This non-atheist MORMON Dan McClellan isn't trying to push you toward atheism, he's trying to pull you away from christianity. Not that either of those distinct agendas is a bad idea, mind you, but his obvious duplicity raises questions.
I'm sure that was just the result of a few bad apples and not a pattern in a history of violence and marginalization spanning thousands of years. Yep! No systemic analysis required here. Don't question the fundamentals of the ideology and connect them to the outcomes they produce. That would be silly.
@@rainbowkrampus This is where we mention Matthew 7:15-20. _“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them._ (I love how it denies that a tree can bear both good and bad fruit, by the way.)
I would also note that Tyndale opposed Henry VIII's divorce. He was tried by Church authorities in England who already severed ties with the Catholic Church.
@byrondickens you know I didn't either until I dug into their "accomplishments" which are pretty disturbing considering that the church openly states in it's cannons and laws that the pope is infallible, he's protected from error on matters of faith and morals and that he speaks "ex cathedra" which in Latin means "from the chair" and in this case means when he speaks with the full authority of the church and it's as if God said it himself... here's what God's ambassador to earth has been up to... Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber. Pope John XII (955-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife. Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044, 1045, 1047-1048), who "sold" the Papacy. Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy. Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured. Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin. Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony. Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked. Pope Pius XII Denying Eyewitness Reports Of Mass Execution During The Holocaust. That's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg so I kinda take issue with him these days
William Tyndale hersey charges for going against the Roman Catholic Church they strangled him and burnt him on the stake. William Tyndale (1491-1536) used the term "Jehovah" in his 1530 translation of the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, to represent the Hebrew name YHVH: Exodus 6:3: Tyndale rendered the divine name as "Iehovah" in this verse. In his foreword, he wrote, "Iehovah is God's name". It is said that Tyndale's last words were ''Lord, open the King of England's eyes. King James of England eyes did open! The Knights Templar were a group of warriors and monks who Defended the Faith and were known for their Holy Land Crusades. The Knights Templar raised King James I of Aragon. The Knights Templar Order is embossed in gold on the front of the King James V Bible Turquoise Edition. The Knights Templar were a Christian order of knights who protected pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem. They were given the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as their headquarters.
@@brewdaly1873 it's a huge rabbit hole. Church history is vaguely what Watchtower teaches but what's interesting is Russell believed the church was fully operational and blessed by God all through the centuries whereas JWs now say the church became almost immediately corrupted after the gospel of John was written. JWs do take the Bible a lot more seriously than a lot of Christendom but man are they backwards about a ton of stuff.
Thanks Dan. Fully agree. Being from a fundamentalist evangelical family I was taught that the Roman church hated Luther because he said that you are saved not by following church ritual or performing good works but by faith in Christ’s sacrifice for our sins. Being interested in history, starting from my teenage years I read religious and philosophical history widely and I came to understand that while Luther certainly taught this, it was not the real cause of the schism with Rome. Rather it was his contention that the Bible teaches that we are all kings and priests before God and that ordinary men and women could ‘talk to God directly’ and did not need priests as interlocutors between them and God. At a stroke this took away the power of the priesthood of all its ranks up to the Pope. Catholic doctrine at the time taught that ordained priests were a kind of super human conduit between man and God. You still see remnants of this in the way in Catholic communion only a priest may handle and touch the bread and wine sacraments which were believed to transubstantiate to the real body and blood of Christ once the necessary prayers had been made. Lutherism did away with this completely and the church monopoly on communicating with God broken and they could not tolerate this.
Luther actually wanted to take Papal authority for himself by redefining key doctrines and thus creating his own Christianity (the fool didn't consider that his con could be replicated by anyone, hence him not being the only Protestant leader in existence). Read his actual works; that monster was a proto-Communist. This Protestant teaching is in complete defiance of Judeo-Christian doctrine (you think priests now have powers? Remember the Old Testament, when you had to be freakin' born into the caste/tribe of Brahmins/Levites in order to be a priest in the first place - and if you weren't, you'd end up like Uzziah, no matter how educated, pious or more fit for priesthood you actually were). The Bible itself stresses the need for priesthood, ritual and religious knowledge because the instinctive connection to God that Prots claim to have is something lost by humanity after the blunder in Eden - the Scripture warns against non-qualified interpretation, too, but Prots don't study that. If we don't need the priesthood that's instituted by God, why not say that we don't need the Bible? Why not say that we don't need God at all, since we are all so obviously perfect and godlike and knowledgeable? Lutheranism did away with Christian unity, it caused the Thirty-Years War and 8 million deaths from it. Worst of all, the ascension of the Protestant lie to legitimacy gave other lies inspiration to climb to the top spot and so, bloodshed over nobles changing their regional denomination claimed even more people. In time, the lies that vied for legitimacy became not mere heresies of Christianity, but deliberate inversions, re-treadings of old paganism and horrific ideologies, Marxism chief among them.
you forget his utter arrogance in throwing out 7 books of the bible from the Septuagint (LXX), which Paul himself quotes...that and James, because of James 2:24...only Melancthon put it back in
@ your point is? Although history calls Luther a “Protestant” he never thought of himself as leaving the Church but rather that he was a reformer clearing out what he regarded as corrupt behaviour such selling indulgences. However he was a scholar of his time and his teachers and by the standard of what we know today he was very limited and got some things wrong. My point is that the real objection to him was that his teaching broke the priestly monopoly on communicating with God.
@ Broadly all Protestant denominations have ministers or pastors and not priests. It may seem semantics but a pastor or minister is a person who has had training in the Bible and doctrine and counselling etc and leads a local congregation and the members voluntarily assent to them being leaders. On the other hand the RC and Orthodox use of the term Priest is a deliberate link to the Mosaic law of OT Israel where Priests were a special class by birth into the tribe of Levi in this case and by Gods decree only they can administer sacrifices in the Temple and had the right to proclaim forgiveness of sins and only the High Priest once a year could enter the Holy of Holies and commune directly with God without dying. Priests were mediators between God and Man. Jesus by did tell Peter that he would hold the keys to heaven and could forgive sins and bind and unbind things on behalf of God and unfortunately at some point the Church strayed far from the early NT church principles and went backwards to remaking a new version of a special religious class of man who acted as mediator between God and mankind. Luther (and others) recognised this as nonsense and the truth that Christ’s sacrifice tore the curtain and now we are all kings and priests. The church at the time hated him for that as it meant the end of their claim to power over the afterlife you would go to. Remember the German Emperor who crossed an Alpine pass barefoot in the snow to do penance before the Pope who had instructed the priests not to allow the Emperor communion and had proclaimed he was to go to Hell on dying. The original fight between Emperor and Pope was over a political matter and the Pope won by use of the superstition that priests could send you to hell. So Lutherans and other Protestant denominations have ministers and pastors but not priests even though lay people often call a Protestant minister as ‘the priest’ he or she is not a priest in the sense that a Catholic or Orthodox priest claims they are. Now of course humans being human there certainly is a tendency for a Protestant minister to regard himself/herself as being somehow special since they have had training and were ordained in a ceremony with laying on of hands. This was and still is particularly the case in the more fundamentalist (strict) evangelical churches who have extensive moral codes of behavior and in any local church the minister is the arbiter of what’s allowed and what is not allowed. I was brought up in such a church and we were taught to make ourselves separate from the “worldly” and “unsaved” and in our house we had no TV and all my friends as a child were the kids of other church members. What the pastor and elders said was treated as being Gods will and must be obeyed. Essentially “everything was forbidden unless it was compulsory” was the rule we lived by. I grew to distrust and despise the closed minds of the leaders. But they would never have regarded themselves as priests.
Mel Brooks as Torquemada, singing about the Spanish Inquisition (in a parody of Busby Berkeley-style musicals), the 1981 comedy farce "History of the World, Part I"
For all intents and purposes, he was. The “translation” was not as important as the implications of the translation but one followed from another. Once again, Dan is not steeped enough in his subject to understand the complexities and the true narrative. He mistakes form for content
Indeed. They clearly saw his translation as a challenge to the church. His use of everyday terms to replace terms which had lost their original meaning was an attempt the drop ecclesialastical baggage which these words had acquired.
this is interesting. If I'm not mistaken this is relative to the KJV. With a quick search of the word congregation, I found it in Exodus 40:2. Then checking the NRSVue the word where congregation appears in the KJV is instead "meeting". The KJV is largely based after Tyndales translation, granted after several revisions.
