Religious Controversies: The Right Religion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, I don’t know if this is the appropriate place, but I was hoping some of the folks here might help me out. This is probably going to sound like Christian bashing, but I hope it isn’t taken as such. I absolutely believe in god and I do try to live as Christ did.

I’m kind of a Jeffersonian Unitarian type. Not a true Christian by normal standards and here is why:

The old testament.

I have a huge philosophical problem with much of it. I don’t see most of it as universal Truth. I even believe some of it to be wrong. Not believing in the divine nature of the old testament I then reach an impass at Christ’s divinity. If the old testament isn’t absolute Truth, Jesus, who believed in it cannot be divine.

I have a lot of problems with the old law. Do yall actually believe killing animals in a specific way and sprinkling their blood in certain areas and putting blood on your right ear and burning organs and fat was the way to please god?

Do you believe in the justice of stoning people for working on the Sabbath or exiling people for minor offenses?

Do you believe in the justice of mass genocide of other people including women and children?

Do you believe that the rules concerning slavery were correct?

Do you think the mercy seat was truly a seat where you could literally talk to god?

If Christ hadn’t yet made his first visit, would you adhere to these rules and not eat pork? Or even better, if you’d lived as an Israeli back then, would you hold yourself to the law?

Would you treat a woman on her period as unclean (and anything she sits on)?

Do you believe the scape goat really took people’s sins with it?

Would you participate in stoning like the law says to?

God even admits several times that he does or is about to do something evil and then stops or is talked out of it.

Genesis 6:6,7 “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him.”

Jonah 3:10 “. . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”

Exodus 32:14 “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”

How can an all powerful benign god regret something and contemplate doing evil?

I can’t bring myself to believe in the Truth of the old testament. I do think it was appropriate for the time and contains good advice, but I cannot accept it as divinely inspired.

I just find myself saying, that law is wrong, they shouldn’t do that to people when I read much of it. Further, by dismissing parts of the old testament, I feel I lose my ability to proclaim the divinity of Christ.
[/quote]

I do not have much time, so I shouldn’t be writing this, but it really doesn’t matter what you think. Christianity was not made to be easy to accept, it was made to be the truth. If you have hard time accepting truth, so be it, and of course you’ll go ahead and distort the truth for your own pleasure.

142

bc, you’re an ass. a poses an honest question he struggles with and your answer is that?

you adressed none of my questions and attempted to demean me.

way to be a good christian.

if your only responce is going to be childish and sarcastic, you can just keep your thoughts to yourself.

143

The rich young ruler left sad and unrepentent, unwilling to give his all. He had just been informed by Jesus that his holding to the commanments wasn’t as much as he thought it was. Unsure how that has to do with sinning or not. Are you suggesting that you don’t sin?

I used “comment” for the scripture you used as it was given that way. If you are suggesting that the Word cannot be understood by anyone, that we don’t have the ability to interpret, who interpreted that decision?
Did all prophets understand the message they brought? Prophets given utterance from the mouth of God were of the old days, not now. These were insights not of their own mind or opinion, but from God Himself.
Is that the level you place upon the pope? A direct line to the mouth of God?

Were the Berean brethren not commended for searching the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true? Who interpreted those readings, Peter? No, the people…and they were praised for it.

144

DD…OT was/is a tough nut to crack. Over and over the people come back and fall away, come back and fall away. Even with the visible signs of God around them, the people still fell away. We would like to think we wouldn’t do the same, but we have visible signs of God around us everywhere, if we look. No signs or wonders, but the overall beauty of the world and how it all fits together is not by happenstance. Not sure that the OT has to be viewed as we do the New. Our hope is built on a risen savior, not by the blood of goats and bulls. Moses came down with 10 Commandments and the people couldn’t even heed those for a short time.
the Jews piled more and more rules and regulations on top of that until it became impossible to keep the letter of the law. Jesus way is just too simple. Compared to every dot and tittle of the old law, Jesus was a breeze, and that was hard for the Jews to handle.

We have been studying the OT, book by book, for some time now and the theme is the same…God is a jealous God and He wants to be first. Change His mind? Be glad it can happen. I don’t understand all the killings and the outright slaughter of innocent people, but don’t let that persude you to deny Christ.

Are you a sports fan? Familiar with the term “game film”? Its what the opposing team studies to find the weakness of its opponent. Imagine that Satan has game film on you. He knows what you will do at any given moment and what your weaknesses are every day. He will exploit that. If your heart is weakened by the thought of not understanding the OT or not accepting the violence and death and destruction, then that’s where
Satan is gonna bust your chops. Doubt. Questions. Weak spots. If your quarterback is ready to launch a bomb and hesitates for a second or doubts his ability, what are the chances of the completion and moving the chains? Slim. Same for you.

The Jewish leaders, the Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees had it pretty good. They lived off the people.
Why not create more burdens for them? They made it impossible for anyone to enter heaven with all the rules and regulations…Gods chosen people. Why do you think they had Christ crucified? He stood in the way of their living. They were willing to beat the apostles for plucking grain on the Sabbath, to condemn the woman caught “in the very act” of adultery and stone her. Judge and jury, manmade. Here comes Jesus to show them they had it all wrong and rallied the people to think for themselves and to see the better way. It was hard for them to grasp though…love and do the will of God.

Don’t get overwhelmed by the OT. Concentrate on what Jesus brings to the picture. I understand your turmoil, been there, hard to digest. But you can do it.

145

This is another humongous theological topic. The way I read it understanding the theocratic OT economy isn’t THAT tough, but it does require a significant amount of biblical data to make clear. I’ll throw my take in here, but I’ll need some time.
Consider this ridiculously abbreviated synopsis:

The sinless Garden of Eden = perfect earthly economy. Man has unfettered person to person fellowship with God.

The post fall sinful OT = Carnal, sinful, earthly theocratic economy. Just about everything and everyone are precursory types (illustrations) of coming spiritual realities.

The age of redemption = Christ’s fulfillment of the OT law and the elevation of the chosen people from earthly theocratic Israel to a universal church taken from among all the nations united in Christ whose kingdom is not and never was of this world. (at least not yet depending on your eschatology)

Like I say very very VERY concise.

146

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I thought about it a little more. I guess my trip for the weekend can wait. This is how I look at the OT. All the different laws are there to show man that we can not do it on our own. We are all sinners, and there is no way that we can be righteous on our own.
[/quote]

So the old testament isn’t literal or absolute, it’s just a metaphor? You don’t believe that the god given law was totally just/right?

You wouldn’t have stoned someone working on the Sabbath?[/quote]

Eh, I am not so sure that is the case. I think it is more like G-d’s laws are not abolished which are a little different than Mosaic laws, which have a variety of reasons to follow.

The G-d’s law was not abolished, Jesus did not come to abolish one single law, He came to save.

147

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
bc, you’re an ass. a poses an honest question he struggles with and your answer is that?

you adressed none of my questions and attempted to demean me.

way to be a good christian.

if your only responce is going to be childish and sarcastic, you can just keep your thoughts to yourself.[/quote]

I made a disclaimer, I didn’t have time to answer them all, but that would have been my over all message. Now, that I have time I’ll go back and answer each one the best I can. Just because I like ya.

148

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, I don’t know if this is the appropriate place, but I was hoping some of the folks here might help me out. This is probably going to sound like Christian bashing, but I hope it isn’t taken as such. I absolutely believe in god and I do try to live as Christ did.

I’m kind of a Jeffersonian Unitarian type. Not a true Christian by normal standards and here is why:

The old testament.

I have a huge philosophical problem with much of it. I don’t see most of it as universal Truth. I even believe some of it to be wrong. Not believing in the divine nature of the old testament I then reach an impass at Christ’s divinity. If the old testament isn’t absolute Truth, Jesus, who believed in it cannot be divine.

I have a lot of problems with the old law. Do yall actually believe killing animals in a specific way and sprinkling their blood in certain areas and putting blood on your right ear and burning organs and fat was the way to please god?

Do you believe in the justice of stoning people for working on the Sabbath or exiling people for minor offenses?[/quote]

Shunning has not been in practice for a long time in most of the Catholic communities, but in Latin America it is still practiced. No, I do believe you should not work on the Sabbath, if you can help it. With our busy schedules anymore, sometimes you are required to (even though the law says you are not) to keep your job or put food on the table.

[quote]
Do you believe in the justice of mass genocide of other people including women and children?[/quote]

Yes, this is an act of G-d, I cannot judge G-d. If something like that happens, I ask for mercy on their souls. G-d has his reasons, and it may seem harsh, but He has a reason for it. And I cannot argue against it.

[quote]
Do you believe that the rules concerning slavery were correct?[/quote]

Yes, they were correct. I think this falls in to Mosaic laws more than G-d’s laws but I could be incorrect as I am going off memory fumes and not dogma. The fact is that kings had slaves, there is a right way and a wrong way to treat even those that are slaves. Do I think slavery is wrong as we knew it in America, yes. They were not won as war booty in a battle.

[quote]
Do you think the mercy seat was truly a seat where you could literally talk to god?[/quote]

The Holy of Holies? Yes.

[quote]
If Christ hadn’t yet made his first visit, would you adhere to these rules and not eat pork? Or even better, if you’d lived as an Israeli back then, would you hold yourself to the law?[/quote]

Yes, this is what I call a Mosaic law, this was more of a protective law than a law made by G-d. Eating pork back then is dangerous. Especially back then would I adhere to that law. I think the laws like these were more for safety and proper treatment than actually being something that was against G-d, which is why Jesus spoke of them they way He did.

[quote]
Would you treat a woman on her period as unclean (and anything she sits on)?[/quote]

I am not sure on this thing, I’ll have to look deeper into it, as I have never really looked into it much besides reading it a few times. I would say, me personally at this moment in time, no. If my wife is on her period, and she wanted some love, I would have no problem giving her some.

[quote]
Do you believe the scape goat really took people’s sins with it?[/quote]

Yes, I do. We still have sacrifices today, just in different forms.

[quote]
Would you participate in stoning like the law says to?[/quote]

I prefer the method of hanging than stoning. Plus I threw my right arm out when I played baseball, not sure the rest of the community would wait for me to warm up before it was stoning time. Kidding, mostly I cannot say all laws which were punishable by stoning are mosaic or Holy laws, so on the Holy Laws (thou shalt not kill).

[quote]
God even admits several times that he does or is about to do something evil and then stops or is talked out of it.[/quote]

Did G-d actually say He was going to do something evil? Or, do you claim it to be evil?

[quote]
Genesis 6:6,7 “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him.”

Jonah 3:10 “. . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”[/quote]

And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.

Sounds a little different.

I’ll have to study on that one, it may be a week from now when I get you this answer, but it’ll give me a topic to study in my Bible study this week.

Well, that is troublesome for sure, however I wish you would look at it this way, man was distant very distant from G-d at this time and age. The way G-d is looked at during this time period by the Jews is different than we seem Him today, because of Jesus. G-d did some things that people consider horrendous, which He still does today. However, when something happens like genocide, G-d can still use evil for good.

I will definitely find you some things to read, hopefully they have them on Google books. You seem very interested in all this, and answers are needed.

My answer still stands though, when searching for truth, rationally, you do not conform what you find to what you think, but you conform your knowledge to the truth. It is hard to accept that G-d can smite someone, that He can strike down a soldier in battle because another man asks Him to. It is hard to accept that He did such a harsh thing to Adam and Eve, but the matter of fact is that He did it, and even though it seems evil, and it maybe an evil thing that happened, He can make good out of it.

Peace be with you.

149

[quote]69GoatMan wrote:
The rich young ruler left sad and unrepentent, unwilling to give his all. He had just been informed by Jesus that his holding to the commanments wasn’t as much as he thought it was. Unsure how that has to do with sinning or not. Are you suggesting that you don’t sin?
[/quote]

No, heavens no, I am in confession all the time confessing my sins. I am saying, that we can be perfect if we surrender to the Holy Ghost, that it is possible. That is our aim, to be like G-d. We may never get there, but die trying. Sometimes being an ex-slave to sin is tough, but if we lean on Our Father, anything is possible.

I’m not an agnostic, no. His Church of course, think of it this way. When a 16 year old is old enough they’ll go to a car dealership, get the drivers manual, get their license, take a drive course or two, get directions to school. They next morning they drive to school and make it there.

Now, there are other 16 year old’s that have all the information as the other 16 year old available to them, but they are going to do it “their way.” Now, they may get to school by chance, without relying on the directions as explained clearly, but that is not because they did it their way, but because “their way” happened to be the exact same path as the correct way. Now, the other 16 year old’s that do not make it there because they did not read the clearly outlined directions set out. If the path is already lined out, proven to work, and you have faith in those directions, why would I try to rewrite the directions?

[quote]
Did all prophets understand the message they brought? Prophets given utterance from the mouth of God were of the old days, not now. These were insights not of their own mind or opinion, but from God Himself.
Is that the level you place upon the pope? A direct line to the mouth of God?[/quote]

In certain times. Even a prophet can make an off comment. We are all called to be prophets though, prophets do not even have to talk to be prophetic.

Actually His Church declared that a certain group of people’s findings were correct. Just like everyone was not sure which books were supposed to go into the Bible, I mean some people though The Shepard should have gone in there, but it is not. Why, the Holy Ghost told 'em so.

150

Chris,

You seem very proud of the fact that your church gave us the Bible. Will you also acknowledge the efforts of your church to suppress the reading of the Scriptures by the laity beginning with excommunication and leading, eventually, to imprisonment and torture?

151

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is another humongous theological topic. The way I read it understanding the theocratic OT economy isn’t THAT tough, but it does require a significant amount of biblical data to make clear. I’ll throw my take in here, but I’ll need some time.
Consider this ridiculously abbreviated synopsis:

The sinless Garden of Eden = perfect earthly economy. Man has unfettered person to person fellowship with God.

The post fall sinful OT = Carnal, sinful, earthly theocratic economy. Just about everything and everyone are precursory types (illustrations) of coming spiritual realities.

The age of redemption = Christ’s fulfillment of the OT law and the elevation of the chosen people from earthly theocratic Israel to a universal church taken from among all the nations united in Christ whose kingdom is not and never was of this world. (at least not yet depending on your eschatology)

Like I say very very VERY concise. [/quote]

See I read the OT as a load of stories many taken from older religious traditions of other religions with some attempts made to try and tie them together in places. You can’t make sense of it as a whole because it was never meant to be read as a whole.

152

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Chris,

You seem very proud of the fact that your church gave us the Bible. Will you also acknowledge the efforts of your church to suppress the reading of the Scriptures by the laity beginning with excommunication and leading, eventually, to imprisonment and torture? [/quote]

With a gentle tour through the history of Europe at the time of the Reformation. Until the creation of the printing press, in which the Catholic Johann Gutenberg (link: Johannes Gutenberg - Wikipedia ) participated in the fifteenth century, the century before the emergence of Luther onto the world stage, books were very expensive and not widely available to the common person. Since the ordinary person didn’t have much access to books, he didn’t have a lot of need for reading. This wasn’t a nefarious Church plot; it was simply the way of life during the time period in question. Once printing made books far more accessible, literacy rates correspondingly rose.

Luther’s proposition that the Bible should be read by everyone from the humblest milkmaid to the noblest monarch would have been scoffed at a mere hundred years before his birth. This wasn’t because knowledge of the Bible was dismissed as unimportant, but because reading was dismissed as generally unnecessary for the common man. Ordinary Christians learned the Christian religion, including the Bible, not by reading, but by being taught through catechesis. Churches, for example, were filled with artwork that depicted scenes from the Bible and were considered “the poor man’s catechesis.”

