Priests - What For?

[StevenL]

Again, the word "presbyteros" is used. That means priest.

Again, no it doesn't.

 

[Archangel]

Again, the word "presbyteros" is used. That means priest.

As I have written above...presbuteros is not translated priest. Even in the KJV it is translated "elder".

presbuteros - which translates elder [Titus 1:6; 1Peter 5:1]

 

[PaladinValer]

It is true that we are all priests, but those who are called Priests in certain churches are in the same office as elder/overseer, and the guidlines for that office are in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1.

Historically, there were originally two offices; deacon and bishop. That is true. However, the actual term of presbyter as we know it today grew out of the office of the bishop, not the deacon.

The Church, being vastly spread out and for many centuries living under Roman persecution off and on, had a problem ministering to all of its constituants. Only the bishop had the authority to baptize and to bless the Bread and Wine, making them the Body and Blood of our Savior. Deacons couldn't do this as it wasn't a part of their office. Thus, bishops had to go from parish to parish, traveling long distances sometimes in order to meet all of his or her flock's spiritual needs that the local deacons couldn't. This is the beginning of the concept of the diocese.

The Church realized that this was no way for the laity to be treated, not to mention how much strain was put on the bishops. Thus, a new order, the priest, taken from the Bible, was instituted. A presbyter (Anglicized into "priest") grew out of the office of bishop. Like a bishop, a priest had the authority to bestow certain sacraments that deacons were unable to; chiefly those of Holy Communion and Absolution. Priests were to be local; each parish was to have at least one to fulfill the immediate needs of the parish while the bishop was away. If the parish's deacons were satisfied that their students were ready for baptism, the bishop would be summoned for and would then baptize new initiates into the Christian faith. If the bishop couldn't come, word would be given from the bishop to that priest to do so.

St. Paul's letter to Titus fits this growing custom in the Church. The letter in reality wasn't written by St. Paul but probably someone of his "school of thought" sometime within the middle of the second century CE. You will notice that elders (the word "presbyteros" is used; elders are priests in liturgically-historic churches) are mentioned somewhat separately than bishops. This fits recorded historical fact; that the office of the priest stemmed from that of the bishop.

The terminology in the New Testiment that refer to the office of elder are as follows:

episkopos - which translates into overseer [1 Tim3:1 1Peter5:2] (which is bishop in the KJV as you have stated)

Bishop is the traditional translation, which is used in more liturgically-minded translations like the NAB, NRSV, and, as I'm certain, the OSB.

presbuteros - which translates elder [Titus 1:6; 1Peter 5:1]

Presbyteros was Anglicized into "priest," as I've mentioned before and above. A priest in a liturgically-minded church is the office of "elder." As history records (and I being a historian myself), the order of priest stemmed out from the order of bishop when the Church knew that 1) bishops were overstrained and 2) the laity and deacons' spiritual needs were not being sufficiently met with an ever-traveling bishop going over his or her entire diocese making sure everyone heard a sermon and received the Body and Blood

poimen - which translates sheperd (1 Peter 5:2; John 10-2-5 [and translated pastor in Eph 4:11]

This is basically the idea that the bishop is the chief priest of a group of parishes under his or her control. The bishop is the shepherd of a particular flock of Christians. As such, this is where liturgically-minded churches get the idea of the diocese.

None of these are translated into priest... rather, all are translated into the same ministry office, [bishop, overseer, sheperd or elder]

Absolutely false. You need to study the etymology of the Greek word "presbyteros," because it is historically proven that it was Anglicized into the word "priest."

You also need to restudy Church history to see where the order of the priest originated. They stemmed from bishops and became their own order inbetween deacon and bishop. They were administers of just the parish, not the diocese. They couldn't baptize either without permission. They couldn't ordain new deacons, priests, or bishops themselves, despite the fact they were an apostolic order (ie: ordained by bishops).

Nope. The New Testiment outlines only deacons and overseers [elders, bishops] in church leadership. The only priests are christians under Christ as our High Priest, under the order of Melchizedek. [Hebrews 7&8]

1. "Order of Melchizedek" is a Mormon idea if you wish to take it literally.
2. Taken in its orthodox context, Melchizedek, although a pagan cleric (surprise surprise!), was considered to be a sort of precurser to the idea of Jesus as High Priest. That doesn't invalidate however the idea of an ordained priesthood, which the Church historically did and still has, mainly however in just the Vatican Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox, and many Lutheran Churches (although Lutherans don't call their elders, "priests," many Lutheran clergy have valid Apostolic Succession).

 

[Archangel]

Hi.

