How do Catholics obey Jesus concerning Matthew 23:9?

[Moriah]

Seriously???

Stephen said "my brothers and fathers" because they were "somebody's" fathers?

They sure were not Stephen’s fathers. The Jews did not call their leaders ‘father’. So why else do you think Stephen said ‘fathers’?

Stephen called Abraham "father" because Abraham had children?

I am not speaking of biological children.

Really?

That's what you're going to go with?

Targus,
Since you do not think that I know the truth, teach me how to obey. Tell me how you and all Catholics obey Jesus in the command call no man ‘father’.
I told you how I obey; now you tell me how you do.

I have answered all your questions, so why will you not answer mine?

 

[Fred's Wife]

The Lord Jesus Christ forbade the use of "father" as a religious title (Matthew 23:9-10). Bible titles for church leaders are pastor, bishop, and elder-not father.

The word "father" is also used for those who lead someone to salvation in Christ (1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4)

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is still Paul calling himself "your father in Christ".

I'm pretty sure that Paul wasn't the biological father of every person at the church of Corinth.

And the words "in Christ" sound somewhat spritual.

So is Paul writing heresy in Scripture?

(I wrote this while Moriah was addressing this point - my wife is calling me to dinner - be back later)

Paul was not infallible; Jesus was and is. Paul admitted that he was giving his opinion about some things -- as when he said "I say, and not the Lord..."

Therefore, I will go by what Jesus said since I worship Him and not Paul.

 

[Catalyst]

Paul was speaking spiritually too, he was not married, therefore all those churches were not filled with his kids.

Baptist churches shouldn't allow Paul to be read to their congregations, and he should be redacted from Acts too. Paul taught something that is Roman Catholic. The only question is, how did ROME go back 350 years to corrupt Paul so?

You are speaking about earthly fathers to their children. Jesus was speaking Spiritually.

Jesus says we are all brothers. Do you call your earthly brother ‘father’? Do not call your spiritual brother ‘father’ either. That is how you obey the command of Jesus in call no one ‘father’.

So, tell me how you obey Jesus in that command.

 

[Catalyst]

Paul was not infallible; Jesus was and is. Paul admitted that he was giving his opinion about some things -- as when he said "I say, and not the Lord..."

Therefore, I will go by what Jesus said since I worship Him and not Paul.

So, opinions are something that can be right or wrong. Everyone has one, no one wants another. You know the joke.

So if opinions can be wrong, then either Paul's opinions are right, or they are wrong.

They are considered canonical opinions.

My question to you is, are they right or wrong opinions.

If they are right opinions and the canon has no errors in it, then your answer is meaningless.

If He's wrong, then the bible isn't inerrant.

My goodness. what a dilemma!

 

[Catalyst]

The Lord Jesus Christ forbade the use of "father" as a religious title (Matthew 23:9-10). Bible titles for church leaders are pastor, bishop, and elder-not father.

The word "father" is also used for those who lead someone to salvation in Christ (1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4)

I never thought of using the second set of verses before, excellent.

How do you get the term "religious title" factored into the matthew verse? It's not in the text or the context. Do you put it that way because it's the only thing that makes sense? or do you have some way you exegete that out of there? Serious question. I'm not picking, I'm asking.

 

[Moriah]

If you take the verse as literal as most catholic bashers, who claim to be god's apologists do, calling your own father, father, is a sin.

I will try my best not to sound like a basher. I am someone who has had their eyes opened up and wants to reveal these wonderful things to you and others, so that you can know them too. I speak about God and Jesus out of love.

Calling your earthly father ‘father’ is not a sin. Jesus is speaking of Spiritual things.

Paul was father, because he brought those people to Christ and was their spiritual leader. In that sense it's fine I'd think. They were treated as his little children, he was to bring them to maturity, from milk to meat, all the imagry is accurate. What would be the sin to calling Paul father?

Paul was a father as one being a teacher to God’s children. Paul NEVER tells anyone to call him ‘father’, and the Bible has no account of anyone calling Paul ‘father’, or Paul would probably be corrected in this, as would the others who call him ‘father’. I believe Paul would have been corrected as Paul corrected Peter when he stepped out of line with the truth.

If I teach you anything in the truth, I may be as a father, but that in no way would cause me to get away with having you call me father, and vice verse.

I'd say, that is something akin to God being the father/creator of everything that is, the OMNI one. As long as you don't refer to anyone as if they were the creator of all it would be bad.

That is not obeying. To call a brother 'father' and not mean to say God the Father is not obeying. Jesus says call no man father that we are brothers in Christ. Catholics call their brothers in Christ father, and that is against the Word of God.

When I say they sin and go against God, that is not so bad if they repent. So, please do not take it as bad, unless there is no repenting from it.

The POPE, here is the reasoning there.
Jesus is head of the Church established and trained Apostles to get the church rolling.
They had to train others to carry on the teaching and keep it pure and correct.
Those had to in turn train others.
They were growing, so they may train two or three or a dozen others, and send them out in the world.
Timothy probably trained a coupla dozen for the town he was living in.
The leader over that town, or area was the Bishop, a timothy type role that helped keep the area churches in line. Make sure their theology was right. Afterall the apostles wouldn't be here forever, they needed to make sure they had it right and kept it right.
As the church grew the bishops in quantity grew. To keep them all in line you needed a hierchy, else you'd have 850,000 people screaming at the same time and no one to bring them to order.
Thus you had a pope be formed.
The Pope isn't a foreign concept, you could equate him to JAMES role in the Council of Jerusalem. James was the moderator over that council. James held the respect, and James made the call on what was to be done. He decided the resolution for the Church going forward, but all the "bishops" met with him and had their input and arguments. Thus James wasn't a sole power.

The word ‘pope’ means ‘father’. It is no longer a justifiable argument, whether he just meant it as the leader or not. It is a sin for the spiritual brother, even though he is a leader, to call himself ‘father’. Even Peter was called ‘brother.’

If the Spirit is there, and the Church is Christ's body, and Christ is the head, and the head executes through the church, as it did through the apostles, and Paul wrote in Eph 4, then when the Spirit influences that meeting, when the Pope makes his judgement, and sits in that seat of authority, then His comments are from God. There is nothing illogical about that. It's firmly rooted in scripture.

Again, the Catholic Church became apostate when they left the way that Jesus taught.

The word pope means ‘father’, Jesus says not to call each other father.
The pope takes the seat of most importance; Jesus taught his disciples not to do that.
The popes wore extravagant robes and hats; Jesus speaks against that. The popes are bowed to and have their feet kissed; the Bible commands us not to do that.

God does not even know you unless you obey Him, see 1 Corinthians 8:3.

Compare it to baptist churches, the likes I attend, and most likely you, and definitely some of the sysops here, there is no authority, there is no teaching passed down from generation to generation. Each church has their OWN head of the church, thus from block to block they have different theologies. If they have different theologies at least ONE of them isn't led by the Spirit, but both will claim it, and fight all the way to hell claiming it's them. But one HAS to be wrong, of the two.

In Rome's belief, the way the Church rolls, they all roll. They put faith in the Church, which relies on the Head to guide it, and the people are taught to do the works of service that makes them as mature as Christ was on earth, according to Paul in Ephesians 4. Please think this through before you respond. If I'm not here, you know where to find me.

I am not Baptist; though, I have been to a Baptist Church. I do think they believe the Bible is their authority, even though I believe they have false doctrines, they believe the Bible is the final authority. As for things passed down for generations, we are not to have traditions of men. They are worthless, they even nullify the word of God. That is what the Bible says.
I hope you can stay in the group and debate. I will contact you soon if you are banned.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So, opinions are something that can be right or wrong. Everyone has one, no one wants another. You know the joke.

So if opinions can be wrong, then either Paul's opinions are right, or they are wrong.

They are considered canonical opinions.

My question to you is, are they right or wrong opinions.

If they are right opinions and the canon has no errors in it, then your answer is meaningless.

If He's wrong, then the bible isn't inerrant.

My goodness. what a dilemma!

I don't believe in the inerrancy of scripture -- at least as that is usually understood. Only God is inerrant.

Besides, as I said, even Paul himself distinguished between his opinions and the commands of God.

Further, as I also said, I will go by what Jesus said since He is my Lord and Savior and my example to follow.

 

[Moriah]

So, opinions are something that can be right or wrong. Everyone has one, no one wants another. You know the joke.

So if opinions can be wrong, then either Paul's opinions are right, or they are wrong.

They are considered canonical opinions.

My question to you is, are they right or wrong opinions.

If they are right opinions and the canon has no errors in it, then your answer is meaningless.

If He's wrong, then the bible isn't inerrant.

My goodness. what a dilemma!

Paul never tells anyone to call him ‘father.’ Nowhere in the scriptures will you find that. Nowhere in the scriptures do you read that anyone called Paul ‘father.’
If I am a teacher in a school teaching algebra to a bunch of students, and they are being taught algebra for the first time, and I tell the class I am their father in Math, does that mean anyone is told to call me ‘father’? NO.

 

[targus]

Paul, as a person who got the message before others, in this he was like a father for being before the others.

This sounds like something that you are making up as you go.

However, Paul does not say to call him ‘father’, and there is nowhere in the Bible where anyone calls Paul ‘father’. I can give you scriptures that show the Apostles are called ‘brother’.

Worse... Paul called himself their "father".

So he is putting himself as a man above them by your interpretation.

Or will you now tell me that "no man" does not apply to Paul because he wasn't a "man"?

Now that I have answered your question, please tell me how Catholics obey Jesus in this command.

How should I know?

You are asking about Catholic practices on a Baptist Board where there are few if any Catholics since Catholics are not allowed to join.

Like I said - sounds like gossip to me...

But now I am beginning to think that your motives are even less noble than mere gossip.

 

[Fred's Wife]

I never thought of using the second set of verses before, excellent.

How do you get the term "religious title" factored into the matthew verse? It's not in the text or the context. Do you put it that way because it's the only thing that makes sense? or do you have some way you exegete that out of there? Serious question. I'm not picking, I'm asking.

Look at verse 8. Is the word "Rabbi" not a "religious" title? I believe that humility is the context and "religious titles" are also very much part of the context. Religious titles tend to "puff up" rather than humble a person.

Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

I like this commentary by Albert Barnes on Matthew 23:8-9:

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Matthew 23:8

Verse 8. Be not ye, etc. Jesus forbade his disciples to seek such titles of distinction. The reason he gave was, that he was himself their Master and Teacher. They were on a level; they were to be equal in authority; they were brethren; and they should neither covet nor receive a title which implied either an elevation of one above another, or which appeared to infringe on the absolute right of the Saviour to be their only Teacher and Master. The command here is an express command to his disciples not to receive such a title of distinction. They were not to covet it; they were not to seek it; they were not to do anything that implied a wish or a willingness that it should be appended to their names. Everything which would tend to make a distinction among them, or destroy their parity; everything which would lead the world to suppose that there were ranks and grades among them as ministers, they were to avoid. It is to be observed that the command is, that they were not to receive the title. "Be not ye called Rabbi." The Saviour did not forbid them giving the title to others when it was customary or not regarded as improper, (comp. Ac 26:25) but they were not to receive it. It was to be unknown among them. This title corresponds with the title "Doctor of Divinity," as applied to ministers of the gospel; and so far as I can see, the spirit of the Saviour's command is violated by the reception of such a title, as it would have been by their being called Rabbi. It is a literary distinction. It does not appropriately pertain to office. It makes a distinction among ministers. It tends to engender pride, and a sense of superiority in those who obtain it, and envy and a sense of inferiority in those who do not; and the whole spirit and tendency of it is contrary to the "simplicity that is in Christ"

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Matthew 23:9

Verse 9. And call no man your father, etc. This does not of course forbid us to apply the term to our real father. Religion requires all proper honour to be shown to him, Ex 20:12; Mt 15:4; Eph 6:1-3. But the word father also denotes authority, eminence, superiority, a right to command, and a claim to particular respect. In this sense it is used here. In this sense it belongs eminently to God, and it is not right to give it to men. Christian brethren are equal. God only has supreme authority. He only has a right to give laws, to declare doctrines to bind the conscience, to punish disobedience. The Jewish teachers affected that title because they seem to have supposed that a teacher formed the man, or gave him real life, and sought therefore to be called father. Christ taught them that the source of all life and truth was God; and they ought not to seek or receive a title which properly belongs to him.

