Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Bump to page.The context doesn't indicate any demarcation between intellectual fathers and spiritual fathers. If I so lack in that area, it only makes sense for someone to show me, no?
Since you seem to know that Jesus made a distinction between the two, please demonstrate how you came to that conclusion. (In other words, please provide the scriptural context. )
Bump to page.
Specify, please. Doing so is leading me right back to my original position. Which passages show the demarcation between intellectual fathers and spiritual fathers that you're talking about?Try the context of the message of the gospel and other odd letters written by the Apostles. I refuse to argue these silly issues with you that you can defend what can't be defended as Christ centered.
Specify, please. Doing so is leading me right back to my original position. Which passages show the demarcation between intellectual fathers and spiritual fathers that you're talking about?
I'm quite serious. Right now it appears, from my perspective, that you don't have an argument and are trying to stall by accusing me of playing games. This is not a game.Again, and I don't care where it leads you, I am not going to play your silly games. Read your Bible and ask God help you understand what it is you do not.
They may have referred to themselves as a father,I'm quite serious. Right now it appears, from my perspective, that you don't have an argument and are trying to stall by accusing me of playing games. This is not a game.
I can't seem to find what you are claiming. SERIOUSLY, I cannot. So far the evidence in the Gospels and Epistles suggest that the reference Christ is making is not about banning the use of "father" in spiritual cases at all, but rather in the case of the Pharisees who had replaced God with themselves through pride and obstinate natures. There is nothing in the Gospels that I can find that shows Jesus ever making a distinction between using the term "father" for intellectual fathers/mentors and using it for spiritual fathers.
Also, the fact that the Apostles referred to themselves and elders/presbyters as "father" further reinforces my point.
So unless you are willing to help me out here, I'm convinced of my argument.
They may have referred to themselves as a father,
but they dint use the title did they?
Here's the passage.
I agree with Ormly, it's simple to understand,
because Christ Himself gives the explanation
immediately after each statment.
There's no confusion here:
8 But be not ye called Rabbi:
for one is your Master, even Christ;
and all ye are brethren.
Pretty simple
imperitive statement (be not ye called rabbi)
explanation (for one is your master, Christ)
another explanation (ye all are brothers)
Same theme here:
9 And call no man your father upon the earth:
for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
imperitive statement (Call no man you father)
explanation (FOR one is your father, God)
And ONE MORE TIME now,
for emphasis (Did he think they
couldnt hear??) lol.
10 Neither be ye called masters:
for one is your Master, even Christ.
He gave the reasons. We have the answers.
Jesus said it three different ways.
Whenever there's such repetition, it's
done for double or, in this case, triple emphasis.
MAny times, those are the verses people stumble
over, so He tries to reinforce for us.
sunlover
Nothing can be more legalistic than the idea you have to have an express biblical permission before you can do something, and you will search all day to find permissions to do most of the things we do every day.
This legalistic, soul-scarring misunderstanding is a key part of the Pharisaical mindset that Jesus condemned, for if one follows this principle consistently, one will most assuredly "tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders" (Matthew 23:4), and the words of Jesus will surely apply to you:
St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was instructed by John the apostle, expressed this well when he wrote, “Let everyone…revere the bishop as the image of the Father” Priests share in the mission of Christ who reveals the eternal Father.
- "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them" (Luke 11:46).
Interpreting Matthew 23:9 in an exclusively literal sense would undermine the Fourth Commandment. Most will recognize that in no way does this title take away from God the ultimate power and authority He has over human life: “Thou knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps. 139:13). Rather, we recognize that all fatherhood comes from God, as St. Paul teaches in Ephesians 3:14-15: “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.
If we cannot even trust the men who were instructed by Apostles like Igantius and Hegesippus for example how can we even trust the the scriptures. This is a logical conclusion for anyone studying Christianity, a logical argument even against agnostics.
The twisted views of Christian history passed down by many Reformers in order to justify the split from the ancient Church are still with us.
Just checking in.
So we've done Peter the Pope
Peter was not the Rock
Peter was never in Rome
Call no man father.
What's next on the list?
The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.Catholics worship Mary
The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.
For many centuries, the term worship simply meant showing respect or honor, and an example of this usage survives in contemporary English. British subjects refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship," although Americans would say "Your Honor." This doesn’t mean that British subjects worship their magistrates as gods (in fact, they may even despise a particular magistrate they are addressing). It means they are giving them the honor appropriate to their office, not the honor appropriate to God.
Outside of this example, however, the English term "worship" has been narrowed in scope to indicate only that supreme form of honor, reverence, and respect that is due to God. This change in usage is quite recent. In fact, one can still find books that use "worship" in the older, broader sense. This can lead to a significant degree of confusion, when people who are familiar only with the use of words in their own day and their own circles encounter material written in other times and other places.
In Scripture, the term "worship" was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not.
As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals (Matt. 10:41b). A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus—God in the flesh—in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (huper [more than]+ dulia = "beyond dulia"), indicates that the honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is more than the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.
All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word "worship." Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word "worship" by referring to "the worship of latria" or "the worship of dulia." To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.
Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration, and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, "We adore God but we honor his saints."
Unfortunately, many non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling to recognize these distinctions. They confidently (often arrogantly) assert that Catholics "worship" Mary and the saints, and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that one must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term. The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call "worship"—is to be given only to God.
Though one should know it from one’s own background, it often may be best to simply point out that Catholics do not worship anyone but God and omit discussing the history of the term. Many non-Catholics might be more perplexed than enlightened by hearing the history of the word. Familiar only with their group’s use of the term "worship," they may misperceive a history lesson as rationalization and end up even more adamant in their declarations that the term is applicable only to God. They may even go further. Wanting to attack the veneration of the saints, they may declare that only God should be honored.
Both of these declarations are in direct contradiction to the language and precepts of the Bible. The term "worship" was used in the same way in the Bible that it used to be used in English. It could cover both the adoration given to God alone and the honor that is to be shown to certain human beings. In Hebrew, the term for worship is shakhah. It is appropriately used for humans in a large number of passages.
For example, in Genesis 37:7–9 Joseph relates two dreams that God gave him concerning how his family would honor him in coming years. Translated literally the passage states: "‘ehold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakhah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakhah] me.’"
In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakhah] you (49:8)." And in Exodus 18:7, Moses honored his father-in-law, Jethro: "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakhah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent."
Yet none of these passages were discussing the worship of adoration, the kind of worship given to God.
Oh?? This from Sunlover written by a Catholic:
"Hail Mary, beloved Daughter of the Eternal Father! Hail Mary, admirable Mother of the Son! Hail Mary, faithful spouse of the Holy Ghost! Hail Mary, my dear Mother, my loving Mistress, my powerful sovereign! Hail my joy, my glory, my heart and my soul! Thou art all mine by mercy, and I am all thine by justice. But I am not yet sufficiently thine. I now give myself wholly to thee without keeping anything back for myself or others".
Why not address this instead of ignoring it?
Gregory I 590-604 AD, is generally regarded as the first real Pope.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?