For Sir Thomas More
F. Pijper has demonstrated that the great difference between the Lutheran Reformation and the early Dutch Reformation was due to the influence of the writings of Erasmus on the Dutch clergy. (There's probably more, but I'm just doing my social project and this is what I got so far. Sorry.)
They were both Humanists as well as good friends. They both preferred reason, studying of source material and 'truth' to (church) doctrine, and were both critical of abuses within the Catholic church: Erasmus dedicated his famous book on this subject, "The praise of folly" , to Thomas More. They both nevertheless argued against a split in the Catholic church and were consequently no friends of the Protestant movement.
Both wanted to improve society; both believed that greed caused problems
This was the verdict that Erasmus passed on Thomas More because of the conflicting aspects of his character and his life -first a scholar of the new ideas then a cruel persecutor of those who promoted them. Richard Marius (1933-1999) an academic at Harvard University wrote an exhaustive book about Thomas More 520 pages long! On page 520 he makes this remark about him: "Erasmus a long time ago called him a man for all seasons, and so he has been, and so he will remain." The phrase would seem to be used for an adaptable character which contains inconsistencies and elements of self contradiction. Marius goes on to illustrate this with regard to More: ".... in him the good and the bad were always at war. Calculation duelled with spontaneity, humility and pride, love with hate. These conflicts went tumultuously on almost to the very end beneath the calm exterior that he kept toward the world, and an honest biographer cannot truly say that More's virtues were stronger than his vices or that his vices were insignificant, or that his goodness as he himself might have defined it was always admirable." Marius concludes: ..... it may be that only those who struggle without victory in such lifelong conflicts within themselves are worthy to be called saints
Desiderius Erasmus and Thomas More both called for reform.
They were Christian humanists.
how did Erasmus, Rabelais, and Thomas More contribute to Christian Humanism
Satire
Desiderius Erasmus, Thomas More, and Francois Rabelais were prominent humanist thinkers of the Renaissance period. Erasmus was a Dutch theologian and scholar known for his critical edition of the New Testament. Thomas More was an English statesman and author of "Utopia," a work of political and social commentary. Francois Rabelais was a French writer and humanist known for his satirical works, particularly the "Gargantua and Pantagruel" series.
one of the most prominent intellectuals and thinkers of England in the fifteenth and sixteenth century e.g. John Colet, Desiderius Erasmus, and Thomas More.
Desiderius Erasmus described the leadership of the pope as more spiritual and less political. The Pontiff is to be the voice of God on Earth, free from political motives, ruling on strictly spiritual matters.
Christian humanism, as advocated by figures like Thomas More and Desiderius Erasmus, emphasized the importance of integrating Christian values with the pursuit of knowledge and education. More's book "Utopia" critiqued the social and political structures of his time while promoting principles of justice and equality. Erasmus focused on reforming the Catholic Church by promoting scholarship, moral introspection, and a return to the teachings of the Bible. Both thinkers believed in the potential for human reason and intellect to lead to a more just and harmonious society infused with Christian ethics.
That probably depends on who you ask, but a good argument could be made for Erasmus (Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus) who lived from 1466-1536.
For Sir Thomas More
Both were Considered humanists
Thomas More was friends with Erasmus who wrote Praise of Folly. Erasmus dedicated the book to More. Thomas More was also close to Henry VIII until the King wanted a divorce. Henry VIII chose to execute Thomas More. Thomas' last words were "The king's good servant, but God's first."