Thank You for the information reguarding the history of the Roman Catholic Church. I have a couple of side questions from what you had written. These are just things I'm not sure about, so id love itif you could fill me in thanks.

Only the bishop had the authority to baptize and to bless the Bread and Wine, making them the Body and Blood of our Savior.



If the parish's deacons were satisfied that their students were ready for baptism, the bishop would be summoned for and would then baptize new initiates into the Christian faith. If the bishop couldn't come, word would be given from the bishop to that priest to do so.

Where in scripture does it say that only the Priest or Elder can administer the Bread and Wine and baptise believers?

Hebrews 8:8-13 state the New Covenant that we have in Christ Jesus. It makes it clear that there is no longer any earthly priest needed to minister to the followers of God, because God has made himself known to all believers. V13 says he has made the old order obsolute. The occasion is made holy by the presence of our risen Lord who speaks to our hearts. The NT does not say we need any specific time or place, a priest, an alter, a sacrifice or any ceremonial trappings.

The NT also doesnt say that any church leader is the only person whocan baptise a believer. Rather, a believer may baptise a fellow believer.

St. Paul's letter to Titus fits this growing custom in the Church. The letter in reality wasn't written by St. Paul but probably someone of his "school of thought" sometime within the middle of the second century CE. You will notice that elders (the word "presbyteros" is used; elders are priests in liturgically-historic churches) are mentioned somewhat separately than bishops. This fits recorded historical fact; that the office of the priest stemmed from that of the bishop.

The first verse in Titus claims that Paul wrote the letter. If it was not Paul, but rather someone inhis "school of thought" then the bible is lying and is decietful by claiming itis Paul who wrote the letter. I find your statement strange and worrying, because if it is true then the bible has been decieving both me, my christian parents, and probably my church and maybe even a lot of th christians in the world.

Presbyteros was Anglicized into "priest," as I've mentioned before and above. A priest in a liturgically-minded church is the office of "elder."

It was anglicized into priest...but that is not the greek words original meaning. it did not mean priest, but rather elder or overseer.

Absolutely false. You need to study the etymology of the Greek word "presbyteros," because it is historically proven that it was Anglicized into the word "priest."

You also need to restudy Church history to see where the order of the priest originated. They stemmed from bishops and became their own order inbetween deacon and bishop. They were administers of just the parish, not the diocese. They couldn't baptize either without permission. They couldn't ordain new deacons, priests, or bishops themselves, despite the fact they were an apostolic order (ie: ordained by bishops).

The church history you are talking about is the Roman Catholic Church history is it?

1. "Order of Melchizedek" is a Mormon idea if you wish to take it literally.
2. Taken in its orthodox context, Melchizedek, although a pagan cleric (surprise surprise!), was considered to be a sort of precurser to the idea of Jesus as High Priest. That doesn't invalidate however the idea of an ordained priesthood, which the Church historically did and still has, mainly however in just the Vatican Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox, and many Lutheran Churches (although Lutherans don't call their elders, "priests," many Lutheran clergy have valid Apostolic Succession).

When i say Order of Melchizedek i wasnt taking it on a literal scale...but rather as it s outlined in Hebrews 7. Christ being like Melchizedek and we being in his priesthood are likewise in that order. We are holy priesthood like the order of Melchizedek.



What I still want to know is this. Is the title priest used in certain demoninations... only as a term referring to the office of elder?.

 

[Patristic]

It was anglicized into priest...but that is not the greek words original meaning. it did not mean priest, but rather elder or overseer.

Nodbody is disputing that presbuteros literally translated from the Greek means elder, but that does not validate your argument at all. Nobody is claiming that priest is a literal translation of presbuteros, but that does not validate your argument, nor does it change the fact that elders in the early Church fulfilled a priestly ministry. It's because of the fact that they performed priestly functions in the Church that the word presbuteros was easily anglicizied into priest from the German prester.

 

[PaladinValer]

Hi.

Thank You for the information reguarding the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

Um, this isn't the history of the "Roman Catholic Church." The Vatican Church (though they'll disagree) didn't begin until 1054. Until then, the Church was practically fully unified, except for the Oriental Churches, though they too have a three-order clergy as well.

I'm therefore giving you the history of the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH as founded by GOD HIMSELF until at least the Schism of 1054 (often called the "Great Schism"). Over one millennia's worth of history of the ENTIRE CHRISTIAN FAITH, not just one particular church or denomination after 1054.

I have a couple of side questions from what you had written. These are just things I'm not sure about, so id love itif you could fill me in thanks.

