Calling God "Our Father"

[chris_chan]

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray He asked to pray to ‘Our Father’. Was it common for Jews in Jesus time to refer to God as ‘Our Father’, I looked up the hebrew was ‘Avinu’ and is there a reference to it in the OT.
Thank you and God Bless.

 

[patrick457]

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray He asked to pray to ‘Our Father’. Was it common for Jews in Jesus time to refer to God as ‘Our Father’, I looked up the hebrew was ‘Avinu’ and is there a reference to it in the OT.
Thank you and God Bless.

That’s the interesting thing. While Yhwh is at times likened to a father (alongside other similes and metaphors), Jesus is really the first person we know of to make big use of the concept within Judaism.

 

[R_C]

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray He asked to pray to ‘Our Father’. Was it common for Jews in Jesus time to refer to God as ‘Our Father’

From John 5:18, I would not think so…

For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

 

[steve9191]

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray He asked to pray to ‘Our Father’. Was it common for Jews in Jesus time to refer to God as ‘Our Father’, I looked up the hebrew was ‘Avinu’ and is there a reference to it in the OT.
Thank you and God Bless.

It is only through becoming born again in water and the Spirit (i.e. becoming literally one body with the embodied Son of God) that we are able to say “our Father” to God. This was only something looked forward to in the Old Testament times, but not yet actualized.

 

[FaithInTheLord]

It is only through becoming born again in water and the Spirit (i.e. becoming literally one body with the embodied Son of God) that we are able to say “our Father” to God. This was only something looked forward to in the Old Testament times, but not yet actualized.

? Water baptism is not a requirement for anything. It serves a very valuable purpose but it is not a requirement of anything.

Baptism by Desire is common. In fact - the requirements for baptism by desire must be met by those baptized in water anyways lol.

No this is not up for debate I already argue about this with people enough. If you disagree I agree to disagree.

 

[BDEklof]

? Water baptism is not a requirement for anything. It serves a very valuable purpose but it is not a requirement of anything.

Have you read the Bible, or heard it read in Church?

Matthew 3:13, Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan (river, water) to John, to be baptized by him.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly I say unto you, unless one is born of WATER AND the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

In St John’s Gospel, the spirit and being born anew with water are almost always connected, and even implied as water baptism.

Unless you believe that water baptism is necessary for admission into the Kingdom of God, and into the Catholic Church, you cannot be Catholic. That was taught from the time of Christ. They went to Judea to baptize people, whole families in fact, with water, after John baptized Jesus.

I know where you are coming from however, as many evangelical and fundamentalist cults believe that water baptism isn’t necessary. They teach (wrongly, btw) that baptism only in or by the Spirit is necessary.

It would be interesting to be around if the Pope ever denies water baptism,
ex cathedra! Of course that day will never come, nor should it. Even Jesus baptized people in and by water. It is at the root of our faith.

Peace be with you!

 

[R_C]

? Water baptism is not a requirement for anything. It serves a very valuable purpose but it is not a requirement of anything.

Baptism by Desire is common. In fact - the requirements for baptism by desire must be met by those baptized in water anyways lol.

Agree to disagree? That is a scary phrase, for taken to its largest extent it justifies even the third sin against the Holy Spirit, “impugning the known truth”, which means “to attack it by word or argument, to resist it, to contradict it, or even to oppose the known truth or to challenge it as false.” Unfortunately, Christians in the Catholic Church never agree to disagree with those who hold erroneous beliefs, whether or not this is through no fault of their own. In fact, among the spiritual works of mercy that we are called to perform, are to admonish sinners, to instruct the ignorant, and to counsel the doubtful.

In this case, baptism by water is the ordinary way, and that any other form (ex. by desire, by blood) are extraordinary ways but that in no way replace the need for the Sacrament by water, because Christ spoke as a timeless truth:

unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

We hope that there are such things as baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and in theory we can go as far as to say with the Doctor Angelicus: “Deus non alligatur Sacramentis”, God is not tied to His sacraments…but the Lord was very clear in His words and in His action with the Forerunner.

 

[TimothyH]

That’s the interesting thing. While Yhwh is at times likened to a father (alongside other similes and metaphors), Jesus is really the first person we know of to make big use of the concept within Judaism.

I have heard this but I’m not too sure that the Jews didn’t have the concept of God as a Father. If not a personal Father to each individual Jew then surely they understood theologically that God was a Father to the nation of Israel as a whole.

So you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the LORD: Israel is my son, my first-born. Hence I tell you: Let my son go, that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, I warn you, I will kill your son, your first-born." (Exodus 4:22-23)

Gods divine fathership seems to me to be revealed truth, something which God revealed to Moses. Hosea 11 is often termed the discourse of the dissapointed parent.

When Israel was a child I loved him,
out of Egypt I called my son.
The more I called them,
the farther they went from me,
Sacrificing to the Baals
and burning incense to idols.
Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
who took them in my arms;c
but they did not know that I cared for them.
I drew them with human cords,
with bands of love;
I fostered them like those
who raise an infant to their cheeks;
I bent down to feed them.
(Hosea 11:1-4)

I wonder if this was just seen as a metaphor or was it understood as a reality revealed to the Jews by God. I wonder if there is anything about it in the Talmud or Mishnah.

-Tim-

 

[FightingFat]

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray He asked to pray to ‘Our Father’. Was it common for Jews in Jesus time to refer to God as ‘Our Father’, I looked up the hebrew was ‘Avinu’ and is there a reference to it in the OT.
Thank you and God Bless.

No it wasn’t common. Jesus called God Abba, which is Aramaic literally Daddy.

 

[R_C]

No it wasn’t common. Jesus called God Abba, which is Aramaic literally Daddy.

 

[FaithInTheLord]

Agree to disagree? That is a scary phrase, for taken to its largest extent it justifies even the third sin against the Holy Spirit, “impugning the known truth”, which means “to attack it by word or argument, to resist it, to contradict it, or even to oppose the known truth or to challenge it as false.” Unfortunately, Christians in the Catholic Church never agree to disagree with those who hold erroneous beliefs, whether or not this is through no fault of their own. In fact, among the spiritual works of mercy that we are called to perform, are to admonish sinners, to instruct the ignorant, and to counsel the doubtful.

In this case, baptism by water is the ordinary way, and that any other form (ex. by desire, by blood) are extraordinary ways but that in no way replace the need for the Sacrament by water, because Christ spoke as a timeless truth:

We hope that there are such things as baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and in theory we can go as far as to say with the Doctor Angelicus: “Deus non alligatur Sacramentis”, God is not tied to His sacraments…but the Lord was very clear in His words and in His action with the Forerunner.

It is clear what is necessary to enter the Kingdom. You need the approval of the Son. Baptism by water is very valuable - not necessary. It removes original sin and puts the person in a state of grace until they chose to mess that up (which we normally all do).

Where do we find eternal life?

This is not a protestant argument.

Baptism by water removes original sin. I have never met anyone who stayed in the state of grace they receive at water baptism. The requirements are the same. Baptism by desire is not only common - it is a requirement of everyone baptized in water or not.

It is not a known truth that baptism in water by a priest is a requirement to enter heaven. I do not even see where he said that. I could interpret what he said there more than one way that is certain.

Since I see the interpretation that you adhere to (the Church does not teach that water baptism is necessarily required to get into the Kingdom btw) - do you believe if a person through no fault of their own was never baptized in water by a priest that they cannot enter the Kingdom? Is that what you believe our Lord said there?

 

[patrick457]

No it wasn’t common. Jesus called God Abba, which is Aramaic literally Daddy.

The idea that 'Abba has the connotation ‘Daddy’ is often ultimately attributed to the German scholar Joachim Jeremias. He thought that 'abba is derived from babytalk (say, like dada) and is an informal word, the kind kids would call their dads. His claims however were immediately rejected by other scholars (a guy named James Barr wrote a detailed article rebutting the hypothesis entitled Abba Isn’t ‘Daddy’) and Jeremias himself soon abandoned it, although it still survives in popular culture. Now to be fair, Jeremias himself did not equate 'abba with ‘daddy’; his term of choice was lieber Vater ‘dear father’.

The main problem with Jeremias’ thesis is that 'abba was not just children’s language: while it probably did belong to the familiar or colloquial register of the language in Jesus’ time, the word was commonly used by adults as well. In fact it was a title of respect for authority figures like old men or teachers. (Jeremias recognized this, but he continued to stress the word’s origins in babytalk and the consequent intimacy as a special component of Jesus’ use of the word.) In addition, the NT itself renders 'abba not as a diminutive (say, pappas ‘papa’) but as the standard ho pater ‘(the) father’. 'Abba itself has a lot of diminutives in Aramaic which might fit the rubric more (baba, abbi, etc.)

That being said, 'abba in modern Hebrew does mean ‘daddy’, which leads to some confusion.

 

[R_C]

It is clear what is necessary to enter the Kingdom. You need the approval of the Son. Baptism by water is very valuable - not necessary. It removes original sin and puts the person in a state of grace until they chose to mess that up (which we normally all do).

Where do we find eternal life?

This is not a protestant argument.

Baptism by water removes original sin. I have never met anyone who stayed in the state of grace they receive at water baptism. The requirements are the same. Baptism by desire is not only common - it is a requirement of everyone baptized in water or not.

It is not a known truth that baptism in water by a priest is a requirement to enter heaven. I do not even see where he said that. I could interpret what he said there more than one way that is certain.

Since I see the interpretation that you adhere to (the Church does not teach that water baptism is necessarily required to get into the Kingdom btw) - do you believe if a person through no fault of their own was never baptized in water by a priest that they cannot enter the Kingdom? Is that what you believe our Lord said there?

I explained my belief rather clearly: we hope, in the light of an infinitely merciful God, that that person can enter the Kingdom if he did God’s will, and we think, in the light of an omnipotent God, that God is not tied by His Sacraments, though they are the ordinary way.

If Baptism by water is not critically important, then I do not understand why the Forerunner, filled with the Holy Spirit even as an unborn, the greatest of all prophets, begun to baptize with water and was known as the Baptist ever since. I do not understand why Christ stepped down into the Jordan and, to John’s most natural objection, replied: “it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness”. I do not understand why He spoke of being born of water and spirit. I do not understand why, after washing the disciple’s feet (a wonderful expression of the Sacrament of Reconciliation) He said: “a person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean.” I do not understand why Christians, ever since the very earliest times (see, for instance, the Didache book) have baptized by water (both by immersion and by aspersion).

Yes, it is a very protestant thing to say: all I need to do is close my eyes and think hard enough that I love the Lord in order to be saved. No disrespect for our beloved brothers in Christ, but we know what the Sacrament is, and we also know that Baptism works ex opere operato.

I would appreciate, though, if I could verify where does your teaching on the requirement of baptism by desire is found in the corpus of our Sacred Tradition. I would also like to know the origin of your teaching, “it is not a known truth that baptism in water by an ordained minister acting in Persona Christi is a requirement to be saved”.

As for your double remark on what the Church teaches, do check out this page:

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”

This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as “a new creature.”

This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.”

Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

St. Augustine says of Baptism: “The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament.”

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The Church has always held the firm conviction that …] those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized

 

[FaithInTheLord]

I explained my belief rather clearly: we hope, in the light of an infinitely merciful God, that that person can enter the Kingdom if he did God’s will, and we think, in the light of an omnipotent God, that God is not tied by His Sacraments, though they are the ordinary way.

If Baptism by water is not critically important, then I do not understand why the Forerunner, filled with the Holy Spirit even as an unborn, the greatest of all prophets, begun to baptize with water and was known as the Baptist ever since. I do not understand why Christ stepped down into the Jordan and, to John’s most natural objection, replied: “it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness”. I do not understand why He spoke of being born of water and spirit. I do not understand why, after washing the disciple’s feet (a wonderful expression of the Sacrament of Reconciliation) He said: “a person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean.” I do not understand why Christians, ever since the very earliest times (see, for instance, the Didache book) have baptized by water (both by immersion and by aspersion).

Yes, it is a very protestant thing to say: all I need to do is close my eyes and think hard enough that I love the Lord in order to be saved. No disrespect for our beloved brothers in Christ, but we know what the Sacrament is, and we also know that Baptism works ex opere operato.

I would appreciate, though, if I could verify where does your teaching on the requirement of baptism by desire is found in the corpus of our Sacred Tradition. I would also like to know the origin of your teaching, “it is not a known truth that baptism in water by an ordained minister acting in Persona Christi is a requirement to be saved”.

