Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
“First of all, I never said or implied Saint Paul was a fundamentalist,you guessed that I might think that. I don’t believe he was!”
I thought that might be a reasonable conclusion to be drawn but if you say no, then ‘no’ it is.
The rest of you comment really has nothing to do with the subject at hand and why you posted it, I won’t concern myself with or try to guess.
Maybe another time.
“Maybe another time.”
Good idea. Objectively, I cant find your alleged Matthew wording in any Bible. Perhaps you have a different Bible that we dont know about.
The Amplified Bible, Darby's Translation, Young's Literal Translation, New American Standard Version,....SHALL I GO ON?.....all use the word “disciples” (Matt. 28:19) as in “make disciples”. “Alleged Matthew wording..”?????
Objectively, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
I am pointing to your concoction that the verse you quote proves that infants should not be baptized.
It’s invented and bad theology.
This is naturally a favorite of many English-speaking Christians, SFA, but it is not so neatly clear cut. The Greek OT Septuagint (LXX) reads as follows:
“I am the being (ego eimi)” or "I am who is."
But the Hebrew Bible says "I will be what I will be" (ehyeh asher ehyeh), or literally "I shall become who I am becoming."
The tense in LXX is present, in Hebrew it is imperfect future.
But Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and he would have quoted the Hebrew Bible or the Targum (in Aramaic), and not in Greek.
For example, the (unofficial) Neofiti Targum (unlike the official Onkelos Targum) renders 3:14 in an exegetical manner:
"The one who said and the world came into existence from the beginning; and is to say again: Be, and it will be".
Now, targum in Hebrew means "translation" and that's what early targums were; they were freelance translations of the Hebrew text for the Aramaic speaking Jews after their return from the Babylonian captivity. They no longer spoke Hebrew but Aramaic which is like Italian is to Latin, or koine Greek is to modern Greek, or Church Slavonic is to Slavic languages - closely related but incomprehensible.
But the word Targum (capitalized) refers specifically to Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh, i.e. the Pentutech, the Prophets and the Writings). Of these there are many, but generally the two most often used are the Onkelos (Torah, the Teaching) and the Jonathan (Ketuvim, the Prophets).
The pseudo-Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targums, the so-called "western targums," which contradict the "official Targums" render Exodus 3:14 as "He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things existed."
Also the 10th century Arabic translations takes the liberty of changing the the "I" into "The Eternal, who passes not away."
etc.
So, it is very clear that everything depends on which version is cherry-picked to fit the particular doctrine and that nothing in the Bible can be asserted with any certainty, except that it is closely tailored to doctrine.
Luckily for the architects of doctrine there never lacks a steady supply of fitting versions of the Bible for the task. It's like tailor-made Leggo blocks, if you get the drift.
Just something to keep in mind when considering Bible quotes and ancient quotes in general. My advice is: take them with a grain of salt. :)
What St. Paul does in Galatians 3 is build his own theology, not typology, SFA, by suggesting that God preposterously used the Law to assure humanity always fails and is cursed by it.
“it is very clear that everything depends on which version is cherry-picked to fit the particular doctrine and that nothing in the Bible can be asserted with any certainty, except that it is closely tailored to doctrine.”
I dont think that is clear to any Christian...Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox.
That's why they say "blinded by the light." Those who can see, it seems quite clear.
Discussing Scripture and Faith with a non Christian is pointless.
Some will see and hear but they will not unerstand.
In my opinion that's a cop-out. This is like saying discussing any belief (not only religious) with a non-believer is pointless. If you can't defend your beliefs, maybe it's time to reassess them. After all, what is the point of a debate if you are only going to tap each other on the shoulder in agreement? LOL!
“nothing in the Bible can be asserted with any certainty”
So, you wish to debate a prima facie? LOL
“It’s like tailor-made Leggo blocksif you get the drift.”
Quite the learned comment.
“Just something to keep in mind when considering Bible quotes and ancient quotes in general. My advice is: take them with a grain of salt.”
Incorrect, it is to be taken with the Holy Spirit. The problems that atheists and secular progressives have is that you cant only look at Scripture in the literal sense an not consider the spiritual sense.
One requires the Holy Spirit given by grace to be able to understand. Posts attemptng to break down Scripture as if by science are irrelevant to the authors. It must be read and interpreted with the same Spirity by which it is written.
I don't remember saying that.
Quite the learned comment
You have a high English one?
Incorrect, it is to be taken with the Holy Spirit
And just how do you do that? How do you explain all the variants with your Holy Spirit?
The problems that atheists and secular progressives have is that you cant only look at Scripture in the literal sense an not consider the spiritual sense
What is "spiritual sense?" I say it's a smoke screen. You are just making statements of faith sound like statements of fact without a shred of credible evidence. Ghosts! You can't be serious.
One requires the Holy Spirit given by grace to be able to understand
Let me guess: because the Bible says so? Circular reasoning.
Posts attemptng to break down Scripture as if by science are irrelevant to the authors
Of course they are; they show that most it is hot air without substance.
It must be read and interpreted with the same Spirity by which it is written
Then why do we have so many interpretations, all claiming to be guided by the same Spirit?
Why 'must' it be? Because the Bible says so? Where is the proof? Where is this Spirit? How do you know it is that Spirit? How do you know it's not insanity?
“What is “spiritual sense?” I say it’s a smoke screen.”
...not as educated as I thought lol.
“You are just making statements of faith sound like statements of fact”
The futility of attempting to discuss a faith based text while ignoring faith...escapes some?
“Let me guess: because the Bible says so? Circular reasoning.”
No. Circular reasoning is a fallacy that could be used in a purely analytical debate. Some are not equipped to enter into theological debate since they are not believers. Theological debate between believers...or example Lutherans and Orthodox is possible as they accept the basics....as in the existance of God and the Word of God being present in the Gospels and Scripture.
“Then why do we have so many interpretations, all claiming to be guided by the same Spirit?”
A valid debate between believers, Christian brothers and sisters.
I always try to be careful to use the word "developed" rather than "evolved" in a context like this.
Here's why: we may construe "evolution" to mean that one thing supposedly becomes another thing quite dissimilar or entirely different, of a different species (or genus or phylum, or, by analogy, something a far cry from the original); but we understand "development" to mean something maturing, or unfolding from within according to a pattern that is already intrinsic.
Examples: A small ratlike mammal may supposedly "evolve" into a horse. (So they say.) But by contrast, given proper conditions, an embryo unequivocally "develops" into a neonate, a toddler, a teenager.
So I would say that the "presbyters" who ordained new "presbyters" (including young ones like Timothy) by the imposing of hands, were not conferring the spiritual gift of "oldness" or "elderliness," but conferring a "presbyter" status which was an early development of what we call priesthood.
Even in NT times, presbyter did not mean merely "elder" (think of youthful Timothy), nor were they conferring the Aaronic priesthood, but they were designating those who carried forward the new priesthood, the one priesthood of Christ.
This new Christ-priesthood is referred to in the New Testament (I Peter 2:5, 2:9, Rev 1:6, 5:9-10) as:
‘...a holy priesthood...’
‘...a royal priesthood...’
‘...a kingdom of priests...’
and
‘...a kingdom and priests...
This is also connected to the forgiveness of sins (via Christ's priesthood)--- carried forward into the Church as St. Paul explains: "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10 KJV)
Not an evolution.
A development.
One you can see definitely beginning in the NT, and continuing in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, well before Constantine.
Speak for yourself. So far you have given exactly nothing, zero, zilch, but you have made some pretty definitive statements — without any evidence whatsoever. Besides, your tone is confrontational. I didn't invite you to comment on my posts to another FReeper. Yet you invited yourself without any intention (it appears) to discuss anything, it appears but to berate "atheists" and what not.
So, since you jumped into the puddle, either discuss your claims or leave. I don't care either way. But don't invite yourself just to pass judgments on others.
I have no time for charlatans whose only contribution is making statements of personal nature (such as "not very educated. lol") rather than making a single worthwhile comment on the topic at hand.
Some are not equipped to enter into theological debate since they are not believers
Did someone die and leave you in charge here to decide who is qualified and who is not? Or do we just have an overabundance of religious pride? How Christian!
Theological debate between believers...or example Lutherans and Orthodox is possible as they accept the basics....as in the existance of God and the Word of God being present in the Gospels and Scripture.
You mean they accept the unproven suppositions which might as well be pink unicorns on Jupiter?
A valid debate between believers, Christian brothers and sisters
That's not what I asked. Multiple opinions means no one really knows for sure. How can they all be guided by the "Holy Spirit?" and burn each other at stake? Get real.
But what did 1st century presbyters do? The koine Greek had a word for priest (iereus) but didn't apply it to prebyters. By definition, a iereus is the one who offers sacrifices and sacred rites.
The root word ieros means that which is sacred or consecrated to deity, as in iera grammata, sacred scriptures (2 Tim 3:15), something that is revered.
No such thing was ascribed to presbyters. I don't think there is one single instance in the New Testament (which uses the word presbyter 49 times) where the priestly (i.e. consecrated rites) are ascribed to a presbyter.
This new Christ-priesthood is referred to in the New Testament (I Peter 2:5, 2:9...]
Yes, 1 Peter is a late 1st century or an early 2nd century book, and, more importantly, it is addressed to the Christians and not presbyters in particular, with a message that it's good and desirable to suffer (1 Pet 2:21), and that doing so will make them acceptably to God (1 Pet 2:20), a la Jesus style.
and in that act of consecration, an act of sacrificial offering, they indeed become both the ones offering the they become "the holy priesthood."
It does seem, though, that all the local churches that arose in the first centuries AD and their historic descendants, whether they are Catholic or Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldeans, Copts, Calcedonian or non-Calcedonian, etc. --- they all had, and still have, a deacon-priest-bishop polity, and they all have a Mass or Divine Liturgy with the Eucharist regarded as a Sacrifice: eternal and accomplished by Christ. Celebrated by priests. Don't they?
If you know of any churches with an early (1st -3rd century)and continuous existence, who differ from this pattern, of course I'd be interested inhearing about them.
In the New Testament, we are all priests, offering a sacrifice of service and praise.
Rom 12:1 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.
Phl 2:17 Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.
Phl 4:18 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.
Hbr 13:15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.
Hbr 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
1Pe 2:5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
What we do NOT see in the New Testament is any man offering an atoning sacrifice in the role of a priest.
“11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. 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. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” - Heb 9
I realize Catholic doctrine puts a different spin on Hebrews, to put it mildly, but I think the standard Protestant interpretation does so using the plain meaning of the words. No one reading Hebrews would naturally conclude that Jesus is being continually offered in a perpetual sacrifice, or that there are priests in the church presenting his flesh and blood in an atoning sacrifice daily.
Sola Scriptura remains the great divide for Protestant and Catholic, for the latter cannot justify current practice without giving greater weight to traditions that followed hundreds or a thousand years of evolution. The current role of priests can only be justified by elevating tradition above scripture, which is implicit in using it to determine the meaning of scripture.
All this was prophesied in Malachi 1:11, "For from the rising to the setting of the sun, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered and a perfect sacrifice in My Name: for my name shall be great among the nations, saith the LORD of hosts."
When was this fulfilled among the nations, except in the AD Church, offering this prophesied pure sacrifice, Christ's one perfect offering? To ignore or minimize this "Do this" imperative would be to ignore that He founded a Church; that this Church quickly spread to the "Gentiles," the "nations," and quickly and organically developed a distinction of roles and a "division of labor," as it were, according to the distribution of the various gifts of the Spirit and the various ministries, joined together in one Body.
It would be to ignore that this Body, as identified in the Epistles and as locatable on earth, ALWAYS did and does identify "do this" as something "done" by those who have the specified role of participating in this eternal sacrifice of His Body and Blood: priests by definition, no matter what word you use, "among the Gentiles," "among the nations."
This is hardly a human tradition. This is the Church; it is all the local Churches in the A.D. world in an unbroken succession until now, as I said in #2397, unless dear kosta50 finds I am in error! :o) ---not a wisp or a vaporous/notional thing, but a living Body as Paul said.
He said living Body; he didn't say "sola Scriptura."
I like your comments, though: I can follow your reasoning, or at least I think I do.
Thanks, and G'night now!
The presbyters were not called priests because they were not priests. As simple as that. They were not priests because they did not offer sacrifice, and the reaosn they did not offer sactifice is because early Christans were mostly Greek-speaking Jews and Jews don't offer sacrifice in synagogues, but only in the Temple.
How do we know they were Jews? Simple, the NT tells us that 1st century Christians went to synagogues until they were thrown out of them. And we all know that in synagogues they give blessings, and not sactifices.
besides, in Judaims, not everyone could offer sacrifices. They had to be from a specific tribe. On the other hand, elders would have offer blesisngs as the senior member of the cognregartion does to this day at any Jewish holiday.
It does seem, though, that all the local churches that arose in the first centuries AD and their historic descendants, whether they are Catholic or Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldeans, Copts, Calcedonian or non-Calcedonian, etc. --- they all had, and still have, a deacon-priest-bishop polity
Not in the first (New Testament) century. All you find is bishop/deacon among Christian polity, and none is associated with offering sactifice, but with administratuion/assistance.
and they all have a Mass or Divine Liturgy with the Eucharist regarded as a Sacrifice: eternal and accomplished by Christ. Celebrated by priests. Don't they?
Not as long as they were considered a Jewish sect and that was all the way up to the last decade of the 1st century, when the rabbis at Jamnia rejected all Christian books (c. AD 90).
It was not the Chirstains who left Judiams but Judiams that threw out Christians. Christianiyt was a Jewish sect and Christians went to singagogues.
If you know of any churches with an early (1st -3rd century)and continuous existence, who differ from this pattern, of course I'd be interested inhearing about them
I don't know of a single church which served Mass/Divine Liturgy in the first century. Do you? If so, please tell us which one, along with supporting evidence.
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.