About william tyndale

[Jon_S_1]

No, they can’t, because they are apostate & there is something called the Church, which is made up of believing Gentiles and Jews, who are not under the Law of Moses but under grace. I’ve explained this distinction between the Church and Israel - more than once already.

Problem being that the Jews don’t see themselves that way…why are they not killing adulterers anymore along with celebrating the passover and keeping kosher??

“If”??? How about “since”? Did Tyndale murder someone else to warrant the death penalty since that is the ONLY penalty justified in the NT for capital punishment? If not, then he was murdered. I’ve also explained that if Protestants do the same thing, then - YES! - they are murderers as well…which - again - I explained this already. Murder doesn’t “change” depending on whether or not you’re Catholic or Protestant or anything else. The only difference is that I’m not “justifying” their crimes like you are.

Where in the New Testament does it say you can use capital punishment…but only for murderers?

 

[Jon_S_1]

No, Ignatius was murdered. His martyrdom wasn’t “understandable.” It was still murder in God’s eyes, which is what is all that is important. God defines murder, we don’t.

I agree he was murdered…

Are you unable to understand why the Romans had him murdered?

 

[Jon_S_1]

No, they can’t, because they are apostate & there is something called the Church, which is made up of believing Gentiles and Jews, who are not under the Law of Moses but under grace. I’ve explained this distinction between the Church and Israel - more than once already.

“If”??? How about “since”? Did Tyndale murder someone else to warrant the death penalty since that is the ONLY penalty justified in the NT for capital punishment? If not, then he was murdered. I’ve also explained that if Protestants do the same thing, then - YES! - they are murderers as well…which - again - I explained this already. Murder doesn’t “change” depending on whether or not you’re Catholic or Protestant or anything else. The only difference is that I’m not “justifying” their crimes like you are.

I haven’t justified any crimes…Not a one. I have simply described the period of history, so people aren’t misled.

No one is outraged that people were executed for stealing a loaf of bread…but the rally around Tyndale as if it was a UNIQUE travesty, instead of commonplace.

Doesn’t mean it is right, it just means that society was screwed up at all fronts at that time.

Thats why it is erroneous to say “Tyndale was killed therefore Catholicism is false” It just doesn’t factor that way at all.

 

[thetazlord]

Problem being that the Jews don’t see themselves that way…why are they not killing adulterers anymore along with celebrating the passover and keeping kosher??

Doesn’t matter if the Jews don’t see themselves that way. God/Jesus considers them apostate. So, it really doesn’t matter what they “think” about themselves - they are still apostate. The fact that they are neither keeping the Law (“killing adulterers”) is proof that - as the apostle Paul states - “not all of Israel is Israel.” And even “if” they did that, it would still be murder, because - AGAIN! - the age of the Law is over, & the age of grace (which - AGAIN! - involved the Church, not Israel) involves believing Gentiles as well as believing JEWS (which apostate Israel is not apart of), which does not command the murdering of adulterers.

Where in the New Testament does it say you can use capital punishment…but only for murderers?

 

[thetazlord]

I agree he was murdered…

Are you unable to understand why the Romans had him murdered?

Yes, I “understand” their reasoning, just as I “understand” the reasoning behind Tyndale’s execution. Still doesn’t change the fact that in the eyes of God, both were murder. So, what makes Ignatius’ execution “murder,” but Tyndale’s execution “not murder” even though they were executed for similar reasons - refusal to conform to the commands of the “leaders” of their time - in the case of Tyndale was the church-state that were one in the same.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon S;12654906:

Problem being that the Jews don’t see themselves that way…why are they not killing adulterers anymore along with celebrating the passover and keeping kosher??

Doesn’t matter if the Jews don’t see themselves that way. God/Jesus considers them apostate. So, it really doesn’t matter what they “think” about themselves - they are still apostate. The fact that they are neither keeping the Law (“killing adulterers”) is proof that - as the apostle Paul states - “not all of Israel is Israel.” And even “if” they did that, it would still be murder, because - AGAIN!

• the age of the Law is over, & the age of grace (which - AGAIN! - involved the Church, not Israel) involves believing Gentiles as well as believing JEWS (which apostate Israel is not apart of), which does not command the murdering of adulterers.

Jesus continued to confirm & justify capital punishment for murder when He told Peter who attempted to murder the guard, “if you live by the sword you will die by the sword.” He also upheld “you shall not murder” & the earthly consequences of it by equating it, with anger & the eternal consequences of unrepentant anger (Matthew 5:21-22) - the second death. You don’t find any examples of the justifiable capital punishment in the NT outside of murder.

So, are you against capital punishment? If so, how can you condone the capital punishment of Tyndale then?

Its way too late, gotta go to bed after this post!

I am against Capital Punishment in the United States and like countries.

Capital Punishment has been needed throughout history to protect society from danger.

In today’s society, jails are adequate protections from danger.

That doesn’t mean the death penalty cannot be administered justly, it can, but I think it is best practice and far more beneficial to the accused and society to not execute people in nearly all circumstances.

The death penalty is used as revenge today and that is not its appropriate purpose.

 

[thetazlord]

I haven’t justified any crimes…Not a one. I have simply described the period of history, so people aren’t misled.

Excusing murder by the church-state simply because of the “period of history” it was in, certainly is justifying it. Would Jesus have executed Him - again - in the Church age? We’re not talking Israel & the Law here.

No one is outraged that people were executed for stealing a loaf of bread…but the rally around Tyndale as if it was a UNIQUE travesty, instead of commonplace.

Seriously??? You’re actually equating stealing a loaf of bread with ending the life of an innocent man who didn’t commit murder. You do realize we are in the Church age, not Israel under the Law, don’t you?

Doesn’t mean it is right, it just means that society was screwed up at all fronts at that time.

Doesn’t make the crime any “less” of a murder. Do you know the difference between murder & capital punishment?

Thats why it is erroneous to say “Tyndale was killed therefore Catholicism is false” It just doesn’t factor that way at all.

I never made that accusation. I simply asked if the people in the church-state who ended Tyndale’s life committed murder. Based on the Bible, yes, they did.

 

[thetazlord]

thetazlord;12654931:

That doesn’t mean the death penalty cannot be administered justly, it can, but I think it is best practice and far more beneficial to the accused and society to not execute people in nearly all circumstances.

The death penalty is used as revenge today and that is not its appropriate purpose.

In what specific circumstances would you be “for” the death penalty then, if not the murder of the innocent who don’t commit murder themselves? Ending the life of someone who murdered an innocent child, woman, or even a man isn’t “used as revenge.” It’s called justice - “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.” That’s why Jesus didn’t “abolish” the death penalty for murder. The problem is that the Jews didn’t have the death penalty, because they were under Roman authority. But that doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t reject it either. In fact, He condoned it. Capital punishment for murder is meant as a deterent for ending innocent life, as well as preventing further ending of life. Murderers can murder in prison too. But they can’t do that if they are dead. The problem is that society has gotten too “soft” on crimes, including murder.

But it still doesn’t change the fact that Tyndale was murdered, & although you think it was “wrong,” you don’t seem to have a problem with the “era” it happened in, so that you can say “it really wasn’t murder,” even though in reality it was, based on God’s Word.

 

[Kaninchen]

It’s called justice - “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.”

Just to point out that it was a recompense formula rather than a punishment formula - along the lines of a sheep for a tooth, a flock for an eye, the support of a family if you killed the breadwinner.

 

[thetazlord]

Just to point out that it was a recompense formula rather than a punishment formula - along the lines of a sheep for a tooth, a flock for an eye, the support of a family if you killed the breadwinner.

Actually, if you read those OT verses, there are specific examples that if you murder someone, you do pay with your own life (capital punishment). There were other examples that capital punishment occured, but only the death penalty for murder carried over into the NT, which Jesus condoned. Slalom!

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually, if you read those OT verses, there are specific examples that if you murder someone, you do pay with your own life (capital punishment). There were other examples that capital punishment occured, but only the death penalty for murder carried over into the NT, which Jesus condoned.

Well, there’s no point in talking about the NT because, obviously, I don’t believe a word of it.

Meanwhile, please expound on those very verses from the Tanakh (OT to you) and, while you’re about it, what would happen if a blind man blinded a seeing man or a toothless man knocked out somebody else’s teeth? In other words, it was, indeed, a recompense formula.

Of course, what Christians make of it is entirely up to you.

Slalom!

I’m afraid I don’t ski (I’m averse to snow), I think you meant Shalom, in which case ‘Aleikhem Shalom’

 

[clem456]

JonS
The world was very different then, the laws were different and the culture was different. It’s not right to judge them by today’s worldview

.

God is the source of morality. What is evil in God’s sight is evil in every time and place. It is evil to kill a man for a translation of the bible, anytime anyplace.

However, JonS is not proposing moral relativism, he is making a statement about culpability. He says

“it is not right **to judge them **by today’s standards”

and this is correct. He is not proposing moral relativism (I don’t pretend to speak for him, but this statement is not proposing moral relativism, it is simply observing the intentions and desired ends in place at that time.)

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

In the first place, we are not the judge of a person’s soul. We make prudential judgments about the morality of actions, but not about a person’s culpability before God. People confuse the process of making a moral decision with culpability and the judgment that belongs to God alone. Only God can see the intentions of a person, and knows the full circumstances (this does not make excuses for inherently evil actions !)
And this is why JP2 issued apologies on behalf of the Church for historic actions that were inherently evil, but seemed justified by the mores of the time.
Human beings suffer from ignorance, plain and simple.

 

[clem456]

If you read Tyndale’s history objectively, it is easy to notice that in addition to running afoul of the Church for printing unauthorized and erroneous translations, he ran afoul of the despot Henry, whose divorce he spoke out against. He fled England and was pursued by Henry.
His final words are reported as

“Lord open the King of England’s eyes.”

But seen narrowly and without consideration, this does make a convenient rallying cry for anti-Church folks to cry “murder”, as if Catholics are the only ones who kill in the name of religion.

 

[clem456]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html#Ethical Discernment

5.1. Some Ethical Criteria

On the level of morality, the request for forgiveness always presupposes an admission of responsibility, precisely the responsibility for a wrong committed against others. Usually, moral responsibility refers to the relationship between the action and the person who does it. It establishes who is responsible for an act, its attribution to a certain person or persons. The responsibility may be objective or subjective. Objective responsibility refers to the moral value of the act in itself, insofar as it is good or evil, and thus refers to the imputability of the action. Subjective responsibility concerns the effective perception by individual conscience of the goodness or evil of the act performed. Subjective responsibility ceases with the death of the one who performed the act; it is not transmitted through generation; the descendants do not inherit (subjective) responsibility for the acts of their ancestors. In this sense, asking for forgiveness presupposes a contemporaneity between those who are hurt by an action and those who committed it. The only responsibility capable of continuing in history can be the objective kind, to which one may freely adhere subjectively or not. Thus, the evil done often outlives the one who did it through the consequences of behaviors that can become a heavy burden on the consciences and memories of the descendants.
…

The combination of historical judgement and theological judgement in the process of interpreting the past is connected to the ethical repercussions that it may have in the present and entails some principles corresponding, on the moral plane, to the hermeneutic foundation of the relationship between historical judgement and theological judgement. These are:

a. The principle of conscience. Conscience, as “moral judgement” and as “moral imperative,” constitutes the final evaluation of an act as good or evil before God. In effect, only God knows the moral value of each human act, even if the Church, like Jesus, can and must classify, judge, and sometimes condemn some kinds of action (cf. Mt 18:15-18).

b. The principle of historicity. Precisely inasmuch as every human act belongs to the subject who acts, every individual conscience and every society chooses and acts within a determined horizon of time and space. To truly understand human acts or their related dynamics, we need therefore to enter into the world of those who did them. Only in such a way can we come to know their motivations and their moral principles. This must be said without prejudice to the solidarity that binds the members of a specific community through the passage of time.

c. The principle of “paradigm change.” While before the Enlightenment there existed a sort of osmosis between Church and State, between faith and culture, morality and law, from the eighteenth century onward this relationship was modified significantly. The result was a transition from a sacral society to a pluralist society, or, as occurred in a few cases, to a secular society. The models of thought and action, the so-called “paradigms” of actions and evaluation, change. Such a transition has a direct impact on moral judgements, although this influence does not justify in any way a relativistic idea of moral principles or of the nature of morality itself.

 

[Jon_S_1]

.

God is the source of morality. What is evil in God’s sight is evil in every time and place. It is evil to kill a man for a translation of the bible, anytime anyplace.

However, JonS is not proposing moral relativism, he is making a statement about culpability. He says

and this is correct. He is not proposing moral relativism (I don’t pretend to speak for him, but this statement is not proposing moral relativism, it is simply observing the intentions and desired ends in place at that time.)

In the first place, we are not the judge of a person’s soul. We make prudential judgments about the morality of actions, but not about a person’s culpability before God. People confuse the process of making a moral decision with culpability and the judgment that belongs to God alone. Only God can see the intentions of a person, and knows the full circumstances (this does not make excuses for inherently evil actions !)
And this is why JP2 issued apologies on behalf of the Church for historic actions that were inherently evil, but seemed justified by the mores of the time.
Human beings suffer from ignorance, plain and simple.

Thank you.

 

[DrTaffy]

However, JonS is not proposing moral relativism, he is making a statement about culpability.

The original statement:

DrTaffy;12633820:

The following is pure moral relativism:

The world was very different then, the laws were different and the culture was different. It’s not right to judge them by today’s worldview.

IOW it would not be moral to kill someone for translating the Bible now, but it was then. :shrug:Sure

Again, with emphasis:
IOW it would not be moral to kill someone for translating the Bible now, but it was then.

As I said, pure moral relativism.

 

[clem456]

The original statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon S View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTaffy View Post
The following is pure moral relativism:

No, it is not.
What is morality? Please think about what morality is. There is a section from the catechism posted above.
Think about what culpability and judgment are. The passage dealing with apology posted above gets into the relationship between these concepts.

Note his words that he actually wrote:

It’s not right to judge them

.
He did not say “it is ok to murder another human being”.

 

[clem456]

This might be one of the most often discussed topics ever, and most misunderstood. We want to get our hands around evils of the past and make sense of them, rightly so.

Usually the question is posed in the context of Old Testament violence, and whether or not God could have literally willed the destruction of innocent human beings in the name of “the ban”.

Was it evil in God’s eyes to destroy human beings in the name of religion in the Old Testament? Yes. The object (murder) is always evil.

It is right for us to judge the ancient peoples according to our current understandings of God’s will, especially in light of his full revelation, the foundation of which is Jesus Christ?
No. That would be foolish. The understanding was not present to have a fully formed conscience formed in the same way we have. The civil and cultural environments were not the same. Although God is the unchanging source of morality, our understanding of him changes. Now, we “know better” (or at least we should know better…practical human experience frequently shows we are still stupid).

Was the action evil? Yes
Can we judge the actors according to times and places they did not live in?
Anyone with common sense can answer that.