"Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9)

"Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

We call God Father, not any priest or pastor.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qDoyZtkrU0s
youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc
youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8XE3j_c0U
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Catholics

Is this a Moby Dick bread?
>nope.bmp

Everyone is so willing to say "Catholics believe this, so it is Christian" when no one looks outside of commonly accepted ideas of Catholicism.

Christ tells us not to call anyone "father" beside the Father in Heaven, yet every priest is titled father.

Why is Jesus called Son of David if he isn't biologically related to Joseph? Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give accounts of Jesus' genealogy through Joseph, although both accounts differ, also.

Why did The Lord lie in Genesis 6 in comparison to Genesis 11 when The Lord said no man shall live more than 120 years?

Some people actually read the Bible intelligently. :)

My dad is sitting across from me.

I hope none of you proddies have ever called the man who sired you "father" by that logic.

The geneology is the same Adam, Abraham, and David.

>"The second thing is that this genealogy differs in significant ways from the genealogy in Matthew. Why? Most Bible scholars believe that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary (who was also of the royal Davidic line), while Matthew traces the family of Joseph. Thus by both His mother and His earthly father, Jesus had a right to the throne of Israel."

The Son of David is a respectable title, the genealogies do not differ in pointing Him as a descendant of David, Solomon is the son of David, but something "greater than Solomon" is here.

What are the quotes from Genesis you have a concern with?

How can you Catholics be so braindead? It obviously means not to call any father in a religious context as an extension of the 1st Commandment.

It is obvious, that Christ Yeshua would be like "that is your earth father, your dad", but in this case, the term "Father" is to title God, not the priest who acts as an intermediary for God, when Christ is actually the intermediary.

This board is 18+ only

>And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying: What think you of Christ? whose son is he? They say to him: David's. He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

What did He mean by this?

But Jesus was a man

"father" is the meaning, literally, of one of many of the Creator's surnames.

20

I do think that this is an hyperbole. Obviously every man and woman has a biological father. But, the meaning is that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers.

>Matthew Henry Commentary
>22:41-46 When Christ baffled his enemies, he asked what thoughts they had of the promised Messiah? How he could be the Son of David and yet his Lord? He quotes Ps 110:1. If the Christ was to be a mere man, who would not exist till many ages after David's death, how could his forefather call him Lord? The Pharisees could not answer it. Nor can any solve the difficulty except he allows the Messiah to be the Son of God, and David's Lord equally with the Father. He took upon him human nature, and so became God manifested in the flesh; in this sense he is the Son of man and the Son of David. It behoves us above all things seriously to inquire, What think we of Christ? Is he altogether glorious in our eyes, and precious to our hearts? May Christ be our joy, our confidence, our all. May we daily be made more like to him, and more devoted to his service.

Why would David call his own Son, Lord?

>No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. Mathew 22:46

Gives chills sometimes to see the debates between the Jews and Christ Yeshua.

1 Corinthians 4:15
1 John 2:13
1 Timothy 5:1 (note that "elder" is a translation of "presbyter")

youtube.com/watch?v=qDoyZtkrU0s
youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc
youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8XE3j_c0U

Call no man Father means don't see any man as your ultimate authority and source of your existence. "Father" as a title for man, can only ever be used in his capacity relative to God. We have a tendency (and this was a lot more acute in ancient times, especially among the Romans) to the one's Father as one's ultimate authority, spiritual or biological. Christ said he is literally of no authority compared to God, any authority he does have is only in his capacity from God. Any time we use "Father" for a man, it can only be one of endearment of respect, for no man is ultimately our Father, only temporally. You will have no biological or spiritual Father in the Age to Come, he is only serving a role. So don't get carried away and start seeing this role as something more than a role.

what do i do to her breasts, anus, mouth, and vagina?

The Age to Come is now, and Our Father art in Heaven.

It is the "fathers", all of the dominating patriarchs of religious culture, using their power over those who they are supposed to help enlighten, and allowing people still to fall into empty deceit using religion as a mask. You may not do this personally. Someone's role as a priest and being called father is not the problem, and calling your biological dad your father does not make you stupid, it is calling them "father" in the sense that humanity gives its religious judgment away for the sake of the opinion and consensus of the councils that came after the religious reformer.

The Reformer is reforming religion, and does not need to be reformed by people claiming its authority.

Councils don't have any authority of themselves. Councils are called to *resolve disputes about what Christ taught*. They aren't about promulgating new doctrines.

You're ignoring what it clearly says

They may or may not be promoting new doctrines. Does Christ teach us to Last Supper every Sunday? Does Catholic mean Universal or does it mean not Protestant, not Baptist, not Orthodox? If thou shall not kill, why persecute a heretic? What makes a heretic a heretic, and why is Christ also a heretic?

They have authority when people lord their opinions over to the "authorities of the councils" which exist as a power.

Each council has a new doctrine. Each denomination preaches a different gospel from each other, being separate from what unites them, Christ Yeshua.

Baptists are Protestant

>Each denomination preaches a different gospel from each other
That is complete bullshit
>Yeshua
What are you a judaizer?

So you're telling us that Christ just then invented for us an 11th Commandment?

No, I'm following the ancient exegesis, which is recorded. And the only one that actually works with the rest of the NT

The Last Supper every Sunday isn't a doctrine, though, it's more of a habit of the Church. The reason it is observed, is because since Communion is seen as very, very spiritually beneficial, it's observed generally wherever it is possible, which it is on most Sundays.

"Catholic" means "complete".

Orthodox don't advocate persecuting heretics. The only ones that were actually killed by Church involvement, were the Old Believers (who were dangerous fanatics), and the Patriarch responsible for that was defrocked and exiled to a monastery.

A heretic means someone who distorts or takes away from Christ's teachings or adds teachings as his that were never his.

No, Councils don't have authority like that. In the majority of cases, a Council's validity is not fully determined until hundreds of years after it. The Council of Florence, for instance, was supported by all the clergy save Saint Mark of Ephesus, but it was not a valid council, and it was ultimately rejected.

No council has a new doctrine. This much is quite clear with the Eastern verse Oriental Orthodox: we split over semantics, and since the split, the Eastern Orthodox have had several councils that the Oriental were not a part of, yet to this day we share the same doctrines, even though they were not a part of those councils; if councils created new doctrines, this would not be the case.

So everything God ordered outside of the Ten Commandments was trolling?

here...
Did Jesus die once for the sins of all sentient species?
OR does Jesus have to be crucified on each planet where sentient life has developed?
How can we be so arrogant as a species to believe we are the sole recipients in the Universe of YHWH's grace through the death of his son?

Just golly.

>That is complete bullshit
If it was, the churches would be realized in Christ without being separate from each other. Christ says "take this, my Body, and my Blood", uniting the apostles and the disciples, but how can you be divided in the Kingdom of Heaven? How can you be separate from a fellow Christian because of denomination?

It's eisegesis

No, eisegesis is mainly accomplished by taking a verse completely out of context with the rest of Scripture. Exegesis generally involves looking at the rest of Scripture to understand what a verse means. Since this reading of the verse is contingent on the rest of the Bible, such as the verses I mentioned, it's more properly understood as exegesis.

The separation of the church is a new doctrine in itself.

So because you go to a different church that means you have a different gospel? Did you read that before you posted it?

So then justification by faith alone isn't heretical?

You're ignoring what it clearly says. Orthodoxy is heresy. Repent and believe the gospel.

>"I am the Way, I am the Truth, I am the Life."

The life, is the source of energy that sustains us, our soul, from Our Father. God is Source Energy and all living beings, plants, animals, aliens, all have this Life within them. All living things manifested in the Universe that are alive, have Life within.

No, since that separation is canonical, not doctrinal. Canons and doctrines are considered very distinct by the Orthodox. Canons are rules that come from man and are subject to change; they are useful for function, sometimes they are harmful as well though; but they are not doctrine. Doctrine is something that violating or denying is heretical. Violating a canon is called "non-canonical", and generally a problem, but it's not heretical, that is, it's not a violation of the teachings Christ personally gave the Church.

It is if by "faith alone" you mean works don't matter, since Christ made it expressly clear that works are crucial.

Do you think it is ignoring what Christ said if you don't pluck out your eye or cut of your hand for doing sin?

The churches are different from each other, following the same person. Sure, we are all different, but why are Christians so separate? Because the consensus of opinions by "church fathers"? Nonsense, their truths, opinions and revelations are just as important than the churches, but they don't believe it because they decided to call someone else "father" meaning, they let the "authorities" make a decision for them

What was "call no man father" a metaphor for?

Each canon will produce its own doctrine. Their doctrine is their way of division, rather than a doctrine.

We are justified by faith alone but not a faith that is alone.

It's not a "metaphor", it's hyperbole to accentuate a point. Just like the injunction to pluck out your eye.

It's not hyperbole. You can't get hyperbole from the text alone. You are turning the command on it's head.

No, canons don't produce doctrines.

The semantic distinctions (which cause the canonical distinction) are not doctrinal, both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox agree on that. Which is why we often partake of Communion with each other, because even though there is a canonical separation, doctrinally we are One Church.

This is splitting hairs.

That's correct, you can't get hyperbole from the verse by itself, ripped from the rest of the Bible. You get it from looking through the rest of the Bible as a lens to interpret the verse. That's mainly what distinguishes exegesis from eisegesis, the latter typically eschews using the rest of the Bible for a reference in interpreting a verse.

