Women Priests

[seattlegal]

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:

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 —

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.

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 ...

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

Man can become corrupt, but not the Church.

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 ...

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.

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.

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]

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?

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 ...

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.

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.”​

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

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...

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.

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.

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/

 

[Thomas]

The Old Testament included numerous references to the Holy spirit...

But Judaism does not recognise the Holy Trinity, nor does it recognise the references to the Person of Jesus Christ or the Person of the Holy Spirit as Christian exegetes do ... so you'd have to interpret those texts according to Christian exegesis.

The Holy Trinity is uniquely and exclusively (traditional) Christian.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

But Judaism does not recognise the Holy Trinity, nor does it recognise the references to the Person of Jesus Christ or the Person of the Holy Spirit as Christian exegetes do ... so you'd have to interpret those texts according to Christian exegesis.

We weren't talking about Judaism. We were talking about Christianity and seeing the Church as the gatekeeper for the Holy Spirit. You said "I would say the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church — Not through individuals." This is clearly not the case.

The examples I gave you from the Old Testament indicated that the Holy Spirit was regarded as a source of inspiration and guidance for the old Prophets and for the Israelites. This is fairly close to the function ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. It seems to me that the "Christian" view of the Holy Spirit reflects an Old Testament concept rather directly.

The Holy Trinity is uniquely and exclusively (traditional) Christian.

Thomas, how many times does the word Trinity appear in the Bible? Allow me to save you the trouble of looking it up: not even once.

The concept of the Trinity was introduced in 325 A.D., while Emperor Constantine and some Bishops were having their afternoon cuppa. As an aside, Constantine was not even baptized at the time, meaning that the Church owes key doctrine to a nonChristian!

The concept of the Trinity actually did not become official dogma until it was codified by the Catholic church at the council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

 

[seattlegal]

Don't forget the time in Acts 10 when the Holy Spirit came to the Gentiles even before they were baptized into the church.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Don't forget the time in Acts 10 when the Holy Spirit came to the Gentiles even before they were baptized into the church.

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

​

I expect Thomas would reaffirm the gatekeeping role of the Apostles/Priests and argue that this happened because of Peter.

 

[seattlegal]

Peter's vision preceding the Holy Spirit coming to the Gentiles:

Acts 10:9-16, 24-26
Peter's Vision
9 The next day, as they were traveling and nearing the city, Peter went up to pray on the housetop at about noon. 10 Then he became hungry and wanted to eat, but while they were preparing something he went into a visionary state. 11 He saw heaven opened and an object coming down that resembled a large sheet being lowered to the earth by its four corners. 12 In it were all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, and the birds of the sky. 13 Then a voice said to him, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat!"

14 "No, Lord!" Peter said. "For I have never eaten anything common and unclean!"

15 Again, a second time, a voice said to him, "What God has made clean, you must not call common." 16 This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into heaven.
<...>
24 The following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and worshiped him.

26 But Peter helped him up and said, "Stand up! I myself am also a man."​

So much for the gatekeeper theory.

 

[Thomas]

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

​

I expect Thomas would reaffirm the gatekeeping role of the Apostles/Priests and argue that this happened because of Peter.

This is getting laughable now ... after all, it is precisely what the text says.

You might not like it, but you can't deny it ... or are you saying that it's purely a coincidence that the Holy Spirit arrives at a place and a time when Peter just so happens to be preaching the Gospel?

Or that Cornelius was told by an angel to seek out Peter, 'and do what he tells you' (cf Acts 10:6)?'

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

So much for the gatekeeper theory.

If you read the text in context ... I think it proves it.

We hear of Cornelius, "a religious man, and fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people and always praying to God", but then an angel appears to Cornelius and tells him to go and find Peter, "He will tell thee what thou must do" (Acts 10:6).

If your arguments were valid, then there would be no need to seek out Peter, would there? Cornelius would simply do what he thought right, and be self-sufficient in his spirituality. It is precisely because he has the capacity for a more profound spiritual engagement, that he is directed to seek out Peter.

Cornelius seeks Peter, and Peter instructs him in the Gospel, and "While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word." (Acts 10:44)
So the Holy Spirit makes His appearance here, in the authentic transmission of the Gospel, from one appointed to be a spokesperson for Christ.

But let's go on ...

"Then Peter answered: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days."

So Cornelius and his family are brought to the 'gatekeeper' by the message of an angel, and received into the Church by him, and further instructed by him in the Mysteries.

+++

Thomas

 

[17th Angel]

*prods it with a stick* Why isn't this in the christian forum.....?

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, how many times does the word Trinity appear in the Bible? Allow me to save you the trouble of looking it up: not even once.

I know. That's why you'll never understand the full depths of written word — the letter — without the tradition — the spirit. That's why I consistently stick to the rule that it's wiser to listen to the wise...

The concept of the Trinity was introduced in 325 A.D., while Emperor Constantine and some Bishops were having their afternoon cuppa. As an aside, Constantine was not even baptized at the time, meaning that the Church owes key doctrine to a nonChristian!

Which shows just how little you know and what nonsense you speak ... and why time and again I am obliged to correct the errors of ignorance parading as superior knowledge ... you speak almost exclusively from the position of a self-opinionated and uninformed bias.

The 'concept' of the Trinity is evident in Scripture which speaks of the divine activity of the Father, the divine activity of the son, and the divine activity of the Holy Spirit in Scripture — that you can't see it is evident, as is why.

The term was coined by Tertullian (155–222) in defence of the doctrine of the Logos. The Latin trinitas means 'threeness' ... and Tertullian goes on to speak of "three Persons, one Substance" (tres Personae, una Substantia) which he received from tradition, in the Greek treis Hypostases, Homoousios, so in fact he was writing about a doctrine that was already in existence.

Of course the theology of Irenaeus (d 202), the first of the great Patristic authors, is thoroughly Trinitarian ... a doctrine he received from Polycarp, who received it from St John the Apostle.

Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is mentioned in Matthew (28:19), but disputed. However, tripartite Baptism is spoken of in the Didache (c50-120), so was common practice by the end of the First Century.

The concept of the Trinity actually did not become official dogma until it was codified by the Catholic church at the council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

Again, you make something out of nothing ... it might surprise you to know that the Resurrection has never been codified dogmatically, but let me assure you it has been a matter of faith and belief from about the third day after the crucifixion on.

The Church only defines dogmatically those matters which are subject to error and/or dispute ... as the Resurrection was never seriously disputed (within Christendom), it has never been a subject of dogmatic definition.

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

I posted Acts 10 regarding your statements from this post:

Hi Seattlegal —

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 ...


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

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

Thomas

If you read the text in context ... I think it proves it.

We hear of Cornelius, "a religious man, and fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people and always praying to God", but then an angel appears to Cornelius and tells him to go and find Peter, "He will tell thee what thou must do" (Acts 10:6).

If your arguments were valid, then there would be no need to seek out Peter, would there? Cornelius would simply do what he thought right, and be self-sufficient in his spirituality. It is precisely because he has the capacity for a more profound spiritual engagement, that he is directed to seek out Peter.

Obviously, the Spirit sought out Cornelius outside of the church. This refutes the statement highlighted above in green:

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

Before skipping forward to Acts 10:44, let's cover some of Peter's vision regarding this summons by Cornelius:

Acts 10:9-16
9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.​

The message Peter received that it is the Spirit that sanctifies, not the church or tradition. He understood the message, because he repeated it to Cornelius when he arrived there.

Acts 10:17-29
17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate. 18 And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there.
19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you. 20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.”
21 Then Peter went down to the men who had been sent to him from Cornelius, and said, “Yes, I am he whom you seek. For what reason have you come?”
22 And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.” 23 Then he invited them in and lodged them.
On the next day Peter went away with them, and some brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
Peter Meets Cornelius

24 And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?”​

Peter understood that this was as much for Peter's instruction as it was for the instruction of those listening, and he responded to the Spirit as you noted.

Cornelius seeks Peter, and Peter instructs him in the Gospel, and "While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word." (Acts 10:44)
So the Holy Spirit makes His appearance here, in the authentic transmission of the Gospel, from one appointed to be a spokesperson for Christ.

But let's go on ...

Let's go on and look at Acts 10:45-46

45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.​

Peter was told by the Spirit ahead of time not to call any man common or unclean--especially when God did the cleansing. He admits that the Gentiles cannot be denied to be counted as part of the body of Christ when the Holy Spirit came upon them. He showed this acceptance of them by offering them baptism into the church, as you noted:

"Then Peter answered: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days."

Peter was faithful to the Holy Spirit by showing his acceptance of those whom the Spirit came as part of the body of Christ.
This is to refute your statement above highlighted in blue and red:

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 ...

The Spirit is what cleansed the people, not the church. If Peter had denied baptism to these people, would that have invalidated the Spirit? No. I think Peter learned that lesson when swore he would never deny Jesus, but he denied Jesus three times in one night, just as Jesus told him he would.

Peter understood that he was very much human, as stated in Acts 10:25-26

25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”​

So Cornelius and his family are brought to the 'gatekeeper' by the message of an angel, and received into the Church by him, and further instructed by him in the Mysteries.

+++

Thomas

...And that 'gatekeeper' was instructed beforehand by the Spirit not to deny the Spirit. The Spirit cannot be contained in a box defined by man. Peter understood that he did not control the Spirit, but that he should recognize and acknowledge the Spirit when he sees it. I'm sure he didn't want to deny Christ again.

The Church, as the Bride of Christ, should remember this, and be submissive to her husband the Spirit, and not be denying the Spirit where the Spirit resides. This is the lesson behind the tradition of not having women priests, and it being shameful for a woman to speak in church. It is like the Bride of Christ presuming to dictate to the Spirit, or the Bride outright denying the Spirit if the Spirit doesn't meet specific parameters dictated by the church. JMHO. That is why I have no objection to women being excluded from the priesthood, as long as the lesson and meaning behind the tradition is remembered and observed.

 

[jjanolo]

I did not really read over all the post. I just want to add that are we focussing so much on the writte words of Jesus that we forget its message? It seems to me that there are so much on believing so much on the word of God that we ignore its teaching-believe in Him, forgive infinitely, and love unconditionally.

It is the same when trying to fix something and we hit a barrier and now know what to do, that sometimes for us to really see the solution we have to step back and reassess our approach. Many look at the bible, and they say this is not allowed, this is how it is, this is how it has always been because it was written. Yes, it was and it is written still in the Bible. But we concentrate so much on the written part that we ignore the true meaning behind what is written. I believe that is God want us to do, look beyond what is written and seek the truth. I have started reading the the other gospels-the one's not included in the bible and there are so much we can learn from it. If we are to be close to God, close to Jesus, we have to know Him as the apostles knew Him, as a close friend.

Regarding women as priest. If it is God's will, who are we to stop it. Who are we to make judgements on them for becoming a priest. Women were also a member of the 72 apostles of Jesus. And let us not forget, St. Mary Magdalene is the apostles of the apostles. I am not for women as becoming priest. But I do believe that it is important that they be recognized as important members of the church.

 

[Thomas]

Obviously, the Spirit sought out Cornelius outside of the church.

Why, but to lead him to the Church, where the fullness of the Life in Christ might be found (cf Colossians 1:19):

"For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, for you Gentiles ... of which I am made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given to me according to the operation of his power ... "
(NB: A declaration of priesthood)
"... to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ: And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church ... That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts: that, being rooted and founded in charity, You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge: that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God. Now to him who is able to do all things more abundantly than we
desire or understand, according to the power that worketh in us: To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus, unto all generations, world without end. Amen."
Ephesians 3.

I'm not saying that man cannot know bliss, or have visions, or indeed enjoy any of the charisms of the Spirit ... but only in the Church, in the Body of Christ, can man be drawn beyond himself, can know that which is unknowable.

Peter understood that this was as much for Peter's instruction as it was for the instruction of those listening, and he responded to the Spirit as you noted.

Doesn't change anything ... it still took place within the Church ... that we continue to learn, that the Mystery continues to unfold in the Church is part of Her glory and her Mystery ... the Journey of the Soul into God, which is what the Church is, is a journey into the Infinite.

... He admits that the Gentiles cannot be denied to be counted as part of the body of Christ when the Holy Spirit came upon them. He showed this acceptance of them by offering them baptism into the church...

Well that's my point, outside of Baptism, they are not in the Church, are they? They are not in the Mysteries, are they? They have no access to the sacraments, have they?

Why do you think Christ founded a Church if it serves no purpose?

The Church, as the Bride of Christ, should remember this, and be submissive to her husband the Spirit, and not be denying the Spirit where the Spirit resides.

And you think the Spirit resides in every political aspiration that comes along? To accede to the demands of theose who do not even count themselves among its number, but insist nevertheless it must think as they do?

Really?

This is the lesson behind the tradition of not having women priests ... It is like the Bride of Christ presuming to dictate to the Spirit, or the Bride outright denying the Spirit if the Spirit doesn't meet specific parameters dictated by the church.

So who would you decide determines when it is the voice of the Spirit, and the voice of the antichrist? What measure, if you've thrown away every certainty you might have?

That doctrine should change because "it seems right to me?"

It seemed right to Adam.

Thomas

 

[wil]

That doctrine should change because "it seems right to me?"

It seemed right to Adam.

Thomas

Adam the metaphor?

Beyond that since there is no 'Church' doctrine. What the Catholic Doctrine determines only Catholics are subject to it. And while it seems right to me that this doctrine is as antiquated as slavery and many other biblical norms that have fallen by the wayside...but as I am not Catholic, a. I have no say, and b. it does not affect me. It will and has affected the Catholic church though...since before Martin and on....

 

[seattlegal]

Why, but to lead him to the Church, where the fullness of the Life in Christ might be found (cf Colossians 1:19):

"For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, for you Gentiles ... of which I am made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given to me according to the operation of his power ... "
(NB: A declaration of priesthood)
"... to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ: And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church ... That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts: that, being rooted and founded in charity, You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge: that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God. Now to him who is able to do all things more abundantly than we
desire or understand, according to the power that worketh in us: To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus, unto all generations, world without end. Amen."
Ephesians 3.

I'm not denying that Peter was instrumental in the church at all. He really understood what it was all about, imo.

I'm not saying that man cannot know bliss, or have visions, or indeed enjoy any of the charisms of the Spirit ... but only in the Church, in the Body of Christ, can man be drawn beyond himself, can know that which is unknowable.

Now, it would all become dependent upon how you define the Church, the Body of Christ, wouldn't it? Peter understood not to call any man common that God had cleansed. (Why do you think it was repeated to him three times in his vision? Perhaps he because even though he was warned beforehand by Jesus himself, he denied Christ three times?)

Doesn't change anything ... it still took place within the Church ... that we continue to learn, that the Mystery continues to unfold in the Church is part of Her glory and her Mystery ... the Journey of the Soul into God, which is what the Church is, is a journey into the Infinite.


Well that's my point, outside of Baptism, they are not in the Church, are they? They are not in the Mysteries, are they? They have no access to the sacraments, have they?

What would have happened if Peter would have denied them baptism? Peter would have been denying Christ yet again, no?

Why do you think Christ founded a Church if it serves no purpose?

Don't get me wrong. I understand the need for caretakers and organization, especially within the early church. Having large numbers of people gathering together and behaving like prophets would be enough to make people really wonder about this new group. For example, at Pentecost, the people were saying, "they are full of new wine." It doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit is limited to one particular group of caretakers or organization. Isn't that the lesson Peter learned from the Spirit in Acts 10?

And you think the Spirit resides in every political aspiration that comes along? To accede to the demands of theose who do not even count themselves among its number, but insist nevertheless it must think as they do?

Really?


So who would you decide determines when it is the voice of the Spirit, and the voice of the antichrist? What measure, if you've thrown away every certainty you might have?

That doctrine should change because "it seems right to me?"

It seemed right to Adam.

Thomas

Jesus told us how we could recognize his disciples, right before he told
Peter he would deny three times before the rooster crows. Let's look at what Jesus said:

John 13:34-38

34 "I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."​

Notice how it says, "By this all people will know you are my disciples?

Continuing on with John 13

Peter's Denials Predicted
36 "Lord," Simon Peter said to Him, "where are You going?"

Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow Me now, but you will follow later."

37 "Lord," Peter asked, "why can't I follow You now? I will lay down my life for You!"

38 Jesus replied, "Will you lay down your life for Me? I assure you: A rooster will not crow until you have denied Me three times.​

That was the first part of the lesson Peter learned. The second part is found in Acts 10. I would say he did quite well in learning it. He put his trust in God over his own expectations, and yielded to the Spirit.

 

[seattlegal]

Adam the metaphor?

Beyond that since there is no 'Church' doctrine. What the Catholic Doctrine determines only Catholics are subject to it. And while it seems right to me that this doctrine is as antiquated as slavery and many other biblical norms that have fallen by the wayside...but as I am not Catholic, a. I have no say, and b. it does not affect me. It will and has affected the Catholic church though...since before Martin and on....

Yeah, you're right, wil. {I admit that I have difficulty when it comes to recognizing and dealing with sectarian boundaries. }