confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ?

Thomas Schular · May 31, 2018

BobRyan said:
I posted this --- (the following) but what say you?

===============================

The Bible does not support the doctrines taught in the Mass.

1. No earthly priests after the cross (Hebrews 7)

There were no presbyters? Have you read the New Testament?

You understand that the word Priest is an English word, not a "Catholic" word, correct? The word Priest in the English language comes from the word Presbyter.

2. No powers of the earthly priest - if no priest.

Okay - so if all English speakers reverted back to using the word Presbyters, from which we get the modern word priest, you'd have no argument.

3. No ongoing sacrifice of Christ -- it was "once for all time" Hebrews 10:12 "Otherwise He would need to suffer often" Hebrews 9

Catholics do not resacrifice Christ. Once and for all is actually in complete agreement with the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the and for all. You seem to be denying scripture by argument Christ died once... period.

4. Forgiveness of sin only comes from Christ - not earthly priest - Acts 4:12

No major group of Christians that I know of believe the ability to forgive sins, which Jesus gave to the apostles, comes from the individual, rather than Christ.

When Christ gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins, was He a liar, or do you disagree with scripture? Either men have the ability to forgive sins through Christ, or Christ did not have the ability to forgive sins. You cannot argue that Christ cannot give men the authority to forgive sins, because he clearly did, and your argument is clearly wrong.

5. No mediator between God and man- except Christ - 1 Timothy 2

No one is arguing they are a mediator between God and man.

no "confecting the body soul blood and divinity of Christ" by any human... nor does God Himself engage in such a thing.

Is this a sixth point or are you someone trying to tie this into five? That God gives humanity the ability to offer the Eucharist does not make the person from which the gift comes through a mediator. Such a weak and illogical argument would clearly make the apostles, who wrote with authority, inspired by the Holy Spirit much bigger "mediators".

as far as "what we eat" in the communion service "eating literal flesh and blood is worthless - it is My WORDs that have Spirit and LIFE" John 6:63

"the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1

You completely misquoted scripture. I don't mean used it out of context.
You literally rewrote scripture.
"eating literal flesh and blood is worthless - it is My WORDs that have Spirit and LIFE" John 6:63

What you did is extremely offensive. There is no translation of John 6:63 that says "eating literal flesh and blood is worthless - it is My WORDs that have Spirit and LIFE"

You might need to rethink the true source of your arguments.
I find it particularly offensive to rewrite scripture from the same chapter that destroys your arguments:
"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

So, as a person that denies traditional Christian theology, how do you argue that Christ dwells in you, when you deny the ability to eat His flesh and drink His blood?
Oh... when he said that... He meant something COMPLETELY different. Something very Gnostic, I am sure.

Think about it - a "memorial" service has no need to "confect the body, blood, soul..." of the person... but an ongoing-repeated sacrifice needs the body,blood,soul,divinity of Christ in the sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:12 "sacrificed once for all time" not "once and ongoing"

When Jesus died, did He die for the sins of just those that had died?
No? He died for the sins of those yet to live?
So it is an ongoing sacrifice?
No, you say... He died for once and for all?
So he can do something once... and have it made available for those in the future.
Unless it doesn't fit into your untraditional Christian theology. Then the sacrifice of Christ can be made present were it fits into your illogical theology.

12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God

Thanks for helping me with my above point. His sacrifice applies to all times, except where you don't want it to.

He moves to the next phase "He sat down at the right hand of God" not "he continues to have anything to do with being sacrificed over and over by whoever claims to confect his body blood soul and divinity"
Indeed.. in fact "once for all time" and then He "Sat down at the right hand of God" -- rather than "still looking to be sacrificed each time someone claims to confect the body blood soul and divinity of Christ".

Yes, that's exactly what traditional Christians believe. Everyone sacrifices Jesus over and over again.
Are you even attempting logic at this point?Christ died for your sin... so I guess that means if Christ died 2000 years ago, he had to die again. Oh wait, no, it applies to all time.
EXCEPT when it doesn't fit into your theology.

Then you rewrite scripture.
Then you make illogical arguments.
Then you say people believe things they clearly don't - like, they believe they resacrifice Christ.

My guess is that you are questioning your particular understanding of the Christian faith. That particular understanding reinforces many of its illogical viewpoints by creating angst toward mainstream, traditional, ancient Christianity.

I am sorry for whatever led you to abandon traditional Christianity.

