Do these scriptures apply to Catholics? these are from four different translations?

Yes, those scriptures do prove that Jesus call only Jehovah "...his father!

When he prayed to Jehovah he knew that he was God's only begotten son!

And the Bible says not to call anyone "Father" except ones only father...not the Catholic priest!

Jehovah said, "I give my glory to NO ONE ELSE!"

The scriptures apply to everyone--but not everyone believe them. There are many who are atheists (and they have the right to their opinion), but we must not side with them.

It also says "call no one teacher' (rabbi), That includes the principal (the head master teacher) at your school.

Look, Jesus was making an illustration, not poisoning words. He could equally well have said not to use these, either, since ultimately, God is all of them first and foremost:

* friend

* lover

* guide

* shepherd

* boss

* wife/husband

Here's a good (a little long) podcast on the topic from the late Thomas Hopko, a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, and former dean of their seminary. No slouch when it comes to scripture. It will be good to expand your horizons out of Chick tracts....

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/call_no...

Forgive me.

/Orthodox

ok fist and foremost what do the obscure bracketed lines even mean secondly making assumptions of what the Catholic Church teaches isn't gonna earn you any points with Christ either what this verse is condemning is a sense of religious hypocrisy that the Pharisees practiced which still happens today and undoubtedly is the case with some BAD priests it was referring to people that found a sense of pride in being called father or master but did not humbly recognize God the father religious leaders that are only concerned with status rather than the welfare of souls if it was referring to a metaphorical usage or even a religious usage of the term father it would not make sense for various prophets to have been referred to as father throughout the New Testament your argument is not only a misunderstanding of Catholic belief but the bible in general

Stupid liar you, who never reads the actual Bible. Both Paul and Jesus did NOT turn the other cheek when struck !! IT is in the NT. Yet there is no contradiction because only a person who has not read the Bible (or who does not know the distinction St Paul speaks of) could make such a stupid mistake :

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Call no man Father refers to giving no ultimate authority except to God.

Scriptures from God's word the Bible apply to every professed Christian and every professed Christian group.

Some, however, because they have religious titles - and not just Father - feel they have found a way to justify the titles - particularly the religious title of Father. This allows them to ignore that Christ very clearly denounced the use of religious titles.

Scriptures make it clear that Jesus' followers should not use them when addressing those men who take the lead in the congregation. So, there should be no addressing folks as Rabbi so-and-so, Right Reverend so-and-so, Father so-and-so, Most Holy so-and-so, Very Reverend so-and-so, Bishop so-and-so.

In their haste to justify, some Catholics suggest that if we were to follow Jesus' command, then we could not call our school teachers "Teacher," or college professors "Professor" and our own paternal father "Father." How silly. It should be obvious to every reasoning person that it is not improper to call your college professor "Professor" or to call your high school teacher "Teacher" or to call your parent "Father." Patently, Jesus is referring to religious titles; Matthew 23:5 points out the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees who loved the attention and distinction such titles gave.

Some Catholics point to Paul who refers to himself as the spiritual father of some. Yet nowhere in the record does anybody call him Father Paul. At 2 Peter 3:15, Peter called him "our beloved brother Paul."

Some point to the religious leaders who stated they had Abraham as their father. While it is true that when contending with Jesus in John 8:33-57, they said this, not one of them ever called him "Father Abraham."

Here is something I found extremely interesting when it was shown to me: the phrase "Holy Father" is found only once in scripture and is used by Jesus himself at John 17:11 where he prays to God on behalf of his disciples: "Holy Father, watch over them . . . " How curious, then, that one particular religious group refers to one particular human man as "Holy Father."

Catholics may also disregard Jesus' command because, frankly, all those honorary religious titles sound good to the ears. Really though, how do they sound to God?

Moreover, what is the effect of using honorary religious titles? Since they imply distinction and dignity, they create class distinctions. That is what you have today, is that not so? The clergy and the laity. But first century Christians had no class distinctions and were all brothers, even as Christ himself said. If class distinctions did come into play, they were dealt with. See James 2:4.

Titles that flatter and sound oh so good make men look high and lofty in the eyes of other men. But that is a disgusting thing to God. Luke 16:15.

Hannah J Paul

The American Standard says this at Matt 23:9) And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.

The King James says this) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Notice that both of these Bibles translate the word father and Father in the same verse, one has a capital “F” and the other is a small case letter “f”! Why the difference, the word father can be applied to your fleshly father (the little case letter “f”) when talking about our heavenly Father the letter “F” is capitalized! One is your ancestor which can be applied to your father’s father father etc. The Catholic are not your ancestors, they have taken the spiritual father role, one they are not entitled too! What they have done is installed creature worship into the Christian faith. The pagan Cybele cult was a trinity belief! The Cybele cult flourished on what is known as today's Vatican Hill. Cybele's lover Attis, was born of a virgin, died and was reborn annually. This spring festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday, rising to a crescendo after three days, in rejoicing over the resurrection. There was violent conflict on Vatican Hill in the early days of Christianity between the Jesus worshippers and pagans who quarrelled over whose God was the true, and whose the imitation. What is interesting to note here is that in the ancient world, wherever you had popular resurrected god myths, Christianity found lots of converts. So, eventually Christianity came to an accommodation with the pagan Spring festival. Although we see no celebration of Easter in the New Testament, early church fathers celebrated it, and today many churches are offering "sunrise services" at Easter – an obvious pagan solar celebration. The date of Easter is not fixed, but instead is governed by the phases of the moon, how pagan is that? So calling their priest father is only one of many pagan beliefs that the Catholic religion has adulterated into the Christian faith.

This is a form of speech called hyperbole - which is exaggeration to make a point.

He obviously doesn't mean you can't call your biological father. father. That would actually deprive the symbol of God's fatherhood of its meaning.

The point is not to confuse anybody on earth with God the Father (catholics don't do that).

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

See the link for the complete explanation.

Don't leave out the Jews, "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.".