That is correct, no tongues then the spirit has not moved on them yet, whether it be because of sin or there heart is just not ready, it is still evident in the church today, we have at least one who has been seeking for years, but he is still a faithful steward of the church. Tongues were written in The Word of God as a sign to the believer and the other men and women of the flock that the person was baptized in the spirit with the Holy Ghost and fire.
First Church?
- Thread starter Sweet Pea
- Start date
That is correct, no tongues then the spirit has not moved on them yet, whether it be because of sin or there heart is just not ready, it is still evident in the church today, we have at least one who has been seeking for years, but he is still a faithful steward of the church. Tongues were written in The Word of God as a sign to the believer and the other men and women of the flock that the person was baptized in the spirit with the Holy Ghost and fire.
MichaelH
Inactive
My stance is You must be Born again to receive Power on High. Power Always brings evidence as mentioned in scripture. Scripture tells us what to expect and believe for and those filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts in several places spoke in tongues and gave Prophecy.
We have the Word of God to follow and show us what to seek and show us what to believe and Receive.
Once Born again, there would be no reason to wait since Jesus said, "Anyone asking their Father in Heaven for the Holy Spirit it will be given them" Jesus said again if you believe on my name you shall speak with new tongues. It's real simple to receive and there would be no reason not to seek and Receive.
If you don't speak in tongues, then your missing something scripture says is yours. Paul said I would that you all spoke in tongues and if Paul said that, Jesus said that and it's evidence every single time we see the Holy Spirit fill people in Acts then you should seek and not do without.
If you have issues seeking then ask the Pastor to lay hands on you to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Agree with him that you will receive.
blessings.
You'll have to guide me a little because I'm not sure what I should be looking for specifically in these passages and their relevance to the subject.
1) Are you going by your own interpretation?
2) Do you believe your interpretation is infallible?
3) Would that be considered pride?
4) Why do you disregard the verses that clearly address the Jewish leaders as "father" in the given passages? I don't call other people "father" in the biological sense other than my own dad. Was this a sign of the times?
5) What, in your opinion, do you think the Catholic Church's motivation is in using the word "Father?" Pride? Selfishness?
My direct impression from what The Word says, is call no man father in a spiritual aspect of the word, meaning a divine leader of the church, the only reference I can see that was given to me was using Abraham, but Abraham is the father of us all through his seed, so whether it be Abraham the biological father, or great, or great great and so on through the generation, let me ask you one thing, what about Eve then, The Word clearly states she is the mother of all living, no where in the Bible does it tell us to call our shepards of the flocks father, it just does not say that, it even clearly tells us not too, The Word clearly states deacons, and bishops, Jesus wrote specifically to call them by those titles, would he not have told us to call the shepards of the flocks father, but he did not, instead he says call no man father on this earth, the catholic church is directly disobeying The Word of God when they do that, it's almost as if they are justifying what the church does when the Bible clearly tells the follower of themBible not to do that. As to my previous question were in The Word of God does it tell us to call a church leader father it just does not, The Word of God is direct, if we start interpreting what it says then we come up with our own conclusion, and that is how people get deceived.
I'm afraid you're going to have to answer the questions I asked you before we can further move on. The reason why is because we both agree with what the Bible says, but we both read it in two different interpretations; I'm going by Catholic interpretation and you're going by your own interpretation. Both sides claim it is lead by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit isn't suggesting two different things.
Please answer each question I asked, otherwise we'll be stuck in a loop.
I answered your questions and left you with some of my own questions for you, if they are ignored the questions that I asked I understand, this is not my interpretation on anything, this is what the Bible clearly states, I do not see pride, what you are telling me is that the church you go to trumps the Bible, that would be the commandment of men, not God. Jewish leaders were called priests, only the High Priest was allowed to go into the most Holy of Holy's, pride I see no pride on my part, I am not being prideful about anything, this is my main question why, why, why do they use the word father, just like the obelisks, just like being celibate, Arron was the high priest, and he was married with children, so were most of the High Priest in the Old Testament, the idols why, no idols earthly or heavenly, I mean these are clear, but according to the catholic church they can change the laws that God laid out for us unto there own ways. The Protestant reformation came about when the printing press started to be more efficient, and people could actually read The Word of God and see that they were being lied too, now we go to today, Spanish people are leaving the catholic church in droves, why because they are actually opening The Word of God, and seeing what they were told is wrong, the Spanish Inquisition in 1492 told the people of Spain convert or die, to the spainiards and to the Jews, so they did not want to die the one that lived and converted, now after generations of the commandments of men these same Spanish people are opening the pages of The Word of God, and relizing what they were told is wrong. In 1492 all the real Jews got kicked out of Spain. I left some real questions of my own in some of the other posts that I see have been ignored. Jesus is the church, The Word of God and the Holy Ghost is our guide, no building no name of a church just Jesus.
You said quite a lot, so I will do my absolute best to address everything (and hopefully I will also answer any questions you have -- I couldn't find any clear questions asked, but a series of statements).
To begin, you are indeed READING the Bible, as I am, but anyone can read it, but there is only one true interpretation and message of each passage. My question is how do you know your interpretation is the right one? "Because I can read it" isn't a valid answer. There are tens of thousands of different denominations, but much of it is due to a disagreement on scriptural interpretation.
The context Matthew 23:1-12 is very important in this argument against the title of "Father." If you look at the last verse where Jesus was addressing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes and the pride they had, it says "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted." The passage is addressing a removal of God's title as the Father and passing it down to one's self.
You reject the claim that 1 John 2:13-14 is using the word "Fathers" in accordance with the temple priests, and you're linking it to their being the descendants of Abraham (correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm not trying to put words in your mouth). But if this is the argument, then either the Catholic Church is doing this since Christianity (whether Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox) is a fulfillment of Judaism OR the temple priests were addressed as the "fathers" in the same respect as Catholic priests are. It can be one or the other, but it cannot be neither. Though it's most consistent with the latter. Here's why...
First look at Acts 7:2: "And he said, 'Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran," -- this was Stephen at the trial before the sanhedrin made up of a supreme body of religious leaders.
Another remarkable verse is 1 Corinthians 4:15: "For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." -- Was Paul exposing contradiction with what Jesus said? Was Paul contradicting Jesus? Neither? Both?
Since the earliest days of the Church (extending to the first century), the term "father" was typical in addressing a religious leader. Bishops, who are the shepherds of the local Church community and the authentic teachers of the faith, were given the title "Father." Actually, until about the year 400, a bishop was called "papa" for Father; this title was then restricted solely to addressing the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, and in English was rendered "pope." More interestingly, the word "abbot," denoting the leader in faith of the monastic community, comes from the word abba, the Aramaic Hebrew word for father, but in the very familiar sense of "daddy."
Reading a passage without clear instruction and taking it to mean whatever one wants has lead to so much chaos and confusion. Is God a god of chaos and confusion or a God of order?
_______________________________________
You made a statement regarding the Church and the Bible; "what you are telling me is that the church you go to trumps the Bible, that would be the commandment of men, not God."
Absolutely not. The Church doesn't trump the Bible meaning it does not take what it likes and leave what it doesn't like from the scriptures. The Church is ALIGNED with the Bible. In fact, the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church officially in the 3rd century. And even though there is disagreement regarding the OT with Protestants and Catholics due to the dueterocanon, both 100% endorse the NT. Protestants, like Catholics, do hold the NT as authentically from God, which was given to them by the Catholic bishops (meaning they made official the NT canon). Though of course Luther tried to challenge this in wanting to remove James and Jude.
Christ left for His people a Church. The Church, through the Holy Spirit, compiled the books that were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is no verse in the Bible that teaches the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura -- not one -- but there is a verse that expressed the Church as being the pillar of truth ... 1 Timothy 3:15 says "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."
The most common verse I see in the defense of Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3:16 -- but this verse doesn't address that ONLY scripture is profitable, nor does it say that all scripture is SUFFICIENT. What is DOES say (and I'll give you KJV since that seems to be your go-to version) is "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
It should never become "Either Church OR the Bible," -- it is, rather, "Both Church AND the Bible." Though if one contradicts the other, then it clearly becomes a problem and a tradition of man becomes exposed. The Catholic Church does NOT hold to the position that it can change what God has commanded, nor has it ever.
__________________________
I'm glad you mentioned the printing press in connection with the Bible and the reformation...and here's why...
Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press and a devout Catholic, is celebrated by the Catholic Church because his invention allowed for a more efficient and cheaper way for people to be able to read the scriptures. Granted, Bibles were still massively expensive (just as any large book was then), but this delivered out the scriptures to a wider range. His invention was roughly about 50-75 years before the reformation. He is most significantly celebrated by the Church because the first thing he DID print was indeed the Bible.
It should be noted that owning a Bible would cost a lot of money, even up until about the 17th century, and the literacy rate then was also very low. Bibles used to be chained to the altars and pews because thieves used to steal them and sell them to wealthy lords. The Church said that can't do that and that the Bible should be seen by all, so they began to chain them for the availability for everyone.
Martin Luther, however, was not a fan parts of the Bible, and had the intention to remove certain books, especially James which he despised. Here are some quotes by Martin Luther:
"Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces."
"Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did."
He also said:
"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness."
"Job . . . is merely the argument of a fable."
The serge of people leaving the Church is not based on enlightenment (this is the same argument Atheists in regards to people leaving faith) -- it is due to scriptural chaos, pride, misguides. Spain, as you mentioned, is not becoming increasingly Protestant, it is becoming increasingly Atheist -- my wife is from Spain. Her family lives in Spain. This is a trend that has been emerging over the past 20 years or so. And you brought up another subject which needs to be addressed...
_______________________________________
The Spanish Inquisition:
Did it happen? Absolutely, it did. Is it what you think it is (IE, forcing people to convert to Catholicism by brute force)? Nope, that's a myth. 9 times out of 10, people who use the argument of the Inquisition against the Church have no idea what they're talking about. Allow me to explain the history...
What was NOT the Spanish Inquisition:
It wasn't instigated by the Catholic Church. It wasn't an effort to convert people into Catholicism. Strangely enough, it ultimately didn't have anything to do with religion at all.
"OK, then what WAS it?"
The Spanish Inquisition was the product of the Spanish monarchs (hence "Spanish" Inquisition), and it was an effort to unearth Spaniards who had converted to Catholicism but were continuing to practice their own religion. I said a second ago that it had nothing to do with religion, and that statement seems to beg to differ...but here's the story; the people who had converted but were still secretly practicing Islam or even Judaism, these people were alleged spies who were consorting with the old Muslim occupiers of Spain.
Spain was picking back up at this time after having finally vanquishing the old Muslim occupiers from Spain. The Islamic empire had been occupying Spain for 800 years, and Spain finally got rid of the last of them (again, these were occupiers with the intention to force THEIR conversion -- this is why the Crusades is another misunderstood event in history). But Spain was finally getting back on its feet as a sovereign realm. However, the only reason why the Muslim empire was able to invade Spain was because they had a lot of "friends" on the inside. Following their liberation, there were reports from the south of Spain that there were Muslims and even some Jews who had pretended to convert to Catholicism but were continuing to consort with the ancient enemy -- and it turned out to be true.
Spain utilized a method of the Catholic Church called an Inquisition, which is originally intended to identify people who've adopted a heresy, address them and get an understanding from their part and find out why they believe this heresy, and then finally attempt to correct them. It's a method of discussion, NOT violence -- nor is it an effort to force conversion -- it's a method to purify the faith for those who already believe in it.
Torture has nothing to do with inquisitions.
The Spanish monarchs used this method to bring forward and unearth these spies. It's not so much a religious event as it was a political event to maintain the country's sovereignty. This isn't propaganda, it's just facts. The Vatican DID approve of the monarchs operating an inquisition, but when the Vatican finally found out precisely what the reason was for it, the Vatican tried to bring it to a halt -- which of course is difficult because the Pope had no authority over the monarchs.
People often link the Spanish Inquisition with torture chambers and prison cells, but very few people were "tortured" and even fewer people were executed. A common number (depending on the historian you go by) is around 750 to 2000 (it's a wide range) in a span of a few hundred years. It wasn't a billion or a million or whatever that number is that people often claim. By the way, those executions had nothing to do with religion -- they were in regards to high crimes against the realm...and again, this was done by the monarchs, not the Church.
I recommend looking up the name "Stephen Katz" -- he's a Jewish historian who has the numbers, recordings, and information of what did happen during this event.
The word "inquisition" is not a dirty word and the Church has no sort of shame in it. To this day, the Church still uses this method of an inquisition when addressing any given diocese that seems to be promoting a heresy.
____________________________________
If you asked me questions and I didn't see them, I'm not trying to ignore them -- it's that I didn't see the questions. If I didn't address anything in this message that you wanted answered, please ask again clearly (it's probably my fault for missing these questions) and I'll respond to those.
Sorry for the long response. I know it's a lot of reading, but you said quite a mouthful in your last post, and so I felt it needed to be addressed with as much detail as I could give without going overboard.
Last edited:
MichaelH
Inactive
First we are not looking up Isis, Zues ................. Jew fables............. Scripture only.
Jesus said....................... You shall call no man your father but your father in Heaven.
That settles it Red Letters.
Now everyone can twist scripture, Quote Walt Disney and Make all other kinds of excuses as to why they should Just do what the Lord says Do......
In fact I see Rebellion at even the most simple of instructions as its not hard to correct yourself from acknowledging any other Father but the Father in Heaven.
Very simple, easy instructions and we still have Rebellion. Only can be one reason for that and some must not consider God the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ their Father nor care for instruction from the Son of God the head of the Church.
That has to be the only other reason. Because Reasoning and going through the Greek and bringing up other fables and tales not the Word of God is Rebellion which is the sin of Witchcraft.
If I asked my Employee to take the trash out and He starts to quote Dr. Seuss and tells me about past company policy bla, bla ,bla.....
HE NO LONGER HAS A JOB.
We don't Question the Master, the King of Kings................ NEVER.
Nor Did Jesus Contradict scripture. NEVER
So Jesus gives instruction and the best move is to twist scriptures and tell Jesus it is not so. It will not fare well in the end for anyone who does this, and they need to repent and change real quick. That is Rebellion and it's demonic.
1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Since I have to appeal to those full of this Worlds corrupt wisdom....... I will do so in hopes to wake people up.
Pater A Greek Word used for father can define both literal and figurative Father. It can be the author of something or a real biological Father.
Paul was the Father as He said I have begotten you through the Gospel. Paul came and gave them the Word. He said you have lots of instructors but not many Fathers. I have begotten you through the Gospel.
Paul was not saying I am your real father. Paul was not saying call me Father. Paul was saying I was the author of bringing the gospel to you and got you first saved. I started the Work and am the Father of the Work started (Author)
How is this confusing? God would only know.
Father was also and always used concerning young Children. Children do have a Biological Father whom they share the Covenant the Parents do with God. Children don't have their own covenant with God but are effect by the Parents covenant.
I already gave scripture in a few places concerning this.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Jesus recognized Child do not have a covenant with God it's through the Parents. So he had no issues saying Children have a Mother and Father.
It's the Parents Job to train the child they way they should go. It's not God's job, so hence children have a earthly Father.
The parents are responsible for the child.
1 John 2: 13-14
Who is John giving instruction to? When even speaking to others about their children it is fine to call them the father of the child. But us and our relationship with the Lord we have no other Father but that in Heaven.
Father Abraham was a Jewish term.............. He is the author by Title "Father Abraham" Not just My Father. We share the blessings of Abraham who is the Father of it or author. He is not My father though.
No other person can hold that title because it was through Abraham we are blessed. The name was used when giving understanding to Others, so they could compare with the NT and the OT and where it all started.
It was never used to denote calling anyone Father but that your Father in Heaven.
If you use the term Father Abraham, no other man on this planet could be honored enough for you to call them Father but Abraham if that was your understanding. It's through Abraham we are blessed and the seed of Abraham.
YOU ARE NOT ANYONE ELSE S SEED!!!!! if you choose to use the title Father Abraham.
Jesus said you shall call no man your father.................. How is it some here on the Forums rebel at such an simple instruction that is so easy to change and get right?
I don't get it................. If rebellion is easy at the simple of things, what manner does anyone fair to the important things. He that is faithful in little will be faithful in much.
amazing.
Jesus said....................... You shall call no man your father but your father in Heaven.
That settles it Red Letters.
Now everyone can twist scripture, Quote Walt Disney and Make all other kinds of excuses as to why they should Just do what the Lord says Do......
In fact I see Rebellion at even the most simple of instructions as its not hard to correct yourself from acknowledging any other Father but the Father in Heaven.
Very simple, easy instructions and we still have Rebellion. Only can be one reason for that and some must not consider God the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ their Father nor care for instruction from the Son of God the head of the Church.
That has to be the only other reason. Because Reasoning and going through the Greek and bringing up other fables and tales not the Word of God is Rebellion which is the sin of Witchcraft.
If I asked my Employee to take the trash out and He starts to quote Dr. Seuss and tells me about past company policy bla, bla ,bla.....
HE NO LONGER HAS A JOB.
We don't Question the Master, the King of Kings................ NEVER.
Nor Did Jesus Contradict scripture. NEVER
So Jesus gives instruction and the best move is to twist scriptures and tell Jesus it is not so. It will not fare well in the end for anyone who does this, and they need to repent and change real quick. That is Rebellion and it's demonic.
1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Since I have to appeal to those full of this Worlds corrupt wisdom....... I will do so in hopes to wake people up.
Pater A Greek Word used for father can define both literal and figurative Father. It can be the author of something or a real biological Father.
Paul was the Father as He said I have begotten you through the Gospel. Paul came and gave them the Word. He said you have lots of instructors but not many Fathers. I have begotten you through the Gospel.
Paul was not saying I am your real father. Paul was not saying call me Father. Paul was saying I was the author of bringing the gospel to you and got you first saved. I started the Work and am the Father of the Work started (Author)
How is this confusing? God would only know.
Father was also and always used concerning young Children. Children do have a Biological Father whom they share the Covenant the Parents do with God. Children don't have their own covenant with God but are effect by the Parents covenant.
I already gave scripture in a few places concerning this.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Jesus recognized Child do not have a covenant with God it's through the Parents. So he had no issues saying Children have a Mother and Father.
It's the Parents Job to train the child they way they should go. It's not God's job, so hence children have a earthly Father.
The parents are responsible for the child.
1 John 2: 13-14
Who is John giving instruction to? When even speaking to others about their children it is fine to call them the father of the child. But us and our relationship with the Lord we have no other Father but that in Heaven.
Father Abraham was a Jewish term.............. He is the author by Title "Father Abraham" Not just My Father. We share the blessings of Abraham who is the Father of it or author. He is not My father though.
No other person can hold that title because it was through Abraham we are blessed. The name was used when giving understanding to Others, so they could compare with the NT and the OT and where it all started.
It was never used to denote calling anyone Father but that your Father in Heaven.
If you use the term Father Abraham, no other man on this planet could be honored enough for you to call them Father but Abraham if that was your understanding. It's through Abraham we are blessed and the seed of Abraham.
YOU ARE NOT ANYONE ELSE S SEED!!!!! if you choose to use the title Father Abraham.
Jesus said you shall call no man your father.................. How is it some here on the Forums rebel at such an simple instruction that is so easy to change and get right?
I don't get it................. If rebellion is easy at the simple of things, what manner does anyone fair to the important things. He that is faithful in little will be faithful in much.
amazing.
Sorry, MichaelH, but I think you're twisting scripture in making a passage mean something it doesn't.
MichaelH
Inactive
could you refer the the Passage then that contradicts what Jesus instructed? Why is something so simple to obey so hard for you. Help me understand why any disobedience would even be an option?
It's so simple to fix........ Why this resistance? I don't get it.
Anyway, I don't twist scripture and scripture never contradicts. Pater means author of something or actual Father. Jesus said what He said, so no Scripture would contradict that either.
What scripture was it?
These threads have turned into long Catholic V.S everything else debates. I don't understand why that is? They should stay on topic. If we stick with scripture then it would not be Catholic but how a persons views the Word.
Blessings.
MichaelH, I provided about 5 passages already. Not one shows that Christ was contradicting himself. The problem is you don't understand Matthew 23:9 -- you don't know that this was Christ talking to the scribes and pharisees and addressing hypocrisy and swollen heads. Did you read Matthew 23:12? Instead, you have taken your own fallible interpretation, decided you know what it means based on no authority, and discredited all the other verses where it shows the title of "Father" being used, both in a biological and religious sense. 1 John 2:13-14, Acts 7:1-2, 1 Corinthians 4:14-15, Luke 16, 27, and 30, and Acts 22:1.
It's all about context, reading scripture carefully, and understanding history.
You have done the exact same thing the Jehovah's Witness's do. They take one single verse (1 Timothy 2:5) where it says "the man Jesus Christ" and BOOM--Christ is all of a sudden not God AND Man, He is only a man, discrediting all the other passages that support Christ's divinity.
You have taken one single verse, twisted out of context, ignored all of the other passages where Christ told the story of the rich man and Lazarus referring to Abraham as Father Abraham, where Stephen addressed the religious leaders as fathers, where John addressed the religious leaders as fathers, where Paul addressed the religious leaders as fathers, and therefore, you've got your own interpretation.
This isn't even my own interpretation that I'm presenting -- I'm presenting the entire Church's position on this.
Your argument is that as long as it's in red letters (meaning Christ's words), then it doesn't matter the other books of the Bible have to say. Isn't the Bible an extension of God speaking to us -- a God-breathed source of Christian teaching -- that ought to be believed in 100%?
You can't have it your way. I'm sorry, MichaelH, but you've done precisely what you're claiming I am doing right now. You have ignored context, ignored other passages, and made up your mind that you only know the Bible. This is the same pride I mentioned that Satan relishes in. He loves it when people do this, as it has brought disorder to Christian discussion and practices.
MichaelH
Inactive
OK, so Jesus was just talking to the Religious leaders.
Ignore the fact that Father is used just as I described concerning Children for no Child be under the authority of God but the parents who have covenant with God. What the parents do effect the Children.
Jesus was just addressing the leaders. Not giving instruction to us....... That is your take so we actually can call anyone Father and ignore Jesus instruction to the Leaders.
We just don't take one scripture and make some doctrine.
However, I told you with all the scriptures how Father is used, when to use it and why it's used that way. Paul always refered to the Father God. When teaching others who knew Abraham he could right to say Your Father Abraham. No man in Christ Jesus would have any other Father but the Lord God.
Those not in covenant or under another authority such as children which John mentioned, Jesus mentioned and Paul mentioned with share the covenant with the Parent.
We just don't take one scripture and make some doctrine.
I agree with that.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
So with YOUR reasoning........
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
The Messiah, (Christ) (The anointed one) is for us. So then if Mat 23:9 is not to be taken as true for us then we also don't have one Master who is the Christ. So you must also Deny that Jesus is the Christ and ONE to be called Master by your reasoning.
By your reasoning.
Joh_15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Since Christ is is not the only one we can call Master there must be tons of them and we can do lots of things without Jesus, though He specifically said it's Only through Him we can do anything.
So then I have to ask by your reasoning since you claim Jesus was just talking to the religious leaders and the Word was not hand picked by the Holy Spirit years latter saying if all be written it will fill the world but we are given what we need.
There must not be eternal life as Jesus was not talking to anyone saved at the time in John 3:16. We have no proof he meant us but the World at that time using Hermeneutics in proper cultural and time.
How many of these Masters have you collected through the years? I guess that would be my next question based on your reasoning.
ALL Scripture is given for reproof and Doctrine. Man shall not live on Bread alone but by EVERY Word that proceeds out of the Mouth of God.
We don't pick and choose what we want to believe because if you believe Mat 23:9 does not apply to you then You don't also believe Jesus is the only Master the Christ and if that be the case, your in trouble.