Once Luther and the Reformers came along, a new concern arose: The Reformers insisted that the meaning of the Bible was plain to anyone who cracked the spine of a Bible and scanned the text. That this was untrue became apparent with the proliferation of Protestant sects arguing with each other over the Bible’s meaning. To solve that problem, the Church did not forbid laypeople to read the Bible, but more clearly defined the Church’s role in defining for Christians the meaning of disputed texts.

Recommend reading:
Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles by James Akin (Link: Catholic Magazines & Religious Articles | Catholic Answers )
Where We Got the Bible by Henry G. Graham (Link: Catholic Answers, Inc )

153

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< See I read the OT as a load of stories many taken from older religious traditions of other religions with some attempts made to try and tie them together in places. You can’t make sense of it as a whole because it was never meant to be read as a whole.[/quote]See I read you as a guy who is incurably addicted to following Christians around in this forum on an unstoppable campaign to make yourself a living testimony to the perfect providence of the living God. Guys like you (and a couple others runnin around here) are the ones I’d be least shocked to one day discover as fellow members of the body of Christ. Not after the glorious conversion of Saul of Tarsus.

154

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Chris,

You seem very proud of the fact that your church gave us the Bible. Will you also acknowledge the efforts of your church to suppress the reading of the Scriptures by the laity beginning with excommunication and leading, eventually, to imprisonment and torture? [/quote]

With a gentle tour through the history of Europe at the time of the Reformation. Until the creation of the printing press, in which the Catholic Johann Gutenberg (link: Johannes Gutenberg - Wikipedia ) participated in the fifteenth century, the century before the emergence of Luther onto the world stage, books were very expensive and not widely available to the common person. Since the ordinary person didn’t have much access to books, he didn’t have a lot of need for reading. This wasn’t a nefarious Church plot; it was simply the way of life during the time period in question. Once printing made books far more accessible, literacy rates correspondingly rose.

Luther’s proposition that the Bible should be read by everyone from the humblest milkmaid to the noblest monarch would have been scoffed at a mere hundred years before his birth. This wasn’t because knowledge of the Bible was dismissed as unimportant, but because reading was dismissed as generally unnecessary for the common man. Ordinary Christians learned the Christian religion, including the Bible, not by reading, but by being taught through catechesis. Churches, for example, were filled with artwork that depicted scenes from the Bible and were considered “the poor man’s catechesis.”

Once Luther and the Reformers came along, a new concern arose: The Reformers insisted that the meaning of the Bible was plain to anyone who cracked the spine of a Bible and scanned the text. That this was untrue became apparent with the proliferation of Protestant sects arguing with each other over the Bible’s meaning. To solve that problem, the Church did not forbid laypeople to read the Bible, but more clearly defined the Church’s role in defining for Christians the meaning of disputed texts.

Recommend reading:
Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles by James Akin (Link: Catholic Magazines & Religious Articles | Catholic Answers )
Where We Got the Bible by Henry G. Graham (Link: Catholic Answers, Inc )[/quote]

So why was William Tyndale attacked by the Roman church even though his bible makes up the majority of the King James text?

155

If you believe one is right , I would think by default the first would be so . Catholicism . My self I believe Religion has been a curse to Man Kind . I feel Be as good of a person as possible , I like the 10 commandments
and the golden Rule

156

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If you believe one is right , I would think by default the first would be so . Catholicism . My self I believe Religion has been a curse to Man Kind . I feel Be as good of a person as possible , I like the 10 commandments
and the golden Rule [/quote]

The Orthodox Church would argue that Catholicism wasn’t first (as discussed elsewhere) also which 10 commandments, there are several versions and they are different.

157

[quote]mcdugga wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Chris,

You seem very proud of the fact that your church gave us the Bible. Will you also acknowledge the efforts of your church to suppress the reading of the Scriptures by the laity beginning with excommunication and leading, eventually, to imprisonment and torture? [/quote]

With a gentle tour through the history of Europe at the time of the Reformation. Until the creation of the printing press, in which the Catholic Johann Gutenberg (link: Johannes Gutenberg - Wikipedia ) participated in the fifteenth century, the century before the emergence of Luther onto the world stage, books were very expensive and not widely available to the common person.

Since the ordinary person didn’t have much access to books, he didn’t have a lot of need for reading. This wasn’t a nefarious Church plot; it was simply the way of life during the time period in question. Once printing made books far more accessible, literacy rates correspondingly rose.

Luther’s proposition that the Bible should be read by everyone from the humblest milkmaid to the noblest monarch would have been scoffed at a mere hundred years before his birth. This wasn’t because knowledge of the Bible was dismissed as unimportant, but because reading was dismissed as generally unnecessary for the common man.

Ordinary Christians learned the Christian religion, including the Bible, not by reading, but by being taught through catechesis. Churches, for example, were filled with artwork that depicted scenes from the Bible and were considered “the poor man’s catechesis.”

Once Luther and the Reformers came along, a new concern arose: The Reformers insisted that the meaning of the Bible was plain to anyone who cracked the spine of a Bible and scanned the text.

That this was untrue became apparent with the proliferation of Protestant sects arguing with each other over the Bible’s meaning. To solve that problem, the Church did not forbid laypeople to read the Bible, but more clearly defined the Church’s role in defining for Christians the meaning of disputed texts.

Recommend reading:
Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles by James Akin (Link: Catholic Magazines & Religious Articles | Catholic Answers )
Where We Got the Bible by Henry G. Graham (Link: Catholic Answers, Inc )[/quote]

So why was William Tyndale attacked by the Roman church even though his bible makes up the majority of the King James text?[/quote]

Not only was William Tyndale a heretic (his version of the Bible does not even seem to be popular by Protestants), he committed apostasy. If you look at history you’ll understand the difference between the Catholic Church’s reactions to Protestantism today and yesteryear.

Edit: I researched it a little.

158

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If you believe one is right , I would think by default the first would be so . Catholicism . My self I believe Religion has been a curse to Man Kind . I feel Be as good of a person as possible , I like the 10 commandments
and the golden Rule [/quote]

The Orthodox Church would argue that Catholicism wasn’t first (as discussed elsewhere) also which 10 commandments, there are several versions and they are different.[/quote]

They can say what they want, but looking at the history of the first hundred years, it is very clear that the early Church was Catholic. Anyway, we have an Eastern rite in His church.

159

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Chris,

You seem very proud of the fact that your church gave us the Bible. Will you also acknowledge the efforts of your church to suppress the reading of the Scriptures by the laity beginning with excommunication and leading, eventually, to imprisonment and torture? [/quote]

With a gentle tour through the history of Europe at the time of the Reformation. Until the creation of the printing press, in which the Catholic Johann Gutenberg (link: Johannes Gutenberg - Wikipedia ) participated in the fifteenth century, the century before the emergence of Luther onto the world stage, books were very expensive and not widely available to the common person. Since the ordinary person didn’t have much access to books, he didn’t have a lot of need for reading. This wasn’t a nefarious Church plot; it was simply the way of life during the time period in question. Once printing made books far more accessible, literacy rates correspondingly rose.

Luther’s proposition that the Bible should be read by everyone from the humblest milkmaid to the noblest monarch would have been scoffed at a mere hundred years before his birth. This wasn’t because knowledge of the Bible was dismissed as unimportant, but because reading was dismissed as generally unnecessary for the common man. Ordinary Christians learned the Christian religion, including the Bible, not by reading, but by being taught through catechesis. Churches, for example, were filled with artwork that depicted scenes from the Bible and were considered “the poor man’s catechesis.”

Once Luther and the Reformers came along, a new concern arose: The Reformers insisted that the meaning of the Bible was plain to anyone who cracked the spine of a Bible and scanned the text. That this was untrue became apparent with the proliferation of Protestant sects arguing with each other over the Bible’s meaning. To solve that problem, the Church did not forbid laypeople to read the Bible, but more clearly defined the Church’s role in defining for Christians the meaning of disputed texts.

Recommend reading:
Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles by James Akin (Link: Catholic Magazines & Religious Articles | Catholic Answers )
Where We Got the Bible by Henry G. Graham (Link: Catholic Answers, Inc )[/quote]

So why was William Tyndale attacked by the Roman church even though his bible makes up the majority of the King James text?[/quote]

Not only was William Tyndale a heretic (his version of the Bible does not even seem to be popular by Protestants), he committed apostasy. If you look at history you’ll understand the difference between the Catholic Church’s reactions to Protestantism today and yesteryear.

Edit: I researched it a little. [/quote]

What particular heresies did Tyndale commit and why were his translations used in the creation of the King James Bible(arguably the most popular Bible among Protestants)? Burning someone at the stake doesn’t necessarily make someone a heretic.

160

[quote]mcdugga wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Chris,

You seem very proud of the fact that your church gave us the Bible. Will you also acknowledge the efforts of your church to suppress the reading of the Scriptures by the laity beginning with excommunication and leading, eventually, to imprisonment and torture? [/quote]

With a gentle tour through the history of Europe at the time of the Reformation. Until the creation of the printing press, in which the Catholic Johann Gutenberg (link: Johannes Gutenberg - Wikipedia ) participated in the fifteenth century, the century before the emergence of Luther onto the world stage, books were very expensive and not widely available to the common person. Since the ordinary person didn’t have much access to books, he didn’t have a lot of need for reading. This wasn’t a nefarious Church plot; it was simply the way of life during the time period in question. Once printing made books far more accessible, literacy rates correspondingly rose.

Luther’s proposition that the Bible should be read by everyone from the humblest milkmaid to the noblest monarch would have been scoffed at a mere hundred years before his birth. This wasn’t because knowledge of the Bible was dismissed as unimportant, but because reading was dismissed as generally unnecessary for the common man. Ordinary Christians learned the Christian religion, including the Bible, not by reading, but by being taught through catechesis. Churches, for example, were filled with artwork that depicted scenes from the Bible and were considered “the poor man’s catechesis.”

Once Luther and the Reformers came along, a new concern arose: The Reformers insisted that the meaning of the Bible was plain to anyone who cracked the spine of a Bible and scanned the text. That this was untrue became apparent with the proliferation of Protestant sects arguing with each other over the Bible’s meaning. To solve that problem, the Church did not forbid laypeople to read the Bible, but more clearly defined the Church’s role in defining for Christians the meaning of disputed texts.

Recommend reading:
Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles by James Akin (Link: Catholic Magazines & Religious Articles | Catholic Answers )
Where We Got the Bible by Henry G. Graham (Link: Catholic Answers, Inc )[/quote]

So why was William Tyndale attacked by the Roman church even though his bible makes up the majority of the King James text?[/quote]

Not only was William Tyndale a heretic (his version of the Bible does not even seem to be popular by Protestants), he committed apostasy. If you look at history you’ll understand the difference between the Catholic Church’s reactions to Protestantism today and yesteryear.

Edit: I researched it a little. [/quote]

What particular heresies did Tyndale commit and why were his translations used in the creation of the King James Bible(arguably the most popular Bible among Protestants)? Burning someone at the stake doesn’t necessarily make someone a heretic.
[/quote]

"It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of Scripture existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but encouraged. All this law did was prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

"He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

"Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and went to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

"And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

"The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that, “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”

"So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543 â?? after his break with Rome â?? Henry VIII again decreed that “all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”

“Ultimately, it was the secular authorities who proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas â?? not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (the Douay-Rheims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).”

Several.

Obviously it wasn’t the Catholic Church that burned him at the stake, but the Emperor that ordered it.