Whoever thinks that the Lord paid the price of sins on the Cross
This is the essence of Christianity.
I think that this horse has been beaten enough over the past few weeks. It seems that we wont really get down to a final understanding of the concept, and so, I will leave this out of my discussion (also, I'm not equipped enough to speak of it.) I think I will call it a misunderstanding.
Twelfth: Whoever denies that we are partakers of the divine nature (1 Pet. 2:4), and that this is partaking in immortality, adoption, resurrection, and inheritance of the Kingdom; then he he has denied the the divinity of the Lord, who has given us from his immortality, his sonship, his resurrection, and has promised that we will be on the right hand of the Father in his Second Appearance.
This type partaking will not take effect till the Second coming.
It only reaches its fullness in the second coming, though we do begin to have a foretaste of Theosis on this earth. So again, Dr. George doesn't seem to incorrect here. Also, it seems that Dr. Bebawi intedned this to be understood as you have said. He says, "that we will be on the right hand of the father." So he seems to be speaking in future tense as well. He says that Christ has given us immortality [past tense.] But the Psalmody says, "He gave us what is his." So...
Dr. George is a best angry. He is not as bad as I thought. I called him a heretic at the start of this thread. I have since read what he wrote and thought for myself (as opposed to being told that he said that communion is just a symbol [seriously, who has time to come up with this stuff?]) and have concluded that he is no heretic, just angry, and from what he has been through, can you blame the dude? He seems to be correct in almost everything he wrote. The one thing that I have withheld posting about is on salvation and sin. I am still taking my time researching, so I wont comment on what I don't know.
Ninth: Whoever says that the Patriarch is the head of the Church, or says so in theory; then he as denied the leadership of Christ, the head, from whom grows every member of the body (Col. 2:19), and he no longer has eternal hope in God, because he has made something instituted upon humans and not upon the Lord the salvation of the Church and the redemption of whoever believes in him.
The term head of the church can mean different things depending on the context. So, we cannot make absolute condemnation for the term usage.
I don't think he is attacking the term. He is attacking the mentality that the Pope is a rank above the Bishops. This mentality runs freely in our church, and there needs to be some clarification about it. George Bebawi is just offering his clarification. I don't think that he is saying anything to outrageous here. Its just that we expect that from him, so we respond accordingly.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13611.msg159067#msg159067 date=1345214259] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13611.msg159065#msg159065 date=1345213886] ^Does not even Saint Ephraim the Syrian say that a Priest is a mediator between God and man?
The word priest in Arabic and Hebrew "Kahen" originally means mediator.
In the OT God used the Aaron and his sons as mediators between Him and the children of Israel.
He used Moses as a mediator. There is tremendous evidence of this in the OT.
This continued in the NT.
The Church herself is a mediator between people and God.
So, it is incorrect to just say that it is wrong for someone to say that a priest is a mediator.
The mediation of the OT as opposed to the NT is completely different. Before, communication with God was only through the priests and the prophet. There needed to be a mediator, just like there needed to be sacrifices. such mediation is unnecessary now. God is in an intimate relationship with human beings. God is close to everyone. We are a royal priesthood. This also ties in with point 6. Since communion is our mediation between us and the father, and the priest is merely the servant of this mediating mystery (rather than the source) he is only the servant of the mediator, and not the mediator himself. Christ is our mediator. All others are servants of the mediator.
Technically, those assisting the mediator are also mediating, but what Dr. Bebawi is trying to say is basically that we have an intimate relationship with God, and that Christ alone is the mediator, and the priesthood of the OT only prefigured the fullness of mediation revealed in Jesus Christ.
TBC...
I do not believe intimate mediation has to do with it.
As the people needed mediation in the OT, so in the NT.
There is a difference between our Lord's mediation and the priest's mediation.
All the sacraments are conducted through the mediation of the priest. We are accepted to the Father through Christ's mediation.
I do not believe intimate mediation has to do with it.
I do.
As the people needed mediation in the OT, so in the NT.
Sure! Hence intercessions and the like. Lets not get ahead of ourselves. George was (and I think still is) a member of the Russian church. We might as well be iconoclasts compared to these guys. He knows that we need intercession. He knows that mediation occurs and is necessary. He is speaking in regards to intimate mediation.
All the sacraments are conducted through the mediation of the priest. We are accepted to the Father through Christ's mediation.
That is exactly what I am saying. The priest "mediates" the making of the sacraments. He prays the liturgy, and the sacraments are consecrated. So, technically he did mediate, although, in essence, our mediation was brought on by Christ. The priest can add nothing of himself to this mediation. Christ completed it. It is just a matter of terms. If we step back from the heresy hunt for a while, we can see that he is just using different terms, and mainly because he is angry.
Whoever thinks that the Lord paid the price of sins on the Cross
This is the essence of Christianity.
I think that this horse has been beaten enough over the past few weeks. It seems that we wont really get down to a final understanding of the concept, and so, I will leave this out of my discussion (also, I'm not equipped enough to speak of it.) I think I will call it a misunderstanding.
Twelfth: Whoever denies that we are partakers of the divine nature (1 Pet. 2:4), and that this is partaking in immortality, adoption, resurrection, and inheritance of the Kingdom; then he he has denied the the divinity of the Lord, who has given us from his immortality, his sonship, his resurrection, and has promised that we will be on the right hand of the Father in his Second Appearance.
This type partaking will not take effect till the Second coming.
It only reaches its fullness in the second coming, though we do begin to have a foretaste of Theosis on this earth. So again, Dr. George doesn't seem to incorrect here. Also, it seems that Dr. Bebawi intedned this to be understood as you have said. He says, "that we will be on the right hand of the father." So he seems to be speaking in future tense as well. He says that Christ has given us immortality [past tense.] But the Psalmody says, "He gave us what is his." So...
Dr. George is a best angry. He is not as bad as I thought. I called him a heretic at the start of this thread. I have since read what he wrote and thought for myself (as opposed to being told that he said that communion is just a symbol [seriously, who has time to come up with this stuff?]) and have concluded that he is no heretic, just angry, and from what he has been through, can you blame the dude? He seems to be correct in almost everything he wrote. The one thing that I have withheld posting about is on salvation and sin. I am still taking my time researching, so I wont comment on what I don't know.
ReturnOrthodoxy
I disagree.
The language seems to indicate that we partake of a whole list of things now on earth:
"Whoever denies that we are partakers of the divine nature (1 Pet. 2:4), and that this is partaking in immortality, adoption, resurrection, and inheritance of the Kingdom; then he he has denied the the divinity of the Lord, who has given us from his immortality, his sonship, his resurrection"
then he continues "and has promised that we will be on the right hand of the Father in his Second Appearance."
I interpret this as I partook of a whole list of things and then one more thing will take place in the second coming.
Yes we are resurrected with Him now in baptism, but to full partake of His resurrection won't take place till the Second Coming.
Yes, I am adopted now through the Holy Spirit, but I will fullyh be adopted in the Second Coming.
The idea of being fully saved is a Protestant idea.
An Orthodox theologian has to be very careful in how he/she explains things.
I do not believe intimate mediation has to do with it.
I do.
As the people needed mediation in the OT, so in the NT.
Sure! Hence intercessions and the like. Lets not get ahead of ourselves. George was (and I think still is) a member of the Russian church. We might as well be iconoclasts compared to these guys. He knows that we need intercession. He knows that mediation occurs and is necessary. He is speaking in regards to intimate mediation.
All the sacraments are conducted through the mediation of the priest. We are accepted to the Father through Christ's mediation.
That is exactly what I am saying. The priest "mediates" the making of the sacraments. He prays the liturgy, and the sacraments are consecrated. So, technically he did mediate, although, in essence, our mediation was brought on by Christ. The priest can add nothing of himself to this mediation. Christ completed it. It is just a matter of terms. If we step back from the heresy hunt for a while, we can see that he is just using different terms, and mainly because he is angry.
RetrunOrthodoxy
I still disagree.
The same mediation that existed in the OT exists in the NT.
People in the OT could speak to God on their own and God did hear them and had compassion on them without priests nor prophets. Even the Gentiles God heard their prayers and had compassion on them. The same as in the NT.
Israel was called a "nation of priests" in the OT as the NT Church is labeled.
I can say that I am a partaker of my father's inheritance even though he is alive. It is well understood what I mean. Heresy hunting.
I'm not down for this discussion. My point is as clear as it is going to be. Personally, I have no real problem with what was said. If we approach it properly, it makes more sense and is not as incorrect as we would love to see it as.
"An Orthodox theologian has to be very careful in how he/she explains things." I agree so much. There are so many people this needs to reach. At the same time, covering all ground is hard. Lets try this, "A Christian must be very loving in understanding things." ie. cut the heresy hunt.
Can it not be said that the Priest is a Mediator between God and man, insofar as he partakes of Christ's mediatorship by grace? Sort of like how in Theosis we become like God through partaking of His grace? So, in the case of Christ can we say that He is the ultimate source of Mediatorship but allows Priests to become mediators by grace?
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13611.msg159110#msg159110 date=1345420252] I can say that I am a partaker of my father's inheritance even though he is alive. It is well understood what I mean. Heresy hunting.
Your example is not logical.
Basically you are saying that you are sure of your salvation and of your inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven: Protestantism.
I'm playing around man. If you want to continue this discussion, I will do some research, and figure some things out. Maybe later I can come back. Plus, I just got back from a 12 hour drive. Forgive me if I'm not patient.
I'm playing around man. If you want to continue this discussion, I will do some research, and figure some things out. Maybe later I can come back. Plus, I just got back from a 12 hour drive. Forgive me if I'm not patient.
I like this message of Dr. George Bebawy and I was deeply touched, because his warnings are important not only for Orthodox Coptic Church but also for all christians.
I can't pretend I agree with everything, not because I disagree but because my understanding of christian theology is not enough deep.
However what I understand when I read the text is a general warning against a huge mistake: the attempt to control God and also to control other believers by standing between God and them. And also the mistake of transposing wordly thinking and behavior on the spiritual path, and it's what has been so harmful to christianity in the history of the Church.
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=13611.msg158688#msg158688 date=1344475836] Tenth: Whoever thinks that the Lord paid the price of sins on the Cross, and that the Father has punished him and lighted on him the fire of divine justice,
[center]"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the Tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness" 1 Pet 2:24.[/center]
But the judgement can by no means apply to Christ: "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? ?" Jn 8:46.
He died "for us" and not "instead of us, and didn't pay the price of sins but offered Himself as a ransom. Christ willingly took in Him our sins on the Cross: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” . Mk 10:45.
Because the Son was the Holy lamb, righteous and loving, that God the Father offered to us as an expiation : "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" Jn 1:29; "For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins" Heb. 10:4.
God the Father didn't punish the Son but, merciful, He redeemed us in His Son: "The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands " Jn 3:35. "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. " 1Jn 4:10
Christ became the head of the new humanity after having removed the curse and penalty of death: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Jean 3,16.
This is my little understanding of this part of the message, according to the teachings I received from my beloved spiritual Fathers, Sincerely your, Luce
I do not believe intimate mediation has to do with it.
I do.
As the people needed mediation in the OT, so in the NT.
Sure! Hence intercessions and the like. Lets not get ahead of ourselves. George was (and I think still is) a member of the Russian church. We might as well be iconoclasts compared to these guys. He knows that we need intercession. He knows that mediation occurs and is necessary. He is speaking in regards to intimate mediation.
All the sacraments are conducted through the mediation of the priest. We are accepted to the Father through Christ's mediation.
That is exactly what I am saying. The priest "mediates" the making of the sacraments. He prays the liturgy, and the sacraments are consecrated. So, technically he did mediate, although, in essence, our mediation was brought on by Christ. The priest can add nothing of himself to this mediation. Christ completed it. It is just a matter of terms. If we step back from the heresy hunt for a while, we can see that he is just using different terms, and mainly because he is angry.
RetrunOrthodoxy
I still disagree.
The same mediation that existed in the OT exists in the NT.
People in the OT could speak to God on their own and God did hear them and had compassion on them without priests nor prophets. Even the Gentiles God heard their prayers and had compassion on them. The same as in the NT.
Israel was called a "nation of priests" in the OT as the NT Church is labeled. I disagree with the statement "the same mediations that existed in the OT exists in the NT." The Holy Spirit inspired and blessed prophets, kings, and priests and with a few exceptions of others here and there, but today, it is fully in each and every baptized Orthodox Christian, more so than the prophets, priests, and kings before.
We can say that there are different "mediatorships." Christ is the sole Mediator to the Father through the Holy Spirit. The priests and bishops are the mediators of the mysteries, not necessarily the infallible messengers of God as in the OT. But at the same time, there is a mediatorship of holiness that even Popes may have not been able to attain. St. Simeon the Shoemaker was the chosen mediator of God to pray for the movement of the Mokattam Mountain, and not the bishops and priests. There's even the mediatorship of the saints. In the OT, priests mediated for the dead. Today, the holiest of the departed (no longer death) may even mediate for the priests, even though we also pray for the departed.
And while we have priests and bishops, all Christians are anointed "priests and kings" by their mediatorship of service to others both in and outside the Church, so that we all may be "fishers of men" into the Church. In the OT, there were very few mediators. In the NT, there are various types of mediators emulating the eternal mediatorship of Christ. There is therefore a huge difference, not to mention the fulfillment of the OT mediatorship as well, for in the OT, the Holy Spirit anointed people to guide and help the people of Israel, but in the NT, the Holy Spirit not only anoints, but resides in people to live the life of Christ as the Son of the Father like Christ. Therefore, this NT Mediatorship CANNOT be like the OT mediatorship, as one fulfills the other and is much grander, while the other is but a shadow of things to come.
Comments
I think that this horse has been beaten enough over the past few weeks. It seems that we wont really get down to a final understanding of the concept, and so, I will leave this out of my discussion (also, I'm not equipped enough to speak of it.) I think I will call it a misunderstanding.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13611.msg159069#msg159069 date=1345215653] This type partaking will not take effect till the Second coming.
It only reaches its fullness in the second coming, though we do begin to have a foretaste of Theosis on this earth. So again, Dr. George doesn't seem to incorrect here. Also, it seems that Dr. Bebawi intedned this to be understood as you have said. He says, "that we will be on the right hand of the father." So he seems to be speaking in future tense as well. He says that Christ has given us immortality [past tense.] But the Psalmody says, "He gave us what is his." So...
Dr. George is a best angry. He is not as bad as I thought. I called him a heretic at the start of this thread. I have since read what he wrote and thought for myself (as opposed to being told that he said that communion is just a symbol [seriously, who has time to come up with this stuff?]) and have concluded that he is no heretic, just angry, and from what he has been through, can you blame the dude? He seems to be correct in almost everything he wrote. The one thing that I have withheld posting about is on salvation and sin. I am still taking my time researching, so I wont comment on what I don't know.
ReturnOrthodoxy
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13611.msg159066#msg159066 date=1345213922] The term head of the church can mean different things depending on the context. So, we cannot make absolute condemnation for the term usage.
I don't think he is attacking the term. He is attacking the mentality that the Pope is a rank above the Bishops. This mentality runs freely in our church, and there needs to be some clarification about it. George Bebawi is just offering his clarification. I don't think that he is saying anything to outrageous here. Its just that we expect that from him, so we respond accordingly.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13611.msg159067#msg159067 date=1345214259]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13611.msg159065#msg159065 date=1345213886]
^Does not even Saint Ephraim the Syrian say that a Priest is a mediator between God and man?
The word priest in Arabic and Hebrew "Kahen" originally means mediator.
In the OT God used the Aaron and his sons as mediators between Him and the children of Israel.
He used Moses as a mediator. There is tremendous evidence of this in the OT.
This continued in the NT.
The Church herself is a mediator between people and God.
So, it is incorrect to just say that it is wrong for someone to say that a priest is a mediator.
The mediation of the OT as opposed to the NT is completely different. Before, communication with God was only through the priests and the prophet. There needed to be a mediator, just like there needed to be sacrifices. such mediation is unnecessary now. God is in an intimate relationship with human beings. God is close to everyone. We are a royal priesthood. This also ties in with point 6. Since communion is our mediation between us and the father, and the priest is merely the servant of this mediating mystery (rather than the source) he is only the servant of the mediator, and not the mediator himself. Christ is our mediator. All others are servants of the mediator.
Technically, those assisting the mediator are also mediating, but what Dr. Bebawi is trying to say is basically that we have an intimate relationship with God, and that Christ alone is the mediator, and the priesthood of the OT only prefigured the fullness of mediation revealed in Jesus Christ.
TBC...
I do not believe intimate mediation has to do with it.
As the people needed mediation in the OT, so in the NT.
There is a difference between our Lord's mediation and the priest's mediation.
All the sacraments are conducted through the mediation of the priest. We are accepted to the Father through Christ's mediation.
To mix both types of mediation is Proestantism.
RetrunOrthodoxy
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13611.msg159068#msg159068 date=1345215551] This is the essence of Christianity.
I think that this horse has been beaten enough over the past few weeks. It seems that we wont really get down to a final understanding of the concept, and so, I will leave this out of my discussion (also, I'm not equipped enough to speak of it.) I think I will call it a misunderstanding.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13611.msg159069#msg159069 date=1345215653] This type partaking will not take effect till the Second coming.
It only reaches its fullness in the second coming, though we do begin to have a foretaste of Theosis on this earth. So again, Dr. George doesn't seem to incorrect here. Also, it seems that Dr. Bebawi intedned this to be understood as you have said. He says, "that we will be on the right hand of the father." So he seems to be speaking in future tense as well. He says that Christ has given us immortality [past tense.] But the Psalmody says, "He gave us what is his." So...
Dr. George is a best angry. He is not as bad as I thought. I called him a heretic at the start of this thread. I have since read what he wrote and thought for myself (as opposed to being told that he said that communion is just a symbol [seriously, who has time to come up with this stuff?]) and have concluded that he is no heretic, just angry, and from what he has been through, can you blame the dude? He seems to be correct in almost everything he wrote. The one thing that I have withheld posting about is on salvation and sin. I am still taking my time researching, so I wont comment on what I don't know.
ReturnOrthodoxy
I disagree.
The language seems to indicate that we partake of a whole list of things now on earth:
"Whoever denies that we are partakers of the divine nature (1 Pet. 2:4), and that this is partaking in immortality, adoption, resurrection, and inheritance of the Kingdom; then he he has denied the the divinity of the Lord, who has given us from his immortality, his sonship, his resurrection"
then he continues "and has promised that we will be on the right hand of the Father in his Second Appearance."
I interpret this as I partook of a whole list of things and then one more thing will take place in the second coming.
Yes we are resurrected with Him now in baptism, but to full partake of His resurrection won't take place till the Second Coming.
Yes, I am adopted now through the Holy Spirit, but I will fullyh be adopted in the Second Coming.
The idea of being fully saved is a Protestant idea.
An Orthodox theologian has to be very careful in how he/she explains things.
RetrunOrthodoxy
I still disagree.
The same mediation that existed in the OT exists in the NT.
People in the OT could speak to God on their own and God did hear them and had compassion on them without priests nor prophets. Even the Gentiles God heard their prayers and had compassion on them. The same as in the NT.
Israel was called a "nation of priests" in the OT as the NT Church is labeled.
I'm not down for this discussion. My point is as clear as it is going to be. Personally, I have no real problem with what was said. If we approach it properly, it makes more sense and is not as incorrect as we would love to see it as.
"An Orthodox theologian has to be very careful in how he/she explains things." I agree so much. There are so many people this needs to reach. At the same time, covering all ground is hard. Lets try this, "A Christian must be very loving in understanding things." ie. cut the heresy hunt.
ReturnOrthodoxy over and out.
EDIT: Sorry if this post is no longer relvant.
I can say that I am a partaker of my father's inheritance even though he is alive. It is well understood what I mean. Heresy hunting.
Your example is not logical.
Basically you are saying that you are sure of your salvation and of your inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven: Protestantism.
Yes. I am a protestant. :D
My example is very logical. I see nothing wrong with it. Your ad hominem: now that is illogical. Its fine though.
If it is Ok with you O' protector of Orthodoxy, I have a God to worship in love.
ReturnProtestantism (because Orthodoxy is too mainstream)
imikhail,
Yes. I am a protestant. :D
My example is very logical. I see nothing wrong with it. Your ad hominem: now that is illogical. Its fine though.
If it is Ok with you O' protector of Orthodoxy, I have a God to worship in love.
ReturnProtestantism (because Orthodoxy is too mainstream)
Very cute.
When we cannot further debate we use sarcasm; childish.
Like a bunny wabbit :-* ;D ;)
I already said it is cute ... what else do you want me to say?
I'll leave it at cute.
I'm playing around man. If you want to continue this discussion, I will do some research, and figure some things out. Maybe later I can come back. Plus, I just got back from a 12 hour drive. Forgive me if I'm not patient.
RO
imikhail,
I'm playing around man. If you want to continue this discussion, I will do some research, and figure some things out. Maybe later I can come back. Plus, I just got back from a 12 hour drive. Forgive me if I'm not patient.
RO
ReturnOrthodoxy,
Waiting for you .... :D
I can't pretend I agree with everything, not because I disagree but because my understanding of christian theology is not enough deep.
However what I understand when I read the text is a general warning against a huge mistake: the attempt to control God and also to control other believers by standing between God and them. And also the mistake of transposing wordly thinking and behavior on the spiritual path, and it's what has been so harmful to christianity in the history of the Church.
Sorry for my poor english....
Tenth: Whoever thinks that the Lord paid the price of sins on the Cross, and that the Father has punished him and lighted on him the fire of divine justice,
[center]"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the Tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness" 1 Pet 2:24.[/center]
But the judgement can by no means apply to Christ:
"Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? ?" Jn 8:46.
He died "for us" and not "instead of us, and didn't pay the price of sins but offered Himself as a ransom. Christ willingly took in Him our sins on the Cross:
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” . Mk 10:45.
Because the Son was the Holy lamb, righteous and loving, that God the Father offered to us as an expiation :
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" Jn 1:29; "For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins" Heb. 10:4.
God the Father didn't punish the Son but, merciful, He redeemed us in His Son:
"The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands " Jn 3:35. "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. " 1Jn 4:10
Christ became the head of the new humanity after having removed the curse and penalty of death:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Jean 3,16.
This is my little understanding of this part of the message, according to the teachings I received from my beloved spiritual Fathers, Sincerely your, Luce
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13611.msg159107#msg159107 date=1345419784] I do. Sure! Hence intercessions and the like. Lets not get ahead of ourselves. George was (and I think still is) a member of the Russian church. We might as well be iconoclasts compared to these guys. He knows that we need intercession. He knows that mediation occurs and is necessary. He is speaking in regards to intimate mediation. That is exactly what I am saying. The priest "mediates" the making of the sacraments. He prays the liturgy, and the sacraments are consecrated. So, technically he did mediate, although, in essence, our mediation was brought on by Christ. The priest can add nothing of himself to this mediation. Christ completed it. It is just a matter of terms. If we step back from the heresy hunt for a while, we can see that he is just using different terms, and mainly because he is angry.
RetrunOrthodoxy
I still disagree.
The same mediation that existed in the OT exists in the NT.
People in the OT could speak to God on their own and God did hear them and had compassion on them without priests nor prophets. Even the Gentiles God heard their prayers and had compassion on them. The same as in the NT.
Israel was called a "nation of priests" in the OT as the NT Church is labeled.
I disagree with the statement "the same mediations that existed in the OT exists in the NT." The Holy Spirit inspired and blessed prophets, kings, and priests and with a few exceptions of others here and there, but today, it is fully in each and every baptized Orthodox Christian, more so than the prophets, priests, and kings before.
We can say that there are different "mediatorships." Christ is the sole Mediator to the Father through the Holy Spirit. The priests and bishops are the mediators of the mysteries, not necessarily the infallible messengers of God as in the OT. But at the same time, there is a mediatorship of holiness that even Popes may have not been able to attain. St. Simeon the Shoemaker was the chosen mediator of God to pray for the movement of the Mokattam Mountain, and not the bishops and priests. There's even the mediatorship of the saints. In the OT, priests mediated for the dead. Today, the holiest of the departed (no longer death) may even mediate for the priests, even though we also pray for the departed.
And while we have priests and bishops, all Christians are anointed "priests and kings" by their mediatorship of service to others both in and outside the Church, so that we all may be "fishers of men" into the Church. In the OT, there were very few mediators. In the NT, there are various types of mediators emulating the eternal mediatorship of Christ. There is therefore a huge difference, not to mention the fulfillment of the OT mediatorship as well, for in the OT, the Holy Spirit anointed people to guide and help the people of Israel, but in the NT, the Holy Spirit not only anoints, but resides in people to live the life of Christ as the Son of the Father like Christ. Therefore, this NT Mediatorship CANNOT be like the OT mediatorship, as one fulfills the other and is much grander, while the other is but a shadow of things to come.