As for your double remark on what the Church teaches, do check out this page:

The origin of “my” teaching that -
“it is not a known truth that baptism in water by an ordained minister acting in Persona Christi is a requirement to be saved.”

Refer to the end of your post.

Words are a funny thing. I never said it wasn’t very valuable - I said it isn’t “necessary”. My relationship with our Lord has taught me this truth. The Church happens to agree with me about this. It is all in the way you interpret what the Church is saying.

Everything we know about our Lord tells us His mercy is nothing less than infinite.

It is not a protestant argument that loving the Lord is all that is necessary to be saved. The requirements to be viewed by humans as having properly loved the Lord is a whole different subject. You reference to closing your eyes - I will leave that alone.

The Church not knowing of any other means does not equal the Church saying there are no other means. That means the Church does not say it is necessary.

Very valuable.

When did I say not to stress the importance of baptism?

I said it is not necessary for salvation which is in fact the same thing you just told me with your quote.

 

[ltwin]

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray He asked to pray to ‘Our Father’. Was it common for Jews in Jesus time to refer to God as ‘Our Father’, I looked up the hebrew was ‘Avinu’ and is there a reference to it in the OT.
Thank you and God Bless.

I disagree with those commenters who have said that it was not common among Jews. I think there certainly is evidence from just the Old Testament that Jews did see God as a father. Others have already brought up scripture that speaks to God viewing the nation of Israel as a son. In addition, there is Psalm 68:5 that tells us, “Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.”

What made the religious leaders of Jesus’ day angry is not, I think, that Jesus viewed God as a divine father to humanity. What angered them was that Jesus was claiming a special familial relationship to God that no one else could have rightly claimed. God was Jesus’ father, and Jesus was God’s son. Therefore, Jesus represented his father on earth and possessed his father’s authority. This is something that no mortal man could have claimed.

 

[patrick457]

I disagree with those commenters who have said that it was not common among Jews. I think there certainly is evidence from just the Old Testament that Jews did see God as a father. Others have already brought up scripture that speaks to God viewing the nation of Israel as a son. In addition, there is Psalm 68:5 that tells us, “Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.”

What made the religious leaders of Jesus’ day angry is not, I think, that Jesus viewed God as a divine father to humanity. What angered them was that Jesus was claiming a special familial relationship to God that no one else could have rightly claimed. God was Jesus’ father, and Jesus was God’s son. Therefore, Jesus represented his father on earth and possessed his father’s authority. This is something that no mortal man could have claimed.

Actually, I doubt that even that was unique.

They sound the shofar because of any public distress – may it never befall! – but not because of too great an abundance of rain.
Once they said to Honi the Circle-Drawer, “Pray that rain may fall.”
He answered, “Go out and bring in the Passover ovens [made of clay] that they be not softened.”
He prayed, but the rain did not fall. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and said before God, “O Lord of the world, your children have turned their faces to me, for I am like a son of the house before you. I swear by your great name that I will not stir from here until you have pity on your children.”
Rain began falling drop by drop. He said, “Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain that will fill the cisterns, pits, and caverns.”
It began to rain with violence. He said, “Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain of goodwill, blessing, and graciousness.”
Then it rained in moderation, until the Israelites had to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rain. They went to him and said, “Just as you prayed for the rain to come, so pray that it may go away!”
He replied, “Go and see if the Stone of the Strayers has disappeared.”
Simeon ben Shetah sent to him, saying, “Had you not been Honi I would have pronounced a ban against you! But what shall I do to you? You importune God and he performs your will, like a son that importunes his father he performs his will. Of you the Scripture says, ‘Let your father and your mother be glad, and let her that bore you rejoice.’”

• Mishnah, Ta’anit 3.8

 

[Josephene]

Good topic to ponder upon , esp. in this year of faith and today , as The Church celebrates Feast of St Leo The Great - americancatholic.org/features/saintofday/ , a great Father figure .

Would it be that the baptism of John gave one the grace to repent , may be more out of fear of punishment for what one did , being against God’s justice whereas the baptism in our times , is meant to convey more of the true grace of sorrow for having offended an all good God ,whose child one has become and who has been wounded for our offenses .

The occasion of Mary Magdalene , being reminded to not hold on , since The Lord has not ascended to The Father - could it be that , along with other accepted theological explanations , also was to remind the Apostles , through Magdalene that The Lord is one with The Father , thus helping them also with a deeper repentance - they could feel the deep sorrow and repent for having abandoned their Lord and God - who had told them - 'if you have seen Me, you have seen The Father ’ and thus get to grasp better the Father love !

The Lord addressed them as ‘children’ after the Resurrection too - John 21 :4 .

Thus , the ploys of the father of lies , that started in The Garden, accusing The Father , of not being good enough towards us , gets dealt with , in the love of The Father , who gives of Himself , in The Son !

 

[R_C]

The origin of “my” teaching that -
“it is not a known truth that baptism in water by an ordained minister acting in Persona Christi is a requirement to be saved.”

I said it isn’t “necessary”. My relationship with our Lord has taught me this truth. The Church happens to agree with me about this.

That means the Church does not say it is necessary.

I said it is not necessary for salvation

First quote

Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn
(525 Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1672; Cf. St. Gregory Of Nazianzus, Oratio 39,17G 36,356.)

Second quote (section “The Necessity of Baptism”) (a must-read):

PART TWO: THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY

SECTION TWO THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH
    CHAPTER ONE THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
        Article 1 THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
            VI. The Necessity of Baptism

VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

And from my early quote:

…]Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word
…]St. Augustine says of Baptism: “The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament.”

“Baptism”, by its very etymology, goes along with water. Anything else is extraordinary and rooted on hope.

As far as my knowledge on sacred tradition goes, Baptism, that is, baptism by water, is necessary for salvation. And we believe in one Baptism, not in many kinds. Anything else (such as “baptism of desire” and “baptism by blood”) are theological expressions trough which the Church expresses a mysterious reality, an ineffable act of mercy of a God that is not tied to His sacraments. However, we are.

Now, can you produce any official document of the Church which backs up your statement? Otherwise I must assume that it is simply your interpretation.

 

[LilyM]

? Water baptism is not a requirement for anything. It serves a very valuable purpose but it is not a requirement of anything.

Have you read the Bible, or heard it read in Church?

Matthew 3:13, Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan (river, water) to John, to be baptized by him.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly I say unto you, unless one is born of WATER AND the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

In St John’s Gospel, the spirit and being born anew with water are almost always connected, and even implied as water baptism.

Unless you believe that water baptism is necessary for admission into the Kingdom of God, and into the Catholic Church, you cannot be Catholic. That was taught from the time of Christ. They went to Judea to baptize people, whole families in fact, with water, after John baptized Jesus.

I know where you are coming from however, as many evangelical and fundamentalist cults believe that water baptism isn’t necessary. They teach (wrongly, btw) that baptism only in or by the Spirit is necessary.

It would be interesting to be around if the Pope ever denies water baptism,
ex cathedra! Of course that day will never come, nor should it. Even Jesus baptized people in and by water. It is at the root of our faith.

Peace be with you!

So Jesus just hoped that the unbaptised Good Thief would be with Him in paradise?

 

[R_C]

So Jesus just hoped that the unbaptised Good Thief would be with Him in paradise?

I do not understand this question coming from you! Time and again Holy Church proclaims that Deus non alligatur sacramentis. Christ, true God, divine legislator, gate of heaven, could bestow His mercy according to His will. He did so with all His little ones who died before His glorious incarnation, and He did it for the Good Thief. That is not to say that we, ordinary unworthy servants, are not tied to the Sacraments.

Jesus willed that the unbaptised Good Thief would be with Him in Paradise.

We can only HOPE that an unbaptised who dies would be with Him in Paradise, but as far as we know, Baptism is necessary, just like it is to belong formally to the Catholic Church.

Any other hope is just that: a hope based on faith in an ever-merciful God.

We profess our hope that our brothers and all those, even non-Christian, who try to do God’s will (and we speak of billions of people) will have access to salvation…does that make being Catholic not necessary for salvation? Of course not. We hope that they will be saved in mysterious ways that incorporate them informally to the Church, but we proclaim with words that cannot be undone: extra Ecclesia nulla sallus.

The same applies to Baptism.