Hi Journey and scott,
Journey, you say:
Hi, Do not call man Father who is a spiritual leader, priest, or pastor.
Jesus said:Matthew 23:9
And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Can you see any difference between what you have said, and what Jesus said? Can any one see the difference? Please believe that I totally understand your point about spritual leaders not deserving the title, but can you see my point about how that is different from what Jesus said?
God is telling us to put him first and this title belongs to him because he's earned it and all belongs to him.
Yeah, the Title belongs to him. So what happens when we say "Yes, Sir Mr. Johnson"? Father and master, two titles that belong to God, which Jesus himself said not to use for any man on earth, used for a man on this Earth.
I know that Jesus is talking to the Jews here, but it also applies to the gentiles as the whole message of NT was intended for us.
Yeah I think you are correct. Even though the physical ethnicity of the people he was addressing was Jewish, the scripture states that his teachings were addressed to his followers. If you are a follower of Jesus, this teaching applies to you.
Matthew 23:1
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
What about Paul saying he became their father through the Gospel?
Jesus said do not be called Father, not that we cannot be fathers.
However, I think you may have a point with the Paul thing, But please also consider this...
Galations 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
You see, Paul himself understood that he was not infallible. If he made himself the spiritual father over someone, (i.e. taking the place of God) then that makes Paul wrong, not Jesus.
The fact is, if we want to know what this means, we should read what the early fathers of the church said about this.
Why not just look at what Jesus said about it and believe him? What if we didn't have any information from the "early fathers"? What if we only had the words of Jesus? What would you do then?
I think this is the danger that comes when we try to use people like Paul, whether he is claiming to be the spiritual father of others or making tents for a living (as opposed to preaching the gospel like God told him to) to counter the teachings of Jesus. As great as paul or any of the other early Apostles were, they still don't outweigh Jesus.
Why bother those who protest and say we should not call priests father, because it would be against Christ's words.
Umm, I'm not sure if I'm getting what you are saying here, but ummm, because it IS against Christ's words?
Why they insist on taking this saying of Christ at literal value, and then they distort the plain teaching on the Holy Spirit.
Once again, I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but I think there definitely are times when it's quite clear that Jesus wants us to take him literally.
For example, If I tell you not to turn on the TV at all, for any reason, while I'm away from the house, and then I come back home and find you watching channel 8, I will ask why you did not obey my instructions. Do you think I will be impressed with you if you explain that you thought I meant that it was okay to turn on the tv as long as I didn't watch channel 10?
I said do not turn on the tv, right?\
Can you see the comparison here? I think the point here is, is Jesus able to command you? Is he able to give an order and expect you to obey it? Lord and saviour, remember?
"At Issue Is Interpretation "Some interpreters inside Protestantism are sure Jesus was warning against addressing church leaders as father. They, of course, are interpreting "father" in this Scripture to mean spiritual father. Therefore, they refuse to call their clergymen father, preferring instead such titles as pastor, reverend, or perhaps even brother.
Ok, some people interpret it as meaning that they CAN watch television as long as they don't watch channel 10. But what did Jesus say? "Call no man on Earth father". I don't understand why this gets so complicated.
In response to pointing out what I've already said, (i.e. that Jesus was excluding any human on earth from the title, the author asks this question...
"But was Christ saying to be taken at face value as we had generally done?
I bet you don't ask this kind of question when Jesus talks about salvation. Why is that? Why is salvation literal, but Jesus saying "do not do it" should not be taken at face value?
"But let us not stop here. For in addition to saying "only One is your Father," Jesus also declared, "Do not be called "Rabbi", for One is your Teacher, the Christ" (Matthew 23:8). Yet Jesus Christ Himself acknowledged Nicodemus as the "teacher of Israel" (John 3:10).
Whoever this guy is, he's trying very hard to argue against what Jesus very clearly said. It is dishonest of him to say "Jesus Christ himself acknowledged Nicodemus as the "teacher of Israel".
Here is what Jesus actually said.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Notice that is it not a statement of fact, as the author you are quoting has claimed. It is a question, and a bit of a rhetorical one at that. Nicodemus claimed to be a teacher, and yet he could not understand the very simple spiritual lessons that Jesus was teaching. Jesus was confronting Nicodemus' pride with a question.
When people resort to dishonesty to make their point, you know there is a problem.
But let me ask you, Scott, what do you have to LOSE by taking the teaching literally? Why the fierce arguments against it?
What would happen to you life if you decided "well hey, he did say "no man on Earth" so why don't I just give it a try and see what happens"?