Christ simply abolished the need for Hebrew priests, not just for sacrifices by them. This is why ιερευς is only used for Christian priests to underscore their type being the Hebrew priests. Ordinarily, to describe the function and role of the Christian priest πρεσβυτερος is used, like in the letters to Timothy and Titus.
Hebrews 7:17 Paul quotes Psalm 110:4 and applies that oath and promise about Melchizedek to Christ and Christ alone
He doesn't actually say "alone" in that verse, and the chapter, adressed to the Jews explains that Christ is NOT a levitical priest, but rather in the order of Melchisedech, and generally the Jewish law is dissolved with Christ. It is not contrasting Christ with the Catholic priests but Christ with the Hebrew priests.
However, the Catholic teaching is that in essence, Christ IS the only priest. When a ministerial priest receives an ordination, -- for example, when priests were ordained by Titus, -- they did not become, like levitical priests, distinct and multiple priests, but rather they received the grace to stand in for Christ, -- become another Christ in the sacramental sense, -- in their sacramental and liturgical function: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). To which you had this to say:
John 20:21 uses the word ‘apostello’ to refer to Christ being sent out by his father, not priest, and those he sent were disciples not priests, certainly not like Melchizedek.
You know that how about Melchisedech? You could make the argument that they were apostles. But apostles in turn ordained priests (see again Timothy and Titus). A Catholic priest offers not another sacrifice at Mass but the sacrifice of the Cross. At Mass, he is Christ.
presbyteros (I have trouble getting the Greek font up) was used to mean elder and older man long before the time of Christ, as far back as during the time of Homer I believe, so the word is not new
The word in frequent and ancient use was πρέσβυς (elder, venerable etc.), but I agree that πρεσβυτερος would be recognizable as something like that. To translate for Christian πρεσβυτερος "elder" would not be incorrect in a vacuum, and perhaps given that defect of English that conflates the two kinds of priests would even be a good idea. The gross error is not in using "elder" but uin not recognizing Catrholic priesthood in that "elder". As it is, "priest" derives from πρεσβυτερος and is the time-honored way to describe the person in the role of the πρεσβυτερος of the First Church.
you mean a novel useage then you should be able to show it was applied to Jewish priests too as hiereus was to describe their priestly functions
It is a novel usage but by what logic does it follow that it should also apply to the Jewish priests? Did we not just go through Hebrews where the distinction between the levitical priests and the priesthood in the order of Melchisedech was made?
translating presbyteroi, prebyteros, etc. as priest or priestly is evidence of a religious bias in the translating being justified by what I called reverse-exegesis
Bias is to have functioning priests for centuries and still translate "elder".
The issue is not how to translate from Greek but what the greek words mean, and from the examples I showed you πρεσβυτερος is someone who gets carefully selected then ordained by an apostle or my a person in turn so appointed by an apostle; who is trained in the right doctrine and who offers sacraments. Call it pink banana if you must, it is still a Catholic priest that is described in the Timothys and Titus.
One...you haven’t examined the Greek you claimed to be able to read. Two...You seem just as unfamiliar with the Scriptures
You conclude that based on what my post, precisely?
I cannot make that proviso in every post, but you all understand that when I say “Catholic” I means any validly ordained deacon, priest, or bishop, including the Orthodox clergy.
And you reply:
“You conclude that based on what my post, precisely?”
Well, let's see.(again I won't be using the Greek fonts).
You wrote:
“Christ simply abolished the need for Hebrew priests, not just for sacrifices by them. This is why HIEREUS is only used for Christian priests to underscore their type being the Hebrew priests”
Consider Matthew 26:3. The chief priests (archeireus) and ancients, elders (prebyteros) are gathered together in the courtyard of the high priest (archiereus).
The presbyteros here are not Christian priests, nor are they Jewish priests, they are, as both Catholic and Protestant translators translate, elders, older men of the community.
Matthew says the hiereus are Jewish priests and the presbyteros are the the elders, older men of the community, or ancients as the DRV puts it.
Acts 2:17, 1 Tim 5:1,17,19 and Titus 2:2 uses the term presbyteros(or a form) and it is translated as elder, older man by most translations including the DRV but for some reason the DRV translates 1 Tim. 5:17,19 as “priest”.
You say:
“The gross error is not in using “elder” but uin not recognizing Catrholic priesthood in that “elder”. As it is, “priest” derives from PRESBYTEROS and is the time-honored way to describe the person in the role of the PREBYTEROS of the First Church”
This may be good Catholic theology but as above it is not supported by the use of the term in the Scriptures and even Catholic translators recognize this.
You wrote:
“You know that how about Melchisedech? You could make the argument that they were apostles. But apostles in turn ordained priests (see again Timothy and Titus).”
1 Tim 4:14 uses the term “presbyteriou” or presbytery and as any lexicon will attest means an elder, older man (figuratively and spiritually) who leads the congregation not a “priesthood”.
Who else is a priest after the manner of Mechizedek? Only he is so named. Only to him is the oath applied. The order of Melchizedek has only one member, Christ. See Hebrews.
“However, the Catholic teaching is that in essence, Christ IS the only priest. When a ministerial priest receives an ordination, — for example, when priests were ordained by Titus, — they did not become, like levitical priests, distinct and multiple priests, but rather they received the grace to stand in for Christ, — become another Christ in the sacramental sense, — in their sacramental and liturgical function: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21).”
Yes, that may be Catholic teaching, belief and theology but that is reading into the Scriptures what isn't found there.
You argue that since “priest” is derived from presbyteros when prebyteros is used it means “priest”. The DRV uses priest or priesthood while the NAB uses elder for presbyteros.
How a word is translated reflects the view of the translators about how that word was used.
You defined presbyteros as priests because they were appointed, ordained and because they performed sacraments but again that a reverse exegesis since there is no indication that an older man or elder, prebyteros could not grease with oil an ailing person and offer prayer over them or perform similar acts.
Essentially you're saying since only a priest could do these sort of acts everyone who did them was a priest in a fine example of circular reasoning.
You say:
“Bias is to have functioning priests for centuries and still translate “elder”
But the DRV has been translating presbyteros as “ancient”, “older man, elder” and then immediately within the same context translate as “priest”, something the NAB, NJB does not do in these same verses.
The Christian church cannot be retro-fitted with priests by mistranslation and redefining the presbyteros.
You haven’t examined the Greek you claimed to be able to read. Two...You seem just as unfamiliar with the Scriptures
“You conclude that based on what my post, precisely?”
You still have to ask?