So Elsie, What Did Jesus Mean "call no man father"?
Posted on 03/31/2021 8:42:15 AM PDT by Teleios Research
Be convinced of these 4 biblical truths: 1. Each of us has sinned; 2. God is just, requiring a punishment for sin; 3. But out of love God sent His Son, Jesus Christ who by dying on the cross, provided forgiveness of sins in taking man’s deserved punishment; 4. Therefore, by faith alone in Christ’s sacrifice for our sins and belief in His resurrection, man can gain eternal life. (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-10, Romans 3:21-26)
The Church’s current leader is the same leader as in 33 AD - Jesus Christ, the High Priest who is there at every Divine Eucharist and Liturgy.
Frankie may be the ministrant helping, but he’s temporary. He’s no the Jerry Fallwell etc. - founders and be-all, end-all. Frankie come, Frankie go.
But Jesus remains - protecting His bride, the Church
That is pretty apparent for people who persist in separating out the words of Christ into a gentile Church and a Jewish Church.
They don't want to read what Christ said, nor see what Christians have believed continuously since Apostolic times. instead they wish to persist in their 19th century made-up philosophies
John 6:28-29 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John 3:21-23
Heck, I'm torn as to whether it's an apple or an orange!
Each one of these can give you scripture to back up what they believe. What they cannot do is back up their beliefs when shown OPPOSING scripture.
Much like the elephant in the room.
That is true. But after discussing with these guys here, I wonder how far we could stretch the term "Christian"
We have here a cool person who rejects the Trinity as "that Catholic innovation" - saying that God is only the father and the Son and Holy Spirit are avatars.
We have clarity from southern folks who insist that there are separate churches for Jews and separate churches for Gentiles - extreme dispensationalism.
And then we have folks who insist that Jesus is just the archangel Michael.
Most people who are Protestants - whether Lutheran or Baptist or others would be horrified to see these folk calling themselves Protestant Christians or even Christians
Elsie Each one of these can give you scripture to back up what they believe. What they cannot do is back up their beliefs when shown OPPOSING scripture.
The fact that they have opposing beliefs - such as Oneness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity etc. tells you that the truth is in 2 Thess 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
And John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
The fact is that the beliefs in the Trinity, in the Theotokos, in the Eucharist are shared even with the Ancient Church of the East, the Assyrian Church - which separated away in 240 AD as the Sassanids did not want contacts with their enemies, the Roman Empire
Then don't waste them replying to him.
I no longer feel any obligation to read stuff on FR just because I've been pinged to it.
I've learned that certain posters rarely have anything new to say, and I can say that I've probably seen their 'arguments' repeated many times before.
Dust off them sandals and move on down the road.
The Today show can report a lot of stuff.
However, younger women are leaving because of the Church’s stance on abortion.
Do you, Elsie, think that’s a comparison to Luther?
Then HE needs to fire HIS press secretary!
Call no man father.
30 So they asked him, What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34 Sir, they said, always give us this bread.
35 Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
, 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."
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.
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).
although your literalist interpretation shows Jesus seemingly prohibiting 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."
So Elsie - does that mean you call no man Teacher or Doctor (That's teacher in Latin) or Rabbi?
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).
Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.
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.
Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.
The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
- Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "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); "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).
- He also referred to Timothy as his son: "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).
- Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "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). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
- Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "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).
- Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).
- John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. "Brothers," he said, "listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 "'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18 things known from long ago.
19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter.
31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.
Gentiles converting into Judaism is not new - remember that the Edomites were converted in c 100 BC to Judaism and that there were Romans who converted to Judaism as well
70 AD and especially the Kitos war moved the "followers of the Way" from being a Jewish sect to being a new religion, just as the abolitionist movement moved Methodism from being a sect of Anglicanism.
Did Jesus make the statement he did about tradition just for the benefit of the Jews hearing him (the Old Covenant was almost over, after all). Did the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to record that statement of Jesus with no view of how the Church might interpret it? Or was Jesus stating something about tradition (remember, that is just God’s truth passed down in oral form from generation to generation) that would set the stage for His bride, the Church?
The fact that there was a tremendous amount of Jesus’ life and teaching that was never written down cannot be denied. “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (Jn 21:25). The writer of any given book of the New Testament chose, under inspiration, from the available data in order to fit the purpose of his letter or book. Simply because something was not chosen for inclusion in a book did not mean it was no longer true, or that it was not actively taught by the apostles in the first century. In fact, in the case of epistles, the reverse would seem to be more plausible. Many of the most common and well-known practices and teachings of the early Church would be the least likely to be included in any of the writings of the early Church for the simple reason that they would be least likely to be misunderstood or called into question and thus require a written reinforcement or correction. This has been called the “occasional nature” of the New Testament.
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Th 2:15). The verbal teaching by mouth (oral tradition) has an equal authority with the written teachings of Paul.
Elsewhere Paul instructs Timothy to take this truth he has learned and find men capable of protecting it and passing it on (note the emphasis on the oral nature of this truth): “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Tim 2:2). This is a natural extension of Jesus’ command to “go and make disciples.” Christianity is a living religion, protected and passed on by people, not paper. We are not to be merely people of the Book but the people of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.