Priestly Role and Presbuteros

[PaladinValer]

what does the bible say he wore, according to scripture Isaiah 53:2-12 he wasn't the majestic robe wearing guy you believed him to have been, or maybe you believe the scriptures are in error

What do the gospels say he wore? Quote all instances please.

 

[Markus6]

The NT translates presbuteros typically as elder, although the more correct translation should be priest, just as hiereus is typically as priest although it should be hierarch.

Priest isn't a translation, it's an evolved transliteration. Elder is a translation, the same word, presbuteros, is also used in the gospels solely to mean elder - e.g. the elder brother.

The word priest nowadays carries more connotations with the Old Testament and pagan priesthoods than it does with the early church role seen in the New Testament.

 

[ivanthegood]

What do the gospels say he wore? Quote all instances please.

are you going to equate the robe he wore was some fancy pharisee robe with tassels........hey maybe He wore one of those pagan fish hats too

 

[Kristos]

what does the bible say he wore, according to scripture Isaiah 53:2-12 he wasn't the majestic robe wearing guy you believed him to have been, or maybe you believe the scriptures are in error

As if the image of Isaiah suffering servant in new to me? Please...

 

[PaladinValer]

Priest isn't a translation, it's an evolved transliteration. Elder is a translation, the same word, presbuteros, is also used in the gospels solely to mean elder - e.g. the elder brother.

A lot of words are evolved transliterations. That doesn't stop hierarch being the translation of hiereus, etc.

The word priest nowadays carries more connotations with the Old Testament and pagan priesthoods than it does with the early church role seen in the New Testament.

Hardly.

 

[Kristos]

are you going to equate the robe he wore was some fancy pharisee robe with tassels........hey maybe He wore one of those pagan fish hats too

Time to drop the strawman. No one said such, so your instances on attacking it is pointless.

 

[PaladinValer]

are you going to equate the robe he wore was some fancy pharisee robe with tassels........hey maybe He wore one of those pagan fish hats too

Answer the question please...give me all quotes of the things that Jesus wore, from the clothes on his back to the cords that bound his hands to the robe that was quartered, and I will show you the origin of most of the vestments.

 

[Markus6]

A lot of words are evolved transliterations. That doesn't stop hierarch being the translation of hiereus, etc.

Translations of biblical words are constantly changing and up for debate. There is certainly not a fixed "THE translation" for any given word, as much as that would make things easier. Hierarch isn't in any dictionary I could find, isn't used much in society, isn't accepted as the translation by most bible translators and connotes the idea of a hierarchy which doesn't really explain what the heireus was. Why not kohen or an evolved transliteration anyway?

Hardly.

My mother is a priest in the Church of England. Her church (along with many other CofE churches) uses the NRSV. The NRSV uses priest for heireus and kohen and elder for presbuteros. What a handicap for a biblical understanding of the origins of her role?

As another illustration, if you look at the Wikipedia article on priest you get "ancient priestesses", the priests of "ancient Eygpt... Rome ...Greece", and the Judaism section is on kohen.

 

[PaladinValer]

The alb (Latin: tunica alba [white tunic]) was the typical white robe that most people wore. The surplice (and the episcopal rochet) derive from the alb, as does the baptismal chrisom. It liturgically derives also from the Transfiguration.

The amice was a head covering that the Romans forced those criminals sentenced to death to wear. It therefore derives from the Crown of Thorns, but also the Helmet of Salvation.

The cincture was the cord or rope belt that held the alb in place. It is the rope by which Jesus was led by.

The maniple is the bonds that held Him as he was scourged.

The stole (and, by derivative, the pallium, chimere, and tippet) is the yoke of Christ.

The chasuble (and, by derivative, the dalmatic and tunicle...and also the cope) is the garment that Jesus was forced to wear as he was mocked...and the one that was quartered.

The biretta and miter are our headcovering, for Christ is the head of the Church.

The crosier and archiepiscopal staff is the shepher's crook to defend and protect his sheep. It is the staff that Jesus told the 70 to take.

The cross He told all to take up.

 

[PaladinValer]

Translations of biblical words are constantly changing and up for debate. There is certainly not a fixed "THE translation" for any given word, as much as that would make things easier.

Yet the fact remains that presbuteros=Christian priest.

Hierarch

isn't in any dictionary I could find, isn't used much in society, isn't accepted as the translation by most bible translators and connotes the idea of a hierarchy which doesn't really explain what the heireus was. Why not kohen or an evolved transliteration anyway?

Hierarch works well if you think carefully about it.

My mother is a priest in the Church of England. Her church (along with many other CofE churches) uses the NRSV.

Note my icon.

The NRSV uses priest for heireus and kohen and elder for presbuteros. What a handicap for a biblical understanding of the origins of her role?

So...?

As another illustration, if you look at the Wikipedia article on priest you get "ancient priestesses", the priests of "ancient Eygpt... Rome ...Greece", and the Judaism section is on kohen.

You skipped the Christian section...how convenient.

 

[ebia]

Not true. All the Apostolic Witnesses agree that it had a sacerdotal role.

Care to substantiate that?

 

[Standing Up]

Translations of biblical words are constantly changing -snip-

Right. There are many examples, like presbyter/elder to priest or eucharist/thanksiving to sacrifice. If the NT writers wanted to convey the sacerdotal OT role, they would have used hierus. But they didn't even have it in mind. They used presbyterous/elder.

I don't understand why folks can't acknowledge this. OrthodoxWiki, Catholic Encycolpedia, Vines, etc all say the same thing. The term/role of presbyter changed over the centuries from elder to priest.

 

[Thekla]

John, the writer of the Gospel, is attested to have worn the priestly (sarcedotal) mitre.

Other apostles (though I can't recall the source) wore a blue cord around the neck iirc when baptizing.

 

[Standing Up]

John, the writer of the Gospel, is attested to have worn the priestly (sarcedotal) mitre.

John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate.862

862 The Greek word is πέταγον, which occurs in the LXX. as the technical term for the plate or diadem of the high priest (cr. Ex. xxviii. 36, &c.). What is meant by the word in the present connection is uncertain. Epiphanius (Hær. LXXVII. 14) says the same thing of James, the brother of the Lord. But neither James nor John was a Jewish priest, and therefore the words can be taken literally in neither case. Valesius and others have thought that John and James, and perhaps others of the apostles, actually wore something resembling the diadem of the high priest; but this is not at all probable. The words are either to be taken in a purely figurative sense, as meaning that John bore the character of a priest,—i.e. the high priest of Christ as his most beloved disciple,—or, as Hefele suggests, the report is to be regarded as a mythical tradition which arose after the second Jewish war. See Kraus’ Real-Encyclopædie der christlichen Alterthümer, Band II. p. 212 sq.
ccel.org

Other translations refer to it as a ring, hung about the neck, or a seal. In any event, John wasn't a Levitical priest carrying on that tradition. Eusebius may be confused on which tradition to stand with.

 

[Thekla]

John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate.862

862 The Greek word is πέταγον, which occurs in the LXX. as the technical term for the plate or diadem of the high priest (cr. Ex. xxviii. 36, &c.). What is meant by the word in the present connection is uncertain. Epiphanius (Hær. LXXVII. 14) says the same thing of James, the brother of the Lord. But neither James nor John was a Jewish priest, and therefore the words can be taken literally in neither case. Valesius and others have thought that John and James, and perhaps others of the apostles, actually wore something resembling the diadem of the high priest; but this is not at all probable. The words are either to be taken in a purely figurative sense, as meaning that John bore the character of a priest,—i.e. the high priest of Christ as his most beloved disciple,—or, as Hefele suggests, the report is to be regarded as a mythical tradition which arose after the second Jewish war. See Kraus’ Real-Encyclopædie der christlichen Alterthümer, Band II. p. 212 sq.
ccel.org

Other translations refer to it as a ring, hung about the neck, or a seal. In any event, John wasn't a Levitical priest carrying on that tradition. Eusebius may be confused on which tradition to stand with.

Your source uses circular reasoning.
And would be considered "interpretive" history (interpreting rather than repeating, and here, obviously reflecting the author's opinion).

 

[Standing Up]

Your source uses circular reasoning.
And would be considered "interpretive" history (interpreting rather than repeating, and here, obviously reflecting the author's opinion).

How's it circular? You can also find that the word means ring. John was not a Levitical priest. So, the word does not refer to the Levitical priest garb. Believe Gen. 38:18 uses the word as signet.

Hag. 2:23
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

Bottom line, Eusebius is misinformed about Christianity maintaining and misappropriating the Levitical priesthood, though obviously, many think it has. Zerubbabel, however, is of the tribe of Judah of which no priesthood was spoken (Heb).

Basically, the quote confirms the priesthood of believer in Christ, but Eusebius and followers misapplied it to the notion of continued Levitical priesthood.

 

[Thekla]

How's it circular? You can also find that the word means ring. John was not a Levitical priest. So, the word does not refer to the Levitical priest garb. Believe Gen. 38:18 uses the word as signet.

Hag. 2:23
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

Bottom line, Eusebius is misinformed about Christianity maintaining and misappropriating the Levitical priesthood, though obviously, many think it has. Zerubbabel, however, is of the tribe of Judah of which no priesthood was spoken (Heb).

Basically, the quote confirms the priesthood of believer in Christ, but Eusebius and followers misapplied it to the notion of continued Levitical priesthood.

Huh ??

Kirkion is ring, and among the terms for signet ring (ex. sfragidion) I don't find "petagon".

Just checked - Genesis 38 uses the term "daktulion" for ring (from the word for finger, daktula).

The verse Haggai uses the term I gave above - sfragidion.

Eusebius is quoting an earlier historian (the name escapes) from well before the time of Constantine.

EDIT again:
Eusebius' source is Polycrates (died 196 AD).

 

[Optimax]

Circular Reasoning

Definition:

Popular term used in GT.

A poster uses the term in order to attempt discrediting arguments against their arguments.

 

[Thekla]

Circular Reasoning

Definition:

Popular term used in GT.

A poster uses the term in order to attempt discrediting arguments against their arguments.

Not trying to "discredit" the argument per se.

Instead, I am pointing out that the source assumes his opinion is correct, and then ascribes this same opinion to the text. That is referred to as "interpretive", not as history.

 

[PaladinValer]

Care to substantiate that?

The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

St. Clement of Rome
"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch
"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).


The Sacrament of Holy Communion has always been considered an "Unbloody Sacrifice", directly and mystically linking what happens at the altar to Mount Calvary. Not a resacrifice, but a mystical sharing in the same Sacrifice.

And since only priests and bishops may be Celebrants of the rite, then the priesthood must be sacerdotal.