Again, I an not interested in how best to translate “presbyteros”. “Priest” is a historically adopted translation, and indeed it suffers from the ambiguity with pagan and Hebrew “hiereus” which also is translated “priest” in the English language (but not in some other modern languages I know).
I showed you, from scripture, that “presbutery” is something transmittred with great care through the imposition of hands, that is, sacramentally. That matches Catholic and Orthodox priesthood. It does no match levitical priesthood or Protestant ministry.
I also showed you, from scripture, that the Apostles were instructed to do what Jesus did at the Last Supper. Since what He did was show them His sacrifice, they now show His sacrifice as well. That, again, matches Catholic and Orthodox priesthood. Of course, there are other delegations that Christ ordained, to teach, baptize, and forgive sins, “as Himself”, with immediate effect in heaven (do a search for things like “as my Father sent me so I send you”, or “who receiveth you receiveth me” or “bind on earth - bound in heaven”). That, too, matches the authentic priesthood and no one else.
The reason “bishop” is used alongside “presbyteros” is that in the Primitive Church, the priests were also all bishops. Not so today, because a bishop may delegate priestly faculties to priests who are not bishops, and given the growth of the Church, thanks be to God, he has to. Hence today we have the distinction between bishops and priests. But of course, all bishops are also priests. The priest offers sacrifice; the bishop oversees and teaches the local Church.
UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH.
Irrelevant ..Catholic sources say there was no priesthood, and the last supper was not considered a "sacrifice for the 1st century of the church
See you assume because of your TRADITION that only the apostles could pass on the right to preside over the Lords supper.. but that is never stated anywhere in scripture.. nor did Christ EVER give the apostles the right to pass on ANY of the gifts He gave them for establishment of the new church .there is no apostolic succession ... no "special set aside priesthood " in the new church ..
The jewish Priesthood was a type of Christ, fulfilled at the cross..
No more need for a priesthood..so God destroyed it totally and forever in 70 AD,
annalex wrote:
“I also showed you, from scripture, that the Apostles were instructed to do what Jesus did at the Last Supper. Since what He did was show them His sacrifice, they now show His sacrifice as well.”
Yes, the apostles were instructed to do what Jesus did, which consists of speaking His words in His stead, “Take, eat, this is My body, given for you ... Drink from it all of you. For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins,” then giving that which is His body and blood to His disciples, who in turn receive it in faith. On that night He sacrificed nothing, “showed” no sacrifice, nor commanded them to do any more than He Himself had done with the bread and the wine. That such in a proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper are His body and blood I will stipulate. Lutherans have no trouble with that, recognizing that it is the plain sense of the text, no matter the objections of a Zwingli or Calvin.
The sacrifice part is something the Catholic Church has added in obvious contradiction of many, many clear passages of the Scriptures. This is where you will never be believed, for it is your word against that of God the Holy Spirit. You brush past this point - this towering mountain - with your breezy “since what He did was show them His sacrifice.” Christ our Lord did nothing of the kind on the night in which He was betrayed. The sacrament of His body and blood is pure gospel, pure forgiveness, pure gift, giving to us the benefits of what He and He alone, our great and only High Priest, did once for all.
In light of this, it is little wonder that the NT authors never, never use the term priest in connection with the apostolic ministry. Bishop (overseer/epikopos), yes. Elder (presbyteros), yes. Pastor (poimen), yes. But never, never priest. Because the last and all-sufficient sacrifice was made on that Good Friday, by the One who is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Derive your beloved word priest from presbyteros if you want, and then use the word in the way the Holy Scriptures do. But you won’t, because the Catholic church dearly clings to the idea of a priesthood in the OT sense that actively makes intercessory sacrifices for the people of God. In this it is not simply wrong, it is blasphemous, because it takes our Lord’s “It is finished,” and says, “no, no it is not.” This is the prime reason there will never be reconciliation between Rome and the church of Reformation.
You can even imagine that Catholics and Lutherans are close doctrinely, but that is not true. On this matter we are to each other like East and West.
SOLA GRATIA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA SCRIPTURA
You circled right around back to the unbiblical priesthood...There are no priests giving sacrifices in the NT...The people make the sacrifices...And they are spiritual...Not physical...
You'll never get out of that hole while talking to people that study and believe the scriptures...