1c45b5 No.578959
>Catholic/Orthodox - Pharisees
>Lutherans/Reformed/Anglicans - Sadducees
>Methodist/Baptist/Evangelicals - Essenes
Accurate?
2a441f No.578965
1c45b5 No.578966
cdce67 No.578967
>>578959
>Methodist/Baptist/Evangelicals - Essenes
What? How did you get this conclusion?
>Catholic- Pharisees
>Orthodox - Essenes
Methodist/Baptist/Evangelicals - Scribes
1c290b No.578969
>>578959
Yes, very accurate since the pharisees were correct.
1c45b5 No.578970
>>578967
Because the Essenes heavily separated themselves from traditional second Temple Judaism. They were also somewhat literalistic in their interpretations and had interesting apocalyptic expectations. Also, the scribes weren't really a sect.
cdce67 No.578972
>>578970
No because essenes are more "spiritually" monastic and of an ethic group than pharisees were.
1c45b5 No.578973
>>578972
My list isn't perfect, ok? I tried to make the best judgments though and I feel that Evangelical groups are best comparable to Essenes. The Essenes were super sectarian, and many Fundamentalist Baptists are like that too.
cdce67 No.578976
>>578973
We're called to be perfect just like our heavenly Father is perfect, pharisee.
>The Essenes were super sectarian, and many Fundamentalist Baptists are like that too.
Wouldn't Samaritan be a better choice then?
1c45b5 No.578978
>>578976
Samaritans are considered a separate religion distinct from Judaism.
cdce67 No.578983
>>578978
Samaritans believed in the Pentateuch as the only inspired text, which makes them not so different from the Sadducees.
Besides, don't you, as a Roman Catholic, see baptist/protestants as a separate religion from Christianity since they don't follow the "true teachings"?
1c45b5 No.578985
>>578983
But the Samaritan Pentateuch differs from the traditional one. They are a distinct religion.
And I do consider Protestants Christians. The Catholic Church accepts Protestant baptisms: http://www.dosp.org/chancellor/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/3.-Valid-and-Invalid-Baptisms.pdf
cdce67 No.578992
>>578985
>But the Samaritan Pentateuch differs from the traditional one. They are a distinct religion.
Don't most Methodist and Baptist accept the Masoretic Text over the Greek Septuagint?
>The Catholic Church accepts Protestant baptisms: http://www.dosp.org/chancellor/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/3.-Valid-and-Invalid-Baptisms.pdf
With Francis, these doubtful and invalid groups could change someday.
33de09 No.578994
>>578959
>Catholic/Orthodox - Pharisees
>Lutherans/Reformed/Anglicans - Sadducees
>Methodist/Evangelicals - Essenes
>Baptists - Baptists
ftfy.
1c45b5 No.578996
>>578992
Different manuscript and translation traditions, yeah, but in the end we have the same text. Catholics and Orthodox do have a few more books but the books we share in common with Protestants are exactly the same in their content.
Again, here are more references to the Church accepting Protestant baptisms:
http://www.dob-tribunal.com/uploads/4/4/8/1/44818299/validity-of-baptisms-and-confirmation.pdf
https://www.colsdioc.org/Portals/0/Departments/DIVW/Valid%20Baptisms%20Reference%20List.pdf
b8db7a No.578998
>>578994
Christian fedora tip
1c45b5 No.578999
33de09 No.579001
>>578999
UPSIDE DOWN SATANS
4c3355 No.579002
>>578994
JOHN THE BAPTIST, NOT JOHN THE CA-
*executed by Constantine's henchmen*
0411dd No.579048
1c45b5 No.579106
b8db7a No.579108
>>579001
>believing dubs/trips mean anything
>meme magic
46655b No.579116
>>578959
>>578967
Pharisees = today's Jews. Please do not compare the Catholic Church to then, even if you consider them heretics.
84d4ba No.579414
>>578959
The Sadducees are theistic evolutionists, since they deny miraculous events that they have not/cannot observe, just as the Sadducees of the New Testament denied resurrection.
>>579116
This guy gets it. I'm not Catholic, but come on.
3b1ed5 No.580030
>>579414
>>579116
I don't know, they're pretty similar
55cba5 No.580091
>>580030
That's funny because you're flying in the face of the spirit of what God said to argue for what the verse literally reads
>Call no man father
>Genesis 17:5: No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
HOLY SHIT WHO IS SPEAKING THIS HERESY??? YOU DON'T GET TO BE CALLED FATHER BECAUSE YOU'RE A PRIEST, I INTERPRET MATTHEW'S VERSE THAT WAY
I would go on but the verses are barely legible due to being so small so I can't go and debunk them.
a3edc1 No.580092
>>580091
>Matthew 23:9 is of none effect
55cba5 No.580097
>>580092
You're dumb, aren't you? I could use the same logic as you and:
>Genesis 17:5 is of none effect
>Even worse its of none effect just to spite Catholics, which is more human tradition than anything said there
The truth is that we DO observe the meaning of Matthew 23:9 while also observing the meaning of Genesis 17:5, because we don't throw wrecking balls in parts of the bible due to literal reading
Also, "none effect" 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Bring out your favorite bible translation of this one, if you wish.
a3edc1 No.580105
>>580097
>>Genesis 17:5 is of none effect
Genesis 17:5 is literal. See Romans 4 for apostolic interpretation
>>Even worse its of none effect just to spite Catholics
Don't think so high of yourself, I believe the bible because it's God's word not because it makes you upset.
>we DO observe the meaning of Matthew 23:9
You disobey Matthew 23:9 by calling your priests father
55cba5 No.580107
>>580105
>See Romans 4 for apostolic interpretation
>Open it
>What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather
>And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
>Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
This is clearly a non-biblical dialogue used to disobey Matthew 23:9, since it calls a Priest of God Most High "Father". I am removing this part of the bible since I like Matthew 23:9 more than Romans. Sorry.
3b1ed5 No.580108
>>580097
>we DO observe the meaning of Matthew 23:9
what does it mean then, and how are you observing that meaning
keep in mind that in the context He also says call no man rabbi and call no man master
a3edc1 No.580109
>>580107
Why do you believe Matthew 23:9 must be rejected?
55cba5 No.580111
>>580109
Why does Romans 4 believe Matthew 23:9 must be rejected? Who said I believe in Romans and not in Matthew 23:9?
I just said that I agreed with you! In fact, I'm so into it, that I'll literally rip up this CLEARLY false paper in Romans 4.
You're not even replying to my argument, this argument is a waste of time since you already settled in your mind that Matthew 23:9 is to be read literally. You don't even bat a eye to other apostles saying otherwise.
3b1ed5 No.580115
>>580111
could you please address >>580108
It's pretty clear that "call no man father" applies to the exact sort of role a priest holds in a church
55cba5 No.580118
>>580115
Could you please address >>580107 and >>580091 instead of skirting around them?
3b1ed5 No.580125
>>580118
If you were actually confident in the position you hold you would have answered me. Really, when Abraham is spoken of as a father, it is in the sense of him as an "ancestor" or "progenitor". Substitute either of these words for "father" and those verses will still make sense. The problem here, as I've said, is that "call no man father" means there must be someone who you're not supposed to call "father". Who is that person then?
83d70c No.580127
>>580030
oh, it's another "the 2,000 year old Church is wrong, my 10-500 year old sect is right" guy
55cba5 No.580128
>>580125
>If you were actually confident in the position you hold you would have answered me
Imagine going up to Jesus Christ to complain about not receiving understanding of his parables when he's in fact throwing parables because you're the one that doesn't care about understanding.
>Substitute either of these words for "father" and those verses will still make sense
No it doesn't. You'd be basically saying that Abraham is a spiritual father of everyone when every other protestant memer you ask would say that this person is God until you pointed Romans 4 and Genesis 17:5 to them, which is what I just did.
>Who is that person then?
Go seek It you drone. I only seek to end your arguments because you're false prophesying all over the place, I'd rather have you banned once this shitshow is done since your knowledge only brings people downward.
83d70c No.580129
>call no man father
>protestants still call their father, father
???
e07feb No.580131
>>580129
The context of that verse is religious.
83d70c No.580132
>>580131
and despite the fact we honor priests by calling them "father", we know the true Father is God
6c30f6 No.580133
>>580118
Sure. Genesis 17:5 says that Abraham is the father of many nations. That is not controversial. Anymore than to say that some immigrant was the father of his children. It's talking about a blood relation here between the father and his certain children.
Romans 4 again mentions this, but then also adds that Abraham in the spiritual sense is also the father of the spiritual nation of believers, in addition to the already mentioned blood relation he has. Even in 1 Corinthians 4:15 Paul says something similar about himself. And in 1 Timothy 5:1 it also says "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;" This again is in the same spiritual sense, saying that certain people have this relationship with you. But of course not all people.
However, Matthew 23:9 prohibits using "Father" as a title. The difference should be obvious. Anyone telling people his name itself is "Father ____" is violating the precept. They are adding it as a title to their name, that they want everyone to call them by, which is absolutely prideful in every case, and they will have to answer for it in the last day. Glad I could help.
3b1ed5 No.580134
>>580127
>oy vey, don't you know about the secret oral torah the rabbis and us have been upholding for centuries
sure it's a bunch of traditions that sometimes even contradict the written one but in those cases we just trust ours
83d70c No.580135
>>580134
"i'm not saying Christ lied about hell prevailing, but Christ lied about hell prevailing against His church"
that's all I see, bub
3b1ed5 No.580137
>>580135
>the catholic church is God's church
that's an awful big claim, keep in mind some churches were already going astray by Paul's time
83d70c No.580138
>>580137
Kept it up for 2,000 years, watch us keep it up until Christ returns
3b1ed5 No.580139
>>580138
How do you know the catholic church isn't just one of the ones that went astray early on though?
83d70c No.580141
>>580139
What other Churches are there? Orthodox? It's an ethno-schism.
