I don’t. But for other stuff I do need an intermediary.
Richard, the torn veil does not mean that Christ abolished all ecclesial authority or that every Christian became an equally authoritative interpreter of revelation, it means that, through Christ, the barrier between God and humanity has been overcome. Hebrews interprets the veil in terms of access to God through Christ’s sacrifice (Hebrews 10:19–22), not as the abolition of teaching authority in the Church.
And the New Testament itself proves the distinction: after the veil was torn, Christ still gave specific authority to the apostles:
“As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” (John 20:21)
“He who hears you hears me.” ( Luke 10:16)
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” ( Matthew 18:18).
And when a major doctrinal dispute arose in Acts 15, the solution was not “everyone has equal access to God, so interpret Scripture for yourself.” The apostles and elders gathered, debated, issued a judgment, and then sent that decision to other churches to be observed (Acts 15:6–29; 16:4).
So the Church’s interpretive authority doesn’t make bishops or priests “mediators between God and man” in competition with Christ.
Christ remains the unique mediator, the Church’s role is different: she is the body Christ commissioned to preserve, teach, and adjudicate the apostolic faith.
The torn veil abolishes the Old Covenant barrier to God, It doesn’t abolish the distinction between having access to God and having authority to define the Church’s doctrine.
That might be a view, but it has little justification
Again that is a specific understanding and seems to ignore the Trinity that you claim to uphold. How can you in one hand claim that Jesus is part of God and in the other claim that He is a separate step in approaching God.
Give me one God reason why any human should be deemed higher or superior or closer to God when Christ taught the complete opposite.(Do I need to quote Him?).
Priesthood and hierarchy are human mechanisms needed for human organisation and structure, We ae members of God’s church not a human one, and subject to God’s authority not a human one.
I would be lost if I could not talk to God on a daily basis where ever or when ever I need/want to. I do not need a human to confirm God’s salvation or forgiveness, nor satisfy a human punishment for absolution. I confess my own sins direct to God and receive forgiveness likewise. It is none of any other human’s business.
Nope. I don’t pick and choose certain passages and set them in opposition to others. That is what heretics do: they choose. In fact, the word heresy comes from a Greek term meaning precisely that: choice or choosing.
I’m not saying that you are a heretic. I’m simply pointing out what heretics do: they choose.
They choose between Scripture and Tradition, between Jesus’ divinity and His humanity, between faith and good works. Essentially, they choose whenever something appears to conflict with their own personal understanding. And when Scripture affirms truths that appear incompatible to them or at odds with each other they choose the part that makes the most sense to them and discard the other.
Why? Because they thought (in ancient times), they think, and they will continue to think that they “know better.”
I wish I had their self-confidence, actually. It has never even crossed my mind that I might know better than the Church and the Fathers, despite having studied these matters since 2014.
You are still asserting a singular and correct view of both Scripture and faith, and claiming that because I do not agree with those you claim as forefathers I am either claiming them wrong or that I am wrong. Black and white.
Perhaps you should read “Your God is too Small” by JB Phillips. Assuming, of course you recognise him as a valid authority.
And this seems to be the underlying ad hominem viewpoint. It does matter who said or wrote it.
I wonder what ever happened to curiosity or the search for knowledge. If you do not try and understand someone else’s view you will never learn enough to argue against it. Just asserting your correctness and trying to justify it is a sign of a closed mind. An open mind does not make it more vulnerable, but it does indicate someone who will listen rather than respond and assert. You cannot argue if you have not understood the reasons why a person thinks what they do. Saying they are wrong is dismissive, not arguing, or understanding.
Richard
Edit
And claiming a view solely because of someone else is not thinking at all and not using the gift God gave you of independence and free will. If God had wanted everyone to think the same He would have created us so and we would have lost so much it is incalculable
That’s about the only conclusion concerning the matter that can be justified!
At most, the ripping of the Temple veil meant that all priests now have equal access and that that access can be had at any time, not just on a certain day.
Not keen on the Priesthood of all believers then. Doesn’t surprise me with your obsession with academics and human teaching ans learning
I am not going to assert it as being the only view, but i will claim it as a valid understanding of that event and one that I cherish.
But before I get jumped on (again) this has nothing to do with my personal glory and power, but precisely the opposite. I have met too many clergies desperate to hold onto their power and unique status, fortunately my father was not one of them. It is around here that I align myself closer to @mitchellmckain than the orthodox church.
There is no need to dissect the way the ordained are chosen or instituted. Been there, done that. Human freedom of choice overrides personal belief and capabilities. (No need to expound) My experience is that the clergy are by no means the best worship leader, and/or preachers, and that training is more concerned with other aspects of ministry.
The Priesthood of all believers is not popular within Orthodoxy and corrupted by many of the denominations that claim it.
I have no particular problem with J. B. Phillips. He was an Anglican priest and Christian apologist, and Your God Is Too Small is largely about rejecting inadequate conceptions of God in favor of one more adequate to Christian revelation.
But I don’t need to recognize Phillips as an “authority” in order to read him. His arguments can simply be evaluated on their merits.
More importantly, nothing about Phillips resolves the issue we were discussing.
Being intellectually open means being willing to understand and reconsider another position. It does not mean that mutually contradictory theological propositions can both be true.
If Arius says Christ is created and Nicaea says Christ is uncreated, reading J. B. Phillips does not remove the contradiction. One of those claims is false.
So the question remains exactly where it was: did Christianity receive a determinate apostolic faith whose content can be distinguished from incompatible alternatives?
Because I literally cannot see how the statement “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” can be compatible with:
Multiple “truths” competing with each other.
Accepting that the truth doesn’t exist (which would make Christ a liar).
Thinking that the truth does exist but that it’s not knowable (which, again, would turn Christ into a liar).
So you cling to a singular or absolute view of Truth
I never said anything about multiple truths. I said that truth is not fixed or singular in nature. Perhaps you cannot see that distinction. Just as one shirt cannot fit all people, one view of (a) truth cannot either. It is this definition or view of theology and theological truth that you are clinging to like a child’s blanket. You obsess over details, whether it is the Eucharist, the divinity of Christ, the authority of The Catholic Church, the faith of those in the past. Everything must be as you think it, for everyone!
It is none on your business what I or anyone else believes on those things! At least in terms of right and wrong. If God is happy, why not you? Or perhaps, more accurately, you cannot determine or know whether God accepts a view or not.
You cannot claim a truth does not exist because you do not accept it or think something else
You cannot claim that what you think is actually what Jesus meant, so there can be no accusation of lying
You cannot expect to know all truth, Your brain is not big enough, at present. You cannot be certain that Christ’s words:
Mean what you claim
Were exactly as reported
Did not include hyperbole
Claiming that Theology is black and white in terms of right and wrong
You are trying to make everyone believe what you do, with the assumption that you are right and everyone else (me) are wrong.
Christ only becomes a liar if everything abides by your rules and understanding.
I’m afraid this doesn’t apply to God. God is immutable.
So when Jesus said “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” He was actually saying “you will know a partial and sometimes completely misleading version of the truth, and other people will know other partial and sometimes completely misleading versions of the truth as well, but fear not: this is how it should be, because, just as one shirt cannot fit all people, one view of (a) truth cannot either.”.
That’s…interesting.
Actually Jesus prayed for unity, again I’m not sure whether the existence of 47.000 different denominations (some of which allowing utter abominations) is compatible with His idea of unity.
I’ve never said you are wrong, i said you are confused. But then again, it’s not that big of a deal.
Now we are delving into linguistics. Contradiction is so…
reliant on knowing, or singularity of thought.
Do you really think you know what God thinks on all things? Or how Gd views truth>
Try this
Is it raining?
Yes it is rainning somehwere iin the world
No it is not raining where I am
Which is the real truth?
But is it any more than that.
How do you know? Clearly is is not compatible with your idea of Unity
Why should Unity also mean concordance? Perhaps they are not synonyms for a reason.
Big deal!
I will tell you, I am not confused in the least.
Also, the fact that you have changed your mind n the past is no indication that you will ever change it again. Lightning doesn’t always strike twice in the same place, but some places are more susceptible than others.
Leave you judgments and conclusion about me at the back of your brain. They have no business in the open.
I mean in the beginning there was the Word (in the original Gospel the term used is λόγος). Christ being the Word, can He be illogical or incomprehensible? A word without intelligible meaning, without discernible truth, is not a word at all.
Ehi, i ain’t the one who said “you will know the truth”.
Gotta file a compliant to the Chief, man.
I think God is not a liar and when He said he was going to send us the Holy Spirit who will have guided us to the Truth he really meant it. Also, if we couldn’t know anything about what God wants we wouldn’t even know what is just and what is abomination in His eyes.
The question is incomplete. Also yes, there can be rain in one place and sun in another, it doesn’t mean that, say, killing an innocent can be righteous in one place and sinful in another. I don’t think this is apt example.
I mean…Jesus said that a divided kingdom cannot stand. I didn’t say that, He did * . What’s more divided than Churches who disagree on fundamental matters of faith and morals?
Well…
*”Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,” while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven. But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls”. (Luke 11:14-17)
This stuff obviously doesn’t belong to the “right” or “wrong” category. I also like different liturgies, sometimes i go to the ancient catholic liturgy and i have frequented the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church a number of times (and absolutely loved it). But that’s beside the point we were discussing.
So the mistakes of the past persist. The Crusades were specifically against Islam… Northern Ireland is still reeling from the sectarian conflict. None of these make the division right, or even that they do or should exist.IOW just because some people claim the difference does not make it so.
That was true in the Old Testament as well – that’s where the idea comes from; Peter is quoting Exodus, which indicates that there is no contradiction with a special priesthood among believers.
You don’t think the members of the Trinity are in concord? or that Jesus and the Father are in concord?
After all, the definition of “one” is given in the passage. Besides which:
