For example, the city council arrested Servetus, not Calvin. In fact, the same council were at the time opposed to Calvin aswell!! So how exactly did Calvin “overpower” him when Calvin had nothing to do with his arrest?
Calvin wrote up the 38 accusations against Servetus which was then sent further abroad for consideration.
Servetus had already been on the run after being sentence to death by the Catholics elsewhere.
Calvin had no power to put anyone to death or to save him.
The council decided to burn Servetus. Calvin protested and asked for a lenient sentence instead.
Calvin spent the last few hours praying with Servetus before his death and pleading for a recantation.
Does that sound like somebody who would “overpower” a JW and burn them at the stake?
I think it is clear who is being ignorant here, my friend. Have a read of some historians. And just for the record, Servetus wasn’t just someone who in good conscience rejected theTrinity. You are really skewing history here in your tirade against Evangelical faith. Sad
Personally, I think Buzzard should be more concerned with the example set by Muhammad, a man considered to be perfect and emulated by Muslims, rather than a random reformed theologian whom many Christians reject or disagree with.
“The Messenger of God sent Khalid b. al-Walid in the month of Rabi II, or Jumada I, in the year 10/631 to the Balharith b. Ka’b in Najran, and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they should respond to him [with the acceptance of Islam], then he was to accept it from them, and to stay with them and teach them the Book of God, the sunnah of His prophet, and the requirements of Islam (ma’alim al-islam); if they should decline, then he was to fight them.
Khalid departed and came to them, sending out riders in every direction inviting them to Islam and saying, “O people, accept Islam, and you will be safe.” So they embraced Islam and responded to his call. Khalid stayed with them, teaching them Islam, the Book of God, and the sunnah of His prophet.”~ al Tabari
I notice Paul that you have no actual historical evidence to the contrary, do you. I’m simply reposting the facts as agreed upon by historians. Just because it doesn;t fit your narrative against evangelicals you are now just resorting to red herrings.
“The main facts therefore may now be summarized thus:
1. That Servetus was guilty of blasphemy, of a kind and degree which is still punishable here in England by imprisonment.
2. That his sentence was in accordance with the spirit of the age.
3. That he had been sentenced to the same punishment by the Inquisition at Vienne.
4. That the sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, Calvin having no power either to condemn or to save him.
5. That Calvin and others visited the unhappy man in his last hours, treated him with much kindness, and did all they could to have the sentence mitigated.”
LOL!!! Did I just read that? Is Paulus defending the murder of Michael Servetus for “blasphemy”?
“In accordance with the spirit of the age”? What does that mean? Was the sentence in accordance with the teachings of your lord Jesus Christ? Hmmm…
“Calvin having no power either to condemn him or to save him”. Perhaps this was true, but did he even TRY to save him? Did he say to the authorities that he should not be executed? Furthermore, it was Calvin himself who brought the matter to the authorities in the first place! Surely, he would have known what would happen to Servetus if he was found guilty. Yet, Calvin still did that. Here is what another apologist for Calvin says:
“Calvin did what he could, which was to ask the civil authorities to investigate the matter and to take action. They consulted churches in Geneva and elsewhere in Switzerland and found that this was a matter worthy of trial. The trial was lengthy and deliberate. Servetus was eventually found guilty and was condemned to be burned at the stake, despite Calvin’s request that he be executed painlessly by being beheaded.”
Jason, clearly it was blasphemy/ heretical in the time period under discussion and was thus subject (rightly or wrongly) to the punishment of the courts of the time. But Fail won’t let common sense and historical accuracy ever surface.
No Paulus, Unitarianism has never been heretical nor blaspemous! Just cause some Trinitards/Triniturds thought it was in the Middle Ages, doesn’t mean it was in fact so! Their belief of what constituted (rightly or wrongly as you said) a heresy is a far cry from what the truth of the matter really was! I assume you believe in objective truth? Micheal had balls! He looked at the unscriptual and unbiblical teachings of Trinitards/turds in the face,and basically told them to fuck off, he decided to roll with the “clear teachings of scriptures” and paid with his life. I only pray that if I’m ever in that situation I can maintain that same courage and strength, God willing.
