Small Orthodox corner

[alhoon]

So , no matter whatever denomination one is, no-one who is not born again can enter heaven.

Or, so you choose to see that passage. Because it is clear from the entire Bible that God saves. Whether He saves only the baptized is not as clear; Jesus taught to the dead in His three days between His death and His resurrection. Try to do what you must to be Saved, but whether that would be enough or whether Baptism is required is for God to decide.

[Sir Adrian]

Where does it say he taught to the dead. That's the first time I hear of it.

[basics]

Or, so you choose to see that passage. Because it is clear from the entire Bible that God saves. Whether He saves only the baptized is not as clear; Jesus taught to the dead in His three days between His death and His resurrection. Try to do what you must to be Saved, but whether that would be enough or whether Baptism is required is for God to decide.

alhoon,

Jesus at death went down into the pit to witness to them there that He was indeed the very One they had rejected in their time, how? Because after three days He left them for Life again something that they wouldn't see. He rose from the grave to witness to those alive as a witness that He was all He said He was and still does through the gift of Faith.

Now baptism is but a declaration and no more. People Who Received Salvation Without Baptism
The woman who washes Jesus' feet at Simon the Pharisee's house.
The paralytic man.
The thief on the cross.
Cornelius's household.

When a new believer comes up from the water of baptism it is a sign or declaration by them that they are resurrected to new life in Christ. It has nothing to do with salvation itself as that is a complete work of the Godhead. A sinner cannot save himself under any circumstance.

[basics]

Further to why Jesus went down to the pit it springs to mind that He died a sinner on that cross paying for the sins of all His people and so it is reasonable to expect Him to do that. So, what did He find there? Well the place would have been buzzing with new arrivals yet not one Christian there. All that He died for and gone were already in heaven just as those who will be born again and dying will be. So what then happened? His Father raised Him from the dead, that's what happened. His Faith in His Father never wavered and it is this faith that He gives us when we were or are regenerated.

[alhoon]

The thief on the cross.

We agree that we are saved by God. Outside of that... what you said above, about people Saved without baptism is
1. correct
2. against your earlier claim that no unbaptized person would be Saved. The thief was not baptized and he was Saved. God decides in His Grace who would be Saved or not and we have to hope He will be merciful to us. A good person that died 3000 years ago without ever hearing the word of God may be Saved. We don't know the process.

Where does it say he taught to the dead. That's the first time I hear of it.

It is mentioned in a few places in the New Testament. Ask your priest for passages. Avoid international Bibles as they are often mistranslated.

[basics]

alhoon,

Nowhere at any time have I ever said that no unbaptized person would be saved. May I also say that there probably many baptised people who are not saved, how. Because John baptised hundreds if not thousands and yet where were they when Jesus needed them? They couldn't be seen for love or money and if you look to Pentecost when the disciples preached only some three thousand were saved then and remember many of them were from outside Israel never mind Jerusalem.

Now regarding Jesus preaching to the dead in the pit you have to ask yourself how that could be as they all are dead sinners having died without a Saviour? The time for their salvation would have been to believe before they died in their sin. So whatever you are being taught is quite wrong. To put it bluntly anyone who was righteous before God had there sin wiped out at the cross and so would never have been in the pit. One has to be alive to be born again, justified by faith and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

[alhoon]

alhoon,
Now regarding Jesus preaching to the dead in the pit you have to ask yourself how that could be as they all are dead sinners having died without a Saviour? The time for their salvation would have been to believe before they died in their sin. So whatever you are being taught is quite wrong. To put it bluntly anyone who was righteous before God had there sin wiped out at the cross and so would never have been in the pit. One has to be alive to be born again, justified by faith and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

The pit is not hell, Basics. It's Hades. It's where everyone goes and where every soul except the Virgin Mary and the bandit are, waiting judgement at the 2nd coming.
Also, I believe those three days teaching is symbolic. I don't think the three days Jesus was dead constitute just three days he preached to the dead. I believe Jesus reached the dead, before and after his time on earth. What I mean is that an Aztec sacrificed a thousand years after Christ died for our sins, could potentially be Saved by the grace of God.
Christ didn't remain in Hades for ever, but time there is different than our time and beyond our understanding. I believe that Jesus, on the three days in the afterlife, reached all dead people that have not heard His word. I may be wrong, but that's what I think, as I think it is fair for everyone to be judged after having heard the word of God. How that happened? I don't know.
What we do know is that everyone will be judged fairly. What that means about those that died without hearing about God, I am not sure, but I explained what I think it means.

[Sir Adrian]

It is mentioned in a few places in the New Testament. Ask your priest for passages. Avoid international Bibles as they are often mistranslated.

Where? I know they're mistranslated but there is no Orthodox Bible in english. NKJ is the best there is at the moment, until someone bothers to translate the 3rd century greek version to english.

[Infidel144]

What is the usual Orthodox apologia for the differing genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?

[basics]

alhoon,

The pit, Hades and Sheol are one and the same place in which unbelievers rest until the general resurrection for judgement when Jesus comes back to deliver it. Hell on the other hand is adjacent to Heaven as Jesus describes in the parable of the rich man and the poor man, the former being in Hell whilst the latter is in the arms of Abraham. So, Heaven and Hell are the two resting places for believers and unbelievers respectively.

Concerning the hearing of the Gospel it is obvious that when God told of the " seed " to come it is perfectly feasible that it was passed from Adam to his offspring and later from Noah through his offspring out of which sprung up many false religions based around that knowledge. Paul tells us that God has placed in all men the knowledge of His existence and that being the case there is none who don't know of Him.

Knowledge that Jesus Christ is the Saviour comes by revelation both by the Father and the Holy Ghost triggered by the hearing of the Gospel which the foretelling of the " seed " virtually was, so all those saved before the advent of Christ were so because God accounted them righteous. These accounts were cleared by the blood of Christ at the cross. Mary like all the other saints are in heaven meaning that she was no exception in that regards. Who's the bandit by the way?

As there is a Book of Life containing the names of all those who are saved, those whose names are not in it are already judged and found guilty.

[Cookiegod]

It's literally just 3 months back that we had basics proven to deliberately and purposefully lie about Jesus Christ and the bible, on pretty much this exact topic, and he could not give us a satisfactory answer as to why he did it or how it's justifiable despite being repeatedly asked about it.

Cookiegod,

What did I say about Jesus that was a purposeful and deliberate lie?

Sir Adrian,

Look at 1Peter 2:4-5 about the priesthood of all believers and Mathew is referring to people who are born again not to call anyone father except your Father which is in heaven. So where is the deliberate lie there?

Imagine asking that question where you deliberately and purposefully misled about Jesus Christ when the link is right there in the comment you replied to and featured in that post... And then repeat the exact same lie again with the same already debunked reference in the very next post.

Just to reiterate basics, we've been over this. Some things can be argued over how they are to be interpreted, but this absolutely isn't one of them. This is as clear cut a case of deliberately ripping out of context as there can be.
The need for priests who actually know what they are talking about can be seen from the fact alone that the absolute minimum for a theological debate is that the other side doesn't purposefully double down and ignore everything that proved them wrong, like you did with what I handed you here, here and here.

What is the usual Orthodox apologia for the differing genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?

That both are correct in that Joseph due to remarriage of his mother is the son of one by law and the other by nature.

What's your apologia for doing one of those cheap gotcha shots without even considering that this isn't likely to be something that has been overlooked for milennia? It's kinda hard to find the discrepancy without simultaneously discovering the church stance on it as expressed by e.g. John the Damascene, so your question should have been answered before you even asked it.

[Infidel144]

That both are correct in that Joseph due to remarriage of his mother is the son of one by law and the other by nature.

Are you referring to the levirate marriage?

What's your apologia for doing one of those cheap gotcha shots

No apologia, since it is not a "cheap gotcha shots".

without even considering that this isn't likely to be something that has been overlooked for milennia?

I am not unaware of that. I did not know if there was any specific, or typical, Orthodox take on it.

It's kinda hard to find the discrepancy without simultaneously discovering the church stance on it as expressed by e.g. John the Damascene, so your question should have been answered before you even asked it.

It is easy to find the "discrepancy", simply by reading the gospel.
But indulging in paranoid delusions is even easier...

Edit:
In the link you provided it, if I am reading it correctly, gives this as a genealogy for Mary:
"Born then of the line of Nathan, the son of David, Levi begat Melchi(2) and Panther: Panther begat Barpanther, so called. This Barpanther begat Joachim: Joachim begat the holy Mother of God"
Do you know where that is sourced from?

[basics]

Cookiegod,

Again I ask you to state right now here in a post where I lied about Jesus. Never mind the " here's " just put it down in print the lie that I said. Surely that is not too much to do? That Jesus was not dismissive of all religious hierarchy is also quite wrong because it was exactly the Jewish leadership that He condemned in His sermons when He brought them up. He came as a servant and He implored the disciples to be servants not as the Scribes and Pharisees who lorded it over everyone. In fact when Paul organised the churches he was involved with he appointed at least two bishops, to serve with deacons as helpers too. Indeed did Paul not say that bishops and deacons be the husbands of but one wife?

Again I ask you to quote my words where I said that Jesus only preached for one year after spending much time in the wilderness ?

Quote " Context Crossref Comment Greek
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

New Living Translation
And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your Father.

English Standard Version
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Berean Study Bible
And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Berean Literal Bible
And call no one your father on the earth; for One is your Father, who is in heaven.

King James Bible
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

New King James Version
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

New American Standard Bible
And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

NASB 1995
“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

NASB 1977
“And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Amplified Bible
Do not call anyone on earth [who guides you spiritually] your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Christian Standard Bible
Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven.

American Standard Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven.

Contemporary English Version
Don't call anyone on earth your father. All of you have the same Father in heaven.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

English Revised Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Good News Translation
And you must not call anyone here on earth 'Father,' because you have only the one Father in heaven.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
And don't call anyone on earth your father, because you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.

International Standard Version
And don't call anyone on earth 'Father,' because you have only one Father, the one in heaven.

Literal Standard Version
and you may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,

NET Bible
And call no one your 'father' on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

New Heart English Bible
Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.

Weymouth New Testament
And call no one on earth your Father, for One alone is your Father--the Heavenly Father.

World English Bible
Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.

Young's Literal Translation
and ye may not call any your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,

Additional Translations ...
Context
Woes to Scribes and Pharisees
…8But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.…
Berean Study Bible · Download


Cross References
Matthew 6:9
So then, this is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.

Matthew 7:11
So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Matthew 23:10
Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.


Treasury of Scripture
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

call.

2 Kings 2:12
And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.

2 Kings 6:21
And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them?

2 Kings 13:14
Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died. And Joash the king of Israel came down unto him, and wept over his face, and said, O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.

for.

Matthew 6:8,9,32
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him…

Malachi 1:6
A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

Romans 8:14-17
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God…" Unquote.

[Cookiegod]

Are you referring to the levirate marriage?

I am not unaware of that. I did not know if there was any specific, or typical, Orthodox take on it.

It is easy to find the "discrepancy", simply by reading the gospel.
But indulging in paranoid delusions is even easier...

Edit:
In the link you provided it, if I am reading it correctly, gives this as a genealogy for Mary:
"Born then of the line of Nathan, the son of David, Levi begat Melchi(2) and Panther: Panther begat Barpanther, so called. This Barpanther begat Joachim: Joachim begat the holy Mother of God"
Do you know where that is sourced from?

