Call No Man Father

[Hopeful 2]

I answered that question my friend.

I posted.......
"
That depends on what view you are talking about. IMHO thereis NO difference.

A world view of Evil is often seen as a violation of moral principles and standards that are commonly held in a particular society framework. On the other hand, Sin is a concept found in religious and moral frameworks, particularly within Christianity.

Some will tell you that A key difference between sin and evil is that sin is always personal, whereas evil is often impersonal. Sins are the acts of men and have no existence apart from human action, creaturely action, in transgression of the law of God.

That didn't answer my question.

 

[Hopeful 2]

That is exactly what I stated. Do you read what I post???????

Right, yes I read your post.
Some postulate that Jesus' sibs were only halfies because they were not born of Mary, but only Joseph.

 

[GodsGrace]

It must be a virus on the computer scree.
It seems that many people here have a virus of saying what others do not say.

In post #729 I said..........
"IMHO though, Yes, we should confess our sins to God as soon as we are aware that we have been convicted of sin and we need to confess that sin. However, we do not always need to be asking God for forgiveness. When we place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, all of our sins are forgiven. That includes past, present, and future, big or small. Believers do not have to keep asking for forgiveness or repenting in order to have their sins forgiven. Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins, and when they are forgiven, they are all forgiven.

Did you see that. I said for the 3rd time........"IMHO though, Yes, we should confess our sins to God as soon as we are aware that we have been convicted of sin and we need to confess that sin. "

Now since the Bible says that our PAST sins are forgiven, and our PRESENT sins are forgiven, why do you think that TOMARROWS sin will not be forgiven.

Let's see if it's a virus or perhaps how you explain your ideas:

I'm just going to post here directly from your statement above:


Rodger stated:
In post #729 I said..........
"IMHO though, Yes, we should confess our sins to God as soon as we are aware that we have been convicted of sin and we need to confess that sin.

However, we do not always need to be asking God for forgiveness. When we place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, all of our sins are forgiven. That includes past, present, and future, big or small. Believers do not have to keep asking for forgiveness or repenting in order to have their sins forgiven.

Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins, and when they are forgiven, they are all forgiven.
So which is it?
The green or the blue?
Are we to ask forgiveness of our sins
or do we not need to be always asking forgiveness of our sins?

As to Jesus paying for our sins....what does this have to do with confessing our sins?
Jesus died for the sins of the whole world as per scripture. Our discussion is about asking for forgiveness.
1 John 2:2
2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

And, let's not forget: Yes, God DOES expect us to keep His Word and the Ten Commandments:

1 John 2:3
3By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

 

[GodsGrace]

Very long.....I will respond to your 1st question of ...."How does the CCC contradict scripture??"

First of all, In the Catholic religion, the Bible is not the authority.
Catholic theology acknowledges the significance of tradition, including the teachings of the Church Fathers, ecumenical councils, and the Magisterium, as complementary sources of divine revelation instead of accepting the Bible as the final authority.
In Catholicism, tradition is regarded as a higher essential and authoritative source that the actual Word of God.

Are you a former priest?
Are you a Catholic Theologian?
NO?
Then please don't pass yourself off as a Catholic expert.

Because you are NOT one.

Everything the CC writes, either at the Council of Trent, in the CCC, or in any of the documents, letter, bulls, etc. that come from the Magesterium, are always written and reference to scripture is given. You posted Lumen Gentium to me - which, BTW - I don't know what it had to do with this conversation - If you take the time to read through it, you'll find a myriad of veses, in parenthesis, at the point of the declaration.

TRADITION is also important in the CC.
Why?
Don't you know the reason?
You seem to think you know everything about the CCs teachings.

What do YOU think the reason might be?
It might have something to do with finding a solution to all the arguing WE PROTESTANTS like to engage in.
And when we don't have enough of OUR OWN arguments regarding scripture....some of us like to criticize OTHER denominations - which have the RIGHT to teach what they believe to be correct.

Will wait for your reply and then I'll offer an example.

Secondly, within Catholic theology, while faith is acknowledged as essential for justification, the Catholic doctrine encompasses a broader understanding that incorporates the role of good works, water baptism, being a member of the Catholic church and cooperation with keeping the sacraments.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, I wrote an entire post showing you how we MUST BE BAPTIZED, WE MUST DO GOOD WORKS, and Sacraments are a sign of God's love to His people and all the Sacraments are found in the New Testament.

All this was accepted, BTW, until just a few hundred years ago.
But the CHURCH has been around since Jesus ascended.

Third, the practice of worship to saints is un-biblical. Now YOU and the other Catholic believer will say NO, we only practice "Veneration". Worship refers to the act of showing reverence and devotion to God.
You will say that Veneration, respect or honor given to saints, objects, or concepts that are considered sacred.

They are in fact the same thing, only the object changes. In other words i I sat PotAto and you PotOto.

Now I can do about 40 more if you need to know so just ask.

You give up on our convesation?
You're moving on to the saints because you can't defend your position on what YOU posted regarding the CCC?
Interesting.
I'm not going down that rabbit hole Rodger.
Let's take one thing at a time.

O, by the way..........the last thing you asked was.........
"Are we allowed to break the 10 Commandments?
Were they written on stone so we could arbitrarily decide they're not important?
Scripture teaches that the 10 Commandments are for all time.

I have already answered that question when I said "ALL". We are required to keep all the commands of God.

So where again is the disagreement???????????

The disagreement is that you think the CC teaches that we must be baptized and YOU don't think we do.
I remind you that many Protestant denominations AGREE that we must be baptized to be saved. I have you scripture.

You call obeying the 10 commandments works....maybe.
IF NOT....what exactly do you think works are?
The myriad of verses I gave you stating we are to do good works were not enough for you?

How about posting some verses that state :

WE ARE NOT TO BE BAPTIZED
WE ARE NOT TO DO GOOD WORKS

Maybe you're speaking of THE LAW? And keeping THE LAW?
Then I suggest you find out the difference between GOOD WORKS and THE LAW.

And you want to post more verses for me?
How about listing mine, like I did to yours, and REPLYING TO THEM instead?

That would be nice.

 

[donadams]

NO sequitur. That has NO meaning.

We are "Forgiven" of our sins the second we accept Christ as our Saviour

NO sequitur. That has NO meaning.

We are "Forgiven" of our sins the second we accept Christ as our Saviour.

What about the sins we commit after that?

 

[donadams]

The one and only reason this is posted is to continue the belief that Mary was the product of an Immaculate conception and remain a Pertetual virgin.

I do not deal in religions or opinions or the thoughts of men. I deal only with the Word of God and in that Word, there is absolulty ZERO on Mary being an Immacualte conception product or staying a virgin the rest of her life. That is wholly a Catholic concept and has NO support in the Scriptures.

Some Roman Catholics as has been seen right here, claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he [Joseph] had no union with her [Mary] until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

Father in scripture does not necessarily mean biological father!

Sister in scripture does not necessarily mean biological sister!

Brother in scripture MUST ABSOLUTELY MEAN BIOLOGICAL BLOOD BROTHER and cannot mean anything else!!!

Inconsistency of a fundamentalist!

 

[Rodger]

What about the sins we commit after that?

The answer is found in the Bible...........I encourage you to open your Bible and read it.

If and when you do you will find that in Ephesians 2:8 says that salvation is a gift of God, and Romans 11:29 says “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

Therefore, if God has saved us, we are saved forevermore.

Peter denied he even knew Christ (Luke 22:55-62), but Jesus later restored and forgave Peter, demonstrating that Peter still belonged to Jesus despite his grievous sin.
The unnamed believer in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 was punished temporally (again, on earth) yet was still saved and his spirit welcomed into God's presence, as Paul affirmed in v.5.
These examples prove that our sin does not separate us from God, as Paul says in Romans 8. Nevertheless, our actions as Christians do have other consequences, both here and in eternity. As the examples above attest, God requires that we discipline those in the church who continue in a life of sin. Matthew 18:15-20 gives clear instructions as to how sinning believers are to be handled. Ultimately, if they refuse to stop sinning, we are to put them out of the church. This is for the destruction of their flesh, not that they would lose their salvation (see 1 Cor. 5:1-5), with the ultimate goal of restoring them to fellowship (as Jesus did with Peter).

 

[donadams]

The one and only reason this is posted is to continue the belief that Mary was the product of an Immaculate conception and remain a Pertetual virgin.

I do not deal in religions or opinions or the thoughts of men. I deal only with the Word of God and in that Word, there is absolulty ZERO on Mary being an Immacualte conception product or staying a virgin the rest of her life. That is wholly a Catholic concept and has NO support in the Scriptures.

Some Roman Catholics as has been seen right here, claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he [Joseph] had no union with her [Mary] until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

Must mean biological blood brother and children of Mary ever virgin is adding to scripture

Scripture alone! Not allowed to add anything!

 

[Rodger]

Father in scripture does not necessarily mean biological father!

Sister in scripture does not necessarily mean biological sister!

Brother in scripture MUST ABSOLUTELY MEAN BIOLOGICAL BLOOD BROTHER and cannot mean anything else!!!

Inconsistency of a fundamentalist!

Redundant opinions. You are wrong and in fact you have and are still ignoreing the GRAMATICAL fact thet the literal word in the Greek means relative Brother.

You said.......
"Brother in scripture MUST ABSOLUTELY MEAN BIOLOGICAL BLOOD BROTHER and cannot mean anything else!!!"

The Greek word means "biological relative-blood brother"!!!!
You can deny that all day long but your denial does not change that fact!

And what source do you base that assumption on????

YES....I am a "Fundamentalist" but that is not some kind of dirty word. I am a Fundamentalist in that I actually believe and accept the fundamentals of the Word of God.

The Bible says that Jesus had at least 6 1/2 brothers and sister! FACT!

 

[Rodger]

Must mean biological blood brother and children of Mary ever virgin is adding to scripture

Scripture alone! Not allowed to add anything!

You are very mistaken. You have believed Catholic doctrine over and above the Word of God.

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother.

YOU as a Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used.

The only conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-sibling.

 

[Rodger]

Are you a former priest?
Are you a Catholic Theologian?
NO?
Then please don't pass yourself off as a Catholic expert.

Because you are NOT one.

Everything the CC writes, either at the Council of Trent, in the CCC, or in any of the documents, letter, bulls, etc. that come from the Magesterium, are always written and reference to scripture is given. You posted Lumen Gentium to me - which, BTW - I don't know what it had to do with this conversation - If you take the time to read through it, you'll find a myriad of veses, in parenthesis, at the point of the declaration.

TRADITION is also important in the CC.
Why?
Don't you know the reason?
You seem to think you know everything about the CCs teachings.

What do YOU think the reason might be?
It might have something to do with finding a solution to all the arguing WE PROTESTANTS like to engage in.
And when we don't have enough of OUR OWN arguments regarding scripture....some of us like to criticize OTHER denominations - which have the RIGHT to teach what they believe to be correct.

Will wait for your reply and then I'll offer an example.



Well, if I'm not mistaken, I wrote an entire post showing you how we MUST BE BAPTIZED, WE MUST DO GOOD WORKS, and Sacraments are a sign of God's love to His people and all the Sacraments are found in the New Testament.

All this was accepted, BTW, until just a few hundred years ago.
But the CHURCH has been around since Jesus ascended.




You give up on our convesation?
You're moving on to the saints because you can't defend your position on what YOU posted regarding the CCC?
Interesting.
I'm not going down that rabbit hole Rodger.
Let's take one thing at a time.


The disagreement is that you think the CC teaches that we must be baptized and YOU don't think we do.
I remind you that many Protestant denominations AGREE that we must be baptized to be saved. I have you scripture.

You call obeying the 10 commandments works....maybe.
IF NOT....what exactly do you think works are?
The myriad of verses I gave you stating we are to do good works were not enough for you?

How about posting some verses that state :

WE ARE NOT TO BE BAPTIZED
WE ARE NOT TO DO GOOD WORKS

Maybe you're speaking of THE LAW? And keeping THE LAW?
Then I suggest you find out the difference between GOOD WORKS and THE LAW.

And you want to post more verses for me?
How about listing mine, like I did to yours, and REPLYING TO THEM instead?

That would be nice.

How about just ask ONE question a post??????

You asked me......
"Am I a priest"

YES!

 

[donadams]

The answer is found in the Bible...........I encourage you to open your Bible and read it.

If and when you do you will find that in Ephesians 2:8 says that salvation is a gift of God, and Romans 11:29 says “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

Therefore, if God has saved us, we are saved forevermore.

Peter denied he even knew Christ (Luke 22:55-62), but Jesus later restored and forgave Peter, demonstrating that Peter still belonged to Jesus despite his grievous sin.
The unnamed believer in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 was punished temporally (again, on earth) yet was still saved and his spirit welcomed into God's presence, as Paul affirmed in v.5.
These examples prove that our sin does not separate us from God, as Paul says in Romans 8. Nevertheless, our actions as Christians do have other consequences, both here and in eternity. As the examples above attest, God requires that we discipline those in the church who continue in a life of sin. Matthew 18:15-20 gives clear instructions as to how sinning believers are to be handled. Ultimately, if they refuse to stop sinning, we are to put them out of the church. This is for the destruction of their flesh, not that they would lose their salvation (see 1 Cor. 5:1-5), with the ultimate goal of restoring them to fellowship (as Jesus did with Peter).

I did not ask if you think your saved I asked about sin commuted after baptism or coming to christ

 

[Rodger]

Let's see if it's a virus or perhaps how you explain your ideas:

I'm just going to post here directly from your statement above:


Rodger stated:
In post #729 I said..........
"IMHO though, Yes, we should confess our sins to God as soon as we are aware that we have been convicted of sin and we need to confess that sin.

However, we do not always need to be asking God for forgiveness. When we place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, all of our sins are forgiven. That includes past, present, and future, big or small. Believers do not have to keep asking for forgiveness or repenting in order to have their sins forgiven.

Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins, and when they are forgiven, they are all forgiven.
So which is it?
The green or the blue?
Are we to ask forgiveness of our sins
or do we not need to be always asking forgiveness of our sins?

As to Jesus paying for our sins....what does this have to do with confessing our sins?
Jesus died for the sins of the whole world as per scripture. Our discussion is about asking for forgiveness.
1 John 2:2
2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

And, let's not forget: Yes, God DOES expect us to keep His Word and the Ten Commandments:

1 John 2:3
3By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

BOTH.

The virus is spreading.

Did you READ that I said in the green that i said....."IMHO though,".
IMHO means my personal thought!
Then in the blue I said.........
"However, we do not always need to be asking God for forgiveness. When we place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, all of our sins are forgiven. That includes past, present, and future, big or small. Believers do not have to keep asking for forgiveness or repenting in order to have their sins forgiven. "
I am perplexed at how that is confusing. I stated what the Bible teaches us ....however TO ME, IN MY LIFE I have found that I feel better when I talk to God and confess my know sin.

You said......
"And, let's not forget: Yes, God DOES expect us to keep His Word and the Ten Commandments".

That is the 2nd time you have said that. Would you please post where I said that we did not have to try and keep the commandments if God and the # of that post?

 

[Rodger]

Are you a former priest?
Are you a Catholic Theologian?
NO?
Then please don't pass yourself off as a Catholic expert.

Because you are NOT one.

Everything the CC writes, either at the Council of Trent, in the CCC, or in any of the documents, letter, bulls, etc. that come from the Magesterium, are always written and reference to scripture is given. You posted Lumen Gentium to me - which, BTW - I don't know what it had to do with this conversation - If you take the time to read through it, you'll find a myriad of veses, in parenthesis, at the point of the declaration.

TRADITION is also important in the CC.
Why?
Don't you know the reason?
You seem to think you know everything about the CCs teachings.

What do YOU think the reason might be?
It might have something to do with finding a solution to all the arguing WE PROTESTANTS like to engage in.
And when we don't have enough of OUR OWN arguments regarding scripture....some of us like to criticize OTHER denominations - which have the RIGHT to teach what they believe to be correct.

Will wait for your reply and then I'll offer an example.



Well, if I'm not mistaken, I wrote an entire post showing you how we MUST BE BAPTIZED, WE MUST DO GOOD WORKS, and Sacraments are a sign of God's love to His people and all the Sacraments are found in the New Testament.

All this was accepted, BTW, until just a few hundred years ago.
But the CHURCH has been around since Jesus ascended.




You give up on our convesation?
You're moving on to the saints because you can't defend your position on what YOU posted regarding the CCC?
Interesting.
I'm not going down that rabbit hole Rodger.
Let's take one thing at a time.


The disagreement is that you think the CC teaches that we must be baptized and YOU don't think we do.
I remind you that many Protestant denominations AGREE that we must be baptized to be saved. I have you scripture.

You call obeying the 10 commandments works....maybe.
IF NOT....what exactly do you think works are?
The myriad of verses I gave you stating we are to do good works were not enough for you?

How about posting some verses that state :

WE ARE NOT TO BE BAPTIZED
WE ARE NOT TO DO GOOD WORKS

Maybe you're speaking of THE LAW? And keeping THE LAW?
Then I suggest you find out the difference between GOOD WORKS and THE LAW.

And you want to post more verses for me?
How about listing mine, like I did to yours, and REPLYING TO THEM instead?

That would be nice.

Your responces are becoming rather personal and confrontational to me. Is that what you intended them to be?

Example:
You're moving on to the saints because you can't defend your position on what YOU posted regarding the CCC?

I was trying to be nice and respectful and not get involved in confrontational theology...HOWEVER it seems to me that you are inviting just that.

Example.
By your own words you are saying that NO ONE has the ability to offer challenges to any religion that does not accept and follow the Word of God.

Do You know that you personally have just denied exactly what the Bible telles us to do.

Matthew 7:15: ......
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” And the word beware means all of us should be alert, but especially shepherds, to identify not just false teaching, but false teachers, whose ways are subtle. They’re clothing themselves with lamb’s wool while they’re wolves.

You then said.........
"How about posting some verses that state :

WE ARE NOT TO BE BAPTIZED
WE ARE NOT TO DO GOOD WORKS"

I HAVE DONE THAT ABOUT A DOZEN TIMES NOW! How many more do you require????

 

[Randy]

This is the context of Jesus's teaching who as stated is our true Rabbi.

He was addressing the puffed up leadership of Israel.
They[i] love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues[j] 7 and elaborate greetings[k] in the marketplaces,[l] and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’ 8 But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. 9 And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

He added
Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ.[m] 11 The[n] greatest among you will be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

God did exalt/favor Abraham and stated He would become the Father of many nations. Abraham is shown as the patriarch of the jews as in the children of Abraham.

Christ did call Paul into His service and appointed him as a Apostle.

When I was little and attended Catholic Mass I had no problem addressing the priests as Father as a sign of respect. So we get older and let theology get in the way of that respect? Jesus wanted us to become like little children.

 

[donadams]

This is the context of Jesus's teaching who as stated is our true Rabbi.

He was addressing the puffed up leadership of Israel.
They[i] love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues[j] 7 and elaborate greetings[k] in the marketplaces,[l] and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’ 8 But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. 9 And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

He added
Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ.[m] 11 The[n] greatest among you will be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

God did exalt/favor Abraham and stated He would become the Father of many nations. Abraham is shown as the patriarch of the jews as in the children of Abraham.

Christ did call Paul into His service and appointed him as a Apostle.

When I was little and attended Catholic Mass I had no problem addressing the priests as Father as a sign of respect. So we get older and let theology get in the way of that respect? Jesus wanted us to become like little children.

Then why paul
A teacher?

1. 1 Timothy 2:7
   Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacherof the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2. 2 Timothy 1:11
   Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

 

[donadams]

This is the context of Jesus's teaching who as stated is our true Rabbi.

He was addressing the puffed up leadership of Israel.
They[i] love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues[j] 7 and elaborate greetings[k] in the marketplaces,[l] and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’ 8 But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. 9 And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

He added
Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ.[m] 11 The[n] greatest among you will be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

God did exalt/favor Abraham and stated He would become the Father of many nations. Abraham is shown as the patriarch of the jews as in the children of Abraham.

Christ did call Paul into His service and appointed him as a Apostle.

When I was little and attended Catholic Mass I had no problem addressing the priests as Father as a sign of respect. So we get older and let theology get in the way of that respect? Jesus wanted us to become like little children.

Why does Jesus demand that the successors of Moses be obeyed? Matt 23

 

[Randy]

Then why paul
A teacher?

1. 1 Timothy 2:7
   Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacherof the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2. 2 Timothy 1:11
   Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Paul didn't elevate Himself to an Apostle He was appointed by Christ. I guess that's "why" He thought of himself as a light to the gentiles.
God=>Paul=>laid a foundation, the Church, by the will of Christ
Paul was an Apostle by God's will not any man.


He didn't sit in a place of honor with people serving him dressed in fine garments being well fed. He called himself as he was appointed by God, not any man, an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

And his deeds speak for him and his credentials are not titles given as we can read.

Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

 

[Randy]

Why does Jesus demand that the successors of Moses be obeyed? Matt 23

Because they were the governing authorities. Jesus Himself stated He was NOT leading a rebellion but exceptions were made as the Apostles were commanded not to speak anymore about Jesus and they chose to obey God.

 

[Rodger]

This is the context of Jesus's teaching who as stated is our true Rabbi.

He was addressing the puffed up leadership of Israel.
They[i] love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues[j] 7 and elaborate greetings[k] in the marketplaces,[l] and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’ 8 But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. 9 And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

He added
Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ.[m] 11 The[n] greatest among you will be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

God did exalt/favor Abraham and stated He would become the Father of many nations. Abraham is shown as the patriarch of the jews as in the children of Abraham.

Christ did call Paul into His service and appointed him as a Apostle.

When I was little and attended Catholic Mass I had no problem addressing the priests as Father as a sign of respect. So we get older and let theology get in the way of that respect? Jesus wanted us to become like little children.

Randy.....I understand what you are saying and I repect it greatly.

I would only ask you that when you grew older and you actully read the Bbile, didn't it concern you that Jesus when said......In Matthew 23:1–12, "do not call any eartly man Father" that Jesus is denouncing the Jewish scribes and Pharisees for rejecting Him as their Messiah, in particular for their hypocrisy in elevating themselves above others with titles such as “teacher” and “master.”

Now personally....I do not care what you call your Pastor. However, as a Roman Catholic, I am sure that you call call your priests “father,” and the Pope is the “holy father.”

Abbots take their title from the Aramaic word abba, which means “father.” This is clearly unbiblical. The priest as “father” is problematic. In the case of “holy father,” there is no doubt this title is unbiblical.

No man can take on the title of “holy” anything, because only God is holy. This title gives the Pope a status that is never intended for any man on earth.

Of course what you do is your choice and all I am doing is pointing out the difference in what you do and what God sais we should not do.