Cruciform
New member
Example...?
Last edited:
Standing Up To Rome
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
everready
New member
The most feaful words a person could ever hear come at the judgment when Jesus says this:
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
He said he "never" knew them meaning they didn't have a personal relationship with them.
Why then does your man in Rome tell the world it is a dangerous thing to have a personal relationship with Jesus?
everready
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
He said he "never" knew them meaning they didn't have a personal relationship with them.
Why then does your man in Rome tell the world it is a dangerous thing to have a personal relationship with Jesus?
everready
turbosixx
New member
Marriage. To my knowlege scripture only gives one reason for divorce.
Matt. 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
The rcc gives a whole list of acceptable reasons to break a marriage. Here's an interesting one.
Future condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]You or your spouse attached a future condition to your decision to marry, e.g., you will complete your education, your income will be at a certain level, you will remain in this area. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]On whose authority can a married couple be separated for reasons other than sexuall immorality?[/FONT]
Cruciform
New member
Proof, please. :yawn:
turbosixx
New member
Most of the time. One example:
Matt. 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
brewmama
New member
Do you not call your father "father", are you your children's father? What do you think Jesus was saying here?
Paul used the term many times, including about himself. So cherry-picking this verse and not understanding what it means is certainly not to your benefit.
So, if someone asks us, "Who is your father?", we can answer, "I have my natural father whom I call 'dad' or 'baba'. And I have my spiritual father, the 'papa' or 'pater', the priest who leads me and guides through the gospel of Jesus Christ to my one God and Father in heaven who has adopted me as His child." Let us imitate our natural and paternal fathers as they prayerfully and humbly intercede to Christ our God for our physical and spiritual healing
turbosixx
New member
I don't have all the answers and I haven’t studied this because I’ve never felt the need to. Jesus said call no man on earth father so why would I. I think we can both agree he is not talking about our biological father because they are our father. Who is our spiritual father? If God is our spiritual father can a man on earth be our spiritual father as well? Jesus isn't even referred to as father. Yes, Paul used the term to describe relationships but does that void what Jesus clearly instructed? I don't know of anyone in scripture called father other than God.
What do you think Jesus is saying?
Another example:
1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Catechism 969 Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."
Last edited:
The verse is better understood as 'every kind' of authority or power.
When Jesus said, 'all power' or 'all authority' is given to him in heaven and in earth, he's emphasizing that they have the support of his power and authority to fulfill the command to go and teach all nations.
brewmama
New member
"This tradition of spiritual fatherhood was part of the lifeblood of the early Church. Paul's understanding of himself as the father of the Church of Corinth, though, raises a very old controversy within the Christian world. Many Christian denominations have since at least the Protestant Reformation rejected the title of "father" for spiritual elders, despite the clear fact that St. Paul and other great early leaders of the Church thought of themselves as exactly this.
This controversy springs from the way some Christians have interpreted Our Lord's words in Matthew 23:9, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." It's important to remember that the apostle Paul seems to not believe this was Christ's intent. In addition to the Epistle passage above, there are several other passages from Scripture in which Paul refers to the idea of spiritual fatherhood. In fact, even one of the earliest leaders of the Protestant Reformation - John Calvin himself - believed that Paul was correct to refer to himself as "father". Calvin wrote, "While Paul claims for himself the appellation of father, he does it in such a manner as not to take away or diminish the smallest portion of the honor which is due to God. ... God alone is the Father of all in faith ... But they whom he is graciously pleased to employ as his ministers for that purpose, are likewise allowed to share with him in his honor, while, at the same time, He parts with nothing that belongs to himself."
Now, let's also remember that in Matthew 23, Christ also says "do not be called teacher". Yet, elsewhere in the Gospels, Our Lord himself uses this title for others, such as Nicodemus.
In this "call no man father" passage, Our Lord is making a particular point for a very particular audience. He is contrasting His own living truth with the teachings of the "scribes and Pharisees" who were convinced that only they understood God's Law and were fit to interpret it. Christ is accusing the rabbis opposed to him of deliberately twisting God's Word to suit their own desires. Christ stood in opposition to those who seek to elevate themselves and place themselves before God.
Our Lord wants true teachers. He wants true spiritual fathers who can take on the mantle of spiritual leadership. But He only wants teachers and fathers who understand that they themselves are not the source of the Tradition which they are passing on, but are instead conduits for the Tradition of God.
This tradition of spiritual fatherhood was part of the lifeblood of the early Church. Paul's understanding of himself as the father of the Church of Corinth, though, raises a very old controversy within the Christian world. Many Christian denominations have since at least the Protestant Reformation rejected the title of "father" for spiritual elders, despite the clear fact that St. Paul and other great early leaders of the Church thought of themselves as exactly this.
http://www.antiochian.org/node/19193
HisServant
New member
Since Rome is irrelevant... there is no need to stand up to it. Just go about doing as Christ instructed and the Holy Spirit leads and don't concern yourself even a little about them.
good post
don't worry about us
just get on with practicing your beliefs
or
don't practice them
if
that is what you believe
Cruciform
New member
Since HS is irrelevant, there is no need to stand up to him. Just go about doing as Christ instructed by the Holy Spirit through his one historic Church (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; cf. Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Jn. 4:6), and don't concern yourself even a little about HS. :yawn:
HisServant
New member
But has been explained to you multiple times... history, archaeology, and common sense proves that your claim that the RCC is Jesus one historical church is patently false.... its impossible.
So either live by the spirit or subject yourself to the Roman invented religion that will lead to certain spiritual death... its a no brainier.
I wish more people would snap back to reality and realize that the RCC is nothing more than the longest running scam in history.
Cruciform
New member
The entirely non-authoritative opinions (traditions of men) that you have imbibed from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. :yawn:
turbosixx
New member
And he did so by telling us to call no man on earth "father" because "for One is your Father, He who is in heaven"
turbosixx
New member
I don't recognize the early church as a basis for understanding. It's clear from scripture the early church had many problems. The only way to determine truth is from inspired writings.
Yes, Paul’s understanding of himself. Are we really going to void what Jesus instructed based on that? For what possible reason would we call a man “father”? 6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places</SPAN>
God does have an office of spiritual guides for the church.
Acts 20:28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Scripture tells us what they are to be called and gives us qualifications for them and
Paul went around appointing these spiritual guides, they are elders.
Acts 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every church,</SPAN>
1 Tim. 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach,….
We have clear scripture “call no man father”. We have clear scripture instructing who are to be the spiritual guides of the church. Can that all be thrown out because Paul referred to himself as a father?