 

[Moriah]

This sounds like something that you are making up as you go.

How does it sound like I am making it up? It is the truth. Paul, as a person who got the message before others, in this he was like a father for being before the others.

 

[Moriah]

Worse... Paul called himself their "father".

So he is putting himself as a man above them by your interpretation.

Or will you now tell me that "no man" does not apply to Paul because he wasn't a "man"?

Show the scripture where Paul says, “Call me father.” Show the scriptures where anyone calls Paul “Father.” Please give those scriptures now or stop saying Paul did what he did not do.

How should I know?

Are you Catholic? You stand up for the Catholics. Therefore, if you are not a Catholic, and you want to stand up for them, at least find out how they obey Jesus in call no one father.

You are asking about Catholic practices on a Baptist Board where there are few if any Catholics since Catholics are not allowed to join.

I have said Catholics should be allowed to debate here. So why act as if it is my fault that they are not allowed? By the way, there are Catholics here. They could answer the question how they obey, if they did obey.

Like I said - sounds like gossip to me...

But now I am beginning to think that your motives are even less noble than mere gossip.

That is a sin to think evil of me. I have not done anything except try to get others to see the Truth.

I was once a Catholic; it was my family’s life. I was in another false religion after that. Even after I was saved, the speaking in tongues crowd was trying to lead me astray, as was the Calvinist crowd. I wish there were no false doctrines. I am thankful for the people that spoke up to me about what they believed are false doctrines. I could have been angry and rude in return to those who spoke to me. I mean really now, what business was it to them what I believed? I could have thought they were nosey and jealous. I am glad I did not react to them that way though. Have a heart that wants to know God’s Truth. Have a kinder heart that is willing to listen to others.

 

[targus]

How does it sound like I am making it up? It is the truth. Paul, as a person who got the message before others, in this he was like a father for being before the others.

"...in this he was like a father for being before the others."

Show me where this has ever been used as an analogy for "father" before.

You are just making it up.

 

[targus]

Show the scripture where Paul says, “Call me father.” Show the scriptures where anyone calls Paul “Father.” Please give those scriptures now or stop saying Paul did what he did not do.

I didn't say that he told anyone to call him father.

He called himself father - and in the spiritual sense too.

So he was calling a man "father" - unless you are now going to say that Paul is not a man.

 

[targus]

I was once a Catholic...

So you as a former Catholic want to ask Baptists what Catholics believe and why they believe as such? :laugh:

I feel as though I have just entered the Twilight Zone.

 

[Moriah]

So you as a former Catholic want to ask Baptists what Catholics believe and why they believe as such? :laugh:

I feel as though I have just entered the Twilight Zone.

I am not asking Baptists.

 

[Moriah]

I didn't say that he told anyone to call him father.

He called himself father - and in the spiritual sense too.

So he was calling a man "father" - unless you are now going to say that Paul is not a man.

Find the scripture where Paul says call me ‘father’. Find that scripture or stop saying Paul went against Jesus’ teachings.
Find the scripture where anyone calls Paul ‘father’. Find that scripture or stop saying Paul went against Jesus’ teachings.

 

[Catalyst]

Look at verse 8. Is the word "Rabbi" not a "religious" title? I believe that humility is the context and "religious titles" are also very much part of the context. Religious titles tend to "puff up" rather than humble a person.

Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

I like this commentary by Albert Barnes on Matthew 23:8-9:

Ok, I see how you got there. Rather obvious once you see it. I'm gonna have to check this out more, but I think at a glance I lean to 8 and 10 are educational titles. But there was no educational title among the jews that was called father. So, now we have both teacher vss as similar but father as seperate. What jewish role was called father. Christ was called master, wasn't he?

Anyway, thanks for the brain worm. I don't agree yet, but I won't make a call til I dig in. That's fair, isn't it?

 

[targus]

Find the scripture where Paul says call me ‘father’. Find that scripture or stop saying Paul went against Jesus’ teachings.
Find the scripture where anyone calls Paul ‘father’. Find that scripture or stop saying Paul went against Jesus’ teachings.

Paul is calling himself "father in Christ".

Paul is a man.

Paul is calling a man (himself) "father".

Why is that so hard to comprehend?