Comparison between Catholics and Pharisees

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is cool.

I’m still confused about the indulgences. I didn’t mean the act of indulgences, I meant the actual selling of indulgences compared to a market place in synagogues. My mistake in typing. He’s just crazy. Protestantism is just weird.
 
Those who dislike the Catholic Church have all sorts of nonsensical reasons.
Some people of all religions act like Pharisees.
True Catholics are focused on bringing praise and glory to God each and every day through what they say and do. And in loving and serving one another as brothers and sisters.
 
This is not quite true. Josephus describes the pharisees. They were the sect that the common jew tended to look to for quidance. It is likely that a Pharisee wrote the books of Maccabees. And everyone supposed that Rabbinic Judaism derived from the Pharisees.
 
DictatorCzar said:
He said that both Pharisees and Catholics are traditions based. Moving away from God. He also said something about the market place thing in the Bible when Jesus was angry about merchants in synagogues. He said that Catholics in the Middle Ages sold indulgences in churches like the merchants selling products in synagogues.
Click to expand...
Ask him what the Early Church relied on before the Bible was compiled. Ask him what the Early Church did when most of them didn’t have a copy of the Bible. How can you rely on the Bible only when it wasn’t around and when you can’t read it once it was around?

The practice of selling indulgances did happen but it is way overblown. It is no different than the properity gospel churches really.

And I’d argue the main point of his argument in that the Pharisees were bad because they relied on tradition. They were “bad” because they didn’t practice what they preached and their hearts were hardened. They were hypocritical and worshipped the Law rather than God
 
That makes sense. How Catholics and Pharisees focus on Tradition is very different. I still have this one thing. The selling of indulgences in church. Apparently, the selling of indulgences(money) is comparable to the market places in synagogues.
 
DictatorCzar said:
The Pharisees in the Bible relied on tradition instead of God.
Click to expand...
Would your friend make the argument that when a Jew followed the teachings and traditions of the Jewish faith, he was a bad Jew? Really?
That’s how they showed that they followed the one true God which separated them from the other beliefs and faiths.
You accepted that statement as true. It’s not.
 
DictatorCzar said:
Martin Luther split from the church
Click to expand...
He split from the Church… exactly. Even if the Church was doing something wrong, it was a bad move to abandon the Church entirely. I always find it interesting that Protestants equate Martin Luther abandoning the Church with Martin Luther somehow taking away the Church’s authority. He didn’t have the authority to do that. Of course one could say that The Bible is now the sole authority but to declare that would be to go against the authority that declared the Bible inspired in the first place.

If tradition is all bad then it’s hard to justify believing the Gospels, since they are actually recorded traditions that had been passed down. The earliest Gospel, Mark, was written some 30+ years after Christ died. In fact, if you study the Gospels you will find that much of what was declared inspired was influenced by the heresies and other situations that the Church was dealing with after Christ died…for instance, they include statements that make clear Christ’s divinity(against arianism), his physical ressurection (against docetism), the guilt of the Jews (since they were so against the early church), the idea that the apostles stole the body of Christ, the idea that Christ was going to return in the apostles lifetime (the end of john where the note was inserted saying he didn’t mean that the apostle would be alive when he returns, just what is it to you if I want him to remain until I return?). It’s even been posited that much if the seemingly anti-Jewish wording in the Gospels (Christ referring to YOUR synagogue and YOUR law when speaking with the Jews) is in itself a reflection of the struggle between the early Church and the Jews.

When Paul talks about “my gospel” he’s not saying he had a copy of the Gospels that he referenced…because the Epistles were written before the Gospels .
 
Last edited:
Tell him to read all the lives of the Saints… That might help.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think that the Pharisees would consider themselves as relying on tradition instead of God. They relied on traditions that they felt were ordained by God. They relied on a casuistry that would allow them to kill an innocent man (Jesus) while remaining ‘pure’ (by not going into Pilate’s house) so that they could participate in the sacrifice.
 
DictatorCzar said:
The Pharisees in the Bible relied on tradition instead of God.
Click to expand...
Even though the Pharisees were very Learned and would quote Moses, etc.
As Jesus shown them, in actuality, they were disobedient to Moses and therefore to God,
which is why they not only never recognized their Messiah at His coming,
but they were part of the ones who condemned Him to Death.

_
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top