>This is splitting hairs.
No it's not. Works come from true faith the same way fruit comes from a tree. Does the fruit produce the tree?

>Does the fruit produce the tree?
Yep.

So Protestants can take Eucharist at a Catholic church, and a Catholic takes Eucharist at a Orthodox church? Because without the title before it, it would be a Church?

Their traditions still separate from each other. The Roman Catholics will keep producing their traditions, while the Protestants will keep producing their traditions, based on the doctrines that came after the gospels.

They may not be literal doctrines, but if Martin Luther decided not to write, Protestantism would not be so popular. Same thing with Constantine and the conversion, if that did not become a new doctrine, then it wouldn't even have power.

Why is it every time i read the actually hyperbolic verses the hyperbole is oblivious? This style of interpretation is rather Valentinian.

b8?

No, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox can, in numerous cases, take the Eucharist with each other. Neither of us can take it with Catholics or Protestants, neither can Catholics or Protestants take it with us.

Constantine's conversion wasn't a doctrine, it was a conversion. Doctrine literally means "teaching," and in Orthodoxy, it means Christ's teachings specifically.

The style of interpreting Scripture through Scripture, instead of just ripping out a verse and giving a private interpretation, is Valentinian?

Whether or not you personally find something "obvious" has literally zero bearing in Scriptural exegesis.

All trees came from a seed, which comes from fruit.

The body is Christ is not separate. If you take communion in an Orthodox Church, it should come from the same Body of Christ as the Catholic Church. If not, the Body of Christ is being intentionally separated by the Churches, which is contrary to the unification of the Spirit.

It is a doctrine is the sense that their traditions become doctrines because of how powerful they are. People wont look into Christianity because of its strong association with a particular denomination, showing how powerful the denominations are.

Christ is the same person in all religions. The teachings of the Christ are first. Every other church organization is just an organization, having commonly accepted opinions and commonly disliked groups.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

We don't believe the RCC is part of the Body of Christ

How is "faith" vs. "true faith" anything other than No True Scotsman?

Why? What makes Roman Catholic Christ Communion different than your own?

The process of twisting the clear meaning of the verse to mean something completely different is Valentinian.

>How is "faith" vs. "true faith" anything other than No True Scotsman?
False profession of faith.

They're heretical

I'm not twisting it, I'm reading it through the rest of the Bible, instead of on its own. You can either abstract a verse from the rest of the Bible, or read it through the rest of the Bible. The first is generally easier and "clearer", but not always correct.

What's false about it?

>I'm not twisting it, I'm reading it through the rest of the Bible, instead of on its own. You can either abstract a verse from the rest of the Bible, or read it through the rest of the Bible. The first is generally easier and "clearer", but not always correct.
I can use your exact same methodology to prove Gnosticism.

>What's false about it?
In their heart they unbelieve.

>I can use your exact same methodology to prove Gnosticism.
No, you can't. Gnosticism throws out most of the Bible in order to work, that's the opposite of using the Bible to understand the Bible.

>In their heart they unbelieve.
I doubt that, demons surely believe, as Saint James pointed out.

Orthodoxy is heresy There is no salvation in it REPENT

You could explain why you believe they are heretical.

The Donation of Constantine and the Filioque are the principle issues, but a lot more has cropped up since the schism.

All Christians believe in the teaching of the Christ. Everything else, denomination, creed, all came after Christ.

There is one God, one Body of Christ, one Holy Spirit. The churches are to busy dividing the body, all of them, decided who is who, good or bad, who is a heretic, who is a saint. It is almost like a scam, and almost like they intentionally divided themselves to confuse the masses of the true Christ.

But Catholics add teachings and claim they are Christ's, which is a serious issue. And Protestant subtract from Christ's teachings, which is a serious issue.

But you could accuse Orthodox and Gnostics of the same, when all Christians are Christ's and all non-Christians still are source energy of the Father.

No, the Father is the source of *their* energy....

All things are energy of the Father, originating from the Father.

The Father is the Source of All

Right. I'm not sure what your point is.

That even those you argue with, there is great agreement. Those who are heretical to you follow the same teachings of the one we believe in.

No, if they follow his teachings, they wouldn't add or subtract from them.

They do follow His teachings, but denomination is a formality. Just like everyone else, living life. Just like you.

What makes you think your denomination is the only one that doesn't do this? Every denomination has added something to say about Christ's teachings, and all denominations claim exclusivity to Christ

>Old Believers
Please notate that this is only Russian Orthodox Church-related. Not Pan Orthodox.

the Orthodox Church isn't a denomination, it's the whole Church. A denomination means a part of the Church, a slice, a sect.

You can see we don't do it. Over 1,500 years of separation from Oriental Orthodox, yet we still have identical doctrines. No other Christian group has had continuous and unchanging teachings for that long.

Drinking the consecrated Blood from a chalice, for one.

Catholics didn't even allow laity to partake of the blood for hundreds and hundreds of years.

The Orthodox Church is a denomination. If it were the Whole Church, the Body of Christ would be the same in all Churches, including the Roman Catholic. It is a type of Christianity that is separate from the others, just like the others. Do you identify as Catholic or Orthodox? It matters not because they believe in the same Christ. Why are they so divided, because of doctrines that come after Christ.

But even if we do not fully agree with it, it may mean something for someone else. Christ may have someone be a devout Catholic, or a devout Orthodox, who is everyone else to judge what religion someone else decides to be?

>"If you judge, you may be judged likewise"
Every church that says another church is heretical, they become a heretical denomination, because they have judged one another in such a way.

>Why are they so divided, because of doctrines that come after Christ.
Not him, but the RCC broke from the Church due to the Pope desiring temporal power and Satan's sweet promises of power. From there, the RCC made more and more innovations, so recent (and the recantation of) the ascension of Mary upon her repose.

As Christians, we are not to judge others in life, but absolutely in belief and theology in order to bring them to Christ and the Church established by Him and His Apostles.

That is a bias belief.

Judging their theology is still judgment. They could believe in the same thing, in a different language and culture, and the first thing that comes to mind to most Christians is "heresy", without even acknowledging the person's knowledge or experience.

Christians make terrible judgments about the religious views of others. Not all of them.

Heresy is heresy. Read up on the Church history, Church Tradition, and the Church Fathers.

>Judging their theology is still judgment. They could believe in the same thing, in a different language and culture, and the first thing that comes to mind to most Christians is "heresy", without even acknowledging the person's knowledge or experience.
You're sounding like a post-modern "human race" lefty, bud. Plato may have seen some truth, but he was still in the dark and in Hades. Upon Christ going to Hades, Plato was the first to repent to Christ. No matter a belief, there is no Salvation without Christ, His teachings, and the Church established through Him.

If Orthodoxy is a type of Christianity, it's the type Christ taught.

>Why are they so divided, because of doctrines that come after Christ.
That's true, but not Orthodox doctrines. Catholic doctrines.

>Upon Christ going to Hades, Plato was the first to repent to Christ.
What are you basing this on?

I'm Orthodox and I'm not saying that's not conceivable, but we certainly weren't taught that happened one way or the other.

Heresy is an idea the Church made up. Their only tradition should be God. There is no "Church father" "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

Where is Plato saved by Christ? I believe it, but reading whatever you got that from would be even better.

The Church established through Christ could have happened sometime around 30 AD, and this true group gathering with the disciples and apostles would be the best way to understand, "The True Church" that Christ established. All these councils are nonsense, and only create division for themselves, and still, press the division even more

The same way "Protestantism" is the Christianity Christ taught? The same way Catholics say Christ is Catholic and the same way Orthodox is what Christ taught. Wait, Christ is also Jewish. Also, He is Muslim, A Prophet. Let's also not forget that if you ask a Hindu or a Buddhist, they will tell you He was a yogi and a saint.

Lives of the Saints, September.

Protestantism doesn't have a continuous existence tracing back an earlier than the Reformation.

"Judaism" as the term is used today, means Pharisaic Judaism. Obviously Christ didn't teach that.

Christ objectively didn't teaching the Filioque.

Islam doesn't trace a continuous existence, they rely on "rediscovering"

Your logic is terrible, you're just saying "dude lol truth is relative, everyone's perspective is equally valid." No, that in itself is an idea incompatible with Christianity.

Your logic is terrible

I mean, what is the primary source?

Your perspective is equally valid, you could say that every other religion is inconsistent.

A perspective's validity is contingent upon it being true.

Faith. The coming of Christ was prophesied, and he fulfilled them all. He is God.

I'd have to find it, I can't recall which Saint this was revealed to, but it's in Lives of the Saints, September.

Priests are called "father" because they stand in for God the Father, who is God the Son, who is Jesus. The priest is Jesus' representative on Earth, he mystically represents God, and so is called "father" as a result. A priest can be both fully human and fully acting as God.

I'll understand if that level of mysticism goes over the heads of most Protestants.

Me thinks it has more to do with the roman tradition of calling elders "father"

Priests are not God.

Yeah, that has something to do with it, but more it's just that "father" was a term of respect for male elders in general in ancient times, and kissing their hand was a common way of greeting them (which is why Orthodox still do it with priests). Also the father was the one who lead prayer in houses, and the Church, being a large house, is lead in prayer by the father.

We don't really understand it modernism, since using terms like "pops" and gramps" in a general sense, are more humorous or slang. They didn't have much of a term for "Mister" in ancient times, so Father served the purpose.