Holy Father is a Name for God The Father John 17:11 Not The Pope, Blasphemy Definition

Valletta · May 9, 2025

timothyu said:
If we get to the root of the problem, man in the beginning put their wil ahead of the will of God and became self-aware. One of the spin-off sins other than self- interest, self-determination, self-serving etc. was self-justification

Indeed, many strayed from God's Word as passed down through the Apostles and popes and there are now thousands of Christian denominations.

timothyu · May 9, 2025

Valletta said:
Indeed, many strayed from God's Word as passed down through the Apostles and popes and there are now thousands of Christian denominations.

And through the millennia, all ended up defending their version of God's will

d taylor · May 10, 2025

Valletta said:
There are numerous unofficial titles that people use for the pope. If you are uncomfortable with the title "Holy Father" than just don't use it, and try not to judge those who do. An understanding of the Word of God is what prompts the title, one who is set aside for God's purposes can be called holy.

Kings 4:9-11 And she said to her husband, “Behold now, I perceive that this is a holy man of God, who is continually passing our way. 10 Let us make a small roof chamber with walls, and put there for him a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp, so that whenever he comes to us, he can go in there.” Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

-

I personally do not give the pope any thoughts and actually did not know he was called holy father. Until this thread caught my attention the other day.

Calling the pope holy father is to me like taking up the personal act of declaring that Jesus' birthday needed to be celebrated. Both are not Biblically supported and is just man doing as he wants to in relation to God.

So i believe Catholics say Peter is the first pope, so show where Jesus declared Peter as Holy Father of The Church, in The Bible.

Valletta · May 10, 2025

d taylor said:
-

I personally do not give the pope any thoughts and actually did not know he was called holy father. Until this thread caught my attention the other day.

Calling the pope holy father is to me like taking up the personal act of declaring that Jesus' birthday needed to be celebrated. Both are not Biblically supported and is just man doing as he wants to in relation to God.

So i believe Catholics say Peter is the first pope, so show where Jesus declared Peter as Holy Father of The Church, in The Bible.

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. The canon of the Bible was not adopted until the late 300s. No where in the Bible does it ban specific phrases that are not in the Bible.

timothyu · May 10, 2025

Valletta said:
The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. The canon of the Bible was not adopted until the late 300s. No where in the Bible does it ban specific phrases that are not in the Bible.

You've made an excellent point. The Catholic aka universal church is an island unto itself. People tend to forget that the Pauline movement, built not by Paul but later based on the epistles of Paul, came after the original predominantly Jesus movement in which we had the Way that itself grew out of the previous Doers (of the Way) movement. So what we think of as Christianity today was a Roman and Hellenistic influenced gentile movement, a johnny come lately that grew to be the ultimate religion and eventual power, still claiming authourity today. So when people today talk of Christianity they are indeed talking of a later movement and not the original which was first Jewish (then Hebrew) and followed Jesus alone. If people find a problem with the so called universal church, then perhaps they should focus instead on the original Jesus movement for their teachings and leave future sects to themselves and to claim what they will. Discernment. Secular and biblical scholars and historians would all agree. Theologians are different and start religious sects and expect people to follow and defend their interpretations of convenience. Jesus chastised organized religion for a reason. It preferred(s) to defend itself over the will of the Father, not a human one but God Himself. It was His truth alone which Jesus said His church would be built upon. His church, not man's, His truth, not man's interpretation of it.

d taylor · May 10, 2025

Valletta said:
The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. The canon of the Bible was not adopted until the late 300s. No where in the Bible does it ban specific phrases that are not in the Bible.

-

I do not use the catholic Bible.

Valletta · May 10, 2025

d taylor said:
-

I do not use the catholic Bible.

There are a number of Catholic Bibles, different translations. The KJV was very much derived from Catholic texts, the texts were prepared by a Catholic named Erasmus. Unfortunately Erasmus did not have the best Greek texts. He even "back translated" a small section from Latin.

timothyu · May 10, 2025

When it comes to the Bible, no matter what flavour, gentile Christianity tends to focus on the New Testament.. forgetting that other than recognizing Jesus, most of what He said in it came from the previous Hebrew testaments, which was the only scripture out there, and the original 'bible' of the early church. Arguing over revised later versions seems irrelevant as that is more a case of remoulding the foot to fit the shoe, much in the same way the religion developed.

Gregory Thompson · May 10, 2025

Cockcrow said:
John 17:11 “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” I keep hearing all these people calling the pope "Holy Father, the Holy Father" but in John 17:11 Jesus Christ calls God The Father Holy Father, so it is objectively blasphemy for anyone to call themselves Holy Father, looking at it from a biblical objective standpoint, it is indefensible to call a pope "Holy Father" In fact it is insulting to bible believing Christians every time they use that name for the Pope, Even just looking at it objectively, that is blasphemy. Yet I keep hearing so many in the media and catholics using that name over and over for the pope, its deeply offensive as a Bible believing Christian.

