Posted on 11/18/2014 5:19:32 AM PST by Gamecock
I began my Catholic journey in a little country town in northern California in the U.S.A. The town was so small that we did not have Mass every Sunday, but a priest used to come once a month if he possibly could to hold Mass in a big public hall.
I have both an older and a younger brother. My father had been trained at the University of Santa Clara. As a result, my parents thought it would be a good idea for us to attend a Catholic boarding school. The Jesuits ran the school and I was a student there for four years. Academically it was a very good school, but the only type of religion to which we were exposed was Catholic theology and tradition with no emphasis on the Bible.
Desire to Serve God and Mankind As graduation approached I considered what I should do with my life. I thought that becoming a Jesuit priest could be a good way to honor and serve God and help mankind; that was all I knew. At that time, even when I left high school, I had a longing and a hunger in my heart to meet God and to know Him. In fact, once when I was a senior (fourth and final year) in high school, I remember going out to the football field and just kneeling there in the dark with my arms up to the sky. I cried out saying, ”God, God, where are You?” I really had a hunger for God.
Jesuit Seminary I entered the Jesuit Order in 1953 after graduation from high school. When I entered the Order, the first thing that happened was that I was told I had to keep all the rules and regulations, that to do so would be pleasing to God, and that is what He wanted for me. We were taught the motto, ”Keep the rule and the rule will keep you.”
We read a lot about the lives of the saints, and right from the beginning I was trained to look at them as models to follow, not realizing that they had become saints because they had served the Catholic Church. I did seminary studies for a total of 13 years, taking course after course and studying one thing after another. It finally ended in a study of theology culminating in ordination in 1966.
Hunger for God But No Peace I still had a hunger in my heart for God. I hadn't met the Lord yet and still didn't have peace. In fact, at that time I used to smoke and I was very nervous. I would pace back and forth in my room puffing one cigarette after another because of my inner unrest. I entered a post graduate program in Rome thinking I would be on top of the mountain, but the hunger in my heart persisted. I even spoke to a priest who was in charge of missionaries to Africa, since I wanted to go there as a missionary. I was aware that if I went to Africa, however, the only thing I could do was to tell people about what I had learned about the Catholic doctrines and what the Catholic Church had to offer, even though it had not satisfied me. I did not see how it could satisfy them either.
I studied during the years of Vatican Council II (1962-1965) and was ordained a year after it ended. The documents from Vatican Council II were coming out from Rome and I thought everything would change. It was a time of discovery. I thought I would get to the rock bottom truth, and this would change the world. This idea was the force that drove me. But I was not aware of any changes, as the same Catholic doctrines from the Council of Trent were still in place. So I did not go to Africa but returned to California, where God had a surprise in store for me.
Leading a Prayer Group While at a retreat house where I said Mass, a lady asked me if I would lead a home prayer group in her home. I had never led a prayer meeting in my life and did not know how it worked, but I thought that as I had been trained for all those years, I should be qualified to do it and assented. It was held every Thursday from 10 a.m. until noon. A group of people would gather and read only the Bible, sing praises to the Lord, and pray for one another's needs. I was still smoking at that time. Early on the morning when the prayer meeting was due to take place, I paced back and forth and thought, ”Oh, why did I say I was going to go there?” I had not been at all enthusiastic about going, but when noon came, I did not want to leave. The power of the Biblical Word was beginning to touch my heart and life.
Surprised by God's Grace The great surprise that the Lord had in store for me happened in this way. One night we went to a retreat house with a group of people from the home prayer meeting. The speaker asked at the end of his address, ”Now if there is anyone here who is hungry for God and has not been touched by God and wants God to touch his life, then come forward and we will pray for you.” It happened that a lady called Sonia came up to me and asked, ”Would you please ask my husband Joe to go forward and get prayed for?” I told her, ”Sonia, I can't do that. That wouldn't really be honest because I haven't been prayed for myself, so how can I ask him to go forward?” Now I am about six feet four inches tall and she was a very short lady. I will never forget it; she looked me in the face and put her finger up to me and said, ”I think you need to get prayed for yourself.” I laughed and said, ”Yes, I do.” What she did not realize was that there was great hunger in my heart. After all the years of studying I had not met God. I read my Bible at the prayer meetings, but I still did not know the sovereign God of the Bible or myself as a lost sinner before Him.
This was the moment I prayed that God would change me, so I went forward and they laid hands on me and prayed over me. It was not because of any works that either they or I did, but it was truly by God's grace that I was born again. Jesus became real, the Bible became real. I just became a fire in the love of God. He changed my life. To those who read this, He is real and life changing. JESUS CHANGED MY LIFE. ”Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5).
We Try to be Bible Based It was August 1970 when God's grace truly touched me. I began working in the charismatic movement, which was a fresh movement in the Catholic Church. While there were all kinds of decrees and dogmas coming out of Rome, the movement at the beginning tried to have just one manual - the Bible.
We started a prayer group in a high school and it grew so large we had to move to a gymnasium. Before long we had 800 to 1,000 people coming every Friday night. We were stressing praise and worshiping and glorifying God. Based in the gymna sium where there were no statues or any other such thing, we tried to stay in the Bible.
I had a lot to learn. It took me many years to realize that I was compromising by staying in the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout all of those years I continued to stress that salvation is only in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and not in infant baptism; that there is only one source of authority which is the Bible, the Word of God; and that there is no purgatory but rather that when we die we either go to heaven or hell, etc.
Here is where the conflict came. Seeing people depend upon such false and deceiving beliefs for their salvation was heart wrenching to me. I felt that maybe God could use me to change things in the Catholic Church. I even had prayer sessions with people who felt the same way. We prayed that God would change the Roman Catholic Church so that we could remain Catholics. But to remain Catholic, I now see, is to be living a compromised life.
Conviction By the Holy Spirit I finally realized after much conviction of the Holy Spirit that not giving myself totally to Him, one hundred percent, was grieving my Lord, as I was sinning a sin of compromise. I also came to realize that the Roman Catholic Church cannot change. If it did change, there would be no Pope, no rosary, no purgatory, no priests, no mass, etc. After 17 years of brainwashing, I got my brain washed and cleansed by the Holy Spirit. In a word, what was happening to me over this period is explained in Romans 12:1-2. ”I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:1-2)
Research In India By this time I had met another priest who has since left the Church of Rome. He was preaching the same kind of thing, spending half of the year in India and half in the United States. Victor Affonso was also a Jesuit, and I told him I thought it would be wonderful to go to India and to do some missionary work there. We could research the dogma and doctrines of the Catholic Church.