You're the one that looks at Christ's Church and rejects it, try reading some history.
55cba5 No.580142
>>580133
>However, Matthew 23:9 prohibits using "Father" as a title
>Anyone telling people his name itself is "Father ____" is violating the precept
Genesis 48:16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
Joshua 24:3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.
Time to casually violate your precept.
Before you ask, yes, this is KJV.
3b1ed5 No.580144
>>580142
Again, no one is arguing against Abraham or Isaac being both spiritual and physical fathers.
We are arguing against calling a clergyman "Father Smith", it's not the same thing. Abraham is a literal father for all Jews and Christians, the guy who waves his hands over the cookies at mass is not.
5f4951 No.580149
>>580131
it is a warning for pagans who call thier gods mothers and fathers tbh
6169d7 No.580158
>>580134
It's a good thing Jesus wrote the Gospel as the final and sole authority on Christianity, or else his Apostles would be out spreading the Good Word or even founding a Church based on oral teachings. And God forbid His apostles having contributed to the faith in any way, we all know there were no important developments after His Ascension that would justify holding councils and even writing theological essays people would go on to regard as scripture! But hey, maybe the Holy Spirit was just asleep for 1500 years, and that's why any old fool can pick up a Bible and be led by divine guidance to their own correct, unique understanding of scripture, while the Church and all the Fathers are mistaken and have no authority over the faith.
>>580139
<Why is the Church that survived for 2000 years the one the Gates of Hell won't prevail against instead of some minor offshoot that quickly died out and was subsequently almost if not completely forgotten to history?
If you are referring like >>580141 to the EOs and OOs, then I can assure you that despite how long we've been in schism, the fundamentals of our faith are still pretty bloody close. Almost as though it's the Protestants who are the innovators.
a3edc1 No.580159
>>580111
>my argument
What argument? I see shitposts, not arguments
55cba5 No.580160
>>580144
>the guy who waves his hands over the cookies at mass is not.
Does the status of the eucharist go higher or lower depending on the situation or something? When we argue form "THIS IS MY FLESH, THIS IS MY BLOOD" you point out that its symbolic, which is still rather high status. Now you say its just a cookie because you're going full God hating jew.
6c30f6 No.580161
>>580144
Yes, the pride is asking someone you have no relation to, to refer to you as "Father." As though you are the father of all, so everyone should call you Father Francis. And the same prideful presumption follows those who use the title Rabbi or Master and expect people to refer to them under that title. The given reason? Well the second two are because Christ himself is the Master and Rabbi, none of us attain to this authority, and the first because there is one, only one Father over all of us, God the Father.
3b1ed5 No.580162
>>580160
just having a little fun, the bread used in catholic mass really does look like a cookie, doesn't it? Sometimes it's even called a wafer, which effectively is a type of cookie.
>>580158
>writing theological essays people would go on to regard as scripture
that's just weird man, that's some islam/mormon tier stuff, people shouldn't be adding to scripture.
>If you are referring to the EOs and OOs
nope, I'm talking about a divide that could have happened way before, while Paul was still writing there were divides. He talks about it in one of the epistles to Timothy.
a3edc1 No.580169
>>580158
>the fundamentals of our faith are still pretty bloody close
You don't even have the same God
6169d7 No.580186
>>580162
>that's just weird man, that's some islam/mormon tier stuff, people shouldn't be adding to scripture
I really hope you realise I was referring to the epistles here. And yes, I believe they're divine inspired, as much as any other book of the Bible also written by men guided by God, my point is the idea that the idea Bible is divinely inspired while denying that the Church and saints after Paul and the other Apostles were so divinely guided is silly.
>nope, I'm talking about a divide that could have happened way before, while Paul was still writing there were divides. He talks about it in one of the epistles to Timothy.
The fact that you're talking about said sect in the hypothetical should give you the answer, unless you think the one true Church died or even could have died in the 1st Century.
>>580169
Orientals aren't Arians. It's true their Christology is deficient, but they follow the Nicene Creed and worship the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit, so it's a bit much to say they worship a different God.
a3edc1 No.580193
>>580186
I was thinking more along the lines of the monarchy of the Father and essence-energies distinction, which are irreconcilable with western doctrine of God.
d3cfc6 No.580276
>>580107
Are we to call no man as "Teacher"? What about doctor, which literally means teacher. Should we stop calling a doctor as a doctor. You know Paul calls himself as a Father too. The protestant heresy has to be eliminated like the arians.
3b1ed5 No.580339
>>580276
>Are we to call no man as "Teacher"? What about doctor, which literally means teacher.
If you follow the KJV it is "master" not "teacher", but I think the point is that church leaders are not meant to be be extolled, only God is, and by addressing them with honorific terms you are opening the gates to church hierarchies where some lives are worth more than others, though maybe it is for a different reason. I do know that God commanded people not to call certain people Father though, so that has to apply to someone. Generally Catholics who believe it doesn't apply to priests can't point to a better candidate than them.