Paul,
I know this is your blog and I apologize for my foul language, but as a Unitarian Christian, the murder of Micheal Servetus strikes a deep cord in my soul.
LOL, brilliant response Paulus! You’re making Fido look like a genius. Hmmm, I think we have another trinitarian mutt on the loose. You need a new name! I christen thee…Lassie.
So Lassie, let’s see if your bite is as bad as your bark:
“Jason, clearly it was blasphemy/ heretical in the time period under discussion and was thus subject (rightly or wrongly) to the punishment of the courts of the time. But Fail won’t let common sense and historical accuracy ever surface.”
LOL!!! So, we shouldn’t dwell on what happened to Servetus because it was normal for the time period under discussion?
Perhaps you can clear up some confusion for me:
1. You said Servetus was subject “rightly or wrongly” to the punishments of the courts of the time. Well, was it right or was it wrong?
2. You claim I didn’t let “common sense and historical accuracy ever surface”. But all I did was quote one of your fellow apologists who showed that Calvin instigated the entire episode of Servetus’ persecution and execution! Was Calvin right to do what he did? Was he following the example of your lord and savior?
3. You said Servetus’ belief was “blasphemy/heretical in the time period”. Does that mean that it was not “blasphemy/heretical” in other times?
Do be a dear and clear up this confusion, will you? There’s a good boy.
1. Personally I think it is wrong to kill people because of their personal belief. Sadly, many disagree, e.g Muhammad.
2. instigated? There, you just answered your own question and proved my point. Servertus was guilty of breaking the law of the time. Calvin pleaded with him to recant. He also asked for leniency with the punishment the court approved. In other words, Calvin did everything in his means to stop this happening while also trying to honour the law of the land. Noble really, but as I said, you won’t allow any of this to permeate your hatred.
LOL Lassie, I see you are being your usual evasive self.
1. I didn’t ask for your personal beliefs. No one cares about some mangy mutt’s personal beliefs. I asked whether what Calvin and his fellow pagans did to Servetus was right according to the teachings of your lord and savior.
2. Calvin pleaded with Servetus to repent? Why should Servetus have repented? Why didn’t Calvin defend Servetus and urge the courts to drop the charges? Instead, the bastard started the whole sordid affair and then urged the courts to be “lenient” (so beheading is more “lenient”, eh?).
And “noble”??? What are you smoking? So let me get this straight. What if the roles were reversed and the law of the land was that Unitarian Christianity and trinitarian Christianity was heresy? What if Servetus had Calvin brought before the courts, and urged him to repent? Would you defend Servetus the way you are defending Calvin?
3. “State legal standpoint”? Was Servetus a heretic according to your religion and deserving of the death penalty? Stop trying to evade the question! LOL!
Blogging Theology 
F John Calvin.
LikeLike
I have really enjoyed reading his Institutes and commentaries.
Here is abit of nuance on the historical issue, since Buzzards emotional comment is rather unhistorial.
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2007/06/22/calvin-and-servetus/
LikeLike
So Calvin didn’t call for the death penalty for a man who in good conscience rejected the Trinity doctrine? Gosh you are ignorant
LikeLike
For example, the city council arrested Servetus, not Calvin. In fact, the same council were at the time opposed to Calvin aswell!! So how exactly did Calvin “overpower” him when Calvin had nothing to do with his arrest?
LikeLike
Calvin wrote up the 38 accusations against Servetus which was then sent further abroad for consideration.
Servetus had already been on the run after being sentence to death by the Catholics elsewhere.
Calvin had no power to put anyone to death or to save him.
The council decided to burn Servetus. Calvin protested and asked for a lenient sentence instead.
Calvin spent the last few hours praying with Servetus before his death and pleading for a recantation.
Does that sound like somebody who would “overpower” a JW and burn them at the stake?
