You wrote:
“There were “Rabbis” in Judaism, and there were also those considered to be “Masters” in Judaism - but the position of “father” is not within the historic Judaic context.”
The Holy Spirit taught differently: as in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”
And someone should tell St. Paul he wasn’t supposed to call anyone “teacher” because he said this:
“For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7).
And
“For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11).
And
“God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28)
And
“his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11).
So was Paul violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring to others as “teachers”? Clearly - according to your interpretation - he must have been. And that’s how we know you’re wrong.
Also, St. Paul referred to others whom he brought into the faith as his children or sons:
“Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17)
and
“To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2)
“To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).
“This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18)
“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1)
“But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22).
“To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4)
“I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10).
Imagine that - St. Paul is actually daring to violate your interpretation of Jesus’ words. Who should I believe - you (presenting a view no one believed in until practically a moment ago) of a great Apostle?
But wait, there’s more. Look what St. Paul said here:
“I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
I BECAME YOUR FATHER IN CHRIST JESUS THROUGH THE GOSPEL. Clearly St. Paul was violating your interpretation. Who am I to believe? He was an inspired author. You’re just someone on the internet posting a view no historic Christian believed in before a short time ago. I’ll stick with St. Paul and all orthodox Christianity.
And what would dare say about John too (1 John 2:13–14).
I don’t think you know the scriptures nearly as well as you believe.
You wrote:
“And THAT alone, brings hierarchical churches down in a heap.”
No, Christ created a hierarchy. He created the office of Apostle and yet there were disciples clearly lesser in authority. That’s a hierarchy right there.
The Holy Spirit taught differently: as in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”
It is to the religious sense that I was speaking - There is no honorific title named "father" in the Judaic system. You seem to be confusing that with patriarchy, and "the" patriarchy.
Is it your sense then, that he was abolishing the patriarchy? The sense of "Father" and "Forefather?" That would be silly. The common sense of the word is used over and over again.
Instead, it seems you use the presence of the patriarchy to legitimize your use of "Father," and make Christ's words of no effect.
And someone should tell St. Paul he wasn’t supposed to call anyone “teacher” because he said this:
[...] So was Paul violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring to others as “teachers”? Clearly - according to your interpretation - he must have been. And that’s how we know you’re wrong.
Again, it is not the abolition of the word, nor is it against the common usage thereof - It is the use of the honorific title, as an honest reading so clearly shows. It is this sense of hierarchy - Of one being over another... That is what Christ warns against. It is not "teacher," but "!!!TEACHER!!!" that is not appropriate.
Christ is very clear: HE is "THE" Teacher. We are all brethren.
I BECAME YOUR FATHER IN CHRIST JESUS THROUGH THE GOSPEL. Clearly St. Paul was violating your interpretation.
Of course he didn't. This is patriarchy, not position. He is not imposing himself. This is not a means of elevation.
And what would dare say about John too (1 John 2:13–14).
The very same thing.