Mark_Sam · May 31, 2018

Thomas Schular said:
About what? If you object to something and want an argument/discussion, you need to state what you object to... not simply post material.

I think OP's intended problem was the fact that Catholic priests, through the Sacrament of Ordination, are given irrevocable power to summon Christ down from heaven and distribute the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord. And I agree, this idea of "holy power" (sacra potestas) of the clergy sounds quite foreign to many Protestant ears.

Thomas Schular · May 31, 2018

Mark_Sam said:
I think OP's intended problem was the fact that Catholic priests, through the Sacrament of Ordination, are given irrevocable power to summon Christ down from heaven and distribute the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord. And I agree, this idea of "holy power" (sacra potestas) of the clergy sounds quite foreign to many Protestant ears.

Catholic theology is not written in English. It is translated into English.

Power has an negative connotation in the English language. It gives the sense of something self contained and uncontrolled and regulated. The word actually means the same thing as ability, but over time has been used in a negative sense. A simple google definition states, "the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality."
Many Christians who ordain ministers would agree that ordination signified that exact thing. However, a person being negative about a pastor or minister would describe the ability as their "power."

For some reason the creator of the topic, that belongs to nontraditional Christian community that has a long history of antagonism/obsession to Catholicism quoted "Catholic Digest 1995 page 126." Which is odd, since in 1995 it was issued by months, not years.

The explanation is poorly written, which is probably why something obscure is being quoted and wrongly cited 23 years later.

Priests do not get magical powers after being ordained. Being a priest is a sacrament, which means it cannot be removed. You do not lose baptism after being excommunicated, becoming a heretic, or converting to another religion. Traditionally, Christians did not "rebaptize." The person renounced their error.

A priest can only celebrate Mass or hear confessions (give absolution) from Christ, with the Holy Spirit, and through the ministry of the Church by doing as God intends as a minister of the Church. That is, a priest only celebrates Mass and can offer Eucharist because of the actions of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, with the authority of the Church.

So a priest cannot go to a kosher store and turn their bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. When sacraments are attempted without the intentions of Christ as known by the Church, they are invalid.

BobRyan · May 31, 2018

☦Marius☦ said:
Presbyter and bishop were originally the same position. You forget that before the Gospel was written and widespread, the church was already forming structure. Many early writers talk about bishops, and their authority.

I have shown a number of examples in Hebrews 7 and 10 where the term "priest" is used and it is not "Presbyter".

hiereus -

STRONGS NT 2409: ἱερεύς
ἱερεύς, ἱερέως, ὁ (ἱερός) (from Homer down), Hebrew כֹּהֵן, a priest; one who offers sacrifices and in general is busied with sacred rites;
a. properly, of the priests of the Gentiles, Acts 14:13; of the priests of the Jews, Matthew 8:4; Matthew 12:4; Mark 1:44; (Mark 2:26); Luke 1:5; Luke 5:14; John 1:19; Heb. 7 Hebrews 7:14 L T Tr WH), Hebrews 7:20 (Hebrews 7:21); Hebrews 8:4, etc.; of the high priest, Acts 5:24 R G (Exodus 35:18; 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Macc. 15:1; Josephus, Antiquities 6, 12, 1); and in the same sense Christ is called ἱερεύς in Hebrews 5:6 (from Psalm 109:4 (Ps. 110:4); Hebrews 7:17; also ἱερεύς μέγας, Hebrews 10:21

☦Marius☦ said:
I didn't say it was the same word, .

And "yet" you would "like" to make it a "synonym"??? -- "anyway"?

Interesting that every single time the NT term is unambiguously "priest" it is hiereus

Albion said:
Those refer to OT Hebrew priests and so are not relevant to this discussion.

Not true - they are the only reference we have in the NT to the actual role of "priest" in a religious context. We do the same thing in english -- that term applies to both when we want to claim that so-and-so has a "priest".

We use different terms for Pastor and Elder - so does the NT text.

The point remains

BobRyan · May 31, 2018

☦Marius☦ said:
Presbyter and bishop were originally the same position. You forget that before the Gospel was written and widespread, the church was already forming structure. Many early writers talk about bishops, and their authority.

