Only because you and I know that you are not God capable of working miracles. But in the case of Jesus and the Eucharist we also have John 6 where His body is said to be "food indeed". Further, if you were going to suffer and die and your words to me were, pointing at bread, "This is my body", I would at least have the courtesy, knowing you as a thoughtful person to assume you meant it literally and not joking around on a solemn moment like this. The Apostles did take Christ literally -- St. Paul, for example, considers "not discerning the body" in the Eucharistic bread a great sin, akin to spiritual death (1 Cor 11:23-30). The ideas that the Eucharist is merely a memorial meal with bread and maybe grape juice is a late invention, wholly outside of the Apostolic tradition.
Explain, please, exactly what those verses and words mean that I bought out about the offices of the church in post #22.
Why, you are correct that in Acts 20:17, 27–28 St Paul speaks of the holy office of the Episcopacy:
Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Act 20:28)
Was your point that priesthood was at the time not separated from episcopacy? That is correct also, -- the Church was not big enough to have preists who are not bishops. That is also clear from 1 Peter 5:
1 The ancients [πρεσβυτερους]therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient [συμπρεσβυτερος], and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre's sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy [κληρων], but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors [αρχιποιμενος] shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients [πρεσβυτεροις]. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
This speaks of the consecrated character of the priesthood, no? I love these verses too, this is why I am, glory be to God, Catholic.
… in the case of Jesus and the Eucharist we also have John 6 where His body is said to be "food indeed".
Absolutely, and He said that in the tone of “spirituality”. Remember, He also said that “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” One eats and drinks of His words by coming to Him – for His words are of life! I could expound upon this, but I think you may understand what I just said.
Further, if you were going to suffer and die and your words to me were, pointing at bread, "This is my body", I would at least have the courtesy, knowing you as a thoughtful person to assume you meant it literally and not joking around on a solemn moment like this.
You shouldn’t “assume” anything from me. I would have been serious about such a topic. It would have been allegorical, not literal. That’s no joke!
The Apostles did take Christ literally.
Yes, they did, but they did not leave him – they had no where else to go or to believe in, maybe because Jesus had shown them He was no ordinary “guy”. However, there were some who were following Him that just couldn’t get away from the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood. It’s that way today, also.
St. Paul, for example, considers "not discerning the body" in the Eucharistic bread a great sin, akin to spiritual death (1 Cor 11:23-30). The ideas that the Eucharist is merely a memorial meal with bread and maybe grape juice is a late invention, wholly outside of the Apostolic tradition.
I would say that to get the whole context you would have to read from I Cor. 11:17-34 – right? I agree with you that the Lord’s Supper is NOT merely a memorial meal. It is a communion with the Lord Himself! Those who do not distinguish that the bread and cup refers to Christ’s body eats and drinks judgment upon themselves. We are not far apart on this, and I never put down Catholics on their communion ritual – I just disagree with the “transubstantiation” dogma for there is nothing in the Scriptures that would prove that the bread and fruit of the vine are literally changed (they really aren’t!) into flesh and blood. It is a spiritual thing that Jesus said, pointing out that we are to take part in this eating of the bread and drinking of the cup in remembrance of his death and resurrection until He comes again.
This “transubstantiation” dogma is the thing that is a late-comer in your belief system.
Why, you are correct that in Acts 20:17, 27–28 St Paul speaks of the holy office of the Episcopacy:
Thank you. My only objection to that is your use of the word “holy”, which is a word found in the NT some 240 times – “hagios”, translated 166 times as “holy” and the rest as “saint”. Let me expound on this for the benefit of all readers. Obviously, God is trying to tell us something. But what? The root from which the word “hagios” stem has to do primarily with separation, particularly when the separation is for a special purpose. Thusly:
1. A person set apart is a saint.
2. The act of setting apart is to sanctify.
3. The state of being set apart is sanctification.
4. A place set apart is a sanctuary.
Perhaps you have seen a sign that said “Bird Sanctuary”. That is “for the birds”, literally. Seriously, it really is. It was ‘set apart’ for their habitation and preservation. Popular usage reflects the Romanist corruption of the term (I’m speaking bluntly, please don’t take offense – it is just my way of writing and talking). A friend of mine once observed that in the popular mind a saint is either someone who is too old to get into mischief, or those dead so long all the mischief they got into has been forgotten. That is almost to true too be funny, or better stated, it is too sad to be funny. Address a fellow believer in your sect as a saint and note the response. You will be thought of as being playful, not serious. Paul was serious, though! (Cp. Rom. 1:7, I Cor. 1:2, Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:2, I Thess. 3:13, II Thess. 1:10, I Tim. 5:10, Philem. 5, plus multiple times throughout his letters. Jude, the Hebrew writer, John, etc., also uses the expression. John Chrysostom, a famed 4th century writer, counseled parents to bestow an ennobling name on their children, and then keep its meaning and challenge before them. What a challenge for us today. We are called (to be) saints, and to be separated from the world and called into the ekklesia of Christ.
Using “holy”, as you did, tells me that you consider the office of the episkopos a separated office from the “saints” of God. I don’t, for many reasons, only one of which I wrote on above. There are many more – later, perhaps, or not.
“Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Act 20:28)
Let me give you what I translated that verse as directly from the Greek manuscripts: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the holy (agion) spirit (pneuma) placed you as overseers (episkopous), to shepherd (pastor- poimainein) the called out assembly (ekklesian) of God, which he acquired through the his own blood.
As you see, there is a difference in the meaning from what you quoted (from the Vulgate?) There is no Greek term that could be called “rule” over the assembly. Bishops are not to “rule” over the saints, period – according to the directions given by the apostle Paul. Peter did not “rule” anyone, period. He was merely a fellow-elder with the other elders, as he said. Other than that, well, it’s acceptable
Was your point that priesthood was at the time not separated from episcopacy? That is correct also, -- the Church was not big enough to have preists who are not bishops. That is also clear from 1 Peter 5:
1 The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre's sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
This speaks of the consecrated character of the priesthood, no?
Naturally, I don’t accept your translation here. Let me explain. First your last sentence: Yes, I’ll say NO – a definite NO. There is no “priesthood” of the leadership in the assembly of saints – all of the assembly are priests! I realize that your church takes the Latin transliteration of the Greek “presbuterous” and change its meaning to mean a “priest”. Let me bring out what your Latin Vulgate translates the Greek as in the verses from I Pet. 5:1-5 -
(1) seniores ergo qui in vobis sunt obsecro consenior et testis Christi passionum qui et eius quae in futuro revelanda est gloriae communicator (2) pascite qui est in vobis gregem Dei providentes non coacto sed spontanee secundum Deum neque turpis lucri gratia sed voluntarie (3) neque ut dominantes in cleris sed formae facti gregi et ex animo (4) et cum apparuerit princeps pastorum percipietis inmarcescibilem gloriae coronam (5) similiter adulescentes subditi estote senioribus omnes autem invicem humilitatem insinuate quia Deus superbis resistit humilibus autem dat gratiam
Jerome sure didn’t translate presbuterous as “ancients”, nor did he use any word that would make it mean “priests”! Let’s take an educated look at the term “priest”.
Priest: From the Greek term “hiereus”.
This word is used in Scriptures to identify “one who offers sacrifice and has charge of the things pertaining to it.” It is found only 33 times in the New Covenant Testament of God. 18 of these times it has direct reference to the Jewish Levitical Priests. Of the remaining 15 times, 8 have direct reference to our Lord Jesus Christ, 3 have reference to Melchizedek, 1 to the pagan priests of the god Jupiter, and the remaining 3 refer to the entire membership of the Church — the community of saints who are described as “a kingdom, and priests to God” (revelations 1:6). As you can see, it is not used in very many places, especially to Christians or the Church.
Let us now look and shed some light on this. In searching the New Testament we find that the word “priest” is NEVER ONCE applied to a special ministry or caste in the Church of Christ. NOT ONCE do we find an evangelist, bishop, or deacon referred to as a “priest” in any distinctive sense; no such individual was “priest” by right of office. The only use of the word “priest” when used to describe Christians, and that in only 3 places, always meant the common members and not the leaders only (as an office).
Before I bring out more on this topic, I want you to understand that I do not write this to appear contemptuous, proud, or arrogant, but to find out what God says and not man. I am not a partisan of any group of Christianity except the group God has called-out to be saints. Yes, the word “saint,” the way the Holy Scriptures uses it, is aptly able to describe the term “priest” — but that is something to be expounded upon at another time. Be that as it may, I am forced to use terms just as the Holy Spirit used them, for if I don’t, there is no way that we can have the truth God wanted us to know. Let’s look at the next word that is used by partisans to describe a special group of men before we go on to bring them all together.
Clergy: From the Greek term “kleeros”.
This word has caused a lot of confusion among God’s people. When the average man hears it used he immediately thinks of a special caste or group of distinguished men. His thinking is prejudiced because of its long use, and only partially right. It is to “whom” he relates it to that he is wrong. The meaning of this word as used in Scriptures is not what the average man relates to. He runs to a modern day dictionary and sees that it is a general term or title given collectively to “priests and ministers.” The trouble is that the word in its original meaning and use during the New Testament times of the first three centuries of Christianity was never designated to apply to or create a special caste or group of men (or women).
What then, does it mean? We find in our investigation that the Greek word “kleeros” means “a lot, an inheritance.” In the New Testament Scriptures of God it is used a total of 13 times, but is never translated as “clergy, clergyman or cleric.” It is rendered 1 time as “heritage,” 2 times as “inheritance,” 3 times as “lot,” 5 times as “lots,” and 2 times as “part.” It is never used to mark off a segment or special caste in the Church. It is used to designate ALL who have been redeemed and immersed into Christ. It is God’s people who constitute the “heritage” (kleeros) of Him! God, through Christ, has not selected a special caste or group from among those called-out to be Christians to serve as His “lot” or “inheritance!”
The word “kleeros” was first used around 1500 years before Christ by God to apply to those who were to be his “lot” or “inheritance.” The “kleeros” — clergy — of God were originally to be every member of the tribes of Israel. But, as Scriptures tell us, God changed His mind when the people wouldn’t take on that responsibility, and then chose only the descendents of Aaron to be “priests,” and the rest of the Levites to be servants or ministers to the priesthood of Aaron (See Numbers 3:1–13). That is how the title, “Levitical priests,” came about. Thusly, all Levites were God’s “clergy,” but not all Levites were “priests.” To be a priest, one had to be a direct descendent of Aaron.
The “presbuteros” (transposed from the Greek into our Bible as “presbters”), were the “elders” of each of the other 12 tribes of Israel. NONE of these “elders” were able to be priests, nor “high priests.” There were many of these “presbyters — which means elders” — in each of the 12 tribes of Israel. They were to be the “bishops,” that’s right, the “overseers” of their individual tribes or families. What is important to see is that not a one of these “elders” (presbuteros) who occupied that office of “overseer” (episkopos/bishop) were ever called “priests” (hiereus) or “clergy” (kleeros) of God.
It is futile to think a person could find this word used to apply to priests and ministers as a separate group within the realm of Christianity in the first three centuries, and even for a time thereafter, for its use was ONLY applied to Christians as a whole. Later on, as ecclesiastical groups started forming, they started to use this word to apply to only the elite, that is, only to those who were the leaders. But they had trouble doing this. If they used the term of “kleeros” to apply only to the leaders, the Scriptures would end up saying that ONLY THE LEADERS WERE CHRISTIANS! But that was something they could not do, so they invented the term “clergy,” and in so doing, were forced to invent the word “laity” also. Understand this: The word “kleeros,” God’s lot or heritance, is still applied by those who call themselves “clergy,” to the whole of Christianity. “Clergy” comes from the Greek word “kleeros.” Notwithstanding the appropriation of the term “clergy” to apply to a special select group, the “laity” are still referred to as the “kleeros” of God! Notice how the word “kleeros,” which is taken to mean “clergy” has been redefined into two separate words with very different meanings, although related. This being so, let’s look at this word “laity.”
Laity: From the Greek “laos”.
This word “laos,” from which we get the transposed or the transliterated word “laity,” is found 141 times in God’s New Covenant Scriptures. STOP! You will never find the word “laity” in your Bible! It is ALWAYS translated “people.” “Laos” is NEVER translated by the term “laity.” It is ALWAYS translated “people.” In every instance when it is applied to the community Christ founded, it refers to the whole body of believers. “Laity” is a word invented by the ecclesiastical class to apply to the members of their organization or church. The way it is being used today by the “clergy” has no foundation in Scriptures, nor in the history of the early church up to the time the word “clergy” was invented. This Greek word “laos” was never used by the writers of Scriptures to refer to a group as distinguished from a priestly or a ministerial caste or class of people. In fact, the Apostle Peter used the term “laos” to designate all God’s “clergy.” Hear Him: “But you are a chosen race, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, a holy nation, God’s OWN PEOPLE (laos), that you may declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Again: “Draw near to Him (Christ), a living stone, indeed rejected by men but chosen and honored by God. Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house, a HOLY PRIESTHOOD, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4–5).
This passage by Peter is real clear and also very significant, for it identifies the PRIESTHOOD — the CLERGY of God, as God’s LAITY, God’s called-out ekklesian, the Church of Christ. Yes, God’s CLERGY are His LAITY, and as Peter said, all God’s laity (people) are members of the priesthood — a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD.
What shall we say to this then? Shall we continue to ignore what God has said and go on our merry way? Shall we continue to apply the words God used in a sense that He never applied them? Absolutely NOT. At least, I won’t. Every priest of God is one of His laity, and every member of God’s laity is a priest in the royal priesthood of God. Every child of God is His lot or heritage through the shed blood of Christ, all of God’s children are His clergy. Since Peter designated the “laity” as “clergy,” there can never be a distinction between them in God’s kingdom.
I’ve been quite wordy in this post, but it, IMHO, was needed. I’m also somewhat blunt in what I say, so please forgive me if it offends you – no offense was intended. It’s now your turn…may God’s spirit be with you.