I went to India in 1986 and spent six months there doing missionary work. We were also able to spend a month with a group of people researching Catholic dogma in the light of the Scriptures. We were determined to follow what the Bible said; if Catholic doctrines contradicted that, we would reject them. We saw that Jesus said, ”Come unto Me,” and that in the Gospels we are told to pray to our Father in Jesus' name, never to a saint or to Mary. The disciples did not pray to Stephen, who died very early in the Acts of the Apostles, or to James, who was killed very early. Why would they do that when they had the resurrected Jesus with them? He said, ”For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20) They prayed to Jesus; they prayed to the Father; they had the guidance of the Holy Spirit and obeyed the commandments of God.
In India we discovered that the Catholic catechism had changed the Ten Commandments from the way they were in the Bible. In the Roman Catholic catechism, the first commandment is as it is in Scripture. The second commandment in the catechism is, ”You shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” This is a complete change from the Bible. The third commandment of the Bible has been moved up to the second. The original second commandment as is found in Scripture has been dropped. Virtually all of the catechisms drop the second commandment of the Bible. For example, the New Baltimore Catechism, Question 195, answers, ”The commandme nts of God are these ten: (1) I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before; (2) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” etc.
In the Bible, the second commandment declares, ”Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandment.” (Exodus 20:4-6). God forbids us to bow down before these or to serve them, yet there are pictures of the Pope bowing down and kissing the statues.
We were bothered that this commandment had been dropped out of the catechism. So now we might well ask, ”How do we get ten commandments? What the catechisms do is divide the last commandment (formerly the tenth, now split into the ninth and tenth). ”Do not covet thy neighbor's wife” is listed as a separate commandment from that of not coveting his goods. This is quite a distortion of the Bible. I was discovering dogmas and doctrines that directly contradicted the Scriptures.
Mary and the Mass We also investigated the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This is defined as ”the doctrine that Mary was conceived without sin; at the first moment of conception there was no sin there.” This contradicts Romans 3:23 which says, ”For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Here we had a doctrine, a tradition that is passed down and solemnly defined as infallibly true, and it contradicts what is in the Bible.
Then we came to one of the biggest areas of conflict. It had to do with the sacrifice of the Mass. The official Catholic position on the sacrifice of the Mass is that it is a continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary. The Council of Trent actually defined it this way: ”And since in this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who on the altar of the cross 'once offered Himself' in a bloody manner (Hebrews 9:27), the holy Synod teaches that this is truly propitiatory... For it is one and the same victim, the same one now offering by the ministry of the priests as He who then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner of offering alone being different...” (Denzinger 940).
Some people might say the Council of Trent is not valid any more and that things have changed. But Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which is the old Holy Office), in a book called The Ratzinger Report, said, ”It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation.” Catechisms say the same thing, that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the cross. For example, the New Baltimore Catechism says, ”The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.” Yet in Hebrews 10:18 it says that, ”Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” So Scripture makes it very clear. In fact, eight times in four chapters, beginning in chapter seven of the letter to the Hebrews, it says ”once for all” and there was one offering for sin, once for all!!!
Finished Sacrifice Anyone who has attended Mass in the Catholic Church will remember the prayer said by the priest, ”Pray brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father.” This is a very serious prayer. The people respond saying the same thing, asking that the sacrifice may be acceptable to God. But this is contrary to the Word of God because the sacrifice has already been accepted. When Jesus was on the cross, He said ”It is finished” (John 19:30) and we know that it was completed because Jesus was accepted by the Father and rose from the dead and is now at the right hand of the Father. The Good News that we preach is that Jesus has risen from the dead, that His sacrifice is completed, and that He has paid for all sin. When by God's grace we accept it as the finished sacrifice for our sins, we are saved and have everlasting life. A memorial is a remembrance of something that someone has done for us. Jesus said, ”This do in remembrance of Me.” So anyone who is reading this, or any priest who is saying Mass, must seriously consider the error of the prayer ”Let us pray, my brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice may be acceptable...” The sacrifice has been accepted and it is done. What we are supposed to do when we have the communion service is to do it in memory of what Jesus has done. We see that the sacrifice that Jesus offered on the cross was sufficient and final. It cannot be added to or re-enacted.
Can the Mass Atone for Sin? The Catholic Church says that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice effective to take away the sins of those on earth and those who have died. That is why, to this very day, even though some people will say that the church in some places does not believe in purgatory, still virtually every Mass that is said is for someone who has died. It is believed that the Mass will shorten their time in purgatory. That is why it is said for dead people. When a person dies, judgment immediately follows, ”And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27) If they are saved, they go directly to heaven; if they remain in their sins, they go to hell. There is nothing to change one from hell to heaven. Yet the Catholic Church believes that the Mass, being a propitiatory sacrifice, will decrease the time in purgatory. But all the suffering and all the atonement that was ever made for sins was accomplished by Jesus on the cross, and we need to accept this truth. We need to receive everlasting life and to be born again while we are still alive. There is no Biblical evidence to support the idea that after death we can experience any kind of change.
To be Right Before God We then began to study what the Catholic Church teaches on salvation. It is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that we can be saved by being baptized as infants. Present day canon law says, ”Baptism, the gate to the sacraments, necessary for salvation, in fact, or at least in intention, by which men and women are freed from their sins, reborn as children of God, configured to Christ...” (Canon 849) What that means is that the Catholic Church says that when a little baby is baptized, it is saved and has everlasting life by virtue of baptism. But that is not true. Jesus never said anything like that, neither is there a word in the Bible about anything like that happening. There is no limbo! Jesus said, ”Suffer the little children to come unto me...” The Bible always says we are saved when we accept that Christ Jesus totally paid the price of our sin so that His right standing with God becomes ours. ”For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (II Corinthians 5:21).
Christ Work or Works? The Catholic Church then goes on to say that in order to be saved you must keep its laws, rules and regulations. And if these laws are violated (for example, birth control or fasting or attendance at Mass every Sunday), then you have committed a sin. The Catholic Church says in canon law of the present day that if you commit a serious sin, that sin must be forgiven by confessing that sin to a priest; ”Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary way by which the faithful person who is aware of serious sin can be reconciled with God, and with the Church...” (Canon 9609) The Catholic Church says that this is the way sins are forgiven, the ordinary way that sins are forgiven. The Bible says that if we repent in our heart and believe on His finished sacrifice that we are saved. We are saved by grace, not by our works. The Catholic Church adds works, in that you have to do these specific things in order to be saved, whereas the Bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9 that it is by grace that we are saved, not by works. The Bible makes it very clear that we are saved by grace. It is a free gift given by God, not because of any works we do. ”For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). ”And if by grace then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work” (Romans 11:6).
