Women Priests

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

If you believed that, you would see part of the perfection of obedience is towards the Church He founded

Hi Thomas, where does Jesus demand obedience to the Church (as distinct from obedience to G-d's will) ?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

where does Jesus demand obedience to the Church (as distinct from obedience to G-d's will) ?

How else do you know the will of God but through the Church?

Matthew 16:18-19
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Jesus willed the Church, so the Church exists by the Will of God, and logically and reasonably one might affirm that it exists for a reason.

The Church exists because God wills it, and furthermore it exists immune from error ('indefectible' is the technical term), and it exists with the authority to act in Jesus' name — to bind in law both in heaven and on earth.

The Direct Commission (along with the indirect, John 21:15-17):
Matthew 28:19-20
"Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Might I note here that 'observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' might well encompass that which is not contained in the written tradition, but is transmitted by oral tradition, or by the liturgical tradition, as the liturgy existed before the scripture.

John 10:14:
"I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me."

And moreover ...

"And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

In short ... if 'the will of God' as we perceive it contradicts the will of the Church, it's a safe bet to assume it is we who are wrong.

It is certainly the case that God does not will conflict in His own house, so here the saintly virtues of prudence and humility come into play — at the very least, if we had any sense at all we should put the will of God before ourselves.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi seattlegal —

Originally Posted by seattlegal

To me, it seems that Jesus would build his church upon the foundation [rock]
that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Well that is axiomatic ... but it is not the context of the quoted Scripture — the whole moment turns on Peter's confession, on Peter's response to the question ... Jesus can announce Himself at any time, but it is when Peter sees something which could not be reached by human reason unaided but only by faith ... the Father's revelation of the Son ... it is this upon which He will build His Church.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

You don't believe that the church is dependent upon the Spirit?

Absolutely ... the Church is one in spirit and in body, as we are one, in spirit and in body ...

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Actually the church is the body of Christ[/COLOR] or the bride of Christ.

I would say both ... both are analogies of a deeper mystery ... so the analogy is context-dependent.

One element of which is the Church is a societal organisation ... a body of people in unity ... so the idea of a separate or invisible church that is a spiritual unity but not a physical unity is an illusion, that's like a body in which every cell is completely independent of the other, and doing its own thing ...

Originally Posted by seattlegal

We are told to follow the spirit rather than the desires of the body.

Yes we are.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

If we obey the Spirit of Truth, we are the living stones that builds the church, the body of Christ.

As long as well allow ourselves to be formed by the Spirit and not vice versa. Thus the Church will always be more than we are, and ask all that we have to give. That's the bit people don't like.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Just as the flesh is subject corruption we are told that the body of Christ is also subject to corruption that will occur with those who do not believe the truth. (2 Thess 2, especially verse 3 and verses 11-12.)

I think that's a misreading. The truth remains inviolate, it is we who are subject to corruption when we fall away from the truth, but that does not make the truth untrue.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

As the bride of Christ, we are instructed to submit to our husband, the Spirit of Christ, or the Spirit of Truth. It is the Spirit of Christ that makes the church holy, not the other way around.

Yes ... so we should be subject to the Church because she is the Bodily form of the Spirit of Christ ... something we are not ... She is a light in the world, as it were ... without that light the Spirit of Christ is occluded and inaccessible.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Otherwise, we (the body of Christ--the church) are subject to corruption, because the truth will not be found in us.

Precisely ... the truth is not found in us, but in the Church.

I am not the Body of Christ, I am a member of the Body of Christ, and therefore in that sense in and of the Body of Christ, as long as I am in full communion with the Church.

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

How else do you know the will of God but through the Church?

The first time G-d communicates His desire to obeyed appears in Genesis 2:15-17

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...."

Note: there was no church and there was no priesthood. G-d communicated with Adam directly.

Originally Posted by Thomas

... the truth is not found in us, but in the Church.

Some would contend that the Bible is the Word of G-d and that our understanding of the truth derives from the Word. I'm sure there's an explanation for discrepant views on the subject of G-d's Truth.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi seattlegal —


Well that is axiomatic ... but it is not the context of the quoted Scripture — the whole moment turns on Peter's confession, on Peter's response to the question ... Jesus can announce Himself at any time, but it is when Peter sees something which could not be reached by human reason unaided but only by faith ... the Father's revelation of the Son ... it is this upon which He will build His Church.

Isn't that what I said, (I even highlighted those parts of the scripture in blue) with the added part about Christ being resurrected from the dead?

Originally Posted by seattlegal

To me, it seems that Jesus would build his church upon the foundation [rock]
that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Jesus said that was revealed by Spirit, not by flesh and blood. It seems that {Jesus being the Messiah} is what the forces of Hades will not overpower, because Christ was resurrected from the dead, imo.

Absolutely ... the Church is one in spirit and in body, as we are one, in spirit and in body ...

