 |
***EDITED**** We are not going to address the previous posts which have been closed for varoius reasons, we can address the new question : Fr Chuck >>>
Part 4: can we find in early history and scripture evidence of Bishops, priests, and deacons?
JoeT
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
There is considerable evidence for bishops and deacons. I will limit my comments to what we find in scripture:
Phil 1:1-2
1:1 Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV
1 Tim 3:1-7
3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
NKJV
Titus 1:6-9
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.
NKJV
Phil 1:1-2
1:1 Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV
1 Tim 3:8-13
8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given too much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV
As for priests, at the death and resurrection of Christ, the priesthood that previously existed was done away with, and a new priesthood of all believers was created.
1 Peter 2:4-6
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
"Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."
NKJV
1 Peter 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV
And we have one high priest:
Heb 3:1-3
3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, 2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house.
NKJV
Therefore all who have received Christ as Saviour are priests.
I do believe that often what we think of as Bishops today, and the bishop of the bible are the issue, the Bishop of the early church would be what I call the pastor or priest of the local church.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I would differentiate on the use of the word priest because in the NT, the word for priest, hiereus, is only used for the priests in the temple and for Jesus as our high priest (archiereus). The words used for bishop (episkopos) is different.
All believers are priests:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
1 Peter 2:5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Amongst these nation of priests are they who are called to minister to the priesthood of believers of God. These are the Ministerial Priests:
Luke 22: 26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Acts 6:2
Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
1 Cor 7 32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
Amongst the ministerial priests, are they who feed the entire Church. The elders or Bishops:
Acts 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Acts 15:22
Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Acts 21:18
And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
1 Timothy 5:17
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
1 Peter 5:1
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Where in scripture do you find the term "ministerial priests"? In studying scripture I find all believers caslled priests, and only one person is given a higher office as a priest and that is Jesus who is called singularly the "High Priest".Quote:
Amongst these nation of priests are they who are called to minister to the priesthood of believers of God. These are the Ministerial Priests:
I find no mention in scripture of a priestly office within the church.
There is another word used in the NT for priest, and that is "presbuteros". And then there are the episkopoi, the bishops. Also the diaconate: In Acts 6 deacons were ordained by the Apostles for a specific ministry and received the laying on of hands. These are all priestly offices and were recognized as such by all the first and second century witnesses that have come down to us (e.g. the Didache, 1 & 2 Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.). While it is true that Christ is the High Priest of the Church, this in no way militates against an ordained priesthood, established and expanded through the laying on of hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You believe in the Trinity don't you? I don't see it in Scripture, why do you believe it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
In the same way, the term "ministerial priest" is not seen in Scripture. But Scripture illustrates the concept as is seen in the verses I posted.
Presbuteros is more properly translated as "elder". You'd be hard pressed to find a translation of the Bible translating presbuteros as priest other than Bible specific to Catholic denominations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
The trinity is described throughout scripture. Later when I am home, I could recommend a couple of good books that would help guide you through the scriptures if you are unaware as to where the trinity is found in scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I disagree that these references describe a priest at all.Quote:
In the same way, the term "ministerial priest" is not seen in Scripture. But Scripture illustrates the concept as is seen in the verses I posted.
Not really. Some "denominational" translations render "presbuteros" as "elder". Better translations just transliterate the Greek to read "presbyter" since the word doesn't have an exact English equivalent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Either way, there clearly was a hierarchy in the ecclesial structure of the Church in the NT, including, as I mentioned in my last post, both episkopos and diakonos. I'm not sure what you mean to deny when you deny that there is evidence of a ministerial priesthood, but it is evident that episkopos, presbuteros, and diakonos are ecclesial positions or roles within an ecclesiastical hierarchy. The earliest Christian writings outside the NT bear further and even more detailed witness to this, writings composed by people who knew and worked with the Apostles. So it is unclear to me what you take yourself to be opposing here.
Nowhere does Scripture say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousios. Neither does it say that they are three hypostases of one ousia, nor that each is a prosopon or person. Scripture never explains the ekporeusis of the Spirit. And yet you believe in the Trinity: I have seen you affirm the Nicene Creed in this very forum. If you really are a sola scripturist then by your own lights you would have to reject the doctrine of the Trinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
However, the word does not imply "priest".Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
As you may not have noted, I already said that myself. A priest is a specific office, though.Quote:
Either way, there clearly was a hierarchy in the ecclesial structure of the Church in the NT, including, as I mentioned in my last post, both episkopos and diakonos.
This is not the right thread to get into this in more detail, but if you really believe that, I have trouble believing that you have studied in any depth what scripture says about the nature of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
De Maria
I agree that the term elder in the bible can be and has been understood by many theologians as "priest" and ordained as such.
Akoue...
I also agree with you and so does early Church history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
But again, the original word does not carry that denotation, and those theologians would be Catholic, not non-Catholic.lQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Yj3
That is your opinion.
Thanks for sharing it.
Fred
Yes, and the Catholic Church and all those who understand that Presbytery is priesthood, all came before the Reformers reinterpreted the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Presbytery may refer to:
* Presbytery (church polity), a governing body of ordained elders and ministers
* Presbyterium, a body of ordained, active priests in the Roman Catholic or Anglican churches
* Presbytery (architecture), the area of a church building reserved for the clergy
* Presbytery (residence), or "rectory", the home of one or more Roman Catholic priests
De Maria,
Points well made.
Fred
Then they did not understand Greek. Those who penned the Bible understood that the priesthood which added as a mediator between God and man (which is also the meaning of Pontiff) was done away with when Jesus died and was resurrected. That is why we now have a priesthood of all believers, because those who are saved can come before God in the name of our one and only high priest, Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Tj3,
The Catholic Church understand far more than you ever will simply because you are not a knowledgeable member of it.
I was once like you, a protester of the Catholic, but once I started to understand it I decided to understand more and studied it from a positive outlook rather than a closed mind. I became a Catholic.
I firmly believe that anyone who understands the Catholic Church and its teachings well will become a Catholic and never leave it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
The Apostles before your denomination understood more yet. But I note that your argument is an ad hominem argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
IF you really understood the Catholic Church you would know that Christ's apostles were the first bishops of The Catholic Church and that is was not a denomination or considered to be a denomination until after Luther.
History and the Bible affirm that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Just because you say it does not make it so, nor is it compelling, especially not when I have read what history and the Bible have to say.
Tj3,
I said what I said and I'll stand by that.
So let's get back to the topic.
OK?
Fred
I agree. You should get back on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
And where in Scripture do you find the words "homoousios", "hypostasis", and "prosopon" applied to the Trinity? Where in Scripture do you find an explanation of the eternal ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father? Where in Scripture do you find the distinction between the Spirit's ekporeusis from the Father and the Spirit's proienai from the Father explained?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Right, so you understand Greek better than all the early Church Fathers who were native speakers of the Greek of the NT? You, who don't know Greek. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The priesthood of the Temple was superceded by the priesthood of the New Covenant, that's true. It is also true that Christ is the High Priest. It doesn't follow from this that there is anything wrong with a ministerial priesthood. In fact, the only early Christians that I can think of who rejected a ministerial priesthood were the Gnostics. (Again, we find you circulating warmed over Gnosticism and presenting it as some kind of authentic primitive Christianity). Or are you a Montanist: The Montanists also took a deflationary attitude toward the ordained priesthood. Well, sort of.
Once again, as with your bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about the origins of the Catholic Church, we find in your posts evidence of a profoundly deficient knowledge of the history of Christianity. This would be fine, but for the fact that you are so strident and persistent in advancing these unwarranted claims. There is simply too much documentary evidence of an ordained, ministerial, priesthood from the early centuries of Christianity to take at face value your claims that there is something illegitimate about it. The priesthood--the sort of priesthood that one finds today in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism--predates the canon of the NT itself.
It is clearly important to you to advance your claims about this "denomination" or that (although, so far I've only seen you press this in the case of Catholicism--I wonder why), but we've all recently seen you demonstrate your inability to make anything resembling a plausible case for these claims. It really would serve your interests to spend some time studying the work of serious historians (I gave you the names of a bunch of them on another thread recently) and the writing of the early Fathers (esp. Ignatius of Antioch). Doing so might help you to give your claims at least the veneer of plausibility. As it is, you just don't seem to have much of a clue about what was happening in Christianity from the late first century on.
I find it interesting that you claim an unqiue translation of the word "presbuteros".Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Circular reasoning. You tramslate presbuteros as "priest" because you assume a NT priesthood, because it is necessary to support your denomination's theological system.Quote:
The priesthood of the Temple was superceded by the priesthood of the New Covenant, that's true.
Circular reasoning - you assume that you are right, so you use abusive and demeaning comments against anyone who disagrees with you. Not a compelling approach.Quote:
Once again, as with your bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about the origins of the Catholic Church, we find in your posts evidence of a profoundly deficient knowledge of the history of Christianity.
Perhaps we could have a more value-added discussion when you can bring yoursefl to treat others who disagree with you with some respect.
Can you see the skills of pride? or are you asleep?
Gal6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
*****************
Speak only Truth:
1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
I don't understand who are you aiming your comments at? And how are we to interpret this? Is this a good comment or bad comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
JoeT
I didn't propose any translation of "presbuteros". I did, however, say that better translations transliterate it rather than translating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Nope, nothing circular. Again, I didn't translate "presbuteros". I did point out in one of my posts that "presbuteros" is a word used in the NT that can mean priest. And it can--it is used this way outside the New Testament, by both pagan and early Christian writers.Quote:
Circular reasoning. You tramslate presbuteros as "priest" because you assume a NT priesthood, because it is necessary to support your denomination's theological system.
Nope, nothing demeaning either (don't be so thin skinned). Just pointing out that despite the great many opportunities that have been afforded you, you have yet to make anything remotely resembling a plausible case for your revisionist history of early Christianity. If you're going to continue to trot out your unsubstantiated claims about "denominations" you're just going to invite challenges. Particularly when you make demeaning remarks about the faith of others.Quote:
Circular reasoning - you assume that you are right, so you use abusive and demeaning comments against anyone who disagrees with you. Not a compelling approach.
Again, "value-added" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. And I've had plenty of respectful disagreements here. You're the one who seems to cry foul whenever someone points out that your claims are specious. Take my advice: Read some good historians and some Church Fathers. That will help you avoid the specious arguments that cause you so much grief. For instance: You should know by now that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't Biblical. The terms (homoousious, hypostasis, prosopon, etc.) are not terms that occur in the Bible; neither is the ekporeusis, etc. of the Spirit from the Father explained in the Bible. That's why you haven't been able to supply verse citations in response to my earlier query. If you were to moderate your claims, you might find yourself being challenged less often by others. You might also want to ease back on the denominations stuff, while you're at it, since you haven't anything to support your claims and those claims are often rather demeaning of the religious beliefs of others who read these discussions.Quote:
Perhaps we could have a more value-added discussion when you can bring yoursefl to treat others who disagree with you with some respect.
The fact remains, presbuteros does NOT mean priest. No matter long long you make your posts, no matter how many put-downs you post against those who disagree, you cannot change that reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I have debated the Biblical basis of the trinity with Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, pseudo-intellectuals, and others who have tried this same argument, but a couple of things that trip up this approach. The first is that the majority of the Bible was penned in Hebrew, not Greek, and second God is not restricted by the words that men insist that He uses. Nonetheless, scripture presents the trinity as clearly as any doctrine. Often those who oppose the Biblical basis for the trinity focus on such approaches such as the words, while ignoring the content of scripture itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I am surprised at a person professing to be a Catholic arguing against the Biblical basis for the trinity. Many of your fellow professing Catholics have stood with me in defending the Biblical basis of the trinity.
The comment is The Word of God.. His Truth telling us all that it is "The Spirit" that can be sown in any who accept, and hear His Truth, and from that Truth each reap everlasting life.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
The first to teach all people forever, and anoint each... is the Spirit. God reveals unto who he chooses. To lie, and say this is not true is to mock God.
Gal6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Note: ye need not that any man teach you
Because the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
God's Words speaks the Truth:
1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
God's Word of Truth!
Jeremiah 9:4 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.
Jeremiah 9:5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, [and] weary themselves to commit iniquity.
Speak only Truth.. The Word of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
So, who lied? …
JoeT
Akoue,
You gave some good advice to Tj3.
I hope he takes it.
Fred
This discussion went from all believers are priests, to the term "ministerial priests. And then there are the episkopoi, bishops, and diaconate.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
#7 posting by Akoue: While it is true that Christ is the High Priest of the Church, this in no way militates against an ordained priesthood, established and expanded through the laying on of hands.
On to the Trinity, and the fact is the term is not in the scripture.
#9 posted by Tj3: Presbuteros is more properly translated as "elder". You'd be hard pressed to find a translation of the Bible translating presbuteros as priest other than Bible specific to Catholic denominations.
From posting # 2 from Tj3 thr posting # 5 by DeMaria, and #6 also: everyone agreed that believers are priests . So why would it be hard pressed to think of an elder as a priest, unless of course you think elers are not believers.
My point is that with this entire discussion, the reality still remain that God is above all.
And so all of this is least of importance, and because it is least important, in the end we are told the last will be first...
Man can get so puffed up in pridefullness towards someone other then what is reality. In doing so they mock God...
There is only "One" of importance written in scripture ( John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)
As is written: Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Can it be seen and heard in scripture, how God tells us man is least?
That man, is only seen in his puffed up pride, and foolishness to think he is more then what he actually is? YES I know it does..
1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
God's Word of Truth!
Jeremiah 9:4 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.
Jeremiah 9:5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, [and] weary themselves to commit iniquity.
~Trust in God
sndbay,
I think we all agree that God IS above all and the Jesus IS THE high priest of all.
But as others have here said true Christians are priests and so are the Christian elders.
Some are ordained as the bible tells us by laying on of the hands.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
But it does NOT follow that anyone but Jesus is a priest over over others. The office of a priest is to be a bridge between man and God, and scripture is clear that there is only one mediator between man and God and that is Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The reason that there is a priesthood of believers is that we are each able to come directly before God ourselves without needing to got to another priest. That in and of itself puts the rest the belief in the need of priests in the church.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:19 PM. |