Posted on 08/01/2015 3:50:22 PM PDT by Salvation
Priesthood Ping!
Same old out-of-context prooftexts in 3.....2.....1....
Thank you for answering the call father.
It is not...The article posted is based entirely on that untruth which invalidates the entire thing...
ἱερεύς
hiereus
hee-er-yooce'
From G2413; a priest (literally or figuratively): - (high) priest.
It is unfortunate and sad to see you posting threads that denigrate Protestants in an attempt to elevate the teaching of your religion.
There can be no discussion - also unfortunately - without being accused of “bashing.”
In lieu of that, I wish you the best.
Thank you for your opinion.
I guess some people didn’t read even the first paragraph.
**the Greek iereus*
As you point out, there IS a word for priest in Greek - and it is NOT “presbuteros”. The Greek word for priest is never applied to a christian apart from Jesus Christ himself.
presbuteros was: “a term of rank or office
among the Jews: members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
among the Christians: those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably”
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/presbuteros.html
Paul referenced christians making sacrifices:
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. - Rom 12.1
I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. - Phl 4:18
In the general epistles:
15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. - Heb 13.15
Indeed, Hebrews 13 is arguably all about the sort of sacrifices we are to offer as Christians!
That is pretty much it. We have no priests but Christ, because there is no other sacrifice than Christ - and He has already offered Himself:
“But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself...But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God...” - Hebrews
What is a “presbuteros”?
“Again and again, reference is made to a plurality of elders in each of the various churches. In fact, every place in the New Testament where the term presbuteros (“elder”) is used it is plural, except where the apostle John uses it of himself in 2 and 3 John and where Peter uses it of himself in 1 Peter 5:1...
...The primary responsibility of an elder is to serve as a manager and caretaker of the church (1 Tim. 3:5). That involves a number of specific duties. As spiritual overseers of the flock, elders are to determine church policy (Acts 15:22); oversee the church (Acts 20:28); ordain others (1 Tim. 4:4); rule, teach, and preach (1 Tim. 5:17; cf. 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:2); exhort and refute (Titus 1:9); and act as shepherds, setting an example for all (1 Pet. 5:1-3). Those responsibilities put elders at the core of the New Testament church’s work. “
http://www.gty.org/resources/Questions/QA203/Why-Elder-Rule
At 12,549 words it is perhaps the the prolix pieces of provocative RC propaganda ever posted on FR, but despite its verbosity it cannot justify distinctively giving the distinctive title "hiereus" to NT pastors, which the Holy Spirit does not do even once!
Instead, this a later development due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as a primary function, which they never are described doing.
More details to follow.
Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to or the same as its original or historical meaning. So that since presbyteros incorrectly became priest from preost, therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors.
which Christ promised to give to them that believe on Him, with a faith that follows. (Jn. 10:27,28)
Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).
Does presbyter or elder mean priest?
In her effort to conform NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” in order to support a distinctive NT sacerdotal priesthood in the church, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors - mean "priest." Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
What occurred is that "presbuteros" in Greek (presbyter in Latin) was translated into English as "preost," and then "priest," but which also became the word used for "hierus" ("sacerdos" in Latin), losing the distinction the Holy Spirit made by never distinctively giving NT presbuteros the distinctive title hiereus.
Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) While elders exercise could some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos, elders and priest were not the same in language or in function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people. It is also understood that even the Latin word "sacerdos" which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere at NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.
Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s) And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)
In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states, No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people. Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description. To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm) Thus despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” in English by way of functional equivalence, reading into Scripture her own theology, supposing that the presbyters engaged in a unique and primary sacrificial function of turning bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Christ as an expiation for sins, and which is then physically consumed to gain spiritual and eternal life. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), just as David figuratively called drinking water the "blood" of men and poured it out on the ground as an ofering unto the Lord, as it represented the lives of those who risked their own blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17) And in contrast to Catholicism in which the Lord's Supper is the "source and summit" of the Chirstian faith, in which "our redemption is accomplished," nowhere is literally eating anything physical the means of this, nor is any NT pastor shown even dispensing bread as part of their ordained function. Nor is the church shown making this Catholic eucharist an atonement for sin and the practice around which all else revolves as in Catholicism, and instead the only teaching in Acts and onward (which interprets the gospels) that manifestly describes the supper to any real extent is that of 1 Cor. 11:17-34, and in which the church is the body of Christ, which is to "show (declare, proclaim) the Lord's death" for the church by treating each other as members of that body which in unity with Him, in communally taking part in the "feast of charity," (cf. Jude. 1:12) unselfishly sharing bread and the blood of grapes (preferably) with each other, which Christ supremely showed in purchasing the church with His sinless shed blood. (cf. Acts 20:28) Thus the nature of the elements was not the focus, nor was the sin a failure to recognize them as the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, but the focus was that of the coporate body of Christ, and the sin of some was not effectualy recognizing others as part of that body for whom Christ died. (See here). And instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, and instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9) Thus distinctively identifying Christian clergy with the same distinctive title used for the Jewish sacerdotal clergy (priests) rather than the term the Holy Spirit calls these pastors (presbyters/elders) is unscriptural and functionally unwarranted.
There simply is no "contrary" except the extra-Scriptural impositions that the author must resort to since the Holy Spirit does not provide what is claimed. Outside the apostles, there simply is not hierarchical order in NT church pastors, and presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denote those of one office. (Titus 1:5-7)
If all Christians without exception are priests in virtue of their baptism, an official priesthood obtained by special ordination is just as inadmissible as the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass.
And as Scripture clearly teaches that all Christians without exception are priests in virtue of their conversion, thus the RCs logic refutes him. For as shown,
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere at NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.
One is indeed forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early... The corruption quickly spread throughout the whole East and West,
If it is true that "the reception of the idea of sacrifice led to the idea of the ecclesiastical priesthood" (loc. cit., p. 48), and that priesthood and sacrifice are reciprocal terms, then the proof of the Divine origin of the Catholic priesthood must be regarded as established, once it is shown that the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is coeval with the beginnings and the essence of Christianity.
Which is error begetting error, and confirms that I said about the Cath priesthood being a latter development due to imposed functional equivalence based upon the erroneous Cath idea of the Lord's supper. .
And the FACT is that the Lord's supper is nowhere treated as an actual sacrifice for sins, and NT pastors are never even shown dispensing bread as one of their distinctive duties, or officiating at the LS. Instead, prayer and preaching are their primary duties, by which the feed the flock and souls are nourished. (Acts 6:3,4; Acts 20:28; 1Tim. 4:6)
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
I would like to hear what is the non-Catholic explanation of how the following words have changed meaning over the years. What is the original meaning as opposed to how it is used today?
I realize that Greek text doesn't always translate / copy well so I have given reference scriptures for all of them
πτόησιν 1 Peter 3:6
μεριμνᾷς Luke 10:41
ἀναστροφήν Galations 1:13
ἀπόστολος, Romans 1:1
εὐαγγελίου Mark 1:1
γραφὴ John 7:38
ἐπισκευασάμενοι Acts 21:15
ἐπίσαγμα Leviticus 15:9
λαμπρὰν James 2:2-3
True, and with the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church being that of all believers, but we know that the lack of Scriptural warrant is no reason to reject anything for a Cath, th weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for Cath doctrine in the first place.
And surely over 12,000 words will make up for what the Holy Spirit does not provide, but refutes, in Scripture.
We are all priests in the Church Age.
If not, then we have no fellowship with God.
Evidently mainly the prolix pasted polemic is it, as recently i stated there was absolutely zero Cath priests in the NT. Rather than engage that, a verbose article lacking validity is pasted.
You are applying OT thinking to the New Testament covenant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.