PDA

View Full Version : calling Pope Father.. Jesus used term "Father Abraham"



Pages : [1] 2

republicanchick
September 26th, 2015, 02:49 PM
Why the big deal over...

again: WORDS.

The liberals are into words (as opposed to substance.. as opposed to ACTION against the evils in the world)

example: "racist!" (every time conservative persons says something liberal doesn't like..)

etc

The anti-Catholics make a HUGE deal out of .. words

namely: calling the Pope Father..

but Jesus used term "Father Abraham" in a parable

and there are other instances in the Bible of "mere men" being called Father b/c they had authority..

In the end, words are just words... True, words have some level of power (depending...) but Come on... Let's attack some REAL problems..



_

chair
September 26th, 2015, 09:47 PM
I don't know what you are referring to, but you may find it interesting that we, till this day, refer to Abraham as "Our father Abraham". Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are called "the Fathers". Sometimes Jacob is referred to as "Grandfather Jacob" (I don't know why).

CabinetMaker
September 26th, 2015, 10:15 PM
Why the big deal over...

again: WORDS.

The liberals are into words (as opposed to substance.. as opposed to ACTION against the evils in the world)

example: "racist!" (every time conservative persons says something liberal doesn't like..)

etc

The anti-Catholics make a HUGE deal out of .. words

namely: calling the Pope Father..

but Jesus used term "Father Abraham" in a parable

and there are other instances in the Bible of "mere men" being called Father b/c they had authority..

In the end, words are just words... True, words have some level of power (depending...) but Come on... Let's attack some REAL problems..



_

Jesus used words to communicate with us. Given that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, do you really think it wise to ignore His words?

OCTOBER23
September 26th, 2015, 10:18 PM
ABRAHAM IS OUR PHYSICAL FATHER BUT THE POPE IS NOT....

Don't call anyone RABBI - TEACHER because you have one Teacher Christ

Don't call anyone Father because you have one Father in Heaven.

Don't call anyone POPE - father because

you are NOT SUPPOSED TO WORSHIP A MAN ON EARTH TODAY.

Cruciform
September 26th, 2015, 10:25 PM
Jesus used words to communicate with us. Given that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, do you really think it wise to ignore His words?
Jesus used words to communicate with us. Given that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, do you really think it wise to deliberately misinterpret and misapply His words? :think:

See this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

OCTOBER23
September 26th, 2015, 10:34 PM
CRUCIFORM IS RIGHT,

Jesus was making the point that God the Father is the ultimate source of all authority.

He said this during the course of rebuking the Pharisees for spiritual pride (Mt 23:2-10).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS was making the point that we should not follow those in Authority who do NOT

Obey God but only make a show of supposed Righteousness just like the Catholics

while at the same time breaking the LAW and statutes.

Catholic example:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,

both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;

their blood shall be upon them.

Nick M
September 26th, 2015, 10:42 PM
I don't know what you are referring to, but you may find it interesting that we, till this day, refer to Abraham as "Our father Abraham". Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are called "the Fathers". Sometimes Jacob is referred to as "Grandfather Jacob" (I don't know why).

Our point is that the Pope is not a representative of God and he is nobody's father in the way the RCC means it. That is why she is complaining.

chair
September 27th, 2015, 01:01 AM
Our point is that the Pope is not a representative of God and he is nobody's father in the way the RCC means it. That is why she is complaining.

Oh, I wouldn't attach too much importance to titles of this sort.

Cruciform
September 27th, 2015, 12:57 PM
Our point is that the Pope is not a representative of God and he is nobody's father in the way the RCC means it.
...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

God's Truth
September 27th, 2015, 01:01 PM
Why the big deal over...

again: WORDS.

The liberals are into words (as opposed to substance.. as opposed to ACTION against the evils in the world)

example: "racist!" (every time conservative persons says something liberal doesn't like..)

etc

The anti-Catholics make a HUGE deal out of .. words

namely: calling the Pope Father..

but Jesus used term "Father Abraham" in a parable

and there are other instances in the Bible of "mere men" being called Father b/c they had authority..

In the end, words are just words... True, words have some level of power (depending...) but Come on... Let's attack some REAL problems..



_

Jesus IS THE WORD.

Don't you understand that is important?

God's Truth
September 27th, 2015, 01:05 PM
Words are important.

Jesus IS the Word of God.

That means what Jesus says is life.

Jesus says we are to do certain things, and that we are not to do certain things...

That is Spirit and life.

You have to obey exactly what Jesus says. If you do not, then you are subtracting from God's words. If you add, then you are adding to God's Word. Both those things are sin.

Nick M
September 27th, 2015, 04:53 PM
according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic

The apostle Paul speaks on authority from the Lord Jesus Christ. You blaspheme our Lord with your idiot comments.

Cruciform
September 27th, 2015, 04:59 PM
The apostle Paul speaks on authority from the Lord Jesus Christ. You blaspheme our Lord with your idiot comments.
Already answered (Post #9).

CabinetMaker
September 27th, 2015, 06:49 PM
Jesus used words to communicate with us. Given that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, do you really think it wise to deliberately misinterpret and misapply His words? :think:

See this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
I leave the misinterpretation to your sect of Christianity. They are the only ones to whom no actually means yes.

kayaker
September 27th, 2015, 08:08 PM
Our point is that the Pope is not a representative of God and he is nobody's father in the way the RCC means it. That is why she is complaining.

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?

Cruciform
September 27th, 2015, 09:44 PM
I leave the misinterpretation...
Unfortunately, since your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is decidedly not that one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) founded by Jesus Christ himself---and whose opinions therefore carry no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever---it's opinion about what is and is not a "misinterpretation" likewise carries no weight at all.


...to your sect of Christianity.
You've already been categorically refuted on this claim on another thread. Here, I'll post it again:

CM apparently cannot mentally grasp the fact that the Catholic Church is neither "man-made" (since, having been founded by Jesus Christ himself, it was not established by any mere man), nor a "sect" (since, as the original Church founded by Jesus Christ, it cannot possibly have broken away from any prior church). Thus, CM's terminology here is fundamentally irrational and essentially meaningless, somewhat like referring to a "married bachelor" or a "purple idea."


Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2015, 07:11 AM
Unfortunately, since your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is decidedly not that one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) founded by Jesus Christ himself---and whose opinions therefore carry no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever---it's opinion about what is and is not a "misinterpretation" likewise carries no weight at all.


You've already been categorically refuted on this claim on another thread. Here, I'll post it again:

CM apparently cannot mentally grasp the fact that the Catholic Church is neither "man-made" (since, having been founded by Jesus Christ himself, it was not established by any mere man), nor a "sect" (since, as the original Church founded by Jesus Christ, it cannot possibly have broken away from any prior church). Thus, CM's terminology here is fundamentally irrational and essentially meaningless, somewhat like referring to a "married bachelor" or a "purple idea."


Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Based on your response I now that you do not dispute that the RCC willingly interprets scripture such that no means yes. Thank you for your honesty.

Cruciform
September 28th, 2015, 01:18 PM
Based on your response I now that you do not dispute that the RCC willingly interprets scripture such that no means yes.
Straw Man Fallacy.

Back to Post #16. My statements stand exactly as posted.

Bright Raven
September 28th, 2015, 01:56 PM
Matthew 23:9 New King James Version (NKJV)

9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Cruciform
September 28th, 2015, 02:01 PM
Matthew 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Addressed here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2015, 02:09 PM
Straw Man Fallacy.

Back to Post #16. My statements stand exactly as posted.
Really? God says do not bow before a statue. Do Catholics bow before any statue for any reason?

Jesus says call no man Father for you only have one Father. Do Catholics call any man father based solely on that mans position within the RCC?

If you cannot say unequivocally no to either of those question I have not created a straw man.

Cruciform
September 28th, 2015, 02:19 PM
Really? God says do not bow before a statue. Do Catholics bow before any statue for any reason?
Answered here (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues).


Jesus says call no man Father for you only have one Father. Do Catholics call any man father based solely on that mans position within the RCC?
Answered here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2015, 02:21 PM
Answered here (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues).


Answered here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
So, in RCC tradition, when God says no, He really means yes. {Your links are nothing but equivocation. You cannot justify that which is unjustifiable.}

Cruciform
September 28th, 2015, 02:36 PM
So, in RCC tradition, when God says no, He really means yes.
In this case, it is "yes" under certain specific circumstances, and "no" under others. No doubt, however, it is just easier---and involves less actual thinking---for you to simply ignore the literary context altogether.

I suggest you enroll in a Remedial Literacy class immediately.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cedarbay
September 28th, 2015, 02:43 PM
Addressed here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

You have no legitimate biblical basis for calling these men, father. Why not be satisfied with, Pastor, for that is the true calling of a man of the cloth?

Plus, the picture gave me the CREEPS.

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2015, 02:50 PM
In this case, it is "yes" under certain specific circumstances, and "no" under others. No doubt, however, it is just easier---and involves less actual thinking---for you to simply ignore the literary context altogether.

I suggest you enroll in a Remedial Literacy class immediately.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
I don't know how much clearer God or Jesus could have said it.

Exodus 20:4-5 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Matthew 23:9 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Tell me, If your Dad had told you that you shall not go to a party and you went anyway reasoning that your Dad didn't mean that specific party, would he have been pleased with you going?

Cruciform
September 28th, 2015, 03:14 PM
I don't know how much clearer God or Jesus could have said it.
Post #22

Cruciform
September 28th, 2015, 03:16 PM
You have no legitimate biblical basis for calling these men, father.
Already answered in the very post to which you're responding (#20).

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2015, 04:52 PM
Post #22

Tell me, If your Dad had told you that you shall not go to a party and you went anyway reasoning that your Dad didn't mean that specific party, would he have been pleased with you going?

oatmeal
September 28th, 2015, 05:49 PM
Why the big deal over...

again: WORDS.

The liberals are into words (as opposed to substance.. as opposed to ACTION against the evils in the world)

example: "racist!" (every time conservative persons says something liberal doesn't like..)

etc

The anti-Catholics make a HUGE deal out of .. words

namely: calling the Pope Father..

but Jesus used term "Father Abraham" in a parable

and there are other instances in the Bible of "mere men" being called Father b/c they had authority..

In the end, words are just words... True, words have some level of power (depending...) but Come on... Let's attack some REAL problems..



_

Abraham was literally a father of several children

Which priests, bishops, cardinals and popes are literally fathers of children? Which ones are publicly declaring that?

God's Truth
September 28th, 2015, 09:10 PM
Abraham was literally a father of several children

Which priests, bishops, cardinals and popes are literally fathers of children? Which ones are publicly declaring that?

That is an excellent point. All the Jews were blood related to their father Abraham.

Cruciform
September 28th, 2015, 09:32 PM
Tell me, If your Dad had told you that you shall not go to a party and you went anyway reasoning that your Dad didn't mean that specific party, would he have been pleased with you going?
Post #24

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2015, 07:12 AM
Post #24

You didn't answer my question in that post. Is there a particular reason you don't want to discuss doing something your dad told you not to do?

SaulToPaul
September 29th, 2015, 12:48 PM
Why the big deal over...

again: WORDS.



Matthew 12:37 (KJV)

Cruciform
September 29th, 2015, 02:29 PM
You didn't answer my question in that post. Is there a particular reason you don't want to discuss doing something your dad told you not to do?
Your attempted False Analogy requires no response, and may simply be ignored. Try again.

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2015, 03:13 PM
Your attempted False Analogy requires no response, and may simply be ignored. Try again.

What is false about it? God said not to do something but you do it anyway. I just want to know if your Dad would be okay with you doing something he had specifically said not to do. I'm wondering if you'd be equally comfortable ignoring your Dad as you are ignoring God.

Cruciform
September 29th, 2015, 03:30 PM
What is false about it?
It allows for no more context than does the single isolated verse you like to yank out of its immediate---not to mention broader canonical---context and try to apply as some sort of universal linguistic formula. Matthew 23:9 is contained within an overall literary and doctrinal context that you mindlessly insist on utterly ignoring, a sure indication of a fundamental biblical illiteracy as well as a basic doctrinal immaturity on your part.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2015, 04:05 PM
It allows for no more context than does the single isolated verse you like to yank out of its immediate---not to mention broader canonical---context and try to apply as some sort of universal linguistic formula. Matthew 23:9 is contained within an overall literary and doctrinal context that you mindlessly insist on utterly ignoring, a sure indication of a fundamental biblical illiteracy as well as a basic doctrinal immaturity on your part.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I quoted all scripture on context and provided the appropriate cites.

Contextually, the are very similar. Both your Dad and God are authority figures in your life, albeit at different times. It's a fairly simple question, why do you work so hard to avoid answering it?

I'll answer it. If my Dad said don't go to a party and I went, I would be in big trouble. It would not matter who told me it was okay with my Dad to go, I disobeyed him and I would have been punished.

Cruciform
September 29th, 2015, 04:30 PM
I quoted all scripture on context...
In fact, you have thus far utterly ignored the broader---especially the canonical---context of Matthew 23:9, as is glaringly revealed here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Dona Bate
September 29th, 2015, 05:54 PM
Really? God says do not bow before a statue. Do Catholics bow before any statue for any reason? [/QOUTE]I've seen many many Protestant and Catholics bowing before statues... Mostly doing their gardening while sometimes praying for the weather to hold. But that's ok nobody in their right mind would ever accuse anybody of worshiping those little garden gnomes.


[QUOTE=CabinetMaker;4469461]Jesus says call no man Father for you only have one Father.Were you ever the biological contributor to the creation of baby?

If so, on your childrens birth certificate what name did you enter under 'Father's Name'?


God Bless!

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2015, 06:16 PM
In fact, you have thus far utterly ignored the broader---especially the canonical---context of Matthew 23:9, as is glaringly revealed here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Catholic propaganda does not address the issue. In fact, your link goes to great lengths to alter the true context of scripture.

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2015, 06:25 PM
I've seen many many Protestant and Catholics bowing before statues... Mostly doing their gardening while sometimes praying for the weather to hold. But that's ok nobody in their right mind would ever accuse anybody of worshiping those little garden gnomes.
Garden gnomes. You are going to argue that kneeling in front of a garden gnome while you pull weeds or turn soil is synomomus to kneeling in front of a statue of Mary with hands folded and reciting the Hale Mary. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths a Catholic will go to to justify that which cannot be justified.


Were you ever the biological contributor to the creation of baby?

If so, on your childrens birth certificate what name did you enter under 'Father's Name'?


God Bless!
In context, pay attention now Cruciform, we are not call spiritual leaders and teachers father. God has reserved that use of the word exclusively for Himself. We can call our biological fathers father. We can call Abraham father because he fathered a nation. We can say that Edison was the father of the electric light. But if call our pastor or any other church leader father we are doing exactly what God said not to do.

Cruciform
September 29th, 2015, 09:57 PM
Catholic propaganda does not address the issue.
No doubt you prefer the anti-Catholic propaganda of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


In fact, your link goes to great lengths to alter the true context of scripture.
...according to the mere opinion of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which---as you have already publicly admitted---possesses no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever.


Back to Post #39.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2015, 10:20 PM
No doubt you prefer the anti-Catholic propaganda of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. Given that I have only quoted scripture, I find it sad that consider God's Word to be propaganda.



...according to the mere opinion of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which---as you have already publicly admitted---possesses no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever.


Back to Post #39. see posts 41 and 42



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Given that I have only quoted scripture, I find it sad that consider God's Word to posses no binding authority.

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2015, 10:26 PM
In fact, you have thus far utterly ignored the broader---especially the canonical---context of Matthew 23:9, as is glaringly revealed here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
By the way Cruc, keeping text in context means including the entire passage as I have done. Your link picks and chooses other versus from scripture to change the meaning of a verse they have taken out of its original context. Your link is a prime example of how not to interpret scripture.

God's Truth
September 30th, 2015, 12:35 PM
No doubt you prefer the anti-Catholic propaganda of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


...according to the mere opinion of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which---as you have already publicly admitted---possesses no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever.


Back to Post #39.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform,

Jesus says call no man 'father', and that we are brothers in Christ.

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

Now tell me how you obey.

Cruciform
September 30th, 2015, 05:38 PM
Given that I have only quoted scripture...
Specifically, you quoted a single isolated verse pulled out of its literary and canonical context and tried to apply it against a particular Catholic practice, a tactic which appears to work only so long as you carefully and utterly ignore and avoid the overall context of the passage.


...I find it sad that consider God's Word to be propaganda.
Once again, you conveniently mistake your carefully-crafted non-contextual interpretation/application of a single isolated verse with "God's Word" ITSELF. Don't bother.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
September 30th, 2015, 05:50 PM
Your link picks and chooses other versus from scripture to change the meaning of a verse they have taken out of its original context. Your link is a prime example of how not to interpret scripture.
You apparently know as much about biblical exegesis as you do about what Catholics actually believe and teach, which is why your attempted application of Matthew 23:9 is categorically incorrect. Appealing to the rest of the relevant biblical data in order to properly understand a particular contextual passage is known as acknowledging the Canonical Meaning of Scripture, something that even a beginning Bible student ought to know. Tellingly, the only way that you can cling to your glaringly fumbled (mis)interpretation of Matthew 23:9 is to carefully avoid and mindlessly ignore the Canonical Meaning of Scripture---not to mention the immediate context of the very verse under discussion. Thus, it is your mangling of the biblical text which is "a prime example of how not to interpret Scripture." Try again.


Back to this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
September 30th, 2015, 05:56 PM
Jesus says call no man 'father', and that we are brothers in Christ. I obey Jesus by not calling any brother in Christ 'father'. Now tell me how you obey.
I obey by first accurately understanding what it is that Jesus intends to say in Matthew 23:9, and then following his instructions perceived in their proper context, which is explained here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

OCTOBER23
September 30th, 2015, 06:20 PM
Any bets on the Date when Cruciform will admit that he is in the wrong Religion ?

God's Truth
September 30th, 2015, 06:28 PM
I obey by first accurately understanding what it is that Jesus intends to say in Matthew 23:9, and then following his instructions perceived in their proper context, which is explained here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

Jesus says call no man 'father', and that we are brothers in Christ. I obey Jesus by not calling any brother in Christ 'father'. Now tell me how you obey.

Cruciform
September 30th, 2015, 10:13 PM
Jesus says call no man 'father', and that we are brothers in Christ. I obey Jesus by not calling any brother in Christ 'father'. Now tell me how you obey.
Already decisively answered (Post #49).

God's Truth
October 1st, 2015, 03:07 PM
Already decisively answered (Post #49).

Answer the posts here.

Cruciform
October 1st, 2015, 03:11 PM
Answer the posts here.
Post #52

CabinetMaker
October 1st, 2015, 03:28 PM
Specifically, you quoted a single isolated verse pulled out of its literary and canonical context and tried to apply it against a particular Catholic practice, a tactic which appears to work only so long as you carefully and utterly ignore and avoid the overall context of the passage.This is a false statement by you. I have quoted both verses and I have quoted them with in the original context in which they were offered. Several times. Your just lying.



Once again, you conveniently mistake your carefully-crafted non-contextual interpretation/application of a single isolated verse with "God's Word" ITSELF. Don't bother.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
There is nothing carefully crafted in my response. Observe:

Here is the context of Exodus 20:4-5

The Ten Commandments

20 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2055a)] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
How did I take the verse out of context? God said it as part of the Ten Commandments.


Here is the full context for Matthew 23


Matthew 23New International Version (NIV)

A Warning Against Hypocrisy

23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+23&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23924a)] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Again, how did I take the verse out of context? This is Jesus speaking directly to people. I posted the scripture and let it stand for itself.

On the other hand, your link (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father), pulls 17 distinct and sgingle verses out out of context to attempt to make Matthew 23:9 say something else. All but one of your verses are from different chapters and completely different books.

I post scripture as scripture and you say I am taking it out of context. You post 17 distinctly different versus to change the meaning of one verse and have the audacity to accuse me of taking things out of context.

CabinetMaker
October 1st, 2015, 03:30 PM
All I can really do to make your post clear is edit it a bit. Then all becomes clear.

You apparently know as much about biblical exegesis as you do about what Catholics actually believe and teach, which is why your attempted application of Matthew 23:9 is categorically incorrect. Appealing to the rest of the relevant biblical data in order to properly understand a particular contextual passage is known as acknowledging the Catholic Meaning of Scripture, something that even a beginning Bible student ought to know. Tellingly, the only way that you can cling to your glaringly fumbled (mis)interpretation of Matthew 23:9 is to carefully avoid and mindlessly ignore the Catholic Meaning of Scripture---not to mention the immediate context of the very verse under discussion. Thus, it is your mangling of the biblical text which is "a prime example of how not to interpret Scripture." Try again.


Back to this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
As demonstrated in the post above, Catholic exegesis is pathetic.

Cruciform
October 1st, 2015, 05:03 PM
This is a false statement by you. I have quoted both verses and I have quoted them with in the original context in which they were offered. Several times. Your just lying.
Seriously, do you have some type of learning disability? With any biblical interpretation, one must conform to the Canonical Context---that is, that of Scripture as a whole---when interpreting any particular text or passage. Any proposed interpretation must properly account for ALL of the related biblical data on the subject under discussion, not just certain select portions of it. This is 'Biblical Exegesis 101'. Your interpretations inevitably fail to fulfill this requirement, not to mention your failure to account for the immediate literary context itself. So much for my supposed "lying."


There is nothing carefully crafted in my response.
You said it.


...Exodus 20:4-5...Mt. 23:9...
Again, your recently-invented, man-made sect's interpretation/application of these texts utterly fails to account for the Canonical Context of Scripture, not to mention their immediate literary context.


All but one of your verses are from different chapters and completely different books.
Again: Canonical Context. :doh:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
October 1st, 2015, 05:13 PM
All I can really do to make your post clear is edit it a bit. Then all becomes clear.
Given that the Catholic Church is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)---and which therefore possesses the very binding doctrinal authority of Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15)---the "Catholic Meaning" and the "Canonical Meaning" of Scripture are identical---to have the one is likewise to have the other. (Not so, of course, with your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which possesses no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever.)


As demonstrated in the post above, Catholic exegesis is pathetic.
Already answered above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

MortSullivan
October 1st, 2015, 05:21 PM
Why the big deal over...

again: WORDS.

The liberals are into words (as opposed to substance.. as opposed to ACTION against the evils in the world)

example: "racist!" (every time conservative persons says something liberal doesn't like..)

etc

The anti-Catholics make a HUGE deal out of .. words

namely: calling the Pope Father..

but Jesus used term "Father Abraham" in a parable

and there are other instances in the Bible of "mere men" being called Father b/c they had authority..

In the end, words are just words... True, words have some level of power (depending...) but Come on... Let's attack some REAL problems..

_

By calling someone "father" or "papa" the ancients were willingly subjugating themselves to the person. Elevating that person to a point of near reverence.

Catholics' worship of the Pope (papa) is the epitome of why Jesus was saying NOT to do that.


Do I need to freak out about it? No. But words do have meaning, and those meanings drive us to action.

Cruciform
October 1st, 2015, 05:40 PM
Catholics' worship of the Pope (papa) is the epitome of why Jesus was saying NOT to do that.
Catholics in no way "worship" the pope, Mary, or any past Saint. We worship God alone.

See this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

MortSullivan
October 1st, 2015, 05:56 PM
Catholics in no way "worship" the pope, Mary, or any past Saint. We worship God alone.

See this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).
No, actually you don't.

For Catholics, the words of the Pope carry more weight than the words of Jesus. The decisions of the Papacy carry more weight than the Bible itself. You bow down to and pray to statues and graven images - including those of Mary. Your liturgies resemble pagan rituals far more closely than anything Jesus said or did.

Congratulations.

Cruciform
October 1st, 2015, 06:07 PM
No, actually you don't.
Please post your proof for the claim that Catholics somehow "worship" the pope.


For Catholics, the words of the Pope carry more weight than the words of Jesus.
A straightforwardly false statement.


The decisions of the Papacy carry more weight than the Bible itself.
Another flatly false statement.


You bow down to and pray to statues and graven images...
Again, false.


Your liturgies resemble pagan rituals far more closely than anything Jesus said or did.
You've been badly misinformed. The Catholic liturgy today is remarkably similar to the manner in which the early Christian Church worshiped, and is taken almost verbatim from the Scriptures.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

aikido7
October 1st, 2015, 06:08 PM
Jesus also said to "call no one on earth your father."
This would certainly cohere to his question "Why do you call me good? Only God is good."
And to his words "Who called me a judge, friend?"

Cruciform
October 1st, 2015, 06:11 PM
Jesus also said to "call no one on earth your father."
Addressed in detail here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

aikido7
October 1st, 2015, 06:16 PM
Addressed in detail here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).Thanks for the reference.

Given the fact that every human being on the planet who has faith in a religion, I prefer not to use the categories of "right or wrong." It makes more sense to me to say "similar or different." To anyone who was born into a family of faith, their own theology will be seen as "right" in their own eyes.

I feel I have to respect their choice. I am not here to change anyone's mind or prove that I am right. I only pass along information I have learned from decades of study and commitment to the teachings of Jesus. The reader should make their own best choice after reading anything I write.

Dona Bate
October 1st, 2015, 07:03 PM
Garden gnomes. You are going to argue that kneeling in front of a garden gnome while you pull weeds or turn soil is synomomus to kneeling in front of a statue of Mary with hands folded and reciting the Hale Mary. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths a Catholic will go to to justify that which cannot be justified.So in essence what you are saying is that it's ok to pray kneeling in front of a statue of a garden gnome while doing the gardening. But not ok to kneel and pray in front of a statue of the Blessed Mary. Nor anything that is remotely Catholic no doubt.

The root of your problem CM appears to be your anti Catholic sectarianism gone mad.*



In context, pay attention now Cruciform, we are not call spiritual leaders and teachers father. God has reserved that use of the word exclusively for Himself. We can call our biological fathers father. We can call Abraham father because he fathered a nation. We can say that Edison was the father of the electric light. But if call our pastor or any other church leader father we are doing exactly what God said not to do.CM wishes to contend that our apostle St. Paul who is called by God "your father through the gospel" in 1 Corinthians 4:15 was doing what 'God said not to do'. Unbelievable!


St. Paul is an*appointed "preacher, apostle and teacher" of the Lord God in*2 Timothy 1:11. But*according to CM's erroneous understanding of scripture: St. Paul 'is not to be called father'?

Here is CM's reasoning behind that statement..

'we are not call spiritual leaders and teachers father. God has reserved that use of the word exclusively for Himself'.*

RUBBISH!

Scripture makes rubbish of CM's claims in 1 Corinthians 4:15*"I am your father through the gospel" Gods word confirms for us that our Church teachers and leaders ARE to be called "father".


In the light of scripture that clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that CM's understanding of "call no man on earth your father" in Matthew 23:9 is woefully wrong, we should give CM a chance to retract his erroneous statements.


Please confirm your answers to the following 3 questions CM with either a Yes or No answer.

1.Do you accept the word of God when He says of St. Paul "I am your father through the gospel" in*1 Corinthians 4:15. Yes or No?

2.Do you accept that you were wrong when you stated:*'we are not call spiritual leaders and teachers father. God has reserved that use of the word exclusively for Himself'. Yes or No?

3.Do you also accept that you are wrong to state: 'But if call our pastor or any other church leader father we are doing exactly what God said not to do'. Yes or No?

Jesus is obviously making a hyperbolic point with “call no man on earth your father” (Matthew 23:9) to let us all know that we only have one Heavenly Father. We can have many fathers but we only have one Father who is the Father of us all "Our" Father.

God Bless!

CabinetMaker
October 1st, 2015, 07:47 PM
Seriously, do you have some type of learning disability? With any biblical interpretation, one must conform to the Canonical Context---that is, that of Scripture as a whole---when interpreting any particular text or passage. Any proposed interpretation must properly account for ALL of the related biblical data on the subject under discussion, not just certain select portions of it. This is 'Biblical Exegesis 101'. Your interpretations inevitably fail to fulfill this requirement, not to mention your failure to account for the immediate literary context itself. So much for my supposed "lying."


You said it.


Again, your recently-invented, man-made sect's interpretation/application of these texts utterly fails to account for the Canonical Context of Scripture, not to mention their immediate literary context.


Again: Canonical Context. :doh:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Canonical context is just another way to say Catholic agenda.

Cruciform
October 1st, 2015, 09:27 PM
Canonical context is just another way to say Catholic agenda.
Accounting for the Canonical Context of a passage is one of the fundamental principles of biblical hermeneutics, whether Catholic or Protestant. I first learned about it as an Evangelical Protestant in a Protestant university course on Hermeneutics. It appears that you don't even know how to correctly go about interpreting the Bible, but here you are presuming to post your clearly uninformed opinion on the matter. Given such basic ignorance on your part, you simply cannot be taken seriously, and neither can your personal interpretations.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

God's Truth
October 2nd, 2015, 06:55 AM
So in essence what you are saying is that it's ok to pray kneeling in front of a statue of a garden gnome while doing the gardening. But not ok to kneel and pray in front of a statue of the Blessed Mary. Nor anything that is remotely Catholic no doubt.

The root of your problem CM appears to be your anti Catholic sectarianism gone mad.*

God says do not bow before the works of your hands.

Leviticus 26:1"'You must not make for yourselves idols, so you must not set up for yourselves a carved image or a pillar, and you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down before it, for I am the LORD your God.

No longer bow down to the work of your hands (see Micah 5:13)


The Catholics BOW in front of the statues that they made with their hands.





CM wishes to contend that our apostle St. Paul who is called by God "your father through the gospel" in 1 Corinthians 4:15 was doing what 'God said not to do'. Unbelievable!

Paul never told anyone to call him 'father'.




St. Paul is an*appointed "preacher, apostle and teacher" of the Lord God in*2 Timothy 1:11. But*according to CM's erroneous understanding of scripture: St. Paul 'is not to be called father'?

Here is CM's reasoning behind that statement..

'we are not call spiritual leaders and teachers father. God has reserved that use of the word exclusively for Himself'.*

RUBBISH!

Scripture makes rubbish of CM's claims in 1 Corinthians 4:15*"I am your father through the gospel" Gods word confirms for us that our Church teachers and leaders ARE to be called "father".


In the light of scripture that clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that CM's understanding of "call no man on earth your father" in Matthew 23:9 is woefully wrong, we should give CM a chance to retract his erroneous statements.


Please confirm your answers to the following 3 questions CM with either a Yes or No answer.

1.Do you accept the word of God when He says of St. Paul "I am your father through the gospel" in*1 Corinthians 4:15. Yes or No?

2.Do you accept that you were wrong when you stated:*'we are not call spiritual leaders and teachers father. God has reserved that use of the word exclusively for Himself'. Yes or No?

3.Do you also accept that you are wrong to state: 'But if call our pastor or any other church leader father we are doing exactly what God said not to do'. Yes or No?

Jesus is obviously making a hyperbolic point with “call no man on earth your father” (Matthew 23:9) to let us all know that we only have one Heavenly Father. We can have many fathers but we only have one Father who is the Father of us all "Our" Father.

God Bless!

Jesus was NOT making a hyperbolic point. Jesus' teachings are meant to be obeyed.

CabinetMaker
October 2nd, 2015, 07:21 AM
Accounting for the Canonical Context of a passage is one of the fundamental principles of biblical hermeneutics, whether Catholic or Protestant. I first learned about it as an Evangelical Protestant in a Protestant university course on Hermeneutics. It appears that you don't even know how to correctly go about interpreting the Bible, but here you are presuming to post your clearly uninformed opinion on the matter. Given such basic ignorance on your part, you simply cannot be taken seriously, and neither can your personal interpretations.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I know the catholics do it poorly, on par with prosperity gospel preachers. Both groups twist and torture scripture top suit their own goals instead of God's.

CabinetMaker
October 2nd, 2015, 08:36 AM
So in essence what you are saying is that it's ok to pray kneeling in front of a statue of a garden gnome while doing the gardening. But not ok to kneel and pray in front of a statue of the Blessed Mary. Nor anything that is remotely Catholic no doubt.No, I never said nor implied that. That is a straw man you are attempting to create as it is easier to argue against than what I actually said. Kneeling in your garden while gardening, regardless of what statues you have in your garden, is not bowing and praying before a statue (unless you actually stop and bow and pray before a statue), its gardening.


The root of your problem CM appears to be your anti Catholic sectarianism gone mad.*What exactly do you mean by anti-Catholic? I have issues with Catholic doctrines and traditions but the people are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

For the record, I am not a MADist. I am what is considered a Conversationalist.



CM wishes to contend that our apostle St. Paul who is called by God "your father through the gospel" in 1 Corinthians 4:15 was doing what 'God said not to do'. Unbelievable!Paul, chosen and anointed by Christ, was given special privilege. As priests and popes are not chosen in the same way that Saul was, I am more inclined to follow what Jesus taught than trying to justify a tradition that cannot be justified.



St. Paul is an*appointed "preacher, apostle and teacher" of the Lord God in*2 Timothy 1:11. But*according to CM's erroneous understanding of scripture: St. Paul 'is not to be called father'?

Here is CM's reasoning behind that statement..

'we are not call spiritual leaders and teachers father. God has reserved that use of the word exclusively for Himself'.*

RUBBISH!

Scripture makes rubbish of CM's claims in 1 Corinthians 4:15*"I am your father through the gospel" Gods word confirms for us that our Church teachers and leaders ARE to be called "father".


In the light of scripture that clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that CM's understanding of "call no man on earth your father" in Matthew 23:9 is woefully wrong, we should give CM a chance to retract his erroneous statements.
You seem to be forgetting this scripture as taught by Jesus Himself:

Matthew 23:8-12New International Version (NIV)

8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.



Please confirm your answers to the following 3 questions CM with either a Yes or No answer.

1.Do you accept the word of God when He says of St. Paul "I am your father through the gospel" in*1 Corinthians 4:15. Yes or No?I think Paul was in error. It would not be the first time an Apostle made an error. Ask Peter about that.


2.Do you accept that you were wrong when you stated:*'we are not call spiritual leaders and teachers father. God has reserved that use of the word exclusively for Himself'. Yes or No?Given that Jesus clearly and plainly states we are to call no man father, no, I am not wrong.


3.Do you also accept that you are wrong to state: 'But if call our pastor or any other church leader father we are doing exactly what God said not to do'. Yes or No?No, I am not wrong. What Jesus actually said carries more weight than an Apostles letter.


Jesus is obviously making a hyperbolic point with “call no man on earth your father” (Matthew 23:9) to let us all know that we only have one Heavenly Father. We can have many fathers but we only have one Father who is the Father of us all "Our" Father.

God Bless!
I don't think He was, I think Jesus said exactly what He meant to say. Within the context of the passage, Jesus is addressing people about their relationships with their spiritual teachers. Jesus says to call no man Rabbi, Father or Instructor within your group of spiritual leaders.

God's Truth
October 2nd, 2015, 11:35 AM
Paul, chosen and anointed by Christ, was given special privilege. As priests and popes are not chosen in the same way that Saul was, I am more inclined to follow what Jesus taught than trying to justify a tradition that cannot be justified.

The Catholic's popes add to the word of God, which Jesus says then nullifies God's word.

All the extra teachings of the Catholics go against what God says.

God is not testifying to the extra teachings of the Catholic's popes.





I think Paul was in error. It would not be the first time an Apostle made an error. Ask Peter about that.

Yeah but the thing Peter was in error about, it was corrected by Paul, as stated in the Bible.

You should not say Paul was in error, for the Bible does not state where Paul was corrected.

Paul never told anyone to call him father.

Paul says THERE ARE NOT MANY FATHERS IN CHRIST; however, the Catholic religion makes many fathers in Christ, as they pervert the written word.

1 Corinthians 4:15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel



Paul was speaking of himself as being a first, as a father comes first.

Again, but Paul never told anyone to call him father.

The Catholic denomination has many fathers in Christ, thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

The 'pope' is called father; the priests are called father, and the 'pope' and priests even call each other father. That is MANY; BUT PAUL SAYS NOT MANY.

CabinetMaker
October 2nd, 2015, 12:09 PM
The Catholic's popes add to the word of God, which Jesus says then nullifies God's word.

All the extra teachings of the Catholics go against what God says.

God is not testifying to the extra teachings of the Catholic's popes.




Yeah but the thing Peter was in error about, it was corrected by Paul, as stated in the Bible.

You should not say Paul was in error, for the Bible does not state where Paul was corrected.

Paul never told anyone to call him father.

Paul says THERE ARE NOT MANY FATHERS IN CHRIST; however, the Catholic religion makes many fathers in Christ, as they pervert the written word.

1 Corinthians 4:15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel



Paul was speaking of himself as being a first, as a father comes first.

Again, but Paul never told anyone to call him father.

The Catholic denomination has many fathers in Christ, thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

The 'pope' is called father; the priests are called father, and the 'pope' and priests even call each other father. That is MANY; BUT PAUL SAYS NOT MANY.
Thanks for that. That is a good correction.

God's Truth
October 2nd, 2015, 12:44 PM
Thanks for that. That is a good correction.

Who says what you just did? What kind of heart is that? You bring tears to my eyes.
I wanted to say what you did about Paul too, and at times I still want to say it, we both know why. We will come across other such times, but we will continue to look deeper with love and understanding, and be able to defend the Truth.

Cruciform
October 2nd, 2015, 01:45 PM
I know the Catholics do it poorly, on par with prosperity gospel preachers. Both groups twist and torture scripture top suit their own goals instead of God's.
...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway.

Post #68 stands.

CabinetMaker
October 2nd, 2015, 01:47 PM
...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway.

Post #68 stands.
Sad to see that you consider the very words of Jesus non-authoritative, recently invented and man made.

dialm
October 2nd, 2015, 02:14 PM
Who is the father of the Pope since good Cathlic priests cannot get married? I suspect the Devil himself.

Cruciform
October 2nd, 2015, 02:36 PM
Sad to see that you consider the very words of Jesus...
Rather, your non-authoritative sectarian interpretation/application of Jesus' words.


...non-authoritative, recently invented and man made.
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+

Cruciform
October 2nd, 2015, 02:37 PM
Who is the father of the Pope since good Cathlic priests cannot get married?
Your statement here is simply incorrect.

dialm
October 2nd, 2015, 02:42 PM
Your statement here is simply incorrect.

Are saying they can get married?

CabinetMaker
October 2nd, 2015, 02:46 PM
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
October 2nd, 2015, 03:35 PM
Are saying they can get married?
Under certain circumstances, yes. There are many Catholic priests who are married.

Cruciform
October 2nd, 2015, 03:40 PM
I posted the scripture. The Holy Scripture where God and Jesus both say not to do something.
Already answered---and contextually explained---here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

republicanchick
October 2nd, 2015, 03:47 PM
ho hum

anti-Catholics... SOOOOOO boring




_

CabinetMaker
October 2nd, 2015, 03:53 PM
Already answered---and contextually explained---here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).
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
October 2nd, 2015, 04:51 PM
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 (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)! I prefer the entirely non-authoritative opinions of my favored man-made sect over the authoritative teachings of Christ's Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)!"


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 (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

Preference noted.


Back to this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

glassjester
October 2nd, 2015, 05:44 PM
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
October 2nd, 2015, 05:55 PM
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 (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)! I prefer the entirely non-authoritative opinions of my favored man-made sect over the authoritative teachings of Christ's Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)!"


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 (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

Preference noted.


Back to this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).



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
October 2nd, 2015, 05:59 PM
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
October 2nd, 2015, 06:03 PM
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
October 2nd, 2015, 06:10 PM
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
October 2nd, 2015, 06:42 PM
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
October 2nd, 2015, 06:49 PM
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
October 2nd, 2015, 07:24 PM
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
October 2nd, 2015, 09:05 PM
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
October 2nd, 2015, 10:56 PM
The Bible is comprised of 66 seperate books.
The Bible is comprised of 73 (http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/otcanon.pdf) 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 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., [B]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
October 3rd, 2015, 01:57 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 03:34 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 07:40 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 07:47 AM
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?

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 07:52 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 08:16 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 08:24 AM
The Bible is comprised of 73 (http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/otcanon.pdf) 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 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., [B]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
October 3rd, 2015, 08:43 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 08:48 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 08:52 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 08:54 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 08:56 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 08:57 AM
Brothers do not call each other 'father', for that would be abnormal and strange.

glassjester
October 3rd, 2015, 09:16 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 10:46 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:05 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:17 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:21 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:21 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:24 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:25 AM
"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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:30 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:32 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:33 AM
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?

republicanchick
October 3rd, 2015, 11:35 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:37 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:38 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:41 AM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 11:42 AM
The Catholic denominations go against the written Word of God.

glassjester
October 3rd, 2015, 12:03 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 12:08 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 12:18 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 01:39 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 01:42 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 01:44 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0851117694?keywords=0310208289&qid=1443901514&ref_=sr_1_1_twi_har_2&s=books&sr=1-1)! 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
October 3rd, 2015, 01:44 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 01:55 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 02:07 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 02:54 PM
All the dreadful distinctives of Rome are based on the traditions of men, all of them:...
Rather, on Apostolic Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html). Big difference there.


...purgatory...
Addressed here (http://scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html).


...the priesthood
Addressed here (http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-priesthood-is-both-ministerial-and-universal).


...the mass...
Addressed here (http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/mass.php).


...transubstantiation...
Addressed here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html).


...prayers for the dead...
Addressed here (http://scripturecatholic.com/saints.html).


...indulgences...
Addressed here (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences) and here (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences).


...penance...
Addressed here (http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-confession-in-scripture-0).


...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 (http://ucatholic.com/learn/5-facts-to-ignore-before-accusing-catholics-of-mary-worship/).


...use of images in worship...
Addressed here (http://scripturecatholic.com/sacramentals.html).


...holy water...
Addressed here (http://scripturecatholic.com/sacramentals.html).


...rosary beads...
Addressed here (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-rosary).


...celibacy...
Addressed here (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood).


...the papacy and its claims.
Addressed here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) and here (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm).


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
October 3rd, 2015, 03:03 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 03:05 PM
The Catholic religion is a denomination...
Rather the Catholic Church is the original Christian Church, that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html). 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
October 3rd, 2015, 03:28 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0851117694?keywords=0310208289&qid=1443901514&ref_=sr_1_1_twi_har_2&s=books&sr=1-1)! 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
October 3rd, 2015, 03:31 PM
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
October 3rd, 2015, 03:41 PM
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?

Cruciform
October 3rd, 2015, 03:44 PM
Yes, post 96 stands exactly as the theological mess that it is.
Feel free, then, to actually disprove its content (sorry, but mere denial does not constitute a disproof), particularly since your subsequent complaints have already been categorically refuted in Post #131 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4475006&postcount=131) above.

I await your "informed rebuttal." :darwinsm:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

glassjester
October 3rd, 2015, 04:06 PM
Now you got it.

So when you read Jesus' words, "Call no man father." You do no interpret them literally. You take them to mean, "Call no man father - except the ones you, GT, personally want to make exceptions for."



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

Yes - this is good to talk about. Who was wrongly being called "father" at the time of Jesus' words? And on what grounds were they assuming this title?





I told you how I obey.

Yet you don't. You are willing to call any number of men "father," as long as they meet your preferred conditions for exemption from Christ's prohibition.

So what makes your interpretation the correct one?

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 04:13 PM
So when you read Jesus' words, "Call no man father." You do no interpret them literally. You take them to mean, "Call no man father - except the ones you, GT, personally want to make exceptions for."

Jesus was speaking Spiritually.

Tell me, how do you obey what Jesus said?




Yes - this is good to talk about. Who was wrongly being called "father" at the time of Jesus' words? And on what grounds were they assuming this title?

Just call no brother father. Can you do that? Can you obey Jesus?



Yet you don't. You are willing to call any number of men "father," as long as they meet your preferred conditions for exemption from Christ's prohibition.

So what makes your interpretation the correct one?

Believe and obey Jesus, and you will find out.

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 04:16 PM
I dare you, call no brother in Christ 'father'.

Start obeying Jesus.

glassjester
October 3rd, 2015, 04:21 PM
Jesus was speaking Spiritually.

About whom? Who was wrongly assuming the title of "father" at that time?

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 04:28 PM
About whom? Who was wrongly assuming the title of "father" at that time?

Jesus said do not call anyone father. He was speaking to all the brothers.

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 04:29 PM
There are many who like to ask questions and have those questions answered, but they themselves refuse to answer questions.

Cedarbay
October 3rd, 2015, 04:36 PM
From Catholic Answers website

Question:

If a Protestant believes he cannot call a Catholic priest "Father," is there a respectful alternative he can use?


Answer:

A Protestant who believes in a literal interpretation of Matthew 23:9 could use the title he uses for his own ministers, for Catholic priests.

Most priests would not mind being called, "Reverend" or "Pastor," for example.

If the priest says, "Call me ‘Father,’" the Protestant could smile politely and say, "I’m sorry; I can’t." The priest will understand.

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 08:51 PM
Glassjester, are you going to obey Jesus and stop calling your brothers in Christ 'father'?

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 08:52 PM
From Catholic Answers website

Question:

If a Protestant believes he cannot call a Catholic priest "Father," is there a respectful alternative he can use?


Answer:

A Protestant who believes in a literal interpretation of Matthew 23:9 could use the title he uses for his own ministers, for Catholic priests.

Most priests would not mind being called, "Reverend" or "Pastor," for example.

If the priest says, "Call me ‘Father,’" the Protestant could smile politely and say, "I’m sorry; I can’t." The priest will understand.

I would not call a Catholic priest father, pastor, or reverend.

glassjester
October 4th, 2015, 07:54 AM
Glassjester, are you going to obey Jesus and stop calling your brothers in Christ 'father'?

Can I refer to Paul as "Father in Christ Jesus, through the gospel" ?

CabinetMaker
October 4th, 2015, 08:40 AM
Can I refer to Paul as "Father in Christ Jesus, through the gospel" ?

You could always look at the openings of the letters that Paul sent to various churches. He never opened a letter by saying he was their father. He said he was an apostle. So call him Paul or The Apostle Paul.

God's Truth
October 4th, 2015, 10:21 AM
Can I refer to Paul as "Father in Christ Jesus, through the gospel" ?

You should call him brother just like he would call you.

You did not even first hear about the gospel from Paul, you probably heard it from your mother. Maybe you want to call your mother 'father'?

Wick Stick
October 4th, 2015, 11:10 AM
Can I refer to Paul as "Father in Christ Jesus, through the gospel" ?
Request denied.

You may, however, call him "Paulos Doulos," since that is how he referred to himself.

glassjester
October 4th, 2015, 12:36 PM
Request denied.

You may, however, call him "Paulos Doulos," since that is how he referred to himself.

He also referred to himself as "Father in Christ Jesus, through the gospel" to the Corinthians.

God's Truth
October 4th, 2015, 01:36 PM
He also referred to himself as "Father in Christ Jesus, through the gospel" to the Corinthians.

So how do you obey Jesus when he says call no brother in Christ 'father'?

You keep wanting to show that Paul had others call him father, but there is no such scripture where he tells anyone to do that, and there is no scripture where anyone called him 'father'.

Do your brothers in Christ tell you to call them 'father'? Yes, they do.

Is there times where you have called them 'father'? Yes, many times.

Do the Catholic "fathers" call each other 'father'? Yes, they do.

glassjester
October 4th, 2015, 05:28 PM
So how do you obey Jesus when he says call no brother in Christ 'father'?

He was using hyperbole, just as when He forbade us all from calling any man, "teacher." (How, by the way, do you obey Christ when he says to call no one on Earth, "Teacher" ?) Or when he said to follow Him, we must hate our father and mother.

How do I obey His words in Matthew 23? I do not honor any man on Earth in place of God. I do not follow any man on Earth with the loyalty and sonship due only to my Father in Heaven. I do not put the teachings or doctrines of any man before those of God, my Father in Heaven.

You and I agree that Jesus was not condemning the word "father," in itself, for you still accept its use whenever you deem it appropriate. He was condemning following and honoring men of Earth over God in Heaven.

At the time he spoke these words, Jewish leaders titled themselves teachers and fathers of various, sometimes contradictory, schools of religious thought. Jesus is against sectarianism. This is consistent with the rest of the NT. Be of one faith, right? Do not say "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos." Right?

This would be an example of what Jesus prohibited - making your religion about a particular, man-made sect - rather than giving this reverence to our Father in Heaven.

Do not say "I follow Luther," or "I follow Calvin," or "I follow Joseph Smith."
Follow Christ. Follow God.





You keep wanting to show that Paul had others call him father

He wrote to Corinth, calling himself their father in Christ. Do you mean to imply that if they'd written back, using the same terminology, he'd have denied the very title he'd used for himself?

He also calls Timothy "Son." What does that make him, to Timothy? Do you truly believe that Timothy would be wrong to call Paul his father in faith?


Fun conversation:
Paul: Hello, Timothy, my own son in the faith.
Timothy: Hello, Paul, my own fath-
Paul: No. Don't call me father.
:hammer:

Wick Stick
October 4th, 2015, 10:02 PM
Request denied.

You may, however, call him "Paulos Doulos," since that is how he referred to himself.
He also referred to himself as "Father in Christ Jesus, through the gospel" to the Corinthians.He also referred to himself as "Father in Christ Jesus, through the gospel" to the Corinthians.
http://thatsthejoke.net/

God's Truth
October 4th, 2015, 11:41 PM
He was using hyperbole,
No such thing. Jesus means what he says.




just as when He forbade us all from calling any man, "teacher." (How, by the way, do you obey Christ when he says to call no one on Earth, "Teacher" ?)
We are not to call a brother in Christ thee Teacher.



Or when he said to follow Him, we must hate our father and mother.
I can hardly believe that you think you can discard Gods words.

If you do not do what Jesus says and hate your father and mother, you will never really know how to love them.


How do I obey His words in Matthew 23? I do not honor any man on Earth in place of God. I do not follow any man on Earth with the loyalty and sonship due only to my Father in Heaven. I do not put the teachings or doctrines of any man before those of God, my Father in Heaven.

You and I agree that Jesus was not condemning the word "father," in itself, for you still accept its use whenever you deem it appropriate. He was condemning following and honoring men of Earth over God in Heaven.

Jesus meant it when he said do not call your brothers in Christ 'father'.


At the time he spoke these words, Jewish leaders titled themselves teachers and fathers of various, sometimes contradictory, schools of religious thought. Jesus is against sectarianism. This is consistent with the rest of the NT. Be of one faith, right? Do not say "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos." Right?
That is another thing the Catholics do not obey. The Catholics say they follow Peter.



This would be an example of what Jesus prohibited - making your religion about a particular, man-made sect - rather than giving this reverence to our Father in Heaven.

Do not say "I follow Luther," or "I follow Calvin," or "I follow Joseph Smith."
Follow Christ. Follow God.

You forgot about Peter. The Catholics say they have apostolic succession from Peter.



He wrote to Corinth, calling himself their father in Christ. Do you mean to imply that if they'd written back, using the same terminology, he'd have denied the very title he'd used for himself?

He also calls Timothy "Son." What does that make him, to Timothy? Do you truly believe that Timothy would be wrong to call Paul his father in faith?

Paul calls Timothy 'brother'.

See 1 Thessalonians 3:2.



Fun conversation:
Paul: Hello, Timothy, my own son in the faith.
Timothy: Hello, Paul, my own fath-
Paul: No. Don't call me father.
:hammer:

Peter did not call Paul 'father'. Peter says that Paul is a brother.

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

Cruciform
October 5th, 2015, 01:58 PM
No such thing. Jesus means what he says.
Matthew 5:29-30 ~ So, then, when will you be plucking out your eyes and cutting off your hands...? :think:

CabinetMaker
October 5th, 2015, 02:07 PM
Matthew 5:29-30 ~ So, then, when will you be plucking out your eyes and cutting off your hands...? :think:

I'm not sure about you, but I know that neither my eye nor my hand cause me to sin. My "heart" causes me to sin.

Cruciform
October 5th, 2015, 02:16 PM
I'm not sure about you, but I know that neither my eye nor my hand cause me to sin. My "heart" causes me to sin.
According to your "expert" opinion, then, Jesus had no idea what he was talking about when he suggested that your eye and hand causes you to sin, is that right? :doh:

In any case, the actual issue under discussion was whether or not Jesus used hyperbole in his teaching. As usual, you missed the point once again

CabinetMaker
October 5th, 2015, 02:23 PM
According to your "expert" opinion, then, Jesus had no idea what he was talking about when he suggested that your eye and hand causes you to sin, is that right? :doh:
What has your eye done that made you sin? What has your hand done that made you sin?

republicanchick
October 5th, 2015, 02:23 PM
ABRAHAM IS OUR PHYSICAL FATHER BUT THE POPE IS NOT....

.

yeh, you are probably right. God loves Abraham WAYYYYYYY more than the pope

or any pope who came b4 him


yeppers



++

Cruciform
October 5th, 2015, 02:25 PM
What has your eye done that made you sin? What has your hand done that made you sin?
What do you suppose Jesus meant by saying this? (If you don't know the answer, just say so.)

republicanchick
October 5th, 2015, 02:27 PM
I'm not sure about you, but I know that neither my eye nor my hand cause me to sin. My "heart" causes me to sin.

so you are arguing with JESUS???

oh, yeh... I forgot... you've been doing that for some time now..

Yeh, Jesus did not say "If your HEART" causes you to stumble (sin)

he mentioned those parts of our body that actually DO the sin...

The heart is where sin begins, but Jesus knew (knows) that we have absolutely NO control over the disordered desires of our hearts..

What we DO have control over is what we DO... with hands... feet... eyes..

If your feet walk you to the video store to get porn...

well, Jesus would want you to just STOP that rather than cut off your foot... His point is that you are required to do ANYTHING necessary... absolutely ANYTHING to save your soul


(by the way:

So much for the doctrine of Once saved always saved)




+

CabinetMaker
October 5th, 2015, 02:38 PM
so you are arguing with JESUS???

oh, yeh... I forgot... you've been doing that for some time now..

Yeh, Jesus did not say "If your HEART" causes you to stumble (sin)

he mentioned those parts of our body that actually DO the sin...

The heart is where sin begins, but Jesus knew (knows) that we have absolutely NO control over the disordered desires of our hearts..

What we DO have control over is what we DO... with hands... feet... eyes..

If your feet walk you to the video store to get porn...

well, Jesus would want you to just STOP that rather than cut off your foot... His point is that you are required to do ANYTHING necessary... absolutely ANYTHING to save your soul


(by the way:

So much for the doctrine of Once saved always saved)




+
So, if I pluck out my eye or cut off my hand and they continue to sin, I am in trouble with God or is my eye and/or hand?

Cruciform
October 5th, 2015, 02:44 PM
So, if I pluck out my eye or cut off my hand and they continue to sin, I am in trouble with God or is my eye and/or hand?
Post #165.

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 02:47 PM
yeh, you are probably right. God loves Abraham WAYYYYYYY more than the pope

or any pope who came b4 him


yeppers



++

Think about it. God loves Abraham because Abraham obeyed Him.

Genesis 26:4-5 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."

Catholics are NOT obeying God!

This is serious.

Cruciform
October 5th, 2015, 02:52 PM
Catholics are NOT obeying God!

...declares the God-denying (anti-Trinitarian) non-Christian. :doh:

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 02:52 PM
Matthew 5:29-30 ~ So, then, when will you be plucking out your eyes and cutting off your hands...? :think:


Why in the heck would I cut off my hands and pluck out my eye if I stop sinning with my hands and eyes?!!!

republicanchick
October 5th, 2015, 02:53 PM
So, if I pluck out my eye or cut off my hand and they continue to sin, I am in trouble with God or is my eye and/or hand?

makes NO sense


+

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 02:53 PM
I'm not sure about you, but I know that neither my eye nor my hand cause me to sin. My "heart" causes me to sin.

Amen. Stop before it gets to your heart.

glassjester
October 5th, 2015, 03:21 PM
No such thing. Jesus means what he says.

There's no such thing as hyperbole? That statement itself is hyperbolic language. That is quite poetic of you!

Either Jesus was speaking literally or not. Do you truly believe he meant us to call no man "Father" ?

Be honest. Do you truly call no man at all by that title?





If you do not do what Jesus says and hate your father and mother, you will never really know how to love them.

So how do you obey Christ when he tells you to hate your mother and father?




That is another thing the Catholics do not obey. The Catholics say they follow Peter.

You forgot about Peter. The Catholics say they have apostolic succession from Peter.

Apostolic succession is not a bad thing. It is an entirely different concept than sectarianism. Neither I, nor any Catholic, follows Peter's preferred teachings, or believes the Church is founded by Peter. Christ founded the Church on Peter, remember? Peter did not found my Church. Christ did. (Compare this to the human founders of Calvinism, or Mormonism)



Paul calls Timothy 'brother'.

And "son." Come on.




Peter did not call Paul 'father'. Peter says that Paul is a brother.

But Paul called Paul (a man on Earth) "Father." Did he disobey your literal interpretation of Christ's words in Matthew 23?

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 03:25 PM
...declares the God-denying (anti-Trinitarian) non-Christian. :doh:

There are three.

Cruciform
October 5th, 2015, 03:29 PM
There are three.
"Three" what?

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 03:40 PM
There's no such thing as hyperbole? That statement itself is hyperbolic language. That is quite poetic of you!

Either Jesus was speaking literally or not. Do you truly believe he meant us to call no man "Father" ?

Be honest. Do you truly call no man at all by that title?
No brother in Christ is called ‘father’ just as Jesus says.



So how do you obey Christ when he tells you to hate your mother and father?
When I wanted to be saved, I obeyed Jesus. Jesus said hate your mother and father, so I did. Even though I did not understand how this could be, I obeyed. I did not lean on my own understanding, proverbs 3:5,6.


Apostolic succession is not a bad thing. It is an entirely different concept than sectarianism. Neither I, nor any Catholic, followsPeter's preferred teachings, or believes the Church is founded by Peter. Christ founded the Church on Peter, remember? Peter did not found my Church. Christ did. (Compare this to the human founders of Calvinism, or Mormonism)
And "son." Come on.
He said ‘son’ to Timothy, because that was personal; but, brother to us, because that is what we are to call each other.
The Catholic church makes many sinners.
You just do not care enough about God’s words.

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 03:42 PM
There's no such thing as hyperbole? That statement itself is hyperbolic language. That is quite poetic of you!

Either Jesus was speaking literally or not. Do you truly believe he meant us to call no man "Father" ?

Be honest. Do you truly call no man at all by that title?
No brother in Christ is called ‘father’ just as Jesus says.


So how do you obey Christ when he tells you to hate your mother and father?
When I wanted to be saved, I obeyed Jesus. Jesus said hate your mother and father, so I did. Even though I did not understand how this could be, I obeyed. I did not lean on my own understanding, Proverbs 3:5,6.


Apostolic succession is not a bad thing. It is an entirely different concept than sectarianism. Neither I, nor any Catholic, followsPeter's preferred teachings, or believes the Church is founded by Peter. Christ founded the Church on Peter, remember? Peter did not found my Church. Christ did. (Compare this to the human founders of Calvinism, or Mormonism)
And "son." Come on.
He said ‘son’ to Timothy, because that was personal; but, brother to us, because that is what we are to call each other.
The Catholic church makes many sinners.
You just do not care enough about God’s words.

CabinetMaker
October 5th, 2015, 03:44 PM
makes NO sense


+
Which is EXACTLY the point.

glassjester
October 5th, 2015, 03:44 PM
No brother in Christ is called ‘father’ just as Jesus says.

Enough dodging. Jesus says to call no man Father. Do you believe his words in a literal sense or not?

Do you believe that no one at all, no matter what, under any conditions whatsoever, should be called "Father"?

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 03:46 PM
Enough dodging. Jesus says to call no man Father. Do you believe his words in a literal sense or not?

Do you believe that no one at all, no matter what, under any conditions whatsoever, should be called "Father"?

Do you believe Jesus when he says eat his flesh?

You have no understanding about what is of the Spirit and what is of the flesh.

CabinetMaker
October 5th, 2015, 03:47 PM
Enough dodging. Jesus says to call no man Father. Do you believe his words in a literal sense or not?

Do you believe that no one at all, no matter what, under any conditions whatsoever, should be called "Father"?
Since Jesus never said what you have said here, your questions cannot be answered. They are a logical fallacy because you have grossly misquoted scripture in an attempt to lay a trap.

Cruciform
October 5th, 2015, 03:49 PM
Since Jesus never said what you have said here, your questions cannot be answered. They are a logical fallacy because you have grossly misquoted scripture in an attempt to lay a trap.
Still waiting for your reply to Post #165 above.

glassjester
October 5th, 2015, 04:04 PM
Since Jesus never said what you have said here, your questions cannot be answered. They are a logical fallacy because you have grossly misquoted scripture in an attempt to lay a trap.

Matthew 23:9 - Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.


Do you believe His words in a literal sense, or not?

glassjester
October 5th, 2015, 04:08 PM
I do not understand GT's hesitance to answer this unambiguous question.

glassjester
October 5th, 2015, 04:17 PM
Matthew 23:9 - Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.


Do you believe His words in a literal sense, or not?

Maybe CM will respond?

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 04:47 PM
I do not understand GT's hesitance to answer this unambiguous question.

Why won't you answer?

glassjester
October 5th, 2015, 04:52 PM
Why won't you answer?

What's your question? I will answer.


Mine is this: Do you truly believe Christ's words in a literal sense, when He says to call no one on Earth "Father" ?

CabinetMaker
October 5th, 2015, 04:54 PM
Matthew 23:9 - Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.


Do you believe His words in a literal sense, or not?

I understand the context of the passage in which Jesus spoke them. Thus, I am free to call my Dad father but I am not free to call one who has spiritual authority, for lack of a better term, in my life father.

Said differently, I understand Jesus's words to be literally true within the proper context of His entire teaching in the passage.

glassjester
October 5th, 2015, 05:09 PM
I understand the context of the passage in which Jesus spoke them. Thus, I am free to call my Dad father but I am not free to call one who has spiritual authority, for lack of a better term, in my life father.

Said differently, I understand Jesus's words to be literally true within the pepper context of His entire teaching in the passage.

I appreciate the genuine answer.

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 07:36 PM
What's your question? I will answer.
Jesus says we are brothers in Christ and not to call anyone father'.

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

It's all about obeying the Lord.

How do you obey?



Mine is this: Do you truly believe Christ's words in a literal sense, when He says to call no one on Earth "Father" ?

Of course, Jesus means what he says.

God's Truth
October 5th, 2015, 07:40 PM
"Three" what?

One God the Father who lives in unapproachable that no one has seen or can see. One God the Father with a body, who came to us in the flesh as Jesus Christ the Son. One God the Father whose Spirit goes forth from Him without limit.

Cruciform
October 5th, 2015, 09:35 PM
One God the Father who lives in unapproachable that no one has seen or can see. One God the Father with a body, who came to us in the flesh as Jesus Christ the Son. One God the Father whose Spirit goes forth from Him without limit.
As I observed earlier---and as you show in your above comments---you are indeed a God-denying, anti-Trinitarian non-Christian. May God help you embrace him as he is.

God's Truth
October 6th, 2015, 12:09 AM
As I observed earlier---and as you show in your above comments---you are indeed a God-denying, anti-Trinitarian non-Christian. May God help you embrace him as he is.

Catholics made up the trinity doctrine, just as they made up the other false doctrines.

glassjester
October 6th, 2015, 03:09 AM
Jesus says we are brothers in Christ and not to call anyone father'.

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

It's all about obeying the Lord.

How do you obey?


I've highlighted your contradictory statements above.
Also, I addressed your question in Post #157.



Of course, Jesus means what he says.

Yet you deem it acceptable for a Christian to call his biological father, "Father."

Did I miss something? That's not literally obeying Christ's words, man.

CabinetMaker
October 6th, 2015, 08:15 AM
What do you suppose Jesus meant by saying this? (If you don't know the answer, just say so.)

This commentary more eloquently states what I understand Jesus to be discussing in the passage.

Mark 9:42-50 – Nurturing the Community’s Faith

42 “It would be better to put a millstone around the neck and then to throw into the sea whoever causes one of the little ones among those who trust in me to stumble. The location of this passage within the narrative may serve to indicate how it is to be interpreted. It is clearly embedded in a series of passages reflecting interactions and attitudes within the community. It is not a commentary on private conversion.
Jesus was concerned with the danger of members of the community leading others into loss of faith in the Kingdom message. The word rendered as cause to stumble is literally translated as “scandalise”. It was used first in the interpretation of Jesus’ parable of the seed (where it was translated as “fall away”) and referred to those who lost faith in face of trouble or persecution (4:17). It was then used of the townspeople of Nazareth who did not open in faith to the person and message of Jesus (6:3). It would figure again in the disciples’ loss of faith on the occasion of Jesus’ pending arrest (14:27).
Given the context, the following comments about the body’s different limbs and organs are better interpreted metaphorically as referring to the community’s members. (The metaphor was not uncommon in secular literature and had also been used by St Paul in some of his letters to the Churches).
43 If your own hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better to enter eternal life disabled, than with two hands to be thrown into Gehenna, into the fire that never goes out.[44 omitted] 45 If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better to go into life lame than to be thrown into Gehenna with two feet.[46 omitted] 47 If your eye causes you to stumble, pull it out. It is better to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye, than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna,48 where ‘their worms do not die and the fire does not go out’.” If the passage is interpreted metaphorically, Jesus was referring to the need to isolate from the community known or potential apostates. In the situation of extreme pressure (supposed in the previous response to John) where the community was in danger of breaking up, severe measures were to be adopted to protect its integrity and perseverance in faith.


Source (http://johnmckinnon.org/mark9v42-50)

God's Truth
October 6th, 2015, 10:00 AM
He was using hyperbole, just as when He forbade us all from calling any man, "teacher." (How, by the way, do you obey Christ when he says to call no one on Earth, "Teacher" ?) Or when he said to follow Him, we must hate our father and mother.

How do I obey His words in Matthew 23? I do not honor any man on Earth in place of God. I do not follow any man on Earth with the loyalty and sonship due only to my Father in Heaven. I do not put the teachings or doctrines of any man before those of God, my Father in Heaven.

You and I agree that Jesus was not condemning the word "father," in itself, for you still accept its use whenever you deem it appropriate. He was condemning following and honoring men of Earth over God in Heaven.

At the time he spoke these words, Jewish leaders titled themselves teachers and fathers of various, sometimes contradictory, schools of religious thought. Jesus is against sectarianism. This is consistent with the rest of the NT. Be of one faith, right? Do not say "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos." Right?

This would be an example of what Jesus prohibited - making your religion about a particular, man-made sect - rather than giving this reverence to our Father in Heaven.

Do not say "I follow Luther," or "I follow Calvin," or "I follow Joseph Smith."
Follow Christ. Follow God.






He wrote to Corinth, calling himself their father in Christ. Do you mean to imply that if they'd written back, using the same terminology, he'd have denied the very title he'd used for himself?

He also calls Timothy "Son." What does that make him, to Timothy? Do you truly believe that Timothy would be wrong to call Paul his father in faith?


Fun conversation:
Paul: Hello, Timothy, my own son in the faith.
Timothy: Hello, Paul, my own fath-
Paul: No. Don't call me father.
:hammer:

What you say here is how you DON"T obey Jesus.

You talked yourself out of obeying by saying Jesus did not mean what he said.

Catholics do not obey God; they find all sorts of ways to disobey and do what God hates.

God says TO THE BROTHERS not to call anyone 'father'.

Catholics: God did not mean what He said, so we will call our priests 'father', and we will have them call each other 'father'.

God says do NOT bow to statues.

Catholics: We can bow to the statues of those in the Christian religion.

God says Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.

Catholics: Mary would also be a good mediator.

The devil says, "Did God really say you must not _____?"

God's Truth
October 6th, 2015, 10:07 AM
This commentary more eloquently states what I understand Jesus to be discussing in the passage.

Mark 9:42-50 – Nurturing the Community’s Faith

42 “It would be better to put a millstone around the neck and then to throw into the sea whoever causes one of the little ones among those who trust in me to stumble. The location of this passage within the narrative may serve to indicate how it is to be interpreted. It is clearly embedded in a series of passages reflecting interactions and attitudes within the community. It is not a commentary on private conversion.
Jesus was concerned with the danger of members of the community leading others into loss of faith in the Kingdom message. The word rendered as cause to stumble is literally translated as “scandalise”. It was used first in the interpretation of Jesus’ parable of the seed (where it was translated as “fall away”) and referred to those who lost faith in face of trouble or persecution (4:17). It was then used of the townspeople of Nazareth who did not open in faith to the person and message of Jesus (6:3). It would figure again in the disciples’ loss of faith on the occasion of Jesus’ pending arrest (14:27).
Given the context, the following comments about the body’s different limbs and organs are better interpreted metaphorically as referring to the community’s members. (The metaphor was not uncommon in secular literature and had also been used by St Paul in some of his letters to the Churches).
43 If your own hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better to enter eternal life disabled, than with two hands to be thrown into Gehenna, into the fire that never goes out.[44 omitted] 45 If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better to go into life lame than to be thrown into Gehenna with two feet.[46 omitted] 47 If your eye causes you to stumble, pull it out. It is better to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye, than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna,48 where ‘their worms do not die and the fire does not go out’.” If the passage is interpreted metaphorically, Jesus was referring to the need to isolate from the community known or potential apostates. In the situation of extreme pressure (supposed in the previous response to John) where the community was in danger of breaking up, severe measures were to be adopted to protect its integrity and perseverance in faith.


Source (http://johnmckinnon.org/mark9v42-50)

I do not believe Jesus was talking "metaphorically".

The sinners who do not believe Jesus, they will not cut their hand off anyway; and those who believe Jesus will stop sinning and will not need their hand cut off.

CabinetMaker
October 6th, 2015, 10:32 AM
I do not believe Jesus was talking "metaphorically".

The sinners who do not believe Jesus, they will not cut their hand off anyway; and those who believe Jesus will stop sinning and will not need their hand cut off.
I do believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the passage. The context and the cadence indicate that He was most likely speaking about the community. Jesus would know that your eye or hand do not cause you to sin. But if you think of the eye and the hand as being representative of various leaders within the community then the passage is clear. Get rid of leaders that would lead the entire body of believers into sin and condemnation. It wont be easy, but it is worth it.

Cruciform
October 6th, 2015, 02:51 PM
Catholics made up the trinity doctrine, just as they made up the other false doctrines.
Post #193

Cruciform
October 6th, 2015, 03:20 PM
"Given the context, the following comments about the body’s different limbs and organs are better interpreted metaphorically..."
I agree. Likewise with Matthew 23:9. Why, then, do you insist on interpreting it in a woodenly literalistic fashion, without attention to the meaning of Scripture as a whole? :think:

Cruciform
October 6th, 2015, 03:23 PM
What you say here is how you DON"T obey Jesus.You talked yourself out of obeying by saying Jesus did not mean what he said.Catholics do not obey God; they find all sorts of ways to disobey and do what God hates.God says TO THE BROTHERS not to call anyone 'father'.Catholics:God did not mean what He said, so we will call our priests 'father', and we will have them call each other 'father'.God says do NOT bow to statues.Catholics:We can bow to the statues of those in the Christian religion.God says Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.Catholics:Mary would also be a good mediator.The devil says, "Did God really say you must not _____?"
Post #193

CabinetMaker
October 6th, 2015, 04:20 PM
I agree. Likewise with Matthew 23:9. Why, then, do you insist on interpreting it in a woodenly literalistic fashion, without attention to the meaning of Scripture as a whole? :think:
Because Matthew is most definitely NOT metaphorical. Jesus is speaking to a different audience at a different time. Jesus made the same point three times in Matthew do not call our spiritual leaders Rabbi, Father or Instructor (depending on the translation you pick up).

Cruciform
October 6th, 2015, 04:32 PM
Because Matthew is most definitely NOT metaphorical. Jesus is speaking to a different audience at a different time. Jesus made the same point three times in Matthew do not call our spiritual leaders Rabbi, Father or Instructor (depending on the translation you pick up).
Jesus was using decidedly figurative language to make a theological point. See this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

CabinetMaker
October 6th, 2015, 06:22 PM
Jesus was using decidedly figurative language to make a theological point. See this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

No, He was not. Read the passage as a whole and it is not metaphorical.

God's Truth
October 6th, 2015, 06:29 PM
I do believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the passage. The context and the cadence indicate that He was most likely speaking about the community. Jesus would know that your eye or hand do not cause you to sin. But if you think of the eye and the hand as being representative of various leaders within the community then the passage is clear. Get rid of leaders that would lead the entire body of believers into sin and condemnation. It wont be easy, but it is worth it.

I still believe Jesus was speaking literally. Again, those who do not believe Jesus will not cut off their hands, and those who do believe Jesus will just stop sinning. No hands being cut off by anyone, and no eyes being plucked out. However, Jesus is telling us the importance of stop sinning. There is nothing about leaders.

glassjester
October 6th, 2015, 06:56 PM
GT,

You claim to believe Christians should call literally no one on Earth "Father."
And somehow, at the same time, believe some people on Earth can be called "Father."


These two beliefs are mutually exclusive. I suspect you know that.

God's Truth
October 6th, 2015, 07:00 PM
GT,

You claim to believe Christians should call literally no one on Earth "Father."
And somehow, at the same time, believe some people on Earth can be called "Father."


These two beliefs are mutually exclusive. I suspect you know that.

You are leaving out the part about Jesus saying they are BROTHERS.

Obey Jesus, and then you will get understanding---that is what Jesus says.

glassjester
October 6th, 2015, 07:10 PM
You are leaving out the part about Jesus saying they are BROTHERS.

Obey Jesus, and then you will get understanding---that is what Jesus says.

Alright.

God's Truth
October 6th, 2015, 07:17 PM
Alright.

Yeah?

Will you do it?

Cruciform
October 6th, 2015, 09:59 PM
No, He was not. Read the passage as a whole and it is not metaphorical.
You have already been decisively answered in Post #96 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4474534&postcount=96) above.

CabinetMaker
October 6th, 2015, 10:11 PM
You have already been decisively answered in Post #96 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4474534&postcount=96) above.

Your answer is wrong. It is poorly reasoned. It is based on proof texts pulled out of context. It is a theological disaster the RCC should be ashamed to offer as an official reaching.

Cruciform
October 6th, 2015, 10:41 PM
Your answer is wrong.
...according to the entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions that you have derived from your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway... :yawn:

everready
October 6th, 2015, 11:23 PM
...according to the entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions that you have derived from your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway... :yawn:

Do you mean this sect?

FOX's BOOK of MARTYRS

Chapter I -- History of Christian Martyrs to the First General Persecutions Under Nero

Chapter II -- The Ten Primitive Persecutions

Chapter III -- Persecutions of the Christians in Persia

Chapter IV -- Papal Persecutions

Chapter V -- An Account of the Inquisition

Chapter VI -- An Account of the Persecutions in Italy, Under the Papacy

Chapter VII -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Wickliffe

Chapter VIII -- An Account of the Persecutions in Bohemia Under the Papacy

Chapter IX -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of Martin Luther

Chapter X -- General Persecutions in Germany

Chapter XI -- An Account of the Persecutions in the Netherlands

Chapter XII -- The Life and Story of the True Servant and Martyr of God, William Tyndale

Chapter XIII -- An Account of the Life of John Calvin

Chapter XIV -- Prior to the Reign of Queen Mary I

Chapter XV -- An Account of the Persecutions in Scotland During the Reign of King Henry VIII

Chapter XVI -- Persecutions in England During the Reign of Queen Mary

Chapter XVII -- Rise and Progress of the Protestant Religion in Ireland; with an Account of the Barbarous Massacre of 1641

Chapter XVIII -- The Rise, Progress, Persecutions, and Sufferings of the Quakers

Chapter XIX -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Bunyan

Chapter XX -- An Account of the Life of John Wesley

Chapter XXI -- Persecutions of the French Protestants in the South of France, During the Years 1814 and 1820

Chapter XXII -- The Beginnings of American Foreign Missions

http://biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm


everready

patrick jane
October 7th, 2015, 12:02 AM
Do you mean this sect?

FOX's BOOK of MARTYRS

Chapter I -- History of Christian Martyrs to the First General Persecutions Under Nero

Chapter II -- The Ten Primitive Persecutions

Chapter III -- Persecutions of the Christians in Persia

Chapter IV -- Papal Persecutions

Chapter V -- An Account of the Inquisition

Chapter VI -- An Account of the Persecutions in Italy, Under the Papacy

Chapter VII -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Wickliffe

Chapter VIII -- An Account of the Persecutions in Bohemia Under the Papacy

Chapter IX -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of Martin Luther

Chapter X -- General Persecutions in Germany

Chapter XI -- An Account of the Persecutions in the Netherlands

Chapter XII -- The Life and Story of the True Servant and Martyr of God, William Tyndale

Chapter XIII -- An Account of the Life of John Calvin

Chapter XIV -- Prior to the Reign of Queen Mary I

Chapter XV -- An Account of the Persecutions in Scotland During the Reign of King Henry VIII

Chapter XVI -- Persecutions in England During the Reign of Queen Mary

Chapter XVII -- Rise and Progress of the Protestant Religion in Ireland; with an Account of the Barbarous Massacre of 1641

Chapter XVIII -- The Rise, Progress, Persecutions, and Sufferings of the Quakers

Chapter XIX -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Bunyan

Chapter XX -- An Account of the Life of John Wesley

Chapter XXI -- Persecutions of the French Protestants in the South of France, During the Years 1814 and 1820

Chapter XXII -- The Beginnings of American Foreign Missions

http://biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm


everready

?

Old man
October 7th, 2015, 12:27 PM
...according to the entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions that you have derived from your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway... :yawn:

Does anyone know whether or not "Cruciform" is nothing more than a computer?
The answers would indicate that that is what IT is, all one usually gets is "You have already been decisively answered in Post #XXX. which takes you to a RCC site of already written articles and pulled from a menu as on a phone, push X for----

I see no human personality, thought or reasoning, just pre-programed replies.

SaulToPaul
October 7th, 2015, 12:32 PM
I see no human personality, thought or reasoning, just pre-programed replies.

Yes, a complete waste of time, and worthy of the ignore function.

CabinetMaker
October 7th, 2015, 12:40 PM
...according to the entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions that you have derived from your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway... :yawn:
Again stating that you do not believe Jesus or God when they speak plainly. That is what it always comes down to with you. When anybody posts actual scripture, you reply with a link to what Catholics say about what they think scripture says. You do not believe God's word as He left it for us, you only believe the entirely man-made opinions of your sect.

Old man
October 7th, 2015, 01:09 PM
Again stating that you do not believe Jesus or God when they speak plainly. That is what it always comes down to with you. When anybody posts actual scripture, you reply with a link to what Catholics say about what they think scripture says. You do not believe God's word as He left it for us, you only believe the entirely man-made opinions of your sect.

Right, it was hundreds of years before the Cats would allow their followers to even have a Bible, what you say is correct.

That is why Cruciform is out of his element when actual Scriptures are posted or quoted, he only knows what the RCC has written, the Bible means nothing to him.

glassjester
October 7th, 2015, 06:08 PM
Again stating that you do not believe Jesus or God when they speak plainly. That is what it always comes down to with you. When anybody posts actual scripture, you reply with a link to what Catholics say about what they think scripture says. You do not believe God's word as He left it for us, you only believe the entirely man-made opinions of your sect.

The fact of the matter is, you don't believe the plain reading of that particular verse either. So what it comes down to is - what makes your interpretation the right one?

CabinetMaker
October 7th, 2015, 10:03 PM
The fact of the matter is, you don't believe the plain reading of that particular verse either. So what it comes down to is - what makes your interpretation the right one?

Keeping the versus in their proper context as God intended.

glassjester
October 8th, 2015, 03:12 AM
Keeping the versus in their proper context as God intended.

Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that.

But let's not demand a plain reading of the "Father" prohibition, when in fact, we're interpreting it to mean something other than what it plainly states.

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 01:28 PM
Do you mean this sect?
No, since the Catholic Church is decidedly not a "sect." Try again.


FOX's BOOK of MARTYRS
Try again (http://reocities.com/Athens/troy/6480/actsandmonuments.html).

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 01:35 PM
Does anyone know whether or not "Cruciform" is nothing more than a computer?The answers would indicate that that is what IT is, all one usually gets is "You have already been decisively answered in Post #XXX.which takes you to a RCC site of already written articles and pulled from a menu as on a phone, push X for-I see no human personality, thought or reasoning, just pre-programed replies.
No more so than the anti-Catholics here like yourself, who mindlessly parrot the same old hackneyed and long-discredited anti-Catholic claims and stereotypes. Tell you what, if your hopelessly unworkable approach ever changes, I'll be glad to change my answers.


Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
October 8th, 2015, 01:38 PM
Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that.There's a shocker!!


But let's not demand a plain reading of the "Father" prohibition, when in fact, we're interpreting it to mean something other than what it plainly states.
The Catholic church, as exemplified by Cruciform's link, is doing everything they possible can to avoid a plain and contextual reading of the passage.

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 01:54 PM
Again stating that you do not believe Jesus or God when they speak plainly.
CM actually believes that the entirely non-authoritative opinions of his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect possesses the binding authority to declare what is and is not the "plainly spoken" meaning of Divine Revelation for the rest of us---despite the glaring fact that his chosen man-made sect is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (as CM himself has repeatedly admitted), and so simply possesses no doctrinal authority whatsoever. Nice exercise in straightforward sophistry, though.


That is what it always comes down to with you. When anybody posts actual scripture, you reply with a link to what Catholics say about what they think scripture says.
...just as your posts are intended to support the interpretations of Scripture that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. See just above.


You do not believe God's word as He left it for us...
See the first answer above.


...you only believe the entirely man-made opinions of your sect.
Already decisively answered here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4468885&postcount=16). :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 01:57 PM
TThe Catholic church, as exemplified by Cruciform's link, is doing everything they possible can to avoid a plain and contextual reading of the passage.
Post #226

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 02:05 PM
Right, it was hundreds of years before the Cats would allow their followers to even have a Bible...
Just another mindlessly parroted anti-Catholic stereotype on your part. Your ignorance is noted.


Cruciform...only knows what the RCC has written, the Bible means nothing to him.
Rather, your entirely non-authoritative interpretation of the Bible means nothing to me. Big difference there. Besides being utterly unable to come up with anything but fallacious pseudo-arguments such as the ignorant Ad Hominem Fallacy above, your comments indicate that you're also simply a liar (Prov. 19:5). May God help you.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
October 8th, 2015, 02:11 PM
Post #226
Once again, I accept that you concede that you have nothing of value or interest to add to the conversation.

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 02:18 PM
Once again, I accept that you concede that you have nothing of value or interest to add to the conversation.
Once again, I accept that you concede that you have no valid counter-argument---let alone an actual disproof---of the content of Post #226 above, which thus stands exactly as posted.

republicanchick
October 8th, 2015, 04:15 PM
Once again, I accept that you concede that you have nothing of value or interest to add to the conversation.

If you were convinced through logic and Church history and prayer that the RCC was the Church Christ founded, would you then accept calling priests Father?




___

patrick jane
October 8th, 2015, 04:17 PM
If you were convinced through logic and Church history and prayer that the RCC was the Church Christ founded, would you then accept calling priests Father?




___

Matthew 23:9 KJV -

republicanchick
October 8th, 2015, 04:26 PM
Matthew 23:9 KJV -

some Christians do not believe in taking the Bible absolutely literally in EVERYTHING it says

the notion of Bible-only is ridiculous.. if 4 no other reason than this: Not all truth (reality, e tc)can be contained in a mere book...

in other words GOD cannot be contained by a book

He is not finite

as books are



__

republicanchick
October 8th, 2015, 04:27 PM
all this time & energy spent over WORDS

Why, you people remind me of liberals...


_

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 05:07 PM
Matthew 23:9 KJV -
Already decisively answered way back in Post #5 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4467783&postcount=5). Try again.

CabinetMaker
October 8th, 2015, 05:25 PM
If you were convinced through logic and Church history and prayer that the RCC was the Church Christ founded, would you then accept calling priests Father?




___

No. It is wrong regardless of the church you attend.

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 05:34 PM
No. It is wrong regardless of the church you attend.
...which is nothing more than the hopelessly non-authoritative opinion of CM's chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, and so simply falls flat.

CabinetMaker
October 8th, 2015, 05:54 PM
...which is nothing more than the hopelessly non-authoritative opinion of CM's chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, and so simply falls flat.

Actually is just obedience to God.

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 06:09 PM
Actually is just obedience to God.

"obedience to God" = "whatever happens to agree with the hopelessly non-authoritative opinion of CM's chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect"



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
October 8th, 2015, 06:17 PM
"obedience to God" = "whatever happens to agree with the hopelessly non-authoritative opinion of CM's chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect"



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

It's far far simpler than that. God sends His Jesus to redeem us. Jesus says don't call your spiritual leaders father. Therefore, I don't call spiritual leaders father. Jesus speaks, I obey. Simple.

patrick jane
October 8th, 2015, 06:28 PM
some Christians do not believe in taking the Bible absolutely literally in EVERYTHING it says

the notion of Bible-only is ridiculous.. if 4 no other reason than this: Not all truth (reality, e tc)can be contained in a mere book...

in other words GOD cannot be contained by a book

He is not finite

as books are


__

You poor soul. The Bible IS The Word Of God, The Living Word.
All the truths we need are in The Bible.

Cruciform
October 8th, 2015, 09:39 PM
It's far far simpler than that. God sends His Jesus to redeem us. Jesus says don't call your spiritual leaders father. Therefore, I don't call spiritual leaders father. Jesus speaks, I obey. Simple.
You "obey" without first accurately comprehending what Jesus actually meant by his statement in Mt. 23:9, as is plainly outlined here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

Wick Stick
October 8th, 2015, 10:05 PM
You poor soul. The Bible IS The Word Of God, The Living Word.
All the truths we need are in The Bible.
Ironically, it is the Bible which testifies that "the Word" is something other than a book.

Jarrod

Cruciform
October 9th, 2015, 10:46 PM
The Bible IS The Word Of God...
So is oral apostolic Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html).


All the truths we need are in The Bible.
Chapter-and-verse, please. Where exactly does the Bible itself state that "All the truths we need are in The Bible"? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

God's Truth
October 10th, 2015, 08:24 AM
So is oral apostolic Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html).


Chapter-and-verse, please. Where exactly does the Bible itself state that "All the truths we need are in The Bible"? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

What the apostles taught orally, does not contradict what they wrote down on paper.

However, the traditions of the Catholic church contradict what God says in the Holy Bible.

Cruciform
October 10th, 2015, 02:08 PM
What the apostles taught orally, does not contradict what they wrote down on paper.
No one has suggested otherwise. However, not everything taught orally has been explicitly stated in writing.


However, the traditions of the Catholic church contradict what God says in the Holy Bible.
Rather, they may contradict your preferred interpretations of the Bible. Big difference there.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Old man
October 10th, 2015, 04:24 PM
No one has suggested otherwise. However, not everything taught orally has been explicitly stated in writing.


Rather, they may contradict your preferred interpretations of the bible. Big diference there.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Are you claiming ONLY the interpretations of the Cat's are the correct ones?

How about your WEEKLY suns-day worship, can you quote that from the Bible?

Or the annual celebration of the birth of Christ, where is that found in the Scriptures? Dec.25 was actually an adoption of the pagan celebration of the annual re-birth of the sun-god.

Your religion is so infested with adopted pagan traditions that it is hard to even find anything of the Scriptures in it.

Cruciform
October 10th, 2015, 08:58 PM
Are you claiming ONLY the interpretations of the Cat's are the correct ones?
No, sometimes Catholics misinterpret the Bible, too. Rather, only Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) provides the authentic, binding, and authoritative interpretation of Scripture. So, then, how do we---Catholics and Protestants---know whether or not our personal interpretation is correct and binding? Only by comparing it with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church. Thus has it always been.


How about your WEEKLY suns-day worship, can you quote that from the Bible?
Quite a bit (http://scripturecatholic.com/sunday_worship.html).


Or the annual celebration of the birth of Christ, where is that found in the Scriptures?
First, go ahead and cite the biblical text which states that "Only terms and ideas used explicitly in the Bible may be used by Christians to describe their beliefs."
Second, the Nativity of Jesus Christ is certainly described in the New Testament---do you really need me to provide you with chapter-and-verse on that fact?


Dec.25 was actually an adoption of the pagan celebration of the annual re-birth of the sun-god.
Not an "adoption," but an adaptation. Big difference there.


Your religion is so infested with adopted pagan traditions that it is hard to even find anything of the Scriptures in it.
First, Google "Genetic Fallacy," since that is the particular logical fallacy you're engaged in here.
Second, for example, see this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/is-catholicism-pagan).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
October 10th, 2015, 09:39 PM
You "obey" without first accurately comprehending what Jesus actually meant by his statement in Mt. 23:9, as is plainly outlined here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

Jesus meant not to call any man in a position of authority over you in The Body of Christ father.

Your link is an attempt to justify that which God has no to. Your magisterium is nothing more than modern day Pharisees. And they are doing as good a good as the Pharisees Jesus scolded. In other words, your link is nothing but deceitful.

Cruciform
October 10th, 2015, 09:44 PM
Jesus meant not to call any man in a position of authority over you in The Body of Christ father.
...only according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which we've already established possesses no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever.


Back to Post #242.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+