Question for Christians

[Koldo]

Matt 23:8-10 is a warning not to seek titles of honor just to foster pride.
If you read this passage literally you are not to call you maternal "Father" Father. If this is what you think your Jesus meant then why does the NT make many to so many so many references to "father".....honor your father and mother Matt 19:19. The Old Testament has many references to "father".

First of all, read my post : "To make myself clear : The context of Matthew 23 is about the teachers of the law and Pharisees. So Jesus is speaking surely about the religious conotation of the word "father", and forbiding its use except to refer to God. You are not to think of any religious figure as a father.".

With that made clear, it is important to keep in mind that Jesus had more autorithy than most of those people in your references.

So let us go by parts:

Jas 1:17 is about the term father being used as God, so it is fine.

Ge 4:20-21 could indeed be the literal meaning of male parent or predecessor.

Job 29:16, 2Ki 6:21, and Jdg 17:10 are examples of wrong uses of the father word.( Jesus has more importance than any of those people using the term father in such a manner. )

Romans and Corinthians are Paul's writtings, and also show wrong examples of the father word.

It is worth note that in 1Th 2:11-12, Paul says "as a father" and not he is a father to them.

Now the only worth topics for debate are the following because they were said by Jesus himself:

In Jn 8:44, and in 1 Jn 3:10-12 [ the term father is not used in the latter, however the word children is.] are examples of Jesus preachings. When Jesus said to people for them not to address others by father, he was talking to the "followers" of God. Because they only have 1 father that is in heavens, God. The "non-followers" don't have God as their father, so this rule doesn't apply to them.

It was said so in a religious connotation, so male parent is still fine to be called as father.

Now, whether there are some people that are really children of devil is up to dispute. It could be the case he was simply using figure of speech to convince others to accept his teachings.

So, as you can see the Catholic church is not wrong for calling the priest "Father".

It IS wrong.

I think one should be very careful when making statements.

I agree.

 

[Kathryn]

That is not it. Beta is saying the catholic church is wrong.

[Matthew 23:9

"And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."]

This is very specific.

I get what Beta is doing. I just don't agree with Beta's take on it. And I wanted to be clear - the bible does not say "Call no man Father except your earthly father." That's a post Reformation slant.

 

[Koldo]

I get what Beta is doing. I just don't agree with Beta's take on it. And I wanted to be clear - the bible does not say "Call no man Father except your earthly father." That's a post Reformation slant.

It doesn't leave much room to interpretation. There are few other possibilities. It could be the case that such teaching was supposed to be obeyed just by the people who he directly spoke to [we will have to ignore a lot of the bible if we believe in this], or maybe Jesus didn't really mean to say what he did.

Either way, He DID said to call no one as your religious father with the exception of God.

 

[esmith]

First of all, read my post : "To make myself clear : The context of Matthew 23 is about the teachers of the law and Pharisees. So Jesus is speaking surely about the religious conotation of the word "father", and forbiding its use except to refer to God. You are not to think of any religious figure as a father.".

Well, if that is what you want to believe it is your choice. I was taking the explanation of that passage directly from the NIV Study Bible.

With that made clear, it is important to keep in mind that Jesus had more autorithy than most of those people in your references.

So let us go by parts:

What does "authority" have to do with what is written in the Old Testament. Are you saying that because you believe that Jesus has more "authority" that what is written is wrong?

Job 29:16, 2Ki 6:21, and Jdg 17:10 are examples of wrong uses of the father word.( Jesus has more importance than any of those people using the term father in such a manner. )

So I ask you; Who gives you the power or authority to say what is right or wrong in the Bible?

Romans and Corinthians are Paul's writtings, and also show wrong examples of the father word.
It is worth note that in 1Th 2:11-12, Paul says "as a father" and not he is a father to them.

So now you are even taking the Christian New Testament to task because "in your opinion" it is wrong.

Now the only worth topics for debate are the following because they were said by Jesus himself:

In Jn 8:44, and in 1 Jn 3:10-12 [ the term father is not used in the latter, however the word children is.] are examples of Jesus preachings. When Jesus said to people for them not to address others by father, he was talking to the "followers" of God. Because they only have 1 father that is in heavens, God. The "non-followers" don't have God as their father, so this rule doesn't apply to them.

Yes, the typical Christian dogma. If you don't believe the way I do then you are wrong. I do not agree with you or those statements. I do not believe that Jesus was who the NT says he was and God is still with me. Look, don't try a force your beliefs on me and at the same time say that I am wrong in my beliefs. Just because I don't believe in Jesus doesn't say I do not believe in God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The true Church is not going to be seen until it appears as the resurrected Bride of Christ with him at his return. :yes:

You do believe some weird things.

I would rather think about the church to day, than a maybe event that relies on interpretation.

 

[Koldo]

Well, if that is what you want to believe it is your choice. I was taking the explanation of that passage directly from the NIV Study Bible.

Sure. You are free to have your own opinion.

What does "authority" have to do with what is written in the Old Testament. Are you saying that because you believe that Jesus has more "authority" that what is written is wrong?

So I ask you; Who gives you the power or authority to say what is right or wrong in the Bible?

It is simple. If you pay attention to the bible it has a lot of people talking. Some of them have higher authority over others. For example, Jesus teachings hold more value than Job sayings. None of those people in your bible references has more authority than Jesus.

So now you are even taking the Christian New Testament to task because "in your opinion" it is wrong.

It is not MY opinion. When two opinions contradict in the bible, you have to consider the one from the person that holds more authority.

Yes, the typical Christian dogma. If you don't believe the way I do then you are wrong. I do not agree with you or those statements. I do not believe that Jesus was who the NT says he was and God is still with me. Look, don't try a force your beliefs on me and at the same time say that I am wrong in my beliefs. Just because I don't believe in Jesus doesn't say I do not believe in God.

I am not forcing anything to you. I am showing to you my point of view, and why it is plausible. You are free to do as you please. However, i wonder why you would even care post in the "religious debates" part of the forum if you don't want to have your views challenged.

 

[esmith]

i wonder why you would even care post in the "religious debates" part of the forum if you don't want to have your views challenged.

Yes you may challenge what I think, but you also have to provide a basis for your argument. In your post you said if you do not believe in Jesus you do not have God as their father. What you are saying here is that if you do not believe in Jesus, the God of the Old Testament is not my God. Would you care to show me where this is written?
I would like to ask you a couple of questions.
1. Do you believe that God is the God of all?
2. Do you believe that God is a merciful God?
3. Do you believe that if you do not believe in Jesus that God will forsake you even though you are His children?
4. Does God have more authority than Jesus?

 

[Koldo]

Yes you may challenge what I think, but you also have to provide a basis for your argument. In your post you said if you do not believe in Jesus you do not have God as their father.

Wait. WHAT?! When did i say that?!?!

 

[esmith]

Wait. WHAT?! When did i say that?!?!

Correct, I misread your post. Saw followers of God as followers of Jesus

So would you please go back and answer the questions I put forth in post #127. Also I will debate, but proof must put forth in qualifying a point.

 

[Koldo]

Correct, I misread your post. Saw followers of God as followers of Jesus

Ha, no problem.

So would you please go back and answer the questions I put forth in post #127. Also I will debate, but proof must put forth in qualifying a point.

Sure, but before moving on i have to say that i am not a Christian in everyone's book.

1. Do you believe that God is the God of all?

Yes.

2. Do you believe that God is a merciful God?

Yes, however I don't think that God as portrayed in the OT is merciful.

3. Do you believe that if you do not believe in Jesus that God will forsake you even though you are His children?

No.

4. Does God have more authority than Jesus?

Surely.

 

[esmith]

Would like to continue this discussion at a latter time. The wife says we have errands to run.

 

[esmith]

You said that Jesus teaching have more authority than anyone else except God; Then Gods' laws would have more authority than Jesus, correct?
Therefore many of Jesus teaching are not valid.
Jesus "Turn the other check" God basically an eye for an eye

There are numerous instances where Jesus has "liberalized many of God's Law's and in some instances, divorce for one, made them more conservative. This then would go against what you said about the "authority", correct?

 

[Koldo]

You said that Jesus teaching have more authority than anyone else except God; Then Gods' laws would have more authority than Jesus, correct?
Therefore many of Jesus teaching are not valid.
Jesus "Turn the other check" God basically an eye for an eye

There are numerous instances where Jesus has "liberalized many of God's Law's and in some instances, divorce for one, made them more conservative. This then would go against what you said about the "authority", correct?

You are pretty much correct.

