Mathew 23

[geometer]

Could you please provide the verses which demonstrate that Paul was a “serial killer”?

Thanks in advance.

Act 7:58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting to his death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Sama’ria, except the apostles.

Act 8:3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Act 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest

 

[Randy_Carson]

That was tourism.

Jesus was completely sincere when he said that you have one father in heaven. And the good news is that even though you don’t know, you can find out…

If we followed the “Call No Man Father” prohibition literally, then no human on earth would have that title, and we would have lost the feel for the meaning of fatherhood since the word would have been expunged from our vocabulary and our conscience.

Think not? Consider how the trappings of European royalty have no meaning for Americans, and I think you’ll get some sense of how this happens.

Now, if we had no understanding of what it means to have or to be a human father, the "Fatherhood’ of God as revealed to us by Him would be completely sterile.

'Nuff said.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Act 7:58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting to his death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Sama’ria, except the apostles.

Act 8:3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Act 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest

Right on cue.

With authorization from the leaders of the Jewish Sanhedrin, Saul arrested those who were followers of Christ and put them in prison…a far cry from being a “serial killer”.

Apart from the stoning of Stephen and the martyrdom of James (neither of which can we attribute to Saul), do we know with certainty that anyone else actually died at this time?

Later in Acts, Paul declares:

Acts 22:4-5
4I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

Even if we take his statement at face-value, I contend that acting in an official capacity arresting people and killing them in a cold-blooded Dahmer-like manner are very different things.

Your use of the term “serial killer” is unwarranted.

 

[geometer]

If we followed the “Call No Man Father” prohibition literally, then no human on earth would have that title, and we would have lost the feel for the meaning of fatherhood since the word would have been expunged from our vocabulary and our conscience.

Think not? Consider how the trappings of European royalty have no meaning for Americans, and I think you’ll get some sense of how this happens.

Now, if we had no understanding of what it means to have or to be a human father, the "Fatherhood’ of God as revealed to us by Him would be completely sterile.

'Nuff said.

Boy did you get a wrong number!

Jesus means that you must become the offsping of God to know God as father. His whole gospel is that miracle. The fatherhood he knew in being sent, place to place on the earth by the power of God, he prayed that you would also experience.

Jesus was no slick philosopher with smooth metaphors. That was Saul of Tarsus, who could steal your shirt and sell it back to you.

Jesus was alway shaking things up with a miracle, that is what he taught. You are not to seek miracles, but in your trust of God you perform them…

He said you would.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Boy did you get a wrong number!

Jesus means that you must become the offsping of God to know God as father. His whole gospel is that miracle. The fatherhood he knew in being sent, place to place on the earth by the power of God, he prayed that you would also experience.

Jesus was no slick philosopher with smooth metaphors. That was Saul of Tarsus, who could steal your shirt and sell it back to you.

Jesus was alway shaking things up with a miracle, that is what he taught. You are not to seek miracles, but in your trust of God you perform them…

He said you would.

None of which provides any evidence that we are to avoid calling any man on earth our “father”.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Right on cue.

With authorization from the leaders of the Jewish Sanhedrin, Saul arrested those who were followers of Christ and put them in prison…a far cry from being a “serial killer”.

Apart from the stoning of Stephen and the martyrdom of James (neither of which can we attribute to Saul), do we know with certainty that anyone else actually died at this time?

Later in Acts, Paul declares:

Acts 22:4-5
4I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

Even if we take his statement at face-value, I contend that acting in an official capacity arresting people and killing them in a cold-blooded Dahmer-like manner are very different things.

Your use of the term “serial killer” is unwarranted.

I’m not sure I agree with you. Saul is mentioned specifially in the stoning of Stephan, and he himself freely admits to the bloodshed his hands held. I think he was a very troubled man.

Not sure about James, have no idea about him, yet I know Saul/Paul would not have a single reason to like him at all, and I don’t think he did.

 

[geometer]

Later in Acts, Paul declares:

Acts 22:4-5
4I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

Even if we take his statement at face-value, I contend that acting in an official capacity arresting people and killing them in a cold-blooded Dahmer-like manner are very different things.

Your use of the term “serial killer” is unwarranted.

Jesus said if you think of seducing you neighbor wife, you have commited adultry in your heart, and broken the tenth commandment.

What was Saul thinking about while he facilitated these persecutions?

He killed so many Jews he had to take a Roman name…

 

[geometer]

None of which provides any evidence that we are to avoid calling any man on earth our “father”.

Like water off a ducks back…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not sure I agree with you. Saul is mentioned specifially in the stoning of Stephan, and he himself freely admits to the bloodshed his hands held. I think he was a very troubled man.

I’m not trying to make Saul out to be better than he was at the time…the fact that Jesus converted him is a really big deal on multiple levels.

I’m simply saying that calling Saul a “serial killer” (ala Hannibal Lechter) is a stretch.

Acts 7:57-8:1
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

1And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.

I’m guessing that the young Saul, who was the protege of Israel’s leading rabbi, Gamaliel, would have watched the mob without picking up a stone himself.

He was far too educated and too politically astute to get directly involved in Stephen’s death by throwing a stone. However, he obviously approved, and he worked within the system by obtaining letters that would enable him to arrest people.

Putting this into modern terms, he waited until he had a search warrant before busting the door down. Serial killers don’t ask permission.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus said if you think of seducing you neighbor wife, you have commited adultry in your heart, and broken the tenth commandment.

What was Saul thinking about while he facilitated these persecutions?

He killed so many Jews he had to take a Roman name…

Uh…no.

Saul was from Tarsus…not Jerusalem. Therefore, he had a Jewish name and a Roman name, Paul, since he was a Roman citizen by birth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like water off a ducks back…

Too bad that none of the truth is sinking in.

 

[geometer]

Putting this into modern terms, he waited until he had a search warrant before busting the door down. Serial killers don’t ask permission.

Oh yes, let us glorify Paul, and his gospel as our father, which he asked for at every turn. Recieve me as your Messiah he said. To which they responded, Sit on it Paul…

And then Paul incanted the words of the great miracle, that has fed the whole world ever since:

THOSE WHO DON’T WORK DON’T EAT!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh yes, let us glorify Paul, and his gospel as our father, which he asked for at every turn. Recieve me as your Messiah he said. To which they responded, Sit on it Paul…

And the Paul incanted the words of the great miracle, that has feed the whole world ever since:

THOSE WHO DON’T WORK DON’T EAT!

Are you merely out for a late-night troll?

In post 29, I wrote:

I’m not trying to make Saul out to be better than he was at the time…the fact that Jesus converted him is a really big deal on multiple levels.

I’m simply saying that calling Saul a “serial killer” (ala Hannibal Lechter) is a stretch.

Now, you crossed a line, you’ve been called on it, and scriptural evidence has been presented to refute your statement.

As for Paul being a spiritual father to those he taught, well, he did write:

1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers (Gr. pateras), for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

I would be fortunate to have Paul as my “father in Christ”. So would you.

 

[geometer]

I would be fortunate to have Paul as my “father in Christ”. So would you.

I know my father who is in heaven, his hand is just above my head.

 

[Luke65]

Geometer, your problem is that you have no evidence that any our Lord’s apostles interpreted what Jesus said here the way some of those who have gone out from us do. I haven’t even heard of any of the heretics or schismatics prohibiting the use of the words “father” or “teacher” or “master” until modern times, maybe you can find someone? Here’s a very interesting and enlightening article. It seems that, as usual, Protestants stopped using those terms simply because Catholics used them!

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=106

The objection to calling our spiritual elders “Father” appears to be of recent origin. In his article “Are ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ Appropriate Titles for Protestant Clergy?” David L. Holmes, a professor of religious studies at the College of William and Mary, explores the question of titles used to address clergy. In doing so, he examines the history of the use of the title “Father” for clergymen in the Christian churches in America.

He notes that:

* In colonial America, "Father" was a commonly used term not only for respected clergymen but also for other respected men of the church: founders of denominations or religious communities, missionary pioneers, and the elderly who were mature in their faith. In early America "Father" was also a general title of respect for elderly men.
* The term "Father" was not rejected in an attempt to be more biblical. Holmes states that even denominations that were founded "in an attempt to restore not only the doctrine and practice of primitive Christianity, but also its very nomenclature" retained the use of "Father" in addressing clergymen.

