Posted on 01/27/2023 2:45:15 AM PST by Cronos
“And call no man your father on earth...”
So “no man” really means “no man in a religious context” and not “no man” . . . but just when you want it to?
No, a better explanation is this one:
And this is not to say that I disagree with your "context" either...-
as Jesus himself refers to dads as "Fathers" often...
But you can't claim a specific context you may have an affinity for...
when there isn't one explicitly referenced in scripture.
Which by the way, some "scholars" claim strong evidence to prove that the "man" - in "Call no man father..."
Is a direct reference to the Roman emperor, who in fact claimed the Deity of "God" in their day.
So context can abound all over...
The problem with your assessment - of that Jesus was "addressing religious leaders"
Is NOT in that verse- and in fact it is something you are adding to scripture.
Now again, that is NOT to say you are incorrect in your interpretation- you could be right-
all I am saying is it means you are making an unverifiable statement-
one that develops from outside of scripture- which btw also goes against your own rules.
If we allow that external analysis as you would like, some can then - in that same method and manner- assume Jesus was (or was not) referring
to what St. Paul (a "religious leader" we would agree) would say later on, in Romans,
"Abraham is the Father of us all"...
"He is our Father - IN the sight of God "
or when he declared
"for in Christ Jesus I became your FATHER through the gospel."
We can also derive from that verse then perhaps,
in the same method you are applying,
that Jesus was not referring to much later on Catholic Priests
who would lead their congregations in The "Our Father" - the Lord's Prayer
together at every Mass- as we give worship to the ONE Father in Heaven.
So I have to ask, since you mentioned you are amazed
at Catholic "rationalizations" on this verse...
When Christ said "Call no man Father on earth, BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONE Father in Heaven...
Are you rationalizing that Catholics Don't understand or know the difference
Between Father Bob down at the Parish Fish Fry in Scranton- and the ONE Almighty Father in Heaven, we worship at every Mass??
I rest my case.
Perhaps your condescending arrogance puts her off a bit?
Now I couldn't let stand where the commenter decided what the explicit "context" was for that single line of chosen scripture.
I thought I was being more instructional ... then polemical.
Clearly that was not my intent in pointing out her false assumption.
Twice- I made sure I was being charitable as I could-
given the aforementioned unkind comment #7.
If you reread- what I wrote:
"And this is not to say that I disagree with your "context" either...-"
And...
" Now again, that is NOT to say you are incorrect in your interpretation-
you could be right-"
So, I stated I was not necessarily diagreeing,
or that the commenter was incorrect
And that she could even be right!
So I dont call that arrogant or condescending... but I call that being fair.
Now the logic and method behind her post was flawed-
and that's what I was pointing out-
and not any assault on character or faith belief.
Was there something specific you found offensive?
I just don't see it...
As seen in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.
For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8).
Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: “I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Isa. 22:20–21).
This type of fatherhood applies not only to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim); it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).
Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
This is seen in how Paul wrote “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).
Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. (2 Macc. 14:36)
The next phrase "Let your spirit come upon these gifts (water and wine) to make them holy, so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Before he was given up to death, is linked to (Phil 2:8)
scripture flowed out of the early Church. The Church came first, the New Testament and the canon of scripture second.
Actually, the NT church flowed out of scripture, for an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same, (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)
And which body provided the epistemological prophetic and doctrinal foundation for the NT, which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) In dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture. (Acts 17:11) Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.
For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15 And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:13)
Which damnably presumes all the hearers are regenerate, mainly under the false premise of baptismal regeneration, much less by proxy faith, and which is the basis for Rome counting even proabortion, proLGBTQ public figures as members in life and in death, as are the liberal laity. It is conservative RCs that are at most risk to being censored.
People: And also with you.
Which damnably presumes this separate class of celibate (normatively) sacerdotal Catholic priesthood is that of the NT presbuteros (which was not even manifestly separate from episkopos).
Next:
Nearly everything we say at mass has its roots in Sacred Scripture.
Which equates to being scriptural as much as the roots in Scripture statement would for the doctrine of JWs.
and I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, all the angel and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. (1 Thess 5:25)
Rather than being Scriptural, as you have been told before, nowhere in Scripture do we see any believers engaging in prayer to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH), or instructed to do so, despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of over 200 prayers by believers, and despite this being a most basic practice, and despite there always being plenty of created beings to pray to, and occasions for it since the Fall. Yet the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in the spiritual world is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven see therein.
Note that elders and angels offering prayers (Rv. 5:8; 8:4,5) in memorial - like as in Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15; 16:9, "an offering of memorial" cf. Num. 16:9, - is not that of them being addressed in prayer, nor does it indicate that they had heard them previously, nor is it described as being a regular postal service, but it is one of the things which is a preclude to the final judgments upon the earth, testifying to the persecutions of the saints by the devil and world that it fit to be punished.
