Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: paladinan
I think we covered this, already. If you're looking for the English words "priest", "Pope" The approach of "if I don't see the English word in my English Bible, I won't believe it", isn't the best way to discern truth from error... especially since the Bible wasn't written in English.

No YOU covered it ...I looked for the GREEK words in the NT church and they were not there. NOT THERE , that is because the priesthood was a type of Christ in the OT...Christ offered the final sacrifice that fulfilled the type..NO MORE FUTURE sacrifices were needed.

If there was to be a priesthood in the NT the role would have been designated ...not there..

The role of a Priest was to sacrifice ...there were to be no further sacrifices for sin after Christ, the sacrifices were a type of Christ, the priest was a type of Christ.. all complete at the cross.. THAT is why there no longer a need for priests .

God put an exclamation point on the end of the priesthood in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed and all the genealogies that were needed for the priesthood were destroyed.. God destroyed the type as it was no longer necessary.. but Rome in her apostasy decided to over rule God and start a priesthood for itself

There was no one on one confessions in the NT church ...the early church had a time for public confessions in their services ...but there is no record that Peter or any of the apostles ever "heard" a confession" , in fact the NT tells us to go directly to the throne of God for mercy..

Here's the same problem: you seem to be looking for the words "priest" and "pope", and--not finding them--you assume that they don't exist. Are you familiar with the origin of the word "Pope", for example? It comes from the Greek word "Pappas", meaning "Father

Is there ANY record of Peter being called "Father "..... nope not a one

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The Pope is the successor of St. Peter (Pope Benedict XVI is the 265th pope, in unbroken succession, from St. Peter), and the Bishop of Rome; he is the "prime minister" (Hebrew: "al-bayyit" = "over the household") of the King of Kings. Compare the texts of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 18, and see if you can notice a parallel. The word "Pope" is a convenience (albeit one laden with deep meaning); if you changed his title, his office and authority would still be the same.

Actually there is no clear line of the papacy if one is HONEST

But even if there was a clear line of succession ..it means nothing ... because there is no papacy in the scriptures.. it is a man made institution ...and one that can not even prove peter was ever the bishop of Rome

In the early church those leading worship were called the clerk, not the priest You'll have to explain your reasoning for saying so, before I could answer further on that point.

I have, but will do it again

the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into "High Priest" and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.

The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .

The bible is written in greek there are a couple words for priest the holy Spirit could have used if that was Gods design..

hiereus

1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ

and archiereus

1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.

Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..

There is no priesthood in the new church. Greek is very clear on that . There is a word for priest in greek and it is NEVER USED FOR THE NEW CHURCH. That word is "hiereus", the greek word for elder is presbyteros'''.

Elders is a leadership role, not a roll of sacrificer .

You see the scriptural division in passages like this

Mark 15;1And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

Young's Literal Translation

Acts 4:5 And it came to pass upon the morrow, there were gathered together of them the rulers, and elders, and scribes, to Jerusalem,

Even the Douay-Rheims Bible does not translate that as priests.. Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their princes, and ancients, and scribes, were gathered together in Jerusalem;

A poor translation from the greek, but non the less even they did not translate it as priest.

55 posted on 02/10/2011 12:54:05 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: RnMomof7
I looked for the GREEK words in the NT church and they were not there. NOT THERE

I think you missed my point. Don't you see the irony in what you're saying? Your original post was about Catholic criticism of "sola Scriptura"... but now, you try to dismiss Catholic teachings *because* they're apparently "not in the Bible" (i.e. they violate "sola Scriptura"). That's what's called a "circular argument"--assuming your own conclusion in order to prove it--and it simply won't do. How do you justify defending sola Scriptura with sola Scriptura?

Case in point: if the words "pope", "priest", "Confession", etc., are not in the Bible (in whatever language you like) by name, per se, but they're in there by identity (e.g. the Trinity is in the Bible, as I think(?) you'll agree--but nowhere is the word "Trinity" mentioned in Scripture, even once), how does that advance your case? I'm not a "sola Scriptura" adherent (especially since "sola Scriptura", ironically enough, is nowhere to be found in the Bible, even conceptually--to say nothing of the actual words), so I'm really not distressed over the lack of explicit Scriptural mention of any of the above. If, for example, Christ gave His Apostles the authority to forgive sins (and He did: cf. John 20:23), then it makes no difference, whatsoever, if the mechanism for that forgiveness is called "Penance", "Confession", "Reconciliation", or (with apologies to G.K. Chesterton) "Rumtyfoo"; the fact is the fact.

By the way: DO you believe in the Trinity?
56 posted on 02/10/2011 2:16:17 PM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson