calling Pope Father.. Jesus used term "Father Abraham"

[CabinetMaker]

Rather, your non-authoritative sectarian interpretation/application of Jesus' words.


Refers not to the isolated Scriptures you quoted (seriously, are you at all functionally literate?), but to your particular Protestant sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I posted the scripture. The Holy Scripture where God and Jesus both say not to do something. If God says don't do this and I say you shouldn't do it because God says not to, what am interpreting? If Jesus says don't do this and I say you shouldn't do it because Jesus says not to, what am interpreting?

I posted Matthew 23 wherein Jesus says not to call any man father. I included the passage as a whole so that the context was maintained. You posted a link that isolated 17 individual verses and then say I'm guilty of isolating scripture. Can you honestly not see that you, or more specifically your sect, is doing exactly that which you accuse me of - proof texting?

You accuse me of being functionally illiterate yet you cannot point out to us how agreeing with what God and Jesus is interpreting scripture.

 

[Cruciform]

Are saying they can get married?

Under certain circumstances, yes. There are many Catholic priests who are married.

 

[Cruciform]

I posted the scripture. The Holy Scripture where God and Jesus both say not to do something.

Already answered---and contextually explained---here.

 

[republicanchick]

ho hum

anti-Catholics... SOOOOOO boring




_

 

[CabinetMaker]

Already answered---and contextually explained---here.

That's not an answer, that is Catholic proof texting. I have already shown that your link takes 17 versus out of context and uses them in an attempt to prove that Jesus didn't mean what He said. I rather believe that Jesus, the Son of God, knew what He was saying and said exactly what He meant.

 

[Cruciform]

That's not an answer, that is Catholic proof texting.

TRANSLATION: "My chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect won't allow me to agree with the teachings of Christ's one historic Church! I prefer the entirely non-authoritative opinions of my favored man-made sect over the authoritative teachings of Christ's Church!"​

I have already shown...

You have shown nothing more than that you prefer the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect over the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church.

Preference noted.


Back to this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[glassjester]

That's not an answer, that is Catholic proof texting. I have already shown that your link takes 17 versus out of context and uses them in an attempt to prove that Jesus didn't mean what He said. I rather believe that Jesus, the Son of God, knew what He was saying and said exactly what He meant.

What about your biological father? Can you call him Father?

 

[CabinetMaker]

TRANSLATION: "My chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect won't allow me to agree with the teachings of Christ's one historic Church! I prefer the entirely non-authoritative opinions of my favored man-made sect over the authoritative teachings of Christ's Church!"​

You have shown nothing more than that you prefer the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect over the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church.

Preference noted.


Back to this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I complement you on your ability to avoid answering a direct question. Let me ask you again.
Why is it when I quote a passage of scripture to maintain its context you say I am pulling it out of context and interpreting it but when you pull 17 seperate and unrelated versus out of context it is proper hermeneutics? We eagerly await your explanation.

 

[CabinetMaker]

What about your biological father? Can you call him Father?

Sure. If you take the time to read the thread you will find that this point has been covered. When you take Matthew in its proper context, and in light of scripture as a whole, Jesus is saying that your spiritual/religious leaders are not to be called father, God reserves that distinction for himself. Your biological father can be called father. Abraham can be called father Abraham as he fathered Israel by God's grace.

 

[Cruciform]

Why is it when I quote a passage of scripture to maintain its context you say I am pulling it out of context and interpreting it...

You quoted, for example, Mt. 23:9 and not only failed to account for its immediate surrounding context, but also utterly failed to account for the rest of the biblical data (i.e., the Canonical Context) related to the subject at hand. Thus, you have failed to properly interpret the verse you quoted.

...but when you pull 17 seperate...versus...

Canonical Context.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Wick Stick]

Do you think the Popes make donations to a Vatican sperm bank? I suppose that'd be one way to procreate and circumvent the no hanky-panky rule, think?

Thousands of nuns running a sperm bank? I think I might have seen a film about this... no, no, wait, no I didn't.

:chew:

 

[CabinetMaker]

You quoted, for example, Mt. 23:9 and not only failed to account for its immediate surrounding context, but also utterly failed to account for the rest of the biblical data (i.e., the Canonical Context) related to the subject at hand. Thus, you have failed to properly interpret the verse you quoted.


Canonical Context.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The Bible is comprised of 66 seperate books. Taking a sentence from in of those books removes it from the context it was origannly offered in. Then attempting to use that sentence to support one sentence in a different book destroys the context of that verse as well. It's like taking sentences from The Scarlet Letter and Huckleberry Finn to support a sentence in The Great Gatsby. It's desgraceful.

Any scholar, Biblical or otherwise, goes to great pains to compare themes and ideas between books. That is where you fail completely; you ignore the context and themes of individual verses.

 

[glassjester]

Sure. If you take the time to read the thread you will find that this point has been covered. When you take Matthew in its proper context, and in light of scripture as a whole, Jesus is saying that your spiritual/religious leaders are not to be called father, God reserves that distinction for himself. Your biological father can be called father. Abraham can be called father Abraham as he fathered Israel by God's grace.

You are right. I did not read the earlier pages of this thread.

So if I understand you right, you say Jesus prohibits me from calling any man "Father," with the following exceptions:

1. My biological father
2. My biological ancestors

Are there any other exceptions to this prohibition?

May I refer to Abraham as "Father," even though he most likely is not my biological ancestor (I have no Jewish ancestry), but just a spiritual one?

 

[God's Truth]

You are right. I did not read the earlier pages of this thread.

So if I understand you right, you say Jesus prohibits me from calling any man "Father," with the following exceptions:

1. My biological father
2. My biological ancestors

Are there any other exceptions to this prohibition?

May I refer to Abraham as "Father," even though he most likely is not my biological ancestor (I have no Jewish ancestry), but just a spiritual one?

Abraham is our father by faith.

Romans 4:16 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.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You are right. I did not read the earlier pages of this thread.

So if I understand you right, you say Jesus prohibits me from calling any man "Father," with the following exceptions:

1. My biological father
2. My biological ancestors

Are there any other exceptions to this prohibition?

May I refer to Abraham as "Father," even though he most likely is not my biological ancestor (I have no Jewish ancestry), but just a spiritual one?

How legalistic to you care to be? Do you want a detailed list of each and every possible relationship where the use of father is allowed? If so, you have come to the wrong place. Personally, I think that the principle Jesus laid out is sufficient. I am not to call my pastor or any other spiritual/religious leader father. I can call my dad father. I can call Abraham father. Beyond that, who would I want to call father?

 

[Cruciform]

The Bible is comprised of 66 seperate books.

The Bible is comprised of 73 individual documents.

Taking a sentence from in of those books removes it from the context it was origannly offered in. Then attempting to use that sentence to support one sentence in a different book destroys the context of that verse as well.

With every comment you merely make it clearer to informed readers that you simply have no real idea what you're talking about, and your claims here are a case in point. It's more than evident that, rather than having actually studied reliable Christian sources on this point, you're relying on your own uninformed "logic" here---at least, what seems logical to you---and are creatively making up your own notions of how the Scriptures should be understood. Of course, even Evangelical Protestant biblical scholars categorically deny the wholly imaginative scenario you've offered above:

[T]he great teachings of Scripture are not dependent on the interpretation of any particular verse in isolation from others. Though Christians [like yourself] sometimes rely heavily on certain proof texts, the church has come to understand the divine message by developing sensitivity to the consistent teaching of the Bible as a whole... What [believers] will not tolerate---and rightly so---is an interpretation that obviously conflicts with the consistent tenor of the biblical teaching... [W]e have the need and responsibility, not merely to grasp the sense of any given passage, but to assimilate the entire meaning of Scripture... Because of the unity of the Bible, the whole of Scripture constitutes the context to any one passage, and Christians who are spiritually mature may be expected to draw all the threads together... [T]his rule is the most fundamental hermeneutical principle of contextual interpretation. Anyone who views God as the author of Scripture can hardly afford to ignore it. (Moises Silva, ed., Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Zondervan, 1996); pp. 71-72).​

And yet, here you are mindlessly ignoring this "most fundamental hermeneutical principle" completely. How very telling.

It's like taking sentences from The Scarlet Letter and Huckleberry Finn to support a sentence in The Great Gatsby.

:darwinsm: ...You're daft---unless you're prepared to deny the Divine Authorship of the Bible, and therefore its unity of meaning...? You really should stop commenting on this altogether, and avoid further public embarrassment. You're merely speaking out of your ignorance now.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[dialm]

In Palistine Abraham was an important figure. What they didn't realize was that Abraham needed a Savior because Abraham was a sinner. The Pope is a sinner also. We all are.

Abraham held a position within his family. When Abraham passed away Issac became the father. It is the same with Popes. One passes and another one comes along.

It is the opposite with Jesus. He wasn't a father until after His death.

 

[glassjester]

How legalistic to you care to be? Do you want a detailed list of each and every possible relationship where the use of father is allowed? If so, you have come to the wrong place. Personally, I think that the principle Jesus laid out is sufficient. I am not to call my pastor or any other spiritual/religious leader father. I can call my dad father. I can call Abraham father. Beyond that, who would I want to call father?

I do want a list.


And here's why - you say I am to obey Jesus' prohibition against calling any man "Father," then, within the same paragraph, you've made two exceptions for yourself. Why? On what grounds? On whose authority do you disobey Christ's plain and simple words?

Or maybe you don't believe it to be as simple a matter as you claim. Maybe you do not agree with the literal meaning of Christ's words, in this case. Instead you have interpreted them to mean something acceptable to you, and to include exceptions that you personally deem acceptable.

So what other exceptions do you personally decide to make to the rule?

1. biological fathers
2. biological ancestors
3. spiritual predecessors

What about when Paul refers to himself as father to the Corinthians?

He says, "For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

Should we add an exception for Paul, specifically? Or is it possible for others to fulfill the role of father "in Christ Jesus through the gospel"?

Either way, it seems we need a #4 now. What should it be?

 

[God's Truth]

I do want a list.


And here's why - you say I am to obey Jesus' prohibition against calling any man "Father," then, within the same paragraph, you've made two exceptions for yourself. Why? On what grounds? On whose authority do you disobey Christ's plain and simple words?

Or maybe you don't believe it to be as simple a matter as you claim. Maybe you do not agree with the literal meaning of Christ's words, in this case. Instead you have interpreted them to mean something acceptable to you, and to include exceptions that you personally deem acceptable.

So what other exceptions do you personally decide to make to the rule?

1. biological fathers
2. biological ancestors
3. spiritual predecessors

What about when Paul refers to himself as father to the Corinthians?

He says, "For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

Should we add an exception for Paul, specifically? Or is it possible for others to fulfill the role of father "in Christ Jesus through the gospel"?

Either way, it seems we need a #4 now. What should it be?

Paul does not have anyone call him 'father'.

Jesus says not to call anyone on earth 'father', and that they are brothers in Christ. See Matthew 23:8, and 9.

I obey Jesus by not calling any brother in Christ 'father'.

Now tell us how you obey.

 

[glassjester]

Paul does not have anyone call him 'father'.

Jesus says not to call anyone on earth 'father', and that they are brothers in Christ. See Matthew 23:8, and 9.

I obey Jesus by not calling any brother in Christ 'father'.

Now tell us how you obey.

You missed the point. Paul calls himself father. If you take Christ's words literally, then "no man" ought to include oneself.

Yet Paul calls himself (a man) "father."
Why is this ok for Paul to do?