Denominations

[Standing Up]

No matter. Elders could have meant Priests as well. I never said they couldn't.

Elder never meant Priest. That was a later invention, one result was denominations.

 

[cobweb]

Elder never meant Priest. That was a later invention, one result was denominations.

Of course it means priest. The word translated as "elder" in the Epistles is πρεσβύτερος.

Go to a Greek Church and find out what πρεσβύτερος means. Even in English-speaking Churches of Greek heritage, πρεσβυτέρα is still used as a title of honor for the wife of a priest.

 

[Kepha]

One more thing about Titus 1:5

It's clear Paul did something special with Titus when He made Him into a Priest, so this entire chapter is telling Him what type of men he's to look for when He also ordains them with the Priestly authority to teach, calling them ministers of God. It also reveals how succession works. Paul Ordains Titus, Titus therefore finds other men to send out as ministers etc, etc.

It's nothing like today where individuals are ordaining themselves by their own authority.

 

[Kepha]

edit

 

[sunlover1]

One more thing about Titus 1:5

It's clear Paul did something special with Titus when He made Him into a Priest, so this entire chapter is telling Him what type of men he's to look for when He also ordains them with the Priestly authority to teach, calling them ministers of God. It also reveals how succession works. Paul Ordains Titus, Titus therefore finds other men to send out as ministers etc, etc.

It's nothing like today where individuals are ordaining themselves by their own authority.

Or like Apostles who confer not with flesh and blood.

Actually it's easy to spot the genuine from the posers and it has nothing to do
with ...

Well we know how to tell the difference.

His Son is revealed in them.

 

[Thekla]

From another thread yesterday, I said the following. And you have "supported" --

" We got that the separate office between bishop and priest developed. The question is why?

The Eucharist. Probably you can quote an ECF about the body/blood/sacrifice and I can quote them too about body/blood/thanksgiving. And some folks try to mend the fence and say it's both.

As mentioned in a different thread about holidays, as pagans converted, they brought ideas, like Easter and Christmas. They've been more or less "christianized", but their source was pagan. Same with the idea of sacrifice. The bible of course says it was done once for all. But priests keeping doing it, and then all sorts of semantics are made to explain why the duly ordained priest at the altar saying the right words with the proper intent does it supposedly again.

My point is that the separation of elders into bishop and priest coincided over time with the change of eucharist as thanksgiving into sacrifice. A sacrifice requires a priest, just like the Levites. But a thanksgiving, we all do it. (Priesthood of believers versus Levitical-type priest retained.)

Furthermore it's clear in history. The simple definitions of eucharist--it means thanksgiving, not sacrifice and same with presbyter--it means elder, not priest, but they changed.

And then of course that evolved. The bibilical teaching of elder and deacon into the ECF idea of bishop, priest (sacrifice), deacon into Rome's bishop of bishops, aka Pope, bishop, priest, deacon.

Peace--out



Why exactly should that be supported in any sense? But we rejoice because Christ is preached?

Just to clarify, the Eucharist is thanksgiving (or, more literally 'good blessing')

We say in the Liturgy, "a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise..."
described below

The Holy Oblation is Christ, the Son of God who has become the Son of Man in order to offer himself to his Father for the life of the world. In his own person Jesus is the perfect peace offering which alone brings God's reconciling mercy. This is undoubtedly the meaning of the expression a mercy of peace, which has been a source of confusion for people over the years in all liturgical languages.

In addition to being the perfect peace offering, Jesus is also the only adequate sacrifice of praise which men can offer to God. There is nothing comparable in men to the graciousness of God. There is nothing with which men can worthily thank and praise the Creator. This is so even if men would not be sinners. Thus God himself provides men with their own most perfect sacrifice of praise. The Son of God becomes genuinely human so that human persons could have one of their own nature sufficiently adequate to the holiness and graciousness of God. Again this is Christ, the sacrifice of praise.

OCA - The Orthodox Faith

 

[Fireinfolding]

Or like Apostles who confer not with flesh and blood.

Actually it's easy to spot the genuine from the posers and it has nothing to do
with ...

Well we know how to tell the difference.

His Son is revealed in them.

The Lord had called Anaias to lay hands on Paul it wasnt those in charge but the Lord. The bereans are noted as being more noble in receiving the word with readiness and tried the apostles by searching the scriptures to see if those things "be so". Expressing a standard somewhat in that wording, because it says add thou not unto my words or I will reprove you and you will be found a liar (even if by others) because the Church in revelation is commended for trying those who did say they are apostles and were not and it was they who found them liars.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Which is why Paul says,

1Cr 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

Because he knew...

Jerm 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.


Paul too repeats this and also tells them that their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but the power of God which is Christ.

You can go on endlessly into these things, but I feel the same suncritter if they speak not in accord with His words I dont trust them as far as I could throw them

 

[Standing Up]

Of course it means priest. The word translated as "elder" in the Epistles is πρεσβύτερος.

Sorry, it never meant priest for the first 100 years or so. But yes, it changed from elder to what you (RC, EO, OO, and some P) know today as a (levitical-type) priest.

Presbyterian is defined as elder.

Hierus is defined as priest.

The concept/definition changed or was introduced probably about the time of Sixtus I.

 

[MrPolo]

Denominations.....Leave them out of your Christ walk.

Wow, I agree 100%.

 

[Thekla]

Sorry, it never meant priest for the first 100 years or so. But yes, it changed from elder to what you (RC, EO, OO, and some P) know today as a (levitical-type) priest.

Presbyterian is defined as elder.

Hierus is defined as priest.

The concept/definition changed or was introduced probably about the time of Sixtus I.

Hmm ... we still use the term presbyter, its the translation "priest" that has become standard among English speakers. But this does not make it the same thing.

 

[ebia]

That's only because you're looking at it from a protestant POV. The words in Latin when put into English can have a variety of meanings in the NT and can have a bias translation by many different sides depending who's doing the translating.

That's absolutely true (except I presume you mean Greek, not Latin). The problem with using the D-R in a conversation like this isn't that the Greek words don't include the way the D-R translates them, but that the D-R deliberately chooses words with technical connotations that aren't necessary to the Greek words. Ordain is a more technical, narrower, word than the greek it is being used for, so that the greek word could serve for 'ordain' but it doesn't necessarly imply it and a looser English word like 'appoint' is more appropriate.

Ideally we'd have the conversation direct from the greek, but that's hard work. Failing that we need to use a fairly neutral English translation like the RSV, NRSV, but I'd even settle for New Jerusalem or NAB.

And from what I read, Tyndale wasn't exactly an elite scholar by any means and wasn't too fond of the Church to begin with. So you'll have to excuse me if I continue to not care much for his translating.

His scholarship's not bad, and he didn't start of anti the church. He was (quite appropriately) frustrated with the lack of biblical literacy in England at the time and got angry when the English bishops refused to let him do something about it. All he wanted was scripture available in accessable English to everybody so that God could do whatever God wanted to do through that. When he found the local church blocking that he got frustrated with that. I'm not claiming Tyndale's bible was perfect - one man "first editions" rarely are - or that he didn't have an agenda himself. What I'm pointing out is that the D-R quite defintely has an agenda on this particular score so its not a good translation to start with on these questions.

No matter. Elders could have meant Priests as well. I never said they couldn't.

Priest is not a univocal word in English, and every time you use the word instead of the more precise 'presbyter' or an equivalent it begs several more questions that complicate the conversation.

You blatantly ignore the context to suggest it meant all of us individuals only.

If I correctly understand you, no I don't - I don't read the text in that highly individualised way.

They were looking for 'Men' who were full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom. Merely serving tables, one doesn't necessarily need those qualifications but I can see a point as well where they'd want everyone representing them to carry a high moral standard. But to be full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom still seems that it would exceed a simple yet morally humble man who could not soundly teach either. Now how much they may have taught I don't know or if they did much at that time at all. I think it's still ignorant to ignore the possibilities and it's something I could easily see have evolved in that area. However, singling out and appointing men to do such a task while they continue to 'Minister' does show a certain order in the early Church from that verse alone. And we can set that apart from the 'Elders/Priests set up in the Churches to boot.

I think we can take, in context, "serving tables' to go beyond literally acting as waiters - the role depicted is about being responsible for the distribution of wealth within and pastoral care of the community, especially the community's poor and marginalised.

I'm not disputing that there is an order emerging, I'm simply saying that it is still emerging - you can't read the final structure back into the text and say "the N.T. says 'this is the way you run the church'" - whether that's to try to justify the 3-fold structures of your church and mine or the house-church structure of some others, or whatever in between.

You're being disingenuous to state such a Doctrine wasn't important when Jesus taught it 2000 years ago, enough to have been settled by now or in your view, ever settled without any type of Authority. Though with you being Anglican, I kind of expect your pro-divorce stance here.

I haven't stated any particular view on divorce here. There are lots of issues it would seem that Jesus was clear cut about that I can see the church still arguing about - including, as I say, non-violence verses just war. In fact that was one that was pretty much settled for the first couple of centuries.

Ignatius epistles were around 110 ad.

Different scholars seem to have different opinions on the precise date. I was going with Benedict XVI in saying 117.

This structure was already well set up when He wrote them to these Churches. So it's much less than 5 decades to at least see this in the Church making it very reasonable that even the seeds may have been planted in the NT.

117-64 is 5 decades by my calcuation. Given the development we see in the 3 decades between 33 and 64 that seems to me adequate for that further development.

Well I could likewise apply this to the NT. There really isn't enough explicit data to condemn Catholicism for it's Hierarchy by stating it's unbiblical

.
I agree absolutely.

 

[Standing Up]

Hmm ... we still use the term presbyter, its the translation "priest" that has become standard among English speakers. But this does not make it the same thing.

Right. It's not the same thing at all.

IMO by equating them, it helped to launch various denominations.

 

[Kepha]

That's absolutely true (except I presume you mean Greek, not Latin). The problem with using the D-R in a conversation like this isn't that the Greek words don't include the way the D-R translates them, but that the D-R deliberately chooses words with technical connotations that aren't necessary to the Greek words. Ordain is a more technical, narrower, word than the greek it is being used for, so that the greek word could serve for 'ordain' but it doesn't necessarly imply it and a looser English word like 'appoint' is more appropriate.

Well like when Christ Ordained the Apostles, the word used was not at all as strong as it could have been used in Greek, yet I think most will agree an ordination was precisely what was going on there because they later can see their specific tasks of helping build the Church by their miracles and their correct teachings. So they used the context of the rest of the Bible to help us better see what Christ did when He sent them unto the World. So the Catholic Church does similar, and uses specific words to direct the passage into what's really going on there according to how She sees fit through the Tradition that followed. Now the thing is, if the Catholic Church is the only Church Christ built, then She has every right to do this. But if you all disagree, which of course you do, you would logically have a problem with this way of interpreting just like we would have a problem with protestants using the word 'Highly Favoured' instead of 'Full of Grace'. It's just things like this, can't always be helped.

Right. It's not the same thing at all.

IMO by equating them, it helped to launch various denominations.

I would say that the word hiereus was not used in favour of the words presbuteros/elders because the NT Christian Church wanted to dissociate themselves from the Jewish Priests who where were still very present till around 70Ad. But the names eventually stuck and it shows early in the 2nd Century.

 

[ebia]

Well like when Christ Ordained the Apostles, the word used was not at all as strong as it could have been used in Greek, yet I think most will agree an ordination was precisely what was going on there because they later can see their specific tasks of helping build the Church by their miracles and their correct teachings.

It only looks that way if you see those things as necessarly associated with ordination - its reading what you expect to find instead of reading what the texts actually say.

"The text means whatever the Catholic Church says it means" isn't a basis on which one can have a sensible dialog. It's not even the approach of Catholic scholars, who seem very interested in looking at what the text actually says.

 

[sunlover1]

The Lord had called Anaias to lay hands on Paul it wasnt those in charge but the Lord. The bereans are noted as being more noble in receiving the word with readiness and tried the apostles by searching the scriptures to see if those things "be so". Expressing a standard somewhat in that wording, because it says add thou not unto my words or I will reprove you and you will be found a liar (even if by others) because the Church in revelation is commended for trying those who did say they are apostles and were not and it was they who found them liars.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Which is why Paul says,

1Cr 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

Because he knew...

Jerm 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.


Paul too repeats this and also tells them that their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but the power of God which is Christ.

You can go on endlessly into these things, but I feel the same suncritter if they speak not in accord with His words I dont trust them as far as I could throw them

Thought you'd like that post Firecracker LOL
Seriously thought of you when i reread it after writing it.

 

[Standing Up]

I would say that the word hiereus was not used in favour of the words presbuteros/elders because the NT Christian Church wanted to dissociate themselves from the Jewish Priests who where were still very present till around 70Ad. But the names eventually stuck and it shows early in the 2nd Century.

Of course they weren't the same thing because the whole reality is different in Christ.

But to your point, basically you're agreeing (without understanding) that the Church reassociated itself with/as them by changing the definition of elder/presbuteros BACK to hiereus/priest.

See? The whole concept of elder versus priest was different. Different words. Different definitions. Different functions. Different offices.

So, as you know, the Church was retaught and altered; that it needed a levitical-type duly ordained priest at an altar saying the right words reoffering the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Instead of priesthood of believer each offering their own body a living sacrifice.

 

[Kepha]

It only looks that way if you see those things as necessarly associated with ordination - its reading what you expect to find instead of reading what the texts actually say.

"instead of reading what the texts actually say"

This is the most overused statement by protestants today who many times contradict each other what the text actually says. You also know as well as I do, that one, many times needs 'other texts' when attempting to interpret a single text. So a simple line of a verse doesnt say much if you wish to use a word in Greek on it's own to decipher what is really going on here. It's helpful too of course but not always. So scholars take many things into consideration and not just what a text seems to say straight out.

And a verse may look that way in both worlds such as when one holds up certain Traditions with the Bible as others would the Bible alone and interpret from other areas of Scripture while leaning with an already bias mind with whoever taught them in the first place. We can see this with the Holy Eucharist.

"The text means whatever the Catholic Church says it means" isn't a basis on which one can have a sensible dialog. It's not even the approach of Catholic scholars, who seem very interested in looking at what the text actually says.

I brought this up in response to your post telling me the Church really has no right to do such a thing in keeping others from interpreting and writing Bibles without Her aid and continued to say that if indeed there is ONE Church, She has every right to interpret through Her Traditions. It was an answer I gave that had nothing to do with our earlier discussion.

Of course they weren't the same thing because the whole reality is different in Christ.

But to your point, basically you're agreeing (without understanding) that the Church reassociated itself with/as them by changing the definition of elder/presbuteros BACK to hiereus/priest.

They never changed anything back. I'm telling you that the NT Priests were Ministers to the Church itself and had nothing to do with the OT Priests. If you hear of a Jewish Priest today, that 'Priest' word only evolved from Presbuteros, to Presbyterus in Latin and eventually on to Priest in English. You can be my guest and call the OT Priests Hiereus anytime you want while calling the new Testament Priests or Elders. It won't bother me the least. Or for that matter, you can call the OT Priests, Sacerdo in Latin as well. Take your choice of the two if you wish to distinguish the two forms of Priesthood.

So, as you know, the Church was retaught and altered; that it needed a levitical-type duly ordained priest at an altar saying the right words reoffering the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Instead of priesthood of believer each offering their own body a living sacrifice.

Actually the Church very much so, recognizes the individual believers as Priests as well. It's what the Church refers to as the 'Common Priesthood of the laity."

She also recognizes a higher type of Priesthood like with what we had with the Apostles.

Romans 15:15-16 --"But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the PRIESTLY service of the Gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

And nothing was altered. That's just you again looking into what you can't see in a text, then arriving at your own conclusions. Your denial of the Holy Eucharist as a Sacrificial meal also directs you into thinking Priests are no longer needed which certainly isn't helpful.

 

[ebia]

"instead of reading what the texts actually say"

This is the most overused statement by protestants today who many times contradict each other what the text actually says.

It is an abused phrase, but part of the reason its overused is that it is sometimes needed - we need to go back to what the biblical texts say (read in their full context of book, scripture as a whole, and the wider culture in which they were written), not constantly read back later expositions whether those come from Chrystostom, Aquinas, Luther or Calvin.

And a verse may look that way in both worlds such as when one holds up certain Traditions with the Bible as others would the Bible alone and interpret from other areas of Scripture while leaning with an already bias mind with whoever taught them in the first place. We can see this with the Holy Eucharist.

I suspect what you've said here is fine, but I can't actually make out what you've said.

They never changed anything back. I'm telling you that the NT Priests were Ministers to the Church itself and had nothing to do with the OT Priests.

The problem in dialog is that the two are often conflagrated - by Catholics as much as anyone else. Whatever etymology might suggest, distinction in clarity is needed if we are to have meaningful inter-denominational dialog, and is aided by using elder (if we want to stick close to basic etymological meaning) or presbyter.

Actually the Church very much so, recognizes the individual believers as Priests as well. It's what the Church refers to as the 'Common Priesthood of the laity."

That's true in theory, but there is a tendency in the "higher" churches to only pay lip-service to it (as there are corresponding tendencies to pay lip-service to other things in the less sacramental churches).

Romans 15:15-16 --"But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the PRIESTLY service of the Gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

It's overstepping the text to use a metaphor about Paul's action to suggest ranks of priesthood.

 

[Standing Up]

They never changed anything back. I'm telling you that the NT Priests were Ministers to the Church itself and had nothing to do with the OT Priests. If you hear of a Jewish Priest today, that 'Priest' word only evolved from Presbuteros, to Presbyterus in Latin and eventually on to Priest in English. You can be my guest and call the OT Priests Hiereus anytime you want while calling the new Testament Priests or Elders. It won't bother me the least. Or for that matter, you can call the OT Priests, Sacerdo in Latin as well. Take your choice of the two if you wish to distinguish the two forms of Priesthood.

Except there was no such thing as a NT priest, but an elder. Two different words. Two different meanings. Two different functions.

And nothing was altered. That's just you again looking into what you can't see in a text, then arriving at your own conclusions. Your denial of the Holy Eucharist as a Sacrificial meal also directs you into thinking Priests are no longer needed which certainly isn't helpful.

The two concepts of elder to priest and thanksgiving to sacrifice went hand in glove.

Basically we're agreeing. Here's what you said,

Originally Posted by Kepha

I would say that the word hiereus was not used in favour of the words presbuteros/elders because the NT Christian Church wanted to dissociate themselves from the Jewish Priests who where were still very present till around 70Ad. But the names eventually stuck and it shows early in the 2nd Century.
​

Hiereus could have been used, but wasn't. Presbyter/elder was used. Why? You think in order to disassociate the two? No kidding.

But eventually the two concepts merged in the 2nd century. Why? What changed that was inappropriate the first 100 years? Eucharist changed from thanksgiving to sacrifice. It is almost as if those who were "defeated" entered the church and resurrected their function, substituting Jesus for the lamb.

 

[Kepha]

It is an abused phrase, but part of the reason its overused is that it is sometimes needed - we need to go back to what the biblical texts say (read in their full context of book, scripture as a whole, and the wider culture in which they were written), not constantly read back later expositions whether those come from Chrystostom, Aquinas, Luther or Calvin.

Culture helps but doesn't always tell you what a particular verse is teaching. You make it sound like it should be so simple with the amount of people who take it up on themselves to use scripture away from Tradition, go in opposite directions when it comes to what they believe. And if something they find is implicit in the Bible, then hey, it's not at the top of their belief system and becomes a non essential. This is a poor assumption where they feel it has to be explicit to be important. We can debate this forever but you will never get me to lean toward sola Scripture since it doesn't work. There are too many if's, maybes, and could be's because there is just not enough info to fill in the gaps. Seems God demanded all of the Christians for the next 2000 years to be biblical scholars even when they never had access to the amount of info we do today.

Except there was no such thing as a NT priest, but an elder. Two different words. Two different meanings. Two different functions.

What are you even talking about. Presbyteros is Elder in Greek. How are they not the same?

The two concepts of elder to priest and thanksgiving to sacrifice went hand in glove.

Basically we're agreeing. Here's what you said,

Originally Posted by Kepha

I would say that the word hiereus was not used in favour of the words presbuteros/elders because the NT Christian Church wanted to dissociate themselves from the Jewish Priests who where were still very present till around 70Ad. But the names eventually stuck and it shows early in the 2nd Century.
​

Hiereus could have been used, but wasn't. Presbyter/elder was used. Why? You think in order to disassociate the two? No kidding.

But eventually the two concepts merged in the 2nd century. Why? What changed that was inappropriate the first 100 years? Eucharist changed from thanksgiving to sacrifice. It is almost as if those who were "defeated" entered the church and resurrected their function, substituting Jesus for the lamb.

I never said the Eucharist changed. You're stating that. And as I said before, your lack of belief in the Holy Eucharist blinds you from possibilities of an actual Priesthood in the works in the NT Church.