William Tyndale: Victim or Criminal?

One fanciful story dealing with Catholic Church history is the death of William Tyndale. Many non-Catholics will tell you that members of the Roman Catholic Church murdered Tyndale on account of translating the Bible to English. This accusation is often made in support of the argument that the Catholic Church does not encourage the reading of the Scriptures. When confronted with this accusation, I had to take a deeper look into the life, and death, of William Tyndale.

An important piece of the puzzle is that, at the time of Tyndale, it was not legal to translate any unauthorized edition of the Bible into English. This law, passed by the Synod of Oxford in 1408, prohibited any unauthorized version of the Bible to be translated to English, and also the reading of such. The law was put into effect after another translator, John Wycliffe, produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy; an improper rendition of Scripture. Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal that was caused by the Wycliffe translation, the Synod of Oxford then passed the law.

A fact usually ignored by Protestant historians is that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliffe, and these were authorized and perfectly legal. Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church. And that is exactly what Tyndale did.

Catholic Answers, in their article Tyndale’s Heresy by Matthew A. C. Newsome ( https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/tyndales-heresy ), says:

“Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

“First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

“Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

“Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. 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.”

Well, Tyndale struck out on his own, and illegally made a translation of the Bible into English. The secular authorities (not the Catholic Church) arrested Tyndale, and he was sentenced to die in 1536.

In reality, Tyndale was a criminal, a breaker of the law. He knew very well that it was illegal to make an unauthorized translation. A look at the facts behind Tyndale’s death should scatter the notion that Catholics murdered him for simply translating the Bible, just another fanciful “history” of the Catholic Church.

— Patrick E. Devens




104 thoughts on “William Tyndale: Victim or Criminal?

  1. Pingback: William Tyndale – Criminal or Christian martyr? | Pilgrim’s Progress revisited - Christiana on the narrow way

  2. Brother Patrick, its not nice to call your elders liars. Heres a partial list of Nazis who wre born and raised catholic;
    Hitler, Goebbles, Himmler, Hoess, Streicher, Bormann, Heydrich, Kaltenbruner Friesler,Meuller, Stangel, Eve Brown, and even Stalin went to a catholic seminary. One thing you must know about me…I don’t sit here and lie. What good is lying?


    • You need to realize that while some of those people began their lives as Catholics, they recanted their Catholic Faith by their horrible actions in life. You cannot serve two masters. And, is it “nice” to call anyone a liar? Please don’t play the age game with me. This is religious debate, not “don’t express opinions” time.


      • I must agree with Patrick on this. but it is not nice to call anyone a heretic or a bigot either. I’ve got no idea how old you are, Bosco, but let’s just try to be respectful and civil about this please? I have known Patrick for about 3 years now. Although his Catholic doctrines might annoy the heck out of both me and you, I see a guy who is trying to spread the truth to all who he knows, and I admire that. I would never treat him as anything less and I recommend you do the same, Bosco. By the way this isn’t an attack. I am just trying to make sure things don’t get out of hand.
        In Europe being raised religious was pretty common in those times and before… sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. But those men who you listed did denounce their faith by becoming Nazis.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. that’s right brother JR, Satan tried to wipe out believers of Jesus thru Rome, by feeding them to lions and using them as street lights and what every else came to mind. When Satan realized Christians were growing despite the persecution, he decided to join them and kill them from the. inside out. He started a religion at his headquarter of persecution, Rome, made people believe things that keeps one from salvation, and killed those who would not join this new poisonous cult of personality. This is just how things are. Save your family and any close friends. and of course anyone who will listen to you. Let the others go.


    • I would think that the statement “Rome has spiritual authority” would be a ludicrous thing for most people since the early church were murdered by the Roman authority if they didn’t recant the name of Christ Catholics oh so “honor”. And like I said in a previous post on a different page, that throughout the Bible it shows that Rome is a newer version of Babylon. And God never copies the devil by taking something old and evil and then building on top of it something of His own in the liking of the original. Saying Rome has spiritual authority is like saying Christ died to turn something of the devil’s into something we should serve. Absolutely ludicrous!


  4. I still am struggling to understand, that even though you (Patrick) said that there is nothing wrong with the English Bible, the law was just in being made. What if freedom of religion was suddenly not allowed anymore in America? And if you were religious, then you would be put to death. It’s good to be a Christian isn’t it? But the law says that if you are then you’ll die. What do you do? A Tyndale or a Catholic?


    • Brother Patrick seems to forget about the Nuremburg Laws in Nazi Germany. I take it he feels that it was Ok to strip jews of their citizenship and cart them off to be exterminated. After all, it was the law. Not to mention All top Nazis were catholic.


      • All top Nazis were Catholic? I will not argue with someone who spreads the lies of Chick. James and Jonah, while I believe they are incorrect in some points, are much more realistic than you. I would suppose that you believe that the Jesuits and Pope were behind the KKK and Masons as well?


      • The Nazi’s I can assure you were not Catholic Hitler just happened to be a Karl Marx supporter. But I can see where you’re heading, Bosco.


      • Cuz that’s just the legend I am. 😀

        But the CC did start the jesuits but tried to stop them because the jesuits became so evil. Not the KKK though. Almost every Christian denomination has denounced the KKK.


      • I am confused in the sense that Pat said that there is nothing wrong with the English Bible, but he says that since the law said that it was heresy, then they were just in murdering Tyndale.


      • The Bible itself in English is nothing wrong. A Bible in another language is perfectly fine as long as it is authentic. I am saying that Tyndale’s edition was full of error, making it heresy, and it was an illegal edition because of the law which required authorization to translate a Bible.


      • And so if the government finds Christianity heresy, then does that mean that it is?


    • The Law itself was just, because of the scandal that was caused when another translator produced a bible that was full of translational error. The law prohibiting any UNAUTHORIZED version was good because it kept people from “translating” the Bible anyway they wanted to.


      • They would have killed Tyndale anyway even if he did write in perfect English. It’s a bit like Luther, both left the Catholic Church and then the religious leaders decided to cry over it. And with Tyndale’s anti-Catholic footnotes that wouldn’t have helped. Tyndale wasn’t what we would call a Protestant, but rather a man who was simply doing the right thing for God. In fact, Tyndale had gone to the Church to ask permission to translate the Bible into English. The Catholics said “no”. And there was nothing to do with anti-Catholic footnotes or words missing out.


    • Tyndale knew what was heresy and what was not. He was formerly a Catholic priest. He knew the consequences of his actions. He was warned when he was denied the “ok” to begin translating.


      • It’s James. Couldn’t figure out my login info on my WordPress accounts.

        Also, you dodged my question. Where in the new testament does it even imply that we should execute heretics? Jesus never commanded anyone to execute Saul/Paul, and he was what you might call a “heretic” since he was religious, and killing Christians to blot out the name of Jesus. Seems your love of killing heretics is pretty against the way of God and giving them time to see the light.

        And by the way, it today’s society with the RCC, burning someone at the stake for something as minor as translating the Bible would be considered cruel and as murder.

        The people in Tyndale’s day who even owned one of his Bibles were sentenced to death. Were they deserving of it? And in your definition, I would be considered a heretic. Does that mean you want to kill me? If it does, and you know it, then you are in fact a murderer in God’s sight and I will have nothing to do with you.


      • can you back up that claim that those who owned Tyndale’s Bible were put to death? Where is a record of that?

        Your original question was where in the Scriptures were we told to execute heretics? I don’t believe that there is a text that commands that. Then again, authority was given by God to the bishops of his church, who made that law (concerning the need for authorization for translation), and the secular authorities applied the known consequence of that law.

        James, don’t take this out of proportion. I am by no means saying that every non-Catholic in the world today should be killed. that’d make me and the Church no better than the Muslim terrorists. All I am pointing out is that there was a law against publishing unauthorized editions of Scripture, and the law was carried out. I personally think the death penalty may have been a tad too severe, but history cannot be changed.

        Just a thought, should the U.S. President not exercise the death penalty on criminals, but rather attempt that they be converted?

        But I do hope you understand that I am by no means insinuating that all non-Catholics should be murdered. I believe that those who hold doctrine contrary to the RCC are in error, but I do not think or wish that they die.

        We can debate and discuss on here and disagree with each other, but I still consider you an online friend.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I don’t think you have thought about this logically. I don’t think you have gone back in time much. Let me just help you a bit.

    Do you honestly expect William Tyndale’s translation to be perfect? His first language was English, and learning Latin and ancient Greek are both exceptionally hard. There was no Google translate, no Babbel, no nothing. Just brains and a heck of a lot of determination. We are in the 15th century, Tudor times. We have a potato for a king and people are dumping their sewage onto the streets because there is nowhere else to put it. We have most of Europe controlled by the Catholic Church in a very ungodly way, and people like William and his brother stirring up trouble because they were doing the right thing. Doesn’t sound very fair does it?
    Tyndale decided to disagree with the Catholic authorities, so they threw a fit and had him executed, or should I say murdered.
    Your problem unfortunately, you feel that if anyone speaks out against the RCC, then they automatically are a heretic. But I think it is heresy to have someone we bow down to when he walks through the streets pretending to be perfect. (i’m talking about the Pope) And the selling of indulgences, make-up places such as Purgatory just to scare the public into giving the RCC money. But when people like Luther come around and give the truth to the people then oh no, the RCC’s power is failing, they’re getting less income, people now are starting to think that Purgatory is a filthy, lying scam. Get over it. Enough lies are being told.


    • Hello classicmusicguy, how are you doing. Its to brother Patrick credit that he has attracted faithful Christians to his blog, like you and sister Maria. Id like to invite you to come to

      I could some help in witnessing to the catholics and other religious folks. Rite now im the sole Christian in there. I really need some help. maybe you could pop in sometime if you get a chance. Thanks


    • Brother classicmusic guy, I like the way you talk. Id like you to come to a site where I debate catholics and other religious people. I need some help because im the only one speaking the Word of God. the site is
      allalongthewatchtower wordpress. If you will, you could pop in and lend me a hand. You say things better than I do. Thanks.


      • Hi Bosco, I appreciate that. You can just call me Jonah please. 🙂 I’d love to come to your website. I’ll check it out.


    • No, anyone who teaches contrary to Christ’s doctrine is a heretic.

      You obviously have no sense of the Catholic view of justification. Search up my article concerning Purgatory.

      Luther gave the truth? What truth? Adding to the Scriptures?


      • You said it yourself on your 5 Solae post, that it was good of Luther to make aware to the people that the indulgences were a fraud. That’s just one of them. It links back to “saved by works”, a very heavily taught doctrine amongst the RCC and still is. Luther helped the public understand that our works are like filthy rags and are saved by grace. And no, he didn’t add to the scriptures. That’s just a story used by haters upon Luther. Luther is very overdone at times, especially by Catholics.


      • No, that is not what I stated. I said it was good for Luther to make aware the selling of indulgences, not indulgences themselves. Indulgences are a perfectly correct doctrine.

        He didn’t add to the Scriptures? What quotes DO you believe???? Come on! You are telling me you haven’t seen his quote on Romans 3:28? Come on Jonah. Be realistic. He was going to leave James out of his biblical canon. Also Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. These are historical facts, not myths. He added the word “alone” after the verse Romans 3:28.


      • You also tell me that the Papists are causing a great fuss because St. Paul’s text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to be tolerated.

        I]f your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They write books? So do I.

        I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together.

        Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.” Let it remain at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people that they are – asses, I should say. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry – like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them. They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. An *** truly does not have to sing much as he is already known for his ears.

        For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word “sola” – even though in Romans 3 it wasn’t “sola” I used but “solum” or “tantum”. That is how closely those asses have looked at my text! However, I have used “sola fides” in other places, and I want to use both “solum” and “sola”. I have continually tried translating in a pure and accurate German.

        I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text – the papists did not have to teach me that – it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation – not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet drunk”; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a vast number of such everyday cases.

        (Martin Luther, An Open Letter On Translating, 1530)

        Liked by 1 person

    • Do you realize why Bibles were chained in Churches? Perhaps you also should “go back in history”. The bibles were not printed, they were hand copied, and therefore valuable not only spiritually, but also because of the time put into each one, making them somewhat rare. They were chained to keep people from stealing them.

      Your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance.


      • Ok, firstly, calm down. I wish for this to be a friendly discussion.
        Indulgences are not correct at all. You think that a piece of paper saying that you are saved and a couple hundred year spared from Purgatory is ok? It’s what we call a lie, or scam.
        I believe more quotes than you think, and I completely acknowledge the fact that Luther said and did alot of things he shouldn’t have. For example, at one of his tabletalks, one person asked Luther what God was doing before he created the universe, Luther responded, “He was creating hell for people who ask stupid questions like you!”. I must admit, there is a side of Luther which is not so nice.
        I still don’t believe that Luther wanted to leave those books out, but he definitely left out the extra book which Catholics use for a legitimate reason. He said that they are good books to read, but they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, so should not be called Scripture. And also the RCC did not make the New testament canon. It is very difficult as, like I said, Luther is very overdone at times and there are a lot of storytellers in the world.
        And I said nothing about the Papists fussing over the word alone not being in Romans 3:28, so I don’t know where that came from. But yes, in the past you have twisted the words of God and I won’t forget that.
        I like that paragraph by Luther up there, although the word ‘ass’ back then not considered offensive, it literally meant ‘donkey’, not bum as it does today, so you didn’t have to make it look worse than what it was by adding the ***.
        And Luther says up there why he used the word alone, so I don’t know why you sulk over it.
        The Pope is arrogant as heck. I’ve seen the full services at the Vatican and I’ve seen how the Pope is. And please don’t avoid this question, “should we bow to the Pope like heaps of people usually do?”.
        He reckons that his power is the same as Christ’s, I saw this on allalongthewatchtower and was furious. And I know how it is, needing to go to the priest to be saved which like James said, is in itself blasphemous. Jesus said that I am the Way, Truth, and Life. Nobody comes to God, except through Jesus. I don’t see the word Pope or priest in there.
        At the time of the Reformation they had the printing press, they could have easily made plenty more Bibles and given them to the public… that’s if the Pope cared.
        I promise you, the reason was that the RCC believed that the Scriptures were too complex for the ‘common person’. Which I believe is discrimination.
        I am not ignorant, well I don’t hope at least. And unfortunately I come off as an arrogant person even when you meet me, but I think of myself very lowly and am doubtful of myself. I am definitely not arrogant.


      • If you want to talk about the biblical canon, I have just published several articles on it. And you can bow to anyone you wish Jonah, bowing is a sign of respect. That is why people bow to the Pope.


    • Another interesting fact I found in an article: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/catholics-and-the-bible

      “At one time Bible translations were falsified in the interest of certain heresies. William Tyndale, for example, always substituted the word “congregation” for ” Church” and “ordinance” for “tradition” because of the Catholic connotation attached to these words. He also translated “Little children, keep yourselves from images”; instead of using the more accurate rendering ” idols.”; ”

      Is that not heresy? The twisting of the Scriptures?


  6. If Tyndale didn’t finish the Bible it’s probably because SOMEBODY killed him off before he finished. And of course it was going to have anti-Catholic footnotes. He disagreed with plenty of the the RCC taught. And by the way, Henry VIII called himself a Catholic, so…..
    How did the RCC ban the public reading the Scriptures? Easy. Just keep them locked up for the Popes and university students so that no one can read the Bible and find out about the grace of God. And sure, I agree that in John 3:16 the word “begotten” is vital. But this is not unnormal. It’s also in the NIV, ESV and so on. Which is why I prefer to use the KJV Bible. But did you expect Tyndale to be perfect? In Romans it says all have sinned and have fallen short to the glory of God. Tyndale wasn’t perfect, and neither was Luther, Knox, and even every single Pope and religious leader in the Catholic Church. I admire Tyndale. He gave God an English voice, when no-one else would. (That’s a metaphor by the way)

    Liked by 1 person

    • These errors were pointed out to Tyndale, and these errors were the reason why he was kept from making a translation. The NIV and ESV are heretical versions as well.

      I would expect that since Tyndale had the one self ordained job of translating the Bible, then he could have at least done it right.


    • My compliments to brother Patrick for attracting such faithful Christians to his site, such as sister Maria and classicalmusicguy. Brother classicalmusic, id like to extend the offer I made to sister Maria, and that is to come and lend a voice of reason to this catholic blog
      I cpuld really use some Christian help in there. Im all alone in dealing with these people. If nothing else, I could use some moral support. Thanks friend.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Patrick, just a word or two.

    About Bible translations: There are variations in translations but the great majority of them are not significant. The original autographs were inerrant because the Holy Spirit inspired the writers. There was also an effort made by those who copied the Greek texts to harmonize them; in the Gospels, for example, so that they used the exact same language. I believe this is called “parallel influence.” It’s a complex issue and people should be careful about making accusations, as you have here about William Tyndale’s work.

    About the Church of Rome discouraging the reading of the Word of God: I know from experience in Catholic school and college that we heard the Word weekly at Mass (Fridays and Sundays) but were never encouraged to read the Bible on our own. Vatican II changed this somewhat.
    I graduated Catholic high school in 1967, Catholic college in 1972.


  8. And Patrick, looking at your first comment, you called the English Bible “heresy”. What language do you read the Bible in? Because apparently if we read it in English. it is heresy. And you tell me that The RCC was RIGHT in having the death penalty or any penalty at all for translating a book to English?? This has got me annoyed at the maximum.


  9. Woah!!! Now this is ludicrous! Even after the Bible was translated to English, The RCC STILL prohibited the public reading the Bible. These laws were indeed passed by the RCC. I agree with Bosco the Heretic completely! The Protestant Reformation wasn’t around yet, this was before. Yet Tyndale had the wisdom to recognise the anti-biblical doctrines taught by the RCC. He called Purgatory, “The RCC’s way to squeeze coin from the masses” I agree completely! This of course would have stirred trouble with Tyndale and the RCC and a few other things Tyndale said. And saying that an innocent man was deserving to die is extremely sinful! I hope you recognise this!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Patrick, you’re right that Bibles in the English vernacular were published long before Wycliffe’s. However, Tyndale’s was the first English translation from the original languages. In fact he used Catholic Desiderius Erasmus’s Greek New Testament for his translation work.

    I will study William Tyndale further. Yes, he broke English law. Many people break national laws in order to obey God, and church laws also, as the apostles did:

    Acts 5
    17 But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. 18 They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the gates of the prison, and taking them out he said, 20 “Go, stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this Life.” 21 Upon hearing this, they entered into the temple about daybreak and began to teach.
    Now when the high priest and his associates came, they called the Council together, even all the Senate of the sons of Israel, and sent orders to the prison house for them to be brought. 22 But the officers who came did not find them in the prison; and they returned and reported back, 23 saying, “We found the prison house locked quite securely and the guards standing at the doors; but when we had opened up, we found no one inside.” 24 Now when the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests heard these words, they were greatly perplexed about them as to what would come of this. 25 But someone came and reported to them, “The men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!” 26 Then the captain went along with the officers and proceeded to bring them back without violence (for they were afraid of the people, that they might be stoned).
    27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
    33 But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”
    40 They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. 41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.


      • And what of the non-Catholics murdering Catholics? It went both ways. I am not arguing that Catholics have been historically perfect. In this article, my point was that legally, Tyndale was a criminal. The authorities had legal reason to punish him.


      • Bosco, sometimes they don’t know, sometimes they refuse to believe. A good place to begin, I think, is in learning about modern times in Catholic Croatia during WWII, where they executed about a half million Orthodox (Jewish people too) with the approval of Archbishop Stepinac and the active participation of Catholic priests.


  11. Who do you think authored these laws? It was Rome. The governments were appointees of Rome. Nice try to divorce the CC from murdering bible believers.
    Now, do you think these bible laws were from God? Its Gods book? he authored it and gave it to mankind. Who has the right to forbid man from doing anything with it?
    Can I ask you a question? Do you think it was right to kill Tyndale?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s