[Just mythoughts]

I think Jesus was NOT talking about how men are seen as being either physical, biological or spiritual "fathers" but as how they were ADDRESSED. He said "Call no man father." Paul was certainly a spiritual father to many in the sense that he lead them to Christ and raised them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, but I seriously doubt he was addressed as "Father Paul". JMHO

Christ identified who specifically He was speaking against... Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Peter was there ... so Peter had no part of this doctrine of calling the head 'scribe/Pharisee' holy father/ rabbi/ or master... this practice came about long after Peter returned to the Maker that sent him.

God changed Abram's name to Abraham, which means father of many nations... which Abraham literally was ... aside from the 12 tribes of Israel, Abraham was also literal 'father' to the Arab nations.

Not one scripture used to 'justify' the disobedience of Christ's command is justified.

[boatbums]

I agree. In light of the humble way of life Jesus and His disciples observed, I don't think ostentatious titles are the way in which He desires we address each other. Peter would have rejected being called Holy Father or Pope, Your Eminence, Most Reverend, etc.

[Elsie]

Not one scripture used to 'justify' the disobedience of Christ's command is justified.

Consider yourself reported to the Department of Redundancy Department.