For when "He maketh inquisition for blood, he remembereth them: he forgetteth not the cry of the humble. (Psalms 9:12; cf. Genesis 4:10) and before judgment God brings forth testimony of the warrant for it, which includes the cry of those martyred souls under the altar in Rv. 6:9, and with odors representing prayer, akin to Leviticus 6:15, "burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the Lord." (Leviticus 6:15)
Nor can Prayer to created beings in Heaven be extrapolated from general commands to pray or from requests for pray from other believers on earth, for this ignores the God-ordained divisions btwn realms. Which is why Christ had to come down to this earth, while only God is shown able to hear all prayer from Heaven, which is a Divine privilege and attribute nowhere shown to be given to humans.
The only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God is said to be Jesus Christ, (1 Timothy 2:5) and by Him believers have immediate spiritual access with humble contrite boldness into the holy of holies in Heaven to pray to the Lord God, (Hebrews 10:19) while the Spirit within believers cries out “Abba, Father,” (Galatians 4:6) and not “Mama, Mother.”
Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. (Eccl. 3:13) It will become for us the bread of life. (John 6:35)...Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. (Luke 22:17-18)...Let your spirit come upon these gifts (water and wine) to make them holy, so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Before he was given up to death, (Phil 2:8)
Philippians 2:8 states: "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:8) However, unlike this body and every appearance of Christ in the Bible, and whose manifest incarnation is stressed, esp. in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not conform to His physical incarnation, (Is. 53; Lk. 24:39; John 20:27; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:2; 5:6,8) and which manifest (sight, touch, smell, behavior) incarnated body is what a literal understanding of " eat, this is my body" (Matthew 26:26) "blood...shed for you" (Luke 22:20) would mean the subjects saw, then rather than at least a glorified physical; body, the Catholic bread of life appears as inanimate objects - bread, wine, which are said to no longer literally exist when the priests utters the words of consecration - yet which are affirmed to be the true body and blood of Christ, even though by all know scientific tests they would be shown to be just what they appear to be (bread. wine), as would the incarnated body of Christ on earth of Phil 2:8 which was crucified (human).
Yet as per Rome, the eucharistic body and blood is said to only be locally present until the host begin to manifest (and here visibility becomes important) corruption/decay, (CCC 1377) meaning showing that that they are what they appear to be (bread, wine), at which point Christ also is no longer present in the location under that appearance.
A much fuller documented examination of the Cath teaching on the Lord's supper is here, by the grace of God. Of course, your RC propaganda has been much refuted before.
Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again: bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. (2 Macc 12:45-46)
2 Macc 12:45-46 in its wider context, does not teach of believers being in rest nor of Purgatory awaiting entrance into Heaven, but of men slain due to their manifest idolatry, dying in mortal sin for whom their is not hope according to Rome herself, while 2 Macc offerings and prayers are made in the hope of them seeing the resurrection (of the just).
Communion is distributed to the faithful at the altar by the priest and lay ministers.] Dismissal Priest
Yet, in contrast to individuals going to an altar to receive a bit of bread and sip of wine, with the focus being on the elements, and (typically) quickly dispersing or talking to select friends, ignoring others, as explained to you before at length, in the only clear description in the epistles (aside from Jude;'s cursory mention of the "feast of charity), that of 1 Co. 10+11, then remembering the Lord's death is by showing the care He did and the unity His death wrought, via taking part in a communal meal, as being "one bread" themselves, while to isolate oneself and ignore others in need was to not come together to eat the Lord's supper,
And since this lack of effectual recognition of others who were bought by the sinless shed blood of Christ, that of "eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken" (1 Corinthians 11:21) then the correction given is not a discourse on the nature of the bread and wine, but of self-examination and, "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come." (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
The Lord was not literally forbidding calling anyone master (Eph_6:9) /ruler/teacher or father, but in context it is a form of contrasting speech in reproving love of preeminence and titles:
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Matthew 23:10-12)
Aside from the fact that separate class of celibate (normatively) sacerdotal Catholic priesthood is Not that of the NT presbuteros (which was not even separate from episkopos), and that as a standard clerical title no one should be referred to a spiritual father unless they were (as Paul was to Timothy and to Onesimus, among multitude others) any more than I should call Mormon leaders "elders") es. at 70) and which Cath. priests can only imagine they are thru the damnable false premise of baptismal regeneration, then aside from all that, there is not actual argument against calling men spiritual fathers is in fact there are.
Perhaps this should be added to my list of distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
At LEAST there was no command to not call anyone MOTHER!
--Wannabe_Catholic_Dude(Hail Mary!)
Well written.
Well done.
I hope this puts an end to the debate.
(LOL)
Thank God, but indeed all reproof has been expressed before here on FR, by the grace of God.Nice screen name BTW, and good to see you chime in.
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.