"If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”

Luke 9:62
But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Must be a good thread, it has 1000% more views per post than any of my other subscribed threads. Why aren't there more posts??????????

Interesting.

Posts: 427
Views: 12,063

I clicked on the "view" option for threads and found this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/f80/?order=desc&sort=views

http://www.christianforums.com/t7213672/
Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up

Posts:.....1,993
Views:.. 32,874

It was closed for review [just before the thread split] almost 5 yrs ago!

13th November 2008, 10:48 AM

MOD HAT ON

Thread is closed for staff review and clean up

MOD HAT OFF

Original OP:

JacktheCatholic

Praise the Lord for He is Good!

I am starting a thread on a topic I personally find very interesting.

The Catholic Church has history that dates back to the churches that were established by the Apsotles and they have many churches that reside on the same spots where Jesus lived and taught. There seems to be so many proofs for the Catholic Church as being the Church that was established by the Apostles.

Yet my Protestant brothers and sisters will disagree with this more than not. Some of my Protestant brothers and sister know the Catholic Church is rooted to the early church, the church established by the Apostles. But many of them say otherwise.

I would like to open this thread by stating that I hope to see debate here. I hope to see people sharing information based on facts and emperical data. I hope to see conversations based on historical writings and places of ancestry. I hope to see every one being kind and patient with each other. But most importantly I hope (and pray) that we all keep an open mind and be mindful of how we treat others and their beliefs.

*as a note I would like to see a sharing of common sources. I have always found that most will accept Wikipedia and so I will start by using that site as a source and include links.


To start...

The Catholic Church has many proofs and some of them are:

1.) Apsotolic Succession

2.) Basilica of our Lady of the Pillar

3.) Vulgate


I have started with three that I find to be proofs that the Catholic Church is both rooted in time to the Apostles as the earliest church and that it is the Church guided by the Holy Spirit because it wrote the Vulgate.

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Just a reminder folks.
This thread topic is on W. Tyndale only.

​

Well, LLoJ; you gave me a rep for this NON-Tyndale post BTW: #373.

Also, if we can keep this sucker going, you will not have to bring it back from the dead!

Good thread BTW!

Why thank ya bro!



.

 

[Rhamiel]

voted

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

There was a statement that Tyndale was quoted as saying that if you give the Holy Bible in the hand of the farmer boy, he will end up knowing more about scripture than the priest.

William Tyndale

That was almost certainly true of farmers and priests in his day. Or, at least, for all three literate farmers in England and all six literate priests.

Today? Well, priests actually have to undergo seminary education and we know a lot more about the world in which the Bible was written, so you better hope the Bible has good annotations.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

voted

Thank you bro.
Why do you consider him a heretic? Just curious...

Tyndale was a heretic
Andres88 , Ave Maria, catholicbybirth, chilehed, Dylan Michael, Gottlieb, HarryCovert, JacktheCatholic, Kurama, LOCO, Nik0s, princess_ballet, Rhamiel, Sander, Sphinx777, StThomasMore, tadoflamb, Virgil the Roman, Yab Yum


.

 

[fireof god98]

Tyndale in a way was a heretic but in another was not. he translated the bible but soon everyone read it in a different way and the churches split up but then again everyone got to read the bible and see the true path to salvation

 

[brinny]

Tyndale in a way was a heretic but in another was not. he translated the bible but soon everyone read it in a different way and the churches split up but then again everyone got to read the bible and see the true path to salvation

If he shed light on what God's Word said about the true path to salvation, was that a heresy-like thing to do? Was he a heretic in Jesus' eyes?

 

[fireof god98]

If he shed light on what God's Word said about the true path to salvation, was that a heresy-like thing to do? Was he a heretic in Jesus' eyes?

no but caused confusing because nobody could interpret the bible and everyone broke off into there own groups

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny View Post
If he shed light on what God's Word said about the true path to salvation, was that a heresy-like thing to do? Was he a heretic in Jesus' eyes?

no but caused confusing because nobody could interpret the bible and everyone broke off into there own groups

Please elaborate on what specifically may have caused confusion, his shedding light on the true path to salvation, or something else? Isn;t the Holy Spirit our "Teacher" in the learning of God's Word? Any ensuing confusion, is that of God? I ask because is it not written that God is not the Author of confusion?

In further thinking on this, wasn't Jesus Himself called a heretic? The question is perhaps, just because someone calls another a heretic, does that mean that they are a heretic? And just another thought....in esssence, if Jesus was called a heretic, weren't the accusers essentially calling God Himself a heretic?

Thank you kindly.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Tyndale in a way was a heretic but in another was not. he translated the bible but soon everyone read it in a different way and the churches split up but then again everyone got to read the bible and see the true path to salvation

The churches split way before Tyndale [and some other Reformers] came along

http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703/
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

Hi. I didn't post links and those interested in this subject can just do a google search.

