Most Christians Do Not Keep Matthew 23

bismarck - you are taking the passage out of its context, which is given in verses 6, 7, namely the pride and desire for status of the pharisees.  the Lords teaching is simply that the disciples were not to be like them.  He is saying that men are not to be given a position and status which distracts from the fatherhood of God.  also you have not taken your approach to its logical conclusion, which would mean we could not call our own dads "father"!

now it is quite clear from the holy scriptures that the elders in the local church are to be viewed as fathers - see 1 timothy 5: 1.  note that im not saying they are to be given the designation as a title.  there would be no scriptural justification for that.  indeed it is hard to see any justification for any title in the bible, including pastor.  functions and offices in the local church do not entail titles

as for your etymological research, i would suggest that the usage of the word gives the meaning, not its etymology

Yeshua the Messiah spoke in Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew that was very distinctive and marked out the Messiah's closest followers, like Simon Kephas, who were all from Galilee where the Messiah grew up (Matthew 26:73).

The words Greek and Latin manuscripts ascribe to Yeshua the Messiah are translations from Aramaic.  But in the original Aramaic, such as we see in the Pesh*tta and Khabouris Manuscript, Yeshua the Messiah did not actually say "Father" but "Abba".

Now, please note that B and P are closely related sounds (like T and D, or K and G).  With that in mind, you can see that the Aramaic "Abba" is like unto the Greek "Papa".  From Greek, the word "Papa" was transmitted to Latin, and thence to French through the Roman Catholic influence in the Frankish court of Charlemagne and his successors... and then into Norman... and thence into English when, sponsored by Pope Alexander 2, William the Conquistador murdered off 200,000 Englishmen, women and children (20% of the island's population at the time, witnessed in Willy's own Doomsday Book -- see?  that's what a Papal crusade against "Heretic England" means, see??), drove anybody else who could flee into exile, and ground the Saxon remnant into the mud and mire.  (Note for the record the sequential order of time: Papal Crusade versus England (1066), 1st Crusade versus Holy Land (1095).)

This ultimately Greek word "Papa" (possibly a Semitic loan word) replaced the old Saxon word "Tada" or "Dada", to wit, "Dad".

My point is that the word "Abba" is as intimate and personal as "Dad", as contrasted with the more formal and socially distant "Father".

And Yeshua the Messiah's injunction in Matthew 23:9 was against calling any mortal man "Abba".

So, what I hear is that "Almighty God is, and should be, closer and more intimately part of your life than any and every mortal man -- therefore, reserve the personal and intimate form of address of "Abba" for Almighty God alone, PERIOD."

And since we have shown that "Abba" is cognate to "Papa" (by etymology, word-roots) and "Dada" (by meaning), if you wanted to be very strict in your reading of Matthew 23:9...

You might be able to squeek by with not calling any mortal man "Dad", and keep that word for Almighty God alone (Matthew 23:9).

You could, then, still call mortal men "Father", as long as you deeply understood the difference, between the (social) distance and separateness implied by "Father" as contrasted against the (social) intimate closeness of "Dad".

By plain reading, however, of Matthew 23:9, you must still never utter the word "Dad" to any other mortal being, nor suffer them to so hail you, and you must still ever keep that word "Dad" solely for addressing Almighty God.

Note that this injunction against using "Dad / Papa / Abba" for any mortal man, no matter how many Opus Dei agents work for his vast war coffers, would still preclude using the title of "Pope".

Salam

Fredi, I simply would like to point something out to you.  You are asking Bismarck to do something that you, yourself, refuse to do when using Qur'an ayat for your argument against Islam.  I'm not saying it is wrong to ask someone to take something within a certain context; however, you should treat others are you are asking them to treat you.

PAZ

Sister Khadija

fredifreeloader wrote: no you really must look at things in context.  all the scriptures have to be taken into account.  i was reading in johns epistles the other day and in 1 john 2: 12-14, the apostle makes it clear who hes writing to.  he addresses one group as "little children", another group as "young men" and a third group as "fathers" - he was certainly not blaspheming God by doing so, but showing respect to the elders in accordance with the will of God.  there is also the story told by the Lord in luke 15.  the prodigal son is returning home having spent all his money.  in verse 21 he says - "Father i have sinned against heaven and in thy sight.........." - note that he was not in a prodigal condition at the time, but in a God-pleasing condition ie repentance.  the Lord Jesus would never have had him address his father as father if what youre saying is correct.  there is no question of me scoffing at any text here

The 'Prodigal Son' is a parable for the '10 Lost Tribes of Israel' who were scattered to the four winds, but are now to return unto God's graces with the coming of the Messiah.  His elder brother who stayed home is Judah, who never forsook the Covenant.  Judah scorns the Samaritans for their impurity, is the message in round numbers.

The 'Father' in the parable IS meant to BE ALMIGHTY GOD.

There is, therefore, NO BLASPHEMY in the parable NO MATTER WHAT.  The very use of the word 'Father' may, in fact, be proof, and intended as such, that the parable addresses Almighty God.