Posted on 05/16/2008 4:46:28 PM PDT by annalex
Ah. So there are also false churches? Who leads them?
Same as he who leads false Catholics, I'd imagine.
They all believe in Christ .. and follow Christ.
So do Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Adventists, Salvation Army, and a host of less exotic Protestant denominations who do not agree on much of anything.
Quite frankly, they all agree on quite a bit, though not on everything.
For that matter, even the Catholic and Protestant churches agree on a core of belief, but of course your aim is to exagerate the differences.
But we don’t have false Catholic churches. We have fallen Catholics. They don’t have that ridiculous pretense of being led by the Holy Spirit. You do. That chest-beating is solely your problem.
Like I just explained in my previous post, we have fallen Catholics but we don't have a separate Catholic church for them. In the Protestant world, however, there are entire denominations that have openly gay ministers and would officiate at gay weddings. Why is it "dirty" to mention that? This is where your pretense of Holy Spirit leadership has led you.
your interpretation
It is not "interpretation". Presbyteros IS priest. It is used today in Greece. Words have their meaning established through history. "Elder" has existed as an English word probalby longer than "priest", yet no one prior to Reformation had thought of translating "presbyteros" with it.
Our elders anoint with oil [...], and lay on hands... and it works!
Prayer generally works, I agree. Even Pentecostal prayers. Still, what you do is sacramental usage of oil. I have my opinion regarding whether you achieve a sacrament, but your intention is certainly to have a sacrament: you use an object as a channel of grace.
Do you think that the Holy Spirit leads those denominations entirely, or do you think that He leads them only insofar as they all agree? And what is that agreement, precisely?
Aaack. Presbyteros in the NT is literally elder not priest. It is derived from the Greek presbys meaning old person. From it we get modern words such as presbyopia, which is an eye condition common in the elderly.
Your last comment makes little sense considering that the first English translations of the Greek NT were made about the time of the Reformation. E.g., William Tyndale translated presbyteros in Acts 4:5 and 20:17 as "seniors" (not priests).
Besides, the NT Greek had a perfectly good word for priest, hiereus.
And "priest" is derived from "presbyteros". So, shall we go by derivations or by what Tyndale's translation, filled with more serious mistakes than that, used?
Strong's Concordance -G4245
presbuteros
pres-boo'-ter-os
Comparative of presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.
Total KJV Occurrences: 67
elders, 58
Mat_15:2, Mat_16:21, Mat_21:23, Mat_26:3, Mat_26:47, Mat_26:57, Mat_26:59, Mat_27:1, Mat_27:3, Mat_27:12, Mat_27:20, Mat_27:41, Mat_28:12, Mar_7:3, Mar_7:5, Mar_8:31, Mar_11:27, Mar_14:43, Mar_14:53, Mar_15:1, Luk_7:3, Luk_9:22, Luk_20:1, Luk_22:52, Act_4:5, Act_4:8, Act_4:23, Act_6:12, Act_11:30, Act_14:23, Act_15:2, Act_15:4, Act_15:6, Act_15:22-23 (2), Act_16:4, Act_21:17-18 (2), Act_23:14, Act_24:1, Act_25:15, 1Ti_5:17, Tit_1:5, Heb_11:2, Jam_5:14, 1Pe_5:1, Rev_4:4, Rev_4:10, Rev_5:5-6 (2), Rev_5:8, Rev_5:11, Rev_5:14, Rev_7:11, Rev_7:13, Rev_11:16, Rev_19:3-4 (2)
elder, 7
Luk_15:25, 1Ti_5:1-2 (2), 1Ti_5:19, 1Pe_5:5, 2Jo_1:1, 3Jo_1:1
eldest, 1
Joh_8:9
old, 1
Act_2:17
(e-Sword: KJV+, Strong's Concordance)
To accept your reading of 'presbuteros' as 'priest', one must then find a way to differentiate the 'priests' from the Elders of the Sanhedron, then demark the difference between the 'priests' of the church from the Elders of the church (unmistakable office, along with Deacons) and then set all of that aside from the normal meaning of one respected due to age, or one who is older. Oterwise we wind up with problems such as these:
1Ti 5:1 Rebuke not an elder (priest?), but entreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
1Ti 5:2 The elder (priest?) women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Luk 15:25 Now his elder (priest?) son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing.
Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest (priest?), even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
(All quotes: e-Sword: KJV)
Why go to all that rigamarole, when the NT writers used the perfectly available 'hiereus' to denote 'priest' in every single place where the meaning certainly was 'priest'?
Strong's Concordance -G2409
hiereus
hee-er-yooce'
From G2413 (hieros); a priest (literally or figuratively): - (high) priest.
Total KJV Occurrences: 33
priest, 17
Mat_8:4, Mar_1:44, Luk_1:5, Luk_5:14, Luk_10:31, Act_14:13, Heb_5:6, Heb_7:1, Heb_7:3, Heb_7:11, Heb_7:15, Heb_7:17, Heb_7:20-21 (2), Heb_8:4, Heb_10:11, Heb_10:21
priests, 15
Mat_12:4-5 (2), Mar_2:26, Luk_6:4, Luk_17:14, Joh_1:19, Act_4:1, Act_6:7, Heb_7:21, Heb_7:23, Heb_8:4, Rev_1:6 (2), Rev_5:10, Rev_20:6
high, 1
Act_5:24
(e-Sword: KJV+, Strong's Concordance)
Then we (as Protestants) must consider the cases where corruption extends beyond the 'fallen Catholics' into the corporate structure with every bit the jaundiced eye that you wield against us when accusing us for the misdeeds of liberal branches of Protestantism-
If we must lump all of Protestantism together as a corporate body, then certainly what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? If that is the case, then the pot is calling the kettle black, no doubt, as there is plentiful evidence of homosexuality (and pedophilia) in the corporate structure of the RCC as well.
I would normally withhold such accusations from the RCC, as I know that is not what they are about, But if we must discuss such things, then the level paying field is certainly best.
Prayer generally works, I agree. Even Pentecostal prayers. Still, what you do is sacramental usage of oil. I have my opinion regarding whether you achieve a sacrament, but your intention is certainly to have a sacrament: you use an object as a channel of grace.
But natural economy is against you, for the very reason you put forth for the necessity of the priesthood, at least in the area of this subject, is made defunct if a gathering of mere laymen can gather together and perform the function favorably, and that function supposedly reserved solely to the power and work of the priest and apostleship.
My experience with liberal churches is that they are spiritually dead, and physically dying on the vine. One finds no work of the Spirit therein.
It is quite a different thing when experiencing the liveliness and vibrancy of churches which have not strayed away from their fundamental roots. These are full of Spirit and of Spiritual works- They are blessed with children, sporting large families and generations, and do the Lord's work in which ever way they may be called. This in spite of any differences of doctrine which may separate them from their fellows.
But it is clear that the modern English word priest does not properly capture the essential meaning of the NT Greek word, which is plainly "elder".
So, shall we go by derivations or by what Tyndale's translation, filled with more serious mistakes than that, used?
I was not necessarily defending the quality of the translation. I was simply making note of your fallacious argument by demonstrating that the earliest English translations did not use "priest" in place of presbyteros.
Yet another area where Rome’s sacerdotal presuppositions have led them to interpret the Bible in an inadequate fashion.
That is not hard to do:
- presbyteros is always a Christian person of authority, hereus -- Jewish or pagan one;
- the priest is also a person of authority in the church;
- when the context shows a looser usage of "presbyteros" as "elder" like in 1 Timothy 5, translate accordingly.
The office of Christian priest was new, because nothing like the Resurrection of Christ had happened before. It is true that a word "presbyteros" was used that originally had a wider connotation. The option to call the priest "elder" existed in medieval England. Had they chosen it, the Reformers, no doubt, would have their translations use a different word than "elder" as that would have been too Catholic. As it happened, the neologism, "priest" was formed from "presbyteros", and everyone was happy with it. Why was it a good choice in Medieval England? My guess would be, because to them "elder" had too much of a pagan connotation, as in "tribal elder".