Expanding the words given by God is surely fine, however to contradict them is not. There is however, one defense for the latter, and it is probably one of the pillars of Christianity.

Jesus is portrayed in the Christianity as being the one who was , among other things, fated to abolish certain laws. It could very well be the case that some laws were not be used anymore. In other words, Christians believe that Jesus had God's permision to abolish or change those past laws, because they were of no more use.

 

[Beta]

In other words, the bible doesn't really say "Don't call anyone but your natural father father."

Just clarifying.

It does not have to exactly say that.
Spiritually speaking GOD is our Father.
But there are umpteen scriptures referring to earthly fathers that are not classed as wrong.

 

[Beta]

Just because I don't believe in Jesus doesn't say I do not believe in God.

You have not read Joh.14v6 ???
' no man cometh unto the Father but by me ' says Jesus.
There is such a thing as human imagination !

 

[Koldo]

You have not read Joh.14v6 ???
' no man cometh unto the Father but by me ' says Jesus.
There is such a thing as human imagination !

He has all the right in the world to ignore any Jesus teaching. There is no proof that Jesus was really so special as the NT claims.
You should know that just because something is written in a book it doesn't make it true.

 

[esmith]

You are pretty much correct.

Expanding the words given by God is surely fine, however to contradict them is not. There is however, one defense for the latter, and it is probably one of the pillars of Christianity.

Jesus is portrayed in the Christianity as being the one who was , among other things, fated to abolish certain laws. It could very well be the case that some laws were not be used anymore. In other words, Christians believe that Jesus had God's permision to abolish or change those past laws, because they were of no more use.

I see no intent anywhere that God said that Jesus had His permission to nullify or alter His laws. Now I am only looking at the first 4 gospels in making this statement not the Epistles or Acts. When it comes to the writings of Paul, I have serious doubt about Paul's motives fo his writing in the Epistles. As far as the original Laws of God not having and more use, I guess it is how you perceive things. Yes, some of the teachings portrayed in the NT are worth taking under advisement. However, I do not beleive it is up to us to determine what God want's. He seemed to have made it quite clear. Now whether the misfortunes that fell upon the Jewish people was because they broke God's Law or the rise of more powerful civilizations is another point of possible contention.

 

[Koldo]

I see no intent anywhere that God said that Jesus had His permission to nullify or alter His laws. Now I am only looking at the first 4 gospels in making this statement not the Epistles or Acts. When it comes to the writings of Paul, I have serious doubt about Paul's motives fo his writing in the Epistles. As far as the original Laws of God not having and more use, I guess it is how you perceive things. Yes, some of the teachings portrayed in the NT are worth taking under advisement. However, I do not beleive it is up to us to determine what God want's. He seemed to have made it quite clear. Now whether the misfortunes that fell upon the Jewish people was because they broke God's Law or the rise of more powerful civilizations is another point of possible contention.

I will comment on that specific sentence i underlined:

It is not a matter of believing it is up us to determine what God wants.

The fact is that Jesus had some teachings that were in confront with the previous laws. And if you believe that Jesus was a prophet or the son of God, then he had to have the authority to do so as we assume he had God's permision.

If Jesus is a prophet or the son of God, then we have to follow him. If he is not, then we shouldn't.

It is not a matter of us picking what laws to follow, it is rather up to us to choose to follow Jesus' leading or not.

 

[Koldo]

By the way, it is worth note that most of the content in the OT is , tradionally , attributed to Moses. While nothing in the NT was written by Jesus.

It could very well be the case that God could speak to Jesus just like he did with Moses, but given the fact that Jesus didn't write anything we will never know the content of their conversations.

 

[esmith]

I will comment on that specific sentence i underlined:

It is not a matter of believing it is up us to determine what God wants.

The fact is that Jesus had some teachings that were in confront with the previous laws. And if you believe that Jesus was a prophet or the son of God, then he had to have the authority to do so as we assume he had God's permision.

If Jesus is a prophet or the son of God, then we have to follow him. If he is not, then we shouldn't.

It is not a matter of us picking what laws to follow, it is rather up to us to choose to follow Jesus' leading or not.

My personal view of Jesus is that he was a common laborer. Supposedly he was baptized by John the Baptist. At that time he had a revelation that he could teach and set about doing so. I do not believe he was the messiah referenced in the OT or that he was a prophet. I think he was no more the son of God than any other person. That's just me. So anything I say will be prejudiced by that.