Defending devotion to the Saints

bbbbbbb · Feb 1, 2013

Kristos said:
I'm not sure that framing it as "accessing God on our own terms" is really accurate. It seems to me that God still sets the terms and our "access" is contingent on our trust in Him and His providence. I also don't think that the tearing of the curtain was a reduction of God's relationship with "His people" to a purely one-on-one situation. It was the end of temple worship and the begin of worship in spirit and in truth, but I think scripture shows that this worship continued to be communal, not individual, it just no longer had a place nor time. I only bring this up because I feel that individualism has done so much damage to our culture and our faith and it's so easy to overlook in the name of personal freedom.

However, the tearing of the curtain signified that the way to the Holy of Holies ceased to be through the Levitical priesthood and is now by means of Jesus Christ, who is a type of Melchizedek, as discussed in the letter to the Hebrews. A Christian has access to God through Jesus Christ and does not depend on a mortal priesthood for that access. Whether Christians communally worship Christ as a royal priesthood or individually through their Mediator, the access is still the same.

Cappadocious · Feb 1, 2013

It should be noted that the Old Testament jews also had a royal priesthood, and this did not disrupt the notion of the sacerdotal priesthood.

bbbbbbb said:
A Christian has access to God through Jesus Christ and does not depend on a mortal priesthood for that access.

Do you understand that the priests of the Christian church are presbyters (from which the word priest comes)? I think you are misusing the word priest because of various english translations.

Kristos · Feb 1, 2013

bbbbbbb said:
However, the tearing of the curtain signified that the way to the Holy of Holies ceased to be through the Levitical priesthood and is now by means of Jesus Christ, who is a type of Melchizedek, as discussed in the letter to the Hebrews. A Christian has access to God through Jesus Christ and does not depend on a mortal priesthood for that access. Whether Christians communally worship Christ as a royal priesthood or individually through their Mediator, the access is still the same.

I see it in terms of the body of Christ, which is specifically not an individual matter but communal - it has parts. It seems to me that Paul reinforces this concept over and over. I'm not trying to say that our individual prayers don't matter, they do, but true worship must be communal. God's people must assemble as the body in order to offer themselves as a living sacrifice. This is getting way off topic, so I will leave it that. Peace

Zeek · Feb 1, 2013

Kristos said:
I'm not sure that framing it as "accessing God on our own terms" is really accurate. It seems to me that God still sets the terms and our "access" is contingent on our trust in Him and His providence. I also don't think that the tearing of the curtain was a reduction of God's relationship with "His people" to a purely one-on-one situation. It was the end of temple worship and the begin of worship in spirit and in truth, but I think scripture shows that this worship continued to be communal, not individual, it just no longer had a place nor time. I only bring this up because I feel that individualism has done so much damage to our culture and our faith and it's so easy to overlook in the name of personal freedom.

I think you make an interesting point.

The curtain being ripped from top to bottom has always signified that we all have free access to the Father through the blood of the Lamb...'it is finished'...the price has been paid, there is no longer a barrier between a Holy G-d and sinful man....but through Jesus and Jesus alone we can be confident of a warm welcome from our Heavenly Father...individually or coporately...in prayer, worship, meditation, silence, awe....whenever we want. Never based on format...but on relationship.

bbbbbbb · Feb 2, 2013

Cappadocious said:
It should be noted that the Old Testament jews also had a royal priesthood, and this did not disrupt the notion of the sacerdotal priesthood.

Do you understand that the priests of the Christian church are presbyters (from which the word priest comes)? I think you are misusing the word priest because of various english translations.

Presbyter is typically translated in the Bible as elder and is used interchangably with episkopos (overseer, or (transliterated) as bishop). The Greek word for priest (hieros) is never used in the Bible in reference to a church office. There are two church offices referenced in the New Testament - presbyter/espiskopos and diakonos (servant, or deacon (transliterated from diakonos).

bbbbbbb · Feb 2, 2013

Kristos said:
I see it in terms of the body of Christ, which is specifically not an individual matter but communal - it has parts. It seems to me that Paul reinforces this concept over and over. I'm not trying to say that our individual prayers don't matter, they do, but true worship must be communal. God's people must assemble as the body in order to offer themselves as a living sacrifice. This is getting way off topic, so I will leave it that. Peace

Thank you. Peace to you, as well.

Cappadocious · Feb 2, 2013

bbbbbbb said:
Presbyter is typically translated in the Bible as elder and is used interchangably with episkopos (overseer, or (transliterated) as bishop). The Greek word for priest (hieros) is never used in the Bible in reference to a church office. There are two church offices referenced in the New Testament - presbyter/espiskopos and diakonos (servant, or deacon (transliterated from diakonos).

The English word "priest" comes from "prest" which comes from "presbyter". It is erroneously used for heiros in many English translations of the NT. Presbtyteros is only "typically" translated elder in anticlerical protestant translations.

So when we say "priest" to refer to a Christan elder, we mean "presbyteros" not "heiros".

bbbbbbb · Feb 2, 2013

Cappadocious said:
The English word "priest" comes from "prest" which comes from "presbyter". It is erroneously used for heiros in many English translations of the NT. Presbtyteros is only "typically" translated elder in anticlerical protestant translations.

So when we say "priest" to refer to a Christan elder, we mean "presbyteros" not "heiros".

Here is the "clerical" Douay-Rheims translation of I Timothy 3:1-7. As you can see, it was decided to transliterate episkopos as bishop, meaning that biblical bishops are the husband of one wife, having his children in subjection with all chastity. Interesting.

3 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.
5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Here is the Douay-Rheims rendering of Acts 20:17. Rather than describing the presbyterii as elders (an accurate translation) they are called ancients, which is much closer to the meaning of elders than priests. In light of the fact that Paul himself had appointed these men, they were probably not much more "ancient" than himself. These same individuals (presbyterii) are also called ancients in Acts 15 in the DR translation.

17 And sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he called the ancients of the church.

In case you are wondering, here is I Timothy 3 in the New American Bible. As you can see, it is not much different from the DR translation.

1 This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God? 6 He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil's punishment. 3 7 He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil's trap. Acts 20:17, however, is different in the NAB. In this case the translators decided to avoid the sticky task of translation and chose simply to use the Greek and call these men presbyters. This is also true in Acts 15. Apparently the clerical translation of presbyter is not "priest", after all.

17 From Miletus he had the presbyters of the church at Ephesus summoned

Cappadocious · Feb 2, 2013

"which is much closer to the meaning of elders than priests."

But Priest is just a short, modified loan name of the actual word presbyter. You can't get much closer to the meaning of a word than shorthand for that word.

The problem is that we have no name for heiros in English.

And yeah, it's not translated consistently in the two translations you mentioned. That's a shame.

Standing Up · Feb 2, 2013

Cappadocious said:
It should be noted that the Old Testament jews also had a royal priesthood, and this did not disrupt the notion of the sacerdotal priesthood.

Do you understand that the priests of the Christian church are presbyters (from which the word priest comes)? I think you are misusing the word priest because of various english translations.

Where's the royal priesthood and sacerdotal priesthood in the OT Jews of Sinai/Mosaic Law to which you refer?

Cappadocious · Feb 2, 2013

Standing Up said:
Where's the royal priesthood and sacerdotal priesthood in the OT Jews of Sinai/Mosaic Law to which you refer?

Exodus 19.

Standing Up · Feb 2, 2013

Cappadocious said:
Exodus 19.

Ex. 19:5-6 Now therefore, if ye will obey (hear per LXX) my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

What was the condition to that "kingdom of priests"?

Did they or did they not refuse to hear/obey?

Cappadocious · Feb 3, 2013

Standing Up said:
What was the condition to that "kingdom of priests"?

Jazz hands.

But seriously; the sacerdotal and royal priesthoods of Old Israel both failed to remove sins or else there would not have been an anamnesis of sins every year, etc. That's sort of the point.

Israel in the Messiah doesn't receive the leftover "stored up" promises of God that Israel of the flesh didn't get. He receives ALL of them. ALL of the things that actually existed in Israel are re-capitulated and fulfilled in Israel.

So you can't really argue that the Sacerdotal Priesthood is abolished now because some leftover unfulfilled promises are good now. It's an all-or-nothing deal with promises to Israel.

Fatherhood, friendship, the sacerdotal and royal priesthoods, brotherhood, teacher-hood, craftsman-hood, human-hood, etc. Belong properly only to Christ and from God through Christ, and we can participate in them through him, and persons play different roles in communal Divine Service, participating in all roles in virtue of the Other.

Or should we all expound on the word simultaneously in a grand cacophony?

Reductionism fails.

Standing Up · Feb 4, 2013

Cappadocious said:
Jazz hands.

But seriously; the sacerdotal and royal priesthoods of Old Israel both failed to remove sins or else there would not have been an anamnesis of sins every year, etc. That's sort of the point.

Israel in the Messiah doesn't receive the leftover "stored up" promises of God that Israel of the flesh didn't get. He receives ALL of them. ALL of the things that actually existed in Israel are re-capitulated and fulfilled in Israel.

So you can't really argue that the Sacerdotal Priesthood is abolished now because some leftover unfulfilled promises are good now. It's an all-or-nothing deal with promises to Israel.

Memo: The Temple is destroyed. The Sacerdotal Priesthood was Levitical only from Sinai. It doesn't exist in Christianity from Zion.

Fatherhood, friendship, the sacerdotal and royal priesthoods, brotherhood, teacher-hood, craftsman-hood, human-hood, etc. Belong properly only to Christ and from God through Christ, and we can participate in them through him, and persons play different roles in communal Divine Service, participating in all roles in virtue of the Other.

Or should we all expound on the word simultaneously in a grand cacophony?

Reductionism fails.

Point is you and whoever invented the idea of sacerdotal and royal priesthoods have nothing from scripture or tradition to stand on. It's a myth invented to counter the Christian idea of a nation of priests.

Myth to sustain Levitical sacerdotalism in the camp of Christianity against the all-encompassing one faith priesthood of believer.

Cappadocious · Feb 5, 2013

Standing Up said:
Memo: The Temple is destroyed. The Sacerdotal Priesthood was Levitical only from Sinai. It doesn't exist in Christianity from Zion.

I agree. If Christians use the term heiros to refer to leaders or Christians in general, it would have to have a different meaning than the levitical priesthood did. Or of course, in reference to Christ.

Standing Up said:
Point is you and whoever invented the idea

#apostasyofthegaps

Standing Up said:
It's a myth invented to counter the Christian idea of a nation of priests.

#unsourcedenemy

Hey Standing Up, why did you remove all that cool stuff about figuring out how to reconcile all the Gospels with a secret method that everyone else is ignorant about from your profile?

Standing Up · Feb 5, 2013

Cappadocious said:
I agree. If Christians use the term heiros to refer to leaders or Christians in general, it would have to have a different meaning than the levitical priesthood did. Or of course, in reference to Christ.

#apostasyofthegaps

#unsourcedenemy

Point is you have zero reference from scripture or early tradition to document your hand-fed myth swallowed wholeheartedly about the royal priesthood and sacerdotal priesthood in Christianity. There's no such thing. In Christianity, it's the priesthood of believer.

Hey Standing Up, why did you remove all that cool stuff about figuring out how to reconcile all the Gospels with a secret method that everyone else is ignorant about from your profile?

Was up there long enough and time to move on.

A secret method? If you've hung around GT long enough, you know about the quartodecimans. In fact I mention them in a couple of current threads right now.

The quartodecimans, FYI, taught Christ died on the 14th. That's what scripture teaches. Tradition through Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates taught the same. Alexandria did too, until shortly after Nicea, and then it too submitted to the Roman way of miscalculating the greatest event in human history.

From that, the church eventually schismed because of the bread type issue in 1054ad. Maybe you've heard about it, but don't know the reason for it? Something about sand ...

Today, Christians view John's Gospel and the Synoptics as contradicting each other. Much like the Church itself.

So no, nothing secret about it.

Cappadocious · Feb 6, 2013

Standing Up said:
the royal priesthood and sacerdotal priesthood.

In English or Greek or Hebrew?

Words matter.

Standing Up said:
There's no such thing. In Christianity, it's the priesthood of believer.

You are an unimaginative fellow.

Standing Up said:
A secret method? If you've hung around GT long enough, you know about the quartodecimans. In fact I mention them in a couple of current threads right now.

The quartodecimans, FYI, taught Christ died on the 14th.

Your great reconciliation just had to do with the date?

Eesh, what a let-down.

Standing Up said:
miscalculating the greatest event in human history.

You and the Romans share an unhealthy obsession with calendars.

Standing Up said:
Today, Christians view John's Gospel and the Synoptics as contradicting each other.

Some do.

So Standing Up, what do you do nights? I mean, with the angst?

How do you sublimate that angst, bro?

Standing Up · Feb 6, 2013

Cappadocious said:
In English or Greek or Hebrew?

Words matter.

Do you actually have something from scripture or tradition to support your view about the so-called royal priesthood and sacerdotal priesthood in the NT Church?

Cappadocious · Feb 6, 2013

So did you start your own house church or do you go to someone else's?

Standing Up · Feb 6, 2013

Cappadocious said:
So did you start your own house church or do you go to someone else's?

Well, we've fallen away from the thread. C/u around.

PS. since you have nothing from scripture or tradition to support the nonsense about a royal and sacerdotal priesthood in Christianity, please don't spread it.

Defending devotion to the Saints

bbbbbbb

Guest

Well-Known Member

Servant

Follower of Messiah, Israel advocate and Zionist

bbbbbbb

Guest

bbbbbbb

Guest

Well-Known Member

bbbbbbb

Guest

Well-Known Member

On and on

Well-Known Member

On and on

Well-Known Member

On and on

Well-Known Member

On and on

Well-Known Member

On and on

Well-Known Member

On and on

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency