Search results

Yes, they were hypocrites, but as you pointed out, Jesus warns us not to elevate "anyone" (not just hypocrites) to the level of our heavenly Father. Actually, that's not what he said. He said call no man Father. He didn't say don't call them Father if they are hypocrites. If you want to...

That's ridiculous Enoch. Did you read the article? It had nothing to do with it being a MEXICAN flag. It wouldn't have matteree if it were a French, British or even an American flag. The article makes that ckear. Second, yes Mexico has drug cartels. Are they at war with America? Well...

Yes. Here's why: 1. It was against the dress code policy which from what I can gather was made known to him. Well, that's pretty much it! Nothing more needs to be said. But there are other interesting things: 2. The issue was not because it was a Mexican flag. It was that it was a...

But thats not what the verse says. 1 Corinthians 4:15 KJV For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. That does not mean "fathered" like you always say... Go to the original language. I...

Time for this to end! We have someone who doesn't believe the Bible is true in that he doesn't believe in context and believes it is full of generalizations (unless it supports his beliefs) vs. On who believes Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4. One of us believes every word of God is true and is in...

That has nothing to do with the topic. Its also false.

Yep, I agree.. The whole family is named Jesus. And I even got a verse that says he is the everlasting Father. One of the many reasons why I dont subscribe to the Trinity theory. So that verse gives you the right to call a priest "Father"? Heck... Then I am one too! Stoopid!

That makes no sense. If you don't believe the Bible means what it says just say so.

Well good, then call Joe Biden "Father".

Others are just as guilty, by the way... Holy and reverend is his name... Psalms 111:9.

Neither of these have anything to do with the topic. Do you believe Matthew 23:9 was a generalization? Obviously you do. So, what else do you not believe that the Bible says? Maybe matthew 16:16 is a generalization.

Then dont call the leaders "Father".

ysaid.yet it supports mine. Jesus is the branch, not Paul.

What a circle jerk... I already answered all this. This is a lame attempt to say the Bible doesn't mean what it really says. You never answer why Jesus said it, you just try to refute what he said.

Founded BY Christ... I agree... Through the Apostles I agree. Not By the Apostles. They pointed to the Father; they never claimed to be the Father.

But forget the rest of the verse, right? Forget context, right? I agree with the rest of the verse. How it supports your notion that Matthew 23:9 isn't true is beyond me.

Right. Context isn't important. Sure. So sad you don't apply that to Matthew 23:9. All of a sudden, comtext (even when it doesn't exist) is important. What do you do with that verse, by the way?

No it doesn't. They pointed to Christ. So I will ask you what I asked BOL.... Why did Christ say not to call any man Father? You only seem to be interested in proving Jesus didn't really mean what he said.

Jesus is the vine, and others are the branches. I agree. Paul and Peter and the rest lf the Apostles were branches... Not the vine. No argument from me.

Here's the thing: when folks "want to back to the original language" they are really looking for a way out. One single word can mean different things. But the context of the verse dictates the proper use of that word. I lime going back to the original, but its not a case where its a buffet...