M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Take a stab!Clearly, something other than what you think He meant.
How bout your churches interpretation?
Take a stab!Clearly, something other than what you think He meant.
I’ve not heard what you guys thought Christ was preaching about in Matt 23:I’d say this thread has pretty much run its course, my Catholic brethren and sisteren![]()
I’ve not heard what you guys thought Christ was preaching about in Matt 23:
???
Sorry if this is OT but needs to be addressed…Or its another situation where the easy definition of Christs’ words is getting twisted to fit to a later tradition of man…
YEP seems very likely in this case.
Kinda like the graven image verse…Doesn’t apply to ROME!
oh yeah and the bowing to people one, oh yeah and the abstaining from meat one, OH yeah and the forbidding marraige one, OH yeah and the communicating with the dead one, OH yeah and the mediator one, OH oh yeah and the eating flesh and blood one, oh yeah and the vain repetition of prayer one.
It’s hilarious, I get labeled vindictive and such, yet it is you guys with the non-stop one line jabs…That’s because you don’t bother to read the responses.
Such as what self aggrandizing and hypocritical behavior???It is an admonition against self aggrandizing behavior and hypocrisy.
This caused me to back throught the last 25 posts I have made, I have no idea what you are talking about!I have yet to see a charitible post or reply from you. Why are you here?
Excellent MfM! You can see in the writings of Paul, which preceeded the writing of the gospels, the language that was passed on through the Sacred Oral Tradition. Some of that tradition is now written in the gospels in what is called by the early fathers the “memoirs of the Apostles”. the part of the Sacred Tradition that was not written still lives in the Catholic Church, preseverd through that same Apostolic Succession.Compare the section of the Epistle to the Romans (12:1 to 15:7), IMPLICATIONS OF the gospel for the lives of believers, with the Sermon on the Mount.
Also, When Paul speaks of ‘the meekness and gentleness of Christ’ (2 Cor. 10:1), we remember our Lord’s own words, ‘I am meek and lowly in heart’ (Mt. 11: 29).
The self-denying Christ of the Gospels is the one of whom Paul says, ‘Even Christ pleased not himself’ (Rom. 15:3); and just as the Christ of the Gospels called on His followers to deny themselves (Mk. 8:34), so the apostle insists that, after the example of Christ Himself, it is our Christian duty ‘to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves’ (Rom. 15:1)
. He who said: ‘I am among you as the servant (Lk. 22:27), and performed the menial task of washing His disciples’ feet (Jn. 13:4)’ is He who, according to Paul, ‘took the form of a slave’ (Phil. 11. 7). In a word, when Paul wishes to commend to his readers all those moral graces which adorn the Christ of the Gospels he does so in language like this: ‘Put on the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 13:14).
He who knows what is right to do in his own heart sins if he fails to do it, so it is better for you, since you are weak in faith, not to use these terms.Sure, I got big time conviction against it, though…Guess thats just me, doesn’t affect ya’ll I guess.
That has been explained to you repeatedly, so it will best behoove you to go back and review the thread. Christ wanted no divisions, just as Paul told them, don’t go around saying “I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Paul”. Paul was relieved he did not baptize very many,s o that factions would not develop. Each of the primary theological schools had a “father”. Jesus wanted only God to be the theological “head”. In calling our elders “father”, we do not replace God with them, but only honor them to the extent that they take part in the headship of Christ.I just fail to see what you guys think Christ was actually talking bout then! He talks bout titles and tassles and vanity and about the religous leaders. It doesn’t appear to take a rocket scientist to understand our Lords words, guess I’d rather err in my direction than the wrong direction.
That is because YOU WERENT" THERE!!! However, those that WERE there, the Apostles and their successors, have used this custom continuously. That is why it is preserved this way in the Roman and Orthodox churches, because we trace our lineage back to the Apostolic times.I fail to see Titus calling him "Father Paul".
Take a stab!
How bout your churches interpretation?
My response? What Chuck saidThat’s because you don’t bother to read the responses.
I’ll try and keep it simple.
In Chapters 22-23 the Pharisees again test Jesus and He points out their hypocrisies.
It is an admonition against self aggrandizing behavior and hypocrisy.
It is not a prohibition of the use of the words “rabbi” and “father”.
Chuck
I’d laugh too if it wasn’t so sad.It’s hilarious, I get labeled vindictive and such, yet it is you guys with the non-stop one line jabs…
P-m-K
Exhaulting themselves at the expense of others.Such as what self aggrandizing and hypocritical behavior???
The moment paul penned those letters they where scripture, like when James was writing his own book and called it scripture.Excellent MfM! You can see in the writings of Paul, which preceeded the writing of the gospels, the language that was passed on through the Sacred Oral Tradition. Some of that tradition is now written in the gospels in what is called by the early fathers the “memoirs of the Apostles”. the part of the Sacred Tradition that was not written still lives in the Catholic Church, preseverd through that same Apostolic Succession.
What did Christ mean in Matt 23:
Here is my stock answer to the statement about calling no man “Father, Teacher, or Master.”
In Jesus time there were a number of Jewish sects. These were the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, and Zealots
These sects had houses of teaching within them .
Within the Pharisees there were two famous rival houses.
They were the House of Shammai(Beit Shammai) and the House of Hillel (founder of the Beit Hillel school). The individuals that these houses were named after were considered the “father” of the house.
Jesus warns the apostles not to be fathers to “separate” houses for there is but one house of the Lord. Jesus also says to call no man “teacher” or “master.”
–side note:
Paul was taught by Gamaliel[Acts22:3], a pharisee from the house of Hillel. Gamaliel was, in fact, the grandson of Hillel. Gamaliel was known as an elder and had the title of “Rabban” which means “Our Master.” This title explains why Jesus also said call no one “master”, for there is but one house and one master of all.
Again, Jesus wanted unity see John 17], and does not want the apostles to set up separate houses or schools of thought. The corollary of this is clearly expressed in Paul’s complaint in 1 Cor 1:10-15 where some are arguing their superiority by being baptized by, and belonging to, Paul vs. Apollos, or Cephas, etc. Paul goes on elsewhere to further warn against factions and divisions, and stresses the importance of one mind and unity of doctrine.
The meaning of “call no man father, teacher, or master” concerns unity and consistency of doctrine and has nothing to do with the commonly used references that are seen elsewhere in scripture or everyday use.
There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear.I’ve not heard what you guys thought Christ was preaching about in Matt 23:
???
What in the world are you getting at??He who knows what is right to do in his own heart sins if he fails to do it, so it is better for you, since you are weak in faith, not to use these terms.
I am trying to get this strait, instead of Jesus just saying I want unity, HE spoke in code instead using the term “call no man Father”There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear.![]()
Like expecting others to hold them up spiritually with vain titles and such?Exhaulting themselves at the expense of others.
Chuck
I’d say this is a good response, but would also add this: that one ought not call someone on earth Father in the sense that is intended to replace the fatherhood of God, rather than complement it.Exhaulting themselves at the expense of others.
It is quite obvious that you are not here to inquire or learn, but only to be contentious. You are like the various moslems who infest these forums peddling the same tiresome protestations, trying to explain nonsense and justify heresy. I seriously doubt that your faulty protestant point of view is going to have any impact on these Catholics who have been trying so hard to enlighten you, save to be annoyed at having to cover the ground that we have covered so many times before. Peace.Like expecting others to hold them up spiritually with vain titles and such?
That you should do as your conscience dictates. You said you had a firm conviction about it, so I am saying you should follow it. If it scandalizes you to give 'double honor" to the teacher or elder, then refrain.What in the world are you getting at??
It was more than a suggestion. You are telling your brothers and sisters that they are wrong in holding to the Apostolic Traditions as they have been handed down to us.Are you suggesting my friend that I am weak in my faith?
James 4:17What terms?
This quote of yours makes no sense at all…
He did both, but everyone knew exactly what He was talking about. This is why, even when he used parables, when they were directed at the scribes and pharisees they got so angry.I am trying to get this strait, instead of Jesus just saying I want unity, HE spoke in code instead using the term “call no man Father”![]()
![]()
Like expecting others to hold them up spiritually with vain titles and such?