• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Featured Matthew 23:9 is it a Blow / Bashing Against Catholics...?

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by PanDeVida, Oct 4, 2017.

  1. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Jesus was talking to the crowds who were giving more status to the pharisees than they deserved. He called them hypocrites.
    Matthew 23:9 And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven.
    Clearly, Jesus is saying not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.
    Catholics calling priests "Father"does not violate scripture. I posted a list of scriptures where "Father" is used to designate spiritual fatherhood and you rejected every one of them because they don't fit your preconceptions. You are using the Bible to attack the Church. The Bible never does that. You do it because it is a man made tradition.

    Your strict hyper-literalism is a bondage.
     
  2. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    That is a lie, and SDA propaganda.
    Protestant sources of their charges that the Catholic Church changed the Ten Commandments…
    1. KJV…..first appeared on the scene in 1611, a product of Protestantism.
    2. NIV…..first appeared on the scene in 1978.
    3. NKJV…first appeared on the scene in 1982.
    4. RSV…..first appeared on the scene in 1946
    Catholic sources of our defense to the baseless charges of Catholics changing the Ten Commandments…
    1. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) appeared on the scene in 1992.
      It lists the Ten Commandments as they were before Christ.
    2. NJB…first appeared on the scene in 1985. The NJB supports the CCC.
    3. NAB…first appeared on the scene in 1970. The NAB supports the CCC.
    4. JB……first appeared on the scene in 1966. The JB supports the CCC.
    5. RSV-CE…first appeared on the scene in 1965. The RSV-CE supports the CCC.
    6. NCE…first appeared on the scene in 1954. The NCE supports the CCC.
    7. CE…first appeared on the scene in 1948. The CE (Confraternity Edition) supports the CCC.
    8. Challoner-Rheims…first appeared on the scene in 1749. The Challoner-Rheims supports the CCC.
    9. Douay-Rheims…first appeared on the scene in 1592-1609. The Douay-Rheims supports the CCC.
      Note that the date for this Bible predates any Protestant Bible by at least 2 years.
    10. The Latin Vulgate…first appeared on the scene in 404. The Latin Vulgate supports the CCC.
      Note that the date for this Bible predates any Protestant Bible by over 1200 years.
    11. The Septuagint…first appeared on the scene about 148 B.C. This is the Bible that was used by the Apostles.
      The Septuagint supports the CCC. Note that the date for this Bible predates any Protestant Bible by over 1700 years.
    Now it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to prove that the Ten Commandments could not possibly have been changed by the Catholic Church which did not even exist for almost 200 years after the Septuagint was written. Add to that the fact that ALL Catholic Bibles, ALL the way back to 148 B.C.,are in agreement, and yet Protestant Bibles which did not even appear on the scene until 1611, list the commandments in the ‘different’ order.

    So…WHO really did change the Ten Commandments?

    Please, if you are going to make charges against the Catholic Church,then do it with real evidence (if you can find any) and not by cult propaganda.
     
  3. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    No, we did not change God’s law, we just list the wording differently to what you do. And also, not all Catholics do that. Many Catholics use EXACTLY the same ten commandments as you Adventists and Protestants do! In fact, Martin Luther, and most Lutherans today, use the same numbering system as Catholics in the west!

    Not one of the ten commandments has been edited, rejected, or changed by the Catholic Church. However, for the sake of making memorization of the crux of the commandment easier, the longer ones have been abbreviated. I have seen SDA listings of the 10 commandments, including the 4th one – most of them read “Keep the Sabbath day holy” or something like that. They do NOT list the full 4th commandment, so it is very unfair and hypocritical to expect the CC to do what is not expected of the SDA Church.
     
  4. concretecamper

    concretecamper Member of His Church

    +1,664
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Republican
    I don't know why
    So you do get my point, you just don't agree.
    So appearances are what counts to God? Wow, I never knew that.
    No kidding, but they themselves ignored what they taught to the people. Why do you think Jesus had such disdain for them calling them hypocrites, vipers, empty sepulchers.

    If your argument is that they didn't elevate themselves outwardly or inwardly because they knew it was blasphemy, I cannot argue with such a naïve position.
     
  5. Hidden In Him

    Hidden In Him Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,557
    Christian
    Married
    I fully agree with this. No question.
    This is where you make your jump, and no it is not clearly. He is simply saying why men should not elevate themselves above other men: Because in comparison with God they are on the same level with each other, and honoring some by addressing them with religious titles leads others to rely more on them spiritually than God Himself.
    No, I rejected them because no where is it being stated that they were to address men as "father" or "Rabbi." Even when they are making reference to some as being spiritual fathers, they were not conferring upon them the title of "father" and telling others to address them as such.
    No I am not. I am simply seeing if the Catholic defense of what they do (according to you) holds water. Why is that such a sin? I am not one to go by the opinion that we should never question authority. In spiritual matters, I think that's dangerous.
    I'm not going by anybody's tradition here, kepha. let alone be motivated by one. You don't see any denomination by my name because I don't belong to one. I believe this makes false accusation #5 and counting. Can you guys please cut this out?
    Of course not, and now you're being sarcastic. :doh:Why can't we have a civil discussion here without all this ill-will in your posts? My argument was simply this: How can they "appear righteous unto men" and be elevating themselves to the level of God at the same time? This would insinuate that it was a righteous thing in the eyes of all Israel for the Pharisees to be elevating themselves to God's level, would it not? And this I feel is a not only a strange but very unsubstantiated position to be taking.
    Because of everything He chastised them for doing in the entire Chapter.
    Of course they were elevating themselves both inwardly and outwardly. That's my entire point. But to say they were elevating themselves to the level of GOD is what I have been arguing you have not substantiated.

