Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please look at the quote and notice the circumstances under which one is not to call another "father." EVERYthing in the verse is about acknowledging someone as in a position of superiority or authority and the titles used were specifically to denote that position. From that standpoint Jesus is saying that we have only one father or teacher. NOW ask yourself how the Catholic Church uses "Father.?
The use of father is biblical. Read the post of Genesis.
Call no man father, teacher, rabbi, master, etc specifically refers to men that are sanctimonious in church. Read the whole passage.
Any title that exalts one Christian above another is being misapplied.
I would broaden this to include exalting ANYONE over anyone else. We are truly all equal in the eyes of God and should treat each other with love as Christ did. There is no room for condemnation, judging, or any other role that belongs to God alone.
The use of father is biblical. Read the post of Genesis.
Call no man father, teacher, rabbi, master, etc specifically refers to men that are sanctimonious in church. Read the whole passage.
Julian, read the whole passage and figure out that the reason for the point being made is that men tend to DO that and we should not do anything to encourage it OR to indicate that we are inferior to people who claim special status.
Saying that it only applies to people who are being sanctimonious is at best ingenuous, it is about our attitudes.
Julian, read the whole passage and figure out that the reason for the point being made is that men tend to DO that and we should not do anything to encourage it OR to indicate that we are inferior to people who claim special status.
Saying that it only applies to people who are being sanctimonious is at best ingenuous, it is about our attitudes.
The bible passage refers to sanctimonious folks.
BTW, there are ministers and elders in your denomination. Organizations need leaders and that does not imply superiority of one person above another.
I agree that the Bible supports the oral tradition that Peter was the first Pope. Jesus used Aramaic when speaking. In John 1:42, Jesus refers to Peter as Kepha or Cephas. That term was translated into Greek as petros, so what Jesus said to Peter (in Matt 16:18-19) was "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my church." The office of the Pope was prefigured in Isaiah 22:15-24. If you read Acts (specifically Acts 1:15, 2:14, 2:37-38, 5:29, 15) you can clearly see Peter exercising the office of the Pope as leader and spokesperson for the Apostles.
As far as the Church being built on Jesus, that goes without saying.
Dear Sand,
Peter and the pope are imaged in Isaiah 22:15-25, whereas Shebna represents Peter, who carved a "place for yourself in the rock", and who failed in his position, and was replaced by Eliakim, who would represent the popes, who was also were failures, and anyone hanging on to him "in that day", will be "cut off". "In that day", would represent the "Day of the Lord", which would be at the "end of the age". That is to say, anyone still hanging on to the pope, would be cut off. The Protestants, being daughters of the Roman church, would be in similar positions.
As for Acts, it was written by an unknown author, who is thought by a few to have been Luke, who acknowledges in Luke 1: 1-3, that he was an eyewitness to nothing. Luke possibly was an associate of Paul, and Paul was simply a self professed apostle and prophet (John 5:31), and what he says is "not true". Luke probably got some information via Paul, since depending on the account, no one saw or heard anything that happened on the road to Damascus, except for the blind man Paul.
Dear Sand,
Peter and the pope are imaged in Isaiah 22:15-25, whereas Shebna represents Peter, who carved a "place for yourself in the rock", and who failed in his position, and was replaced by Eliakim, who would represent the popes, who was also were failures, and anyone hanging on to him "in that day", will be "cut off". "In that day", would represent the "Day of the Lord", which would be at the "end of the age". That is to say, anyone still hanging on to the pope, would be cut off. The Protestants, being daughters of the Roman church, would be in similar positions.
As for Acts, it was written by an unknown author, who is thought by a few to have been Luke, who acknowledges in Luke 1: 1-3, that he was an eyewitness to nothing. Luke possibly was an associate of Paul, and Paul was simply a self professed apostle and prophet (John 5:31), and what he says is "not true". Luke probably got some information via Paul, since depending on the account, no one saw or heard anything that happened on the road to Damascus, except for the blind man Paul.
The Bible is great as a spiritual guide.
No one knows what Jesus said to Peter.
However, these arguments are developed within the framework of religion. And in Catholicism Peter is the first leader of Christianity. The term Pope did not exist; Peter is simply the basis for the papacy.
The rock argument of Matt 16: 18 is moot because on Matt 16: 19 Peter gets the keys.
Peter fails by denying Jesus three times. After the resurrection Peter names Peter the pastor of his flock three times. So Saint Peter is the leader.
Paul never knew Jesus. However, Paul claimed he had a vision, not good enough IMHO. However, Paul was needed to write additional books for the NT.
However, these arguments are developed within the framework of religion. And in Catholicism Peter is the first leader of Christianity. The term Pope did not exist; Peter is simply the basis for the papacy.
The rock argument of Matt 16: 18 is moot because on Matt 16: 19 Peter gets the keys.
Peter fails by denying Jesus three times. After the resurrection Peter names Peter the pastor of his flock three times. So Saint Peter is the leader.
Paul never knew Jesus. However, Paul claimed he had a vision, not good enough IMHO. However, Paul was needed to write additional books for the NT.
Sometimes Wikipedia says things in a clear manner:
Keys of Heaven
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The crossed keys in the coat of arms of the Holy See symbolise the keys of heaven entrusted to Simon Peter. The keys are gold and silver to represent the power of loosing and binding. The triple crown (the tiara) represents the pope's three functions as "supreme pastor", "supreme teacher" and "supreme priest". The gold cross on a monde (globe) surmounting the tiara symbolizes the sovereignty of Jesus.
In ecclesiastical heraldry, papal coats of arms (those of individual popes) and those of the Holy See and Vatican City State include an image of crossed keys to represent the metaphorical keys of the office of Saint Peter, the keys of heaven, or the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that, according to Roman Catholic teaching,[1] Jesus gave to Saint Peter, empowering him to take binding actions.[2] In the Gospel of Matthew 16:19, Jesus says to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Whatever has been bound on earth is already forbidden in heaven.
Whatever is loosed on earth has already been permitted in heaven.
BTW - I, too, have a coat of arms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
