No. Though if you chose to "be provoked" for what also served as comment towards statements and positions put forth by yourself elsewhere recently, then there is little I can do as to your own choice in reaction.
This began originally as I did say in the first two comments pinged to yourself, that and very much to establish confirmation from yourself (which you did supply twice, than you) that the missing "priest" or "priests" in so-called "Protestant" texts were not some evil plot bias, as hinted towards by the person I also pinged to this comment.
If I rejected it altogether, in toto, then why would I have spoken of those who do find the grace, even the Spirit of Christ in those settings?
You are correct. I pour my heart on these pages, and still you do not understand me.
Myself, and my experience does not fit the "form" and language you are most accustomed to. Perhaps.
Yet I understand you, quite well enough, even to knowing much of what you will say in reply to me, even as I write that which I do.
BlueDragon:
If all you wanted to state is that the word used in Greek “presbuteros” and that “presbyter” is the Latin equivalent from where the word priest in English is derived. I agree. The word “presbuteros” means literally “elder man” which is what I Stated. So, in that sense, all it is describing is the type of Man who is to be appointed by “Overseers” [Episkopos] or earlier when the Apostles appointed “presbyters”
Had you left it at that, no harm no foul. Yet, you had to get into the “function aspect” of what those “overseers” and “presbyters” did in terms of their ministry. My position, as documented by how the early Church Fathers understood what overseers and presbyters and also deacons were to do in terms of “function” indicates that it was a priestly ministry in that these men were called to lead the entire “priestly people” [1 Peter 2:9] in the Divine Worship [Liturgy] and serve the Christian community in that regard as well as celebrating and administering the sacraments.
Ok, I see the Priestly function of the Clergy as the natural order that Christ handed to the Apostles and they handed to the early Church and that it is for the service of the “priesthood of the entire Church and laity”. You see it is detracting from the “universal priesthood of all believers” in your Reformed Theology. Ok, fair enough. We disagree on that point and will never agree.
So with respect to the discussion about the words “overseer”, presbyter, etc. and how they are translated, there was no bias in using “elder” in protestant Bibles and “presbyter” in Catholic Bibles or “Priest” if that is used given it is the English word derived from the Latin or “overseer” vs. “Bishop”, I would not have responded with “provoke”
When you added your mini diatribe about “sacerdotal” interpretation of the function of what “overseers” and “presbyters” did, that, and only that, is the context of the usage by me of “provoke”. I stand 100% by what I wrote in reference to “priestly function” in terms of ministry [e.g. Ordained are the ones who celebrated and consecrated the Holy Eucharist] and have posted enough on that in earlier posts and I am not going to get into it again here.