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

[republicanchick]

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.

that is just another lie u have been fed

but anti-Catholics stay anti-Catholic, I have noticed.. until they "do the math" as Scott Hahn did

no greater anti-Catholic than scott Hahn... so anti-Catholic he studied thousands (I believe literally thousands) of books to try to disprove Catholicism (and YES, the Bible!)

ended up becoming a Catholic

but most anti-Catholics... they like their malice, thank you



+

 

[God's Truth]

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?

The gospel had not yet been preached to many humans yet.

He did not tell anyone to call him father.

Even Timothy he called a brother.

See 2 Corinthians 1:1, and 1 Thessalonians 3:2.

Paul calls Timothy a brother. Brothers do not call each other father.

 

[God's Truth]

that is just another lie u have been fed

but anti-Catholics stay anti-Catholic, I have noticed.. until they "do the math" as Scott Hahn did

no greater anti-Catholic than scott Hahn... so anti-Catholic he studied thousands (I believe literally thousands) of books to try to disprove Catholicism (and YES, the Bible!)

ended up becoming a Catholic

but most anti-Catholics... they like their malice, thank you



+

You are following a sinful man and not the sinless man, Jesus Christ.

 

[God's Truth]

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

THE CATHOLICS HAVE MANY MANY FATHERS.

The Catholics call their priests father, and the fathers call each other father.

In the Catholic denomination, there are many fathers.

PAUL SAYS there are NOT MANY FATHERS.

 

[God's Truth]

The Catholic denominations go against the written Word of God.

 

[glassjester]

PAUL SAYS there are NOT MANY FATHERS.

And he was right. There were not many.


But saying "not many," implies some (or at least one).

Paul also calls Timothy his son, remember?



Since Paul could legitimately call himself "Father," through the gospel - is it possible that anyone could do the same today?

 

[God's Truth]

And he was right. There were not many.


But saying "not many," implies some (or at least one).

Paul also calls Timothy his son, remember?



Since Paul could legitimately call himself "Father," through the gospel - is it possible that anyone could do the same today?

There are not many fathers. The Catholics have many fathers.

Paul calls Timothy brother.

 

[glassjester]

Paul calls Timothy brother.

And son. Remember?



Back to the question:
Since Paul could legitimately call himself "Father," through the gospel - is it possible that anyone could do the same today?

 

[Cedarbay]

no greater anti-Catholic than scott Hahn... so anti-Catholic he studied thousands (I believe literally thousands) of books to try to disprove Catholicism (and YES, the Bible!)

ended up becoming a Catholic

but most anti-Catholics... they like their malice, thank you



+

Your posts are hard to read much less understand.

Scott Hahn makes my skin crawl. I listened to a short "sermon" of his recently and it was a theological mess.

He does Christ a great disservice to teach salvation based on works.

 

[God's Truth]

And son. Remember?



Back to the question:
Since Paul could legitimately call himself "Father," through the gospel - is it possible that anyone could do the same today?

No.

Paul thought of himself as a father because he was one of the firsts.

There are no other firsts.

Stop calling your brothers in Christ 'father'.

 

[Cruciform]

Thank you for once again proving that I made the right choice leaving the RCC.

Thank you for perfectly proving the content of Post #96 above.

Your post proves that THE RCC interprets scripture to serve their own purposes and not God's.

Readers should note that the interpretive approach discussed in my Post #96 above is in no way exclusively Catholic, but is maintained by all Protestant biblical scholars as well. The quotation in the post is drawn from an Evangelical Protestant---not Catholic---textbook on biblical hermeneutics! CM, however, misses this fact completely, and rushes right in to gleefully deny what he wrongly assumes is an exclusively "Catholic" viewpoint. On the contrary, it is in fact the position of all informed and mature non-Catholics (Protestants), and the fact that CM ignorantly rejects it is more than telling.

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?

Once again, you merely place your ignorance on public display. Your position, then, is an outright denial of the Divine Unity of the Scriptures, that is, that due to the fact that God is the ultimate Author of Scripture, there is a pervasive unity of meaning throughout the entirety of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Under its Divine Authorship, the Bible is a single coherent and progressive self-revelation of God. Tellingly, your claims above flatly deny the unity of Scripture and, thus, the Divine Authorship of the Bible. Here again, you radically separate yourself from all informed and mature Protestant Bible scholars and non-Catholic believers in general. Your comments and claims make it glaringly evident that you simply have no idea how to rightly interpret the Scriptures.


Back to Post #96, which stands exactly as given.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[God's Truth]

Your posts are hard to read much less understand.

Scott Hahn makes my skin crawl. I listened to a short "sermon" of his recently and it was a theological mess.

He does Christ a great disservice to teach salvation based on works.

Salvation is about works, but not the works the Catholics do, for they do the works God says not to do.

 

[Cruciform]

The Catholic denominations...

There are no "Catholic denominations." Try again.

...go against the written Word of God.

Rather, the Catholic Church goes against your preferred interpretations of the written Word of God. Big difference there.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[God's Truth]

There are no "Catholic denominations." Try again.


Rather, the Catholic Church goes against your preferred interpretations of the written Word of God. Big difference there.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The Catholic religion is a denomination, as are the other "Christian" groups.

There is only one Church and it is the body of Christ.

The body of Christ is called the body of Christ, and is not called the Roman Catholic church.

The body of believers met at various places in the new testament times...they met at people's homes, and were identified by such, and by the name of the town in which they met.

The Catholic denomination is apostate from the teachings of Christ, as was forewarned about by the apostles.

Here Peter warns us, and even tells us they are AMONG the people.

2 Peter 2:1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.

Paul warned the true believers that false teachings would come.

2 Timothy 2:17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,

Paul warned that even from among them wolves would come in.

