antichrist

[JohnWilliams]

So Image of God, let’s begin. KJV OK?
I like the Blue letter Bible for word studies blueletterbible.org/index.html and
I like Olive tree for definitions of terms and Greek/Hebrew olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm :

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

What is a beast?

Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,…

So beast=kingdom. Are you with me there?

 

[Image_of_God]

What I wrote was that I read it. I read it in its entirety earlier today. You judged me unfairly - this time by presumption - in spite of what I wrote. I am not called to respond further. I have read many of those quotes previously and they constituted a brush up this time.

But I do know what if feels like to have one’s DOCTRINE questioned and understand.
Go to the Episcopalian discussion to see what happens when we stray from scripture and rely on tradition/doctrine. Or consider the treatment of Reformers for an extreme example of error.
Or consider Jesus warning to the Pharisees:

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Sometimes I am prone to judge by the fruit.

I did judge you unfairly and I am sorry. I do think that not believing in the Fathers is a problem, but not too bad. As Catholics, we believe in Scripture and Tradition as equals. You need only to look at the result of Protestantism to see the errors of going on Scripture alone.

 

[inJESUS]

What about many anti-Christs and The anti-Christ?

 

[tequilamac]

So Image of God, let’s begin. KJV OK?
I like the Blue letter Bible for word studies blueletterbible.org/index.html and
I like Olive tree for definitions of terms and Greek/Hebrew olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm :

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

What is a beast?

Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,…

So beast=kingdom. Are you with me there?

I am sorry.

1.I would need to use an accurate translation of the Bible and Blue Letter Bible is not it.
Rev. 13:1
1 Then I saw a beast come out of the sea with ten horns and seven heads; on its horns were ten diadems, and on its heads blasphemous name (s).
Dan 7:23
He answered me thus: "The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, different from all the others; It shall devour the whole earth, beat it down, and crush it.

1. I would need to follow the standard Catholic interpretation of Scripture rather than relying on yours.

Our interpretation:
1 [1-27] The significance of this vision is the same as that of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2; see note on Daniel 2:36-45. To the four succeeding world kingdoms, Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Greek, is opposed the messianic kingdom of the people of God. **The imagery of this chapter has been used extensively in the Revelation of St. John, where it is applied to the Roman empire, the persecutor of the Church. **

2 [2] The great sea: the primordial ocean beneath the earth, according to primitive cosmology (Genesis 7:11; 49:25). This was thought to contain various monsters (Isaiah 27:1; Job 7:12), and in particular mythological monsters symbolizing the chaos which God had vanquished in ancient times (Job 9:13; 26:13; etc.).

3 [4] The representation of the Babylonian empire as a winged lion, a common motif in Babylonian art, symbolizes the bestial power hostile to God. The two wings that were plucked represent Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. On two feet like a man . . . a human mind: contrasts with what is said in Daniel 4:13, 30.

4 [5] A bear: represents the Median empire, its three tusks symbolizing its destructive nature; hence, the command: “Up, devour much flesh.”

5 [6] A leopard: used to symbolize the swiftness with which Cyrus the Persian established his kingdom. Four heads: corresponding to the four Persian kings of Daniel 11:2.

6 [7-8] Alexander’s empire was different from all the others in that it was Western rather than Oriental in inspiration. The ten horns represent the kings of the Seleucid dynasty, the only part of the Hellenistic empire that concerned the author. The little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.), the worst of the Seleucid kings, who usurped the throne.

7 [9-10] A vision of the heavenly throne of God (the Ancient One), who sits in judgment (symbolized by fire) over the nations. Some of the details of the vision, depicting the divine majesty and omnipotence, are to be found in Ezekial 1.

8 [13-14] One like a son of man: in contrast to the worldly kingdoms opposed to God, which appear as beasts, the glorified people of God that will form his kingdom on earth is represented in human form (Daniel 7:18). Just as our Lord applied the figure of the stone hewn from the mountain to himself (Daniel 2:36-45), he also made the title “Son of Man” his most characteristic way of referring to himself, as the One in whom and through whom the salvation of God’s people came to be realized.

