How do Catholics obey Jesus concerning Matthew 23:9?

[Moriah]

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?

Can you read the word of God without leaning to the left or to the right?

Can you read the word of God?

Jesus says call no man on earth father. So where did Paul say, “Call me Father”? Where did anyone say to Paul “Father Paul”? Where does Paul call any of the disciples ‘father’?

It is just not in the scriptures, so stop pretending it is there.

Paul was an Apostle, and as an Apostle, he was getting the gospel message first hand. Paul is ‘before’ the other Christians, just as a natural father comes before his children. Explaining to someone that you are a father in Christ to them is not the equivalent of saying, “Call me ‘father’”. I believe that if Paul took on the title as ‘Father Paul’, Peter or one of the other disciples would have corrected him, and it would be in the scriptures, just as Paul corrected Peter when Peter stepped out of line with the truth.

You still have not answered how the Catholics obey the command Jesus gave. How do Catholics obey the command not to call each other ‘father’?

 

[targus]

Paul was an Apostle, and as an Apostle, he was getting the gospel message first hand. Paul is ‘before’ the other Christians, just as a natural father comes before his children.

So show me where Jesus made this exception of "before the other Christians" - whatever that is supposed to mean.

You will have to tell me since it isn't in Scripture and you are just making it up.

Since Jesus said, " And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." it would appear that Paul is declaring himself to be the one Father in Heaven by calling himself "father in Christ".

 

[Moriah]

I get it targus, you do not understand.

So, did you find out from your Catholic friends how they obey the command given by Jesus to call no man ‘father’?

 

[targus]

I get it targus, you do not understand.

So, did you find out from your Catholic friends how they obey the command given by Jesus to call no man ‘father’?

I understand you just fine.

When confronted with Scripture that doesn't fit with your beliefs you contort...

Like Stephen adressing the high priests as "fathers" in Acts 7:2 that in your world meant that they were "somebody's" fathers.

That interpretation of yours still gives me a chuckle. :laugh:

 

[Matt Black]

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. But obviously there are times calling someone father is appropriate, else the word FATHER wouldn't exist today in English for the same reasons, "Cursing" turned into CUSSING, which turned into mean something the bible doesn't teach anywhere. Language shifts...

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?

Now, the claim of Jesus, did he mean God was father like Paul was father? Did he mean God was father like your parent is father? There are two acceptable ways of using the word father.

The offense wouldn't be in calling someone father, but in thinking someone was the type of father God is.

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.

In other words, do not take the lord's name in vain.

Name.... funny word.... what did it mean to those people? They had meanings. The last name, the type of work they did, the focus in their life, they were born with a name, but earned a usable name as adults that befit them. MUch like being born a farmer and growing up to be a black smith, thus the name became smith. Mister Policeman..... Mister Smith...... and that is how that became a tradition.

The issue I imagine is the Pope/Pater/Father. If not I'll answer it anyway.

Their priests would be father same as Paul was father. If it's wrong to call Paul father then it's wrong to call the Priests father. If it's ok then it is ok, they do the same thing.

The POPE, here is the reasoning there.

God sent Jesus as Head of the church... God is the vine, Jesus the gardner.
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.

Now, if you believe where a few are gathered HE will be there with them, then you can accept that the Spirit of God was there in that meeting, right?

If the Bishops of rome meet, you can expect that they believe the Spirit of God is there with them, yes?

If the Church, as Paul wrote in Ephesians 4 is to lead the people, something Rome does, baptists don't do, to works of service, vs theological bickering, then the church leads the people. The bishops lead the areas in guidance on how to lead the people. The pope chooses the directions like James did after hearing the input of the other bishops.

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.

I don't think I agree with their conclusion, but heck, it sure does make sense.

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.

That sure as heck makes a lot more sense then the Baptist epistemology of having every congregation believe what they think right to themselves (cf the beginning of Judges).

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I think I have the solution -- practical if not theological -- to this issue:

For those who don't mind having a human in authority over your souls, then you can call that one "Father" (or "Mother", as the case may be); for those who do mind, don't call anyone that.

In the CAC, if any minister wants to call himself "father" or be called "father", he is allowed that liberty of conscience. We have people coming from Catholic and Anglican backgrounds, and I am sensitive to that situation.

However, the position of the CAC on this is clearly stated on the site. Personally, I will not be called "Father" or any artificial title. As much as I admire Anglicanism and the Old Catholics, one thing I do not agree with is the "ranks of reveredness" -- "Reverend", "Right Reverend", "Very Reverend", "Most Reverend", "Venerable", etc.

I would hope that any of our ministers who allow themselves to be called such would one day change their minds, but that is between them and God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Originally Posted by Catalyst
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. But obviously there are times calling someone father is appropriate, else the word FATHER wouldn't exist today in English for the same reasons, "Cursing" turned into CUSSING, which turned into mean something the bible doesn't teach anywhere. Language shifts...

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 did not claim an office that would be addressed as "father" nor did he call upon his readers to address him as "father." Jesus has in mind such a spiritual position before men.

Now, the claim of Jesus, did he mean God was father like Paul was father? Did he mean God was father like your parent is father? There are two acceptable ways of using the word father.

The context of Christ's prohibition was not parental or in the physical sense but in a spiritual sense and title of address.

The offense wouldn't be in calling someone father, but in thinking someone was the type of father God is.

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 simply silly! They already had the ten commandments which made that clear! Jesus is referring to a spiritual position over them as in the term "Rabbi" where they honor a man with such a title or address.

Their priests would be father same as Paul was father. If it's wrong to call Paul father then it's wrong to call the Priests father. If it's ok then it is ok, they do the same thing.

Not at all! Paul never called for his followers to address him as "father" and never claimed any spiritual position to be addressed as "father." He simply used an analogy to describe how God used to him instrumentally to bring them to salvation and as a NATURAL father to instruct them as dear children. Never did he or any other apostle call upon their followers to ever address them as "father."

God sent Jesus as Head of the church... God is the vine, Jesus the gardner.
Jesus is head of the Church established and trained Apostles to get the church rolling.

All the apostles were EQUAL and NONE were popes for if one were a Pope then all would EQUALLY be Popes as they were all EQUALLY apostles holding the same EQUAL office. The office of Pope has no Biblical basis whatsoever and clearly violates the prohibition by Christ to call no man on earth "Father" in that spiritual sense or position.

They had to train others to carry on the teaching and keep it pure and correct.
Those had to in turn train others.

Here is a fundemental misunderstanding of the design for the apostolic office. The office of apostle and New Testament prophets were only "foundational" (Eph. 2:20) because they were to furnish the church with the completion of the Biblical canon (Isa. 8:16-18) which would be the means the Holy Spirit, the continuing Advocate, Comforter would use to qualify bishops and deacons and maintain the church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:1-4:1; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Scripture would replace the apostolic office and scripture would be the final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21).

Rome usurped the Scripture by its heirarchy and traditions of men.

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.

Peter was replaced by James who acted as the Pastor of the church at Jerusalem which allowed church sent and authorized delegates from the sister church at Antioch to attend and participate. The Holy Spirit was the final authority in this matter and James and the apostles and whole "church" at Jerusalem took part in the final decision.



I

f the Church, as Paul wrote in Ephesians 4 is to lead the people, something Rome does, baptists don't do, to works of service, vs theological bickering, then the church leads the people.

Nowhere in Ephesians 4 does it say the "church" is to lead the people! The leaders IN the church are listed but their leadership authority is restricted within the framework of God's Word or administrative only. Indeed, it is the members of the church that choose and qualify those who will be in positions of leadership. The apostolic office was "foundational" and not enduring except through what they left as a permenant authoritative record - the New Testament Scriptures.

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.

Sorry but this line of logic does not work even in the New Testament record. The seven churches of Asia were obviously not supervised by any pope or any heirarchy like the Roman Catholic heirarchy. There was no unity between these churches as each had embraced false doctrines somewhat differently than the others. Christ and the Holy Spirit personally addressed each congregation separately from the other. John wrote by inspiration but claimed no personal authority over any of these churches. They were not in unity with each other or with Christ in many different areas of faith and practice.

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.

This is an absolute lie! One of the cardinal doctrines of all Baptist chuches is that the Scriptues are their final authority and so to say "there is no authority" is just plain false! The scriptures are the INSPIRED apostolic tradition passed down to each generation of churches through the practice of the great commission.

Each church has their OWN head of the church,

1 Cor. 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Here is a member in the body that is called the metaphorical "head" which is not Christ. Such are in the position of leadership over the body as designed by Christ. Each congregational body is complete with a metaphorical "head" or "authority" that leads the body under Jesus Christ.

.

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.

Like the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2-3). They were not united in all doctrine and practice and were individualized in many different aspects. However, in spite of all their differences they still possessed essential characteristics that Christ could still claim them as His churches even though many were in serious errors which if continued in would remove their candlestick.

None of these churches answered to any other nor were they all united in every doctrine but there were manifest differences. Hence, there was no obvious ROMAN CATHOLIC TYPE HIARCHY supervising them. John did not address them as their Pope but only as a FELLOW SERVANT writing under inspiration and authority of Jesus Christ.

What see in Revelation 2-3 is a glimpse of independent Baptist churches - some in grevious errors that contined in would be rejected by Christ as His churches and it is from some of these very erring churches that the system of Roman Catholicism developed in later centuries after centuries of corruption.

 

[Moriah]

Jesus says to obey his commands.

Those who obey his commands are the ones who love him.

I believe anyone who has the Spirit of God inside them, will read those words, and their heart and mind will be filled with joy.

Jesus says if you obey his teachings, he will reveal himself to you.

I do not know how Catholics can claim they know Jesus when they do not obey his teachings in so many ways.

I do not know how Catholics can do the opposite of what Jesus says.

Jesus says you will remain in his love if you obey his teachings.

No Catholic or friend of Catholics came on to tell us how they obey Jesus in the command call no man ‘father.’

They only came on to give excuses why they do not obey.

Paul never says to call him ‘father’. Paul never calls anyone ‘father’. No one is recorded in the Bible as calling him ‘father’. Paul says there are NOT many fathers in Christ; however, in the Catholic Church, there are MANY, there are thousands upon thousands. Paul was explaining to people that he is first and before them concerning Christ that is not equivalent to asking others to call you ‘father’.

It is not just a matter of tradition, because Jesus speaks against tradition. If you believe Jesus, then you will not want to nullify God’s word by tradition of men. Where is the fear of God anymore in people’s hearts, to act as if they could just make their own tradition and have others call them ‘father’?

God says to search for Him. God says the one who searches for Him will find him. I have searched for God and have found Him. I just want to share with others how to search for Him and find Him; and those who have found Him, I want to share how to know Him even better, for to understand is to have peace, that is what the Bible says, and it is true.

The Truth can be found, and it is no small matter! The Truth can be found, and it is found by getting Jesus’ teachings and obeying them, then watching how you are transformed.

 

[Matt Black]

Paul did not claim an office that would be addressed as "father" nor did he call upon his readers to address him as "father." Jesus has in mind such a spiritual position before men.



The context of Christ's prohibition was not parental or in the physical sense but in a spiritual sense and title of address.



That is simply silly! They already had the ten commandments which made that clear! Jesus is referring to a spiritual position over them as in the term "Rabbi" where they honor a man with such a title or address.



Not at all! Paul never called for his followers to address him as "father" and never claimed any spiritual position to be addressed as "father." He simply used an analogy to describe how God used to him instrumentally to bring them to salvation and as a NATURAL father to instruct them as dear children. Never did he or any other apostle call upon their followers to ever address them as "father."




All the apostles were EQUAL and NONE were popes for if one were a Pope then all would EQUALLY be Popes as they were all EQUALLY apostles holding the same EQUAL office. The office of Pope has no Biblical basis whatsoever and clearly violates the prohibition by Christ to call no man on earth "Father" in that spiritual sense or position.




Here is a fundemental misunderstanding of the design for the apostolic office. The office of apostle and New Testament prophets were only "foundational" (Eph. 2:20) because they were to furnish the church with the completion of the Biblical canon (Isa. 8:16-18) which would be the means the Holy Spirit, the continuing Advocate, Comforter would use to qualify bishops and deacons and maintain the church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:1-4:1; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Scripture would replace the apostolic office and scripture would be the final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21).

Rome usurped the Scripture by its heirarchy and traditions of men.



Peter was replaced by James who acted as the Pastor of the church at Jerusalem which allowed church sent and authorized delegates from the sister church at Antioch to attend and participate. The Holy Spirit was the final authority in this matter and James and the apostles and whole "church" at Jerusalem took part in the final decision.



I

Nowhere in Ephesians 4 does it say the "church" is to lead the people! The leaders IN the church are listed but their leadership authority is restricted within the framework of God's Word or administrative only. Indeed, it is the members of the church that choose and qualify those who will be in positions of leadership. The apostolic office was "foundational" and not enduring except through what they left as a permenant authoritative record - the New Testament Scriptures.





Sorry but this line of logic does not work even in the New Testament record. The seven churches of Asia were obviously not supervised by any pope or any heirarchy like the Roman Catholic heirarchy. There was no unity between these churches as each had embraced false doctrines somewhat differently than the others. Christ and the Holy Spirit personally addressed each congregation separately from the other. John wrote by inspiration but claimed no personal authority over any of these churches. They were not in unity with each other or with Christ in many different areas of faith and practice.





This is an absolute lie! One of the cardinal doctrines of all Baptist chuches is that the Scriptues are their final authority and so to say "there is no authority" is just plain false! The scriptures are the INSPIRED apostolic tradition passed down to each generation of churches through the practice of the great commission.



1 Cor. 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Here is a member in the body that is called the metaphorical "head" which is not Christ. Such are in the position of leadership over the body as designed by Christ. Each congregational body is complete with a metaphorical "head" or "authority" that leads the body under Jesus Christ.

.


Like the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2-3). They were not united in all doctrine and practice and were individualized in many different aspects. However, in spite of all their differences they still possessed essential characteristics that Christ could still claim them as His churches even though many were in serious errors which if continued in would remove their candlestick.

None of these churches answered to any other nor were they all united in every doctrine but there were manifest differences. Hence, there was no obvious ROMAN CATHOLIC TYPE HIARCHY supervising them. John did not address them as their Pope but only as a FELLOW SERVANT writing under inspiration and authority of Jesus Christ.

What see in Revelation 2-3 is a glimpse of independent Baptist churches - some in grevious errors that contined in would be rejected by Christ as His churches and it is from some of these very erring churches that the system of Roman Catholicism developed in later centuries after centuries of corruption.

Er...you're quoting Catalyst here, not me!

 

[Zenas]

Jesus said: “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell.” Mark 9:47. How many of you who object to calling elders of the church "Father" have only one eye because you plucked the other one out?

Jesus said: “When you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” Matthew 6:6. How many of you refuse to pray in church because it is done in public?

Jesus said: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.” Luke 9:23. How many of you carry a heavy piece of wood around with you all day long?

Unless you literally obey all these commandments, you have no standing to complain about Catholics and others using the title "Father" for their priests.

Jesus was a master of hyperbole and that was what He was doing when He said, "Call no man father." He meant that no man should be accorded the honor and respect that we give to God.

 

[Walter]

Jesus said: “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell.” Mark 9:47. How many of you who object to calling elders of the church "Father" have only one eye because you plucked the other one out?

Jesus said: “When you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” Matthew 6:6. How many of you refuse to pray in church because it is done in public?

Jesus said: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.” Luke 9:23. How many of you carry a heavy piece of wood around with you all day long?

Unless you literally obey all these commandments, you have no standing to complain about Catholics and others using the title "Father" for their priests.

Jesus was a master of hyperbole and that was what He was doing when He said, "Call no man father." He meant that no man should be accorded the honor and respect that we give to God.

NAILED IT!! :thumbsup:

 

[targus]

No Catholic or friend of Catholics came on to tell us how they obey Jesus in the command call no man ‘father.’

Like I pointed out early in the discussion...

For you to demand answers of Catholics on a Baptist forum where Catholics are not permitted to participate smacks of nothing better than gossip...

And probably much worse than simply gossip.

 

[Moriah]

Jesus said: “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell.” Mark 9:47. How many of you who object to calling elders of the church "Father" have only one eye because you plucked the other one out?

You come to this thread to make excuses why you do not obey Jesus.

Jesus says if your eye or hand causes you to sin then get rid of it. How about you stop sinning with those body parts and keep them? How about just stop calling your brothers in Christ ‘father.’

Jesus said: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.” Luke 9:23. How many of you carry a heavy piece of wood around with you all day long?

Is that supposed to be a serious question asking if we carry around a piece of wood all day?

Jesus was on earth. Those who followed him while Jesus was on earth would also be prosecuted to the extent of losing their life. That was the times then. It can still be dangerous like that in many places; however, many live in free societies to where you will not lose your life for what you teach.

Unless you literally obey all these commandments, you have no standing to complain about Catholics and others using the title "Father" for their priests.

Just say it that you do not and will not obey Jesus. Jesus says his commands are not burdensome.

How hard is it for you? Do not call any brother in Christ 'father'?

Jesus was a master of hyperbole and that was what He was doing when He said, "Call no man father." He meant that no man should be accorded the honor and respect that we give to God.

Stop saying Jesus spoke in hyperbole. Jesus did not speak in exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

You do not obey Jesus’ command not to call any brother ‘father.’ You think this is an exaggeration not to be taken literally!

Let it be known that a Catholic has explained why they do not obey Jesus in call no man ‘father’…it is because they do not believe Jesus really meant that!

It is the same thing Satan said to Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" Genesis 3:1.

Do you want to repeat what the crafty devil says?

 

[Zenas]

You come to this thread to make excuses why you do not obey Jesus.

Jesus says if your eye or hand causes you to sin then get rid of it. How about you stop sinning with those body parts and keep them? How about just stop calling your brothers in Christ ‘father.’


Is that supposed to be a serious question asking if we carry around a piece of wood all day?

Jesus was on earth. Those who followed him while Jesus was on earth would also be prosecuted to the extent of losing their life. That was the times then. It can still be dangerous like that in many places; however, many live in free societies to where you will not lose your life for what you teach.


Just say it that you do not and will not obey Jesus. Jesus says his commands are not burdensome.

How hard is it for you? Do not call any brother in Christ 'father'?


Stop saying Jesus spoke in hyperbole. Jesus did not speak in exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

You do not obey Jesus’ command not to call any brother ‘father.’ You think this is an exaggeration not to be taken literally!

Let it be known that a Catholic has explained why they do not obey Jesus in call no man ‘father’…it is because they do not believe Jesus really meant that!

It is the same thing Satan said to Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" Genesis 3:1.

Do you want to repeat what the crafty devil says?

Thanks, Moriah, for that enlightened commentary. I'm glad you got that off your chest. I notice you failed to comment on my use of Matthew 6:6. I would also remind you that if you intend to take Jesus literally you must believe in transubstantiation. See John 6.

 

[Moriah]

Thanks, Moriah, for that enlightened commentary. I'm glad you got that off your chest. I notice you failed to comment on my use of Matthew 6:6. I would also remind you that if you intend to take Jesus literally you must believe in transubstantiation. See John 6.

I do not pray personally to God about myself in public, I do that privately, as God says to.

Now, stop acting as if you speak about everything everyone here ever brings up when you reply and never miss a question.

As for transubstantiation, Jesus is not a loaf of bread, but his words do feed us, and they are life. So obey Jesus’ words, it is as if you are eating Jesus when you obey.

 

[targus]

So obey Jesus’ words, it is as if you are eating Jesus when you obey.

Ok - this is a very odd expression.

"Johhny, obey your mother's words - it is if you are eating her when you obey."

Whaaaa?

 

[Moriah]

Zena,

Since you are determined for me to answer all that you bring up in a discussion, why do you not answer and reply to this question I gave you?


Let it be known that a Catholic has explained why they do not obey Jesus in call no man ‘father’…it is because they do not believe Jesus really meant that!

It is the same thing Satan said to Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" Genesis 3:1.

Do you want to repeat what the crafty devil says?

Thanks, Moriah, for that enlightened commentary. I'm glad you got that off your chest. I notice you failed to comment on my use of Matthew 6:6. I would also remind you that if you intend to take Jesus literally you must believe in transubstantiation. See John 6.

 

[Moriah]

Ok - this is a very odd expression.

"Johhny, obey your mother's words - it is if you are eating her when you obey."

Whaaaa?

Is your mother God?

 

[targus]

Is your mother God?

So words have a different meaning when applied to God?

You just make stuff up and attempt to present nonsense and meaningful.

Like saying that Stephen calling the high priests "father" was because the high priests must have been "sombody's" father.

Is this how you evangelize?

How would a non-Christian have a clue of what you are talking about when you attempt to give words bizzare and unique meanings to try to prove your point?

 

[Moriah]

So words have a different meaning when applied to God?

You just make stuff up and attempt to present nonsense and meaningful.

Like saying that Stephen calling the high priests "father" was because the high priests must have been "sombody's" father.

Is this how you evangelize?

How would a non-Christian have a clue of what you are talking about when you attempt to give words bizzare and unique meanings to try to prove your point?

You are the one who wants to give glory to your priests, claiming they are the ones who have the power to turn wafers into the real body of Jesus.

Believing in Jesus is drinking obeying Jesus is eating. If you obey Jesus, you will become more, and more like Christ; in fact, it will be Christ living in you.

When Jesus told some people, that the devil was their father, do you think those people had a ritual to where they thought they were turning some food into the real presence of the devil, and then eating it? NO! Those people were children of the devil because they do what he, the devil does.

John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Again, Jesus is the bread of life, when you obey Jesus you are eating from Jesus.

That also shows people that we are to BELIEVE AND OBEY.