This is a good example of Protestant obfuscation of scripture.
Who did that? I do the exact opposite: explain to you that claim of the leadership of the Holy Spirit is hollow at least in some, and in fact very many cases of Protestant denominations.
Note that Catholics do not claim individual leadership of the Holy Spirit. We know that our Church as a whole has it on the promise of Christ in Matthew 16. We also know that any disunity (I am not talking of liturgical diversity, but of doctrine) cannot be but from the Devil, because of Christ's priestly prayer in John 17.
that function supposedly reserved solely to the power and work of the priest and apostleship.
Says who? Only a priest can offer the Eucharist and forgive sins. To pray over the sick is something anyone can do. My point was not that Pentecostal spiritual phenomena are all a hoax, but that the usage in James 5 indicates that a "presbyteros" was required for some sacramental function, since oil in itself is a regular household staple, yet St. James tells them to go and get a priest, who is NOT a household staple.
Definitely. As an outsider, I think that there is a dangerous amount of emotionalism in Pentecostalism in particular, but one canot deny the vibrancy.
My point however, is that the "dead" denominations profess the same doctrines as the "vibrant" ones: sola scriptura and sola fide, so there must be something other than doctrine at work here.
That is the argument to make in 5c when England was evangelized. Back then, however, the connotation of "tribal elder" and therefore paganism was too much to stomach, so a borrow from Greek was used. In 15c the only reason not to use "priest" was to not sound Catholic.
OT Israel had "tribal elders", so the concept was very familiar to the NT writers, and it served as a point of reference to pagan societies. Besides, these same pagans also had sacerdotal priests. How was that concept not too much to stomach?
Actually, the real reason not to use "priest" was that it was clearly less faithful to the NT text than the word "elder". It also clearly aligned with the fact that all believers, not just a special class, are the priests (hiereus) of God (1 Peter 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). The RC hierarchy obviously has a problem with that truth.
What I'm getting from this is that your interpretation of the Bible must be culturally conditioned.
Hiereus is Jewish or Pagan priest. The New Testament avoids that when talking of Christian priests.
Can’t be exhaustively true cuz it’s also used in the NT to refer to the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
The New Testament avoids that when talking of Christian priests.
Hmmm, I wonder why. I know, it’s because there are no "priests" among the ordained leadership of the Church. That’s why the NT writers used the word for "elder" rather than priest. They also used the word episkopos (overseer/bishop) to denote the same office. E.g.,
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you -- 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (Titus 1)Paul used the designations elder and overseer/bishop interchangeably. There are no "Christian priests" in the NT.
This explanation seems artificial to me.
If the intent of the authors was to form a distinction from the Hebrew and pagan priesthoods, why would Christ Himself be left without the distinction? Why is Christ described as 'Archhiereus', leaving a connotation of 'Hebrew or pagan' rather than 'archpresbyteros', for instance?
It seems more natural to use presbyteros in it's normal function, especially when considering the early church model. The term 'elder' then becomes quite interchangeable within the Scriptural vernacular.
There is a comfortable transition between 'elder' being older, respected person in society, and the counterpart in the church. There is also an equally comfortable transition between 'elder' as an official (as in Sanhedrin) in matters of law and state and the counterpart within the church.
It also carries the Hebrew religious format forward properly, rather than trying to distinguish a difference where there is none. The Mosaic and Levitical systems are not removed in Christ, but fulfilled in Him. Every function of the old system is brought forward into the new, so what need is there for a distinction?
It is not exclusively true, because the two priesthoods, Jewish and Christian, are genetically linked. As Roamer notes, Christ is described as Arch-hiereus himself.
Paul used the designations elder and overseer/bishop interchangeably
It is not clear that he does, but Catholic understanding is consistent with that: a bishop is a priest who also oversees other priests, and ordains them.
There are no "Christian priests" in the NT.
Stomping your feet about it is not going to make that word disappear.
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.