LeoSalinas22
merely a shadow...
- Messages
- 719
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
lmfao!i did not want to hear that!
mental pictures! mental pictures! darn, it, china, what you say is true, but do you have to be so harsh? lol.
Why do you think we say Father?
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
lmfao!i did not want to hear that!
mental pictures! mental pictures! darn, it, china, what you say is true, but do you have to be so harsh? lol.
Because that is the term that God asks us to address Him by? Or is that simple too passé these days?
Maybe because it's the best term to signify the kind of relationship into which we are invited, the mystery of Eternal Being?
Just thought I'd mention that. No-one else has.
Thomas
Maybe because it's the best term to signify the kind of relationship into which we are invited, the mystery of Eternal Being?
Just thought I'd mention that. No-one else has.
Thomas
Yeah funny sometimes it has to be harsh to pop the mythological anthropomorphic bubble...lmfao!i did not want to hear that!
LeoSalinas22
merely a shadow...
- Messages
- 719
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
i guess it depends on your view of the trinity, though, Christ did ask us to call Him Father:
Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
and Isaiah calls Him that:
Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Hi Wil —
LeoSalinas has pointed out the 'big one', but there are others:
Matt 5:16: So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Matt 5:44-45: But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven...
Matt 18:14: Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Actually there's quite a few references.
Thomas
LeoSalinas has pointed out the 'big one', but there are others:
Matt 5:16: So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Matt 5:44-45: But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven...
Matt 18:14: Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Actually there's quite a few references.
Thomas
Yeah I knew those references....of others refering to G-d as father...but he told moses when asked (he didn't say I am your Father) but I am that I am..
So when you say 'that is the term that God asks us to address Him by' you are not referring to what G-d said, but how others referred to him. ie Isaiah and Jesus. Now yes as Leo states if Jesus is G-d, when Jesus says Father, even though he isn't referring to himself, he is referring to his Father as our Father, he is G-d therefore G-d said?
Yes Karen, I'm hip to the 'He' that was the question in the OP, but we were a patriarchal society...so patriarchal that when we counted number of people we didn't include women....I'm wondering if equal rights had come about or if we were a matriarchal society if the reference would be different.
But just so I am clear...I did I miss something where G-d said 'Call me Father' or where Jesus said 'call me the Father'? (seems me recollection has 'don't call me teacher', and 'without the Father I am nothing' type statements)
So when you say 'that is the term that God asks us to address Him by' you are not referring to what G-d said, but how others referred to him. ie Isaiah and Jesus. Now yes as Leo states if Jesus is G-d, when Jesus says Father, even though he isn't referring to himself, he is referring to his Father as our Father, he is G-d therefore G-d said?
Yes Karen, I'm hip to the 'He' that was the question in the OP, but we were a patriarchal society...so patriarchal that when we counted number of people we didn't include women....I'm wondering if equal rights had come about or if we were a matriarchal society if the reference would be different.
But just so I am clear...I did I miss something where G-d said 'Call me Father' or where Jesus said 'call me the Father'? (seems me recollection has 'don't call me teacher', and 'without the Father I am nothing' type statements)
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Yeah, that door slammed right back closed with the formation of the church didn't it! Folks for years (and still do) point to passages regarding the treatment of women and the role of the wife (wives, mistrisses, etc.) And is there any church which when starting to admit women into roles of authority didn't lose a few parishoners?
I believe you are correct in regards to the stories of Jesus, women, the tax man, robbers....no big deal...just the capitalists at the temple got his anger up...wonder what he'd do if he saw the church holdings and administrative b[FONT="]ureaucracy[/FONT] of today...
Last edited:
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Brava
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
lmfao!i did not want to hear that!
I'm glad you appreciated that! Don't forget, this discussion started in B&S or I wouldn't have used the P word. Well, maybe I would.
Seriously, though, the Bible God is all male don't you think? The first thing It says is "let there be light." The Great Dark Mother can't say that. She just lays there! Of course the Word can't be transmitted by Force alone.
Chris
pattimax
Somewhat returning
agreed and I think mine was that he showed a total lack of prejudice/preconceived notions about people..lived in the now...with whoever was in front of him...powerful stuff to learn from and follow.
Hi Wil —
Why not? Because Moses is not the Incarnate Son. I don't see the point of this comment. God spoke through the Prophets, but none of them claimed Sonship either, and although many of them expressed the relationship with God as patriarchal, none of them implied their own divinity.
I do think you have to take the whole of Scripture in context to see what Christ or anyone was saying.
"Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM."
John 8:58
"Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live: And every one that liveth and believeth in me shall not die for ever. Believest thou this? She saith to him: Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, who art come into this world."
John 11:25-27
Can any of us make the same claim?
None of the Old Testament patriarchs or prophets ever made such claims, were they to do so, then the charge of blasphemy would be laid against them, as it was against Jesus, and when, in response, He asserted His own Divinity explicitly, He was condemned.
If He is not the Incarnate Son of God, then why did He claim so? And if He was only implying some post-Enlightenment liberal theology of 'we are all sons' etc., then why did He not simply assert this in His own defence? The term 'Son of Man' has a general meaning in Scripture, but in Daniel it has one specific meaning, and this was what the Sanhedrin was asking, and this was what Christ affirmed. He is God.
As G.K. Chesterton and later C.S. Lewis said, He was either 'bad, mad, or God.'
+++
Thomas
Why not? Because Moses is not the Incarnate Son. I don't see the point of this comment. God spoke through the Prophets, but none of them claimed Sonship either, and although many of them expressed the relationship with God as patriarchal, none of them implied their own divinity.
I do think you have to take the whole of Scripture in context to see what Christ or anyone was saying.
"Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM."
John 8:58
"Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live: And every one that liveth and believeth in me shall not die for ever. Believest thou this? She saith to him: Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, who art come into this world."
John 11:25-27
Can any of us make the same claim?
None of the Old Testament patriarchs or prophets ever made such claims, were they to do so, then the charge of blasphemy would be laid against them, as it was against Jesus, and when, in response, He asserted His own Divinity explicitly, He was condemned.
If He is not the Incarnate Son of God, then why did He claim so? And if He was only implying some post-Enlightenment liberal theology of 'we are all sons' etc., then why did He not simply assert this in His own defence? The term 'Son of Man' has a general meaning in Scripture, but in Daniel it has one specific meaning, and this was what the Sanhedrin was asking, and this was what Christ affirmed. He is God.
As G.K. Chesterton and later C.S. Lewis said, He was either 'bad, mad, or God.'
+++
Thomas
Namaste Thomas,
The Prophets you say didn't call him Father and G-d never referred to himself as Father to them because he wasn't their father as they weren't the Son.
Jesus referred to him as the Father because he was the Son.
Why does he say Our Father?
You stated G-d asked us to refer to him as the Father. That was thru Jesus.
So in trinitarian thought Jesus is G-d, so every time Jesus is talking it is G-d talking? If not how do we differentiate from when Jesus the Son is talking and G-d the Father is talking thru Jesus....and does the Holy Spirit get a word in edgewise there someplace?
Father please take this cup from me? This is G-d arguing amongst himself as to the best path of his incarnation on earth??
Because we are invited into that Union:
"I am the vine: you the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing."
John 15:5
Again, Jesus says that without Him, union with the Divine is impossible. So either the God does as he's told by Jesus, or Jesus is Himself a God — or that He is the Incarnation of the One Divine.
"I and the Father are one."
John 10:30
Seems to answer that question.
And nowhere else.
The distinction is in the correct determination of when Jesus is telling us something of the Divine nature, or something of the human nature. The Incarnation is the Union of the Two Natures.
The implicit answer is, when in doubt, look to Tradition, which is belief tried and tested in and by the community. But tradition is now a bad word, so man is adrift and left to his own devices. He is obliged to assert either his own infallibility, or at least his own superiority over all other interpretation. Or he's just flailing in the dark, but that its better to believe his own imaginings than the testimony of his forbears.
Who witnessed these words? The apostles with Him were some distance away, and asleep. So where did the text come from? Either by word of mouth from Jesus, in the period after His Resurrection, and before His ascension, or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, when the scribe came to write his testimony.
"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."
John 14:26
In Catholic and Orthodox doctrine Scripture is the word of the Holy Spirit. We go further and say only in the Spirit can one know Christ, for the Spirit leads us to the truth of Christ, and only in Christ can we know the Father.
Further yet — the Spirit affirms the infallible transmission of truth in Scripture, and likewise the Spirit affirms the infallible transmission of truth in Tradition. That's my belief, obviously, but it's what I believe, and it is neither unreasonable, nor illogical.
It might be worth noting that no doctrine has ever been promulgated by the Church for its own sake. A history will show that doctrine is a statement in a defence against error — the error was there before the doctrine — the only counter to that aargument is that error is as valid as truth.
Thomas