I have shown a number of examples in Hebrews 7 and 10 where the term "priest" is used and it is not "Presbyter".

hiereus -

STRONGS NT 2409: ἱερεύς
ἱερεύς, ἱερέως, ὁ (ἱερός) (from Homer down), Hebrew כֹּהֵן, a priest; one who offers sacrifices and in general is busied with sacred rites;
a. properly, of the priests of the Gentiles, Acts 14:13; of the priests of the Jews, Matthew 8:4; Matthew 12:4; Mark 1:44; (Mark 2:26); Luke 1:5; Luke 5:14; John 1:19; Heb. 7 Hebrews 7:14 L T Tr WH), Hebrews 7:20 (Hebrews 7:21); Hebrews 8:4, etc.; of the high priest, Acts 5:24 R G (Exodus 35:18; 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Macc. 15:1; Josephus, Antiquities 6, 12, 1); and in the same sense Christ is called ἱερεύς in Hebrews 5:6 (from Psalm 109:4 (Ps. 110:4); Hebrews 7:17; also ἱερεύς μέγας, Hebrews 10:21

Thomas Schular said:
There were no presbyters?

far be it from me to claim they had no elders or pastors...

Rather they had no priests -- and the term is used often in the NT but never of the presbyter elders and pastors.

Have you read the New Testament?

You understand that the word Priest is an English word and that hiereus - is the term the NT Greek text uses for "priest" in every case.

In English - the Jews have priests, they do not have presbyters. In the Greek - the Jews has priests and the term is not presbyter.

Thomas Schular said:
Catholics do not resacrifice Christ.

Then "do this in REMEMBRANCE" of Me - is obviously a "memorial" and not an ongoing sacrifice. Memorials do not need to make wild claims about "confecting the body,blood and soul" of the one they are memorializing or the event they are memorializing. As we all know

Thomas Schular said:
You seem to be denying scripture by argument Christ died once... period.

Once and then sat down at the right hand of God - Hebrews 10... not "once and still ongoing".

details matter.

Thomas Schular said:
No one is arguing they are a mediator between God and man.

I find that affirmation refreshing.

John 6
"eating literal flesh and blood is worthless - it is My WORDs that have Spirit and LIFE" John 6:63

The entire context of the John 6 sermon of Christ is about eating bread - "the WORD became flesh" John 1.. the WORD has spirit and life - not literal eating of flesh.

Thomas Schular said:
He died for the sins of those yet to live?
So it is an ongoing sacrifice?
No, you say... He died for once and for all?

Actually that would be "the Bible" -
Heb 10
10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Every priest ( ἱερεύς hiereus ,Strong's G2409) stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.

Just when you would have inserted "ongoing sacrifice from that time onward" we have the END of the sacrifice and He "sat down" having completed it... "it is finished"... and since then "waiting" not "sacrificing" or "ongoing sacrifice".

11 And every priest (hiereus) ( ἱερεύς hiereus ,Strong's G2409) stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

Thomas Schular · May 31, 2018

BobRyan said:
I have shown a number of examples in Hebrews 7 and 10 where the term "priest" is used and it is not "Presbyter".

You have also shown your lacking of understanding about language.

The word priest in the English language derives from the word presbyter.

hiereus -

STRONGS NT 2409: ἱερεύς
ἱερεύς, ἱερέως, ὁ (ἱερός) (from Homer down), Hebrew כֹּהֵן, a priest; one who offers sacrifices and in general is busied with sacred rites;
a. properly, of the priests of the Gentiles, Acts 14:13; of the priests of the Jews, Matthew 8:4; Matthew 12:4; Mark 1:44; (Mark 2:26); Luke 1:5; Luke 5:14; John 1:19; Heb. 7 Hebrews 7:14 L T Tr WH), Hebrews 7:20 (Hebrews 7:21); Hebrews 8:4, etc.; of the high priest, Acts 5:24 R G (Exodus 35:18; 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Macc. 15:1; Josephus, Antiquities 6, 12, 1); and in the same sense Christ is called ἱερεύς in Hebrews 5:6 (from Psalm 109:4 (Ps. 110:4); Hebrews 7:17; also ἱερεύς μέγας, Hebrews 10:21

Click to expand...

You cut and paste so many things I don't understand. What's this "ὁ"? Why do the first two words look similar but are not the same? What is Homer's Down? It's all Greek to me. Your cut and paste from a website intimidates me as you are clearly a Greek scholar. Where did you study Greek so that I can quote Strong's NT 2409? How did you get all those italics and links?

And "yet" you would "like" to make it a "synonym"??? -- "anyway"?

Interesting that every single time the NT term is unambiguously "priest" it is hiereus

Not true - they are the only reference we have in the NT to the actual role of "priest" in a religious context. We do the same thing in english -- that term applies to both when we want to claim that so-and-so has a "priest".

We use different terms for Pastor and Elder - so does the NT text.

The point remains

I am super confused. The NT doesn't use the term hiereus. That's from the Latin alphabet. The NT is mainly written in Greek and Aramaic. But what do I know. Please tell me more of this Strong's.

BobRyan · May 31, 2018

Presbyter - was also used by the Jews -- but not for the term "priest"

the original Greek occurs also in Lu 22:66, in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "the assembly of the elders," in the King James Version simply "the elders"; and in Ac 22:5, translated in English Versions of the Bible "the estate of the elders"; in both of which occurrences the word might more accurately be translated "the presbytery," just as it is in 1Ti 4:14. Besides these three occurrences of the neuter singular presbuterion, the masculine plural presbuteroi, always translated "elders," is often used to indicate the same organization or court as the former, being applied earlier in New Testament history to the Jewish Sanhedrin (Mt 27:1; 28:12; Lu 9:22; Ac 4:5,8), and later in the development of the church to its governing body, either in general (Ac 15:2,4,6,22 f), or locally (Ac 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 1Ti 5:17; Tit 1:5, etc.).

BobRyan · May 31, 2018

Thomas Schular said:
I am super confused. The NT doesn't use the term hiereus. That's from the Latin alphabet. The NT is mainly written in Greek and Aramaic.

ἱερεύς
Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus[/QUOTE]

Thomas Schular · May 31, 2018

BobRyan said:
far be it from me to claim they had no elders or pastors...

So there were no priests, which comes from the words presbyters? That makes sense to you.

Rather they had no priests -- and the term is used often in the NT but never of the presbyter elders and pastors.

They had no priests because the New Testament translates presbyters as presbyters?

Have you read the New Testament?

I like how you replied to some parts of my post, ignored most, And then essentially asked me the same thing I asked you.

You understand that the word Priest is an English word and that hiereus - is the term the NT Greek text uses for "priest" in every case.

No, hiereus is not the term "NT Greek" text uses for priest in every case. Hiereus is written in the Roman Alphabet. Only if you had an understanding of the Greek Alphabet, and an understanding of the language, would you realize how absurd your statement is that it is "priest in every case." It ends in -us.

In English - the Jews have priests, they do not have presbyters. In the Greek - the Jews has priests and the term is not presbyter.

Click to expand...

That makes sense to you, and I can speak rationally with you about language?

Then "do this in REMEMBRANCE" of Me - is obviously a "memorial" and not an ongoing sacrifice. Memorials do not need to make wild claims about "confecting the body,blood and soul" of the one they are memorializing or the event they are memorializing. As we all know

That's a great strawman argument against the fact no one believes the Eucharist is an ongoing sacrifice.

Again, the fact that you took snippets of what I said really brings home the argument. You don't need to address every point. You just need to knock down strawmen.

Once and then sat down at the right hand of God - Hebrews 10... not "once and still ongoing".

details matter.

No one believes the sacrifice of Christ is ongoing. What is ongoing is the logic train, by you.

John 6
"eating literal flesh and blood is worthless - it is My WORDs that have Spirit and LIFE" John 6:63

The entire context of the John 6 sermon of Christ is about eating bread - "the WORD became flesh" John 1.. the WORD has spirit and life - not literal eating of flesh.

You JUST REWROTE SCRIPTURE.
You made quotes, and then you rewrote scripture.

You really messed up.

Actually that would be "the Bible" -
Heb 10
10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

That's for agreeing with me. Once and for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.

What are you quoting?

Just when you would have inserted "ongoing sacrifice from that time onward" we have the END of the sacrifice and He "sat down" having completed it... "it is finished"... and since then "waiting" not "sacrificing" or "ongoing sacrifice".

No one has entered ongoing sacrifice. Unless you are referring to your editing of your post.

BobRyan · May 31, 2018

Thomas Schular said:
So there were no priests, which comes from the words presbyters? That makes sense to you. .