I Leave India and More . . . We examined these and many other doctrines while we were in India, and as I left, I knew that I could not represent the Catholic Church any longer. I began to see that Roman Catholic dogmas which contradict Scripture are so rooted that they cannot be changed.
The Catholic charismatic movement today has gone back to these fundamental dogmas and doctrines of Rome. It maintains and holds onto these, and so that whole movement has been totally undermined. The Catholic charismatic movement is not a fresh breath of air blowing through the church, changing everything by moving it back to the Bible. Everything cannot get back to the Bible because the Catholic Church will not let it go back that far. The Catholic Church is not going to let go of the Mass and let it be a memorial as Jesus said. It will always insist that the Mass is an ongoing continuation of the sacrifice of Jesus. The Catholic Church will not let go of the dogma that little babies are reborn and receive eternal life at baptism, even though infant baptism was not practised in the early church. It did not begin until the third century, and it was not universally practised until the fifth century. The Catholic Church is not going to let go of or of all the other requirements that are put upon their people.
Now I sincerely do love Catholics and want to help them. I want to help them find the freedom of salvation and the life and blessing that comes from following the Scriptures. And I have nothing against any Catholic or any priest; it is the dogmas and doctrines that keep them bound. God Himself wants to loose them. In Chapter Seven of Mark, Jesus said, ”For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men....” That is the problem we are facing right here. These traditions destroy the very Word of God because they contradict its truths. When I left India and came home, I knew that I was facing the biggest change of my life. It was a time of great distress for me because I had really totally believed in the Roman Catholic Church and had served it for so much of my life. I knew when I came back I was going to have to leave the Church of Rome.
I am a free man because His truth has set me free. I no longer walk with one foot in the Bible and one in tradition. I walk based on the absolute authority of His written Word. I follow the Scripture as the sole source of authority for revealed truth. Jesus said, ”Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth” (John 17:17).
My Parents and Providence At that time, I was experiencing a great deal of suffering. I came home to my parents, both of whom were over eighty, and one night we had a serious conversation. I told them what I was going to do; I told them that I was saved by God's grace and I was going to leave the Catholic Church for doctrinal reasons. There was a big pause and my father said, speaking very slowly, ”Bob, you know, both your mother and I have been thinking the same thing.” They went to one more Mass and came home and said, ”Do you know that is an altar in front of the church? An altar is a place of sacrifice.” And he said, ”I see clearly now there is no more sacrifice.” Both my mother and father began reading the Bible and following it. In 1989 my mother died reading the Word of God and with the peace and assurance that she had everlasting life and was going to go to be with the Lord forever. On June 6, 1992, God gave me the greatest gift God can give a person besides salvation, my beautiful wife, Joan. My dad passed away in 1993 with a prayer on his lips for those he left behind. He had written his own testimony to the grace of God, and while quite old had witnessed to others even in the retirement home.
The Bible -- The Authority of Truth In 1987 I left the Catholic Church formally by writing a letter of resignation and then corresponding back and forth with my former superiors because I wanted to witness to all of them. I ended up writing to Rome before I left. I did it in that manner because I wanted to witness to all of them and give them reasons why I was leaving. I wanted to follow the Bible. The Pope, who is held up as a leader in Christendom, holds onto things that contradict the Bible. It is very important to everyone to know that in the Code of Canon Law Canon 333 says, ”There is neither appeal or recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.” That means that the Pope has absolute power and absolute authority. It is summarized in Canon 749, ”The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority whe n as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful...he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such.” Unfortunately, the Pope is standing for things that contradict the Bible and is now speaking very strongly against the evangelicals of South America as if they were enemies of the Bible. He complains about them and he says they are undermining the church, but the reason he is opposed to them is that they are standing for the ultimate authority of the Scriptures and they do not want to be under his authority.
The whole position of the Pope basically comes from a misunderstanding of Scripture itself in the book of Matthew. Jesus said, ”That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” We need to look carefully at this. What rock is He talking about? Just before that, Jesus had asked His disciples, ”Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” And Peter spoke up and said, ”Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said, ”Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” And then He said these words, ”...thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” The church of Jesus Christ is built upon the Rock Who is Jesus Christ. Peter had received that revelation from God, and every true believer who is born again receives a revelation of who Jesus Christ is. His shed blood on the cross took away our sins, and when we repent and trust in Him alone, we have everlasting life in Him and will live and reign with Jesus forever and ever: Christ is the foundation, the cornerstone, the Rock. The Rock is not the first Peter whom Jesus chose as His disciple with all his failings and so forth, nor is it the Pope of today. The Rock is Jesus Christ. As Peter himself said, ”...Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded” (I Peter 2:6). By His grace God has revealed that to me and I stand and build my whole faith on that rock, Jesus, tha t He died to take away my sin and to give me everlasting life.
Present Day I am now an ordained minister, in fellowship with others of the Biblical faith. Do not follow the crowd; seek rather to enter by the narrow way. Do not be offended by the procla mation of the Gospel of God's grace. There is no other way to be saved. Without God's grace each one of us is lost and without hope. Of ourselves we have nothing to offer God. As one hymn says, ”In my hand no price I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling.” Repent of trying to do anything to merit heaven. Trust on Christ's shed blood and that alone. Grace is God's favor that gives us what we do not deserve. As God justifies you with Christ's justification, praise Him, and do all things ”To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Ephesians 1:6).
The Good News This is the Good News I want to share with every reader. When you repent and accept that Jesus died for your sin personally on the cross, His life is yours by faith. ”...to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Before God, pray that you do not compromise. Ask the Lord to sanctify you in truth. His Biblical word is truth. Pray that you would stand boldly for His written Word and that alone, that you can proclaim as did the psalmist ”Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalms 119:105). In an age of compromise pray like the Lord Jesus Himself and the apostles that your final authority would be the written Word of God. Withstand all temptation to compromise, as did the Lord Himself, with three powerful words: ”IT IS WRITTEN.”
Bob Bush Immediately upon leaving the priesthood and the Catholic Church, he began working as an evangelist in the U.S.A. as well as South and Central America. In 1992 he suffered severe paralysis after a back operation. His joyful bearing of this great handicap has been in itself a testimony to the grace of God. Now as a pastor, evangelist and Christian Radio talk show host he continues to give the word of the Gospel. (209) 847-7123
Can you, or anyone else for that matter, tell me which church ordained Bob Bush, and which fellowship of churches oversees him ?
It is not an assumption but an historical fact that the word "priest" was originally used to describe the office of presbuteros and has been in constant use as such since before the 12th century. That it also has a derivative meaning to describe any cultic sacrificial minister does not change what its original and continual meaning is.
As Daniel has twice now pointed out, you are apparently relying on simply the raw etymology to sustain your theory of semantic continuity.
Not so. I am relying on its original and continual meaning. What you and Daniel are trying to do is separate the present Catholic office of presbuteros from that mentioned in the Bible. Then you ask how do we translate this ancient term into modern English. But this ignores the fact that this office has continued to exist into the present time and that its received term in English, since at least the 12th century, is "priest." Much of that language in the early Christian writers is directed at the docetists and others …
Justin Martyr's First Apology was written to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, a pagan not Docetist.
For example, in the case of Justin Martyr, he specifically denies consuming human flesh and blood:
He was responding to the Roman charge that Christians were consuming human flesh. By this the Romans were not thinking of the Eucharistic elements becoming the body and blood of Jesus but that the Christians were sacrificing humans and eating their flesh. This misunderstanding came about because the Christians were speaking of the Eucharist as eating the actual body of Christ.
Again, Justin Martyr cannot be discussing transubstantiation, because Radbertus (9th Century) had not yet invented it, nor Aquinas perfected it, nor Trent anathematized the rejection of it.
While the term "transubstantiation" was invented in the 9th century and the Aristotelian understanding of substance and accidents came latter, the early Christians did indeed believe that the bread and wine were changed in reality into the Body and Blood of Jesus as Justin Martyr attests.
If we do something over and over again, it doesn't matter if we can imagine the source of the repeated event as frozen somewhere in eternal timelessness (a dubious theory in its own right).
The sacrifice of the Mass is not what we do but what Jesus does that is presented before us. As for a frozen eternal timelessness, eternity is rather the infinite encompassing of all time. Thus Jesus can say "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." All time to God is an eternal present. And this he can present to us. That God can present to us events in this eternity is shown by John's visions presented in Revelations.
P: It is not an assumption but an historical fact that the word "priest" was originally used to describe the office of presbuteros and has been in constant use as such since before the 12th century. That it also has a derivative meaning to describe any cultic sacrificial minister does not change what its original and continual meaning is.
No, it is not a fact, but an assumption based on an incomplete set of facts plus the presence of a genetic fallacy. Louw and Nida's lexicon based on semantic range describes the truly original sense of presbuteros as follows:
53.77 πρεσβύτεροςb, ου m: a person of responsibility and authority in matters of socio-religious concerns, both in Jewish and Christian societies—‘elder.’ ὅπου οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι συνήχθησαν ‘where the teachers of the Law and the elders had gathered together’ Mt 26:57; ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Μιλήτου πέμψας εἰς Ἔφεσον μετεκαλέσατο τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας ‘he sent a message from Miletus to Ephesus asking the elders of the church to meet him’ Ac 20:17. In some languages πρεσβύτεροςb is best rendered as ‘older leaders,’ but in other languages the more appropriate term would be the equivalent of ‘counselor,’ since it would be assumed that counselors would be older than the average person in a group as well as having authority to lead and direct activities.This is based on sound semantic analysis of primary sources contemporaneous with the New Testament. Note the complete absence of sacerdotal aspect.
67.27 πρεσβύτεροςb, α, ον: pertaining to a person who has lived in ancient times, that is to say, at a point long before the point of time of the discourse itself (πρεσβύτεροςb may also carry the implication of prestige)—‘of ancient times.’ ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐμαρτυρήθησαν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ‘for by this, those of ancient times won (God’s) approval’ He 11:2.
P: Not so. I am relying on its original and continual meaning. What you and Daniel are trying to do is separate the present Catholic office of presbuteros from that mentioned in the Bible. Then you ask how do we translate this ancient term into modern English. But this ignores the fact that this office has continued to exist into the present time and that its received term in English, since at least the 12th century, is "priest."
The functionality of how the priestly office operates under the Roman system, especially sacerdotally, does not have continuous existence, but evolved over time, no doubt fueled by an increasingly hierarchical view of the church, which was generally absent for most of the first two centuries. Assuming for the sake of argument "priest" is derived from presbuteros (not a universally accepted theory), that does NOT prove continuity of meaning all the way back to it's primary use in the Greek text. All it would prove is that at some point the role of "presbyter" had been successfully redefined by Rome to incorporate sacerdotal elements. This in no way implies those sacerdotal aspects were there from the beginning.
So you see, we are not ignoring the etymology. We are disputing the semantic scoring of the etymology. You are ranking it too high. Yes, we do contend there is a break in meaning, that a proper translation of presbuteros must be based on the meaning it derives from usage contemporaneous to it's appearance in the NT, and not on later acquisitions.
For example, how creditable would it be to translate a 16th Century English text by rendering literally every occurrence of "goodbye" as "God bless ye?" Yet that is the etymology. However, nearly everyone using it today is not referring to God at all, nor any kind of blessing, but only to the event of departure. Likewise, to use "priest" where the Greek supplies "presbuteros" must be viewed as an illegitimate means to import the later acquired sacerdotal sense into the text, despite the fact such a sense is absent in the semantic range of the term as it was being used during the New Testament period. Would any serious translator really insert the modern "goodbye" for all occurrences of the older "God bless ye," based purely on etymological considerations? Never! Think of the translational chaos that invites! Let's say the original text said, "She giveth him a cup of cold water, and he saith 'God bless ye.'" Now let's insert our "etymologically correct but semantically wrong "goodbye:" "She giveth him a cup of cold water, and he saith 'Goodbye.'" Do you see how ignoring valid semantic concerns turns the story completely on it's head?
SR: Much of that language in the early Christian writers is directed at the docetists and others …
P: Justin Martyr's First Apology was written to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, a pagan not Docetist.
Irrelevant. Neither party was trying to sort out questions of Aristotelian substance versus accidence. Transubstantiation per se is not expressed until and unless those categories or something like them are used to describe the swapping of one substance for another, to arrive at a realism that runs well beyond the ordinary immersive metaphor common to the period. But not only is such expression completely absent from the early period, but there are examples that explicitly refute depletion of the substantive bread-ness of the bread or wine-ness of the wine. Theodoret comes to mind:
Orth.— Although what has been said is enough for your faith, I will, for confirmation of the faith, give you yet another proof.In this hypothetical dialog, Orthodoxos represents what was widely accepted as orthodox Christian belief at the time of this writing (5th Century, I believe). This also represents a direct, irreconcilable conflict with the central premise of transubstantiation. A transformation of the Eucharist is admitted, but not one that vacates the nature of the visible objects, but rather adds to that nature grace. Thus, if the nature of bread remains, the bread is still bread, both in substance and accidence. As with the wine. This still represents an evolution from the simpler sense of the paschal meal in Scripture, but clearly cuts against the grain of the sense conveyed in Aquinas and later in Trent, and would doubtless be subject to the anathemas of Trent. And yet it was obviously widely and uncontroversially accepted before Radbertus appeared to propose his novel and alien hyper-literalism.
Eran.— I shall be grateful to you for so doing, for you will increase the favour done me.
Orth.— You know how God called His own body bread?
Eran.— Yes.
Orth.— And how in another place he called His flesh grain?
Eran.— Yes, I know. For I have heard Him saying “The hour has come that the Son of man should be glorified,” and “Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it die it brings forth much fruit.”
Orth.— Yes; and in the giving of the mysteries He called the bread, body, and what had been mixed, blood.
Eran.— He so did.
Orth.— Yet naturally the body would properly be called body, and the blood, blood.
Eran.— Agreed.
Orth.— But our Saviour changed the names, and to His body gave the name of the symbol and to the symbol that of his body. So, after calling himself a vine, he spoke of the symbol as blood.
Eran.— True. But I am desirous of knowing the reason of the change of names.
Orth.— To them that are initiated in divine things the intention is plain. For he wished the partakers in the divine mysteries not to give heed to the nature of the visible objects, but, by means of the variation of the names, to believe the change wrought of grace. For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as grain and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace.
Available here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27031.htm
P: He was responding to the Roman charge that Christians were consuming human flesh. By this the Romans were not thinking of the Eucharistic elements becoming the body and blood of Jesus but that the Christians were sacrificing humans and eating their flesh. This misunderstanding came about because the Christians were speaking of the Eucharist as eating the actual body of Christ.
Exactly, and it was a misunderstanding, as he explains in that Second Apology, because he clearly states human flesh was not being consumed by Christians, that such "fabulous" accusations were false. If he asserts it is false, you are left with choosing between these alternatives: Either he is lying in his Second Apology, because he secretly "knows" they really are consuming the corporeal flesh of Christ, or he is telling the truth but rejecting that Christ is human, or he is telling the truth because he believes both that Christ is human and that his flesh is not being literally eaten by Christians.
SR: Again, Justin Martyr cannot be discussing transubstantiation, because Radbertus (9th Century) had not yet invented it, nor Aquinas perfected it, nor Trent anathematized the rejection of it.
P: While the term "transubstantiation" was invented in the 9th century and the Aristotelian understanding of substance and accidents came latter, the early Christians did indeed believe that the bread and wine were changed in reality into the Body and Blood of Jesus as Justin Martyr attests.
No. Nothing you have shown so far demonstrates belief in a change of the corporeal reality of the elements. At best you have an immersive metaphor, which in Justin Martyr's case only rises to the surface for conscious articulation when directly challenged as cannibalism. No honest person truly believing in the complete swapping of substances could have answered the charge as he did.
This is not to say there was no sense of reality or the special presence of Christ in the Eucharistic service. But something being real is not the equivalent of it being corporeal. As I have often said before, nothing is more real than God. Yet God, in His divine essence, is not corporeal, but a spirit, as Scripture clearly teaches. So it is entirely possible to have the language of reality, the totally unconscious acceptance of the metaphor as a vehicle for expressing the spiritual reality, without ever adopting anything close to the Aristotelian alchemy that came so much later. As in the example from Theodoret, a change is admitted, but it is a changed frame of reference, not a literal change in substance, which literal change is specifically denied. I have no doubt Theodoret includes this idea because as an apologist he recognizes error creeping in of a false idea of changed nature. That this error existed prior to reaching full flower in Radbertus et al should not be too surprising, as Jesus' audience in John 6 was plagued by the same temptation to see spiritual realities in grotesquely materialistic terms. Transubstantiation is just a sophistical accommodation to that very temptation.
SR: If we do something over and over again, it doesn't matter if we can imagine the source of the repeated event as frozen somewhere in eternal timelessness (a dubious theory in its own right).
P: The sacrifice of the Mass is not what we do but what Jesus does that is presented before us. As for a frozen eternal timelessness, eternity is rather the infinite encompassing of all time. Thus Jesus can say "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." All time to God is an eternal present. And this he can present to us. That God can present to us events in this eternity is shown by John's visions presented in Revelations.
No, speculations on what time is to God must be grounded in Scripture. Jesus did preexist Abraham, and He did so because He is identical in divine essence with the God of Israel who identifies Himself as "I AM," a profound ontological statement which addresses God's self-existence as Creator, but does not tell us how He views or interacts with time. To leap from that to uncertain theories of static versus dynamic time is to venture into the kind of groundless speculations that have led in recent times to liberal, quasi-pantheistic theories of an Eternal Now, per Paul Tillich, that serve as a conceptual bridge to utterly pagan ideas such as timeless Nirvana and other expressions of pantheism. I have personally traveled that path and I have no wish to go there again. It is a dark and loathsome place. Much preferable is to say about these hardest of things only what God has said, and to use the language He has given us to think about them.
In the case of the atonement, we are always given to think of it as something finished, not as something that can be made "present" by linking two disparate time frames. That cannot be accidental. God has superintended the provision of His word to us. If He wants us to think of this event as past, and sufficient in it's finished propitiary effect to atone for all the past, present, and future sins of all who believe on Him, then it is pure hubris to trot out some post-Newtonian conception of parallel time-worlds as a flimsy justification for denying, in practice, the completeness of His work. God gave us this temporal frame of reference because of all possible ways of thinking about the atonement, He considered it the truest thing He could say to us. God does not lie. And He does not mislead His children. We are to remember His death till He comes. That is a far cry from playing George McFly time travel games. You may speculate as you see fit, but I will stick with the ordinary sense of the Biblical text and count myself quite happy to do so.
As for prophecy, we know God is able to state the end from the beginning:
Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, (10) Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:But see how He says, "the things that are not yet done." So we have God speaking to us directly, saying the future things that He knows are coming, are not yet done. He does not bother to distinguish between His time-world and ours. What He wants us to know is that He has no trouble telling us all that will happen. This is easily explained as a function of His omnipotence and omniscience. It is simply unnecessary to invoke Einstein's manifold or any other hypothetical construct of static time. How does it really work? That's for God to know and us not to get too spun up about. Perhaps in glory we will get better insight into this. For now, if God tells John something is going to happen, that's good enough for me. I don't need to "help" God with my pitiful speculations about time. I just need to believe what He says and act accordingly.
I would that all here who frequent the 'religion' forum of FR take the time to read and consider what you have brought here, and what you yourself have taken the time to yourself carefully consider -- then explain.
That's a clumsy paragraph, I know -- but I know not how to better express the thought...
as we old timers here on FR would say;
I don't know for a certainty how long I have been a participant here..but it goes back to at least '98, if not '97.
I was here under a different name. ~quiz~
But lost track of the complex password associated with that account, for back in those days (if memory serves) one could not generate their own password.
I had the password stashed on a "free" email account, that required me to open up email at least once a month. If one didn't, the account would close -- which is what eventually occurred. Being that I could not recall the password AND could not access the email account associated with my FR 'member" account, I had to choose another name, and start all over as for sign-up date. As it is, with this name, it goes back to the year 2000.
As it is (or was) since the email account was a non-commercial account --- I kind-of, sort-of SNUCK IN here at FreeRepublic, in the first place, for back in those days, "free" email accounts were not permissible as primary member contact, but the service I found and used, "usa.net" back in those days, was off the radar (so to speak) of what (I believe) was likely a hand-made list of prohibited email origin.
I knew no html at all in those days...and was one of the victims of those who knew how -- and would deliberately leave 'open' tags such as 'blink' and 'scroll', along with differing colors and fonts. I was frustrating to see my own comments flash, or scroll. It was a mad-house in those days, but rollicking good fun. The snark was wall-to-wall, and usually rather witty.
As for the name I use now, I chose poorly, perhaps. lol.
It came about due to at the time, I was moonlighting as a commercial coffee roaster. Natural gas = blue flames (even though at the time I was using a 12 Kilo Diedrich IR 12, so didn't see much 'blue').
IR = infrared, being that those are fitted with ceramic burners.
Some of the best coffees I ever roasted -- went through that particular machine. Two larger roasters I used extensively in later years...seemed to at times, introduce some flavor note which the IR12 did not...and I was always-always-always seeking to chase out negatives, about as much as I was working at coaxing out the better or best from whichever varietal I was called upon to work with.
I also was considering the name as a possible brand name, hearkening back to olde English tavern names. So goes the story behind my silly sounding FR name...
I recall also accessing FR, first using Windows 95, then using a [semi-pirated, illegitimately loaned] beta version of Windows 98, even before the calendar had turned over to the year 1998, and before WIN 98 was officially released...which is why I date myself back to -- most likely -- '97 -- which puts me in category of among the earliest members.
I do recall accessing the site, back when it seemed like for the longest time (better part of a year?) the FR homepage featured a photo of the building located at what the Branch Davidians called Mt. Carmel -- in flames.
I’ve made an error in my last post, #63. In the paragraph discussing “goodbye,” I say the etymology points back to “God bless you.” It should be “God be with ye.”
BTW, this is an error of habit. I frequently make this same mistake, even though I know better. Bad habits are hard to break. Sorry for any confusion.
Peace,
SR
This only holds if the primary and necessary meaning of "priest" is sacerdotal. Its primary meaning, however, is the Christian presbyterate; its sacerdotal aspect is derivative. Perhaps part of the problem is that when a Catholic hears the word "priest" his first thought is the Catholic presbyterate whereas when a Protestant hears it his first thought is the Temple kohanate.
The functionality of how the priestly office operates under the Roman system, especially sacerdotally, does not have continuous existence, but evolved over time, no doubt fueled by an increasingly hierarchical view of the church, which was generally absent for most of the first two centuries. Assuming for the sake of argument "priest" is derived from presbuteros (not a universally accepted theory), that does NOT prove continuity of meaning all the way back to it's primary use in the Greek text. All it would prove is that at some point the role of "presbyter" had been successfully redefined by Rome to incorporate sacerdotal elements. This in no way implies those sacerdotal aspects were there from the beginning.
So you see, we are not ignoring the etymology. We are disputing the semantic scoring of the etymology. You are ranking it too high. Yes, we do contend there is a break in meaning, that a proper translation of presbuteros must be based on the meaning it derives from usage contemporaneous to it's appearance in the NT, and not on later acquisitions.
Rather it is you who are relying upon etymology to deny a sacerdotal function of the presbuteros. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus all show that at the Eucharist a material offering was made as a sacrifice. This was not merely a sacrifice of praise. Whether this offering of which they speak was merely bread and wine, an immersive metaphor or the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, it was a material sacrifice offered to God the Father. And despite the etymology of presbuteros not having a sacerdotal meaning, this is a sacerdotal action that was performed by that office.
Exactly, and it was a misunderstanding, as he explains in that Second Apology, because he clearly states human flesh was not being consumed by Christians, that such "fabulous" accusations were false.
The charge that Justin Martyr was denying was that Christians were slaying other men and eating their flesh not that they did not believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist became the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, something that he explicitly affirms in his First Apology
In this hypothetical dialog, Orthodoxos represents what was widely accepted as orthodox Christian belief at the time of this writing (5th Century, I believe). This also represents a direct, irreconcilable conflict with the central premise of transubstantiation. A transformation of the Eucharist is admitted, but not one that vacates the nature of the visible objects, but rather adds to that nature grace. Thus, if the nature of bread remains, the bread is still bread, both in substance and accidence. As with the wine.
To understand fully what Theodoret meant you also have to look at the Second Dialogue :
Eran.— What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?Do not be confused because Theodoret is not using the terms in the Scholastic sense. What is important here is while the figure and form of the Eucharist remains that of bread and wine but that they become the Body and Blood of Christ and as such are even worshipped. While he is not using Scholastic categories he is teaching the same as was taught by Trent.Orth.— It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.
Eran.— Let your answer be put enigmatically.
Orth.— Food of grain of such a sort.
Eran.— And how name we the other symbol?
Orth.— This name too is common, signifying species of drink.
Eran.— And after the consecration how do you name these?
Orth.— Christ's body and Christ's blood.
Eran.— And do you believe that you partake of Christ's body and blood?
Orth.— I do.
Eran.— As, then, the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord's body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.
Orth.— You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.
As for what was the widely accepted as orthodox Christian belief at the time of this writing, let us look at what some of his contemporaries said:
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIAThis is not to say there was no sense of reality or the special presence of Christ in the Eucharistic service. But something being real is not the equivalent of it being corporeal. As I have often said before, nothing is more real than God. Yet God, in His divine essence, is not corporeal, but a spirit, as Scripture clearly teaches. So it is entirely possible to have the language of reality, the totally unconscious acceptance of the metaphor as a vehicle for expressing the spiritual reality, without ever adopting anything close to the Aristotelian alchemy that came so much later.He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood," but, "This is My Body and My Blood," teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood. (On Matt. 26:26)
At first [the offering] is laid upon the altar as mere bread, and wine mixed with water; but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into the Body and the Blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment. (Catechetical Homilies, 16)
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
Christ is present. The One who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the sacrificial gifts become the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying our the action, but the power and the grace is of God. "This is My Body," he says. This statement transforms the gifts. (Homilies on the Treachery of Judas, 1, 6)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN
"My fled is truly food and My blood is truly drink." You hear Him speak of His flesh, you hear Him speak of His blood, you know the sacred signs of the Lord's death: and do you worry about His divinity? Hear His words when He says: "A spirit has not flesh and bones." As often as we receive the sacramental elements which through the mystery of the sacred prayer are transformed into the flesh and blood of the Lord, we proclaim the death of the Lord. (The Faith, 4, 10, 124.)
Perhaps you may be saying: I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the Body of Christ? It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! Let us prove that this is not what nature has shaped it to be, but what the blessing has consecrated; for the power of the blessing is greater than that of nature, because by the blessing even nature itself is changed. (Mysteries, 9, 50.)
You may perhaps say: "My bread is ordinary." But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add this: How can what is bread be the Body of Christ? By the consecration. The consecration takes place by certain words; but whose words? Those of the Lord Jesus. Like all the rest of the things said beforehand, they are said by the priest; praises are referred to God, prayer of petition is offered for the people, for kings, for other persons; but when the time comes for the confection of the venerable Sacrament, then the priest uses not his own words but the words of Christ. Therefore it is the word of Christ that confects this Sacrament. (The Sacraments, 4, 4, 14.)
ST. AUGUSTINE
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. (Sermons, 234, 2.)
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
He states demonstratively: "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood," lest you might suppose the things that are seen are a figure. Rather, by some secret of the all-powerful God the things seen are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, truly offered in a sacrifice in which we, as participants, receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ. (On Matthew 26:27)
But the incarnate Jesus is both God and man, both spiritual and corporeal. You are drifting into the Nestorian error that Theodoret was actually refuting in your quotation.
Which was because presbuteros became to be titled "priests" before there even was an English translational.
I will admit that this was helped by the identification of the sacrificial role of the presbuteros with that of the hiereus.
But NT pastors are not manifest as having a uniquely sacrificial function.
But what you should then be complaining about is the use of "priest" for non-Christian sacrificial ministers rather than its use for presbuteros which was its original use.
Not so as the Holy Spirit even calls pagan sacrificial ministers "hiereus:"
Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. (Act 14:13)
We should never complain about what the Spirit chooses for words, nor change the distinction He can make by them. And hiereus was NEVER used for presbuteros in the NT!
And as all believers engage in offering sacrifice, even their own bodies. (Rm. 12:1) then it is the Holy Spirit who calls them hierateuma = priesthood, which is the only one in the NT church, versus a separate sacerdotal class.
The Catholic understanding of the office of priest was not determined by the usage in English.
Exactly, but her imposed meaning of presbuteros being a separate class of clergy whose primary function was that of offering sacrifices as priests (Latin sacerdos) is behind the English using priest for presbuteros.
No, thanks for stating the obvious.
Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. (Act 14:13)
But a hiereus is not a presbuteros so your complaint should be that "priest" is an inaccurate translation of hiereus.
Again, you have it backwards. It was the function of the presbuteros in offering the sacrifice of the Mass that is behind the English using "priest" for hiereus.
Perhaps; I searched for corroborating information. His websites have apparently been taken down and his ministerial affiliation seems to be unavailable. I did find this:
That is a blatant fallacy as concerns Scripture, which is what we are dealing with as the standard. The distinctive word for "priest," “hiereus,” was never originally used to describe one who sat in office of presbuteros in the NT church.
Which ought to tell you something, and a distinction that the Spirit made that ought to be respected!
Only Jewish and pagan ministers are titled hiereus, as well as all the believers, as there is not distinctive sacrificial function for the office of presbuteros.
I am relying on its original and continual meaning.
No you are not, as if the original meaning of presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) meant hiereus, then the Spirit would have it at least once as a title for them.
Instead, you are depending upon a later belief that developed, that of the Lord's supper as a sacrificial atonement, the offering of which became the primary function of pastors.
From the posted piece Bush finished his studies and post graduate education in Rome.
Who knows. He did not build a crystal palace and tour the West as a motivational speaker. The posted piece indicates after resigning he did some missionary work and may continue to do so.
But the testimony was not to create a blog as some do, but to act on the commands of Christ.
It may not matter to you, but I'm interested in how people finish their course. I found this, but the links are dead.
There are many examples of people who receive an evangelistic message with joy, and they are paraded around as a trophy, but they drop off, fall away, and become something else as their journey changes paths. They use adjectives like "former" or "recovering" and are hidden from view even faster than they were paraded as a trophy.
Immediately after he left the priesthood and the Catholic Church had, Bob Bush began in the United States and in Evangelizing Central and South America . In 1992 he suffered after a back surgery a severe paralysis. As he this great physical restriction endured, is a testimony to the grace of God . As a radio evangelist, he preached the good news today of salvation . He lives in Oakdale, California , USA . His e - mail address is: notbyworks@sbcglobal.netI then proceeded to to poke around for Bob Bush in Oakdale, CA and, unfortunately, found this: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=88306472
Birth: Sep. 28, 1935I suppose it is possible there were two Bob Bushes in Oakdale, CA, both devoted Christians with a brother named Bernie who was also a "Reverend," and who happen to have been married no longer than the time Bob Bush ceased being a Jesuit priest. But I'd say the odds are pretty high this was him. If so, considering the service was held at the Oakdale Family Church of the Nazarene, odds are also pretty good this was his church, though I haven't found a more direct link establishing that fact.
Death: Apr. 11, 2011
Robert "Bob" M. Bush, 1935 - 2011, resident of Oakdale, CA, after serving his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ faithfully for many years, Bob was called home April 11, 2011 . Bob is survived by his wife of 19 years, Joan or "Joanie" as he sometimes called her and her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren who affectionately called him Grandpa or Papa. Bob is also survived by his brother Rev. Bernie Bush. "My Darling, you are deeply missed, but one day we will dance together on streets of gold." All are welcomed to attend a memorial service at 1:00pm Wed. April 20, 2011 at Oakdale Family Church 1700 West F St. Oakdale, CA 95361.
Published in San Jose Mercury News/San Mateo County Times on April 17, 2011.
daniel1212: That is a blatant fallacy as concerns Scripture, which is what we are dealing with as the standard. The distinctive word for "priest," “hiereus,” was never originally used to describe one who sat in office of presbuteros in the NT church.
We are speaking of the English word "priest" not the Greek hiereus. I never said that hiereus was used to describe presbuteros. Old English actually had two words preost, which was used only for presbuteros, and sacerd, which was used for hiereus. Preost survived into Modern English as "priest". Sacerd did not survive and its lack was made up by giving "priest" an additional meaning for it. My insistence on "priest" being a proper translation of presbuteros is not based on etymology but on its original and uninterrupted use. If you do not like "priest" being used for both presbuteros and hiereus then perhaps you should work to restore sacerd as the proper translation for hiereus.
"Priest" is not the only word in English that has taken on two meanings. Another is "man." Latin has two distinct words, homo for a human being and vir for a male person. Old English also had two words, mann for a human being and wer for a male person. The former survived into Modern English while the latter did not. Just as "priest" then took on a second meaning to cover for the missing sacerd so did "man" take on the meaning of the missing wer. In neither case did this negate the original and constant meaning of the words.
Petrosius: I am relying on its original and continual meaning.
daniel1212: No you are not, as if the original meaning of presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) meant hiereus, then the Spirit would have it at least once as a title for them.
Again you continually have it backwards. It is not a question of the original meaning of presbuteros but of the original meaning of proest/priest.
Theology The Church of the Nazarene is the largest denomination in the classical Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. The doctrine that distinguishes the Church of the Nazarene and other Wesleyan denominations from most other Christian denominations is that of entire sanctification. Nazarenes believe that God calls Christians to a life of holy living that is marked by an act of God, cleansing the heart from original sin and filling the individual with love for God and humankind. This experience is marked by entire consecration of the believer to do God's will and is followed by a life of seeking to serve God through service to others. Like salvation, entire sanctification is an act of God's grace, not of works. Our pursuant service to God is an act of love whereby we show our appreciation for the grace that has been extended to us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
His faith community has a job opening posted.
MINISTRY POSITION OPENING We are currently in search of a Worship Pastor to join our awesome ministry team. This is a part-time position with great potential to develop into a full-time position in the near future. The responsibilities for this position include: - Dedicating approximately 15-20 hours a week for ministry responsibilities - Working with our Lead Pastor to develop worship services - Leading our Sunday corporate worship services in singing - Leading our praise team and tech team in weekly ministry responsibilities - Educating our congregation in the concept of worship from a biblical perspective If you or someone you know might be interested in this, please contact (or send resume) to our Lead Pastor, Pastor Adam Silva, at pastoradamj@live.com... or contact our church office at 209-847-4215.
Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς, ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα· νεωτέρους, ὡς ἀδελφούς· 2 πρεσβυτέρας, ὡς μητέρας· νεωτέρας, ὡς ἀδελφάς, ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ.Which translates as:
Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; (2) The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.Is Paul talking about the office of elder? Hardly, because the passage proceeds to cover proper communication with younger men, older women, and younger women, clearly focusing on age, or age in combination with modes of showing respect.
Acts 23:14 And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. (KJV)Which in the Douay Rheims comes out as:
23:14 Who came to the chief priests and the ancients, and said: We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing till we have slain Paul.So your own translators have punted on this, avoiding "priest" for "presbuteros," because what nonsense it would be to translate it thus:
23:14 Who came to the chief priests and the [priests], and said: We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing till we have slain Paul.All this to say it matters little for Bible translation purposes what "preost" had bundled into it's meaning in the 12th Century. What matters for translation is, who is my target audience, and how do I get them to hear, in their own, current language, what the Bible actually says in the original, unimpeded by my own biases as translator?
[after discussing the standard "presbuteros" theory ... ]Granted, this is a minority position. But I find it fascinating that an alternate theory even exists. Take the "v" out of "prevost" and viola! you have "preost." Which again highlights the need to be careful about relying too heavily on etymology. Lexicography doesn't rely on a single fragile data point drawn from an irrelevant time period, but on a large number of data points all working together to give us an accurate view of how a word was used during the period of history and by the people most relevant to our inquiry. We want to know how Paul used presbuteros, not how Chaucer used preost.
An alternative theory (to account for the -eo- of the Old English word) makes it cognate with Old High German priast, prest, from Vulgar Latin *prevost "one put over others," from Latin praepositus "person placed in charge," from past participle of praeponere (see provost). In Old Testament sense, a translation of Hebrew kohen, Greek hiereus, Latin sacerdos[!?].
From here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=priest
Semantic drift does occur, and without drawing in good lexicographic analysis as an objective measure of that change, you can't be sure what a word meant at any given stage of it's progression through the various host languages.
Here we would have to disagree inasmuch as "priest" today describes the same office called presbuteros in the Bible.
As you suggest, those in English cultures influenced by centuries of Protestant differentiation between "priest" and "elder" will be truly unable to hear "priest" without inferring strong sacerdotal overtones.
But as a Catholic I recognize "priest" as the same office as presbuteros. Similarly, as a Catholic I would view the desire to impose "elder" as the proper translation of presbuteros as an dishonest attempt to deny the continuation of the office of presbuteros in today's Catholic priest. For me "elder" is just as an historically and semantically overloaded term as "priest" is for you.
With all this being said I hope you can understand the Catholic position and that we can agree that the Catholic use of the term "priest", however inaccurate you think it may be, is not a false attempt to impose the concept of hiereus on the office of presbuteros but is drawn from our understanding of the Catholic priesthood as a continuation of the biblical presbuteros.
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.