Tyndale was living in the Spanish Netherlands, where translating the Bible into the vernacular was not against the Law. He was, as you say, tried for heresy. He was handed over to the civil authority to be punished. It is usually said that he was burned alive, although this is not the case. The Emperor considered that burning alive was an inhuman form of punishment, so anyone condemned to be burned was to be first strangled and confirmed to be dead before his body was finally burned at the stake.
Not quite so neat. Translation, its motives, and its results, for Tyndale, really aren't separable from the theology. Just check his bible prefaces in editions after 1525.
A Man for All Seasons won a bunch of Oscars for 1966, including Best Picture and lead Actor. Interestingly, More's action against Tyndale isn't mentioned. The only victim of injustice is More.
@zevsero9170 don't have time to verify, so I'll take your word. He DID burn other people, did he not? And I don't care if he didn't set the fire himself. Edit: just read a piece by Kate Maltby in the Spectator. Yes, he didn't burn Tyndale, just six other Protestants. Amusingly, the depiction of this in the drama "Wolf Hall" has provoked an outcry from UK Catholics. Check it out. Amazing what people will tolerate after canonization.
@@brianthomas2434 Some people have criticized Mantel’s historical treatment and accuracy of More. It’s a historical novel, not an academic history textbook and should be read as such.
Okay, the five words story is a WAY better story, actually. Especially from an evangefundi point of you. If you're gonna make martyrs, get their stories right.
This interpretation overlooks how Tyndale’s translation was deeply intertwined with his theological agenda. Translation isn’t merely the act of converting text; it inherently involves dissemination and interpretation. Tyndale’s choices-like 'congregation' instead of 'church'-were deliberate theological challenges, making his translation inseparable from the heresy charges. While McClellan is correct that trial records focused on broader Reformation ideologies, it’s reductive to exclude translation as a core part of those ideological challenges.
Rather you are ignoring that the heresy he was prosecuted for pre- and co- existed in other languages so the presentation is correct. He wasn't killed for his translation of the Bible into English but his interpretation , which stood no matter what language it was presented in. A theological crime is not a physical one. Seven people should be ashamed to have supported such a thoroughly debunked argument.
@@ivechang6720 Tyndale was found guilty of five theological crimes, including specifically translating the Bible into English without Church authorization, promoting justification by faith alone, rejecting the authority of the Pope, criticizing key Church doctrines and practices such as transubstantiation and indulgences, and advocating for vernacular worship. On the first charge, Tyndale's translation choices are interwoven with the substance of the other charges; his translation decisions often reflected his theological beliefs. He was killed for that and how he translated the Bible.
I'm sure they knew that his translations of these five words was technically superior. But the very act of replacing words with traditional interpretations with more modern and everyday words was an invitation to reexamination of the meaning of the text. But I doubt they could come right out and say that in official documents.
@@david672orford His theological crime was against church doctrine. How he translated the text was interwoven with why he was executed. Dan's presentation of the history is overly reductionist.
So he did get burnt for translating the bible because he translated it in a way that brought discomfort to the fascist churches. The heretical charges could not be separated from his freethinking and distain for the power of organised religion. It can be dressed anyway the powerful wanted it to be dressed.
It seems more like he was executed for his ideologies, it just happens that they appear in his translation. If the issue was the translation itself and its contents, then people at that time would have no reason not to make that the basis of their accusations
@@imaadhaq540 Of course on paper the "Lutheran Heresy" was the focus, but if he had just wrote all his ideas in Latin, who would've read it and cared (hint, very few in comparison). The people that could read Latin, cared about what Tyndale wrote, precisely because the everyday person could read it. His English translation was a crucial factor in and the vehicle for spreading the very ideas they went after him for. The Church may not have singled out “translation” on paper, but it definitely contributed to why they labeled him as heretic and were motivated to prosecute him so vigorously in the first place. Also, it's obviously more convenient to condemn Tyndale publicly for heresy rather than for producing an English Bible; it was a more straightforward legal route and at least *attempts* to avoid any painting of Tyndale as a champion of generally accessible Scripture for the common person.
@@imaadhaq540 "then people at that time would have no reason not to make that the basis of their accusations" Not necessarily. "Crime" exists on a continuum and intersects with politics. If the powers that be desired to unalive Tyndale but couldn't do so under existing rules. A pretext could be invented in order to achieve the outcome they wanted. Not saying this was the case. Just that there's room here for machinations which render the apparent motives and outcome questionable. I'd want to know more about the people responsible for the judgement and what kinds of motivating external and internal factors were in play before arriving at any kind of conclusion.
What exactly is "The Lutheran Heresy"? You said it as if it was something specific. I also notice that you mainstream bible creators have been FIGHTING FOR SUPREMACY lately'; like what the phuck is going on?? It seems like everyone is trying to out-do Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.
Oh, I see.....he was not burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.... he was just burned at the stake for translating the Bible...... PERIOD ! Well, alrighty then .....( eyes rolling ) .
@@maklelan ......Let's put it this way.......if you read the text literally , there was a talking "sneaky snake" conversing with a " naked woman" that started this whole mess . NOW......why don't you "translate" this for me Mr. "cognitive linguist scripture translation SUPERVISOR " . I will wait .
As I understood the video, he was executed for translating it incorrectly according to those in power. His particular translation supported his theological views which where at odds with the establishment. It's not the fact that he translated the Bible nor that he translated it into English. His translation just happened to be evidence of the underlying heretical views according to the Church at the time. Edit typos
Who cares? It's not about Tyndale and how he really died, it's about the holy scriptures and what you're gonna do with it. I really don't care whether he died for one reason or another. He provided he foundation and we need to live by the fruit he provided.
I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition to make an appearance!
It's the comfy chair for you!
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Boooooo
But I'm glad they appeared!!!
Wouldn't that be the ENGLISH Inquisition in this case?
Just asking.
Ah, those Christians: so full of mercy.
Yeah. I was thinking Dan's choice of tee was spot on.
This non-atheist MORMON Dan McClellan isn't trying to push you toward atheism, he's trying to pull you away from christianity. Not that either of those distinct agendas is a bad idea, mind you, but his obvious duplicity raises questions.
I'm sure that was just the result of a few bad apples and not a pattern in a history of violence and marginalization spanning thousands of years.
Yep! No systemic analysis required here. Don't question the fundamentals of the ideology and connect them to the outcomes they produce. That would be silly.
The religion of love strikes again.
@@rainbowkrampus This is where we mention Matthew 7:15-20.
_“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them._
(I love how it denies that a tree can bear both good and bad fruit, by the way.)
I was curate of North Nibley in Gloucestershire, near where Tyndale was born and worked. There's a tower overlooking the parish, in his memory.
"Curate of North Nibley in Gloucestershire"
On Waterdon in Shripshire? Just past Galstock?
That's unfortunate.
The fit am NOT Bizarro, Dr M.
Thank you Dan. This is one of those little known bits of history I enjoy on your channel.❤
I would also note that Tyndale opposed Henry VIII's divorce. He was tried by Church authorities in England who already severed ties with the Catholic Church.
Jacobus Latomus is the best name I've ever heard
Slinging accusations at the pope? I like this man already
In a fight between the pope and king, Tyndale managed to greatly piss off both. Not the wisest of moves.
@billcook4768 he may not have been wise but I admire his testicular fortitude
Myself, I don't have any problems with the papacy itself, just the dogmas that surround it.
@byrondickens you know I didn't either until I dug into their "accomplishments" which are pretty disturbing considering that the church openly states in it's cannons and laws that the pope is infallible, he's protected from error on matters of faith and morals and that he speaks "ex cathedra" which in Latin means "from the chair" and in this case means when he speaks with the full authority of the church and it's as if God said it himself... here's what God's ambassador to earth has been up to...
Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.
Pope John XII (955-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044, 1045, 1047-1048), who "sold" the Papacy.
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy.
Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.
Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.
Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony.
Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Pope Pius XII Denying Eyewitness Reports Of Mass Execution During The Holocaust. That's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg so I kinda take issue with him these days
@@byrondickens so run one by me you say is unbiblical and we will have a go at it
I remember when I was a JW we thought Tyndale was awesome and our NWT Bible reflected a lot of what Tyndale translated
Absolutely. I also remember as an ex jw out 6 years now thank god. This is the first time I'm learning about this.
Happy to see other ex-jw's here. Just discovered this channel and I'm going down s rabbit hole.
William Tyndale hersey charges for going against the Roman Catholic Church they strangled him and burnt him on the stake.
William Tyndale (1491-1536) used the term "Jehovah" in his 1530 translation of the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, to represent the Hebrew name YHVH:
Exodus 6:3: Tyndale rendered the divine name as "Iehovah" in this verse. In his foreword, he wrote, "Iehovah is God's name".
It is said that Tyndale's last words were ''Lord, open the King of England's eyes.
King James of England eyes did open! The Knights Templar were a group of warriors and monks who Defended the Faith and were known for their Holy Land Crusades. The Knights Templar raised King James I of Aragon. The Knights Templar Order is embossed in gold on the front of the King James V Bible Turquoise Edition.
The Knights Templar were a Christian order of knights who protected pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem. They were given the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as their headquarters.
Good to see ex dubs here🧔🏻♂️👍🏻
@@brewdaly1873 it's a huge rabbit hole. Church history is vaguely what Watchtower teaches but what's interesting is Russell believed the church was fully operational and blessed by God all through the centuries whereas JWs now say the church became almost immediately corrupted after the gospel of John was written. JWs do take the Bible a lot more seriously than a lot of Christendom but man are they backwards about a ton of stuff.
Thanks Dan. Fully agree.
Being from a fundamentalist evangelical family I was taught that the Roman church hated Luther because he said that you are saved not by following church ritual or performing good works but by faith in Christ’s sacrifice for our sins.
Being interested in history, starting from my teenage years I read religious and philosophical history widely and I came to understand that while Luther certainly taught this, it was not the real cause of the schism with Rome.
Rather it was his contention that the Bible teaches that we are all kings and priests before God and that ordinary men and women could ‘talk to God directly’ and did not need priests as interlocutors between them and God. At a stroke this took away the power of the priesthood of all its ranks up to the Pope.
Catholic doctrine at the time taught that ordained priests were a kind of super human conduit between man and God. You still see remnants of this in the way in Catholic communion only a priest may handle and touch the bread and wine sacraments which were believed to transubstantiate to the real body and blood of Christ once the necessary prayers had been made. Lutherism did away with this completely and the church monopoly on communicating with God broken and they could not tolerate this.
Luther actually wanted to take Papal authority for himself by redefining key doctrines and thus creating his own Christianity (the fool didn't consider that his con could be replicated by anyone, hence him not being the only Protestant leader in existence). Read his actual works; that monster was a proto-Communist. This Protestant teaching is in complete defiance of Judeo-Christian doctrine (you think priests now have powers? Remember the Old Testament, when you had to be freakin' born into the caste/tribe of Brahmins/Levites in order to be a priest in the first place - and if you weren't, you'd end up like Uzziah, no matter how educated, pious or more fit for priesthood you actually were). The Bible itself stresses the need for priesthood, ritual and religious knowledge because the instinctive connection to God that Prots claim to have is something lost by humanity after the blunder in Eden - the Scripture warns against non-qualified interpretation, too, but Prots don't study that. If we don't need the priesthood that's instituted by God, why not say that we don't need the Bible? Why not say that we don't need God at all, since we are all so obviously perfect and godlike and knowledgeable?
Lutheranism did away with Christian unity, it caused the Thirty-Years War and 8 million deaths from it. Worst of all, the ascension of the Protestant lie to legitimacy gave other lies inspiration to climb to the top spot and so, bloodshed over nobles changing their regional denomination claimed even more people. In time, the lies that vied for legitimacy became not mere heresies of Christianity, but deliberate inversions, re-treadings of old paganism and horrific ideologies, Marxism chief among them.
you forget his utter arrogance in throwing out 7 books of the bible from the Septuagint (LXX), which Paul himself quotes...that and James, because of James 2:24...only Melancthon put it back in
@ your point is? Although history calls Luther a “Protestant” he never thought of himself as leaving the Church but rather that he was a reformer clearing out what he regarded as corrupt behaviour such selling indulgences. However he was a scholar of his time and his teachers and by the standard of what we know today he was very limited and got some things wrong. My point is that the real objection to him was that his teaching broke the priestly monopoly on communicating with God.
@@epincion Then why do Lutherans have priests?? This has been one of my big contentions. They are not needed for communion, or anything else.
@ Broadly all Protestant denominations have ministers or pastors and not priests. It may seem semantics but a pastor or minister is a person who has had training in the Bible and doctrine and counselling etc and leads a local congregation and the members voluntarily assent to them being leaders.
On the other hand the RC and Orthodox use of the term Priest is a deliberate link to the Mosaic law of OT Israel where Priests were a special class by birth into the tribe of Levi in this case and by Gods decree only they can administer sacrifices in the Temple and had the right to proclaim forgiveness of sins and only the High Priest once a year could enter the Holy of Holies and commune directly with God without dying.
Priests were mediators between God and Man.
Jesus by did tell Peter that he would hold the keys to heaven and could forgive sins and bind and unbind things on behalf of God and unfortunately at some point the Church strayed far from the early NT church principles and went backwards to remaking a new version of a special religious class of man who acted as mediator between God and mankind.
Luther (and others) recognised this as nonsense and the truth that Christ’s sacrifice tore the curtain and now we are all kings and priests.
The church at the time hated him for that as it meant the end of their claim to power over the afterlife you would go to. Remember the German Emperor who crossed an Alpine pass barefoot in the snow to do penance before the Pope who had instructed the priests not to allow the Emperor communion and had proclaimed he was to go to Hell on dying.
The original fight between Emperor and Pope was over a political matter and the Pope won by use of the superstition that priests could send you to hell.
So Lutherans and other Protestant denominations have ministers and pastors but not priests even though lay people often call a Protestant minister as ‘the priest’ he or she is not a priest in the sense that a Catholic or Orthodox priest claims they are.
Now of course humans being human there certainly is a tendency for a Protestant minister to regard himself/herself as being somehow special since they have had training and were ordained in a ceremony with laying on of hands. This was and still is particularly the case in the more fundamentalist (strict) evangelical churches who have extensive moral codes of behavior and in any local church the minister is the arbiter of what’s allowed and what is not allowed.
I was brought up in such a church and we were taught to make ourselves separate from the “worldly” and “unsaved” and in our house we had no TV and all my friends as a child were the kids of other church members. What the pastor and elders said was treated as being Gods will and must be obeyed. Essentially “everything was forbidden unless it was compulsory” was the rule we lived by.
I grew to distrust and despise the closed minds of the leaders. But they would never have regarded themselves as priests.
Thank you for sharing this story.
Gotta love ancient Flame Wars!😅
Crazy that people could be put to death for “heresy.”
Calvin did it
The way the world is going, it will come back!
Thank you. I really learnt something today.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!!
I love listening to all that you put out and the logic behind what you are talking about.
Mel Brooks as Torquemada, singing about the Spanish Inquisition (in a parody of Busby Berkeley-style musicals), the 1981 comedy farce "History of the World, Part I"
Excellent channel 👍
Thank you.
"The Luthern Heresy"
That is a term that I will have to remember.
For all intents and purposes, he was. The “translation” was not as important as the implications of the translation but one followed from another.
Once again, Dan is not steeped enough in his subject to understand the complexities and the true narrative. He mistakes form for content
Indeed. They clearly saw his translation as a challenge to the church. His use of everyday terms to replace terms which had lost their original meaning was an attempt the drop ecclesialastical baggage which these words had acquired.
this is interesting. If I'm not mistaken this is relative to the KJV. With a quick search of the word congregation, I found it in Exodus 40:2. Then checking the NRSVue the word where congregation appears in the KJV is instead "meeting". The KJV is largely based after Tyndales translation, granted after several revisions.
Tyndale was living in the Spanish Netherlands, where translating the Bible into the vernacular was not against the Law. He was, as you say, tried for heresy. He was handed over to the civil authority to be punished. It is usually said that he was burned alive, although this is not the case. The Emperor considered that burning alive was an inhuman form of punishment, so anyone condemned to be burned was to be first strangled and confirmed to be dead before his body was finally burned at the stake.
He was a heretic.
Not saying this happened here, but there are situations where official documents provide different reasons than what someone has really been arrested.
Indeed. And translating the Bible into common vernaculars was a singular goal of those promoting the "Lutheran Heresy".
Hi Dan, can you make a video about the history of christianity in Africa.
I was having trouble understanding KJV poetic style. Jesus brought me The Living Bible by Tyndale. I LOVE ❤️ it 😊
Not quite so neat. Translation, its motives, and its results, for Tyndale, really aren't separable from the theology. Just check his bible prefaces in editions after 1525.
And the theology was just as political then as it is now.
Thomas More became a saint in 2000, by JP II. He isbthe oatron saint of staremens and politicians.
Incorrect. He was canonized in 1935 by Pope Pius XI.
A Man for All Seasons won a bunch of Oscars for 1966, including Best Picture and lead Actor.
Interestingly, More's action against Tyndale isn't mentioned. The only victim of injustice is More.
@@brianthomas2434More took no action against Tyndale.
@zevsero9170 don't have time to verify, so I'll take your word.
He DID burn other people, did he not? And I don't care if he didn't set the fire himself.
Edit: just read a piece by Kate Maltby in the Spectator. Yes, he didn't burn Tyndale, just six other Protestants. Amusingly, the depiction of this in the drama "Wolf Hall" has provoked an outcry from UK Catholics. Check it out. Amazing what people will tolerate after canonization.
@@brianthomas2434 Some people have criticized Mantel’s historical treatment and accuracy of More. It’s a historical novel, not an academic history textbook and should be read as such.
Dave and Neta Jackson have to explain themselves
Okay, the five words story is a WAY better story, actually. Especially from an evangefundi point of you. If you're gonna make martyrs, get their stories right.
Great timing, we just watched Wolf Hall where Tyndale, Cardinal Wolsey, et al., are prime characters (tho Tyndale never appears on-screen)
But we all know that, right? About the Lutheran Heresy? I mean, what idiot didn't know that? _pushes glasses into face_
This idiot for one!
Thank you for publicly addressing this all-too-common anticatholic narrative, Dr. McClellan.
Something to watch next time someone claims free speech is dead because they were deprioritized in an algorithm
Hey, Dan. Is it true that Tyndale was the one who came up with the concept of Hell as a "Lake of Fire?"
This interpretation overlooks how Tyndale’s translation was deeply intertwined with his theological agenda. Translation isn’t merely the act of converting text; it inherently involves dissemination and interpretation. Tyndale’s choices-like 'congregation' instead of 'church'-were deliberate theological challenges, making his translation inseparable from the heresy charges. While McClellan is correct that trial records focused on broader Reformation ideologies, it’s reductive to exclude translation as a core part of those ideological challenges.
Rather you are ignoring that the heresy he was prosecuted for pre- and co- existed in other languages so the presentation is correct. He wasn't killed for his translation of the Bible into English but his interpretation , which stood no matter what language it was presented in. A theological crime is not a physical one. Seven people should be ashamed to have supported such a thoroughly debunked argument.
@@ivechang6720 Tyndale was found guilty of five theological crimes, including specifically translating the Bible into English without Church authorization, promoting justification by faith alone, rejecting the authority of the Pope, criticizing key Church doctrines and practices such as transubstantiation and indulgences, and advocating for vernacular worship. On the first charge, Tyndale's translation choices are interwoven with the substance of the other charges; his translation decisions often reflected his theological beliefs. He was killed for that and how he translated the Bible.
I'm sure they knew that his translations of these five words was technically superior. But the very act of replacing words with traditional interpretations with more modern and everyday words was an invitation to reexamination of the meaning of the text. But I doubt they could come right out and say that in official documents.
@@david672orford His theological crime was against church doctrine. How he translated the text was interwoven with why he was executed. Dan's presentation of the history is overly reductionist.
Yea, but translating the Bible didn't help him adding fuel to the fire, as his translation would support his theology.
Nintyndale?
If you want to force your "elite" free you from your cave, i think you should dive into his work a little bit more
So what? Whats your point
0:41 so he translated some words more accurate 💀
Careful there. I don’t want to have to report you for heresy!
Correct
Tyndale was a wicked butcher of the Bible.
Didn't Bart say he was executed for translating the bible? Gotta look up that presentation.
Not the first time Bart fails to check things.
Fart says lots of things
So he did get burnt for translating the bible because he translated it in a way that brought discomfort to the fascist churches. The heretical charges could not be separated from his freethinking and distain for the power of organised religion. It can be dressed anyway the powerful wanted it to be dressed.
It seems more like he was executed for his ideologies, it just happens that they appear in his translation. If the issue was the translation itself and its contents, then people at that time would have no reason not to make that the basis of their accusations
@@imaadhaq540 Of course on paper the "Lutheran Heresy" was the focus, but if he had just wrote all his ideas in Latin, who would've read it and cared (hint, very few in comparison). The people that could read Latin, cared about what Tyndale wrote, precisely because the everyday person could read it. His English translation was a crucial factor in and the vehicle for spreading the very ideas they went after him for. The Church may not have singled out “translation” on paper, but it definitely contributed to why they labeled him as heretic and were motivated to prosecute him so vigorously in the first place.
Also, it's obviously more convenient to condemn Tyndale publicly for heresy rather than for producing an English Bible; it was a more straightforward legal route and at least *attempts* to avoid any painting of Tyndale as a champion of generally accessible Scripture for the common person.
@@imaadhaq540 "then people at that time would have no reason not to make that the basis of their accusations"
Not necessarily. "Crime" exists on a continuum and intersects with politics. If the powers that be desired to unalive Tyndale but couldn't do so under existing rules. A pretext could be invented in order to achieve the outcome they wanted.
Not saying this was the case. Just that there's room here for machinations which render the apparent motives and outcome questionable. I'd want to know more about the people responsible for the judgement and what kinds of motivating external and internal factors were in play before arriving at any kind of conclusion.
Very similar to the reasons Christ was executed. Society will always be the same.
No, he didn’t. The translation had _nothing to do_ with his execution and was not even mentioned at his trial.
Aaah, but you're wearing a Bizarro shirt, so everything you say actually means the opposite!
So he was executed for translating the Bible into English but not for translating the Bible into English. Got it!
You missed something. You might need to retrace your steps to find it.
No, he was NOT executed for translating the Bible. The idea that he was is a myth.
What exactly is "The Lutheran Heresy"? You said it as if it was something specific. I also notice that you mainstream bible creators have been FIGHTING FOR SUPREMACY lately'; like what the phuck is going on?? It seems like everyone is trying to out-do Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.
the word "love" doesn't belong in a bible, does it?
It is the main thing...from beginning to end.
@@marklindsey1995 what violence, incest, slavery and mayhem?
i agree
Imagine being a heretic and yet seeking mercy😭💀
Imagine burning someone at the stake for reading a book and understanding it differently.
Oh, I see.....he was not burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English....
he was just burned at the stake for translating the Bible...... PERIOD !
Well, alrighty then .....( eyes rolling ) .
Try paying attention to the video next time.
@@maklelan ......I did......try paying attention to what it means to "translate" something .
@@TheWhyIsThatSo I am a cognitive linguist and worked as a scripture translation supervisor for a decade. By all means, tell me what I'm missing.
@@maklelan ......Let's put it this way.......if you read the text literally , there was a talking "sneaky snake" conversing with
a " naked woman" that started this whole mess .
NOW......why don't you "translate" this for me Mr. "cognitive linguist scripture translation SUPERVISOR " .
I will wait .
As I understood the video, he was executed for translating it incorrectly according to those in power. His particular translation supported his theological views which where at odds with the establishment. It's not the fact that he translated the Bible nor that he translated it into English. His translation just happened to be evidence of the underlying heretical views according to the Church at the time.
Edit typos
Who cares? It's not about Tyndale and how he really died, it's about the holy scriptures and what you're gonna do with it. I really don't care whether he died for one reason or another. He provided he foundation and we need to live by the fruit he provided.
He was an agent of the devil and is now in the pit.