Why shoud you not call anyone Reverand....This I don't know. Please give me as many bible verses to prove that no man should be called Rev...I know someone that I talk to here that is of the COC and he told me that. We don't have any in the Apostolic church I attend but I would like to know your reasons why with bible proof if you don't mind.
To Dr H. (Question...Just curious)
- Thread starter Dwayne
- Start date
Psalms 111:9
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
But I think people misinterpret what this verse mean.
In this verse it is used as an adjective which means worthy of adoration or reverence.
When used to describe a clergy, it is used as a noun.
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
But I think people misinterpret what this verse mean.
In this verse it is used as an adjective which means worthy of adoration or reverence.
When used to describe a clergy, it is used as a noun.
Killer Bees
Well-Known Member
I think "Reverand" was only mention one time in the Bible and it was in reference to God.
I am curious about what the scripture was again.
I am curious about what the scripture was again.
My pastor calls himself "Kirbyjon Hines Caldwell"...
BLAQUE PRINCE
Fug <insert your school here>!
While I can't remeber the sermon or scripture that I was told about I did notice something for myself about the word reverend.
The word reverend refers to a person that is to be revered. A synonym for revered according to Webster is WORSHIP. Which seems to make a reverend a person to be worshipped.
It did however also list reverend as a title for a member of the clergy.
The word reverend refers to a person that is to be revered. A synonym for revered according to Webster is WORSHIP. Which seems to make a reverend a person to be worshipped.
It did however also list reverend as a title for a member of the clergy.
Dr H..
Active Member
True the actual word color=red] "reverend" [/color]appears only once in the bible [and it is talking about God". However, it appears contexually translated in many other forms based on the Hebrew origin of the word. I know some do not believe that ?language? is important. But it is and once you start teaching, studying and preaching based on the context ?Hermeneutics and Exegesis? of the scripture, you will blow some church members mind.
Just looking at the Hebrew definition tells us that no man is ?Reverend? Consider, if God intended for a person the be called ?Reverend, that wound contradict
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28.
The word ?Reverend is "norah" is from "yare" (yah-REH1)
to fear, revere, be afraid
a) (Qal)
1) to fear, be afraid
2) to stand in awe of, be awed
3) to fear, reverence, honour, respect
b) (Niphal)
1) to be fearful, be dreadful, be feared
2) to cause astonishment and awe, be held in awe
3) to inspire reverence or godly fear or awe
c) (Piel) to make afraid, terrify
It is also translated as:
fear (188), afraid (78), terrible (23), terrible thing (6), dreadful (5), reverence (3), fearful (2), terrible acts (1),
Side not: if you look at alle the definitions they include all the attributes of God.
==
Just looking at the definition of the word, a preacher could have folks walkiong the pews, he could say:
Preaching Voice
look church folks, the bible say to reverend God, that is a Qual perfect, in the Hebrew,meaning that you do not have a choice, it is a command directly from God, the He and He alone is reverend.
I mean that you better!!!
fear, be afraid, stand in awe of, honour, respect the Almighty God. Because Reverend is "HIS NAME" That's why I know a man is not "reverend and should not be called such.
The word is a noun describing God and God alone.
[side note, you will be surprise on the number of members that does not know the parts of speech. By doing this you are educating the congregation spiritually and secularly]
==
Man let me tell you, I could have a congregation running up and down the isle just on the word "reverened" based on the definition.
I would close by asking the congregation - What is God to you?
Just looking at the Hebrew definition tells us that no man is ?Reverend? Consider, if God intended for a person the be called ?Reverend, that wound contradict
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28.
The word ?Reverend is "norah" is from "yare" (yah-REH1)
to fear, revere, be afraid
a) (Qal)
1) to fear, be afraid
2) to stand in awe of, be awed
3) to fear, reverence, honour, respect
b) (Niphal)
1) to be fearful, be dreadful, be feared
2) to cause astonishment and awe, be held in awe
3) to inspire reverence or godly fear or awe
c) (Piel) to make afraid, terrify
It is also translated as:
fear (188), afraid (78), terrible (23), terrible thing (6), dreadful (5), reverence (3), fearful (2), terrible acts (1),
Side not: if you look at alle the definitions they include all the attributes of God.
==
Just looking at the definition of the word, a preacher could have folks walkiong the pews, he could say:
Preaching Voice
look church folks, the bible say to reverend God, that is a Qual perfect, in the Hebrew,meaning that you do not have a choice, it is a command directly from God, the He and He alone is reverend.
I mean that you better!!!
fear, be afraid, stand in awe of, honour, respect the Almighty God. Because Reverend is "HIS NAME" That's why I know a man is not "reverend and should not be called such.
The word is a noun describing God and God alone.
[side note, you will be surprise on the number of members that does not know the parts of speech. By doing this you are educating the congregation spiritually and secularly]
==
Man let me tell you, I could have a congregation running up and down the isle just on the word "reverened" based on the definition.
I would close by asking the congregation - What is God to you?
Dr H..
Active Member
This is why I reject the weareing of "religious" titles
There is no NT authority for the practice. I can not find any where that Paul, Peter, Timothy, James, John,Matthew, Mark, Luke, Judas, Timothy, ever wore titles like those I mentioned in my previous comment. Thats why I know that the Catholics are in error when they say Peter was the first Pope. In fact, the word Pope is not in the Bible.
Jesus refered to Peter as the rock and not the Pope.
Jesus forbided the practice of religious titles [Matthew 23:8-10] Why
It exalts man too highly - 1 Cor. 4:6, Acts 10:26, Rev. 22:9
Why not just call individuals what God call them?
There is no NT authority for the practice. I can not find any where that Paul, Peter, Timothy, James, John,Matthew, Mark, Luke, Judas, Timothy, ever wore titles like those I mentioned in my previous comment. Thats why I know that the Catholics are in error when they say Peter was the first Pope. In fact, the word Pope is not in the Bible.
Jesus refered to Peter as the rock and not the Pope.
Jesus forbided the practice of religious titles [Matthew 23:8-10] Why
It exalts man too highly - 1 Cor. 4:6, Acts 10:26, Rev. 22:9
Why not just call individuals what God call them?
docmump
The Arch Nemesis
Dr H.. said:
Dr. H.
When I first found out that Peter was the first Pope, I did a search on the web. This was about 4 yrs ago. Peter was first post based upon the scripture you posted. He is the rock and their foundation [The Catholic Church]. Even though Pope is not in the Bible.
Dr H..
Active Member
Roman Catholic tradition states that the Apostle Peter was the first pope, the first bishop of Rome. Is this claim true? Does the testimony of Scripture and history provide any validate of this claim?
Not to offend anyone
I can not find any scripture of secular information where Peter ever served as a Pope or Bishop of Rome. I could be wrong but I can not find any scripture to support the idea of Peter being in Rome.
According Hyppolytus, the first bishop of Rome was Linus, not Peter. How can Rome claim Peter as first Bishop of Rome?
SOURCE: Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End.)
From: Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII:
"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:--James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter.
My Question:
So, how could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive if Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Papal succession occurrs after a pope's death right? If Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.
If Peter was the Pope, logically / spiritually you would expect him to be giving the orders, not the other way around, right? According to, the Bible records just the opposite occured. There was a serious dispute between Peter and Paul, and Paul was the apostle giving the orders to Peter and correcting Peter for Peter's most hypocrisy [Galatians 2:11-21]
Observe
Paul chastised Peter.
Note: If Peter was the Pope, Paul should have been been dealt with by Peter and the other church leaders [with drawn from].
Paul accused Peter of commiting a sin!
He told Peter that he "did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel."
Paul telling Peter, the first pope that he sinned!!!
What Paul was doing was telling Peter that he was teaching a false doctrine. Paul had to rebuke Peter and straighten him out.
You may want to purchase a copy of this book. If you can not find one let me know.
Jesus' intention to make Simon Peter the foundation "rock" of his Church ( Mt 16:18).
The Catholic Church is not the Church of the Lord.
Not to offend anyone
I can not find any scripture of secular information where Peter ever served as a Pope or Bishop of Rome. I could be wrong but I can not find any scripture to support the idea of Peter being in Rome.
According Hyppolytus, the first bishop of Rome was Linus, not Peter. How can Rome claim Peter as first Bishop of Rome?
SOURCE: Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End.)
From: Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII:
"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:--James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter.
My Question:
So, how could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive if Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Papal succession occurrs after a pope's death right? If Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.
If Peter was the Pope, logically / spiritually you would expect him to be giving the orders, not the other way around, right? According to, the Bible records just the opposite occured. There was a serious dispute between Peter and Paul, and Paul was the apostle giving the orders to Peter and correcting Peter for Peter's most hypocrisy [Galatians 2:11-21]
Observe
Paul chastised Peter.
Note: If Peter was the Pope, Paul should have been been dealt with by Peter and the other church leaders [with drawn from].
Paul accused Peter of commiting a sin!
He told Peter that he "did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel."
Paul telling Peter, the first pope that he sinned!!!
What Paul was doing was telling Peter that he was teaching a false doctrine. Paul had to rebuke Peter and straighten him out.
You may want to purchase a copy of this book. If you can not find one let me know.
Jesus' intention to make Simon Peter the foundation "rock" of his Church ( Mt 16:18).
The Catholic Church is not the Church of the Lord.
Blacknbengal
Well-Known Member
Interesting................Dr H.. said: