This seems to sum things up in the Protestant/Catholic debate...

[Optimax]

Your argument is based in words, you said their is no "priest" in the NT aside from Christ, when pastor and priest are both synonyms for shepherd.

The word “priest” is used 71 times in the NT.

53 of those the word is NT:749

archiereus (ar-khee-er-yuce'); from NT:746 and NT:2409; the high-priest (literally, of the Jews, typically, Christ); by extension a chief priest:
KJV - chief (high) priest, chief of the priests.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

17 of those words are NT:2409

hiereus (hee-er-yooce'); from NT:2413; a priest (literally or figuratively):
KJV - (high) priest.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

1 of those words is NT:748
archieratikos (ar-khee-er-at-ee-kos'); from NT:746 and a derivative of NT:2413; high-priestly:
KJV - of the high-priest.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

53
17
1

71 times

None of the words are defined as shepherd.

 

[Souldier]

A priest is not a leader in the sense a Protestant evangelical understands the term. He just stands in for Christ, but is himself a humble servant and has no authority beyond what is given to him by the Gospel promises to preach and proclaim the forgiveness of sins and bring souls to repentance.

We are all priests and Christ is the high priest. Thats what many Christians fail to see, or perhaps are never taught.

 

[Souldier]

Prove it. You are just making assertions.

When the martyr Polycarp died for the faith in the early second century, everyone tried to touch his body because they regarded it as holy. Polycarp himself was instructed by the apostle John. You don't think somehow the church fell into error after only two generations, do you?

I do not see an evangelical faith based on a personal relationship with Christ in contradiction with the catholic faith as practiced by the early church, by men like Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and Chrysostom. It's a false dichotomy born of northern European nationalism, not a serious analysis of history.

I dont need to prove it. Its just true. Believe it or not.

 

[Souldier]

Only Priests partake of the alter. If i understand this correctly then we are all priests because we all partake of the bread of life.


1 Co 10:17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

 

[FireDragon76]

We are all priests and Christ is the high priest. Thats what many Christians fail to see, or perhaps are never taught.

That depends on what you mean by priest. In a congregation, certain people are called out by the Church to be priests or elders (the word priest comes from the Greek word for elder). For the purposes of good order, not all people are priests in that sense.

I can agree that God's people are a priestly people, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the right to be a priest in the congregation.

 

[Souldier]

That depends on what you mean by priest. In a congregation, certain people are called out by the Church to be priests or elders (the word priest comes from the Greek word for elder). For the purposes of good order, not all people are priests in that sense.

I can agree that God's people are a priestly people, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the right to be a priest in the congregation.

It means we are all priests. The bible says we need no teacher, and that testifies to how each of us must take charge of our own temple and allow the high priest who is Christ to rule our hearts and minds. The holy spirit is our teacher. I would gladly submit to teachers if i were not so aware of their fallibility. They are just as fallible as i am, therefore i let the word teach me. I do listen to others though and try to gain from their understanding as well, surely if God teaches me then he teaches others too, and so we can teach each other and we can all learn together and all gain more understanding together. However i have no confidence in allowing a single man or denomination to teach me. I think this is only wise.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thing is, I'm a Protestant. Also, my position would be closer to the second option. Though filled with many caveats.

This seems like an oversimplification at best. Attempting to pigeonhole all Protestants as one thing. The problem is, as I've said many times before, there is no such thing as "Protestantism" there is no catch-all "Protestant". There are many different "Protestantisms".

"The difference between cats and dogs is that all cats have orange fur with black stripes."

Notice a problem there? What is being described is a tiger, which is indeed a cat, but not all cats are tigers. And that's not the real difference between cats and dogs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Optimax]

That depends on what you mean by priest. In a congregation, certain people are called out by the Church to be priests or elders (the word priest comes from the Greek word for elder). For the purposes of good order, not all people are priests in that sense.

I can agree that God's people are a priestly people, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the right to be a priest in the congregation.

"(the word priest comes from the Greek word for elder)".

I find nine times the word "elder" is used in the KJV.

None of those mention the word "priest".

Where do you get your information from?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Check this verse.

Pope is not in the list.

Priest is not in the list.

The Only Priest is Jesus, He is High Priest.

Eph 4:11
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; KJV

Pope is man's idea not a gift to born again people from Jesus.

Matthew 16:18-20. Jesus' words, not mans. Peter was an apostle, his successor has the very same gifts Peter did.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Correct. What separates the RCC from the rest of Christianity is the many things they have added to Christ. Anything added to Christ, takes away from Christ.

I would tell you that Catholics have added nothing to Christ.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There is only one shepherd. Thats the reality we must be learning. If a Church doesn't teach their flock this truth then the flock will never grow but will remain infants in Christ. No man can be our advocate when we stand before God. The pope will not be there, nor will any other man be able to speak for us. Christ Himself will say "well done, you fed me when i was hungry, and you clothed me when i was naked". We must all stand on our own and follow the spirit. This can only be done by following the words of Christ.



John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

So you don't think shepherds need someone to assist them? Again, if you're a father, and you mow your grass, do you deny your four year old son who wants to 'help' push the mower? Again, participation does not deter one bit that the Son of God is the True Shepherd.

 

[Souldier]

So you don't think shepherds need someone to assist them? Again, if you're a father, and you mow your grass, do you deny your four year old son who wants to 'help' push the mower? Again, participation does not deter one bit that the Son of God is the True Shepherd.

You must admit that all this division is carnal. There is only one way to put away division and thats to put away carnellism. WE gotta walk in the spirit as individuals and as a Church. Thats my opinion.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The difference is that the Protestant model declares the Bible to be the rule and test of all tradition, practice doctrine - and declares that "people can read it" without having to constantly be "told what to think".

Then there is no difference. Catholics also believe the Bible to be the rule and test of all tradition, practice and doctrine. Prior to the invention of the printing press, there were few books, and few who could read the few books. But the faith was passed on reliably, nonetheless.

Thus "We must EACH stand before the judgment seat of God" 2Cor 5:10 and there will be no "papal appeal" accepted -- in other words no one will be allowed the excuse "well the pope told me to do it".

In the Protestant model you may not torture or kill someone or 'nicely exterminate them' for religious differences. If you do you are making a big mistake.

Salem Witch Trials were not a Protestant thing? Why did the Puritans come to America? Of course, in the Catholic model, we may not torture or kill someone or 'nicely exterminate them' for religious differences, either.

In the Protestant model mistakes in the past can be apologized for - and you can then simply "move on".

You must still pay for the mistakes, even if you sincerely apologize for them. If a kid accidentally breaks your window, and owns up to it, the window still has to be fixed...

So then the "Christ in the Bible" - the "Gospel in the Bible" and the "Christianity that you find in the Bible" is the primary driver in the Protestant model.

Same with Catholics-no difference or distinction.

And for a few protestant groups - the Bible is a "reliable trustworthy record - historic account - of sacred history" starting from Genesis 1. So then we are virgin-birth-ists, literal-resurrection-ists, creation-ists ... etc.

in Christ,

Bob

Which wasn't addressed in the OP at all. But all Catholics are virgin-birth-ists, literal-resurrection-ists, and some even literal 6 day creation-ists.

 

[Root of Jesse]

With respect, scripture is the only trusted authority. Please do not be offended by what im saying. The apostles would never have prayed to saints, or even establish this notion of "sainthood" in the first place. That contradicts the whole idea of glorying only in the Lord, and the concept of the holy spirit advocate.

They would never have treated icons as anything holy. They would preach Christ and Christ alone. They would preach putting away carlism and seeking heaven.

Why do you think you can trust Scripture? Who provided it to you? Men, fallible men, wrote it. Saying that, I trust Scripture, too, but it was men who wrote it, God who inspired it. We trust God to inspire others to carry on the true faith. John wrote about the saints in heaven in Revelation. Saints are merely those who lived worthy lives on earth-sinners who persevered to live a holy life. If you look at the model in Revelation the saints offer the prayers of those of us on earth up to God. All glory is to Him and Him alone.

Icons are not holy, things can't be holy. They invoke holy thoughts, though.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You must admit that all this division is carnal. There is only one way to put away division and thats to put away carnellism. WE gotta walk in the spirit as individuals and as a Church. Thats my opinion.

Catholicism, by its very nature, is not divided. Remember, you folks were the ones that broke away and divided into 40-50,000 denominations. There is only one Truth, one Faith, one Baptism, one Lord.

 

[Optimax]

Matthew 16:18-20. Jesus' words, not mans. Peter was an apostle, his successor has the very same gifts Peter did.

We agree that Peter was an apostle.

A "successor" to Peter is not named in scripture.

If I missed it please quote chapter and verse.

The "very same gifts Peter did" is a stated as an opinion, not back up by chapter and verse.

 

[Souldier]

Catholicism, by its very nature, is not divided. Remember, you folks were the ones that broke away and divided into 40-50,000 denominations. There is only one Truth, one Faith, one Baptism, one Lord.

I see it differently. RCC broke away from sound doctrine. They were not the first church either, thats a myth.

 

[Souldier]

Why do you think you can trust Scripture?

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.


1 Co 2:10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[d] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?”[e] But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Optimax]

Catholicism, by its very nature, is not divided. Remember, you folks were the ones that broke away and divided into 40-50,000 denominations. There is only one Truth, one Faith, one Baptism, one Lord.

Do you understand what "one Faith, one Baptism, etc., is?

That would probably take another thread.

 

[Root of Jesse]

We agree that Peter was an apostle.

A "successor" to Peter is not named in scripture.

If I missed it please quote chapter and verse.

The "very same gifts Peter did" is a stated as an opinion, not back up by chapter and verse.

Peter's successor would have been post-Scriptural. Successors tend to be named after someone died. Peter's death wasn't in Scripture, either.

Peter and the apostles knew they would have people succeeding them. That's why they came together and named Matthias to succeed Judas. Paul named Timothy and Titus, to name a couple, to succeed him in some of the Churches he started. We know who succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome. They did the same thing Peter himself and Paul himself did.