Christ the Way Part 1: Refuting the Nihilism

a reply to: Joecroft

If you knew the scriptures, you would have read enough of them to put them in context and know what Paul was saying.

In Paul's letters to the Corinthians, he mostly refers to himself in his introductions as either an apostle, a minister, and/or a steward of the Christian faith, as shown in 1 Corinthians 4:1 and several other starting verses in the Corinthians.

In verse 15, Paul refers to himself as "father" (informal lower case is important here) because he's trying to decide if he needs to play the role of an earthly father in disciplining his followers/children or not. See the last verse (21) in chapter 4 that helps to explain it. Paul has never asked Christian followers to call him "Father" (in upper case) or call him "father" at all. While he may refer to himself as being like that of a father, he never asks them to call him that or signs his letters that way.

Paul has also referred to himself as a "masterbuilder" in 1 Corinthians 3:10, stating that he has helped to lay the foundation of the Christian faith through the gospel. However, this in no way implies that he is asking Christian followers to call him "Master".

Throughout many of the chapters in Corinthians and Romans, Paul refers to "God the Father" (upper case). There is a significant difference.

The apostles never appointed a "Pope" or a main leader among themselves for a reason. Jesus is the only "Master" and he said so. He advised his disciples not to take on such "titles".

a reply to: Deetermined

Originally posted by Deetermined
If you knew the scriptures, you would have read enough of them to put them in context and know what Paul was saying.

In Paul's letters to the Corinthians, he mostly refers to himself in his introductions as either an apostle, a minister, and/or a steward of the Christian faith, as shown in 1 Corinthians 4:1 and several other starting verses in the Corinthians.

I was merely following the discussion between the Op and GBP/JPY…around the topic of Catholic Priests being named “Father”…

Originally posted by ServantoftheLamb
From the Op opening post
In his book, Nihilism, Father Seraphim Rose points out that…
…
…

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
But....first sentence you called some slob father......no

Bb....quit that....no one reverend....call no one father on this Earth.....have you not read.......

Originally posted by ServantoftheLamb
What does the source of the information have to do with it's truth value?

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
The truisms of life......call no one father on this Earth....

Starts with scripture.....right there......catholics are being made victims by not reading or knowing scripture

Catholics have clearly gotten the idea of calling priests Father from somewhere…and 1 Corinthians 4:14-16 looks like a likely candidate imo…

Originally posted by Deetermined
In verse 15, Paul refers to himself as "father" (informal lower case is important here) because he's trying to decide if he needs to play the role of an earthly father in disciplining his followers/children or not. See the last verse (21) in chapter 4 that helps to explain it. Paul has never asked Christian followers to call him "Father" (in upper case) or call him "father" at all. While he may refer to himself as being like that of a father, he never asks them to call him that or signs his letters that way.

It doesn’t’ matter if it’s lower case father or higher case…it’s still trying to take a position of authority over others…and there is only One Authority…

Paul stated clearly that he became their Father through the Gospel…by those very words he put’s himself up on a pedestal…Its clearly the language of someone who is trying to take sole control of the Christian movement, of which there were many competing versions at that time…

It’s the same reason why he is a self appointed Apostle, as it gives his voice more weight. But there are only 12 Apostles according to the Bible with Judas being replaced by Mathias…

If any leader tells his followers that he became their Father etc and refers to them as children, then they will naturally begin to call him father. So whether Paul asks to be called father are not, doesn’t matter as he’s clearly implying it in those verses in (1 Corinthians 4:14-16)

Also why is Paul even taking the role of calling his followers children, and himself as their father…Seems like he’s trying to take on the role of Jesus in those statements imo…Jesus said we are all brothers and that we have only one Father who is in Heaven…

Paul was clearly trying to become the head of the movement and uses constant double speak like in the style of a politician…praising Jesus on the one hand while also putting himself above everyone else on the other…

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

No matter how much you try to twist it, Paul did NOT have Christian followers refer to him as "Father" like Catholics do because the Bible speaks out against it.

Matthew 23:8-10

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

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

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

Here is why Paul made the statement he did in 1 Corinthians 4:15...

1 Corinthians 8:6

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Regardless, Paul would NEVER ask his followers to refer to him as "Father" because he knew better.

a reply to: Joecroft

Paul was clearly trying to become the head of the movement and uses constant double speak like in the style of a politician…praising Jesus on the one hand while also putting himself above everyone else on the other…

If you had read more of the Corinthian letters, you would know that's not true. However, it didn't stop the Catholics from trying to place Peter above all of the other apostles and consider him the first Pope, which is a title and position that Peter would never have claimed for himself either.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I like to use scientific and mathematical principles to form correspondences to truth. The following are just a few observations on my part.

1. Truth is logic (hence Logos) and light. Where frequencies of truth are placed in a coherent superposition, you get constructive interference, which brightens the light.

2. Non-truth is illogic and darkness. In this situation, frequencies of truth are misaligned, incoherent, so the result is destructive interference, which dims the light.

3. There are likely an infinite set of infinite densities of truth. I think of this as analogous to the hierarchy of numbers; integers, rationals, irrationals, non-algebraics, non-definables...etc. Or perhaps its easier to think of it like the Mandelbrot set.




4. Our observational frames of reference will always be limited, thus the infinite totality of Truth is an endless well of absolutes to us (in proportion to our understanding).

5. God, being omniscient, can observe all frames of reference, thus Truth is relative in His eyes alone.

[Isa 45:7 NASB] [7] The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

6. Revelation is a matter of asking and seeking without doubt or arrogance in the heart. Like the Mandelbrot set, it is an iterative process. You get revelation for as many question you can ask.

7. Perception of Truth is often a balance of rationality and irrationality (analogous to the mathematical definitions); in other words, objectivity vs subjectivity. It is important to realize that there are both rational and irrational forms of logic, as there are both rational and irrational forms of illogic. 1 + 1 = 2 is an example of rational logic. 1 / ϕ = ϕ - 1 is an example of irrational logic (in this case, ϕ represents the incommensurable Golden Ratio).


I often seem to find a way to wrap my ideas up in seven points. Must be an unconscious thing.