I would put the emphasis on the one spirit, because that is the causative part that knits the body members together.

One element of which is the Church is a societal organisation ... a body of people in unity ... so the idea of a separate or invisible church that is a spiritual unity but not a physical unity is an illusion, that's like a body in which every cell is completely independent of the other, and doing its own thing ...

It's the Spirit that knits the body members together, imo, and not the other way around. The other way around would be more like the Tower of Babel, constructed from burned bricks, instead of living stones that builds the church.

I think that's a misreading. The truth remains inviolate, it is we who are subject to corruption when we fall away from the truth, but that does not make the truth untrue.

Which part is a misreading? I never said that the truth is untrue.

Yes ... so we should be subject to the Church because she is the Bodily form of the Spirit of Christ ... something we are not ... She is a light in the world, as it were ... without that light the Spirit of Christ is occluded and inaccessible.

Perhaps in the context of Matt 18

18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

It only takes two or three gathered together, not a bureaucracy, for the Spirit of Christ to shine through.

Precisely ... the truth is not found in us, but in the Church.

I would say that the truth is from the Holy Spirit, not from the Church. To say it is from the Church leaves the bypassing of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, open, leaving the church vulnerable to corruption.

I am not the Body of Christ, I am a member of the Body of Christ, and therefore in that sense in and of the Body of Christ, as long as I am in full communion with the Church.

Thomas

I agree that we are members of the body of Christ. Full communion with the Church, or with the Spirit? (Remember, Jesus said where two are three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them.)

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

How else do you know the will of God but through the Church?

Matthew 16:18-19
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Jesus willed the Church, so the Church exists by the Will of God, and logically and reasonably one might affirm that it exists for a reason.

Church? Surely that wasn't the word used....were their churches then? Anyone help with the Aramaic or Greek?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by wil

Church? Surely that wasn't the word used....were their churches then? Anyone help with the Aramaic or Greek?

Strong's number 1577 Ekklesia

a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
the assembly of the Israelites
any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
in a Christian sense
an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

-source-

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Church? Surely that wasn't the word used....were their churches then? Anyone help with the Aramaic or Greek?

I believe the term was Eccliaste, (pardon the spelling).

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Strong's number 1577 Ekklesia

a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

the assembly of the Israelites

any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

in a Christian sense

an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

-source-

Oh damn, sorry Sea. You got it already.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The first time G-d communicates His desire to obeyed appears in Genesis ...

My point is that the Church wrote the New Testament ... if someone had not caused the oral tradition to be written down, it would have been lost ... Scripture does not exist independent of the Tradition.

BTW ... you have previously argued that the New Covenant is not dependent upon the Old, now you're arguing the Old Testament to make your case ... this is the kind of logical inconsistency that undermines you argument.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Note: there was no church and there was no priesthood. G-d communicated with Adam directly.

C'mon ... you're really clutching at straws now ... I suggest there were significant differences between life in the Garden, and life in Judea, or life today ... and for that very reason Christ instituted a Church (Matthew 16:16), and a priesthood (John 21:15-17) without which, there would be no Bible for you to quote at me.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Some would contend that the Bible is the Word of G-d and that our understanding of the truth derives from the Word.

Some might, but then again usually on the basis that they already know everything they need or want to know, or that because they can read they assume they understand what they have read ... it's a position which can easily be demonstrated to be a self-serving fallacy.

Look around ... there's a thousand different versions of Christianity out there, and today more than ever everyone preserves their right to invent a new one as they see fit ...

The Reformers called it sola Scriptura — and they were very quick to put to the stake those who saw something other than they.

The big error, of course, is assuming that because one can read something, one can understand it. For a start there's a matter of epistemology, then philosophy, then metaphysics ... and more than that the fact that Revelation is unlike any other form of communication ... and ultimately words are trying to express something, the heart of which is inexpressible ... so if you want access to the Mysteries, that is the meat, not the milk, as St Paul might say, you're going to need instruction.

Thomas

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by wil

Church? Surely that wasn't the word used....were their churches then? Anyone help with the Aramaic or Greek?

Hey, I just learned something new.
Compare the word Ekklesia, translated as "church" from Matt 16 above with Sunago, the word translated as "gathered together" from Matt 18 below:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Perhaps in the context of Matt 18:18-20

18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

Strong's number 4863 Sunago

to gather together, to gather
to draw together, collect
of fishes
of a net in which they are caught
to bring together, assemble, collect
to join together, join in one (those previously separated)
to gather together by convoking
to be gathered i.e. come together, gather, meet
to lead with one's self
into one's home, i.e. to receive hospitably, to entertain

It's the verb form of the word synagogue
It's interesting how "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever will be loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven" is applied to both terms. Any ideas regarding this? Is one term used for those who bind, and the other term used for those who loose? Ekklesia seems to suggest being called out of their homes by authority, whereas Sunago suggests people being drawn together like fish in a net. Interesting.

[Thomas]

Hi Seattlegal —

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Isn't that what I said....

What I meant is the Church is founded by Christ on Peter's confession, it's founded on Faith ... not on Christ's own self-identification ... and the forces of Hades will not overcome the Church, not not overcome Jesus ... the Church is the object of the discourse, not Christ Himself. I don't think the text supports your thinking.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I would put the emphasis on the one spirit, because that is the causative part that knits the body members together.

So would I, but I would take care to retail the holistic view, and not slip into dualism, of seeing a visible and an invisible, or physical and spiritual, church as two separate entities — that's the error of 'esoteric Christianity'

... if there is no body, there is no House of the Spirit ...

The Body ... the Church ... is the visible form of the Spirit, it's the means by which the Spirit manifests Itself, and transmits Itself to the world. No Church ... no Spirit ...

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Which part is a misreading? I never said that the truth is untrue.

Man can become corrupt, but not the Church.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Matthew 18:18
19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”[/indent]It only takes two or three gathered together, not a bureaucracy, for the Spirit of Christ to shine through.

What is the Church if not 'gathered together in His name'?

This is a favourite text of those who seek to validation of their own autonomy in the face of the Holy Spirit by declaring independence of the Church, and thus independence of Christ and the system He put in place for their salvation ... by their rule, any two people who decide they're 'gathered in Christ's name' obliges Christ to endorse them ... which would be patently ridiculous.

Therefore 'gathered in Christ name' is a conditional statement, in that it is only effective if it comes from the heart and not the will or the ego ... in effect they're saying "I don't need the Church because Christ is with me" which is a nonsense ...

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I would say that the truth is from the Holy Spirit, not from the Church.

I would say the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church — Not through individuals.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

To say it is from the Church leaves the bypassing of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, open, leaving the church vulnerable to corruption.

No, it understands that the Holy Spirit guarantees the Church, more to the point, without the Church people are free to interpret Scripture any which way they choose, and the Holy Spirit doesn't even get a look in.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I agree that we are members of the body of Christ. Full communion with the Church, or with the Spirit?

Same thing. If not in communion with the Church, then not in communion with the Spirit in the fullness of the Spirit ...

Take the dialogue on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24). In the traditional exegesis, there are two travellers on the road. One is Cleophas, but the second is not named ... the Fathers teach it is you and I:

"And it came to pass that while they talked and reasoned with themselves, Jesus himself also, drawing near, went with them. But their eyes were held, that they should not know him."
This is the position of those outside the veil.

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things that were concerning him."
But Christ is not 'present' in such a manner today ... so the Church stands in His place as the authoritative exegesis on Scripture ... for even then these people knew the Scripture, had seen things with their own eyes ... and yet did not yet understand ... how much harder today then ... when everything is in doubt?

"And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread and blessed and brake and gave to them. And their eyes were opened: and they knew him. And he vanished out of their sight."
This is the Eucharist ... it is at the heart of the Church ... and this was why the Church was instituted, to open the eyes of man to the truth ...

+++

Whatever we say ... we are not infallible, and yet to claim one has no need of the Church is to claim an infallibility and an indefectibility which is self-evidently utter nonsense.

Thomas

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Seattlegal —


What I meant is the Church is founded by Christ on Peter's confession, it's founded on Faith ... not on Christ's own self-identification ... and the forces of Hades will not overcome the Church, not not overcome Jesus ... the Church is the object of the discourse, not Christ Himself. I don't think the text supports your thinking.

Would you say that revelation from the Spirit that Jesus is the Messiah is the bedrock foundation?

So would I, but I would take care to retail the holistic view, and not slip into dualism, of seeing a visible and an invisible, or physical and spiritual, church as two separate entities — that's the error of 'esoteric Christianity'

... if there is no body, there is no House of the Spirit ...

The Body ... the Church ... is the visible form of the Spirit, it's the means by which the Spirit manifests Itself, and transmits Itself to the world. No Church ... no Spirit ...

Didn't the Spirit reveal to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah before the founding of the church? I would say that this is a pretty good sign that there is Spirit without the church.

Man can become corrupt, but not the Church.

I agree man can become corrupt. It is what corrupts the church with the Spirit of the Antichrist. Here is where one must really identify what one means by 'church.' Does it refer to the body of Christ knitted together by the Spirit, (the meaning I prefer) or does it mean the physical church, which was being infested by the Spirit of the Antichrist even in biblical times? (1 John 2, 1 John 4, 2 John 1) This distinction is by no means esoteric, imo. It is repeated throughout the New Testament. It can't be swept under the carpet, nor can the two be used interchangibly.

What is the Church if not 'gathered together in His name'?

Exactly. No mention of a required bureaucracy.

This is a favourite text of those who seek to validation of their own autonomy in the face of the Holy Spirit by declaring independence of the Church, and thus independence of Christ and the system He put in place for their salvation ... by their rule, any two people who decide they're 'gathered in Christ's name' obliges Christ to endorse them ... which would be patently ridiculous.

When you take the above perspective with the this one from your previous post...

Originally Posted by Thomas

But you know as well as I that left alone, it is amazing how quickly the voice of the spirit and the voice of the ego coincide ... indeed left alone, man has no way of knowing which is which ...

...you pretty much have the description of "the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition" from 2 Thess 2, aka, the Antichrist.

Therefore 'gathered in Christ name' is a conditional statement, in that it is only effective if it comes from the heart and not the will or the ego ... in effect they're saying "I don't need the Church because Christ is with me" which is a nonsense ...

I would have to agree with you that speaking out of one's own desires/ego and confusing it with the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Error, rather than the Spirit of Truth. 2 Thess 2 describes this as "strong delusion."

Now, I would venture to say that one's desires/ego can become attached to the bureaucracy of the 'physical church' (as described above) just as easily as one's desires/ego can become attached to ones self. Both can lead to delusion that can corrupt the 'physical church.' We have plenty of examples of how good people can become twisted by bureaucracy, especially when they put their own standing within the bureaucracy before the original purpose of the bureaucracy.

I would say the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church — Not through individuals.

I would say that the Spirit speaks through the (individual) members of the body of Christ.

No, it understands that the Holy Spirit guarantees the Church, more to the point, without the Church people are free to interpret Scripture any which way they choose, and the Holy Spirit doesn't even get a look in.

Again, here we must identify precisely what we mean by Church. If you refer to the body of Christ knit together by the Holy Spirit, I would have to agree. If you refer to a bureaucracy within the 'physical church,' I would have to say that even that is subject to corruption due to ego attachment, attachment to money, or other human problems.

Same thing. If not in communion with the Church, then not in communion with the Spirit in the fullness of the Spirit ...

Again, it would depend precisely upon what you refer to when you say 'church.'

Take the dialogue on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24). In the traditional exegesis, there are two travellers on the road. One is Cleophas, but the second is not named ... the Fathers teach it is you and I:

"And it came to pass that while they talked and reasoned with themselves, Jesus himself also, drawing near, went with them. But their eyes were held, that they should not know him."
This is the position of those outside the veil.

Was the veil of the Sanctuary not ripped from top to bottom when Jesus was crucified?

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things that were concerning him."
But Christ is not 'present' in such a manner today ... so the Church stands in His place as the authoritative exegesis on Scripture ... for even then these people knew the Scripture, had seen things with their own eyes ... and yet did not yet understand ... how much harder today then ... when everything is in doubt?

I would keep this scripture handy:

Matt 23
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees are seated in the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore do whatever they tell you and observe [it]. But don't do what they do, because they don't practice what they teach. 4 They tie up heavy loads that are hard to carry and put them on people's shoulders, but they themselves aren't willing to lift a finger to move them. 5 They do everything to be observed by others: They enlarge their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. 6 They love the place of honor at banquets, the front seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called ' Rabbi' by people.

8 "But as for you, do not be called 'Rabbi,' because you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your Father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called masters either, because you have one Master, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You lock up the kingdom of heaven from people. For you don't go in, and you don't allow those entering to go in.

"And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread and blessed and brake and gave to them. And their eyes were opened: and they knew him. And he vanished out of their sight."
This is the Eucharist ... it is at the heart of the Church ... and this was why the Church was instituted, to open the eyes of man to the truth ...

+++

Whatever we say ... we are not infallible, and yet to claim one has no need of the Church is to claim an infallibility and an indefectibility which is self-evidently utter nonsense.

Thomas

Again, it would depend upon exactly what you mean by 'church.' I would not say that rejecting a bureaucracy is rejecting the church, nor is it claiming infallibility and indefectibility. (Like some bureaucracies claim infallibility and indefectibility.)

[Netti-Netti]

I would say the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church — Not through individuals.

The Old Testament included numerous references to the Holy spirit, especially in relation to the Prophets.....

They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the L-RD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets.

~ Zechariah 7:12

Nehemiah described the L-rd's ongoing relationship with the Israelites as having involved the Holy Spirit:

You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. ~Nehemiah 9:20


For many years you were patient with them. By your Spirit you admonished them through your prophets. ~Nehemiah 9:30

One of the more remarkable OT references to the Holy Spirit suggests a universal possibility of universal prophethood for "all the L-rd's people" who have been commissioned by the Holy Spirit:

Moses asked "Do you think you need to stand up for me? I wish all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them." ~ Numbers 11:29

Clearly there is no sense of ecclesiastic exclusivity here.

[Vajradhara]

/begin moderator action/

moving thread to Belief and Spirituality

/end moderator action/