I can't really help you with all that as this genealogy stuff doesn't really interest me that much and I did not study theology, nor can I necessarily vouch for the translation, which I only searched quickly. I only remember the TL;DR which I gave you, which was that the guy had a biological father and an adopted one. I am even less versed in Catholic theology, but given that John the Damascene, whilst especially important to the churches of the east, is also venerated by the Catholic church and given that he died well before the schism, I'd assume that their stance is similar if not the same, so I'm not sure that there's an exclusive Orthodox stance as such.

Cookiegod,

Again I ask you to state right now here in a post where I lied about Jesus. Never mind the " here's " just put it down in print the lie that I said. Surely that is not too much to do? That Jesus was not dismissive of all religious hierarchy is also quite wrong because it was exactly the Jewish leadership that He condemned in His sermons when He brought them up. He came as a servant and He implored the disciples to be servants not as the Scribes and Pharisees who lorded it over everyone. In fact when Paul organised the churches he was involved with he appointed at least two bishops, to serve with deacons as helpers too. Indeed did Paul not say that bishops and deacons be the husbands of but one wife?

basics, the "here" had links for you to click on. Remember that it is against the ToS to repost the same content again and again, so I have to insist that you read the posts I linked you to. I was very clear as to what your lie was: You purposefully ripped a quote out of context, and even if one were so generous as to say that you maybe were unaware of that the first time around (though it would still have been a quite irresponsible oversight then), after that you have no excuse. Your fault is beautifully illustrated with this stunt of yours (spoiler around your spam is mine):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote " Context Crossref Comment Greek
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

New Living Translation
And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your Father.

English Standard Version
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Berean Study Bible
And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Berean Literal Bible
And call no one your father on the earth; for One is your Father, who is in heaven.

King James Bible
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

New King James Version
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

New American Standard Bible
And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

NASB 1995
“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

NASB 1977
“And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Amplified Bible
Do not call anyone on earth [who guides you spiritually] your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Christian Standard Bible
Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven.

American Standard Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven.

Contemporary English Version
Don't call anyone on earth your father. All of you have the same Father in heaven.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

English Revised Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Good News Translation
And you must not call anyone here on earth 'Father,' because you have only the one Father in heaven.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
And don't call anyone on earth your father, because you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.

International Standard Version
And don't call anyone on earth 'Father,' because you have only one Father, the one in heaven.

Literal Standard Version
and you may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,

NET Bible
And call no one your 'father' on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

New Heart English Bible
Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.

Weymouth New Testament
And call no one on earth your Father, for One alone is your Father--the Heavenly Father.

World English Bible
Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.

Young's Literal Translation
and ye may not call any your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,

Additional Translations ...
Context
Woes to Scribes and Pharisees
…8But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.…
Berean Study Bible · Download


Cross References
Matthew 6:9
So then, this is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.

Matthew 7:11
So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Matthew 23:10
Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.


Treasury of Scripture
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

call.

2 Kings 2:12
And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.

2 Kings 6:21
And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them?

2 Kings 13:14
Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died. And Joash the king of Israel came down unto him, and wept over his face, and said, O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.

for.

Matthew 6:8,9,32
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him…

Malachi 1:6
A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

Romans 8:14-17
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God…" Unquote.

Firstly you usually gain very little additional insight if you compare American translations with one another (if you want any insight you'd pull up Greek, Latin, etc. for comparison), secondly you did that spam in vain, as I did not deny that the quote existed. What I said in no unclear language again and again and again was that you blatantly ripped bible quotes out of context, which are the sections as a whole. To claim that Jesus literally meant that you should call no one father is a clear lie, as the bible is very clear and precise with regards to what it refers to. That you in essence copypaste the same sentence again and again evidently without putting any thought into the matter illustrates the issue beautifully, yet it also puts us in a conundrum as you being in denial and refusing to answer the arguments presented doesn't exactly lend to this discussion moving forward. If you want to preach, which you so clearly do, then you have to be able to address the criticism given to you. Christianity spread because of the church fathers being able to present cogent arguments and being not only correct with regards to scripture, but also logically sound.

I'm not going to retype my same argument again for no reason. You can start proving you're actually arguing in good faith by responding to the arguments actually presented. If you want this explained to you in print I strongly recommend you click on the following link (since you told me that you don't want me to hyperlink "here"), and then press CTRL+P to print out that web page.
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post16033246
You're welcome.

Again I ask you to quote my words where I said that Jesus only preached for one year after spending much time in the wilderness ?

Pay attention. I haven't accused you of saying that. I assume you're referring to the following said by me:

You have even Jesus himself going away into the wilderness, and he spent only one year of his life preaching to his community. For you to yet again jump to an extreme that every Christian has to be proselytising constantly and everywhere is yet again a good example of you drawing unwarranted conclusions and taking them to the extreme.

Depending on tradition he preached even three years, but apart from that this point by me stands now just as well as it always did.

[Infidel144]

I can't really help you with all that as this genealogy stuff doesn't really interest me that much and I did not study theology, nor can I necessarily vouch for the translation, which I only searched quickly. I only remember the TL;DR which I gave you, which was that the guy had a biological father and an adopted one. I am even less versed in Catholic theology, but given that John the Damascene, whilst especially important to the churches of the east, is also venerated by the Catholic church and given that he died well before the schism, I'd assume that their stance is similar if not the same, so I'm not sure that there's an exclusive Orthodox stance as such.

Well, I am familiar with three different apologetics on the matter:
1. Matthew and Luke are both Joseph's through a levirate marriage (much as you provided), involving uterine half brothers.
2. Matthew's is Joseph's while Luke's is Mary's, and Joseph is either more a parenthetical aside, or is sort of adopted in to keep the tribal inheritance laws (Mary's parents having no sons).
3. Matthew's is actually Mary's, and the Joseph there is her father, as the word usually translated as 'husband' can also mean 'father'.

A discussion elsewhere, led me to wonder what the Orthodox traditional apologetic was, or if it might be different.

Perhaps one of those more versed in Orthodox matters might weigh in.

[basics]

Cookiegod,

Since context and flow are my guides to translating what is written, then it is hardly likely that I would quote something out of context. And, even if I had that hardly constitutes as a deliberate lie! So, once again tell me exactly what the supposed lie was? Never mind all the prattling on, just state my words that are lies. When Jesus said, " Call no man your father...." was He intentionally saying something to confuse His listeners or was He instructing them as to Who their real Father was? Oh He speaks of fathers and mothers yes but His words were much deeper than that why? Because in rebirth the only Father a person reborn will have is God the Father. As for Spiritual leading that is solely the work of the Holy Spirit.

[Cookiegod]

Since context and flow are my guides to translating what is written

It's evidently, demonstrably not so, otherwise you would not be making your claim.

then it is hardly likely that I would quote something out of context.

Really tells us something, doesn't it?

And, even if I had that hardly constitutes as a deliberate lie!

For one it is very hard to know the quote and not know the context, unless you just repeated what someone else preached to you, rather than read up on it for yourself. In which case you initially would have handled more irresponsibly rather than deliberately.
Secondly, the moment you continued to double down on the lie after you had the context handed to you on a silver platter (which I shall do again in just a second), then it becomes intentional with no excuse whatsoever.
Hence why I didn't call you a liar the first time you said it, only after you started doubling down on a clear falsehood.

So, once again tell me exactly what the supposed lie was? Never mind all the prattling on, just state my words that are lies.

The lie you have done again and again and again was to claim that a Christian is not allowed to call men who aren't their biological fathers father. A claim so stupendous already from a logical standpoint given that it was a widespread figure of speech throughout the fertile crescent, such that most of the surviving correspondences we have even from the bronze age start by addressing either a "father" or a "brother". Similar goes for e.g. Latin. "Patron" is derived from "Pater".

Why this is absolutely and demonstrably not the point of Jesus is made abundantly clear in the scripture itself, where everything around that sentence works on a very different point. So your only chance to even make that claim was to very deliberately rip that one sentence out of context, because otherwise it simply would not have worked.

When Jesus said, " Call no man your father...." was He intentionally saying something to confuse His listeners or was He instructing them as to Who their real Father was?

Please stop being so brazen as to pretend that you're Jesus. The fact that you're intentionally trying to mislead others is not on him. He is not confusing at all with regards to what he's trying to say. So the "confusion" is one-hundred percent on you.

Oh He speaks of fathers and mothers yes but His words were much deeper than that why? Because in rebirth the only Father a person reborn will have is God the Father. As for Spiritual leading that is solely the work of the Holy Spirit.

If this is indeed your reasoning it's abundantly clear you did not read the passage properly, even after we've talked about it for so long. Because no, he was very clear on what he meant.

Which brings us to the part of the post where I'm explaining to you yet again what it's about.

Ready?

Good.

The Jesus quote is from Matthew 23:9 and a good example why you should not be a priest. Because what you just did was to rip out the quote and misrepresent it out of context.
The full quote is this:

8But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

And what it refers to (quite ironically, in this context) are that you should not trust those who preach one thing and do another. It does not mean that you can't call anyone father, instructor, or rabbi.

He's very specific as to whom he's referring to and also as to the why:

The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. [...] 4They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5All their deeds are done for men to see. They broaden their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. 6They love the places of honor at banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, 7the greetings in the marketplaces, and the title of ‘Rabbi’ by which they are addressed.

Most orthodox monks live an ascetic life style and do not have these banquets. They hold themselves to an even stricter standard than others, and moreover, monks rarely go out and preach. I don't know any rich priests either. Anyone choosing this career does not choose it out of greed.

So unlike you, who has to venture here in a thread so clearly not made for you, they do not force their wisdom on others.

Moreover Jesus with regards to the advice given by the rabbis etc. says this:

3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

What Jesus tells you about spiritual leaders here is that you should listen to them with a critical mind.

But you on the other hand go the exact other route and say that their wisdom is to be discarded and it is yours that we should trust. [I'm refering to your sola scriptura claims with this]

You directly speak against Jesus.

Your cognitive dissonance becomes even greater since your claim ('You should have no spiritual leaders aside Jesus') is directly contradicted by your recognition of the apostles, whom you do seem to recognise, as evidenced by your quotation of Peter. By your own reckoning their claims should be discarded.

Finally, if you were in any doubt as to what Jesus meant in the part you quoted, you can check out Luke 11 37:54, where he describes the exact same event, but without the quote.

So no, the quote is not about not calling anyone father, but to be vary of false priests, which given what you just did you're quite frankly you're guilty of.


Taking things out of context and taking things to a completely unwarranted extreme. Those sins are things you do again and again and again.

Take note that my accusation back when I posted it was only that you took things out of context and taking things to a completely unwarranted extreme. I did not accuse you of a lie at this point, because your intent only became apparent slightly later on:

What I wrote came from the mouth of Jesus Christ, part of an instruction not to believe false teachers. Where is that out of context? So, pray tell me where I do one thing after saying another?

You claimed that the quote called for the rejection of all teachers and spiritual leaders. Which is a straight up lie for all the reasons listed before.

Let's not forget the main points that you were arguing about at that point: Sola scriptura, rejection of priests (in that according to you everyone can be one), and that no one should be called father except god apparently. Neither your Matthew quote nor the Peter quote actually do say that once you start digging into it. With Peter however you can still interpret it that way, though it's somewhat far fetched, but still it's why I held back there. With Matthew 23:9 on the other hand you have no such excuse. Both Matthew 23:9 and the corresponding Luke 11 37:54 make abundantly clear what he's talking about and what point he is making.

Jesus is warning us of false priests, which in my humble opinion clearly includes you, as you make that quote into being about something else entirely.

[basics]

Cookiegod,

Of course when Jesus made that statement it was a warning about false leadership as practised by the Jewish leadership. But, since not one jot or tittle will be taken away from His words anytime anywhere they apply today just as they did then. So, my question originally was why priests and monks are called father when clearly His words still apply unless of course you disagree. Firstly we have to ask who are Spiritual leaders? The answer to that lies in the saying, " A man must be born again of the Spirit of God if he is to enter heaven," otherwise he cannot be a Spiritual leader. Secondly when He made the, " call no man father, here on earth......" that is the key three words. He was indicating to these followers there at that moment in time that these rulers were in no way Spiritual because by their lifestyle they showed no sign of being reborn of the Spirit of God.

Now let's get one thing straight, I am but one sinner saved by grace, holding no office other than to defend the Gospel as being the inerrant word of God. I can give testimony to my being born again of the Spirit which I have given on these threads more than a few times, so now I ask you how and when you were born again? How can you defend a system that has strayed from the word of God ? Oh and by the way I was saved by reading the KJV and because of failing eyesight I now use the NKJV.

[Cookiegod]

Cookiegod,

Of course when Jesus made that statement it was a warning about false leadership as practised by the Jewish leadership. But, since not one jot or tittle will be taken away from His words anytime anywhere they apply today just as they did then. So, my question originally was why priests and monks are called father when clearly His words still apply unless of course you disagree. Firstly we have to ask who are Spiritual leaders? The answer to that lies in the saying, " A man must be born again of the Spirit of God if he is to enter heaven," otherwise he cannot be a Spiritual leader. Secondly when He made the, " call no man father, here on earth......" that is the key three words. He was indicating to these followers there at that moment in time that these rulers were in no way Spiritual because by their lifestyle they showed no sign of being reborn of the Spirit of God.

Now let's get one thing straight, I am but one sinner saved by grace, holding no office other than to defend the Gospel as being the inerrant word of God. I can give testimony to my being born again of the Spirit which I have given on these threads more than a few times, so now I ask you how and when you were born again? How can you defend a system that has strayed from the word of God ? Oh and by the way I was saved by reading the KJV and because of failing eyesight I now use the NKJV.

basics,
First of all you answered your own question. Yes the warning about false leadership still applies today just as it did then. The moment you try to portray present day priests and monks as "false Jewish leadership" your argument pretty much dies there and then. You yourself present lifestyle as a qualifier. If you want to find those kinds of people you'll have to look no further than modern day televangelists, in which case oh snap, those guys aren't orthodox, are they? What are they again?

All of this illustrates the need for people who actually study theology and are actually able to formulate cogent arguments that are both logically sound as well as in line with not only translated versions of the scripture but also the originals. A ton of inaccuracies and even errors sneak in in all translations, even where the authors do their utmost to avoid them. The KJV is ok, but not perfect. The answer who should not be called a father is defined by Jesus again in Matthew 23:9: "Do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
If you really want to defend the gospel, a good first step is to not misrepresent it. If you want to warn of false leadership and proclaim yourself a spiritual leader, then don't mislead others yourself. A great number of people have put a lot of thought into Christianity throughout the millennia, and for a modern day selfproclaimed "spiritual leader" to proclaim sola scriptura and that it is only the "bible" (i.e. whatever message the preacher wants to convey, no matter how far fetched) one is to trust, is a very pretentious claim at best.

[basics]

Cookiegod,

Well, when Jesus said that man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that cometh from the mouth of God, where is that word? The Old Testament was His Bible built on the Prophets and the New Testament is our Bible built on His words meaning that combined they are the words of God written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit as to what to write just as if He had written the Books Himself. So, could you give examples of inaccuracies or errors?

I asked how it was that you became a Christian but you have not answered, why?

As I said, I am only a sinner saved by the Grace of God having no aspirations to lead anyone but prepared to defend to the death what is written as being the inerrant Word of God. So, when Jesus uttered the words, " Call no man on earth your Father...." was he talking of natural fathers or Spiritual fathers? Obviously He was talking of people indwelt by the Holy Spirit not to call their brethren in Christ father because they now had but One Father in Heaven. There is no other explanation because Jesus being God cannot be confused nor spread confusion. So, I ask once again why monks and priests are called fathers in the systems that use the term?