I am concerned because not calling anyone else Father is so simple to obey and just do, and you fail at the most simple of things. If one is not true for you, then the other scripture is also not true for you.
If you're insinuating that I am saying that Jesus only gave this instruction to religious leaders and that others can have swollen heads and be hypocrites, then you're still missing the context. The rule still applies to people who aren't religious leaders. The question is "what is the rule?" Is the rule about not calling others father or is it not being a hypocritical zealot who thrives on power and discredits God His role?
Who is "we?"
That's ultimately the point of Matthew 23:9 -- not removing the TRUE Father, which is God the Father. A priest being called "father" isn't used in doing that.
Jesus could have said this to anyone -- including His own disciples -- and it still would have applies. The reason why it happened to be toward the pharisees and scribes is because their reputation for behavior was that of a hypocrite and someone wanting attention brought on himself. We are repeated told not to be like them, and so the same applies to us.
Explain.
You'll have to explain this question too. How many of what masters have I collected through the years? Collecting masters? What masters? And by what means have I collected them? Do you mean priests? They aren't my masters--my only master is Christ if that's what you're saying. My only true father is the one is heaven--and I'm speaking in the spiritual sense. Though the priests I know and have met are agents of Christ.
Amen. I agree with you 100%
Falling into heresy is also very simple to do, and with all due respect, I believe you've fallen into it. Perhaps it's because you got bad information, or perhaps it's due to pride, or perhaps it's just misunderstanding on your behalf, but heresy is still heresy, and it ought to be reviewed. I'm not judging you on WHY you are doing this--I can't do that because I don't know what's in your heart.
You are still going by one verse and using the same exact argument as the Jehovah's Witness's, but for a different case. They have made the same arguments you have, and using other verses to back up their claim of one singled-out verse.
I am not claiming these things on my own behalf--I don't hold some sort of monopoly on the Holy Spirit.
Don't get me wrong -- I am not trying to shift the discussion elsewhere, but why is it that a passage like Matthew 23:9 is taken in such a literal sense that it extends to all forms of the word "father," but then passages like Luke 22:19 are taken figuratively in regards to Communion, despite other passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:27-29?
Where is this authority of "This is literal in every sense" and "this is figurative, don't take it to heart" come from?
Again, I'm not trying to get into the discussion of the Eucharist, but I am using it as an example of where the divide seems to be.
Where is this authority of "This is literal in every sense" and "this is figurative, don't take it to heart" come from?
Again, I'm not trying to get into the discussion of the Eucharist, but I am using it as an example of where the divide seems to be.
MichaelH
Inactive
My point was that if Jesus did not mean not to call anyone father but the Father in Heaven (God) Then Jesus did not mean there is only One Master the Christ.
One Scripture follows the other. Both should be followed, for to discount one you discount the other.
Both are very simple to follow and get corrected.
So then I have to ask. Is some religious belief giving you a hard time following Both sets of scriptures. I do my best not to understand the word according to some reliegious belief. If Jesus said it, good enough for me despite what any denomination teaches.
I read everything in the Word as instruction to me as that is what the Word said........ Every Word that came from God I shall live on that.
Where God changed it like Praying over the Food by sanctifying with the Word and nothing unclean, means I can eat pig.
If God did not mention the change, then I don't change it.
God never changes, and I won't change what He said.
Again, you're misinterpreting this passage. Of course there is only one master, as Matthew 5:24 tells us. But Matthew 23:10 says to not be called a leader as there is only ONE leader (other translations use the words Rabbi, Teacher, Leaders, Moreinu, etc). Let's use the words teacher and leader as those seem to be the most commonly used word in each version -- in both Catholic translations and Protestant versions. Yet these words are used extremely frequently, and even in the religious sense (such as church leaders). But that doesn't mean they are the TRUE leader -- only God is the true leader.
I'm afraid your argument just isn't sound enough.
I'm not following one passage and discrediting another -- with all due respect, it seems you are. Rather, I'm suggesting your translation is flawed, but the passage.
Yes, "some religious believe" which happens to be the Universal Church, the Catholic Church, holds the authority for scriptural translation, as was passed down by Christ upon His disciples. The Church is apostolic, meaning descendent from the apostles. Christ founded the Church, and the Church didn't somehow whither away in time. And because of this, it is my belief indeed that this understanding is absolutely passed down from the authority of Christ himself.
You are putting upon yourself your own fallible interpretation. How is this not pride? How does this not lead to chaos when each person can simply be his own pope?
You will disagree with every word I just said, but that's the whole point of this discussion -- our disagreement. If you hate the Catholic Church, fine -- but know what you're hating. No assumptions. So far, you're making assumption after assumption.
We're not getting back to your own fallible interpretation as well as the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Do you see why this becomes complicated?
This is why it took me years. This is why it was not a swift change from Protestantism to Catholicism. I've heard every single argument. I used to make these arguments when I lead my college Bible studies or when I was a camp counselor at a Christian camp that was very anti-Catholic. Your arguments aren't new. And before me, these have been made by so many other people toward the likes of G.K. Chesterton, St. Justin Martyr, Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, and J.R.R. Tolkien.
1Cr 12:29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
1Cr 12:30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
perhaps if someone says I can heal, so if you don't have that gift, then you do not have the HS .. same poor logic ..
I think I went over this with someone before, as you can see its a question not a fact, Paul is asking the people a question,
King James Version (KJV)
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
All is the word used not some, but all, also I like the word each of them not some of them, but each of them.
Mark 16:15-20
King James Version (KJV)
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Now it does not say some its says the believer and the one that is baptized will do these great signs, a sign for conformation, so to answer Pauls question that he was asking, is yes all speak with tongues, remember The Word of God does not contradict it self, so to answer Pauls question is a yes.
MichaelH
Inactive
OK then........ it must be sola Scriptura then............ If Jesus said anything, I take it literal. I don't question and Believing that we have what we say and believe in our heart that it shall come to pass, therefore when we pray believe you have it before you see it then it shows up..........
Is much more harder to grasp and walk in by faith than a simple instruction not to call any man father but your father in Heaven.
More then once I have gone to the Lord and said.......... Lord I never one time doubted or said anything different and yet this happened. More than once the Lord had to correct me and show me where I misplaced what I believed and times I thought was faith was just mental assessment.
Don't call any man your Father but your father in Heaven is so much more easy to grasp and do.
I am not Arguing against Catholic doctrine. Could care less when it comes to scripture. You can be baptist for all I care. My concern is Jesus saying something and it not be something you would get in line with right away.
That is a concept I don't get, just take Jesus at his word and He never changes. If he told the Jews they are of the father the devil a murderer, then I just don't assume that it's OK to murder because he was speaking to the Jews.
I guess I just won't understand. We are going back and fourth on something so ................ ummm. I don't think it will end either one of us up in hell no matter what side we pick.
anyway........... Thank you for your time and patience in this matter.
I read your answer and also brushed up on the inquisition subject, from what I read the rulers of the countries loved the inquisition, they profited well from wealth confiscation, to land confiscation, killing people with them having no representation, if the catholic church was so innocent then why did your leader make a public apology in the early 2000s, as far as luther I really can careless for the man, it seems like when ever there is somebody that disagrees with the catholic church they go to luther, I did not know him, and he has nothing to do with what I believe.
questions
1 why the obelisk, if there is no more paganism in the catholic church destroy it.
2 what was rome before it became the catholic church, from my understanding, lots of idols and paganism.
3 why are the priest celibate, Arron was a High Priest, he had children, Moses he had children, I believe most of the High Priest had children.
4 idols, and praying to idols and these dead saints, have not found that one yet.
5 nuns do not see that one in the Bible either.
6 purgatory not there either.
7 praying for dead people can not find.
8 praying for people who committed suicide, and offering money to pray them to heaven, not in the Bible, except for the love of money is the root of all evil.
9 paying for an annulment of marriage have not read that one.
10 the newest one of them all the non-believers will make it to heaven just as long as they do good, according to The Word of God, thats a false teacher, can only be saved by faith, works of the spirit of God, and charity,
Ephesians 2:8-9
King James Version (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Matthew 7:22-25
King James Version (KJV)
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.