Scriptural Interpretation

[ad_orientem]

In your opinion.

I think 1 Peter 2:5-9 is the reference. Honestly, you'd have thought a god could at least make its message clear and unambiguous....

That's the passage they use, yes, but it definitely doesn't say all believers are priests. Neither does St. John in the Apocalypse. If it's so obvious then it seems strange that no one noticed it for 1500 years until some fat German monk came along.

[Stranger]

That's the passage they use, yes, but it definitely doesn't say all believers are priests. Neither does St. John in the Apocalypse. If it's so obvious then it seems strange that no one noticed it for 1500 years until some fat German monk came along.

Well, this is what it says (NIV my emphasis):-
As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
    a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
    will never be put to shame.”

Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone,”

and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
    and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

I assume that your opinion explains this in some way that avoids the conclusion that you disagree with. The problem with the buy-bull is that it's so inconsistent and contradictory that people can read all sorts of different messages into it. How anybody thinks it is a message from some god is quite beyond me. If it is, said god is some crazy mixed up deity and/or has a serious communication problem...

[ad_orientem]

Whatever you happen to think of the scriptures that still doesn't say all believers are priests. As I said, it's a Protestant invention, so obvious to them that one has to wonder why no one noticed it for 1500 years.

[Stranger]

Whatever you happen to think of the scriptures that still doesn't say all believers are priests.

Just the ones in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia at the time of writing, then?

[ad_orientem]

Just the ones in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia at the time of writing, then?

No. It simply doesn't say all believers are priests, including in the places you mention. He merely says the Church is a royal priesthood, not that all its members are priests. Indeed, it was never the case. In the early Church "priest" is only ever referred to in reference to Christ and the bishops who govern the Church in place of Christ.

[Stranger]

He merely says the Church is a royal priesthood, not that all its members are priests.

Right - a priesthood made up of people who aren't priests...

[ad_orientem]

Right - a priesthood made up of people who aren't priests...

Listen, Tim nice but dim, it seems you're unable to see the distinction, even if it is subtle.

[Stranger]

Listen, Tim nice but dim, it seems you're unable to see the distinction, even if it is subtle.

Some unusual usage of the word "priesthood" perhaps?

priesthood
noun
often the priesthood

    1[mass noun] The office or position of a priest:
    ‘the ordination of women to the priesthood’

    1.1 Priests in general:
    ‘there was relief among the Anglican priesthood’

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/priesthood

[Anchorman]

The proof that your approach has little or nothing to do with the Holy Spirit is in the fact that protestantism fragmented almost immediately into divers sects. Why? Because they all feel they can interpret the holy scriptures on their own whim. The Apostles gave us the example at Jerusalem: collegiality.

Seriously?
You have read the book of Acts, have you?
Division amongst the early Church was there at the outset!
The 'council of Jerusalem' where Peter and Paul had a stushie only papered over the cracks!
Face it, the church has been fragmented from the outset. There have been councils - sometimes imposed by very corrupt Roman and Byzantine rulers - in an effort to unify the church in the Emperor's own image - thankfully failed.
God's spirit has worked - and continues to work - through His people, sometimes despite the tradition bound anachronisms which seek to bind Him.

[Anchorman]

Nowhere does it say in the NT that all believers are priests. That is a Protestant invention.

Not according to Peter.

[ad_orientem]

Some unusual usage of the word "priesthood" perhaps?

priesthood
noun
often the priesthood

    1[mass noun] The office or position of a priest:
    ‘the ordination of women to the priesthood’

    1.1 Priests in general:
    ‘there was relief among the Anglican priesthood’

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/priesthood

Nay! Merely that the Church is "a holy nation, a royal priesthood". It does not imply that all those within the Church are priests, only that there is a priesthood. The OT uses almost the same language in reference to the ancient Israelites, yet not all Israelites were priests.

[ad_orientem]

Seriously?
You have read the book of Acts, have you?
Division amongst the early Church was there at the outset!
The 'council of Jerusalem' where Peter and Paul had a stushie only papered over the cracks!
Face it, the church has been fragmented from the outset. There have been councils - sometimes imposed by very corrupt Roman and Byzantine rulers - in an effort to unify the church in the Emperor's own image - thankfully failed.
God's spirit has worked - and continues to work - through His people, sometimes despite the tradition bound anachronisms which seek to bind Him.

Again, spoken like a true heretic who follows his own whim instead of the Holy Spirit and the Church Christ himself founded. Perhaps you can explain to all here from where do you get your articulation of the Most Holy Trinity?

[ad_orientem]

Not according to Peter.

Then maybe you can show us all where St. Peter says all believers are priests? He doesn't in any of his epistles.

[Anchorman]

Again, spoken like a true heretic who follows his own whim instead of the Holy Spirit and the Church Christ himself founded. Perhaps you can explain to all here from where do you get your articulation of the Most Holy Trinity?

-
From the fact of the expanding, growing church - which is God's family.
From the fact of the underground Church in China, the persecurted Church in various nations, growing, fulfilling Scripture - and not a shower of hidebound traditionaluists.
"The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot extinguish it" (John 1:12, NLT)

[Stranger]

Nay! Merely that the Church is "a holy nation, a royal priesthood". It does not imply that all those within the Church are priests, only that there is a priesthood.

Right, so when it says "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession...", it should be read as "But some of you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession..." or does this only apply to the priesthood bit: "But you are a chosen people with a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession..."?

[Stranger]

Again, spoken like a true heretic who follows his own whim instead of the Holy Spirit and the Church Christ himself founded.

Are you for real?

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Then maybe you can show us all where St. Peter says all believers are priests? He doesn't in any of his epistles.

Why does Freud's phrase, "the narcissism of small differences" come to mind here? Fun as it is watching bald fellas arguing over a comb, does it not occur to you that you have much bigger fish to fry than minor doctrinal differences if you expect the underlying claims to be taken seriously?

Just a thought.

[ad_orientem]

-
From the fact of the expanding, growing church - which is God's family.
From the fact of the underground Church in China, the persecurted Church in various nations, growing, fulfilling Scripture - and not a shower of hidebound traditionaluists.
"The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot extinguish it" (John 1:12, NLT)

Nicely avoided!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

From the fact of the expanding, growing church - which is God's family.
From the fact of the underground Church in China, the persecurted Church in various nations, growing, fulfilling Scripture - and not a shower of hidebound traditionaluists.
"The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot extinguish it" (John 1:12, NLT)

Been a while since we had someone try the survivor bias fallacy. Congrats!

"Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may be actual people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further.

Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence (Correlation proves Causation). For example, if three of the five students with the best college grades went to the same high school, that can lead one to believe that the high school must offer an excellent education. This could be true, but the question cannot be answered without looking at the grades of all the other students from that high school, not just the ones who "survived" the top-five selection process."

(Wiki - emphasis added)

[ad_orientem]

Right, so when it says "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession...", it should be read as "But some of you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession..." or does this only apply to the priesthood bit: "But you are a chosen people with a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession..."?

Maybe you're just pretending to be dense. Anyway, Here's an almost similar use of words when God spoke to Moses in reference to the ancient Israelites during the exodus and which St. Peter no doubt had in mind.

"And Moses went up to God: and the Lord called unto him from the mountain, and said: Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: You have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, how I have carried you upon the wings of eagles, and have taken you to myself. 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. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation."

[ad_orientem]

Anchs,

Been a while since we had someone try the survivor bias fallacy. Congrats!

"Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may be actual people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further.

Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence (Correlation proves Causation). For example, if three of the five students with the best college grades went to the same high school, that can lead one to believe that the high school must offer an excellent education. This could be true, but the question cannot be answered without looking at the grades of all the other students from that high school, not just the ones who "survived" the top-five selection process."

(Wiki - emphasis added)

But the Church is neither an educational facility nor a business. The Church is a visible institution founded by Christ. Visible, so that we might know where to go in order to be saved. This is foretold in the OT with Noah and his ark.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

But the Church is neither an educational facility nor a business. The Church is a visible institution founded by Christ. Visible, so that we might know where to go in order to be saved. This is foretold in the OT with Noah and his ark.

Leaving aside for now the various statements of fact that you cannot possibly know to be true, that "the" church isn't an educational facility or a business is entirely beside the point. Survivor bias is a generalised phenomenon - for example assuming that the QWERTY keyboard layout is better for typing (rather than that it was developed to slow down typists because early mechanical typewriters kept jamming) is also an example of survivor bias.

In short it's the unwarranted assumption that, because something - anything - survived it must somehow be better or more true than would otherwise be the case, whereas in practice all sorts of things catch the wind and take off for reasons other than some inherent quality. As I understand it, your religion is one such: it was one of many competing cults centred around various mystics and soothsayers, but it got lucky when a Roman Emperor decided as a matter of expediency to make it official. Retro-fitting a man/god Christ as the reason for its success is akin to thinking that QWERTY is better for typists.   

[Stranger]

Maybe you're just pretending to be dense. Anyway, Here's an almost similar use of words when God spoke to Moses in reference to the ancient Israelites during the exodus and which St. Peter no doubt had in mind.

"And Moses went up to God: and the Lord called unto him from the mountain, and said: Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: You have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, how I have carried you upon the wings of eagles, and have taken you to myself. 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. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation."

The word priestly has a different meaning. Oh, WTF, you really don't understand how utterly silly all this is, do you?

You're arguing about an old, inconsistent, self-contradictory book of obviously human made myths, as if there were the slightest hint of a scrap of evidence to suggest that it was anything more.

[ProfessorDavey]

Fun as it is watching bald fellas arguing over a comb, does it not occur to you that you have much bigger fish to fry than minor doctrinal differences if you expect the underlying claims to be taken seriously?

Just a thought.

As you are well aware BH those 'minor doctrinal differences' have lead to countless people being killed over the centuries.

[ad_orientem]

The word priestly has a different meaning. Oh, WTF, you really don't understand how utterly silly all this is, do you?

You're arguing about an old, inconsistent, self-contradictory book of obviously human made myths, as if there were the slightest hint of a scrap of evidence to suggest that it was anything more.

Yes, you must be dense.