    Prove to me that it was a righteous thing in the eyes of all Israel for the Pharisees to elevate themselves to the level of God and I will acknowledge that my position was naive.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017
  6. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    740
    +227
    Catholic
    Private
    Could those that adhere to the belief of Sola Scriptura, please show where in the Old Testament where the Comandments are numbered, and where God explicitly set out for us how they are to be numbered?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    I agree, but you make the jump from hyperbole (call no man father) to the literal. Jesus was not speaking literally and that is your error.
    Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.”
    1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children.
    Titus 1:4 – Paul calls Titus his true “child” in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.
    Philemon 10 – Paul says he has become the “father” of Onesimus.
    1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”

    You simply don't like the biblical truth of Catholics calling priests "father" because it conflicts with your preconceptions.
     
  8. Hidden In Him

    Hidden In Him Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,557
    Christian
    Married
    Let me put it this way. I do feel like there are far more egregious examples of the use of titles within Protestantism, such as when some take on multiple titles and advertise themselves as "Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, and Most Reverend Sr. Pastor so and so," things like that. For the last twenty five years (since I grew to a place of spiritual maturity), I have had a serious problem calling anyone by a religious title. It convicts me terribly to do so, and I have to answer to God for what my conscience bothers me severely about, so I don't do it.

    But that having been said, for whatever reason Catholics call their priests "father" (no sense in arguing about it any more), I wouldn't be able to do that either. It would convict me far to much, and I would feel as if I was sinning in doing so.

    But as stated in this thread, I'm not into bashing anyone about what they believe and do. I may not agree with someone, but that doesn't mean I'm bashing them over it. It just means I don't agree with their position, and/or have not been swayed by their arguments after discussing the matter.

    Anyway, no hard feelings.

    God bless,
    Hidden
     
  9. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    <snip>
     
  10. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,913
    Anabaptist
    Just hand a 12 year old boy a Bible, RSV, for example, to read.

    Let him read until he reaches the commandments(well, let him always read :) )
    Ask him to write down the commandments he reads or the Book and Chapter(s) they are in.

    Then later, (don't tell him before-hand), give him a copy of what you think are the commandments.

    Ask him to compare what you think with what the Bible says.

    Simple. No argument. It is settled then.
     
  11. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    740
    +227
    Catholic
    Private
    Thank you jeshuaslavejeff for your response. Being my question was directed towards those who adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, (the bible alone) I must conclude you too are an adherent.(as was I, before my conversion to the Catholic Church) I can appreciate your analogy, but being a sola scripturists as you are, I feel it has it's flaws. As I asked in my post,

    Your analogy fails to do so, and as a sola scripturists you must admit they are not numbered in Scripture, correct?


    In reality, if he were to write down/number every "command" in those sections of the Bible he would have about 17 commandments or more.


    Well, what I would tell this young man is that the list of 10 Commandments are found in two places in the Bible: Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, and that these two biblical lists are baisicly the same, with only slight variations in wording. However, he would find out for himself that neither of these lists is numbered. Now as far as asking him to compare with what I believe what the bible says, would differ slightly with what you may think, for I adhere to how Catholics and Lutherans number them.



    Simple? Settled? I think not, especially for those that adhere to the Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) doctrine. The reason being, as I also asked of sola scripturists in my original post:

    Again, your analogy of the young man, and the Doctrine of sola scriptura fails do do so. So what we are left with jeshuaslavejeff, is that yes, the “ten commandments” are referred to in Ex. 34:28, but nowhere in Scripture are they numbered, correct?. With that being the case, would you then agree that the numbering of the Ten Commandments is an extra-biblical (un-sola scriptural) matter settled (for Christians) by Church authority? If you agree to this, could you as a Sola Scripturist deny that Protestants are appealing to tradition in the way they number the commandments?


    Which kind of brings up another question (maybe better saved for a different thread) for Sola Scripturists, "Where explicitly in Scripture did God set out for us how the chapters and verses in the Bible are to be numbered?"
     
  12. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,913
    Anabaptist
    The content of your post is more obscuring than it is helpful to me.

    I don't know if I fit someone's definition of Sola Scriptura or not.

    If anyone of any persuasion contradicts and opposes YHWH, they are sinning and wrong, it doesn't matter what school, doctrine, church, practice or group they claim to be a part of.

    Likewise, anyone in any group , if they are free in Christ, can read the Scripture and seek from YHWH the understanding of Scripture,
    as HE SAYS He rejoices to give the understanding to little children while HE REJOICES to hide it from scholars.

    Therefore, it only makes salvation sense in Jesus to listen to HIM, and not to scholars, unless the scholars(no matter who they are or claim to be)
    agree with YHWH.

    As HE Says, woe to the scholars, and woe to others (as written in His Word),

    but blessed is the man whose sin HE does not hold against him.
     
  13. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    740
    +227
    Catholic
    Private
    Sorry to hear it.


    Is it your belief that the Bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith? That is how I would define a Sola Scripturist.
     
  14. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Woe to those who read the Bible apart from the Tradition and Teaching Authority that the Bible flowed from in the first pace. Every heretic in the world was a sola scripturist as history demonstrates. Not all sola scripturists are heretics, but sola scriptura is a heresy.
     
  15. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +10,322
    Non-Denom
    It is according to your denomination. That, however, is your denomination's opinion. Your denomination actually considers all non-Catholic Christians to be heretics and schismatics, so it really doesn't concern me as to how it wants to package and label it.
     
  16. Philip_B

    Philip_B all shall be well and all shall be well and ... Supporter

    +4,851
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    • The first sentence here is patently untrue. There is no suggestion that every heretic was a sola scripturist - such a charge does not account for Origen, Arius, Nestorius, Photius for starters.
    • The second sentence is folly and internally inconsistent, for if sola scriptura is a heresy then the only consistent conclusion is that every sola scripturist is a heretic.
    • The first sentence is not true in any absolute sense, and an appreciation of Vatican II would lead you to different conclusions.
    • It is meaningless to speak of a denomination as having an opinion.
    • The third sentence would also benefit from a consideration of Vatican II where the term used was separated brethren (and sister-hen's I presume) which has an entirely different nuance.
     
  17. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +10,322
    Non-Denom
    I find the term "separated brethren" to be quite patronizing, actually. It goes along with the statement that the Catholic Church alone has the "fullness of salvation".
     
  18. concretecamper

    concretecamper Member of His Church

    +1,664
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Republican
    "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."

    If I were you, I'd scratch my head about protestants being "honored" by the name Christian....as if they really are not? Hmm^_^
     
  19. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +10,322
    Non-Denom
    Hmmm. Who is it that refers to others outside their fold as "ecclesial communities" and cannot bring itself to honor them as churches? Who is it that maintains to this very moment that it and it alone is the One, True Church?
     
  20. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,913
    Anabaptist
    It may be Biblically accurate though ?
    "Come out" is an instruction to some believers.
    So these believers would be "separated", right?
     
  21. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,913
    Anabaptist
    Jewish Ten Commandments:
    The Ten Commandments
    "
    The Ten Commandments, also known as Aseret HaDibrot (“Ten Sayings” in Hebrew) or Decalogue, are the first ten of the 613 commandments given by God to the Jewish people. They form the foundation of Jewish ethics, as well as civil and religious law. These commandments are mentioned twice in the Torah—once in Exodus (20: 1-17) and again in Deuteronomy (5:4-21).

    The following are the Ten Commandments as they appear in Exodus 19:1-20:23

    1. I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    2. You shall have no other gods beside Me. You shall not make for yourself any carved idol, or any likeness of any thing... you shall not bow down to them, nor serve them...

    3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain...

    4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to God... For in six days God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore God blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    5. Honor your father and your mother...

    6. You shall not murder.

    7. You shall not commit adultery.

    8. You shall not steal.

    9. You shall not bear false witness against your fellow.

    10. You shall not covet...anything that is your fellow's."

    From MOSES, from the tablets YHWH wrote them on.
    "According to the bible, both the first shattered set and the second unbroken set were stored in the Ark of the Covenant (the Aron Habrit in Hebrew)."

    "The Tables of the Law as they are widely known in English, or Tablets of Stone, Stone Tablets, or Tablets of Testimony (in Hebrew: לוחות הברית Luchot HaBrit - "the tablets [of] the covenant") in the Hebrew Bible, were the two pieces of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments when Moses ascended Mount Sinai as written in the Book of Exodus. Exodus 31:18 refers to the tablets as the "Tablets of (the) Testimony".

    According to the Bible, there were two sets. The first, inscribed by God, (Exodus 31:18) were smashed by Moses when he was enraged by the sight of the Children of Israel worshipping a golden calf (Exodus 32:19) and the second were later cut by Moses and rewritten by God. (Exodus 34:1)"

    Main article: Mosaic covenant
    See also: Ten Commandments, 613 commandments, and Law of Moses

    "The Mosaic covenant, found in Exodus 19-24 and the book of Deuteronomy, contains the foundations of the written Torah and the Oral Torah. In this covenant, God promises to make the Israelites his treasured possession among all people[Exo 19:5] and "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"[Exo 19:6], if they follow God's commandments. As part of the terms of this covenant, God gives Moses the Ten Commandments. These will later be elaborated on in the rest of the Torah."
     
Loading...