“Like the Reformers, early American Protestants tended to believe that the Matthean passage condemned pharisaic vainglory rather than specific titles. That interpretation was natural, for a literal interpretation of the surrounding verses would also forbid Christians from using ‘Teacher’ and ‘Mister.’”

Why, then, did this usage decline so sharply? Holmes says that the most significant explanation for the decline of “Father” in Protestantism “coincides with the rise of Irish immigration to the United States in the 1840s.”

"Before that time, Roman Catholic priests in America were usually addressed as ‘Mister,’ for most were secular (nonmonastic) clergy with roots in Europe or England, where Roman Catholic practice restricted ‘Father’ to priests of monastic orders. Secular priests were called ‘Mister,’ ‘Monsieur,’ ‘Don’ or other vernacular equivalents.

"Irish Roman Catholics, however, addressed all priests—whether secular or monastic—as ‘Father.’ And by the end of the Victorian period, the Irish had influenced English-speaking Roman Catholicism to call every priest ‘Father.’

"This change clearly influenced Protestant usage. Catholic priests called ‘Mister’ and Protestant clergy called ‘Father’ had lived side by side in America. Following the Irish immigrations, however, Protestants began to see the title as redolent of priestcraft and popery."

Coupled with this are two secondary explanations. The first is an increase in a literalist interpretation of Matthew 23:9. The second is the rise in clergy who obtained advanced academic degrees—and therefore took the accompanying title “Doctor.” The combination of all three, Holmes says, led to the decline of the title “Father” for Protestant clergy.

Read Holmes’ full article at religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1916

Oh the hypocrisy!

 

[geometer]

Geometer, your problem is that you have no evidence that any our Lord’s apostles interpreted what Jesus said here the way some of those who have gone out from us do. I haven’t even heard of any of the heretics or schismatics prohibiting the use of the words “father” or “teacher” or “master” until modern times, maybe you can find someone? Here’s a very interesting and enlightening article. It seems that, as usual, Protestants stopped using those terms simply because Catholics used them!

There is no accounting for what people say, heretics or priests or saints. There is very little difference. The important thing is the miracle of what Jesus said. He said father. How deeply can you listen?

 

[Luke65]

There is no accounting for what people say, heretics or priests or saints. There is very little difference. The important thing is the miracle of what Jesus said. He said father. How deeply can you listen?

Well, not deeply enough to understand your point - but then again, I’m not a Theosopher! I’m just an unworthy servant doing, hopefully, what I’m supposed to do. You know?

 

[geometer]

Well, not deeply enough to understand your point - but then again, I’m not a Theosopher! I’m just an unworthy servant doing, hopefully, what I’m supposed to do. You know?

I put my shoes on one at a time, just like everyone else.

 

[geo2t200]

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I never addressed my "Father as Faher, he as just DAD to me but thereinagain, he dided when i was 2 years old during WWii and i got a step father when i was 14, so ,i guess i didnot think about that.
peace be with all you and God Bless, as i am sure he has.
geo2t200

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Some Lutheran ministers are called “father” and even some reformed ones.

Father was also a title or name of the prophets:

When Elisha saw it happen he cried out, "My father! my father!* Israel’s chariots and drivers!" But when he could no longer see him, Elisha gripped his own garment and tore it in two.(2 kings 2:12) *traditionally Jews regard both Elijah and Elisha as celibates

When the king of Israel saw them, he asked, “Shall I kill them,** my father**?” (2 kings 6:21)

Hazael went to visit him, carrying a present, and with forty camel loads of the best goods of Damascus. On his arrival, he stood before the prophet and said, “Your son Ben-hadad, king of Aram, has sent me to ask you whether he will recover from his sickness.”(2 kings 8:9)

Also lets not forget that the bible calls Abraham the father of us

“Thus he was to be the ***father ***of all the uncircumcised who believe”—Romans 4:11
“And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.”–Galatians 3:29

Anticatholics who use this complaint generally do not know much