This article is nothing but truth-twisting venom of a bitter Calvin hater. If you want to be truthful, unlike the small-minded individual who wrote this piece, you will give direct evidence or quote reliable historians to back your case. Quoting the source P-Marlowe used in post #81 with footnotes included: (Wow, imagine that. using footnotes to back up your statements)
We do not know whether Servetus was aware of this state of things. But he could not have come at a time more favorable to him and more unfavorable to Calvin. Among the Libertines and Patriots, who hated the yoke of Calvin even more than the yoke of the pope, Servetus found natural supporters who, in turn, would gladly use him for political purposes. This fact emboldened him to take such a defiant attitude in the trial and to overwhelm Calvin with abuse. The final responsibility of the condemnation, therefore, rests with the Council of Geneva, which would probably have acted otherwise, if it had not been strongly influenced by the judgment of the Swiss Churches and the government of Bern. Calvin conducted the theological part of the examination of the trial, but had no direct influence upon the result. His theory was that the Church may convict and denounce the heretic theologically, but that his condemnation and punishment is the exclusive function of the State, and that it is one of its most sacred duties to punish attacks made on the Divine majesty. "From the time Servetus was convicted of his heresy," says Calvin, "I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest men will bear witness; and I challenge even the malignant to deny it if they can."1171 One thing only he did: he expressed the wish for a mitigation of his punishment.1172>
Now what have we learned from this short passage?
1. That there was a considerable faction within Geneva that opposed Calvin and in fact the libertines had members on the Council. Of course, this little fact is conveniently ignored by you in your attempt to paint Calvin as the supreme dictator of Geneva.
2. Calvin relinquished any authority for punishment to the State. Although he may have had some influence upon members of the Council he did not exercise as much influence as you would claim by the fact the Council refused his request for a lighter punishment for Servetus.
Now, will you begin to be honest in your postings and admit to the fact that Calvin did not have supreme dictatorial power in Geneva?
If Servetus were false and not Christian, then his final utterences devoting himself to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit through Christ would seem to bear testimony otherwise.
Again, quoting from the source Marlowe provided:
In the last moment he is heard to pray, in smoke and agony, with a loud voice: "Jesus Christ, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me!"1197 This was at once a confession of his faith and of his error. He could not be induced, says Farel, to confess that Christ was the eternal Son of God.
Is Jesus Christ Son of the Eternal God or the Eternal Son of God?
I don't find these two statements to be mutually exclusive. One emphasizes the eternal nature of the Son and one the eternal nature of God. As they are one, the reference seems identical.
Is there a finer theological point you wish to emphasize?