All Church Age believers are priests, so why do Catholics ordaine their own priests?

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Ignatian

That IS who the author is referring. These and numerous other bible verses refer to the earliest priests in Christianity.

You are missing the whole point of the letter, which is the inferiority of the old temple cult system, compared to the superiority of having a system centered on Jesus and his ministry for us, actually going right up to heaven to represent us before God.

Why would the author be pointing out the inferiority of earthly priests if that was what was being put in place as "the new thing"?

But why compare Jesus to a priest that wasn't even Jewish to begin with? Melki was a priest of the Most High God, but not even Hebrew.

I don't think it means inferior, but overriding, or over every priest of any god. The priesthood of Jesus is eternal. God would have never instituted a priesthood if He didn't intend it to be functional. It wasn't the priesthood, it was that Jesus had always been the High Priest, eternally, that even Isaiah saw when he was in the Holy of Holies.

But you can't say it is inferior if that is where Jesus met Isaiah and every other High Priest.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Now I'm no great student of scripture - I would describe myself as Agnostic - but I'm curious; Why do you single out the Catholic Church?
Don't other Christian denominations also have ordained clergy?
The Church of England certainly does?

So if there is a difference could you please explain it to me - I am a bit of a simpleton at times so layman's terms would be appreciated.

a reply to: WarminIndy
I think the "believers as priests" idea rests upon the two passages in Revelation where it is said "You have made us a kingdom and priests to our God", referring to the faithful body as a whole (Revelation ch1 v6, ch5 v9).
These passages are in the New Testament, so we have to find some way of understanding them.
I see them as a deliberate echo of the statement at Sinai; "You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus ch19 v6).
Whatever the verse in Exodus means, the statements in Revelation have to mean the same thing.
I take it to mean that the nation (or the New Testament church) is to be in some sense an intermediary between God and the rest of the world, if only in prayer.

a reply to: Ignatian

The Highest of priests is Jesus. We would both agree. But, keep in mind, Jesus' priesthood is not rooted in the OT...at all. I say again, it is NOT rooted in the Old Testament.

Wrong!

Zechariah 3:
Then he showed me Joshua (JESUS) the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.”

Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.”

5 Then I said, “Put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the Lord stood by.

6 The angel of the Lord gave this charge to Joshua: 7 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘If you will walk in obedience to me and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you a place among these standing here.

8 “‘Listen, High Priest Joshua, you and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch. 9 See, the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day.

10 “‘In that day each of you will invite your neighbor to sit under your vine and fig tree,’ declares the Lord Almighty.”

These verses, above, are the source of Philo's, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher (25BC-50AD), musings of the "High Priest LOGOS", which is the philosophy that was blooming in the first century and can be found, and reflected and expounded upon, in John 1:1.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
I think the "believers as priests" idea rests upon the two passages in Revelation where it is said "You have made us a kingdom and priests to our God", referring to the faithful body as a whole (Revelation ch1 v6, ch5 v9).
These passages are in the New Testament, so we have to find some way of understanding them.
I see them as a deliberate echo of the statement at Sinai; "You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus ch19 v6).
Whatever the verse in Exodus means, the statements in Revelation have to mean the same thing.
I take it to mean that the nation (or the New Testament church) is to be in some sense an intermediary between God and the rest of the world, if only in prayer.

Then it would make us priests of the Most High God, because that veil was torn.

I think the priesthood as in the OT, because the only other religions in the world at the time, Roman, Greek and Persian, didn't have priest systems set up like the Jews.

As the Jewish system was set up on one God, then Jesus' priesthood could only come from that, because none of the other religions were set up that way.

All the others were so polytheistic, it would be hard to apply the same type of system onto them. So it only makes sense if came out of the monotheism of the OT priesthood.

EDIT: I meant to say "in their known world" not the only ones in the world.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, I've always assumed that the Christian God was the God of Israel.
Israel was the "first contact point".
That's the message of Hebrews, that Christ does perfectly what the Old Testament structure was doing imperfectly.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, I've always assumed that the Christian God was the God of Israel.
Israel was the "first contact point".
That's the message of Hebrews, that Christ does perfectly what the Old Testament structure was doing imperfectly.

I think it is like Micah says, they got so caught up in thinking their sacrifices were all that was necessary to life.

Micah 6: 6 Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?

7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

There are a lot of Christians, Catholic and Protestant, who do think that as long as the priest is sacrificing for them, that is enough. But Micah was teaching that there is more required so if people don't change their hearts, then sacrifices are really worthless.

a reply to: WarminIndy

But why compare Jesus to a priest that wasn't even Jewish to begin with? Melki was a priest of the Most High God, but not even Hebrew.

I don't know where you are getting that.
Hebrews is talking about the Jewish (to be generic in the terminology) system that was then going on in the temple at Jerusalem.

a reply to: Ignatian

What these verses show me is the immensely deep theological foundation for the priesthood.

That's called Confirmation Bias, where you already have in your mind what you want to believe, and when you read something, you automatically interpret it to support what you have already decided is "right".

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Now I'm no great student of scripture - I would describe myself as Agnostic - but I'm curious; Why do you single out the Catholic Church?
Don't other Christian denominations also have ordained clergy?
The Church of England certainly does?

So if there is a difference could you please explain it to me - I am a bit of a simpleton at times so layman's terms would be appreciated.

I singled out the Catholic Church to address a question that Ignatian raised in another thread. It be honest, Im against denominationalism as a whole, especially denominations that appoint a cherry picked priesthood to replace the universal royal priesthood that Christ extented to all believers. I reallize that some protestant groups have their own priesthoods too, and this thread can apply to them, but I am more familiar with the Catholic system of religion than any other.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, that brings us back to "reliance upon priests to do things for you", which highlights the danger of that custom.

a reply to: Ignatian

I was wrong. Your discussion and my chewing on these verses, has shown me this. The actual individuals referenced in that verse are not Catholic Priests. But, here's where it is edifying for me. They ARE Catholic priests lol. When I read those verses, they describe Catholic priests almost exactly.

So, Ignatian, you have come to agree with Disraeli that Hebrews 5 describes the Levitical priesthood. While elements of the Levitical order have been adopted by the catholic priesthood, how do you justify their existance? Jesus has already made all believers royal priests, so why ordain priests after an antiquated, lesser order?

Why cant we confess our own sins to God and pray for ourselves? The permanent sacrifice has already been offered on the Cross, all that is left is our confessions and prayer to God.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: WarminIndy

But why compare Jesus to a priest that wasn't even Jewish to begin with? Melki was a priest of the Most High God, but not even Hebrew.

I don't know where you are getting that.
Hebrews is talking about the Jewish (to be generic in the terminology) system that was then going on in the temple at Jerusalem.

That particular group of people in that time, let's discuss what was going on with them.

That particular group of priests had been appointed by Herod the Great, who just happened to be the father-in-law of Marc Antony, but that's a side point.

Herod the Great had that particular temple built because that is where the Jews were paying their money to, which Caesar Augustus had decreed that no one could touch their money and it stayed there in Jerusalem. So Herod and the Hosmeneans put their own priests into the temple. Really, the temple destroyed was Herod's money laundering scheme.

You can read this in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, he actually explains all the politics going on around the temple. Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, was placed as a priest in the temple also. It was political pandering. The Jews actually had very little to do with that temple, the Jews didn't build it nor did they maintain it.

The Pharisees at the time were in charge of enforcing Jewish law to keep the Jews in line, for the Romans. In fact, Pontius Pilate did take it upon himself to put Roman idols in several synagogues over that. But perhaps reading that book you will get an idea that the temple that fell was not exclusively Jewish and it was a political stronghold for the Hasmoneans, not all Jews.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, that brings us back to "reliance upon priests to do things for you", which highlights the danger of that custom.

Yes, it is customarily a bad idea to let others do for you what you should be doing at home anyway. Perhaps the phrase means that we should be doing those duties at home?

a reply to: WarminIndy

The Pharisees at the time were in charge of enforcing Jewish law to keep the Jews in line, for the Romans.

That is some sort of imaginary scenario.

You can read this in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, he actually explains all the politics going on around the temple.

I bought the set of works by Josephus 30 years ago and studied them rather thoroughly.

The Jews actually had very little to do with that temple, the Jews didn't build it nor did they maintain it.

So, what is your point, that if the Jews were allowed to build a temple they could get it right this time?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Why cant we confess our own sins to God and pray for ourselves?

Because that is not a church.
Think of an alcoholic who one day said, "I think I will do AA to get sober, but I am not going to go to any meetings and just do it by myself".

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: WarminIndy

The Pharisees at the time were in charge of enforcing Jewish law to keep the Jews in line, for the Romans.

That is some sort of imaginary scenario.

You can read this in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, he actually explains all the politics going on around the temple.

I bought the set of works by Josephus 30 years ago and studied them rather thoroughly.

The Jews actually had very little to do with that temple, the Jews didn't build it nor did they maintain it.

So, what is your point, that if the Jews were allowed to build a temple they could get it right this time?

We can go through the works of Josephus, if you wish.

Let's start a thread on it so we don't hijack this one. But we can see there are a multiplicity of Christian views on this thread, but I think if Catholics feel that they serve God better that way, then let them. If you serve God the best the way you think, then serve God.

At the end of the day, it will be about whether or not we served God, not whether or not we did it right according to prescribed ways, that really not all people can live up to anyway, when you think about it.

The Catholics who feel they have not been burdened in serving God this way, then let them serve God their way. You serve God your way, they serve God their way, Disraeli serves God his way, I serve God my way and none of us should burden or shackle anyone to any way that they don't understand why.


And why shouldn't they have a temple? Is it going to burden you?

And the alcoholic who does it their way, it was their way to drink in the first place.

a reply to: WarminIndy

After I was saved, I wanted to know what church to go to since there are umpteen thousand denominations, and all I was told was that HIS people are everywhere, and denomination doesn't matter so long as the church I attend provides no stumbling blocks for me.

What matters is the core of salvation, overcoming this world through Jesus Christ, HIS blood and the Cross, the rest - at least right now, is probably a matter of personal preference.

I don't think we should attack one another, because what might be a sin for one won't be for another. An idol is anything you put before God, and only the individual knows what that is for them, we cannot dictate to another based on our own idols.

We should be here to support and encourage one another in the faith, rather than tear others down.

Just my opinion. lol.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: WarminIndy

After I was saved, I wanted to know what church to go to since there are umpteen thousand denominations, and all I was told was that HIS people are everywhere, and denomination doesn't matter so long as the church I attend provides no stumbling blocks for me.

What matters is the core of salvation, overcoming this world through Jesus Christ, HIS blood and the Cross, the rest - at least right now, is probably a matter of personal preference.

I don't think we should attack one another, because what might be a sin for one won't be for another. An idol is anything you put before God, and only the individual knows what that is for them, we cannot dictate to another based on our own idols.

We should be here to support and encourage one another in the faith, rather than tear others down.

Just my opinion. lol.

Some people handle snakes while some flagellate themselves. While we think that is nuts, to them they believe they are showing their faith.

But like Paul said "If I offer my body to be burned, without charity, it profits me nothing". Who in their right mind would offer their bodies to be burned? But Paul said that if they do it without charity, it doesn't mean a thing.

Without charity, whatever we do is ultimately not beneficial.

a reply to: WarminIndy

What does the Bible say about charity?

Charity in the Bible

Good teaching ^^^