Catholic Church is at Fault

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]pat wrote:

Rome did not make the Pope and yes, St. Peter was the first pope, as ordained by Christ himself. The early Popes did not live Rome either. And there is no ‘lording over’ they are servants to Christ and his church.
[/quote]
Christ did not name anybody ‘pope’. ‘Pope’ means ‘father’, and He said we only have one Father. He specifically said that the Apostles were brothers, which is exactly how the real Apostles addressed each other.

He also specifically told the Apostles that they were not His slaves (which Paul was fond of calling himself), they were His friends. Another thing that Paul would have known if he actually had the Spirit he claimed.

182

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You are caught up in semantics. I am certain you refer to your Dad as a Father, having such a title means nothing. You can call them reverends if you wish. That is their title on letter heads. Fr. is more informal.[/quote]
Spiritually speaking, we have only one Father. That is not semantics. I have an Earthly father and a Heavenly Father, and that is all.
[/quote]
Which makes two not one, and it is semantics because you are referring to titles. Titles are names. And it’s rediculus as the NT is full of ‘fathers’ Mt Chap 1, Mt 3:9, Mt 10:1, MT 10:35-37, Mk 7:12, Rom 4:16, Phil 1:10 just to name a few. Let’s examine what St. Paul says:
“For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” 1 Cor 4:15.
So clearly, by this example, the reference to clergy as Fr’s is not unbiblical at all. And since you want to be all semantical about it, we don’t call them “Our Father”, or “Our Heavenly Father”.[/quote]
You said you follow Christ, and not Paul. Fair enough…

…but do you realize that you just used a quote from Paul to counter my quote from Christ?

And regarding that particular quote; The only way that Paul could have become anyone’s father through the Gospel is if he were God. But if you have a Biblical argument as to how exactly he could have become their father according to the Gospel, I’d definitely be interested to hear it.[/quote]

And Abraham is consistently referred to as ‘Our father’ in the Gospels.

For the record, then if you take Jesus at his word in the Gospels, then why when he says " “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” do you not do that as well?

You cannot say one is merely a metaphor and the other literal.

183

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Rome did not make the Pope and yes, St. Peter was the first pope, as ordained by Christ himself. The early Popes did not live Rome either. And there is no ‘lording over’ they are servants to Christ and his church.
[/quote]
Christ did not name anybody ‘pope’. ‘Pope’ means ‘father’, and He said we only have one Father. He specifically said that the Apostles were brothers, which is exactly how the real Apostles addressed each other.

He also specifically told the Apostles that they were not His slaves (which Paul was fond of calling himself), they were His friends. Another thing that Paul would have known if he actually had the Spirit he claimed.[/quote]

He named Peter the head of the church, which today we know as the Pope. And Paul said he was a slave for Christ, not of Christ.

184

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Peter Noto wrote:
I couldn’t even get through the whole damn video, it was so stupid. Seriously, as soon as NASA can put a squat rack on the moon I’m leaving.[/quote]

Imagine the numbers you’d pull on the moon![/quote]

It’s hard to squat in a space suit.

And technically speaking, it’d be the same numbers, just require a lot more plates to get there.

185

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You are caught up in semantics. I am certain you refer to your Dad as a Father, having such a title means nothing. You can call them reverends if you wish. That is their title on letter heads. Fr. is more informal.[/quote]
Spiritually speaking, we have only one Father. That is not semantics. I have an Earthly father and a Heavenly Father, and that is all.
[/quote]
Which makes two not one, and it is semantics because you are referring to titles. Titles are names. And it’s rediculus as the NT is full of ‘fathers’ Mt Chap 1, Mt 3:9, Mt 10:1, MT 10:35-37, Mk 7:12, Rom 4:16, Phil 1:10 just to name a few. Let’s examine what St. Paul says:
“For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” 1 Cor 4:15.
So clearly, by this example, the reference to clergy as Fr’s is not unbiblical at all. And since you want to be all semantical about it, we don’t call them “Our Father”, or “Our Heavenly Father”.[/quote]
You said you follow Christ, and not Paul. Fair enough…

…but do you realize that you just used a quote from Paul to counter my quote from Christ?

And regarding that particular quote; The only way that Paul could have become anyone’s father through the Gospel is if he were God. But if you have a Biblical argument as to how exactly he could have become their father according to the Gospel, I’d definitely be interested to hear it.[/quote]

And Abraham is consistently referred to as ‘Our father’ in the Gospels. [/quote]

I did make the distinction between an Earthly father (that is, ancestral. Your father, or his father, or his father, etc.) and a spiritual (Heavenly) Father.

I have one spiritual Father. Our Heavenly Father. I will never refer to any man on Earth as ‘father’, ‘pope’, ‘padre’ or any other title that indicates that he has any kind of spiritual dominion over me.

I have many brothers and sisters (I include my mom and dad in this, spiritually speaking), but I have only one Lord, Teacher, and Father. My parents and I have talked about this very subject, and we all agree. I am their offspring, but spiritually, we are siblings because we are all His children.

I am really interested in the aforementioned Biblical reference that made Paul the father of the Corinthian Church. I would also be interested in any reference where Christ mentioned that He was going to name another Apostle, or was going to send someone else to the Church to be a guide, or any other Scripture that tells of the coming of Paul.

[quote]For the record, then if you take Jesus at his word in the Gospels, then why when he says " “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” do you not do that as well?

You cannot say one is merely a metaphor and the other literal.[/quote]
He later gave us His flesh and His blood in the form of Communion at the last supper. So, yes, I can say that His flesh and blood are symbolic.

186

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Rome did not make the Pope and yes, St. Peter was the first pope, as ordained by Christ himself. The early Popes did not live Rome either. And there is no ‘lording over’ they are servants to Christ and his church.
[/quote]
Christ did not name anybody ‘pope’. ‘Pope’ means ‘father’, and He said we only have one Father. He specifically said that the Apostles were brothers, which is exactly how the real Apostles addressed each other.

He also specifically told the Apostles that they were not His slaves (which Paul was fond of calling himself), they were His friends. Another thing that Paul would have known if he actually had the Spirit he claimed.[/quote]

He named Peter the head of the church, which today we know as the Pope.[/quote]
Actually, it refers to the bishop of Rome. It was originally a reference to any bishop.

According to Catholic tradition, Peter was the first bishop of Rome. How could he be the first bishop of Rome when he was never there? (Except for when he was crucified, of course)

Talk about getting hung up on semantics. But I’ll play along anyway. Please read the first line of Romans. And yes, I know that some versions use the term ‘servant’, ‘bondservant’, and ‘bondman’, but several versions say “a slave of Christ Jesus”.

187

Ancient Babylonian tablet.

Shamash, their sun god, is on the right holding his ring and staff. Check out the symbol on the altar.

188

Very similar symbol in a different, more familiar setting.

189

Check out the cross that adorns St. Paul’s cathedral in London.

190

The trident, the pine cone, and the sun wheel (six- and eight-spoked)are all pagan symbols.

So is this hand posture, from the Roman cult of Dionysus

191

Baby Jesus, complete with pagan hand gesture and tridents coming out of his head.

192

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Peter Noto wrote:
I couldn’t even get through the whole damn video, it was so stupid. Seriously, as soon as NASA can put a squat rack on the moon I’m leaving.[/quote]

Imagine the numbers you’d pull on the moon![/quote]

It’s hard to squat in a space suit.

And technically speaking, it’d be the same numbers, just require a lot more plates to get there.
[/quote]
Technically speaking, assuming the same amount of force could be applied on the moon as on earth, and including the weight of the portion of one’s body that gets moved: the weight would be the same weight as on earth; but the mass would be a multiple of the mass on earth, in accordance with the ratio of mass on the moon vs. mass on earth that produce the same weight.

Depends which numbers: weight or mass.

193

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
That is very good advice (no sarcasm, it really is). That same examination is what led to my rejection of Paulinism. Seeing as both Catholic and Protestant are followers of Paul (under the pretense of following Christ), I believe in the teachings of neither.
[/quote]
Does that mean you do not accept the Epistles of Paul as Scripture?[/quote]
It’s hard to explain.

They are Scripture, and they belong exactly where they are. Paul was foretold by the prophets, and serves an important purpose, but he is not who we are supposed to follow. He is there to mislead and deceive, and he’ll lead you away from the Light if you let him.

My shepherd is Christ. I accept Him and I know His voice. I cannot follow Paul.
[/quote]
Do you believe that the Epistles of Paul are parts of Scripture insofar as the Holy Spirit wants us to know what Paul wrote, but that we are not supposed to take Paul’s instruction? i.e. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit’s intent for them as Scripture is narrative but not directly instructive (even if Paul’s intent was directly instructive)?
[/quote]
It’s meant as a test. As you read Paul’s works, red flags should pop up everywhere. Things that Christ warned us against are evident right there in Paul’s words.

Just take 1Cor4:14-21 for an example. Paul calls his congregation his children and says he became their father in Christ through the gospel (red flag). Urges them to imitate him (red flag), and asks if he should come to them with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness (red flag).

Will you follow Christ? or Paul? That is the test.[/quote]

Oh my goodness I wish I had more time. Papers upon papers upon papers to write. Still, I have to say something to this nonsense…

  1. Paul says he became their father in Christ Jesus. Once again, this notion of being “in Christ” is a concept you cannot understand without knowing the ancient historical context. The short of it is that Paul is a representative of Christ; Christ is God; therefore, Paul is a representative of the Father. There is no evidence that people referred to Paul AS father; Paul’s point is that he is functioning AS a father by being Christ’s representative. You would know that if you knew ANYTHING about the Greco-Roman context of the New Testament, but you don’t, thus proving that you have NO right or capacity to accurately explicate Scripture to others.

  2. You show your profound lack of attention to details, something I have called you out on before. Why does Paul say to imitate him? Well, look at 1 Cor. 11:1 - “Imitate me JUST AS I IMITATE CHRIST.” Paul imitates Christ; thus, if his audience imitates him, they TOO will be imitating Christ!

  3. Finally, Paul had authority to discipline his churches; “the rod of discipline” is a metaphor, just like the “hammer of justice.” I seem to recall Jesus using this same sort of harsh language in Revelation 2-3 (which you have failed to provide any satisfactory rebuttal to) - “Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place (i.e., get rid of you as a church!)” (Rev. 2:5); "I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and eat food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. Beware, I am throwing her on a bed (i.e., an ancient euphemism for “afflicting her with a physical illness”), and those who commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings, and I will strike her children dead!" (Rev. 2:22-23); “those whom I love I rebuke and discipline” (Rev. 3:19). Who is the speaker in all those verses, JP? JESUS. Who claims to discipline people unless they repent? JESUS. Who threatens to condemn a church? JESUS. Who inflicts sickness on the unrepentant and threatens to kill those who follow the false prophetess (i.e., her children)? JESUS. HMMMMM, Paul’s statement doesn’t sound so bad, now does it?

Once again, “red flags” only pop up for careless readers like you. Is that what God wants? Careless readers who pay no attention to nuance and subtlety, who have no literary sensitivity whatsoever? Doubtful. The problem isn’t in Paul’s letters, JP; it’s in your prideful refusal to recognize that you don’t get to dictate God’s character. Like it or not, the same God who says he loves us and sent his Son to die for our sins, the God we now have the right to call Father, is the same God who ordered the genocide of people groups in Canaan and threatens with ETERNAL SUFFERING (which, for the record, is WAY WORSE than suffering on this side of eternity) those who do not believe in his Son. All your ridiculous conspiracy theories about God purposefully sending Paul to test and deceive people have NO ground to stand on. There is NO historical or textual basis for any of your arguments.

194

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Rome did not make the Pope and yes, St. Peter was the first pope, as ordained by Christ himself. The early Popes did not live Rome either. And there is no ‘lording over’ they are servants to Christ and his church.
[/quote]
Christ did not name anybody ‘pope’. ‘Pope’ means ‘father’, and He said we only have one Father. He specifically said that the Apostles were brothers, which is exactly how the real Apostles addressed each other.

He also specifically told the Apostles that they were not His slaves (which Paul was fond of calling himself), they were His friends. Another thing that Paul would have known if he actually had the Spirit he claimed.[/quote]

You are so ignorant it’s not even funny. Did you not know that the Greek word philos which is translated “friend” was used to refer to freed slaves? And did you know that freed slaves STILL had to obey their master’s wishes, including performing their former slave-like duties for them, until after the master died or moved away? And did you know that when PAUL uses the term doulos (slave), he is using it in the Old Testament sense where it referred to God’s elect (i.e., his chosen ones)?

Those questions were rhetorical - of course you didn’t know those things. You don’t know ANYTHING about the Greco-Roman context of the New Testament. And once again, that ignorance leads you to make bad assumptions, like this incredibly ridiculous assumption that Paul is using slave in the same sense that Jesus is using it, or that a “friend” in the Greco-Roman context wasn’t still ESSENTIALLY a slave.

195

Kai, just so you know;

If you would kindly answer the questions and requests I posed to you before, we can start conversing again, but since you know you have no leg to stand on, I know that’s not going to happen.

I will not, however, participate in dialogue in which I obligate myself to respond in every detail without reciprocation. You flat-out ignore the holes in your argument.

I don’t have time to argue with someone who is educated beyond their understanding.

196

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Kai, just so you know;

If you would kindly answer the questions and requests I posed to you before, we can start conversing again, but since you know you have no leg to stand on, I know that’s not going to happen.

I will not, however, participate in dialogue in which I obligate myself to respond in every detail without reciprocation. You flat-out ignore the holes in your argument.

I don’t have time to argue with someone who is educated beyond their understanding.[/quote]

What were the questions? I’m not going back and forth with you on who did or did not answer whom. I have responded in depth over and over again; I have written EXTENSIVE posts in answer to your queries.

There aren’t holes in my arguments except where there are holes in historical knowledge; I apply a consistent method to the text. You do not; you move from one form of interpretation to another and posit all sorts of divine actions in the construction of the text without giving ANY textual or historical support for them. In other words, you assume too much about what God is “doing” in Scripture without providing textual evidence (i.e., evidence IN Scripture itself that says he is doing what you say he is) or historical evidence (i.e., evidence that the earliest Christians or Second Temple Jews believed that he was doing what you say he is doing). If you cannot provide either of those two forms of evidence, you have nothing but conjecture.

I question your fundamental assumptions, JP. Perhaps that’s why my posts seem roundabout to you. I cannot answer questions that assume what they answer; I have to demonstrate first why your basic assumptions are misguided.

So what are your questions that I have not answered? Frankly, I’m the one who feels that he has responded extensively without seeing much effort from you to reciprocate. Tell me the questions, JP - prove that that this isn’t just a sly attempt to get out of having to answer questions you know you have no answer for. Twice now you have not answered my point about Jesus’ harsh words. Twice. I don’t know what questions you have asked me twice, but if there are any, write them here and I will answer every single one.

197

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Is inattention to insignificant details any more a problem than getting hung up on them?

More directly;
If the details that you focus on don’t support the overall thesis; is the thesis wrong, or are you focusing on the wrong details?

Or;
If your thesis is wrong, and you focus only on the details that vindicate it, does that make your thesis correct?[/quote]

Here is a question I did not answer because I simply did not have sufficient time to do it justice, primarily because I have been working for months on various papers for school.

My answer is four-fold. First of all, I question the very notion of “insignificant” details. All knowledge is inextricably linked. If you need to know why, ask Tirib; I’m sure he has written a post on that somewhere, and I don’t have the time to compose a new one.

Secondly, “details” in biblical interpretation ARE evidence. The goal of every interpreter is to find the explanation that best accounts for all the evidence, the details of the text. If an interpreter’s explanation cannot account for all of the evidence, that interpretation is weak. If you mishandle the evidence, however, like saying that Stephen said Moses was simply "put outside the door," then you will provide an overarching theory to explain that bit of evidence (in your case, that Stephen was a poor interpreter of Scripture) that actually doesn’t explain it at all. Your theory doesn’t continue to live when it’s been shown that the evidence that supposedly necessitated that theory was mishandled. That’s why details matter, JP - they are the very things you are trying to explain!

Thirdly, intellectual carelessness is pervasive; it does not get nicely compartmentalized into one sector of thought or field of study. As Jesus said, the one is faithful in a little thing is faithful also in much, and the one who is unrighteous in a little thing is unrighteous also in much (Lk 16:10). That principle is as true in the intellectual realm as the moral - someone who is so careless as you are when they read texts on this site is prone to be careless in other areas as well. And in fact, that is exactly what we have seen - you have time and again misinterpreted and mishandled the details of the text. It’s a pervasive issue with you; you do it A LOT. That should cause you to question your fundamental theories.

Fourthly, in DIRECT answer to your questions above, I must say that you are actually saying three different things with those sentences. In answer to the first question - YES, inattention to even supposedly “insignificant” details is WAY worse than getting “hung up” on details. What you call getting “hung up” on details, I (and the rest of the intellectual world) call carefully checking our interpretations. THAT is what real scholarship, the kind that unveils truth, requires, and if you cannot hack it, then you aren’t fit for this kind of work (as I’ve tried to show you over and over again).

In answer to the second question - there is no way to know ahead of time. You may be focusing on the wrong details, OR it may be that there are NO details that support your thesis anyway, in which case no details could rightly be called the “wrong” or “right” ones.

In answer to the third question - NO, of course not, and that is EXACTLY what I’ve been trying to get you to see! You focus exclusively on the details that SEEEEEEEM to vindicate your arguments, but there are better explanations for those details, explanations that are part of overarching interpretations that explain MORE details than just those which your arguments are meant to explain. You don’t recognize that others have tread this territory before, JP. They have followed along the same paths you have and have rejected the same interpretations that you boldly hold to, and they rejected them not because of loyalty to the church or deception by the devil, but because of intellectual integrity. They realized, as you as of yet have not, that stretching credulity with unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims about what God is doing in Scripture ultimately leads no where.

198

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Satan trolls us, HH. Not the Father.

Compare 2Sam24 and 1Chr21.[/quote]

Another example of terrible exegesis on your part. Let’s review…

  1. You assume that only a handful of Scriptures (i.e., those containing Jesus’ words) are actually meant to serve as ethical guides for us; the rest of the Scriptures are to be read in light of the small number of Jesus’ words that we actually have preserved for us, and most of the time (especially in the case of Paul) are meant to be judged as deception.

  2. There is no direct textual evidence (I have proven based on genre characteristics alone that your reading of Habakkuk 2 as a prophecy about Paul is RIDICULOUS) or historical evidence (proof that Jews of the Second Temple period or even the earliest Christians thought the Scriptures functioned as you say) for your claim that many of the Scriptures function to deceive. There is not a single example where Jesus said, “only some of the Scriptures can be trusted; others must be ignored.”

  3. Therefore, your theory is based ENTIRELY on conjecture - you assume that God is working this way, and you need to believe that because you have already committed yourself to the idea that the God of the OT is unlovable and unjust. Consequently, you take ANY ostensive disharmony between the words of Jesus and the actions of God or others as support for your theory.

  4. Despite your emphasis on the supposed disharmonies of Scripture, which you are never willing to harmonize if they relate to the God of Israel or Paul, you still go out of your way to harmonize Jesus’ own words with his actions. Thus, despite the fact that Jesus says, “call no one on earth ‘father,’” without introducing a single caveat (such as, “except for your biological father”), you don’t assume that Jesus contradicts himself in John 8:56 when he calls Abraham a “father,” nor when he calls individuals Abraham’s sons and daughters (Lk 13:16, 19:9). Based on the way you handle OTHER biblical texts, if you were consistent in your method and not completely arbitrary in your interpretations, you would dismiss one of those two accounts as false - i.e., either John and Luke both lied about what Jesus said, or Matthew lied about what Jesus said. You know you cannot do that, however, because then your entire framework (i.e., your assumption that the gospels all reflect the uninterpreted, exact words of Jesus) would fall apart.

Instead, you attempt to harmonize Jesus’ words and actions, giving him the benefit of the doubt that you simply refuse to extend to Paul or to Yahweh. And that, JP, is hypocritical and self-serving - you have no problem blowing off Yahweh because you don’t like Yahweh. That is intellectually dishonest.

Why did I go into all that? Because your treatment of 2Sam 24 and 1 Chr. 21 is another example of your selective reading. Which text is correct? You simply assume that Yahweh and Satan are being identified as the same person between these passages, i.e., that both passages are true at the same time in the same way because they refer to the same person called by two different names. What you ignore, however, is that Yahweh and Satan are elsewhere distinguished from one another throughout the OT (see Job 1:6-7, Zech. 3:2). That raises a probability question - given that Yahweh is ALWAYS distinguished from Satan elsewhere in the OT, is it likely that the two different authors of 2 Sam 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 think the two are identical? Historically speaking, that’s unlikely. Why?

It’s unlikely because Chronicles was written a LONG time after 2 Sam (more than a century). Extensive theological development had taken place between the writing of 2 Samuel and the composition of Chronicles, especially in the understanding of Satan as God’s adversary and conceptions of theodicy (i.e., defenses of God’s goodness). Moreover, 1-2 Chronicles are HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings; they are the primary sources that the Chronicler uses for his work. So there is another possibility that you have COMPLETELY overlooked - the author of 1 Chronicles, seeing a passage in 2 Sam 24:1 that made God look bad, changed the identity of the “inciter” from Yahweh to Satan. Historically speaking, based on some of the other changes that the Chronicler makes to his sources (1-2 Sam, 1-2 Kings), this is the FAR more likely option.

Oh wait, there are TWO MORE POSSIBILITIES! 1) The two accounts could be complementary - 2 Sam 24:1 lists the ultimate causer of David’s action (Yahweh), while 1 Chronicles refers instead to the intermediary USED BY YAHWEH TO CAUSE DAVID’S ACTION (Satan). This is the standard conservative explanation, and given the clear differentiation elsewhere in Scripture between Yahweh and Satan, historical probability favors this interpretation over yours. 2) In the Hebrew of 2 Sam. 24:1, the subject is NOT Yahweh, but rather “the ANGER of Yahweh;” consequently, the referent of the 3rd singular verb wayaset (he, she, or IT incites or misleads) may be Yahweh’s anger, not Yahweh himself. Thus David, having recognized Yahweh’s anger (in their context, probably through a drought or some other catastrophe), attempted to take a census of the people (a practice intended to pull in more revenue, which he would have tried to use to appease Yahweh with gifts). This was a mistake on David’s part; thus 1 Chronicles 21:1 is in harmony with 2 Sam 24:1, as the Chronicler is simply pointing out the spiritual cause of David’s decision (Satan) rather than the original event (Yahweh’s anger) to which David responded.

Which interpretation is correct, JP? How do you decide? I know what I think; demonstrate for me how YOU reason through the possibilities and on what grounds you rule out certain interpretations. Will you apply a consistent method and recognize that these two passages are absolutely USELESS for your theory? Or will you simply stick to your original interpretation despite the fact that, historically and grammatically speaking, all three other interpretations which I have provided have more ground to stand on than your’s?

199

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You are caught up in semantics. I am certain you refer to your Dad as a Father, having such a title means nothing. You can call them reverends if you wish. That is their title on letter heads. Fr. is more informal.[/quote]
Spiritually speaking, we have only one Father. That is not semantics. I have an Earthly father and a Heavenly Father, and that is all.
[/quote]
Which makes two not one, and it is semantics because you are referring to titles. Titles are names. And it’s rediculus as the NT is full of ‘fathers’ Mt Chap 1, Mt 3:9, Mt 10:1, MT 10:35-37, Mk 7:12, Rom 4:16, Phil 1:10 just to name a few. Let’s examine what St. Paul says:
“For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” 1 Cor 4:15.
So clearly, by this example, the reference to clergy as Fr’s is not unbiblical at all. And since you want to be all semantical about it, we don’t call them “Our Father”, or “Our Heavenly Father”.[/quote]
You said you follow Christ, and not Paul. Fair enough…

…but do you realize that you just used a quote from Paul to counter my quote from Christ?

And regarding that particular quote; The only way that Paul could have become anyone’s father through the Gospel is if he were God. But if you have a Biblical argument as to how exactly he could have become their father according to the Gospel, I’d definitely be interested to hear it.[/quote]

And Abraham is consistently referred to as ‘Our father’ in the Gospels. [/quote]

I did make the distinction between an Earthly father (that is, ancestral. Your father, or his father, or his father, etc.) and a spiritual (Heavenly) Father.

I have one spiritual Father. Our Heavenly Father. I will never refer to any man on Earth as ‘father’, ‘pope’, ‘padre’ or any other title that indicates that he has any kind of spiritual dominion over me.

I have many brothers and sisters (I include my mom and dad in this, spiritually speaking), but I have only one Lord, Teacher, and Father. My parents and I have talked about this very subject, and we all agree. I am their offspring, but spiritually, we are siblings because we are all His children.

I am really interested in the aforementioned Biblical reference that made Paul the father of the Corinthian Church. I would also be interested in any reference where Christ mentioned that He was going to name another Apostle, or was going to send someone else to the Church to be a guide, or any other Scripture that tells of the coming of Paul.
[/quote]

Like I said you just have misconceptions about the church. The priests are not above the flock, they are servants of it. A priest has no power over you at all. They perform services for them on behalf of Christ and his church.
A priest is merely an ordained minister in the apostolic tradition.
Referring to a priest as Fr. does not change the fact that we all have one Heavenly Father. In the same way that your father is not your Heavenly Father, neither is a priest. Calling a preist Fr, does not change that, calling Abraham your father does not change that. There are ‘fathers’ all over the bible.

I don’t see where Christ had to specifically mention Paul for Paul to be a valid apostle, unless you think Paul is a liar, he spoke with Christ on more than one occasion. He was also considered an apostle by the other apostles, even St. Peter makes mention of him in his epistle.
I dare say being dismissive of the Pauline epistles of Paul himself, is not a Christian tenet. If you are a servant of Christ, and you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then the Pauline epistles are part of it. You have no authority to dismiss them. Picking and choosing what you want out of the bible, while dismissing other parts is a dangerous methodology. The bible is a complete work.

[quote]

[quote]For the record, then if you take Jesus at his word in the Gospels, then why when he says " “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” do you not do that as well?

You cannot say one is merely a metaphor and the other literal.[/quote]
He later gave us His flesh and His blood in the form of Communion at the last supper. So, yes, I can say that His flesh and blood are symbolic.[/quote]

Well, his words were, “This is my Body”, “This is my blood.” This was not a symbolic act. There was no kinda sorta. God’s presence can take any form he chooses. There was no symbolism in the Last Supper.

200

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Baby Jesus, complete with pagan hand gesture and tridents coming out of his head.[/quote]

I am pretty sure that was meant to be a crown or halo of some sort. Artistic interpretations. The art is meant to be a form of prayer and honor and adornment. You can say that the adornments on the Arc were similar to pagan symbols if you want to. Or you can say they are phallic symbols for all I know.
These artistic representations are not claimed to be of any divine origin, only pretty things to adorn places of worship. They are meant to honor God, not be things of worship but tools for worship. God, historically, liked his houses of worship to be pretty. Look how detailed he was about the Tent of Meeting.
I would consider it more of an insult to make a place of worship a dump.