9 [25] The reference is to the persecutions of Antiochus IV and his attempt to force the Jews to give up their customs and to adopt Hellenistic ways (1 Macc 1:33-34). A year, two years, and a half-year: an indefinite, evil period of time. As seven is the Jewish “perfect” number, half of it signifies great imperfection. Actually, this corresponds fairly accurately to the duration of Antiochus’ persecution.

10 [28] This verse ends the Aramaic part of the Book of Daniel.
New American Bible

So I guess I am with you. You want to discuss the fourth kingdom or beast which was Greece. Correct? And you also want to discuss the persecution of the Church by the Romans according to St. John. Correct?

 

[Image_of_God]

So Image of God, let’s begin. KJV OK?
I like the Blue letter Bible for word studies blueletterbible.org/index.html and
I like Olive tree for definitions of terms and Greek/Hebrew olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm :

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

What is a beast?

Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,…

So beast=kingdom. Are you with me there?

The beast is defined in Rev. 17:11
The beast that existed once but no longer is the eight king, but really belong to the seven and is headed to destruction.

Many sholars believe this to be the Emperor Nero around John’s time. There are in fact two beasts, they seem to reflect the conditions of the Emperors at that time.

I have looked through the sights but I don’t know what you want me to do with them.
The word beasts, I believe can be the Roman Empire, which was pagan at his time.

 

[Image_of_God]

What about many anti-Christs and The anti-Christ?

You are right! These are both right. The antichrist can be present in a persons’ heart, but in some contexts of the Bible it is noted as the “lawless one.” meaning a specific person.

 

[tequilamac]

The beast is defined in Rev. 17:11
The beast that existed once but no longer is the eight king, but really belong to the seven and is headed to destruction.

Many sholars believe this to be the Emperor Nero around John’s time. There are in fact two beasts, they seem to reflect the conditions of the Emperors at that time.

I have looked through the sights but I don’t know what you want me to do with them.
The word beasts, I believe can be the Roman Empire, which was pagan at his time.

My post right before yours gives a complete interpretation from the Bishops in the New American Bible. It is my guess that John Williams wants to discuss the persecution of the early Church by the Romans and also discuss the fourth kingdom of Greece.

 

[JohnWilliams]

I did judge you unfairly and I am sorry. I do think that not believing in the Fathers is a problem, but not too bad. As Catholics, we believe in Scripture and Tradition as equals. You need only to look at the result of Protestantism to see the errors of going on Scripture alone.

The point I am here to punctuate is that the error is throughout the Church. Satan has been wildly successful.

The error you refer to in Protestantism comes from NOT going on Scripture. The vast majority follow the TRADITION of John Darby styled futurist doctrine. Most of the rest are partial-preterist (Alcazar). These are doctrines invented by Catholic Jesuits to deflect the growing belief among persecuted reformers that the Pope was the antichrist. Christians didn’t buy it until the late 19th and early 20th centuries even though the doctrines were penned by Ribera and Alcazar in the 16th centuries. Fururist and preterist dotrines are not about scripture. Try a Yahoo search. search.yahoo.com/search?p=alcazar+ribera&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

But what you are refusing to see is that Catholic tradition and doctrine resulted in the murder of 9 to 20 million Christians during the Reformation. Tortured in unspeakable fashion and burned at the stake. Entire villages murdered men, women and children. This happened over several Popes and involved much clergy. Your Church is not exempt.

Every Christian should read Fox’s Book of the Martyrs. You can read it here free online: biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm

I am not a Catholic basher and have many Catholic friends. I believe that Christianity is about a true circumcision of the heart and repentance. Some have it and some don’t - in all Christian faiths (and I also believe that God Himself blinded some of the Jews so they couldn’t sin against Jesus).

 

[tequilamac]

The point I am here to punctuate is that the error is throughout the Church. Satan has been wildly successful.

