Women Priests

[Thomas]

Respectfully Thomas, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Here is a relevant part regarding the fulfillment of the Law you omitted.

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ​

~Matthew 5:19​

Jesus was referring to the Commandments, not to the New Covenant. You seem to think that Jesus' endorsement of the Commandments indicates his affirmation of the Old Covenant!

Respectfully, I think the error lies with you:
"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled."
Matthew 5:17-18

It would appear that Jesus is absolutely affirming the Covenant the Lord made with Israel ... theologically, God speaks in eternity, so His word is subject to no temporal condition or determination.

I think Jesus affirms His Father's word absolutely — I certainly challenge you to show me where Jesus refutes His Father's Word!

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

"Mystical Body of Christ" does not appear in the Bible.

No, but the term is a shorthand reference to a body of teaching that is explicit in the New Testament. What you mean is, it is not stated explicitly, and you can't see it.

But then — it is a Mystery — and that is what faith is all about.

Which is why I follow the light of tradition — the collective experience and indeed the 'winnowed wisdom' of 2,000 years' prayerful contemplation of Scripture, and not current popular opinion.

I'm not saying popular opinion is wrong, I'm saying it has to make its case, and if it's going to overturn tradition, then it has to make a very strong case.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Respectfully, I think the error lies with you:
"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18

It would appear that Jesus is absolutely affirming the Covenant the Lord made with Israel ...

As before, you seem intent on making inferences about the parameters of the New Covenant based on an affirmation of the Commandments.

I think Jesus affirms His Father's word absolutely — I certainly challenge you to show me where Jesus refutes His Father's Word!

I wouldn't look to Jesus to find justification for legalism and authoritarianism. We know Jesus broke Judaic Law on several occassions in order to affirm a Higher Law. His attitude toward the Commandments appears to reflect a similar commitment.

Jesus did not challenge the importance of obedience to G-d's word. Rather, he sought to highlight the spiritual motivation in which true obedience, dedication, and surrender are rooted. Let's look a little closer at Matthew 5:19. All of G-d's laws shall be fulfilled, even "the least of the commandments."

Jesus is not talking about merely observing the law. Rather, he is talking about perfecting obedience in the Spirit of Faith. To illustrate that commitment he sugegsts we are on the wrong track if we neglect lesser commands. Perfect obedience would extend to the least of the commandments.

In Post #62 you state: "when one loves God, the Law is seen not as a limitation, but as the real life." I would say that it is not the act of obedience that gives real life. It is love of God, which is reflected in obedience. Here we have the paradox of true obedience allowing for true freedom.

When we fully internalize G-d's expectations out of love for Him, we realize that obedience can express a willingness to be led that is based on love. Commitment is perhaps best seen, not so much as an attempt to muster up the courage and will-power to do the right thing. It's more like an openness to Divine influences that would involve that willingness to be led. The leadings of the Holy Spirit would be relevant here.

The perfection of obedience can be seen as an ongoing process that is not reducible to observing specific laws. Importantly, it's a matter of becoming a "living sacrifice" that is "holy and pleasing to G-d." This Becoming can be seen as a "spiritual act of worship" (Romans 12:1-2) that opens up yet additional possibilties for discovering G-d's will. Faith and Love reveal the structure of freedom.

 

[Thomas]

As before, you seem intent on making inferences about the parameters of the New Covenant based on an affirmation of the Commandments.

If you think otherwise, you've fundamentally misunderstood what Christianity is all about.

The Commandments are the terms and conditions of the Covenant with Israel:
"I will set my tabernacle in the midst of you, and my soul shall not cast you off. I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people ... But if you will not hear me, nor do all my commandments ... and to make void my covenant..."
Leviticus 26:1-15.

Might I add that the Covenant with Moses:
"If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine." Exodus 19:5, is followed by the Decalogue (Exodus 20).

The Commandments are not a set of onerous obligations, they are an invitation into the Divine Life, as is stated explicitly in the Pentateuch and by the Prophets, eg: "Hearken to my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people: and walk ye in all the way that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you" Jeremiah 7:23.

Even a cursory reading of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-8, shows clearly that not only is Jesus' teaching and the foundation of the Christian spiritual life is founded on the Ten Commandments:

Matthew 5:21:
You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill ... But I say to you ... ger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

That you assume to separate the Old and the New into two distinct and unrelated Covenants is to make the Marcion error of assuming the God of the Old Testament is not the God of the New. To suggest the Son would discard the Word of the Father is ridiculous. I don't know where you're getting your information from ... but I would seriously check the credentials of your sources — they seem to live in a world of their own imaginings.

To assume that Christ has done away with this ... the Covenant, the Mosaic Law, and the promises made by God ... and replaced them all with a Covenant with Himself, is simply nonsense.

+++

... We know Jesus broke Judaic Law on several occassions in order to affirm a Higher Law.

No, that's a fundamental error ... Jesus never broke the Law, such an idea is ridiculous — to do so would require He defy His Father, and commit a sin, indeed a blasphemy — rather He illuminates the higher in the lower ... it was and is the same Law, Jesus brings out the interior disposition of the soul rather than stress the outward form ... He illuminates the spirit of the letter, but the spirit does not abolish or break the letter.

If He did break the law, then in His own words He is a liar, for in Matthew 5:17 we read "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Assuming Jesus is not a liar, your argument is false.

Jesus did not challenge the importance of obedience to G-d's word. Rather, he sought to highlight the spiritual motivation in which true obedience, dedication, and surrender are rooted.

Which is what? Obedience, dedication and surrender to the Tradition by which you came to hear His word in the first place ... The Church.

All the rest is an intellectual exercise in self-justification. In the end you reduce morality and ethics to what you personally deem reasonable and desirable ... it is the philosophy of relativism.

If you really understood Scripture, you'd know you need the Church more than any reason you can dream up to excuse yourself from it.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hello Thomas,

In my previous post (#83), I noted that Jesus broke Judaic Law on several occassions in order to affirm a Higher Law. Your response was:

No, that's a fundamental error ... Jesus never broke the Law, such an idea is ridiculous — to do so would require He defy His Father, and commit a sin, indeed a blasphemy....If He did break the law, then in His own words He is a liar, for in Matthew 5:17 we read "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Assuming Jesus is not a liar, your argument is false.

When I said Jesus broke the law, which law do you think I was referring to, Thomas?

Why do you equate man-made moral laws with G-d's law? I was talking about the man-made additions/extensions to the Torah. I was not talking about the Commandments. In the Bible these additions/extensions are referred to as "traditions." They are rules and precepts that are sometimes identified as "oral law," referring to the way the means of transmission.

Jesus broke man-made moral laws as a comment on the values and attitudes of Pharisaic Judaism of the time. More generally, it was a commentary on the failure of rules to impart spiritual righteousness as well as the potentially idolatrous aspect of putting the outward observance of rules before reverence and service.

Why do you think the Pharisees were upset with Jesus? If there was no violation of their laws, then what was the bone of contention?


Based on Matthew 15:2, Jesus was not the only one to ignore some of the rules. The Apostles also refused to observe the man-made laws, leading to this confrontation:

Why do your disciples break the traditions of our ancestors? They do not wash their hands before they eat.​

Now, what was Jesus' answer when the scribes and Pharisees confronted Jesus on these rule violations? Here you are:

He said unto them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matthew 15:2)​

Jesus was making a sharp distinction between man-made moral laws and G-d's law. In light of that distinction - which is absolutely crucial to an understanding of Jesus' mission, and which has been widely discussed in relation to Jesus' attacks on Pharisaic Judaism - I'm puzzled that you would equate the two.

Jesus brings out the interior disposition of the soul rather than stress the outward form ... He illuminates the spirit of the letter, but the spirit does not abolish or break the letter.

How is that different from what I said in my Post #83 when I noted that Jesus affirmed a Higher Law when he called us to the perfection of obedience (e.g., Matthew 5:19)?

Obedience, dedication and surrender to the Tradition by which you came to hear His word in the first place ... The Church.

Your emphasis on tradition is puzzling given Jesus' adamant and at times rather dramatic attacks on it! Tradition is man made and for that reason will always be less important than the Higher Law Jesus was pointing out.


It should be noted that the New Testament specifically endorses breaking man-made laws in order to do G-d's will:

Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!" ~Acts 5:25-29​

Can it be any clearer than that?

 

[seattlegal]

Hello Thomas,

In my previous post (#83), I noted that Jesus broke Judaic Law on several occassions in order to affirm a Higher Law. Your response was:

When I said Jesus broke the law, which law do you think I was referring to, Thomas?

Why do you equate man-made moral laws with G-d's law? I was talking about the man-made additions/extensions to the Torah. I was not talking about the Commandments. In the Bible these additions/extensions are referred to as "traditions." They are rules and precepts that are sometimes identified as "oral law," referring to the way the means of transmission.

Jesus broke man-made moral laws as a comment on the values and attitudes of Pharisaic Judaism of the time. More generally, it was a commentary on the failure of rules to impart spiritual righteousness as well as the potentially idolatrous aspect of putting the outward observance of rules before reverence and service.

Why do you think the Pharisees were upset with Jesus? If there was no violation of their laws, then what was the bone of contention?


Based on Matthew 15:2, Jesus was not the only one to ignore some of the rules. The Apostles also refused to observe the man-made laws, leading to this confrontation:

Why do your disciples break the traditions of our ancestors? They do not wash their hands before they eat.​

Now, what was Jesus' answer when the scribes and Pharisees confronted Jesus on these rule violations? Here you are:

He said unto them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matthew 15:2)​

Jesus was making a sharp distinction between man-made moral laws and G-d's law. In light of that distinction - which is absolutely crucial to an understanding of Jesus' mission, and which has been widely discussed in relation to Jesus' attacks on Pharisaic Judaism - I'm puzzled that you would equate the two.


How is that different from what I said in my Post #83 when I noted that Jesus affirmed a Higher Law when he called us to the perfection of obedience (e.g., Matthew 5:19)?


Your emphasis on tradition is puzzling given Jesus' adamant and at times rather dramatic attacks on it! Tradition is man made and for that reason will always be less important than the Higher Law Jesus was pointing out.


It should be noted that the New Testament specifically endorses breaking man-made laws in order to do G-d's will:

Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!" ~Acts 5:25-29​

Can it be any clearer than that?

Matthew 15 is an excellent example of the voiding of God's law in order to vernerate the bureaucracy. Here is an example Jesus used to highlight this:

Matt 15:3-9
3 He answered them, "And why do you break God's commandment because of your tradition? 4 For God said:

Honor your father and your mother; and,

The one who speaks evil of father or mother

must be put to death.

5 But you say, 'Whoever tells his father or mother, "Whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift [committed to the temple]"— 6 he does not have to honor his father.' In this way, you have revoked God's word because of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said:

8 These people honor Me with their lips,

but their heart is far from Me.

9 They worship Me in vain,

teaching as doctrines the commands of men. "​

Notice how they choose to support the bureaucracy over supporting their father and mother? Is the law written on the tablet of their hearts, or on stony tablets of stone? (Hearts of stone?) Compare to Jeremiah 31.

Yeah, that seems to go back to Jeremiah 31:27-34, where everyone will have the law written on their heart, and no one will say "know the Lord," because they will all know God. Sour grapes will longer be propagated--past sins will be forgiven. There will no longer be a need for a (church) bureaucracy to contain the sour grapes.

That's probably why I don't really have a problem with women being excluded from the bureaucracy--the bureaucracy is not the be-all, end-all thing. The Holy Spirit, not the bureaucracy, is really where it's at.

Actually, having a portion of the spiritual church excluded from the bureaucracy would seem to be a protection against the corruption of the bureaucracy and the voiding of the spirit of the law to uphold the bureaucracy. The forbidding of questioning and critiquing the bureaucracy would be a sign of corruption within the bureaucracy, because it is putting the bureaucracy above the spirit of God, as the man of lawless in 2 Thess 2 does.

2 Thess 2:3-4
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way. For [that day] will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits in God's sanctuary, publicizing that he himself is God.​

Actually, if you check 2 Thess 2, Paul describes what Netti-Netti and you are discussing, calling it the 'apostasy' and 'the man of lawlessness.'

Paul's calling it the apostasy shows that this will occur within the Church, or body of Christ. It also says that it that "The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of His mouth and will bring him to nothing with the brightness of His coming." I would say that this is one instance where something is done away with via the Spirit, rather than perfected.

"The Lord Jesus will do away with the man of lawlessness with the breath of his mouth," just as Jesus did in Matt 15. However, it seems that the apostasy, or "man of lawlessness," will be so deluded that they will be unwilling to listen to correction from the Spirit, mistaking their delusion for the Holy Spirit, because the bureaucracy is their god, instead of God.

 

[Thomas]

In my previous post (#83), I noted that Jesus broke Judaic Law on several occassions in order to affirm a Higher Law ... When I said Jesus broke the law, which law do you think I was referring to, Thomas?

As you said 'Judaic Law' — that's the law I assume you're talking about. And my principle is still the same in that Jesus broke no laws.

Perhaps if you can show me a law you perceive as being broken by Him, I can clarify Scripture for you.

In the Bible these additions/extensions are referred to as "traditions."

Well that's a sweeping and factually inaccurate generalisation. Divine Revelation is also a constituent of the Judaic "tradition", as are the covenants with Noah and Abraham ... in fact in that sense Scripture is tradition — so you've created an artificial and erroneous distinction.

In reference to Matthew 15 — Jesus Himself counterpoints "the tradition of the ancients" with "the traditions of men". The point here is Jesus is showing a particular 'tradition' of Pharisaic practice to be false. He has not broken a law but highlighted a false practice.

In so doing He is pointing to the spirit within the letter, as opposed to the Pharisee who emphasise the letter rather than the spirit, and it is on this point that I make my point that Jesus broke no laws.

That the Phrasisees tried to catch Him out, and failed, demonstrates this — had they succeeded they could have brought Him berfore the court, but they never did, and so conspired with the Saducees to kill Him. At His trial the evidence fabricated against Him was thrown out ... up to the point where He inferred His own Divinity, He could have walked away.

+++

They are rules and precepts that are sometimes identified as "oral law," referring to the way the means of transmission.

Again a generalisation inclined to error ... all Scripture was oral tradition before written tradition.

Your emphasis on tradition is puzzling given Jesus' adamant and at times rather dramatic attacks on it!

Here your mistake opens out into a far more fundamental error — Jesus does not attack tradition, He teaches it, in the synagogues and elsewhere ... what He attacks falsehood.

You have fallen into the error of assuming that because He opposed a tradition, He opposes all tradition ... whereas in fact He asserts the authentic tradition in the face of error.

Tradition is man made and for that reason will always be less important than the Higher Law Jesus was pointing out.

The 'higher Law', by which I assume you mean Revelation is by definition tradition.

It should be noted that the New Testament specifically endorses breaking man-made laws in order to do G-d's will:

Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!" ~Acts 5:25-29​

If you read on, the Council acts on the wise words of the Pharisee Gamaliel:
"And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him."
Had the Apostles broken the law, then the Council could have tried them ... but there no charge brought against them, was there ... so no law was broken. Rather the Council preferred the Apostles did not preach, and the Apostles stated that they follow their calling ... this was not a matter of law or tradition, but of the politics of pragmatism.

+++

My constant line in this is to refute your attempts to reduce a sublime Mystery to a matter of mere political debate — and the reasoning behind it, which is to rationalise and justify rejecting those 'traditions/doctrines/dogmas' according to your own opinion.

... I noted that Jesus affirmed a Higher Law when he called us to the perfection of obedience (e.g., Matthew 5:19)?

If you believed that, you would see part of the perfection of obedience is towards the Church He founded, and put fidelity to that before your own opinions.

Without Christ, we can do nothing,
Without the Church, we would know nothing.

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

My constant line in this is to refute your attempts to reduce a sublime Mystery to a matter of mere political debate — and the reasoning behind it, which is to rationalise and justify rejecting those 'traditions/doctrines/dogmas' according to your own opinion.

... I noted that Jesus affirmed a Higher Law when he called us to the perfection of obedience (e.g., Matthew 5:19)?

If you believed that, you would see part of the perfection of obedience is towards the Church He founded, and put fidelity to that before your own opinions.
Without Christ, we can do nothing,
Without the Church, we would know nothing.

Thomas

Christians are called to be "obedient to the truth." I couldn't find any biblical passages that contained both "obey or obedience" and "church." {Perhaps you might know of some?}

I did, however, find a passage in 1 Timothy 3:15 , which describes the church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." This would be dependent upon the members of the church being obedient to the Truth, which would provide the foundation. From the human perspective, it is a bottom up, not a top-down action. That is why Christians obey the spirit over the teachings of men. It is the members of the church being obedient to the spirit of truth that gives strength to the church, not the members of the church being obedient to the church, which can bypass the Spirit of Truth.

Therefore, the judgement will begin with the members of God's household. Compare 1 Peter 4

17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with God's household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who disobey the gospel of God?​

Notice how obedience to the gospel of God is emphasized? It is emphasized because that is what makes the church a pillar of truth. Obedience to the church itself would be a self-referencing argument, which might not be grounded in truth.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Seattlegal —

I couldn't find any biblical passages that contained both "obey or obedience" and "church." {Perhaps you might know of some?}

The best I can offer is, of course, the classic text of Matthew 16, by which we can have faith in the Church, both as a reality, and as something indefectible in its content and infallible in its teaching.

The doctrine of the Church as the Body of Christ is founded across the Pauline Corpus, as well as in the text of John you yourself have quoted.

A scan of the Acts of the Apostles shows the Church existed in the Apostolic Era, and was functioning as an institution led by its bishops even at that early age ... it was also an object or calumny and persecution.

I did, however, find a passage in 1 Timothy 3:15 , which describes the church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth."

This would be dependent upon the members of the church being obedient to the Truth, which would provide the foundation...

I am inclined to disagree ... as this makes the Church subject to contingency, which is contrary to the Word of Christ. In Catholic eyes the Church is 'Perfect' as 'Truth' is perfect ... whereas man, of course, is imperfect ... so I would say that as Truth does not depend on man's fidelity to be true, so the Church does not depend on man's fidelity to be Church ...

From the human perspective, it is a bottom up, not a top-down action.

From an outside perspective opf course, for that is all that can be seen ... the Mystery can only be seen from within ... but from within, whilst a church is, as you say, bottom-up, a close reading of Matthew will show that the founding of the Church is indeed top-down, and a Trinitarian event. To paraphrase, The Church was made for man ... man did not make the Church.

That is why Christians obey the spirit over the teachings of men.

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 ...

It is the members of the church being obedient to the spirit of truth that gives strength to the church, not the members of the church being obedient to the church, which can bypass the Spirit of Truth.

Christ is the Spirit of Truth ... the Church is the Spirit of Christ ... ergo ...

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

Hi Seattlegal —


The best I can offer is, of course, the classic text of Matthew 16, by which we can have faith in the Church, both as a reality, and as something indefectible in its content and infallible in its teaching.

Matt 16:13-20
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15 "But you," He asked them, "who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!"

17 And Jesus responded, "Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven."

20 And He gave the disciples orders to tell no one that He was the Messiah.​

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.

The doctrine of the Church as the Body of Christ is founded across the Pauline Corpus, as well as in the text of John you yourself have quoted.

A scan of the Acts of the Apostles shows the Church existed in the Apostolic Era, and was functioning as an institution led by its bishops even at that early age ... it was also an object or calumny and persecution.

I did, however, find a passage in 1 Timothy 3:15 , which describes the church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth."
<...>
This would be dependent upon the members of the church being obedient to the Truth, which would provide the foundation...

I am inclined to disagree ... as this makes the Church subject to contingency, which is contrary to the Word of Christ. In Catholic eyes the Church is 'Perfect' as 'Truth' is perfect ... whereas man, of course, is imperfect ... so I would say that as Truth does not depend on man's fidelity to be true, so the Church does not depend on man's fidelity to be Church ...

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

From an outside perspective of course, for that is all that can be seen ... the Mystery can only be seen from within ... but from within, whilst a church is, as you say, bottom-up, a close reading of Matthew will show that the founding of the Church is indeed top-down, and a Trinitarian event. To paraphrase, The Church was made for man ... man did not make the Church.


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 ...


Christ is the Spirit of Truth ... the Church is the Spirit of Christ ... ergo ...

Thomas

Actually the church is the body of Christ or the bride of Christ. We are told to follow the spirit rather than the desires of the body. (Galatians 5:16-18) If we obey the Spirit of Truth, we are the living stones that builds the church, the body of Christ. (1 Peter 2:4, Romans 8:9) Just as the flesh is subject corruption (Galatians 6:1-10, especially verses 7-8,) 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.)

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. (Ephesians 5:22-32, especially verse 26.) Otherwise, we (the body of Christ--the church) are subject to corruption, because the truth will not be found in us.

 

[Netti-Netti]

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]

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 —

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.

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 ...

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 ...

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

Yes we are.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

... 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]

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?

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.

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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