Tyndale and defying the Pope

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

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.

Click to expand...

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

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!

Click to expand...

Serpentslayer said:

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

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Mr Dave

Nothing more justified than his quote there.
​

Click to expand...

LittleLambofJesus said:

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."

Click to expand...

MarkRohfrietsch said:

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??????????

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

MarkRohfrietsch said:

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!

Click to expand...

Serpentslayer said:

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

Click to expand...

Rhamiel said:

voted

Click to expand...

fireof god98 said:

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

Click to expand...

brinny said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

fireof god98 said:

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

Click to expand...

fireof god98 said:

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

Click to expand...

LittleLambofJesus said:

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

Click to expand...

MoreCoffee said:

(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).

Click to expand...

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

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!

Click to expand...

LittleLambofJesus said:

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.


.

Click to expand...