The error you refer to in Protestantism comes from NOT going on Scripture. The vast majority follow the TRADITION of John Darby styled futurist doctrine. Most of the rest are partial-preterist. These are doctrines invented by Catholic Jesuits to deflect the growing belief among persecuted reformers that the Pope was the antichrist. Christians didn’t buy it until the late 19th and early 20th centuries even though the doctrines were penned by Ribera and Alcazar in the 16th centuries. Fururist and preterist dotrines are not about scripture. Try a Yahoo search. search.yahoo.com/search?p=alcazar+ribera&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

But what you are refusing to see is that Catholic tradition and doctrine resulted in the murder of 9 to 20 million Christians during the Reformation. Tortured in unspeakable fashion and burned at the stake. Entire villages murdered men, women and children. This happened over several Popes and involved much clergy. Your Church is not exempt.

Every Christian should read Fox’s Book of the Martyrs. You can read it here free online: biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm

I am not a Catholic basher and have many Catholic friends. I believe that Christianity is about a true circumcision of the heart and repentance. Some have it and some don’t - in all Christian faiths (and I also believe that God Himself blinded some of the Jews so they couldn’t sin against Jesus).

Oh. I see. You did not want to discuss scripture so I wasted my time looking it up for you. Your intent was to come and insult. My bad. Please disregard my earlier post with scripture. I thought you were interested soehow in the Bible and now I see I was wrong. My bad again.

 

[tequilamac]

The point I am here to punctuate is that the error is throughout the Church. Satan has been wildly successful.

The error you refer to in Protestantism comes from NOT going on Scripture. The vast majority follow the TRADITION of John Darby styled futurist doctrine. Most of the rest are partial-preterist. These are doctrines invented by Catholic Jesuits to deflect the growing belief among persecuted reformers that the Pope was the antichrist. Christians didn’t buy it until the late 19th and early 20th centuries even though the doctrines were penned by Ribera and Alcazar in the 16th centuries. Fururist and preterist dotrines are not about scripture. Try a Yahoo search. search.yahoo.com/search?p=alcazar+ribera&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

But what you are refusing to see is that Catholic tradition and doctrine resulted in the murder of 9 to 20 million Christians during the Reformation. Tortured in unspeakable fashion and burned at the stake. Entire villages murdered men, women and children. This happened over several Popes and involved much clergy. Your Church is not exempt.

Every Christian should read Fox’s Book of the Martyrs. You can read it here free online: biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm

I am not a Catholic basher and have many Catholic friends. I believe that Christianity is about a true circumcision of the heart and repentance. Some have it and some don’t - in all Christian faiths (and I also believe that God Himself blinded some of the Jews so they couldn’t sin against Jesus).

However, I have to say about some of your assertions- are you saying you think we should go only on Scripture? If so, then you realize what you referred to above as error throughout the Church is simply not possible. Never was and never will be. We have the Lord’s word on it in the Scripture you know. Are you calling Christ a liar?

 

[JohnWilliams]

You are right! These are both right. The antichrist can be present in a persons’ heart, but in some contexts of the Bible it is noted as the “lawless one.” meaning a specific person.

But doesn’t the “lawless one” sit in the temple of God, which is us?

 

[dosdog]

King Henry VIII of England, who took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor, took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many cruelly tortured an the grand total of persons killed by the Inquisition in 331 years were an estimated 3,000 to 5,000.

    Queen Elizabeth I, proved herself the former's daughter by putting to death more people in one year than the Inquisition had done in 331 years!

Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, “God made them as stubble to our swords.” He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it “a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches.”

Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part of the Orthodox Russian empire.

Late in the 19th century, with rebellion stirring in Russia, the czars attempted to divert public attention by helping anti-Semitic groups rouse Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of pogroms ensued – in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly murderous. During the final period, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were killed.

Theodore of Beza wrote: “What crime can be greater or more heinous than heresy, which sets at nought the word of God and all ecclesiastic discipline? Christian magistrates, do your duty to God [speaking in Calvin’s Geneva of 1554], who has put the sword into your hands for the honor of His majesty; strike valiantly these monsters in the guise of men.” He went on to characterize those who demanded freedom of conscience “worse than the tyranny of the pope. It is better to have a tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be, than to let everyone do as he pleases.”

From the years 1305-1750A.D. there were 52 Popes. Of all of them, only two are being considered for Canonization by the Church. Blessed Urban V (1362-70) and Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89). Compare that with other periods of history where every century provided two or three Saints from among the Popes. This gives us a bit of a sense that it was a dark time in history.

Evangelical/Baptist Christians defended and participated in the slave trade which was responsible for thousands of beatings, tortures and deaths on slave ships. They did this with Bible in hand. The Vatican (Catholic Church) always condemned of the slave trade.

By the end of the Inquisition, the Reformation was in full swing. Martin Luther, Calvin, the Church of England, other Protestant Churches and their followers were quoting Scripture while burning witches throughout England, Scotland, America, Germany and elsewhere.

Anti-Catholic pamphleteers and historians have grossly exaggerated the numbers, asserting that millions died at the stake. The actual numbers are far less, 3,000 to 5,000 during the Inquisition’s 350 year history as stated in the 1994 BBC/A&E special program, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition… though these fiery deaths were quite real and regrettable, they pale in comparison to the 100,000 witches burned to the stake in Protestant Germany, and the 30,000 in Britain over the same centuries… and of course with the modern atrocities of the real millions killed by Hitler and Stalin in a few years…
biblia.com/christianity/inquisition.htm
skeptically.org/hhor/id4.html

 

[tequilamac]

But doesn’t the “lawless one” sit in the temple of God, which is us?

The lawless one cannot sit in the temple of God which is the Holy Tabernacle containing the Body of Christ. Why would you think the lawless one can overtake Christ? Christ is always pure and holy, uninfluenced by evil. did you think He would be less? Or are you saying Catholics have people sitting inside themselves or what are you talking about anyway?

 

[Image_of_God]

The point I am here to punctuate is that the error is throughout the Church. Satan has been wildly successful.

The error you refer to in Protestantism comes from NOT going on Scripture. The vast majority follow the TRADITION of John Darby styled futurist doctrine. Most of the rest are partial-preterist. These are doctrines invented by Catholic Jesuits to deflect the growing belief among persecuted reformers that the Pope was the antichrist. Christians didn’t buy it until the late 19th and early 20th centuries even though the doctrines were penned by Ribera and Alcazar in the 16th centuries. Fururist and preterist dotrines are not about scripture. Try a Yahoo search. search.yahoo.com/search?p=alcazar+ribera&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

But what you are refusing to see is that Catholic tradition and doctrine resulted in the murder of 9 to 20 million Christians during the Reformation. Tortured in unspeakable fashion and burned at the stake. Entire villages murdered men, women and children. This happened over several Popes and involved much clergy. Your Church is not exempt.

Every Christian should read Fox’s Book of the Martyrs. You can read it here free online: biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm

I am not a Catholic basher and have many Catholic friends. I believe that Christianity is about a true circumcision of the heart and repentance. Some have it and some don’t - in all Christian faiths (and I also believe that God Himself blinded some of the Jews so they couldn’t sin against Jesus).

Catholic doctrine did not result from the percecution of Protestants. The reason the percecutions happened was because the Protestants were changing doctine and would not adhere to the teachings that were established before. The memebers of the Church at that time are not exempt, absolutely, and I am quite aware of what happened during the Protestant Reformation. We should still consider that all Christian Churches, wether Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, have relied on violence. During that time Protestants were doing the same thing that you are saying Catholics did. Many Churches were burned and People burned by Protestants as well. We must also remember the harsh treatment of Catholics in England. For violence, both sides are guilty. If you had read the Fathers, which I believe you read, you will notice that their series of thoughts are similar to Catholic thought, because they were Catholic. Catholic Teaching did not just come because of the Protestant Reformation, otherwise the point of persecuting them would be useless. The reason they were persecuted was because Luther tried to change the teaching of the Church.

I stand by my claim that Protestantism’s division is based on Scripture. As we see in Baptist and Pentecostal Churches, there are many arguments on scripture. You may see 2 Penecostal Churches across each other, having been the same Church at one time and go and visit them, yet they have to different thoughts on the Bible. There is no solid foundation on Bible Intrerpretation there.

 

[Image_of_God]

But doesn’t the “lawless one” sit in the temple of God, which is us?

Yes but if read in context it say that the “lawless one” will be revealed. The use of will is futuristic. If the lawless one did in fact live in side us, then we in order to be saved and accept Christ, he would have to be revealed and we would have to detach ourselves from him so that we can accept Christ. But since he has not yet been revealed, he could be in us because then we would know and he would already have been revealed. However, the apostasy must occur first and then he will be revealed. Since Paul was speaking of an apostasy in relation to the Church, and such has yet to happen, he will not be revealed, thus we do not know who he is. Because of this, you could not say he lives inside people, otherwise you would be revealing him.
It also says he will preform many signs and wonders, I think that would be impossible if he were simply inside of us.

2 Thess. 2:7
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene.

Now I do not refute the idea that there is an antichristian spirit. Because you are right, the antichrist is in people. But there is the antichrist who is an actual person.

 

[tequilamac]

Yes but if read in context it say that the “lawless one” will be revealed. The use of will is futuristic. If the lawless one did in fact live in side us, then we in order to be saved and accept Christ, he would have to be revealed and we would have to detach ourselves from him so that we can accept Christ. But since he has not yet been revealed, he could be in us because then we would know and he would already have been revealed. However, the apostasy must occur first and then he will be revealed. Since Paul was speaking of an apostasy in relation to the Church, and such has yet to happen, he will not be revealed, thus we do not know who he is. Because of this, you could not say he lives inside people, otherwise you would be revealing him.
It also says he will preform many signs and wonders, I think that would be impossible if he were simply inside of us.

2 Thess. 2:7
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene.

Now I do not refute the idea that there is an antichristian spirit. Because you are right, the antichrist is in people. But there is the antichrist who is an actual person.

So what are you saying here, Image of God? That Sacramental Baptism is powerless against the spriti of the anti christ, or that participation in the Eucharist has no effect? For if what you say is true, baptism can eradicate the stain of original sin, but does not remove from the person this so called “lawless one”/ If so, no one could ever be in a true state of grace. What about the saints? Were their baptisms also in vain? Then what about the rite of exorcism? It is also powerless against your spirit of the anti christ?

 

[JohnWilliams]

Catholic doctrine did not result from the percecution of Protestants. The reason the percecutions happened was because the Protestants were changing doctine and would not adhere to the teachings that were established before. The memebers of the Church at that time are not exempt, absolutely, and I am quite aware of what happened during the Protestant Reformation. We should still consider that all Christian Churches, wether Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, have relied on violence. During that time Protestants were doing the same thing that you are saying Catholics did. Many Churches were burned and People burned by Protestants as well.

Specifics re proportionate Protestant violence during that time would be appreciated.

We must also remember the harsh treatment of Catholics in England. For violence, both sides are guilty. If you had read the Fathers, which I believe you read, you will notice that their series of thoughts are similar to Catholic thought, because they were Catholic. Catholic Teaching did not just come because of the Protestant Reformation,

I agree. The Protestants were pointing out what they believed to be heresy in the Catholic Church. Remember more than a few of them started out as Catholic Priests who realized they could reconcile their doctrine with scripture.

]otherwise the point of persecuting them would be useless. The reason they were persecuted was because Luther tried to change the teaching of the Church.

Along with many others.
,

I stand by my claim that Protestantism’s division is based on Scripture

Did you read any of the sites regarding Ribera and Alcazar? .

As we see in Baptist and Pentecostal Churches, there are many arguments on scripture. You may see 2 Penecostal Churches across each other, having been the same Church at one time and go and visit them, yet they have to different thoughts on the Bible. There is no solid foundation on Bible Intrerpretation there.

There is much agreement though. The heresies I find most devisive are in relation to eschatology.

But how does a Catholic reconcile verses like the following, for example?
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

[tequilamac]

Specifics re proportionate Protestant violence during that time would be appreciated. I agree. The Protestants were pointing out what they believed to be heresy in the Catholic Church. Remember more than a few of them started out as Catholic Priests who realized they could reconcile their doctrine with scripture. Along with many others.
,Did you read any of the sites regarding Ribera and Alcazar? .
There is much agreement though. The heresies I find most devisive are in relation to eschatology.

But how does a Catholic reconcile verses like the following, for example?
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The answer to that is in Catholic Answers here:

catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

Might I ask what name you used to your own Dad?

 

[adrift]

http://www.biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm

I am not a Catholic basher and have many Catholic friends. I believe that Christianity is about a true circumcision of the heart and repentance. Some have it and some don’t - in all Christian faiths (and I also believe that God Himself blinded some of the Jews so they couldn’t sin against Jesus).
Perhaps you should read previous threads and you might see how truely you ARE a Catholic basher
%between%
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=70569

You should peruse this web site a little more. Call no on Father has been discussed ad nauseum
Try this Link before you post any more Catholic Bashing statements
%between%

 

[dosdog]

But how does a Catholic reconcile verses like the following, for example?
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

7 And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. 8 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. 9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ.

I sure hope none of you ever got a MASTERS DEGREE

9 “Call none your father upon earth”… Neither be ye called masters. The meaning is that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Cor. 4. 23: 15,) and for our masters and teachers.

Matthew 15
5 But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee.6 And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition
Matthew 2
22 But hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judea in the room of Herod his father, he was afraid to go thither: and being warned in sleep retired into the quarters of Galilee.
2 Matthew 3
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.
3 Matthew 4
21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets: and he called them.
4 Matthew 4
22 And they forthwith left their nets and father, and followed him
Matthew 8
21 And another of his disciples said to him: Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Matthew 10
35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
27 Matthew 10
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.
Matthew 15
4 Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death.
Matthew 19
5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
44 Matthew 19
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
45 Matthew 19
29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation

1. generator or male ancestor
   a) either the nearest ancestor: father of the corporeal nature, natural fathers, both parents
   b) a more remote ancestor, the founder of a family or tribe, progenitor of a people, forefather: so Abraham is called, Jacob and David
2. fathers i.e. ancestors, forefathers, founders of a nation
   c) one advanced in years, a senior
3. metaph.
   a) the originator and transmitter of anything
4. the authors of a family or society of persons animated by the same spirit as himself
5. one who has infused his own spirit into others, who actuates and governs their minds
   b) one who stands in a father’s place and looks after another in a paternal way
   c) a title of honour
6. teachers, as those to whom pupils trace back the knowledge and training they have received
7. the members of the Sanhedrin, whose prerogative it was by virtue of the wisdom and experience in which they excelled, to take charge of the interests of others
8. God is called the Father
   a) of the stars, the heavenly luminaries, because he is their creator, upholder, ruler
   b) of all rational and intelligent beings, whether angels or men, because he is their creator, preserver, guardian and protector
9. of spiritual beings and of all men
   c) of Christians, as those who through Christ have been exalted to a specially close and intimate relationship with God, and who no longer dread him as a stern judge of sinners, but revere him as their reconciled and loving Father
   d) the Father of Jesus Christ, as one whom God has united to himself in the closest bond of love and intimacy, made acquainted with his purposes, appointed to explain and carry out among men the plan of salvation, and made to share also in his own divine nature
10. by Jesus Christ himself
11. by the apostles