I think it is clear who is being ignorant here, my friend. Have a read of some historians. And just for the record, Servetus wasn’t just someone who in good conscience rejected theTrinity. You are really skewing history here in your tirade against Evangelical faith. Sad
LikeLike
Lol I love the way you attempt to justify the persecution and murder of a Christian who dissented from the legally enforced Trinitarian doctrine.
You should work for ISIS you have the right mentality!
LikeLike
Personally, I think Buzzard should be more concerned with the example set by Muhammad, a man considered to be perfect and emulated by Muslims, rather than a random reformed theologian whom many Christians reject or disagree with.
“The Messenger of God sent Khalid b. al-Walid in the month of Rabi II, or Jumada I, in the year 10/631 to the Balharith b. Ka’b in Najran, and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they should respond to him [with the acceptance of Islam], then he was to accept it from them, and to stay with them and teach them the Book of God, the sunnah of His prophet, and the requirements of Islam (ma’alim al-islam); if they should decline, then he was to fight them.
Khalid departed and came to them, sending out riders in every direction inviting them to Islam and saying, “O people, accept Islam, and you will be safe.” So they embraced Islam and responded to his call. Khalid stayed with them, teaching them Islam, the Book of God, and the sunnah of His prophet.”~ al Tabari
LikeLike
Personally, the rank hypocrisy of a man who is an apologist for Calvin’s murder of a unitarian Christian is laughable
LikeLike
I notice Paul that you have no actual historical evidence to the contrary, do you. I’m simply reposting the facts as agreed upon by historians. Just because it doesn;t fit your narrative against evangelicals you are now just resorting to red herrings.
LikeLike
Admit it: you are an apologist for the killing of a Christian Unitarian
LikeLike
So re-posting historians conclusion is an apology for murder? Or perhaps it is just telling the truth?
You seem to be becoming more irrational and radicalised the longer you follow Muhammad. Sad.
LikeLike
Says a missionary who is an apologist for religious killing. A Christian ISIS. Sick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The main facts therefore may now be summarized thus:
1. That Servetus was guilty of blasphemy, of a kind and degree which is still punishable here in England by imprisonment.
2. That his sentence was in accordance with the spirit of the age.
3. That he had been sentenced to the same punishment by the Inquisition at Vienne.
4. That the sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, Calvin having no power either to condemn or to save him.
5. That Calvin and others visited the unhappy man in his last hours, treated him with much kindness, and did all they could to have the sentence mitigated.”
https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2009/calvin-and-servetus-2/
LikeLike
LOL!!! Did I just read that? Is Paulus defending the murder of Michael Servetus for “blasphemy”?
“In accordance with the spirit of the age”? What does that mean? Was the sentence in accordance with the teachings of your lord Jesus Christ? Hmmm…
“Calvin having no power either to condemn him or to save him”. Perhaps this was true, but did he even TRY to save him? Did he say to the authorities that he should not be executed? Furthermore, it was Calvin himself who brought the matter to the authorities in the first place! Surely, he would have known what would happen to Servetus if he was found guilty. Yet, Calvin still did that. Here is what another apologist for Calvin says:
“Calvin did what he could, which was to ask the civil authorities to investigate the matter and to take action. They consulted churches in Geneva and elsewhere in Switzerland and found that this was a matter worthy of trial. The trial was lengthy and deliberate. Servetus was eventually found guilty and was condemned to be burned at the stake, despite Calvin’s request that he be executed painlessly by being beheaded.”
http://www.challies.com/articles/the-servetus-problem
Aww, how sweet of Calvin. He asked that the authorities be humane and murder Servetus “painlessly” by cutting off his head. What a sweet guy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paulus has so much in common with ISIS. Should we ban him?
LikeLike
Biblically speaking, Unitarianism isn’t blasphemy. Dying God-men is right at home in pagan religious thought. Good luck with your polytheism though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jason, clearly it was blasphemy/ heretical in the time period under discussion and was thus subject (rightly or wrongly) to the punishment of the courts of the time. But Fail won’t let common sense and historical accuracy ever surface.
