FATHER ? or NOT?

[grams]

I see winsome is having trouble, so maybe this will help ?   Hope so !

Maybe you all can continue here on :

Call no man Father ?

I believe the only person you can call FATHER  is GOD  !

But, you also have a Father that is your parent, and I believe he would be the only one , since he is your birth Father.

[Catholica]

Either the "only" person you can call "father" is God, or it isn't.  You have already contradicted yourself, have you not?  Which is your position?

[Carey]

I call my father: Dad.
I call my pastor: Mark, and Pastor Mark on occasion.
I call the priest next door: Father Mark.
I call God: Father, and God.
I call Jesus: Jesus, Christ, and my Saviour.

And everyone one of em knows who I am talking to, and the authority they have in my life, and the authority they themselves have.

I suppose someone should post the scripture on which this hinges, but I am supposing the term father was translated and never actually uttered back then; don't know if that matters or not? 

Matthew 23:(NIV)
9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Is it possible what is referenced is calling one God besides God Himself.  I suspect that is the intent, but maybe that is just me.

[winsome]

 OK, I'm going to try this in bits



As I think Ladonia has pointed out there are many examples of people in the NT addressing men as father (1Cor 4:15, 1Jn 2:13, Acts 7:2, , Matt 10:21-37, 15:4-6, Col 3:21 etc. Also Jesus himself - Lk 16:24, Mt 23:32.

From these we must conclude that Jesus did not mean call no man father in the sense of addressing them as "father" or scripture would be contradicting itself..

When Protestants quote Mt 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" and then say Catholics contradict scripture when they call priests father, is I suggest the logical fallacy of equivocation – the word "call" is used with two different meanings.

[winsome]

Firstly, Catholics "call" their priests father.

The Collins Concise English Dictionary give 28 (yes, twenty eight) different meaning for the verb to call.

OK, that's enough. I'm typing in one line at a time - save,

Modify post for next line, save and still it falls over

[winsome]

I can't go on like this.

[Ladonia]

I see winsome is having trouble, so maybe this will help ?   Hope so !

Maybe you all can continue here on :

Call no man Father ?

I believe the only person you can call FATHER  is GOD  !

But, you also have a Father that is your parent, and I believe he would be the only one , since he is your birth Father.

Ah, so we can conveiniently carve out  a nice little exemption? I mean if Jesus says to  "Call no man Father", and if one takes a litteral view of the Scriptures then NO OTHER MAN should ever be called father. No, I'm not buying your little argument here . We can't use the title when addressing our priests but you can use it to address the man who is married to your mother? You can't have it both ways if you interpret the Scriptures the way you do.

[forklift]

In the scripture passage that is being referenced, "Father" can also be translated to "doctor" or "master" or "teacher," among other things.

It is important to realize that the Heavens did not part and drop the Bible, in English, out of the sky and onto the shelf at your local bookstore. It was written in a variety of languages, not to mention the different word usages within those languages.

Example -

When I was a young and dumb teenager, we would use the word "bad" to describe something good. In other generations, or locations, within the US, the words used were, "cool, sweet, boss, awesome, etc." Let's say that I was writing a letter to someone where I described something as being bad. Now, 2000 years later, you pick up a copy of my letter, translate it into your own language, and mistakenly think that something is bad, when it fact, it is good. The mistake is easy to make, and will be perpetuated by you and others like you until someone takes the time to learn the history, geography, socioeconomics, etc, of my time period. They will realize the mistake, but the wrong assumptions will be so ingrained that no one will listen to that person.

This is exactly what is happening with the Bible. We go to school for 13 years before going off to college for another 4 or 5 or whatever you need for your degree. Then we get a job, get trained, and continue training for the rest of our employment, until we are experts. However, when it comes to our faith, something far more important than employment, we read a book we don't understand and show up at Church for an hour a week. We then, armed with the knowledge equivalence of a 2nd grader, run out and condemn others that go to a different Church.

[FireSword]

OK, I'm going to try this in bits



As I think Ladonia has pointed out there are many examples of people in the NT addressing men as father (1Cor 4:15, 1Jn 2:13, Acts 7:2, , Matt 10:21-37, 15:4-6, Col 3:21 etc. Also Jesus himself - Lk 16:24, Mt 23:32.

From these we must conclude that Jesus did not mean call no man father in the sense of addressing them as "father" or scripture would be contradicting itself..

When Protestants quote Mt 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" and then say Catholics contradict scripture when they call priests father, is I suggest the logical fallacy of equivocation – the word "call" is used with two different meanings.

Yeah I realized this the other day, God must have brought the subject up. Paul call his disciples children

How could us bible students Protestants missed this 

Still no idea what Jesus meant since nobody followed his advice.

[DaveW]

The word in question is "pater" which seemed a bit odd to me as that is exactly the same as the Latin word for father.  It refers to the male parent - ANY term you use for male parent (even "male parent") so to take it as an absolute in the way suggested is not logical.

My older 2 daughters call me "dad" while my youngest usually calls me "abba." My son calls me "dad." all that would be prohibited under such an interpretation.

Does not the author of Hebrews say we have earthly fathers? Did not Paul tell Timothy he was his son in the faith meaning Paul was his father in the faith?  Did Luke not reference Timothy's Greek physical father in Acts 16?

[JohnDB]

The passage in question of Jesus telling his disciples not to call someone else "father" is not too tough.

Its more about getting another Rabbi to be a disciple of.

K? 

IOW when Jesus died & was ressurected and then ascended several of the Apostles likely felt like they weren't ready to be Rabbi in their own right. So often a disciple would follow another rabbi if his original rabbi died while being trained.

Jesus said for them to do otherwise.

[grams]

     Mat.23:9.   

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven
   

[forklift]

     Mat.23:9.   

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven
   

You do understand that the Bible was not written in English, right?

[grams]

            

That is why there are so many bibles !

But the KJB  had a very good bunch of  intelligent men  doing the bible and passing it back and forth. 
That they all agreed on the wording.

Our  teacher did a good study on this.
I know it had to be at least 12 ?  more or less. 
He takes the time and does a lot of study.

[mclees8]

I have been reading all these answers and opinions on this verse "call no man father on the earth". I beleive I am getteing a glimmer of the answer. It is in realizing that we must understand God our heavenly Father for who he is and that know man born of the flesh can replace Him. We must never think of a man as our replacement of God the Father. Think if Jesus had not said this is it not easy to stop seeing God as the father of all creation and see only men. This is true today when we replace christ with the institution. Religous pride can do this. We would rather have God upon the earth. This is what the papacy wants to establish. This is why the vatican, and popes sitting on their throne of glory. We become more earthly minded than heavenly minded. We must never forget  our heavenly  Father who's grace alone has saved us. No earthly father can replace Him. Does this make sense

[forklift]

I have been reading all these answers and opinions on this verse "call no man father on the earth". I beleive I am getteing a glimmer of the answer. It is in realizing that we must understand God our heavenly Father for who he is and that know man born of the flesh can replace Him. We must never think of a man as our replacement of God the Father. Think if Jesus had not said this is it not easy to stop seeing God as the father of all creation and see only men. This is true today when we replace christ with the institution. Religous pride can do this. We would rather have God upon the earth. This is what the papacy wants to establish. This is why the vatican, and popes sitting on their throne of glory. We become more earthly minded than heavenly minded. We must never forget  our heavenly  Father who's grace alone has saved us. No earthly father can replace Him. Does this make sense

The Pope wants to establish no such thing. Do you people just pull crazy out of a hat each day and decide to believe it?

[mclees8]

I have been reading all these answers and opinions on this verse "call no man father on the earth". I beleive I am getteing a glimmer of the answer. It is in realizing that we must understand God our heavenly Father for who he is and that know man born of the flesh can replace Him. We must never think of a man as our replacement of God the Father. Think if Jesus had not said this is it not easy to stop seeing God as the father of all creation and see only men. This is true today when we replace christ with the institution. Religous pride can do this. We would rather have God upon the earth. This is what the papacy wants to establish. This is why the vatican, and popes sitting on their throne of glory. We become more earthly minded than heavenly minded. We must never forget  our heavenly  Father who's grace alone has saved us. No earthly father can replace Him. Does this make sense

The Pope wants to establish no such thing. Do you people just pull crazy out of a hat each day and decide to believe it?

Maybe its offends you because it really does make sense
It,s not really that hard to see. I have known this for a long time. Just open your eyes and you can  see it.

This pope is going to lauded as the people pope.

[forklift]

I have been reading all these answers and opinions on this verse "call no man father on the earth". I beleive I am getteing a glimmer of the answer. It is in realizing that we must understand God our heavenly Father for who he is and that know man born of the flesh can replace Him. We must never think of a man as our replacement of God the Father. Think if Jesus had not said this is it not easy to stop seeing God as the father of all creation and see only men. This is true today when we replace christ with the institution. Religous pride can do this. We would rather have God upon the earth. This is what the papacy wants to establish. This is why the vatican, and popes sitting on their throne of glory. We become more earthly minded than heavenly minded. We must never forget  our heavenly  Father who's grace alone has saved us. No earthly father can replace Him. Does this make sense

The Pope wants to establish no such thing. Do you people just pull crazy out of a hat each day and decide to believe it?

Maybe its offends you because it really does make sense
It,s not really that hard to see. I have known this for a long time. Just open your eyes and you can  see it.

This pope is going to lauded as the people pope.

Sooo, just to get this straight, the papacy wants to establish the office of the Pope as God on earth. Is that, in fact, what you are saying? You want people to believe that the Catholic Church intends to try to replace God with the Pope? As in people will pray to the Pope and worship him? Am I getting this right?