The term "priests" in the NT is translated from the greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus[

Presbyter - was also used by the Jews just as they also used the term for priest ἱερεύς
the greek term "priest" in the NT ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

As for Presbyter -

the original Greek occurs also in Lu 22:66, in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "the assembly of the elders," in the King James Version simply "the elders"; and in Ac 22:5, translated in English Versions of the Bible "the estate of the elders"; in both of which occurrences the word might more accurately be translated "the presbytery," just as it is in 1Ti 4:14. Besides these three occurrences of the neuter singular presbuterion, the masculine plural presbuteroi, always translated "elders," is often used to indicate the same organization or court as the former, being applied earlier in New Testament history to the Jewish Sanhedrin (Mt 27:1; 28:12; Lu 9:22; Ac 4:5,8), and later in the development of the church to its governing body, either in general (Ac 15:2,4,6,22 f), or locally (Ac 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 1Ti 5:17; Tit 1:5, etc.).

Thomas Schular said:
They had no priests because the New Testament translates presbyters as presbyters?
.

??

I find your logic "illusive" at that point as a response to the fact that it was just shown to you that both the Jews and the Christians used presbyter for elders and that the term for priest is unambigous -- greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus .

What is more the NT text is written to Christians and uses greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus for priest.

BobRyan · May 31, 2018

Thomas Schular said:
I like how you replied to some parts of my post, ignored most, And then essentially asked me the same thing I asked you. .

Indeed I a pointing to the greek text and the use of it in Bible translations and asking you if you have read it -- because your question applies with most direct applicability to your own text at this point.

Thomas Schular · Jun 1, 2018

BobRyan said:
The term "priests" in the NT is translated from the greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

How do I explain this? Your thinking is backwards.
The New Testament, as we have it available to us, was written in Greek.
There is no term "priests" in the New Testament.

When translating from the Greek, English translations will use priest in certain instances. English translations also use MULTIPLE WORDS for GOD. You can't make theological arguments this way.

The word priest comes from presbyter.

Presbyter - was also used by the Jews just as they also used the term for priest ἱερεύς
the greek term "priest" in the NT ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

There is no term for priest in the New Testament.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?
The word priest did not exist in the New Testament. There is no word for television or iPhone, or wifi in the New Testament. Priest was a word developed in the English language centuries later, that came from presbyter.

You clearly haven't studied Greek. You are doing internet searches of words.

As for Presbyter -

the original Greek occurs also in Lu 22:66, in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "the assembly of the elders," in the King James Version simply "the elders"; and in Ac 22:5, translated in English Versions of the Bible "the estate of the elders"; in both of which occurrences the word might more accurately be translated "the presbytery," just as it is in 1Ti 4:14. Besides these three occurrences of the neuter singular presbuterion, the masculine plural presbuteroi, always translated "elders," is often used to indicate the same organization or court as the former, being applied earlier in New Testament history to the Jewish Sanhedrin (Mt 27:1; 28:12; Lu 9:22; Ac 4:5,8), and later in the development of the church to its governing body, either in general (Ac 15:2,4,6,22 f), or locally (Ac 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 1Ti 5:17; Tit 1:5, etc.).

You just cut and pasted this.
This isn't an argument. You just clearly cut and pasted something.

Here what what you stole:
Presbyter; Presbytery in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
And yes, it is stealing to take what someone else wrote and present it as your own.

You have also not addressed the fact that you rewrote scripture, which is much more serious.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." - Revelation 22:18.

I find your logic "illusive" at that point as a response to the fact that it was just shown to you that both the Jews and the Christians used presbyter for elders and that the term for priest is unambigous -- greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus .

There is no term for priest because it didn't exist. You don't seem to get language do you?
There were words used by Aramaic and Greek speaking people... which when translated into English, we can translated as priest.

You seem to think that words have exact translations. You don't seem to understand the development of language and translation.

If you fooled your way into being a speaker to a group of biblical Greek translators, they would begin laughing at you, thinking you were opening with a joke. Jews and Greeks used the word priest, which is Strong 2405.

What is more the NT text is written to Christians and uses greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus for priest.

As you are clearly a Greek scholar by quoting strongs, with a mastery of translating it into the English language, do the manuscripts use that exact Greek spelling every time? Where and why might it be different?

BobRyan · Jun 1, 2018

Thomas Schular said:
So there were no priests, which comes from the words presbyters? That makes sense to you. .

The term "priests" in the NT is translated from the greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus[

Presbyter - was also used by the Jews just as they also used the term for priest ἱερεύς
the greek term "priest" in the NT ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

As for Presbyter -

the original Greek occurs also in Lu 22:66, in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "the assembly of the elders," in the King James Version simply "the elders"; and in Ac 22:5, translated in English Versions of the Bible "the estate of the elders"; in both of which occurrences the word might more accurately be translated "the presbytery," just as it is in 1Ti 4:14. Besides these three occurrences of the neuter singular presbuterion, the masculine plural presbuteroi, always translated "elders," is often used to indicate the same organization or court as the former, being applied earlier in New Testament history to the Jewish Sanhedrin (Mt 27:1; 28:12; Lu 9:22; Ac 4:5,8), and later in the development of the church to its governing body, either in general (Ac 15:2,4,6,22 f), or locally (Ac 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 1Ti 5:17; Tit 1:5, etc.).

Thomas Schular said:
They had no priests because the New Testament translates presbyters as presbyters?
.

??

I find your logic "illusive" at that point as a response to the fact that it was just shown to you that both the Jews and the Christians used presbyter for elders and that the term for priest is unambigous -- greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus .

What is more the NT text is written to Christians and uses greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus for priest.

Thomas Schular said:
How do I explain this? Your thinking is backwards.

That is a good question. It will be interesting to see you attempt it.

Thomas Schular said:
The New Testament, as we have it available to us, was written in Greek.

It is difficult at this point to see how that does not make my point for me.

Did you mean to say something "else"??

It appears you are ending your own argument.

Thomas Schular said:
There is no term "priests" in the New Testament.

Until you notice that each time we see Jewish "priests" identified in the NT...or the LXX in the OT

The term "priests" in the NT is translated from the greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus[

Presbyter - was also used by the Jews just as they also used the term for priest ἱερεύς
the greek term "priest" in the NT ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

And each time we see "Elders" -- even for Jewish Elders and Sanhedrin - it is

singular presbuterion, the masculine plural presbuteroi, always translated "elders,"

When translating from the Greek, English translations will use priest for ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

So staying focused here - the point I made on page 1 was that in the NT we do not find the Christians claiming that they have the office of priest ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

In fact each time we do find "priest" it is an actual priest - and not an elder.

There is no term for priest in the New Testament.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

Because that term shows up in the OT - LXX
and it shows up in the NT - Greek text - as priest and is translated from ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

You are making the transparently flawed argument that if the etymology of an english word does not derive directly from Greek or Chinese or Japanese or ... then there must be no translation of that word into English.

It is difficult to understand how the flaw in such a position has escaped you.

You seem to think that words must have exact derivation from the language being translated (as if English words all CAME from Greek) in order for us to translate terms from Greek to English. You don't seem to understand the development of language and translation.

You appear to have imagined to yourself that if the KJV/NKJV/NASB Bible scholars and translators had "fooled their way into being a speaker to a group of biblical Greek scholars, they would begin laughing at them, thinking it was a joke to claim that the English term "priest" would ever be a valid translation of the Greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

(It just does not "get" any easier than this)

Thomas Schular · Jun 3, 2018

BobRyan said:
The term "priests" in the NT is translated from the greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus[[

The New Testament does not have the word "priest." The New Testament is written in Greek. What you mean to say is that some translators when translating the New Testament into English use the word "priest."

Presbyter - was also used by the Jews just as they also used the term for priest ἱερεύς
the greek term "priest" in the NT ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

The Jews, which Jews?

Whatever unspecified Jews you are referring to.. you are saying used the English word Presbyter.. as they also used for the English term priest ἱερεύς. What? And "priest " is a Greek term.

You realize you do not make a bit of sense?

Thomas Schular · Jun 3, 2018

BobRyan said:
The term "priests" in the NT is translated from the greek ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus[[

The New Testament does not have the word "priest." The New Testament is written in Greek. What you mean to say is that some translators when translating the New Testament into English use the word "priest."

Presbyter - was also used by the Jews just as they also used the term for priest ἱερεύς
the greek term "priest" in the NT ἱερεύς Strong's G2409 - transliteration = hiereus

The Jews, which Jews?

They also used the term for priest as ἱερεύς?

You realize you do not make a bit of sense?

You completely rewrote scripture. You completely ignored that.
You didn't apologize for quoting the bible as saying something it didn't. Nope, you just ignored it. There were so many ways you could have gotten out of that, but you ignored it.

And that tells me, you don't care.

As I asked you before - As you are clearly a Greek scholar by quoting strongs, (sarcasm) with a mastery of translating Greek into the English language, do the manuscripts use that exact Greek spelling every time? Where and why might it be different?

That's not a difficult question to answer.

confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ?

Active Member

Veteran Newbie

Active Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Active Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Active Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Active Member

Junior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads