annalex, thank you for this debate. Once again I apologize for taking so long to answer . We left for a few hours and got back well after dinner last night.
It is obvious we can never agree because we do not use the same source on which we base our belief system. As a Christian, I can only use the inspired writings of God. As a Catholic, you stated some of your truths are inspired, some are uninspired and some are based on tradition. That is the reason Catholics have to argue against scripture alone.
In your posts you keep returning to John 20:19-23 and declare those 5 lines of scripture are so special that a priesthood was developed. You also state instances where these Priest’s carry out special functions. Scripture calls those individuals, bishops, pastors or overseers. When they lay hands on another, they are infusing them with the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus. It is not some special gift given only to the apostles and their successors.
God the Father used a good part of the first 5 books of scripture to establish an earthly priesthood. He describes who could be a priest and their successors. What could be sacrificed and how. Each article of their clothes while performing these duties, etc.
Do a word search for “priest” in the New Testament books. I believe you will only find 2 kinds listed. One is listed more than the other, the Old Testament earthly priests. Mostly being antagonistic to Christ and Christians. The other Priest is listed most in God’s letter to the Hebrews. A heavenly Priest, Christ Jesus.
Read Hebrews. God explains why an earthly priesthood couldn’t work and why Christ being our High Priest in heaven does.
There is no inspired scriptural bases for a Christian earthly church as practiced by your religion. More importantly, there is no need.
My God the Father lead us all to His truth, BVB
I can only use the inspired writings of God. As a Catholic, you stated some of your truths are inspired, some are uninspired and some are based on tradition
More precisely, the inspired truth taught by the Church are more than the canonical Scripture alone. Nowhere in the argument with you on this thread have I used anything but the Holy Canonical Scripture, for that reason: that you, being Protestant (that what you seem to be however you describe your beliefs), would not be convinced by anything else and my job as a Catholic is to evangelize you.
In your posts you keep returning to John 20:19-23 and declare those 5 lines of scripture are so special that a priesthood was developed. You also state instances where these Priest’s carry out special functions.
Correct; I state these scriptures sufficient to conclude that a special group of believers had what can be described as priestly functions in the Early Church and could propagate as a group down in history to this day. The Scripture would not be sufficient to know every detail, -- we know virtually nothing of the ritualistic component of these functions, for example, but I did not attempt to argue those. I showed where the scripture gives specifically Catholic understandings of the Sacrament of Confession as absolution or retention of sins against God, and of the holy Eucharist as a real presence of Christ and His redemptive Sacrifice among the celebrants. Earlier I also showed where the scripture describes a process of purification that precedes entry into Heaven of a believer who ends up saved.
Scripture calls those individuals, bishops, pastors or overseers.
The New Testament uses the term "πρεσβυτερος" to refer to that newly emerges cast of believers (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:14), and it also continues with the old term, "ιερευς" to apply to both Old Testament priesthood, Christian priesthood and Christ Himself, the pattern of all Catholic priests, as the Letter to the Hebrews explains. In the English language there are no separate words for Christian Priest and other priests, so Douay, a Catholic translation, uses "priest" for both, whereas Protestant translations prefer "elder" for the Christian priests. My argument is not, however, about words but about the priestly functions seen in the New Testament, however we translate the Greek terminology of the time into English.
Bishop is "overseer", -- that is what the word "επισκοπος" means. Again, Protestant translations avoid Catholic terms and insert something else to suit their bias. A bishop is the kind of priest who also has administrative function and can ordain priests. We see such usage in Acts 20:28; they "rule the Church of God".
There is no inspired scriptural bases for a Christian earthly church as practiced by your religion
I showed you the basis. If you don't agree, feel free to offer your arguments some more, but please do not tell me that the reason you don't feel like arguing is because I used something other than the Holy Scripture and the historical reality that we can glean from it.
I forgot to comment on your very valid remark, that the Old Testament spells out the priestly duties in great detail, whereas the New Testament devotes scant passages to the priestly function and does not give any such detail.
I would say, that is because in general the Old Testament is written like an instruction book to the Hebrew nation, complete with the measurements of the Ark of the Covenant and 613 commandments for every occasion. The New Testament reflects the Christian theology of grace rather than the Old Hebrew theology of law. To describe the rules of the Church with any precision would be to stifle the creative spirit that indwells in the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Times change and the Church changes with them. Here is one important development: confessions in the Early Church were public and gradually the concept of privacy of the confessional was introduced, in order to encourage confessing sins that might expose unconfessed sins of others. Priestly celibacy could not be introduced in the Early Church for practical reasons, that was another innovation of early Middle Age.