Mr. Price,
I do not think you gave my questions any real direct answers, you just sort of side stepped a lot of them, which shows you still have those JW qualities lingering around.
You also missed my point that I did not refer to the typical child father relationship between a paternal man and his son. I am referring to the very express idea that Rabbi Yeshua was implementing which is that we are not to address one in a religious piety with that title of Father. He used a very specific Greek element there, addressing disciples. When a Rabbi in the first century took on disciples, it was common Torah knowledge (from the actual written Torah, not the oral) that only Yahweh is "Father" (pater) to a man. This is why way back when a "man leaves his mother and father".
G3962
pat?´? pate¯rpat-ayr'
Apparently a primary word; a "father" (literally or figuratively, near or more remote): - father, parent.
That is what he means. Joseph and others were not high priests. You are missing the general conception and inherent pragmatism here badly. Study more on this. It's pretty simple. You have taken a title upon yourself that really doesn't belong to you, unless you have literal children. If you are claiming to be a person in position of religious authority, you cannot be called "Father" is what Yeshua is relaying clearly. This has nothing to do with humble meek ones who want to "be a father" to someone else. You are however, in a position of headship in a church, therefore it is totally improper to be called "Father" when there is but One in that position according to the synoptic Matthew.
As far as Paul and his letters go, I do not accept them as actual revelations from God. I pretty much stick with the synoptics alone, as they have not been tainted by the Constantinian influences of Babylonian and other Scythian or Hellenistic view points. Paul is really just a spy for Rome actually. If you notice, he teaches against the practices of eating clean meats and keeping the Sabbath, etc, things that the Hebrew thoughts of Yeshua would want his disicples to plan to do the Sermon on the Mount that Yeshua of Nazareth (a fully human being, not God, and not immortal, just a prophet really) spoke.
You are obviously buying into the post conciliar creeds which did not exist during the life and ministry of Yeshua. The Gospel of John is also and should be rejected by anyone who has a simple collegiate knowledge of Gnosticism.
Let me ask you this, can you "cast out a demon" or "raise the dead"? If not, why not? And do you believe in the "Trinity" doctrine, and if so, why? Why have you decided to accept post conciliar creeds?
Barring a vague answer to that, here's a stickler for you: A contradiction, plainly from the Hebrew Rabbi Yeshua, that contradicts something "Paul" says:
Mat 5:17
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.Mat 5:18For verily I say unto you,Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.Mat 5:19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.But Paul says....
Eph 2:14
For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, Eph 2:15having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;Matt