"Call no man your father"

I swear Catholics / Orthodox have some of the shittiest arhuments and mental gymnastics ever.

>Its not REALLY worship as long as you call it something else

Well, they have to. How else are you going to reconcile the Old Testament and the New Testament?

On top of that you have to reconcile them with the Church's own crypto-pagan "traditions" and later developments.

>"it's not worship if I call it veneration"

It would be in English a few hundred years ago, when people of status were called "Your Worship". But over the last three hundred years, the term "worship" came to be used to be used how adore used to be used (latria), and "adore" became watered down to the point that it means regular veneration or less. "Oh come let us adore Him" is one of the few phrases well known in English that still uses the term in the old way.

It was actually the Catholic Church (by that I mean what is today the Orthodox Church, but back when the West was still in communion) that first made a sharp terminological distinction between the respect due to God that due to non-divine figures. Hebrew made no such distinction--the word unusually translated as "worship" in the Old Testament, is the same word used to describe the veneration Moses pays to his father-in-law (Exodus 18:7) --this wasn't ever an issue with the Hebrews, because they knew the different level of respect intuitively, but a strong terminological distinction had to be introduced in cultures where polytheistic religion used to be prevalent, so as to ensure they didn't conflate saints with deities.

tl;dr you can thank the veneration of saints for bringing in the idea of special term of respect that can only be applied to God

How so?

Paul refers to himself as a father, in contrast to a simple teacher.

>That seems unnecessary because who the fuck does that
Over half the Old Testament is God face palming at Israel's stupidity after making it as crystal clear to them what they're supposed to do.

People are retarded, it's why "Caution: Contents are Hot" is printed on your Starbucks cup.

Modern Jews (Pharisees) believe that rabbis can literally correct God.

It's related to Luke 14:26, that might help you understand it

>It was actually the Catholic Church (by that I mean what is today the Orthodox Church
L O L
O
L

That's why Catholics don't commit idolatry, it's just relative idolatry!

Right, you can kill animals and plants, and even human beings under certain circumstances.

He's clearly referencing his planting of churches, not an ecclesiastical role.

>pharisees valued the traditions of men over the word of God
>modern jews value the traditions of men over the word of God (see: talmud)
>catholics value the traditions of men over the word of God

spot the similarity

How can modern jews be pharisees if they don't believe in a ressurection?

Except he refers to his role with the opening of 4, "steward of the mysteries of God". And mind you, "Sacrament" is just the Latin translation of the Orthodox term "mystery".

Modern Jews believe in resurrection, unless they are a super liberal group, like Reformed Judaism, who don't even require belief in God. Orthodox Judaism is the most tradition, and absolutely affirms Resurrection. Conservative Judaism is somewhere between Orthodox and Reformed.

>Sadducees were Sola Scriptura
>Protestants are Sola Scriptura
Spot the difference

Saducees >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pharisees

>I have begotten you through the gospel.

The Saducees were the priests, the Pharisees were anti-priest.

But it's also a term of address for leaders in the Church (1 John 2:14 is addressing both laity and clergy).

>But it's also a term of address for leaders in the Church
Elder/Presbyter/πρεσβύτερος

should I call my father my father

It's fine, as long as it's not in a religous context.

"Priest" literally entered the English language as an Anglo form of that word.

Protestants deny the office of the priesthood in the first place. We don't have priests to call "father." We prefer the biblical terms presbyter or elder. Christ alone is our high Priest, who alone is the mediator between God and man.

In Greek, the Orthodox refer to them as presbyter

In English, however, there is an important distinction. The English word does indeed derive from πρεσβύτερος, but in historical English usage it indicates a mediatorial and propitiatory office which is fulfilled in Christ. We have elders, ministers, those who administer Word and Sacrament to the people, but it is the power of the Word, not the office of the minister, which is effectual.

Priest is literally a latin corruption of the word
A proper translation is Elder

Priests are deputies of Christ in the sense the Apostles were. In the past, they were the same as bishops (an Anglicanization of "episkopos", which is Greek for "overseer"). Each elder was the leader of Christians in a given area. But when Christianity exploded in growth, a bishop couldn't manage his area alone, because you now had several churches in each area. So the bishop office and elder office were separated, the bishop managed the area, and appointed elders to represent him at each church.

No, the Latins just used the Greek word. "Priest" is just an early Anglo-accent butchering of the first syllable of the word, like "Japan" is a butchering of "Nipon" and "Dutch" is a butchering of Deutsche.

I can also tell you that even "presbyter" is a butchering, since the letter beta is pronounced as "v" and should be transliterated as such.

>No, the Latins just used the Greek word.
I don't understand this argument, there's no getting around the fact the word means Elder.
>"Priest" is just an early Anglo-accent butchering of the first syllable of the word
The word Priest existed long before any Germanics were Christianized
>Priests are deputies of Christ in the sense the Apostles were.
No they're servants of false gods
>In the past, they were the same as bishops
You're right, Elder and Bishop were synonymous
>Each elder was the leader of Christians in a given area
Wrong, they were governed by an assembly of Presbyter-Bishops. A style of church governance restored in Presbyterianism.

Etymology of "priest"

>Old English prēost, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch priester, German Priester, based on ecclesiastical Latin presbyter ‘elder

>Wrong, they were governed by an assembly of Presbyter-Bishops.
Yeah, the entire Church as a body was. That was one of the disputes between the Orthodox and the Catholics: the latter insisted the Bishop of Rome governed the whole Church, whereas the Orthodox insisted the Church as a Body was governed by councils, and that the Bishop of Rome did not have universal jurisdiction.

Most day-to-day church-functions (like accounting) are actually managed by the laity, through the parish council, which neither the priest nor bishop are included in.

www.strawpoll.me/11113054

Let's settle this once and for all

You're using the presupposition that EO is true as a historical argument
Every church was governed that way. The proof can be found in 1 Clement, Ignatius epistle to the Romans, and the Shepherd of Hermas, among other ancient sources.

t. /b/

Can you quote the relevant excerpts?

Irenaeus's descriptions tend to line up with the Orthodox

...

Well for one thing, Ignatius always greets the monarchal Bishop (this had started being implemented) in his other letters, but does no such thing in his Roman epistle. The others imply Rome and Corinth had a governing Presbytery.

youtu.be/5bVEXZ38Vs8?t=1h14m45s

Go to 1h14m45s

Sees that large generally do have many priests to this day, even for one parish. Small churches have one priest, large churches have many priests

I didn't ask for an eight-hour documentary, I just wanted the relevant excerpts.

So? We were talking about the early church, not later curroptions.

The early Church mostly like didn't have several presbyters for small churches. You think a little congregation of twenty Christians had a whole council of elders governing them?

I might also add that even the early Church had deacons (from "diakonos", the Greek word for "minister") as distinct from elders (also deacons, unlike elders, could be women). So it would be silly to have three elders when you could have one elder and a deacon or two for a small congregation. Deacons could deliver sermons and read Scripture.

>read Scripture
By this I mean the readings during a service. Everyone was always entitled to, and in fact urged, to read Scripture in the Orthodox Church, which kept translating it into different languages, unlike the RCC which kept it in Latin. Scripture readings during the service can also be done by laity, as they often are at my (Orthodox) parish.

They had a Presbytery for a region. Rome, Ephesus Corinth etc. were the locations they governed from. They were elected by the laity, and appointed the pastors.
They were the pastors.

Okay, which one of you posted this?
8ch dot net/christian/res/306809
It's humorous the first out of a million.

There wasn't necessarily more than one church in each of these locations, so they had several presbyters for the church (which was probably large, these all being major cities), but a bishop above them. Unless you talking about the early, early Church, before the two offices were distinct, but the sources you're referencing are after they became distinct.

>e60001

They hadn't become distinct everywhere, and where they weren't there was a plurality of presbyter-bishops.

Where they were distinct (the major population areas is where they started becoming distinct) there was a plurality. The idea that where the offices were not yet distinct (small congregations), there was plurality, doesn't seem likely, nor is there any evidence for.

When they weren't distinct that applied to the whole "diocese". All of the Italian church looked to the Roman presbyters for guidance.

8ch dot net/christian/res/306809.html

Every Italian church probably had their own presbyter. the Roman Church probably had several because their church was much larger. They also had a bishop