LikeLike
No Paulus, Unitarianism has never been heretical nor blaspemous! Just cause some Trinitards/Triniturds thought it was in the Middle Ages, doesn’t mean it was in fact so! Their belief of what constituted (rightly or wrongly as you said) a heresy is a far cry from what the truth of the matter really was! I assume you believe in objective truth? Micheal had balls! He looked at the unscriptual and unbiblical teachings of Trinitards/turds in the face,and basically told them to fuck off, he decided to roll with the “clear teachings of scriptures” and paid with his life. I only pray that if I’m ever in that situation I can maintain that same courage and strength, God willing.
Paul,
I know this is your blog and I apologize for my foul language, but as a Unitarian Christian, the murder of Micheal Servetus strikes a deep cord in my soul.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*Michael
LikeLike
Nah, I think we should let him continue to make a fool of himself and expose the hypocrisy of his Christian faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok good idea
LikeLike
Agreed Jason! Well said!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Faiz
LikeLike
Ha! Classic Islamic response(s)
LikeLike
Ha! Classic Christian evasiveness.
LikeLike
LOL, brilliant response Paulus! You’re making Fido look like a genius. Hmmm, I think we have another trinitarian mutt on the loose. You need a new name! I christen thee…Lassie.
So Lassie, let’s see if your bite is as bad as your bark:
“Jason, clearly it was blasphemy/ heretical in the time period under discussion and was thus subject (rightly or wrongly) to the punishment of the courts of the time. But Fail won’t let common sense and historical accuracy ever surface.”
LOL!!! So, we shouldn’t dwell on what happened to Servetus because it was normal for the time period under discussion?
Perhaps you can clear up some confusion for me:
1. You said Servetus was subject “rightly or wrongly” to the punishments of the courts of the time. Well, was it right or was it wrong?
2. You claim I didn’t let “common sense and historical accuracy ever surface”. But all I did was quote one of your fellow apologists who showed that Calvin instigated the entire episode of Servetus’ persecution and execution! Was Calvin right to do what he did? Was he following the example of your lord and savior?
3. You said Servetus’ belief was “blasphemy/heretical in the time period”. Does that mean that it was not “blasphemy/heretical” in other times?
Do be a dear and clear up this confusion, will you? There’s a good boy.
LikeLike
1. Personally I think it is wrong to kill people because of their personal belief. Sadly, many disagree, e.g Muhammad.
2. instigated? There, you just answered your own question and proved my point. Servertus was guilty of breaking the law of the time. Calvin pleaded with him to recant. He also asked for leniency with the punishment the court approved. In other words, Calvin did everything in his means to stop this happening while also trying to honour the law of the land. Noble really, but as I said, you won’t allow any of this to permeate your hatred.
3. Yes, obviously from a state legal standpoint.
LikeLike
1. Obviously the Bible (and Jesus too) disagree with you strongly. But never mind. Enjoy your personal religion. Hope it brings you happiness.
LikeLike
LOL Lassie, I see you are being your usual evasive self.
1. I didn’t ask for your personal beliefs. No one cares about some mangy mutt’s personal beliefs. I asked whether what Calvin and his fellow pagans did to Servetus was right according to the teachings of your lord and savior.
2. Calvin pleaded with Servetus to repent? Why should Servetus have repented? Why didn’t Calvin defend Servetus and urge the courts to drop the charges? Instead, the bastard started the whole sordid affair and then urged the courts to be “lenient” (so beheading is more “lenient”, eh?).
And “noble”??? What are you smoking? So let me get this straight. What if the roles were reversed and the law of the land was that Unitarian Christianity and trinitarian Christianity was heresy? What if Servetus had Calvin brought before the courts, and urged him to repent? Would you defend Servetus the way you are defending Calvin?
3. “State legal standpoint”? Was Servetus a heretic according to your religion and deserving of the death penalty? Stop trying to evade the question! LOL!
LikeLike
Hey brother Paul. we actually have two Christian ISIS members: Lassie (aka Paulus) and Madman (aka Madmanna):
https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/07/15/a-telegraph-journalist-gets-it-right/#comment-20339
LikeLike