Popes in History

Seems to imply that Christians should follow rabbis.

Christ is the New Moses, and thus the office of rabbi has been overturned by the bishops invested by the apostles.
 
The rest of Matthew 23 seems to negate what you said earlier, if you don't object to me using the KJV.

8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
 
How does it do that?
 
There weren't any rabbis in Jesus' day. The Pharisees weren't rabbis and the scribes obviously weren't (because they were scribes). The rabbis as we know them were a post-70 CE development, though they were, in many respects, apparently the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees. So it doesn't make sense to talk about rabbis being replaced by bishops - the "office" of rabbi developed at the same time as that of bishop.
 
There weren't any rabbis in Jesus' day. The Pharisees weren't rabbis and the scribes obviously weren't (because they were scribes). The rabbis as we know them were a post-70 CE development, though they were, in many respects, apparently the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees. So it doesn't make sense to talk about rabbis being replaced by bishops - the "office" of rabbi developed at the same time as that of bishop.

The word "rabbi" is relative. The Jewish "synagogue rabbi" didn't exist in Jesus' day, but there's nothing wrong with using that word to describe the Pharisees who held authority by sitting "in the seat of Moses" (which to say, they who preserved the oral Torah).
 
Back
Top Bottom