The Bible Definition of Blasphemy: Speaking evil of God, dishonoring His name, claiming divine attributes as a human, or treating what is holy as common or unholy. (Exodus 20:7, Leviticus 24:16, Psalms 111:9, John 10:33, Mark 2:7, Revelation 15:4)

You can see How this is textbook blasphemy to call yourself Holy Father as a sinful human being

From a biblical standpoint, the popes as a concept are a fulfillment of the kings in the old testament.

The protestant era illustrates the setting up of a new altar and a division of the kingdom.

However, that's all old news since we're now in the fulfillment of captivity to babylon.

timothyu · May 10, 2025

Gregory Thompson said:
However, that's all old news since we're now in the fulfillment of captivity to babylon.

This be true. What we hang onto as tradition is merely that... tradition and not eventual change. The Hebrews taught us that. It all will hang on in quiet desperation until the will of man succumbs to the eventual Will of the Father alone.

Gregory Thompson · May 10, 2025

timothyu said:
This be true. What we hang onto as tradition is merely that... tradition and not eventual change. The Hebrews taught us that.

Each age of fulfillment will have a remnant to represent what happened. So people will look to what comes next.

timothyu · May 10, 2025

Gregory Thompson said:
Each age of fulfillment will have a remnant to represent what happened. So people will look to what comes next.

Hopefully, but most prefer to cling to the past and their lost glories. Their security is more important than God's simple truth. Just as death is a part of life, the death throes of aspects of Christianity over time are natural as man shakes off self-determination to eventual succumb to the will of God. But as we see those self-serving ways won't go quietly.

Gregory Thompson · May 10, 2025

timothyu said:
Hopefully, but most prefer to cling to the past and their lost glories.

It's also like a body, so people who fit in one place will stay there because it is written of them.

timothyu · May 10, 2025

Gregory Thompson said:
It's also like a body, so people who fit in one place will stay there because it is written of them.

Much in the way we are given examples of the Hebrew people and their failures, forever locked in time as a lesson, often ignored in the future. Categorizing ourselves into different sects throughout time moves us further away from the original faith. It is not something to be improved on by mankind.

Gregory Thompson · May 10, 2025

timothyu said:
Much in the way we are given examples of the Hebrew people and their failures, forever locked in time as a lesson, often ignored in the future.

Tracking it backwards gives a clue. Maybe we shouldn't have anathema'd all people who believe different in the original Nicene Creed, very deuteronomy.

d taylor · May 10, 2025

Valletta said:
There are a number of Catholic Bibles, different translations. The KJV was very much derived from Catholic texts, the texts were prepared by a Catholic named Erasmus. Unfortunately Erasmus did not have the best Greek texts. He even "back translated" a small section from Latin.

-

Complete Jewish Bible

Valletta · May 10, 2025

timothyu said:
When it comes to the Bible, no matter what flavour, gentile Christianity tends to focus on the New Testament.. forgetting that other than recognizing Jesus, most of what He said in it came from the previous Hebrew testaments, which was the only scripture out there, and the original 'bible' of the early church. Arguing over revised later versions seems irrelevant as that is more a case of remoulding the foot to fit the shoe, much in the same way the religion developed.

Jews differed on which texts comprised Holy Scripture. I've been going through the prophets of the Old Testament this last month or so, certainly as a Jew Jesus well knew Holy Scripture. The Catholic Church has employed scholars from various religions to get the best most verifiable text. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the Old Testament due to a lack of knowledge of the Jewish idioms.

timothyu · May 10, 2025

Valletta said:
There is a lot of misunderstanding of the Old Testament due to a lack of knowledge of the Jewish idioms.

There is a lot of misunderstanding as the Jews tried to replace the Hebrew idioms based on the Abrahamic idioms which were the forerunner of most of the future bibles, the family story of a man named Abram..

Cockcrow · May 10, 2025

Valletta said:
There are a number of Catholic Bibles, different translations. The KJV was very much derived from Catholic texts, the texts were prepared by a Catholic named Erasmus. Unfortunately Erasmus did not have the best Greek texts. He even "back translated" a small section from Latin.

The KJV was commissioned by Protestant King James I of England in 1604, specifically to oppose Roman Catholic influence and provide a Bible free from the perceived corruption of both the Roman Church and the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. It was never intended to be a Catholic Bible, it was produced by men who were strongly opposed to Catholic doctrine. Revelation 18:4 – "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins"

Catholic Bibles (like the Douay-Rheims) are based on:

The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome, a Catholic monk.
This Latin translation was the official Bible of the Roman Church for centuries.

