To the Israelites - yes. To Christians - most of it - no. And you presumably mean the Pentateuch? That's what we Christians call the 5 books of the Hebrew Bible, supposedly written by Moses. .
So you agree he wanted sacrifice and everything else in the Torah that he gave and presumably expected people to act upon?
There's another of your straw men. I never said the sacrificial system should remain in place. And just because Christ fulfilled that system does not mean we cannot glean God's will and intent from the way in which He structured that system. Taken together with the way in which He chose the Twelve male Apostles, it forms a pattern which reveals God's will. Just as we draw from this pattern the fact that married men were chosen as OT priests and as Apostles and therefore it's okay for church priests to be married, likewise we can draw the fact that only men were chosen and therefore it's appropriate to only have men as church priests. The argument for female priests is no better than the RC argument for priestly vows of celibacy.
No! When God said "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" God didn't want eyes and teeth taken out and lost. God wanted to limit human revenge to the injuries originally sustained by the victim. The rules on sacrifices were to REGULATE, reduce and control sacrifices, not to demand they took place. Knowing the natural tendencies of pagan human beings God knew they would have demanded to continue sacrifices to God anyway. It's what ALL human beings did to get their God's attentions back then. .
You're saying some of the regulations concerning it should determine what women are allowed to do today in the Christian church though, aren't you? Presumably because you think they must still apply to Christian praxis, ethics and law, because they were divine commands. .
Many of the priests of the Old Testament had sons, so we can assume they were married. However there were many more priests than those mentioned in scripture and many of those mentioned are not attributed son's. I have searched and could not find any statute specifying that an Old Testament priest MUST be married and have sons. New testament leaders are not required to be married either. It is advised however that they should be though so evidence of the spiritual maturity required for the role might have been demonstrated, or lack of it be revealed, by the way their family relationships had played out within their own household. Widowers would also have qualified, and I suspect this was 'advice' only rather than a strict rule of law. .
When did I say anything about marriage being required? What a fevered imagination some people possess. You'll do anything, even hunt for nits to pick, to kick a little dust overtop my posts, I guess...
The Pentateuch alludes to a system that no longer exists, full stop. It is pointless to try to retcon Christianity or Rabbinic Judaism back into those passages in order to make them relevant for today. Some form of authorized leadership is necessary. The question of ordination is thus one of expediency and practicality. Do you want the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept Anglican Orders? If so, then one has to accept their doctrine and follow their rules, period. If not, then how far do you want the recognition of your Orders to extend? The question is not whether Anglicanism is or ought to be “catholic” but rather, who is the arbiter of catholicity? Is there an arbiter of catholicity? Barring a viable enforcement mechanism, jurisdictions that seek universal recognition will of necessity tend toward atomization. There is nothing that says denominations holding the Bible as the rule of faith cannot in good faith interpret it differently from either other denominations or prior generations of their own denomination. The answer for those who oppose this state of affairs is not to turn back the clock, but to ask whose understanding of catholicity coheres the most with one’s own convictions in the first place. There’s no authority that’s going to tell you who’s right prior to one’s having already decided to trust this or that external authority on other grounds. The very nature of the question is elusive of a definite, final answer.
@Invictus, that is an excellent response. I contend today there is no neo-arbiter. That has been settled by the Church as delivered by God, our Lord Christ, by the Apostles as recorded - divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost - in Scripture , delivered by the Saints and settled by ecumenical council. I am still learning about the split of the East and West but subsequent splits are, for me at least, a little more clear. The English reformation was necessary as it removed the more Roman (aka Pope-ish) aspects of the Faith. From my perspective, all defendable going back to the establishment of the Faith as mentioned above. The European reformation and the splintering of the Anglican faith? Well intention but they are certainly not catholic. Indeed, the subsequent Protestant divisions are results of interpertations not supported by those of us professing the Faith as delivered onto us. Well intentioned and in good faith? I want to thank so. Schismatic (is that a word?!?)? Yes, by definition. Heretical? The opportunity is certainly there. Room for apostasy? Yes because I have heard it first hand. As for me I will continue to practice the Faith in the Anglican Church in a manner of orthodoxy, as part of the “Continuing Movement ”, because we continue to live and practice the fullness of the Christian Faith in its unique English form — English Catholicism — which has been present in England since the early second century. A rule of thumb? Where there are no differences of Faith between the Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholic, there is where I stand.
Your reasoning put a lot of words in Jesus' mouth that He didn't actually say. And your argument makes no sense to me. You point out that Jesus chose Jewish men to be Apostles but then say that the Jewish part could be ignored but not the male part. Seems very arbitrary. Either both characteristics are indispensable or neither one is. I would also note that no clergy today are Apostles. Bishops, priests, and deacons were all offices that co-existed with but were separate from the Apostles in the New Testament. I would also point out that where scripture does list characteristics of a good bishop (such as 1 Timothy 3:2) it nowhere mentions that they need to be like the Apostles. So your argument on that basis is also flawed.
Most of these , "Jesus chose only MEN" arguments are really only a Complementarianist clutching at straws, to save a drowning man. Just because the cry "Man overboard" is traditionally a warning and calling to action, to the whole ship's crew, that a "PERSON" has fallen from the ship and is in dire distress, having no actual bearing on the nationality or the sex of that person in the water, Jesus's choice of the original Apostles has no bearing whatever on the nationality or the sex of the person in the pulpit or presiding at the communion table. .