Exactly so, yet when one focuses on a single sentence and ignores the context around it, one is also in error. Such is this claim. Do you also follow the next admonishment and refuse to call anyone Teacher? That means that you must not call anyone Doctor (which means teacher) also.
IF I had only focused on one single sentence you would have a point. I reverence NO flesh man, and that would include using the word 'Teacher' in that particular context. I do not go to a Doctor to feed my 'soul', and when Christ hung on that cross at His death the miracle of the 'veil' that hid the priest was rent from top to bottom, giving each and every individual who would, direct access to the Heavenly Father through Christ. No longer was the practice required to go through a flesh man presenting a blood sacrifice to confess ones sins. The Heavenly Father reads minds and hearts and IF one repents in the name of His Son, NO flesh man has any part of the action.
Paul never presented himself as Father replacement of the Heavenly Father ever. And Christ's point was to NOT call one father in the high 'religious' point of worship of any flesh man ON EARTH. His WORDS NOT mine.
Matthew 22 demonstrates the religious community in their questions why Christ said what he said regarding how to address the religious society ON EARTH. I am not going to type the whole chapter but 22:16 kinda sets the stage for why the response was given... And they sent out unto Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, "Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou regardest not the person of men.. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?"
HERE is the difference in a flesh man and the Son of GOD.
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?
Notice in the Chapter 22 how the pious religious leaders called Christ 'Master' (teacher), but NOT in reverence but in ridicule. And Christ was yet teaching those who follow Him how to distinguish not by what is said but by what the religious leaders do. Neither Peter or Paul bound the practice of elevating any flesh being as being called 'Holy Father'.
***Matthew 23 was given to the disciples and the multitudes directly from Christ. It is an individual message as to know what would be in religious circles even unto this day.***
It was a public rebuke against the Jewish authorities, nothing more or less. If one does not comprehend Scripture (which is normal for personal interpretation), then one cannot be a Christian.
The Jewish authorities had no authority than what they were given by the powers that be from Rome. Even those the 'religious' leaders wanted Christ dead, they had no authority to carry out the deed, which is why they had to get Roman government authority.
Christ's instruction was timeless and yet specific for all 'free' minded peoples to test the 'fruit' of the tree, and it still is in effect to this day. We each individually are going to account for what we put into the 'gray' matter of our minds or spiritually speaking intellect of the 'soul' and Christ does not need a Church 'filter' to filter His WORDS to be acceptable to the traditions of flesh men.
Christ in His WORDS sowed the 'seeds' of truth as to what would be up to His return. He gave the required warnings for those that would to NOT be deceived, Matthew 24:1-6. Paul had to teach basic Christianity, 'milk' to the majority and yet he planted within his work the 'meat' of warning of what would be right up to the 'day' of the Lord. Peter wrote even regarding time before flesh man, and even how long a day is with the Lord. Peter gets used as having been given keys, but I can't find those who claim to now possess Peter's keys as being what Peter bound from his own writings.
******I did not say it, Christ said it. IF one does not follow Christ, then they are followers of men and that could also include elevating Paul and Timothy as Father Paul or Father Timothy.***
Exactly so, yet when one focuses on a single sentence and ignores the context around it, one is also in error. Such is this claim. Do you also follow the next admonishment and refuse to call anyone Teacher? That means that you must not call anyone Doctor (which means teacher) also.
IF I had only focused on one single sentence you would have a point. I reverence NO flesh man, and that would include using the word ‘Teacher’ in that particular context.***
What is the Teacher in that context? Dictionary.net says that rabbi means: Master; lord; teacher; — a Jewish title of respect or honor for a teacher or doctor of the law.
A teacher or a doctor of the law. Any teacher, in this context. Have you called anyone teacher in your life?
***I do not go to a Doctor to feed my ‘soul’, and when Christ hung on that cross at His death the miracle of the ‘veil’ that hid the priest was rent from top to bottom, giving each and every individual who would, direct access to the Heavenly Father through Christ. ***
If that is the pure and only explanation, then why did Christ take such pains to set up the Church and to teach the Apostles so painstakingly and so thoroughly?
***No longer was the practice required to go through a flesh man presenting a blood sacrifice to confess ones sins.***
That’s why He gave Peter and the Apostles the power to forgive sins. Good point.
***The Heavenly Father reads minds and hearts and IF one repents in the name of His Son, NO flesh man has any part of the action.***
God knows all - past present and future. Yet He has given us His Church and the priests in it the power to forgive sins. Therefore your statement is wrong.
***Paul never presented himself as Father replacement of the Heavenly Father ever. ***
No, I never said that he did. I quoted Paul extensively where he called himself the spiritual father of his flock and of Timothy, though. How do you reconcile that unless Paul is setting himself up as a subordinate spiritual Father to Christ - exactly the practice that the Church was instructed to do.
***And Christ’s point was to NOT call one father in the high ‘religious’ point of worship of any flesh man ON EARTH. His WORDS NOT mine.***
Your interpretation is. And it is not the one of the Apostles and the early Church; and reading Scripture in context, it is not the intent of Christ.
***HERE is the difference in a flesh man and the Son of GOD.***
Better be careful about the labels that you state. Some of the Scriptural Sons of God are angels. Some of them refer to powerful rulers and judges e.g. David. The giants of the OT were called Sons of God as well.
***Notice in the Chapter 22 how the pious religious leaders called Christ ‘Master’ (teacher), but NOT in reverence but in ridicule. And Christ was yet teaching those who follow Him how to distinguish not by what is said but by what the religious leaders do. Neither Peter or Paul bound the practice of elevating any flesh being as being called ‘Holy Father’.***
Yet Paul and to a certain extent the other Apostles referred to themselves as fathers and teachers (as well as to others e.g. Abraham).
***It was a public rebuke against the Jewish authorities, nothing more or less. If one does not comprehend Scripture (which is normal for personal interpretation), then one cannot be a Christian.
The Jewish authorities had no authority than what they were given by the powers that be from Rome.***
That has nothing to do with this subject. It was still a public rebuke of the Jewish authorities, if one reads the entire passage, and not a single verse.
***Christ’s instruction was timeless and yet specific for all ‘free’ minded peoples to test the ‘fruit’ of the tree, and it still is in effect to this day. We each individually are going to account for what we put into the ‘gray’ matter of our minds or spiritually speaking intellect of the ‘soul’ and Christ does not need a Church ‘filter’ to filter His WORDS to be acceptable to the traditions of flesh men.***
Christ doesn’t. Men do. Remember that the entire OT was God trying to get the Jew’s attention for more than a day at a time and failing. Even the mission of the early Christians to the Jews failed and it took Paul (and Peter and Thomas) going to the Gentiles to save the fledgling Church.
***Christ in His WORDS sowed the ‘seeds’ of truth as to what would be up to His return. ***
Not as such. He created the foundation and pillar of Truth - the Church.
***He gave the required warnings for those that would to NOT be deceived, Matthew 24:1-6. ***
Deceived about what? There was nothing written down at this point. Acts outlines the gradual realization of the Apostles that Jesus wasn’t going to come back next week or next month or next year and they had better do something about figuring out just what it was that they were supposed to believe.
***Peter wrote even regarding time before flesh man, and even how long a day is with the Lord.***
Can you explain what this means please?
***Peter gets used as having been given keys, but I can’t find those who claim to now possess Peter’s keys as being what Peter bound from his own writings.***
Does that mean that if Peter didn’t write it, that it didn’t happen? How did an illiterate fisherman learn how to write anyway? He didn’t tell us. Does that mean that he really didn’t write anything and that other people wrote it for him?