Replies

Your comment:”Matt 23:9Jesus said to call no man up on this earth father.”

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “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). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father.

That is true, it applies to giving some one the title as father and it includes all of the other titles Jesus spoke of, it was not to be that way in the world of Christians.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mathew 20
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

We can see very plainly here what Jesus was talking about, it was titles of authority.

Jesus did not want a bunch of men with titles lying to his believers.

The only argument you have that Mathew 23 should not be taken literally comes from Paul who obviously had nothing against himself having great authority as Paul was not present when Jesus spoke these words,

which is why I stated that much of the Catholic doctrine which contradicts what Jesus said must have come from Paul.

How the Church can claim that Mathew 23 should not be taken literally in view of all of the other evidence which shows it to be literal.

But then swear that we are literally to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood seems to come from a religious organization who depend on people coming not to Jesus as a child but to the organization as a child.

Acts 15
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Genesis 9
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

The favorite argument is :that is not to be taken literally:
Which is nothing more than an admission that it does say it.

One of my choice arguments is that Jesus did not sweat blood, some one will say Oh? you do not take that literally?

Yes of course I take it literally, it does not say Jesus sweat blood, what it says is Jesus sweat as it were great drops of blood.

Most any one who grew up in the thirties and forties know what it is like to have drops of water running off of them.

And since nose bleeds were common they also knew how blood looked dropping to the ground.

The only way a religion which comes from the word ritual can survive is to convince people that a scripture easy to understand is not to be taken literal and those which is beyond comprehension is to be taken literal.