The Holy Father

[ollie]

Nevermind, the Order comment was a sarcastic reply to the comment about the Roman Church and the Roman Empire. To quote another movie charater: Fuget about it

What does that verrse have to do with anything?

It is the order that christ set in His church.

Take notice there are no priests, no cardinals, no popes, no vatican, no Mary, etc., etc..

Why do people need all these additions to God's word? Isn't Christ and His order of things enough? Why must man place him self above God to think they can make it better than god gives us?  

[ebia]

Nevermind, the Order comment was a sarcastic reply to the comment about the Roman Church and the Roman Empire. To quote another movie charater: Fuget about it

What does that verrse have to do with anything?

It is the order that christ set in His church.

Take notice there are no priests, no cardinals, no popes, no vatican, no Mary, etc., etc..

Why do people need all these additions to God's word? Isn't Christ and His order of things enough? Why must man place him self above God to think they can make it better than god gives us?  

Mary isn't in your bible?  You must have quite a few pages missing - I'd take it back and complain if I were you.

[sincereheart]

ebia, You're not behaving today!  



Though I still don't understand calling ANY man a name used in Scripture for God!  

[Dyskolos]

Though I still don't understand calling ANY man a name used in Scripture for God!  

How about the thousands of 'Lords' in Britain? Or the thousands of men named 'Jesus' in the Spanish-speaking world?

[ebia]

Quote from: sincereheart on Today at 09:36:30am
Though I still don't understand calling ANY man a name used in Scripture for God!  
 

How about the thousands of 'Lords' in Britain? Or the thousands of men named 'Jesus' in the Spanish-speaking world?

Or calling your father, father (or papa, daddy, or whatever your cultural version of abba is)?

Or calling your teacher teacher (rabbi)?

etc, etc.

You choose to pick on a couple of examples that are alien to your tradition, but ignore all the examples that are not.

[sincereheart]

You choose to pick on a couple of examples that are alien to your tradition, but ignore all the examples that are not.

I've picked ONE example that I don't understand. And that is because I ran across it on the site of the vatican. And I didn't ask why they would be called 'father' - I questioned why the pope is called 'The Holy Father'. And I picked that ONE example because Scripture says:

John 17:11  And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

[ebia]

You choose to pick on a couple of examples that are alien to your tradition, but ignore all the examples that are not.

I've picked ONE example that I don't understand. And that is because I ran across it on the site of the vatican. And I didn't ask why they would be called 'father' - I questioned why the pope is called 'The Holy Father'. And I picked that ONE example because Scripture says:

John 17:11  And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

OK, so Holy Father is one of the ways we refer to God.  Likewise Father, teacher, Lord, etc, etc.  Yet none of these is reserved exclusively for God, so where is your precedent for reserving "Holy Father" exclusively for God.

[sincereheart]

OK, so Holy Father is one of the ways we refer to God.  Likewise Father, teacher, Lord, etc, etc.  Yet none of these is reserved exclusively for God, so where is your precedent for reserving "Holy Father" exclusively for God.

I dunno, ebia. "Holy" and "Father" together just sound like it's referring to God. So I searched and found that it is when it's in Scripture. And it just seems, well, wrong somehow.   Following your reasoning, would it then be ok to call the pope "God"? Or is that one that IS reserved exclusively for God? Or maybe the question is: Which names for God are okay to use on man?

Kinda like the "Jesus" name. Yes, there are those with the name in the Spanish-speaking world and there was another "Jesus" in Scripture. But only ONE "Jesus Christ"...

[ebia]

I dunno, ebia. "Holy" and "Father" together just sound like it's referring to God. So I searched and found that it is when it's in Scripture. And it just seems, well, wrong somehow.  

Its just a question of what you are used to.  I'm pretty uncomfortable with many of the protestant 'job titles' and phrases, but not for any good reason - its just what I'm used to, and what I understand by those phrases.

Following your reasoning, would it then be ok to call the pope "God"?

No, because that is a word we do reserve exclusively for God.   If we used toe word "god" for the pope, we would be intending to imply that he is God, or we would be redefining the word.   If a group of people understood the word "God" to mean something different than the currently accepted English usage, then that would be a different matter.  Ultimately, when push comes to shove, words are just that - labels we give to things.  Sometimes different groups of people use the labels in different ways.  It's what's meant by them that matters.  When people who are not part of a discourse community come along, if they don't take the trouble to understand how language is used within that discourse community, they are going to misunderstand a lot of things.

Or is that one that IS reserved exclusively for God? Or maybe the question is: Which names for God are okay to use on man?

That would depend on what you meant by the name, and how your intended audience were going to understand it.  I can't invisage a context in which god would be an acceptable or reasonable title to apply to someone, because I can't imagine a context in which it would not imply that the recipient was divine.

Kinda like the "Jesus" name. Yes, there are those with the name in the Spanish-speaking world and there was another "Jesus" in Scripture. But only ONE "Jesus Christ"...

It's a good analogy, I think.  I'd feel pretty uncomfortable naming my son Jesus, but what's actually wrong with it?  Those who do call their children Jesus aren't implying that their children are Jesus Christ, or putting them on a par with Christ, they are just naming their son after the most important person ever to have lived, which is pretty reasonable thing to do.   It's really just a question of what you are used to, and what you mean by it.

[ollie]

Nevermind, the Order comment was a sarcastic reply to the comment about the Roman Church and the Roman Empire. To quote another movie charater: Fuget about it

What does that verrse have to do with anything?

It is the order that christ set in His church.

Take notice there are no priests, no cardinals, no popes, no vatican, no Mary, etc., etc..

Why do people need all these additions to God's word? Isn't Christ and His order of things enough? Why must man place him self above God to think they can make it better than god gives us?  

Mary isn't in your bible?  You must have quite a few pages missing - I'd take it back and complain if I were you.

"Mary isn't in your bible?"
Get real! Of course Mary is in my Bible and you know it. You must not read well.

Go back and reread my reply and know that I am refering to the order Christ set in His church and Mary was not part of it. Mary is only refered to in the Bible as the mother of Jesus.

I ask another question:

Why do people defend false teachings? Why can't they just accept the simple truth of God , His Christ, and His plan of redeeming them back to Him?

[ebia]

Get real! Of course Mary is in my Bible and you know it. You must not read well.

I suggest you learn to spot sarcasm when you see it.

Go back and reread my reply and know that I am refering to the order Christ set in His church and Mary was not part of it. Mary is only refered to in the Bible as the mother of Jesus.

   Possibly the most important thing any person has ever been called to do, and you describe it as "only".

I ask another question:

Why do people defend false teachings? Why can't they just accept the simple truth of God , His Christ, and His plan of redeeming them back to Him?

If they agreed that they were false teachings, then they wouldn't defend them.

[ollie]

Get real! Of course Mary is in my Bible and you know it. You must not read well.

I suggest you learn to spot sarcasm when you see it.

Go back and reread my reply and know that I am refering to the order Christ set in His church and Mary was not part of it. Mary is only refered to in the Bible as the mother of Jesus.

   Possibly the most important thing any person has ever been called to do, and you describe it as "only".

I ask another question:

Why do people defend false teachings? Why can't they just accept the simple truth of God , His Christ, and His plan of redeeming them back to Him?

If they agreed that they were false teachings, then they wouldn't defend them.

SIGH!

"Possibly the most important thing any person has ever been called to do, and you describe it as "only".
'

"ONLY" as in one and only. This is how Mary is refered to in the Bible. It is the "ONLY" way she is identified.
The most important thing any one has been called to do is lay down His life and shed His blood for the sins of the people of the world.

[ollie]

You choose to pick on a couple of examples that are alien to your tradition, but ignore all the examples that are not.

I've picked ONE example that I don't understand. And that is because I ran across it on the site of the vatican. And I didn't ask why they would be called 'father' - I questioned why the pope is called 'The Holy Father'. And I picked that ONE example because Scripture says:

John 17:11  And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

OK, so Holy Father is one of the ways we refer to God.  Likewise Father, teacher, Lord, etc, etc.  Yet none of these is reserved exclusively for God, so where is your precedent for reserving "Holy Father" exclusively for God.

Matthew 23:9.  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Not a precedent for "Holy Father", but father period.
The Holy is an infered given.
Why does Rome title their priests, the pope, etc. "father" when God's word says no?

[ebia]

SIGH!

"Possibly the most important thing any person has ever been called to do, and you describe it as "only".
'

"ONLY" as in one and only. This how Mary is refered to in the Bible. It is the "ONLY" way she is identified.

That's debatable, but even within that, she is given honour for that role.

The most important thing any one has been called to do is lay down His life and shed His blood for the sins of the people of the world.

Typing "... any person except God ..." get's tedious.  I thought you'd have the sense to realise that was implied, but I guess that if people had the sense to realise the implicit meaning instead of jumping to conclusions, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

[ebia]

Not a precedent for "Holy Father", but father period.
The Holy is an infered given.
Why does Rome title their priests, the pope, etc. "father" when God's word says no?

What do you call your dad?

I take it you don't call anyone a teacher either?

To take those verses literally is absurd, if not impossible.