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

[God's Truth]

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?

You are missing the point. Paul does not tell anyone to call him 'father'.

Paul is called 'brother'. He even calls Timothy a 'brother'.

We are to take Jesus' word literally.

 

[CabinetMaker]

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?

Christ's own authority and his own words. As I said, the principle Christ laid down is clear. Scripture supports calling you dad father and Abraham father. Read the entirety of Matthew 23, not just Cruciform's links.

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?

I don't believe that faith us a matter of following rules. Rules, laws, are what Jesus died to save us from yet some churches are all about rules. You get so wrapped up in following rules you lose sight of God. Faith is not about finding rules, it is about keeping your heart open to God and surrendering to His will for our lives.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The Bible is comprised of 73 individual documents.


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.


: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+

Thank you for once again proving that I made the right choice leaving the RCC. Your post proves that the arCC interprets scripture to serve their own purposes and not God's. The letters that Paul wrote were individual documents intended to stand complete on their own. Randomly pulling verses from different letters alters the meaning of that verse. It is changing God's word to us. Does God approve of people adding to or taking from His words to us?

 

[God's Truth]

We have to do what Jesus says.

Jesus is the way to the Father.

Jesus says call no brother in Christ 'father'.

How does that matter?

It matters because Jesus' words are full of Spirit and life, and the only way we get this life is by obeying.

If I am not obeying by calling another brother 'father', then I am looking to this man instead of in my heart where the Father lives.

 

[God's Truth]

Just think, every single thing that Jesus says matters.

If we call another brother 'father', then we look to that man for spiritual guidance and truth.

If we call another brother 'father', then we are sinning. Sinning does not get us to the Father.

If we bow to a statue, then we are looking to the outside, we are looking to the false. The outside is not where you will find God. For God lives in the heart after you believe and obey Him.

If you pray to Mary and other "Saints" instead of only Jesus, then you are looking to mere humans to get you to the Father.

The Catholics do not see the importance in such things, but if they want to be saved in this life, they must do what Jesus says.

 

[glassjester]

Jesus says call no brother in Christ 'father'.

Are those His exact words? Or are you changing them to suit your own interpretation?

"Call no man father."

Jesus says call no man "father." Paul then calls a man "father."


Did Paul break this command by calling himself father to the Corinthians?

 

[God's Truth]

Are those His exact words? Or are you changing them to suit your own interpretation?

"Call no man father."

Jesus says call no man "father." Paul then calls a man "father."


Did Paul break this command by calling himself father to the Corinthians?

Show me one scripture where Paul says call me 'father'; and, or show me one scripture where anyone calls Paul, or any apostle 'father'.

You are the one who is guilty of adding to Jesus' words, and subtracting.

 

[God's Truth]

Matthew 23:8"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.…

 

[God's Truth]

Brothers do not call each other 'father', for that would be abnormal and strange.

 

[glassjester]

Show me one scripture where Paul says call me 'father'; and, or show me one scripture where anyone calls Paul, or any apostle 'father'.

You are the one who is guilty of adding to Jesus' words, and subtracting.

Why is it acceptable to you, for Paul to call himself "father" ?

 

[God's Truth]

Why is it acceptable to you, for Paul to call himself "father" ?

Paul was one of the few firsts, and as he was getting older, he had helpers that were probably younger than he was.

Paul was like a father in that way. Paul says there are not many fathers in Christ, but we see from the Catholic denomination that there are many fathers.

Again, Paul never tells anyone to call him father.


1 Corinthians 4:15 For you can have 10,000 instructors in Christ, but you can't have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.


Did you read that?

Paul says you CAN'T have many fathers. The Catholic church has many fathers in Christ.

 

[republicanchick]

Are those His exact words? Or are you changing them to suit your own interpretation?

"Call no man father."

Jesus says call no man "father." Paul then calls a man "father."


Did Paul break this command by calling himself father to the Corinthians?

good point

this all proves that Jesus nebver meant for us to believe in Bible alone... sola scriptura

the Bible itself does not say to only accept the Bible.. disregard other truths not found explicitly therein..

And Jesus had about as little access to the New T as one can get...

ZERO




=

 

[God's Truth]

good point

this all proves that Jesus nebver meant for us to believe in Bible alone... sola scriptura

the Bible itself does not say to only accept the Bible.. disregard other truths not found explicitly therein..

And Jesus had about as little access to the New T as one can get...

ZERO

=

Then show in the old testament where we are to believe mere men and not those who speak only the words of God.

 

[Cedarbay]

the Bible itself does not say to only accept the Bible.. disregard other truths not found explicitly therein..

"The Roman Catholic Church makes much of tradition. Authority for Rome is the Bible, and developing tradition (the apocryphal books, writings of Greek and Latin church fathers, decisions of church councils, and papal decrees). And the church determines what the Bible teaches and what tradition means.

All the dreadful distinctives of Rome are based on the traditions of men, all of them: purgatory, the priesthood, the mass, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, worship of Mary, use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, celibacy, the papacy and its claims. Not only do these doctrines lack biblical warrant, but they are often in direct contradiction to Scripture."
(By Kuiper, Dale H.)

 

[republicanchick]

Then show in the old testament where we are to believe mere men and not those who speak only the words of God.

huh?

non sequitor



=

 

[God's Truth]

huh?

non sequitor



=

You said that Jesus spoke what the old testament says...and that is true.

However, those who spoke what the old testament says never added to God's written word.

The Catholic's popes add to God's written word.

 

[republicanchick]

"The Roman Catholic Church makes much of tradition. Authority for Rome is the Bible, and developing tradition (the apocryphal books, writings of Greek and Latin church fathers, decisions of church councils, and papal decrees). And the church determines what the Bible teaches and what tradition means.

All the dreadful distinctives of Rome are based on the traditions of men, all of them: purgatory, the priesthood, the mass, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, worship of Mary, use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, celibacy, the papacy and its claims. Not only do these doctrines lack biblical warrant, but they are often in direct contradiction to Scripture."
(By Kuiper, Dale H.)

this is a lie you have been fed...

interesting what I thought of as I read this.. I thought of how, at Holy Mass, after EVERY reading, there is...

what?

well, in a protestant service, after every reading (and I have yet to be a protestant service where the WHOLE thing is read... just snippets of Scirpture are read...) but after ea reading in the Holy Mass, there is this:

SILENCE

absolute silence.. The priest does have a homily after the gospel reading but after the other 2 readings, everyone sits in reflective silence... and usually there is a moment of silence b4 the gospel reading as well...


and we are not asked to take things out of context.. entire passages are read

yet in the protestant services... again, I have only heard bits and pieces of a given passage ...



++

 

[God's Truth]

this is a lie you have been fed...

interesting what I thought of as I read this.. I thought of how, at Holy Mass, after EVERY reading, there is...

what?

well, in a protestant service, after every reading (and I have yet to be a protestant service where the WHOLE thing is read... just snippets of Scirpture are read...) but after ea reading in the Holy Mass, there is this:

SILENCE

absolute silence.. The priest does have a homily after the gospel reading but after the other 2 readings, everyone sits in reflective silence... and usually there is a moment of silence b4 the gospel reading as well...


and we are not asked to take things out of context.. entire passages are read

yet in the protestant services... again, I have only heard bits and pieces of a given passage ...



++

Stop speaking about what your pope says, and what your popes have said.

Stop speaking about what the protestants say.

Look to what Jesus Christ says in the Holy Bible.

 

[Cedarbay]

this is a lie you have been fed...

interesting what I thought of as I read this.. I thought of how, at Holy Mass, after EVERY reading, there is...

what?

well, in a protestant service, after every reading (and I have yet to be a protestant service where the WHOLE thing is read... just snippets of Scirpture are read...) but after ea reading in the Holy Mass, there is this:

SILENCE

absolute silence.. The priest does have a homily after the gospel reading but after the other 2 readings, everyone sits in reflective silence... and usually there is a moment of silence b4 the gospel reading as well...


and we are not asked to take things out of context.. entire passages are read

yet in the protestant services... again, I have only heard bits and pieces of a given passage ...



++

Reformed churches take a passage and exegete it in the context of the entirety of Scripture. RCC does not give the laity any sense of what the bible is truly about.

 

[glassjester]

Paul was one of the few firsts, and as he was getting older, he had helpers that were probably younger than he was.

Paul was like a father in that way. Paul says there are not many fathers in Christ, but we see from the Catholic denomination that there are many fathers.

Again, Paul never tells anyone to call him father.


1 Corinthians 4:15 For you can have 10,000 instructors in Christ, but you can't have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.


Did you read that?

Paul says you CAN'T have many fathers. The Catholic church has many fathers in Christ.

He was right. They did not have many "fathers."

He refers to himself as their father in Christ Jesus, through the gospel. What does that mean? Why does he give this title to himself?