I had never really looked into the Great Schism between the Orthodox and Roman church and would like to ask was this actually benficial to Christianity as a whole and could this have also led to an even greater Reformation in the centuries after that? There may be a lot of Christians unaware of this rather large milstone in Christian history and I myself never realized how hugh this really was.

Where would Christianity be today if this event had not happened. Let's try to keep this thread civil and informative, no bashing of either these 2 denominations or any other. Thanks and peace


Results 1 - 10 of about 43,300 for GreatSchism of 1054.

Following the rule of Charlemagne, Christianity spread throughout Europe which served as a unifying force for the continent. This was in part due to the Great Schism of 1054 where two competing religious authorities, Pope Leo IX of the Roman Catholic Church, and Patriarch Michael I of the Eastern Orthodox faith, excommunicated each other in a dispute over authority..............

The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions. But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart. Also, though the date seems to be an easy reference, it must be seen as wider political and theological context which lead to the division.............

The cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal. The main point of contention was the use of leavened bread during the celebration of Mass, according to MacMillan Publishing's

.

 

[Erose]

(some claim it originated at a 'council' held in Jamnia after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD but before the end of the first century on the first of January 101 AD).

The myth of the council of Jamnia is exactly that a myth. There is absolutely no evidence that such a council occurred. It seems that this was an invention of a Protestant apologist, to push the establishment of the Jewish canon earlier than the establishment of the Christian canon. Sadly among Protestant scholars this became 'fact' and is still taught in it seems most Protestant versions of Church history.

 

[Erose]

Actually, Bibles in the Church of England and endorsed by the Church of England still include the Apocrypha as a separate section. The New Revised Standard Version annotated study editions put out by Cambridge and Oxford are good examples. Moreover, the lectionary schedule in the Book of Common Prayer includes readings from the deuterocanon as Old Testament readings.

I'd blame America before I blamed Britain. The Puritans (who wanted to purify the Church of England of all the "papist" elements, like the deuterocanon and the liturgy and... singing...) and the various other Protestant groups that ended up in the colonies wanted "purified' Bibles of the Reformed/Puritan type, and as I recall were the ones who began publishing King James Versions without the Apocrypha section.

I'd be curious to know if Bibles published during the Commonwealth reign of Oliver Cromwell, the height of Puritanism within the Church of England, contained the Apocrypha section. The Westminster Confession, authored after the Roundhead victory in the English Civil War, does not include them, but it seems no King James Bible was published without the Apocrypha until 1666.

Also, English Bibles published for the Church of Scotland (a Reformed church) probably never included the deuterocanon.

And does anybody know about the original Methodist Bibles? I mean, John Wesley was a high church Anglican after all. When did Methodists cut it off?

But as for Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, free church and organized evangelicals, well, that's the Reformed heritage, from the continent through the Puritans to the whole of the English-speaking world.

Anyways. Tyndale!

I'm still trying to wrap this up in my head. Lutherans still regard the Deauterocanonical books as Scripture, but just not at the level of the Protocanonical books. Right?

So if this is the case then the blame for removing books from Scripture falls on the Reformed groups? So was it Zwingli who reduced these books to only apocrypha? Or Calvin?

 

[Erose]

Just a reminder folks.
This thread topic is on W. Tyndale only.

I notice there are some that voted they didn't know who he was:

Who the heck was Tyndale?

10 7.87%

William Tyndale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Betrayal and death

Eventually, Tyndale was betrayed by Henry Phillips to the imperial authorities,[24] seized in Antwerp in 1535 and held in the castle of Vilvoorde (Filford) near Brussels.[25] He was tried on a charge of heresy in 1536 and condemned to be burned to death, despite Thomas Cromwell's intercession on his behalf. Tyndale "was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned".[26] (The strangulation was not fully effective and Tyndale partially revived, it was reported that he was aware of being burned but died in a quiet, stoical manner).

Reportedly, Tyndale's final words, spoken "at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice", were reported as "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."[27] The traditional date of commemoration is 6 October, but records of Tyndale's imprisonment suggest the actual date of his execution might have been some weeks earlier.[28] Foxe gives 6 October as the date of commemoration (left-hand date column), but gives no date of death (right-hand date column).[25]

Within four years, at the same king's behest, four English translations of the Bible were published in England,[29] including Henry's official Great Bible. All were based on Tyndale's work. Even though Tyndale’s translation of the Old Testament remained unfinished at his death, his work formed the basis of all subsequent English translations of the Bible, including the 'King James' version of 1611.


.

Well quite honestly this other line of conversation is a lot more interesting. Beside who really cares about Tyndale?