SpookyAction

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@nick_matau Candace Derangement Syndrome

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@paleochristcon This back and forth is stupid. Just talk it out.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@Rach4Patriarchy Best commentators, not debators.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

Candace is putting on a clinic over how to manhandle a debate bro like Andrew. Take notes.

[Candace Owens @RealCandaceO]

All other minor details regarding opening statements, etc— can be ironed out offline. Just entirely unecessary and I’ve never seen anyone require this when agreeing to a debate.
It’s a discussion. The job of the moderator is to make sure people are given adequate time to respond and speak.
Do we have an agreement?

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@TheJewAbides What Bible are you referring to? Aint nothing in my Bible that says any of that!

Judah ain't Israel for starters - that title was given Joseph.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@Set2Fail71 @paleochristcon

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@jakerattlesnk Why do you spend so much time and energy glazing this dude?

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@PapaJoesBucket @CaudilloXIV Stupid comment. Can confirm.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

“Never a NT-mandated honorific” is the same sentence you’ve now typed four separate times in four separate ways. You’re not defending a position anymore, you’re repeating the concession and hoping repetition passes for an argument.

Here’s what actually happened in this thread. You admitted Paul never used “Father” as a title. You admitted “Teacher” was never a required address either. You admitted the parish practice “arose later” with no apostolic precedent. Every one of those is a concession, and none of them add up to “the line does not move.” The line already moved, three replies ago, when you agreed the practice you’re defending has zero basis in anything the apostles actually did or said.

Jesus said call no man father. Not “unless it becomes customary later.” Not “unless it’s relational instead of prideful.” He gave a command, in plain language, with no expiration and no carve-out for institutions that show up centuries afterward. You’ve spent this entire thread proving that carve-out doesn’t exist in the text. I’m done here. I see you.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

“Arose later” is the concession. You just admitted the practice has zero apostolic origin, it’s a post-apostolic development with no basis in anything Paul or the apostles actually did. That’s the whole case, made by you.

And “etiquette” doesn’t match reality. Etiquette is optional. Try addressing a priest without “Father” and see if it’s treated as a preference or a violation. You’re calling something mandatory-in-practice “customary” because the word choice is the only thing propping up the defense at this point.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

“No required ‘Teacher [Name]’ address appears, just as none for Father.” Read what you just wrote. You conceded there’s zero NT precedent for either word as a mandatory title of address. That’s my whole argument, in your own words.

So explain the parish then. If the NT standard is “functional description permitted, required title banned,” and you just admitted “Father” was never required, why is it required now. You didn’t save your position, you handed me the conclusion.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

“Freely used” needs a citation, not an assertion. Where does the NT ever have someone addressed as ‘Teacher [Name]’ or ‘Master [Name]’ as a required title, the way ‘Father’ is required in a parish? James 3:1 calls teaching a function, not a title of address. You can’t produce the parallel because it doesn’t exist.

And you’re contradicting your own concession from three replies ago. You already agreed the line is ‘relational description’ versus ‘required honorific,’ and that Paul never used the honorific. Now you’re claiming context erases that same line for a different word. Pick one standard and apply it consistently, you don’t get to use it when it saves you and drop it when it doesn’t.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

Nobody’s arguing ‘dad’ is banned, that’s a strawman and you know it. The text groups ‘father’ with ‘rabbi’ and ‘teacher,’ all three sit inside one category: titles of religious instruction and authority. That’s the entire point. Biological fathers aren’t rabbis. Priests are. You built a fake objection because the real one has no answer.

And you’re still smuggling. ‘Targets exaltation, not every parental word’ isn’t in the text either, that’s your gloss, dressed up as context. Jesus didn’t say ‘don’t crave the title father,’ he said ‘call no man father.’ You keep adding qualifiers because the plain command doesn’t have one.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

Show me ‘prideful’ or ‘ultimate’ in Matthew 23:9. They’re not there. Jesus says ‘call no man your father,’ no qualifier. You’re smuggling in words the text doesn’t have to build an escape hatch.

And ‘not required’ is just false. Walk into any Catholic or Orthodox parish and refuse to call the priest Father. It’s mandatory, not optional courtesy. You’re defending a required title using a hypothetical where it isn’t one.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

You just conceded the whole argument. You admitted Paul never used “Father” as a required honorific, only as a description of relational origin. That’s exactly the distinction Matthew 23:9 draws, and exactly the distinction the institutional priesthood erases when it makes “Father” a mandatory title of address for clergy, not a description anyone volunteers about their own spiritual history.

So which is it? Either “Father [Name]” as a formal clerical title is the honorific Jesus forbade, since by your own admission Paul never used it that way and the apostles are simply “Paul the apostle,” “Peter the apostle,” no titled honorific attached. Or you want to argue the church invented a category Paul himself never practiced and Jesus never sanctioned. You can’t hold both. You just proved the practice has zero apostolic precedent and you did it in your own words.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

You said this is metaphorical spiritual fatherhood, not the title Jesus forbids. Fine, then answer directly: does Paul ever instruct anyone to address him as ‘Father Paul,’ or use it as a formal title in any of his letters? Yes or no. Because if the answer is no, you’ve just conceded my point, since Matthew 23:9 forbids the title of address, not the concept of spiritual origin. And if you say yes, cite the verse.

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@grok @CalvZynisT @retardedgoy1 Does the NASB also have Paul saying "I became your father"?

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@grok @CalvZynisT @retardedgoy1 Why do you use the ESV? Why not the NASB?

[SpookyAction @SpookyAction33]

@grok @CalvZynisT @retardedgoy1 Lets see the full verse. Context might matter here given the differences in translations.