Acts 20:29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

The Catholic religion steadily brought in heresies.

Prayers for the dead and sign of the cross, approximately began in 310 AD.

Many heresies kept being added.

The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the emperor Phocas, 610 AD.

Who was in charge of your religion before that, before 610 AD, since you claim your church, as you know it has been the truth from the beginning.

We have to watch our lives and our doctrines carefully.

Those who are Catholic did not watch carefully.

 

[Cruciform]

All the dreadful distinctives of Rome are based on the traditions of men, all of them:...

Rather, on Apostolic Tradition. Big difference there.

...purgatory...

Addressed here.

...the priesthood

Addressed here.

...the mass...

Addressed here.

...transubstantiation...

Addressed here.

...prayers for the dead...

Addressed here.

...indulgences...

Addressed here and here.

...penance...

Addressed here.

...worship of Mary

A false statement, since Catholics in no way "worship" Mary or any past Saint. On the contrary, Catholics worship God and God alone. See this.

...use of images in worship...

Addressed here.

...holy water...

Addressed here.

...rosary beads...

Addressed here.

...celibacy...

Addressed here.

...the papacy and its claims.

Addressed here and here.

Not only do these doctrines lack biblical warrant, but they are often in direct contradiction to Scripture."

See above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[glassjester]

Paul thought of himself as a father because he was one of the firsts.

There are no other firsts.

As an aside, I've got to insist - Paul did indeed call Timothy his son in 1 Timothy 1:2.


As to the main point of discussion - let's add to the list of exceptions to Christ's rule of calling no man "Father."

Exceptions (so far) are as follows:
1. Your biological father
2. I'm going to guess fathers-in-law, too
3. Your biological ancestors (Abraham, if you're a Jew))
4. Your spiritual predecessors (Abraham, if you're a non-Jew)
5. Yourself, if you're one of the "firsts" to preach the gospel (Paul)


You don't believe that Christ literally meant "no man" when he said to "call no man Father." You just plain don't. Otherwise, you'd literally call no man at all "Father."

You have numerous exceptions to this rule, and you allow for these exceptions based on your own interpretation of Christ's actual words.

So why is your interpretation the right one?

 

[Cruciform]

The Catholic religion is a denomination...

Rather the Catholic Church is the original Christian Church, that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself. The Protestant sects (denominations) are splinter groups from the Catholic Church and/or one another over the past five centuries. Try again.

There is only one Church and it is the body of Christ.

See above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Thank you for perfectly proving the content of Post #96 above.


Readers should note that the interpretive approach discussed in my Post #96 above is in no way exclusively Catholic, but is maintained by all Protestant biblical scholars as well. The quotation in the post is drawn from an Evangelical Protestant---not Catholic---textbook on biblical hermeneutics! CM, however, misses this fact completely, and rushes right in to gleefully deny what he wrongly assumes is an exclusively "Catholic" viewpoint. On the contrary, it is in fact the position of all informed and mature non-Catholics (Protestants), and the fact that CM ignorantly rejects it is more than telling.


Once again, you merely place your ignorance on public display. Your position, then, is an outright denial of the Divine Unity of the Scriptures, that is, that due to the fact that God is the ultimate Author of Scripture, there is a pervasive unity of meaning throughout the entirety of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Under its Divine Authorship, the Bible is a single coherent and progressive self-revelation of God. Tellingly, your claims above flatly deny the unity of Scripture and, thus, the Divine Authorship of the Bible. Here again, you radically separate yourself from all informed and mature Protestant Bible scholars and non-Catholic believers in general. Your comments and claims make it glaringly evident that you simply have no idea how to rightly interpret the Scriptures.


Back to Post #96, which stands exactly as given.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Yes, post 96 stands exactly as the theological mess that it is.

 

[CabinetMaker]

As an aside, I've got to insist - Paul did indeed call Timothy his son in 1 Timothy 1:2.


As to the main point of discussion - let's add to the list of exceptions to Christ's rule of calling no man "Father."

Exceptions (so far) are as follows:
1. Your biological father
2. I'm going to guess fathers-in-law, too
3. Your biological ancestors (Abraham, if you're a Jew))
4. Your spiritual predecessors (Abraham, if you're a non-Jew)
5. Yourself, if you're one of the "firsts" to preach the gospel (Paul)


You don't believe that Christ literally meant "no man" when he said to "call no man Father." You just plain don't. Otherwise, you'd literally call no man at all "Father."

You have numerous exceptions to this rule, and you allow for these exceptions based on your own interpretation of Christ's actual words.

So why is your interpretation the right one?

You haven't read Matthew 23 yet, have you.

 

[God's Truth]

As an aside, I've got to insist - Paul did indeed call Timothy his son in 1 Timothy 1:2.

I might call you a son too if you learn from me and help me.

As to the main point of discussion - let's add to the list of exceptions to Christ's rule of calling no man "Father."

Exceptions (so far) are as follows:
1. Your biological father
2. I'm going to guess fathers-in-law, too
3. Your biological ancestors (Abraham, if you're a Jew))
4. Your spiritual predecessors (Abraham, if you're a non-Jew)
5. Yourself, if you're one of the "firsts" to preach the gospel (Paul)

Now you got it.

So stop calling the Catholic priests and your pope 'father'.

You don't believe that Christ literally meant "no man" when he said to "call no man Father." You just plain don't. Otherwise, you'd literally call no man at all "Father."

Just as Jesus says to eat his flesh...you have to look to the spiritual.

You have numerous exceptions to this rule, and you allow for these exceptions based on your own interpretation of Christ's actual words.

So why is your interpretation the right one?

How do you obey Jesus when he says call no man 'father'?

I told you how I obey.

Why don't you obey?