In contrast, the KJV is based on:

The Masoretic Text (Hebrew Old Testament preserved by Jews, not Catholics). Romans 3:2 –"...unto them were committed the oracles of God..."
The Textus Receptus (Received Greek text, the Original Language of the New Testament), not the Latin Vulgate.

None of the 47 translators were Roman Catholics. They were Anglicans and Puritans, fierce opponents of Rome. They even included a preface that criticizes the Roman Church.

From the Translators to the Reader preface: “...the Popish persons... have been enemies of the truth.” The translators themselves condemned the Catholic Church and rejected its authority and teachings.

2 Corinthians 6:17 – "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord"
The KJV translators practiced this by separating from Roman Catholic authority and doctrine.

Matthew 23:9 – "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
A direct contradiction to the Catholic use of “Father” for priests and the pope.

Although the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha, it was placed in a specific section marked Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments and explicitly not considered inspired Scripture. In Fact the transltors said that "no doctrine should be based on the Apocrypha" The Apocrypha was not included in the canon of the KJV as Scripture, unlike Catholic Bibles, which still consider it part of the inspired text.

Romans 3:4 – "Let God be true, but every man a liar..."
Only books that are consistent with God's truth should be counted as Scripture. The Apocrypha contains doctrinal errors and contradictions (for example, prayers for the dead).

Proverbs 30:5-6 – "Every word of God is pure... Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee..."
This warns against adding uninspired books like the Apocrypha.If the KJV were Catholic, it would support Catholic doctrine. Instead, it:

No purgatory: Hebrews 9:27 – "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
No praying to saints: 1 Timothy 2:5 – "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
No pope: Matthew 23:11 – "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant." (No supreme man ruling the church)
Salvation is by faith alone: Romans 4:5 – "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Ephesians 2:8-9 – "For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works..."

The KJV strongly refutes the Catholic system of works, sacraments, and priesthood.

The teachings of the KJV directly contradict Roman Catholic doctrine. A Catholic Bible wouldn’t attack its own theology.

Just because some textual material existed in Catholic possession doesn’t make the KJV Catholic. That’s like saying all Protestant Bibles are pagan because paper and ink were invented by pagans. The truth is: the King James Bible was made to stand against Catholicism, not to support it.

The King James Bible is not Catholic. It was made to replace and reject Catholic influence, built on different manuscripts, translated by Protestant men, and filled with verses that contradict Catholic teaching. A Catholic Bible wouldn’t attack its own theology.

John 17:17 – "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." The KJV preserves God’s truth, not the traditions of men.

Cockcrow · May 10, 2025

Valletta said:
The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. The canon of the Bible was not adopted until the late 300s. No where in the Bible does it ban specific phrases that are not in the Bible.

The Bible is not “the book of the Catholic Church.” The Old Testament was complete centuries before Jesus, and Jesus Himself referred to "the law, the prophets, and the psalms" (Luke 24:44) as Scripture, long before any Catholic church existed.

Romans 3:2 — “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” (speaking of the Jews, not the Catholics!)

The early Christians already had authoritative Scripture in the Old Testament, and Paul's epistles were being circulated as Scripture in the first century (see 2 Peter 3:15–16).

The Bible is above the Church, not the other way around

The Catholic Church didn’t “create” the canon, it merely recognized it (and even got it wrong)
the Catholic canon includes the Apocrypha, which Jesus and the apostles never quoted. The true Christian canon was already functioning in practice. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 — “...from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures…” — long before any “Catholic Church canonized” anything.
God's Word was already in use among believers the church didn't give us the Bible; God did.

“No phrase bans phrases not in the Bible” that's a strawman
When Bible believers say, “Don’t use unbiblical phrases,” they don’t mean every phrase must appear verbatim in the Bible, they mean the concepts must be biblical.

For example:

“Trinity” is not in the Bible, but the concept clearly is (1 John 5:7).
But if someone says “baptismal regeneration,” that contradicts the Bible so it’s rejected.

So it’s not about whether a word is used it’s about whether the doctrine behind the phrase lines up with Scripture.

The Catholic Church contradicts Scripture
If the Catholic Church created the Bible, why does it teach doctrines contrary to the Bible?

Examples:

Praying to Mary – not in the Bible.
Calling priests “Father” – forbidden (Matthew 23:9).
Purgatory – not taught in Scripture.
Salvation by works/sacraments – contradicts Romans 4:5, Ephesians 2:8–9.

How can a church that contradicts the Bible claim to have given it?

The Word of God judges the church, not the church judging the Word of God.

Isaiah 8:20 — “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
Mark 7:13 — “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition.”

The Catholic Church exalts tradition over Scripture, that's why it’s not the authority.

Holy Father is a Name for God The Father John 17:11 Not The Pope, Blasphemy Definition

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads