Father?

[Mungo]

Although it's true that words have multiple meanings what does that have to do with this? Who else could Jesus possibly have been referring to? Darth Vader?

It's not who Jesus was addressing it is what he meant by his word which we translate as 'call'.

A Greek Othodox priest, who is also a Greek translator (so he rally know what he is talking about) says the Greek for Mt 23:9 can be literally translated as:
"And father no summon of you on the earth one for is the father of you (pl.) who is in the heavens.
The aorist active verb καλέσητε in Matthew 23.9 means to call forth, invite, to summon, and is in the second person aorist active subjunctive plural form. It does not mean to “call” in the sense of addressing someone by a title such as apostle, father, mother, brother, lord, etc. (ὠνόμασεν for example as in Mark 3.14, Luke 6.13, 1 Cor. 5.11, 2 Timothy 2.19, Rom 15.20), but “to call” in the sense of to summon, bid, invite, call forth, invoke (καλέσητε)."
The same Greek word is translated "invite" in Mt 22:9 (RSV0 or bid (KJV).

 

[Mungo]

Then why do you also agree with that article that the Pope/papa/father is the head of the church. You can't have it both ways.

He is head of the Church on earth (under Jesus). A bit like a head of department.
That takes nothing away from Jesus being the head of the Church

 

[GodsGrace]

He is head of the Church on earth (under Jesus). A bit like a head of department.
That takes nothing away from Jesus being the head of the Church

You capitalized both "churches"....

The Pope is the head of the church.....

Jesus is the head of the Church.

Please note the difference.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

It's not who Jesus was addressing it is what he meant by his word which we translate as 'call'.

A Greek Othodox priest, who is also a Greek translator (so he rally know what he is talking about) says the Greek for Mt 23:9 can be literally translated as:
"And father no summon of you on the earth one for is the father of you (pl.) who is in the heavens.
The aorist active verb καλέσητε in Matthew 23.9 means to call forth, invite, to summon, and is in the second person aorist active subjunctive plural form. It does not mean to “call” in the sense of addressing someone by a title such as apostle, father, mother, brother, lord, etc. (ὠνόμασεν for example as in Mark 3.14, Luke 6.13, 1 Cor. 5.11, 2 Timothy 2.19, Rom 15.20), but “to call” in the sense of to summon, bid, invite, call forth, invoke (καλέσητε)."
The same Greek word is translated "invite" in Mt 22:9 (RSV0 or bid (KJV).

Sorry, but that still doesn't make any sense to me. :/

 

[GodsGrace]

Then why do you also agree with that article that the Pope/papa/father is the head of the church. You can't have it both ways.

As I posted to Mungo

The Pope is the head of the church....the institution of the catholic church.

Jesus is the head of the Church.
Born again Catholics are part of the Church of which Jesus is the head.

EVERY catholic is part of the institution of the church....
born again or not, of which the Pope is the head.

 

[GodsGrace]

From your understanding, would you also include pastor, preacher, elder, deacon?

When I read the text I posted in my OP, there seems to be an underlying purpose. Jesus seemed to be addressing the haughtiness of the Pharisees and Scribes. Is it possible Jesus was addressing this along with the titles?

Just trying to look at this from multiple angles to better understand what the text is saying.

You're absolutely correct WIP.
Jesus meant that some took the title and allowed it to make them be proud and haughty, as you said. Jesus meant that we should be humble in our teaching....

He was being sarcastic.
We call our father, father.

He meant father, as in teacher....

 

[GodsGrace]

Ideally addressing them as "Brother______" should suffice. But if people are used to saying "pastor" or "preacher" I don't believe that would be an issue, provided they all understand that these are spiritual gifts and callings, while all are brethren. Elders are delegated by Christ to be both shepherds (pastors) and overseers (bishops) and must take full responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the flock. But they cannot taken titles to themselves. As you will note evangelists, pastors, and teachers are the gifts given to the churches for the edification of the saints, and ideally should be found among the elders (presbyters). But apostles and prophets are now found in the complete Bible, and modern day apostles and prophets are not necessary (though some are making such claims).

Rabbi, Father and Teacher ALL refer to being a teacher.

Why would calling someone PASTOR not be an issue, but calling someone Rabbi or Father be an issue?

They are all teaching and pastoring.

Because Jesus did not use the word PASTOR means nothing....
In fact, it's worse in some ways. JESUS is our only PASTOR....meaning shepherd.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

You're absolutely correct WIP.
Jesus meant that some took the title and allowed it to make them be proud and haughty, as you said. Jesus meant that we should be humble in our teaching....

He was being sarcastic.
We call our father, father.

He meant father, as in teacher....

Actually I've never called my father Father or my mother Mother. I've always just called them Mom and Dad except for when I was younger,.. then I called them Mommy and Daddy.

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually I've never called my father Father or my mother Mother. I've always just called them Mom and Dad except for when I was younger,.. then I called them Mommy and Daddy.

I don't think anybody calls their dad FATHER....it's so formal.

So neither did I, actually.

 

[stovebolts]

The Pope is the head of the church....the institution of the catholic church.

Let's be a bit more accurate and state it's the Roman catholic church. The Catholic church split in 1054 in part to Rome claiming primacy.

 

[GodsGrace]

Let's be a bit more accurate and state it's the Roman catholic church. The Catholic church split in 1054 in part to Rome claiming primacy.

Agreed, but by habit I call it the catholic church.
In fact, I'd say it became the Roman CC before the schism.
Maybe when the first Pope was declared to be the Roman Bishop in about 600??

 

[jasonc]

Let's be a bit more accurate and state it's the Roman catholic church. The Catholic church split in 1054 in part to Rome claiming primacy.

Anything but a peaceful one at that

 

[jasonc]

I do believe that if Jesus were to return the church would find some harsh words of judgement against it. people in it would be saved if they believed but some of these denomonations.

 

[for_his_glory]

He is head of the Church on earth (under Jesus). A bit like a head of department.
That takes nothing away from Jesus being the head of the Church

It does take away from Christ being the head of the Church when one calls himself "Holy Father" and others are to bow down to him and even some kissing his ring so what's that all about.

Mungo and wondering and any other Catholic reading this. There are many Catholics that have become Spiritually born again Christians, but yet like the structure of the Catholic church, but yet no longer accept all the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I have many in my own family on my mothers side in whom she also was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school, but now a Spiritually born again Christian that no longer attends the Catholic Church. Now with that said I have no reason to bash any Catholic for how they want to believe or else I would be hating a big chuck of my relatives, but there are many things I question and research about the Pope and those in the higher Jesuit counsel of the Catholic church and the Illuminati.

A Pope should be no different than anyone who God calls and anoints as a leader over His Church being the body of Christ as Christ as the head on the body. Only Christ is preeminence, but yet all the Pope's claim to have inherited the title Pontifex Maximus (Pontiff) which directly comes from the Babylonian Empire. Another title is Vicarius Filii Dei meaning in the place of God as they all have called them self the Holy Father. This you can find in history and also in what Jesus characterizes and condemns in Matthew 23.

 

[for_his_glory]

Yeah, this isn't Hannah Montana. *Cues theme song and relives my childhood back when Miley Cyrus was somewhat normal. :')

Not sure what this has to do with the discussion?

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Not sure what this has to do with the discussion?

It was a joke. You said that it was either that Jesus was the head of the church or the pope was or something like that and we couldn't have it both ways. Where as Hannah Montana talks about having the best of both worlds. Anyways,..

 

[Mungo]

As I posted to Mungo

The Pope is the head of the church....the institution of the catholic church.

Jesus is the head of the Church.
Born again Catholics are part of the Church of which Jesus is the head.

EVERY catholic is part of the institution of the church....
born again or not, of which the Pope is the head.

Very well put except for some capitalisation.

 

[Mungo]

It does take away from Christ being the head of the Church when one calls himself "Holy Father" and others are to bow down to him and even some kissing his ring so what's that all about.

It's a sign of respect for his office.

Mungo and wondering and any other Catholic reading this. There are many Catholics that have become Spiritually born again Christians, but yet like the structure of the Catholic church, but yet no longer accept all the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I have many in my own family on my mothers side in whom she also was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school, but now a Spiritually born again Christian that no longer attends the Catholic Church. Now with that said I have no reason to bash any Catholic for how they want to believe or else I would be hating a big chuck of my relatives, but there are many things I question and research about the Pope and those in the higher Jesuit counsel of the Catholic church and the Illuminati.

All Catholics are born again in their baptism.

A Pope should be no different than anyone who God calls and anoints as a leader over His Church being the body of Christ as Christ as the head on the body. Only Christ is preeminence, but yet all the Pope's claim to have inherited the title Pontifex Maximus (Pontiff) which directly comes from the Babylonian Empire. Another title is Vicarius Filii Dei meaning in the place of God as they all have called them self the Holy Father. This you can find in history and also in what Jesus characterizes and condemns in Matthew 23.

The title Pontifex Maximus was given to the Pope by the Roman Emperor Gratius. Previous to that, from the time of Augustus it was a title of the Emperor. Previous to that it was the title of the chief pontiff in the Roman Republic. It was a priestly title. It was nothing to do with Babylon.

Vicarius Filii Dei is not a title of the Pope. It was invented by Seventh Day Adventists so that the letters in Latin numerals added up to 666.

Vicarius Christi is a title of the Pope. It means Vicar of Christ.
The Vicar of Christ means Christ’s earthly representative. It does not mean the Pope supplants Christ. When a person cannot physically be present somewhere he/she may send someone to represent them, to stand in their place. For example if the Queen of England is invited, as Head of State, to a function and cannot attend she will send someone to represent her; perhaps Prince Charles. This takes nothing away from her as Head of State. But Prince Charles will act in her place, under her authority, with whatever authority she has delegated to him.

 

[JohnDB]

I've been reading through this...

And I think things are getting close to each side understanding.

A Rabbi/Father/Teacher in the Ancient Near East would have disciples... people who followed his teachings, copied everything he did, repeated every lesson verbatim.

If something happened to the Rabbi you followed (he died) as a successful disciple you might get to follow another rabbi and become their disciple.
(Part of the culture of the day)

Jesus, knowing what was coming, told his disciples that they were not going to become anyone else's disciples...He was their last Rabbi.

The Pope, as the Apostolic successor of Peter's role, is nicknamed "father" but doesn't have the same role as Rabbi of Olde do.
No one is to try to mimic his every mannerism and memorize his every comment to repeat later like disciples of Olde.

 

[GodsGrace]

It does take away from Christ being the head of the Church when one calls himself "Holy Father" and others are to bow down to him and even some kissing his ring so what's that all about.

Mungo and wondering and any other Catholic reading this. There are many Catholics that have become Spiritually born again Christians, but yet like the structure of the Catholic church, but yet no longer accept all the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I have many in my own family on my mothers side in whom she also was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school, but now a Spiritually born again Christian that no longer attends the Catholic Church. Now with that said I have no reason to bash any Catholic for how they want to believe or else I would be hating a big chuck of my relatives, but there are many things I question and research about the Pope and those in the higher Jesuit counsel of the Catholic church and the Illuminati.

A Pope should be no different than anyone who God calls and anoints as a leader over His Church being the body of Christ as Christ as the head on the body. Only Christ is preeminence, but yet all the Pope's claim to have inherited the title Pontifex Maximus (Pontiff) which directly comes from the Babylonian Empire. Another title is Vicarius Filii Dei meaning in the place of God as they all have called them self the Holy Father. This you can find in history and also in what Jesus characterizes and condemns in Matthew 23.

First of all, I'm not catholic and can't believe you don't know this after so many years here. Because I know catholic doctrine and agree with some of it does not make me catholic. I left that church about 40 years ago....after some study of both.

Vicar means a representative of a Bishop.
Vicar of Christ means a representative of Christ... any pastor/teacher/priest is a vicar if we can understand it that way.
The Pope does not take the place of Christ (except in confession) but only represents Him.

Of course the Pope could be the head of the institutional church.
Can ANY corporation function without a President or CEO? No.
Any denominational church has a hierarchy...it must.

I found the following which explains in detail:

The Protestant writer Andreas Helwig suggested that Vicarius Filii Dei was an expansion of the historical title Vicarius Christi, rather than an official title used by the Popes themselves. His interpretation did not become common until about the time of the French Revolution.[7] Some later Protestant figures claimed that Vicarius Filii Dei was an official title of the Pope, with some saying that this title appeared on the papal tiara and/or a mitre.

Catholic apologists answer the Protestant claims by noting that Vicarius Filii Dei has never been an official Papal title.[8] Catholics answer the claims that "Vicarius Filii Dei" is written on the Papal Tiara by stating that a simple inspection of the more than 20 papal tiaras still in existence—including those in use in 1866 during the reign of Pope Pius IX when Uriah Smith made his claim—shows that none have this inscription, nor is there any evidence that any of the earlier papal tiaras destroyed by invading French troops in 1798 had it.[8]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei


I don't understand the problem with calling a man that is responsible for the religious teachings and morality and spirituality of a community "father".

It just means teacher...just like Rabbi means teacher.
Jesus was called Rabbi out of respect for His knowledge.
In Mathew 23 He meant that we are to learn basically from the Holy Spirit that give us UNDERSTANDING more than teachings.

This would be what I agree with regarding Mathew 23:9:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(9) Call no man your father.—This also, under its Hebrew form of Abba, was one of the titles in which the scribes delighted. In its true use it embodied the thought that the relation of scholars and teachers was filial on the one side, paternal on the other; but precisely because it expressed so noble an idea was its merely conventional use full of danger. The history of the ecclesiastical titles of Christendom offers in this respect a singular parallel to that of the titles of Judaism. In Abbot (derived from Abba=Father), in Papa and Pope (which have risen from their application to every priest, till they culminate in the Pontifex summus of the Church of Home), in our “Father in God,” as applied to Bishops, we find examples of the use of like language, liable to the same abuse. It would, of course, be a slavish literalism to see in our Lord’s words an absolute prohibition of these and like words in ecclesiastical or civil life. What was meant was to warn men against so recognising, in any case, the fatherhood of men as to forget the Fatherhood of God. Even the teacher and apostle, who is a father to others, needs to remember that he is as a “little child” in the relation to God. (Comp. St. Paul’s claim in 1Corinthians 4:15.)

In 1 Corinthians 4:15 Paul calls hmself a father.
15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Verse 14 states we are as children. Making the circle complete...