I'm not Catholic, so I have to wonder why you would post that?The rule doesn't say I have to be a Catholic, it says that I have to be a Christian.
Don't I have to be of the Nicene creed or whatever????? Eastern Orthodox, so do your believe in the Bible as it is written, or do you have your own interpretations.I'm not Catholic, so I have to wonder why you would post that?
The Nicene-Constantinopolean creed was formulated against heresies quite some time before Rome went their own way. The word "catholic" in the creed is an adjective, not a noun as the Church headed by the Pope now uses it.Don't I have to be of the Nicene creed or whatever?????
No one reads the Bible without interpreting, and everyone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation and yet many of those interpretations are contradictory and often mutually exclusive. The Orthodox Church maintains the same interpretation which was handed down by the Apostles, as is evidenced by the writings of those who were personally taught by the same. That interpretation is safeguarded by the broad concensus of Church Fathers over the centuries. There is no individual interpretation in accordance with 2 Peter 1:20.Eastern Orthodox, so do your believe in the Bible as it is written, or do you have your own interpretations.
The Nicene-Constantinopolean creed was formulated against heresies quite some time before Rome went their own way. The word "catholic" in the creed is an adjective, not a noun as the Church headed by the Pope now uses it.
No one reads the Bible without interpreting, and everyone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation and yet many of those interpretations are contradictory and often mutually exclusive. The Orthodox Church maintains the same interpretation which was handed down by the Apostles, as is evidenced by the writings of those who were personally taught by the same. That interpretation is safeguarded by the broad concensus of Church Fathers over the centuries. There is no individual interpretation in accordance with 2 Peter 1:20.
Jesus was the most mild mannered and unassuming of those that gave credence to the term Christian.
Under all the statements, supported by scripture, I agree with but maybe with a different understanding. So this makes me a Christian. The rule doesn't say I have to be a Catholic, it says that I have to be a Christian.
By interpretations handed down by the apostles do you mean as written in the Bible?
In regards to Christian truths the Bible says "Call no man Father...." And I post a quotation from another source.
I raise this issue as you have said that your church uses the title "Father", what other titles does it use, and would you agree that there is no indication in the Bible that titles 'do not maketh a man'.
Is the religious title “father” correct? It is used widely by Roman Catholics and Anglicans. “Padre,” meaning “father,” is also widely used. But Jesus taught his disciples: “You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9, NJB) The New English Bible reads similarly: “Do not call any man on earth ‘father.’” Why do clergymen and their followers disobey this command from the Lord Jesus Christ?
Jesus was not speaking literally, but using a literary device called "hyperbole"- to draw emphasis.
1. The Bible itself is full of examples of people calling an elder in the faith “Father”. Eliakim the steward is given a fatherly role of governance: Isaiha 22:20-21 and in 2 Kings 2:12 Elisha calls Elijah, “My Father, My Father!”
2. The New Testament refers to the first priests (the Apostles) as “Father”. In I Corinthians 4 St Paul teaches about the true nature of being an apostle and refers to himself as the “Father” of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 4:15) and goes on to say that Timothy is his son. In I John 2 the Apostle John writes to his “children” and speaks to his fellow priests as “Fathers”. This follows the tradition of referring to the Jewish elders as “Father” (Acts 7:2; 22:1)
3. Focusing on the prohibition against calling someone ‘Father’ misses the point.
The point of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23:9 is not to prohibit calling people “Father” but to warn against religious teachers who set themselves up as the sole arbiters of truth. Reading the verse in context makes this clear.
4. Do you eat bacon, like pork barbecue and play football ?
Leviticus 11: “And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.”
If every verse in the Bible is to be taken literally then you can’t eat pork products or play football because a football is made from pigskin…
5.When you say “That is the Old Testament and doesn’t apply” do you prohibit women and girls from wearing gold jewelry, pearls or braiding their hair?
1 Timothy 2:9 – “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.
Paul called himself "father". Not as a title or religious designation but as one who provides spiritual nourishment, and is qualified to do so. That's one reason we call our priests "father".Some very odd statements herein:
Not necessarily in order: The Jews called the elders Rabbi, meaning Teacher. Jesus was often called Rabbi and accepted this as he was surely a teacher.
There is a couple of word usages of father in the Bible but they are not followed by Reverend or started with Holy as in an assigned position. Paul felt that he was a father to the extent of what a birth father would feel for his own children. Paul did not use father as a title or religious designation.
It wasn't about Mosaic law, it was to demonstrate how strict literal interpretation/application distorts the scriptures. "Call no man father" is a classic example.#3 I agree with your concept. However; you contradict the rest of your comments in this statement.
referring to the Mosaic laws, Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Jesus was a Jew, he referred to the Mosaic Laws many times up until the time that the Israelites proved conclusively that they were not going to serve their God, the Father of Jesus. Jesus started his 3 years of ministering to the people about the new Christian institution (For the want of a better word), and that was the end or the Jewish teachings fro Christians.
By fulfilling the law or contract of the Mosaic Law, the contract was completed and the new Christian ethic was installed. With the Israelites following the Mosaic Law it gave them protection as does following the Christian rules do now. No part of the Mosaic Law is in existence today for the Christian faith; not even tithing, which, naturally enough, is the one law that is held in tight instruction from the churches of Christendom.
PS: Where did I say that the Old Testament does not apply, and in what context?
About eating pork, read the account of Peter when he questioned the food presented to him to eat. But again it was discounted with the fulfillment of the Mosaic Laws.
Some very odd statements ^^^^^^^^^^
Much not in line with YHWH'S PLAN in JESUS.
Ignore him. He never adds anything to the discussion.Pardon!!!!!!
We have struck a point of agreement! Wonders never cease lol.Ignore him. He never adds anything to the discussion.
No, I mean the proper understanding of what is written in the Bible. The Apostles did not set up churches, hand them a Bible, and leave them to figure it out for themselves. They stayed with them, teaching them face to face, leaving disciples who could then teach others after the Apostles had left. The fact is, the majority of the Apostles didn't write anything. Most of what we have is letters from Paul addressing problems which had cropped up in the churches he had established. He didn't write to correct what they were doing right. Besides the New Testament we have also have the Liturgy of St James which formed the basis of Church worship in all the ancient churches.By interpretations handed down by the apostles do you mean as written in the Bible?
In the very same passage, Jesus also says "call no man Teacher", yet in Paul's epistles he clearly refers to some as being teachers. Obviously as kepha31 posted above, Christ is using hyperbole to make a point, and does not intend us to take it literally. The verses which follow make that abundantly clear.In regards to Christian truths the Bible says "Call no man Father...." And I post a quotation from another source.
I raise this issue as you have said that your church uses the title "Father", what other titles does it use, and would you agree that there is no indication in the Bible that titles 'do not maketh a man'.
IMO Christianity is the peak of religious belief, the way it is written is almost impossible for sinful man to say truly "I am a Christian in all aspects of the Biblical interpretation. This is why I question the works of Christendom as against the word of the Christian Bible as spoken by Jesus and reiterated by the disciples and the apostles.
Is the religious title “father” correct? It is used widely by Roman Catholics and Anglicans. “Padre,” meaning “father,” is also widely used. But Jesus taught his disciples: “You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9, NJB) The New English Bible reads similarly: “Do not call any man on earth ‘father.’” Why do clergymen and their followers disobey this command from the Lord Jesus Christ?
You cannot have it both ways. If you insist that priests cannot be called "father" then the same applies to your birth father, but if it is Ok to call your birth parent "father" then opposition to calling those tasked with spiritual fatherhood evaporates.This does not relate to your birth father, of course
Roller Coaster. ? A few for. Many against.If Christ's life and the lives of the apostles are our examples, lets see how we measure up...
See, no possible agreement on this forum. They mock YHWH'S Word , don't measure up, who do not believe His Word.Did Jesus teach us these things?
No, I mean the proper understanding of what is written in the Bible. The Apostles did not set up churches, hand them a Bible, and leave them to figure it out for themselves. They stayed with them, teaching them face to face, leaving disciples who could then teach others after the Apostles had left. The fact is, the majority of the Apostles didn't write anything. Most of what we have is letters from Paul addressing problems which had cropped up in the churches he had established. He didn't write to correct what they were doing right. Besides the New Testament we have also have the Liturgy of St James which formed the basis of Church worship in all the ancient churches.
In the very same passage, Jesus also says "call no man Teacher", yet in Paul's epistles he clearly refers to some as being teachers. Obviously as kepha31 posted above, Christ is using hyperbole to make a point, and does not intend us to take it literally. The verses which follow make that abundantly clear.
You cannot have it both ways. If you insist that priests cannot be called "father" then the same applies to your birth father, but if it is Ok to call your birth parent "father" then opposition to calling those tasked with spiritual fatherhood evaporates.
There has been a lot of talk on these forums as to who/what constitutes the true Church of Christ... some say the mother Church because of her age and supposed apostolic connection. Others say God's people, wherever they are found. Some say the Protestants, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Mormons (actually, not many say this).
So, this got me to thinking about what God's church would look like in terms of it's "appearance" or the impression it gives. If Christ's life and the lives of the apostles are our examples, lets see how we measure up...
I know it has bothered me for a while now, ministers that wear expensive business suits with nice watches and other bling.. What does that mode of dress represent to me about Christ's character and ministry? I have noticed that in churches where the pastor is a fashion horse, the congregation seems to be concerned with their appearance as well. Is this the message that should be conveyed?
Then there is the robes/gowns/collars etc, worn by some denom's clergy... while this better differentiates the laity from the officers of the church, is this what Jesus and the disciples gave by way of example? Is this an attempt to copy the religious garments that the Jewish priests were commanded to wear? The garments that Christ now wears as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary? Are we saying that Christ's priesthood is not sufficient and must be replicated on earth. What about the admonition that we (men) are priests of our homes? Are we expected to wear special clothing for this role? Where does the pomp and pageantry of some churches come from? Did Jesus teach us these things?
What are some of your thoughts on the way we present our "men of God" and our method of worship? Is it acceptable to wear everyday clothes to worship God or do we have to participate in the fashion show at church?
ministers that wear expensive business suits with nice watches
I think these things just make people with nothing feel bad, and lesser than.or do we have to participate in the fashion show at church?
There has been a lot of talk on these forums as to who/what constitutes the true Church of Christ... some say the mother Church because of her age and supposed apostolic connection. Others say God's people, wherever they are found. Some say the Protestants, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Mormons (actually, not many say this).
So, this got me to thinking about what God's church would look like in terms of it's "appearance" or the impression it gives. If Christ's life and the lives of the apostles are our examples, lets see how we measure up...
I know it has bothered me for a while now, ministers that wear expensive business suits with nice watches and other bling.. What does that mode of dress represent to me about Christ's character and ministry? I have noticed that in churches where the pastor is a fashion horse, the congregation seems to be concerned with their appearance as well. Is this the message that should be conveyed?
Then there is the robes/gowns/collars etc, worn by some denom's clergy... while this better differentiates the laity from the officers of the church, is this what Jesus and the disciples gave by way of example? Is this an attempt to copy the religious garments that the Jewish priests were commanded to wear? The garments that Christ now wears as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary? Are we saying that Christ's priesthood is not sufficient and must be replicated on earth. What about the admonition that we (men) are priests of our homes? Are we expected to wear special clothing for this role? Where does the pomp and pageantry of some churches come from? Did Jesus teach us these things?
What are some of your thoughts on the way we present our "men of God" and our method of worship? Is it acceptable to wear everyday clothes to worship God or do we have to participate in the fashion show at church?
Yes, and if and when you /anyone speaks the truth, it is dismissed as if not true, not adding to the conversating (of those who are guilty, of course, and not speaking truth).I think these things just make people with nothing feel bad, and lesser than.
Amen.Rev 12 :17 describes the true church. The remnant, which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus, which is said the be the spirit of prophecy.
The scriptures say that cleanness is next to Godliness, so, we should dress clean. The scriptures are silent on how we should dress to attend a service that is to worship him, but personally, I believe we should wear the best clothing that we have to show reverence to God, even if the best we have is a pair of jeans and a T-shirt.There has been a lot of talk on these forums as to who/what constitutes the true Church of Christ... some say the mother Church because of her age and supposed apostolic connection. Others say God's people, wherever they are found. Some say the Protestants, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Mormons (actually, not many say this).
So, this got me to thinking about what God's church would look like in terms of it's "appearance" or the impression it gives. If Christ's life and the lives of the apostles are our examples, lets see how we measure up...
I know it has bothered me for a while now, ministers that wear expensive business suits with nice watches and other bling.. What does that mode of dress represent to me about Christ's character and ministry? I have noticed that in churches where the pastor is a fashion horse, the congregation seems to be concerned with their appearance as well. Is this the message that should be conveyed?
Then there is the robes/gowns/collars etc, worn by some denom's clergy... while this better differentiates the laity from the officers of the church, is this what Jesus and the disciples gave by way of example? Is this an attempt to copy the religious garments that the Jewish priests were commanded to wear? The garments that Christ now wears as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary? Are we saying that Christ's priesthood is not sufficient and must be replicated on earth. What about the admonition that we (men) are priests of our homes? Are we expected to wear special clothing for this role? Where does the pomp and pageantry of some churches come from? Did Jesus teach us these things?
What are some of your thoughts on the way we present our "men of God" and our method of worship? Is it acceptable to wear everyday clothes to worship God or do we have to participate in the fashion show at church?
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?