Bible translations had nothing to do with it because firstly, it wasn’t illegal to translate it in the Low Lands and his inquisitor makes no mention of it anywhere in his writings.
On top of that he was allowed to keep working on translations during his time in prison.
And no, the Church didn’t control the gov.
It was pretty secularized for that time.
If he renounced his heresies he probably would have lived.
@subtlepotato37@sola_chad Probably his Lutheran doctrines.
The actual legal court documents are missing so we don’t have the exact charges.
We do know making bible translations wasn’t one of them.
@minagelina1@LiamJHayden1995@farmingandJesus Yes, the evidence is clear that there was no iconoclasm in the early Church.
The first controversy over icons was in the 8th century and that position was completely heterodox and rightfully condemned at the councils.
@minagelina1@LiamJHayden1995@farmingandJesus The point is nonsensical.
If icons are accepted in the 2nd century then either the Church preserved Apostolic teaching or fell into error immediatly after the death of the Apostles.
The latter undermines the protestant position more than they realize.
@jsrrayburnii@Bartvannijmegen@farmingandJesus Early Church had icons before Nicea.
You can go to Rome today and walk the catacombs and see them for yourself if you wish.
The oldest ichtys we have today is from around 180AD.