Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Call No Man Father

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00

Mungo

Member
Catholics are sometimes accused of contradicting scripture because they call their priests "Father" but Jesus said (Mt 23:9):
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

But is there really a contradiction?
Jesus himself uses the term in later in the same chapter (vs 32.)
Jesus refers to Abraham as father in Lk 16:24, as does James in Jas 2:21.
Paul writes “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.” (1Cor 4:15)
Matthew repeatedly refers to fathers in Matt 10:21-37, 15:4-6
John writes “I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.” (1Jn 2:13)
And there are more examples I could give.

So what is going on?
What is going on is the logical fallacy of equivocation in the use of “call” – using a word with two different meanings.
The Collins Concise Dictionary gives 28 [yes, twenty eight] different meanings to the verb “call”. Some of these are specialist terms (e.g. to “call” at poker)
Here are two of them
8. (tr) to name or style: they called the dog Rover.
9. (tr) designate: they called him a coward.
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary [less comprehensive with only 8 meanings] puts it:- “[3.] give a specified name to. address by a specified name, title, etc.”
Catholics address or give their priests a title of Father. But this is not the same meaning as Jesus was using in Mt 23:9

According to a Greek Orthodox priest, who is also a Greek translator, the word translated “call” in Mt 23:9 is misunderstood. I do not understand the technicalities of Greek but apparently the word used (kalesete) is not any of those used to imply a name or title, but means summon or call forth and is in the second person aorist active subjunctive plural form (and no, I don’t understand what that is!).

This would be the following from the Collins Concise Dictionary
1. to speak out or utter (words, sounds etc.) loudly so as to attract attention
2. (tr) to ask or order to come
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary put it:- “[1.] cry out to (someone) in order to summon them or attract their attention.”

The issue does not arise in the Greek because two different words are used.
In Mt 23:9 the Greek is kalesete.
But the Greek word for call in the sense of addressing someone is legeis as in this example (Lk 18:18-19)
And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call [legeis] me good? No one is good but God alone.

Here is an example using both meanings
As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. (Mt 4:18-21)

Here are the two uses of called. The first meaning named or addressed (Simon who is called Peter) is legomenon (Strong 3004). The second is call in the sense of call out to (he called them) ekalesen (Strong 2564)
 
If I understand you then, the use of the word father when referring to a priest is merely a title and not reflective of an inheritance, ancestry, or Lordship and in Matthew 23:9 Jesus is not speaking about a title but rather an ancestry, Lordship, or ancestral line. Father in this case is a much more intimate use of the vernacular. For those of us who accept Christ are joint heirs with Christ.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

Romans 8:14-17 NKJV

And again...
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:10-13 NKJV
 
Hello Mungo.
I think what our Lord meant was not to think of anyone as having preemenence above our Father in Heaven. He also said, be not ye called Rabb,: for one is your Master, even Christ (Mt.23:8). This kind of goes along with Pauls' teaching in 1Cor.3:3-7.
So it's not wrong to refer to people who instruct us as teachers, or our dads as fathers, but it is wrong to think of them as the ultimate teacher or Father.
 
The next generation wont have any difficulty not calling anyone father. It's all Baby Daddy with them now.

Well I had 9 kids, so I named 'em all Joe.

How does that work?

When it's time for dinner, I just calls Hey Joe, Suppertime and they all come a runnin. Now if I was wanting to speak with one individual child? Then I'd call him by the baby daddy last name....
 
Catholics are sometimes accused of contradicting scripture because they call their priests "Father" but Jesus said (Mt 23:9):
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

But is there really a contradiction?
Jesus himself uses the term in later in the same chapter (vs 32.)
Jesus refers to Abraham as father in Lk 16:24, as does James in Jas 2:21.
Paul writes “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.” (1Cor 4:15)
Matthew repeatedly refers to fathers in Matt 10:21-37, 15:4-6
John writes “I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.” (1Jn 2:13)
And there are more examples I could give.

So what is going on?
What is going on is the logical fallacy of equivocation in the use of “call” – using a word with two different meanings.
The Collins Concise Dictionary gives 28 [yes, twenty eight] different meanings to the verb “call”. Some of these are specialist terms (e.g. to “call” at poker)
Here are two of them
8. (tr) to name or style: they called the dog Rover.
9. (tr) designate: they called him a coward.
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary [less comprehensive with only 8 meanings] puts it:- “[3.] give a specified name to. address by a specified name, title, etc.”
Catholics address or give their priests a title of Father. But this is not the same meaning as Jesus was using in Mt 23:9

According to a Greek Orthodox priest, who is also a Greek translator, the word translated “call” in Mt 23:9 is misunderstood. I do not understand the technicalities of Greek but apparently the word used (kalesete) is not any of those used to imply a name or title, but means summon or call forth and is in the second person aorist active subjunctive plural form (and no, I don’t understand what that is!).

This would be the following from the Collins Concise Dictionary
1. to speak out or utter (words, sounds etc.) loudly so as to attract attention
2. (tr) to ask or order to come
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary put it:- “[1.] cry out to (someone) in order to summon them or attract their attention.”

The issue does not arise in the Greek because two different words are used.
In Mt 23:9 the Greek is kalesete.
But the Greek word for call in the sense of addressing someone is legeis as in this example (Lk 18:18-19)
And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call [legeis] me good? No one is good but God alone.

Here is an example using both meanings
As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. (Mt 4:18-21)

Here are the two uses of called. The first meaning named or addressed (Simon who is called Peter) is legomenon (Strong 3004). The second is call in the sense of call out to (he called them) ekalesen (Strong 2564)

The bible says call no man Father. That was as a spiritual teacher, not as a Dad. So yes some religions are in error defying Jesus about that point. Even the Pope is called Holy Father--What did he Father spiritually= 0-God Fathered all spiritual things, he alone is the holy Father.
 
The bible says call no man Father. That was as a spiritual teacher, not as a Dad. So yes some religions are in error defying Jesus about that point. Even the Pope is called Holy Father--What did he Father spiritually= 0-God Fathered all spiritual things, he alone is the holy Father.

You quote my post but from your reply I see that you didn't acrually read it.
 
You quote my post but from your reply I see that you didn't acrually read it.

I did read it--Jesus was speaking about spiritual teachers--do not call any man Father--No Man fathered a single spiritual thing. Where as some men Fathered certain other aspects of life and Jesus was not referring to those, just spiritual teachers.
 
I did read it--Jesus was speaking about spiritual teachers--do not call any man Father--No Man fathered a single spiritual thing. Where as some men Fathered certain other aspects of life and Jesus was not referring to those, just spiritual teachers.

The point of my post was not about spiritual or biological fathers.
It was about the meanings of the word "call".

Critics of Catholics point to Mt 23:9
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
But, they say, Catholics call their priests father in contradiction to what Jesus commanded.

As I pointed out this accusation is false because the word "call" is being used with two different meanings. That is the error of equivocation.

If I put it this way you can see the error
Jesus said And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Catholics address their priests as father.
No contradiction.
Do you get it now?
 
The point of my post was not about spiritual or biological fathers.
It was about the meanings of the word "call".

Critics of Catholics point to Mt 23:9
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
But, they say, Catholics call their priests father in contradiction to what Jesus commanded.

As I pointed out this accusation is false because the word "call" is being used with two different meanings. That is the error of equivocation.

If I put it this way you can see the error
Jesus said And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Catholics address their priests as father.
No contradiction.
Do you get it now?

They must twist the meaning to try and cover their errors.
 
I understand calling a priest father because the church is family and a priest is like a father figure, but I think calling the Pope Holy Father and a representative of Christ on earth is a bit over the top. Are we all called to be Christlike and be the salt of the earth so everyone is Christ's representative.

It just seems like its A Holy Father in place of Christ on earth. That's one glorious status to have.

Im too humble to allow myself to have any status. I would never allow anyone to call me Holy Father even if I had children. Father maybe, but definitely not Holy Father that's a bit over the top.
 
Last edited:
When I read the scripture it seems to point to God being the Holy Father and Christ being the High Priest and mediator between God and man, and we are in Christ's Spiritual house and Christs Holy Priesthood.

So I don't understand how correct me if I'm wrong, the pope is called the Holy Father at the top and sits on his glorious throne, and the Priests are the mediators between God and man who people repent and ask forgiveness to and who prays for them.
 
Last edited:
I understand calling a priest father because the church is family and a priest is like a father figure, but I think calling the Pope Holy Father and a representative of Christ on earth is a bit over the top. Are we all called to be Christlike and be the salt of the earth so everyone is Christ's representative.

It just seems like its A Holy Father in place of Christ on earth. That's one glorious status to have.

Im too humble to allow myself to have any status. I would never allow anyone to call me Holy Father even if I had children. Father maybe, but definitely not Holy Father that's a bit over the top.

When I read the scripture it seems to point to God being the Holy Father and Christ being the High Priest and mediator between God and man, and we are in Christ's Spiritual house and Christs Holy Priesthood.

So I don't understand how correct me if I'm wrong, the pope is called the Holy Father at the top and sits on his glorious throne, and the Priests are the mediators between God and man who people repent and ask forgiveness to and who prays for them.

Holy Father

The short answer:
Catholics call the pope “Holy Father” not as an acknowledgement of his personal state of soul but as an expression of respect for his office as successor to Peter and head of the Church on earth. His is a holy office.
http://catholicsay.com/why-is-the-pope-called-the-holy-father-instead-of-just-father/

The longer answer:
The word "pope" is latin for "Papa." The pope is considered the "father" of the church. In the Bible, spiritual leaders such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even the Apostle Paul, are called fathers in a spiritual sense.

"Holy" refers to the fact that the pope has been given a job to do by God, and set apart (which is what holy means) for this purpose.

Catholic Answer
God is holiness itself, He is the very definition of holiness, and we can only grasp barely a glimmer of what He actually is, who is Being and Love itself. Nevertheless, He became incarnate as a human being so that He could communicate Himself to us, and we could approach Him without being destroyed at the very thought. To continue to be with us through the rest of history, He formed His Church, and appointed His apostle Peter as its first Vicar. The Vicar of the Kingdom in the Davidic kingdom in the Old Testament held the "keys of the kingdom" and ruled with the King's own authority - read Isaiah. Our Blessed Lord gave the "keys", His own authority and prestige to His Vicar on earth, Peter and His successors, so out of honor for God, we offer the honor due to Him to His Vicar NOT because His Vicar is holy in an of himself, but because of Whom he represents.

https://www.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_Pope_called_Holy_Father
 
I understand the words holy and father can be used in specific context and in different ways. But what's God's title and status then if human beings want to start calling themselves the Holy Farther?

So then do we have to refer to God as the Holy Father of all Holy Father's of Holyness, just to acknowledge him because the word Holy Father has been equally taken by human beings?.

I thought God has a status as the Holy Father. That's one of God's unique identities in scripture , like Alpha and Omega is another. No one else in scripture is called Holy Father or the Alpha and Omega. The Most High is another. No prophets and no apostles refered to themselves or were called Holy Father. Not Peter, not Paul, not Moses, not Abraham, not no one.
 
Last edited:
Humans have labels but I'm just not a fan of using or refurring to others using what I personally believe is a unique identity of God himself in scripture. That's just me and my belief and opinion, God himself and his identity is the set apart father. If someone calls another human Holy Father and they believe it in another context then that's there belief.

I just ask questions and try get a understand how other people come to there beliefs. No disrespect.

Even God throughout scripture is usually just refered to as the father, so a human being out of scripture being called the Holy Father when God himself is only called father in scripture. It just seems a bit to much. The Holy Spirit is called Holy. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that is God because God is the Spirit. He is the set apart Father of all. Its all his work and his Christ.
 
Last edited:
Abraham is the biological father of Israel through his seed.... clearly God is talking about calling any man Father in the spiritual sense and that includes you calling or even thinking of a priest or pope or anyother man as your father..... its clear and easy to understand you just choose not too. you try and focus on the word "call" while ignoring the command not to do something... its quite clear you were taught in error and you have a choice to make... follow what God says or man.... if you say you love God then show it by following what He says on the matter....
 
So then why bother having a torn veil? Wth do we need a priesthood for when the veil was torn to specifically end the priesthood forever? Or are we just going to ignore the fact that Christianity was supposed to be unique in that no priest was needed as an intercessory functionary between Man and God? That was the whole point of the priesthood being fulfilled in David's family line by the birth of Christ.
 
So then why bother having a torn veil? Wth do we need a priesthood for when the veil was torn to specifically end the priesthood forever? Or are we just going to ignore the fact that Christianity was supposed to be unique in that no priest was needed as an intercessory functionary between Man and God? That was the whole point of the priesthood being fulfilled in David's family line by the birth of Christ.
IS that just your opinion or do you have any evidence these claims?
 
Back
Top