By all means, although firstly:

1. I'm Anglican
2. Do note the corrections above on your assumptions.

Where in scripture does it say that only the Priest or Elder can administer the Bread and Wine and baptise believers?

That was Church Tradition because the Bible doesn't state either way.

Deacons were teachers of those who wish to be members of the Christian Church. This was one of their key roles. Another of their chief roles was to administer to some of the flock's spiritual needs, including marriages, healing and unction (including extreme unction) (these two were chief among these non-teaching roles), and answering questions of the Christians in their parishes.

Priests (or just bishops until the order of priest was firmly established) were the administers of the parish they were of. They could administer any of the sacraments (except baptism/confirmation unless they were given permission, and these included those that deacons couldn't; confession and absolution [aka "reconciliation of a pentient"] and holy communion) and presided at the worship services or "mass" (all services back then were liturgical services, commonly called "mass" today). They also could, if they wished, exercised any of the privileges of deacons, since all priests were originally deacons and once a deacon, always a deacon (and similarly if a priest would ascend to the status of bishop, once a priest, always a priest)

Bishops were chief priests and overseers of a group of parishes. This is known as the diocese. They had three privileges that priests couldn't: 1) they could ordain new deacons, priests, and bishops. 2) they can administer the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. 3) they were considered to be the voice of the diocese in terms of Christian synods and councils.

Hebrews 8:8-13 state the New Covenant that we have in Christ Jesus. It makes it clear that there is no longer any earthly priest needed to minister to the followers of God, because God has made himself known to all believers.

False. All it says is that the Old Covenant need not be followed by Christians. Saying that, because there were priests in the Old Covenant and also that we have a New Covenant, therefore, priests are no longer required, is a logical fallacy. It is the fallacy of equivocation; the priests of Christianity are not the same as those of ancient Judaism. Secondly, it is a categorial fallacy; a priesthood was a part of the Old Covenant but it is clear that the Old Covenant wasn't worthless. St. Paul in his letter to the Romans states quite clearly that the Law was advantageous for Hebrews.

V13 says he has made the old order obsolute. The occasion is made holy by the presence of our risen Lord who speaks to our hearts. The NT does not say we need any specific time or place, a priest, an alter, a sacrifice or any ceremonial trappings.

Of the OLD COVENANT TYPE. Apostolic deacons, priests, and bishops of the NEW COVENANT are entirely different and play a different role.

The NT also doesnt say that any church leader is the only person whocan baptise a believer. Rather, a believer may baptise a fellow believer.

No.

The first verse in Titus claims that Paul wrote the letter. If it was not Paul, but rather someone inhis "school of thought" then the bible is lying and is decietful by claiming itis Paul who wrote the letter.

False.

1) Fallacy of Composition. Just because an attributes of a part or parts have a certain property doesn't imply that the whole is of that property.
2) It is of common ancient practice in both Hebrew and Greek culture to ascribe your own writings to those to which their contense is based or inspired upon. Thus, those who were taught by St. Paul or those taught by those who were taught by St. Paul would know how St. Paul thought. It would be accepted back then, without any sort of dishonestly or criminal act, to write a document that St. Paul would have written himself, and then ascribe him as its author. History records that this is a very common practice, even within ancient Christian circles. You are imposing modern ideas on old ones; this is called "culturalism," which is a dangerous fallacy to make

I find your statement strange and worrying, because if it is true then the bible has been decieving both me, my christian parents, and probably my church and maybe even a lot of th christians in the world.

Due only to logical fallacies, you are worried. In reality, there is nothing to worry about. Regardless to the fact that most of the Bible is written psuedonymously, it was decided by a Holy Spirit-inspired Christian Council that they were inspired Scripture. So what is more important? As such, I am not concerned that the Holy Spirit inspired a psuedonumously-written book. If the Spirit inspires it, it contains everything necessary for the fullness of salvation and is authoritative in matters of doctrine and faith. That is, in fact, what the Church taught was the nature of the Holy Bible anyhow.

It was anglicized into priest...but that is not the greek words original meaning. it did not mean priest, but rather elder or overseer.

Yes, it was. You need to do some historical research on the Early Church and how it organized its clergy. The facts state that presbyteros meant what Anglicans, Vatican Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox today consider it; a priest. And they acted, those ancient presbyteroi, as priests do today.

The church history you are talking about is the Roman Catholic Church history is it?

Read my first few paragraphs.

When i say Order of Melchizedek i wasnt taking it on a literal scale...but rather as it s outlined in Hebrews 7. Christ being like Melchizedek and we being in his priesthood are likewise in that order. We are holy priesthood like the order of Melchizedek.

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. Just because Jesus is a High Priest doesn't mean we cannot have a human priesthood. In fact, the very sense that Jesus is High Priest means that a junior priesthood is applicable, which is exactly what liturgically-minded apostolic churches have today.

What I still want to know is this. Is the title priest used in certain demoninations... only as a term referring to the office of elder?.

They are one in the same, except for the earliest days of Christianity.

 

[Archangel]

Um, this isn't the history of the "Roman Catholic Church." The Vatican Church (though they'll disagree) didn't begin until 1054. Until then, the Church was practically fully unified, except for the Oriental Churches, though they too have a three-order clergy as well.

I'm therefore giving you the history of the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH as founded by GOD HIMSELF until at least the Schism of 1054 (often called the "Great Schism"). Over one millennia's worth of history of the ENTIRE CHRISTIAN FAITH, not just one particular church or denomination after 1054.

Oh right ok, sorry I was confused with the Church type.

By all means, although firstly:

1. I'm Anglican
2. Do note the corrections above on your assumptions.

Ok, thank you.

That was Church Tradition because the Bible doesn't state either way.

Deacons were teachers of those who wish to be members of the Christian Church. This was one of their key roles. Another of their chief roles was to administer to some of the flock's spiritual needs, including marriages, healing and unction (including extreme unction) (these two were chief among these non-teaching roles), and answering questions of the Christians in their parishes.

Priests (or just bishops until the order of priest was firmly established) were the administers of the parish they were of. They could administer any of the sacraments (except baptism/confirmation unless they were given permission, and these included those that deacons couldn't; confession and absolution [aka "reconciliation of a pentient"] and holy communion) and presided at the worship services or "mass" (all services back then were liturgical services, commonly called "mass" today). They also could, if they wished, exercised any of the privileges of deacons, since all priests were originally deacons and once a deacon, always a deacon (and similarly if a priest would ascend to the status of bishop, once a priest, always a priest)

Bishops were chief priests and overseers of a group of parishes. This is known as the diocese. They had three privileges that priests couldn't: 1) they could ordain new deacons, priests, and bishops. 2) they can administer the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. 3) they were considered to be the voice of the diocese in terms of Christian synods and councils.

So, the current setup of leadership in some denominations is the way it is because of Church Tradition.

To me I am not concerned what Traditions are kept by churches. Most traditions except communion and baptisim are man made. Traditions can sometimes be good and sometimes be bad, but as long as they do not contridict scripture then I suppose it is fine to practice them.

However. The tradition of priests and bishops only being allowed to administer communion and baptisim, how and why did that arise, and what [if any] biblical argument is there to support it.

False. All it says is that the Old Covenant need not be followed by Christians. Saying that, because there were priests in the Old Covenant and also that we have a New Covenant, therefore, priests are no longer required, is a logical fallacy. It is the fallacy of equivocation; the priests of Christianity are not the same as those of ancient Judaism. Secondly, it is a categorial fallacy; a priesthood was a part of the Old Covenant but it is clear that the Old Covenant wasn't worthless. St. Paul in his letter to the Romans states quite clearly that the Law was advantageous for Hebrews.

I understand that the passage is talking about the removal of the Old Covenant and establishment of the New. I was not confusing Old C. Priests with Church Priests.

However, I was using the passage to show that we don't have a mediator between ourselves and God. Since this is so, why then are priests traditionally the only ones allowed to administer baptisim and communion [and in some churches, the only ones allowed to administer forgivness for general sins?]

No.

Your answer to my statment about any believer being allowed to baptise any fellow believer was No. Why is this? Where is the biblical problem with this idea, and the idea that any believer can administer bread andwine?

False.

1) Fallacy of Composition. Just because an attributes of a part or parts have a certain property doesn't imply that the whole is of that property.
2) It is of common ancient practice in both Hebrew and Greek culture to ascribe your own writings to those to which their contense is based or inspired upon. Thus, those who were taught by St. Paul or those taught by those who were taught by St. Paul would know how St. Paul thought. It would be accepted back then, without any sort of dishonestly or criminal act, to write a document that St. Paul would have written himself, and then ascribe him as its author. History records that this is a very common practice, even within ancient Christian circles. You are imposing modern ideas on old ones; this is called "culturalism," which is a dangerous fallacy to make



Due only to logical fallacies, you are worried. In reality, there is nothing to worry about. Regardless to the fact that most of the Bible is written psuedonymously, it was decided by a Holy Spirit-inspired Christian Council that they were inspired Scripture. So what is more important? As such, I am not concerned that the Holy Spirit inspired a psuedonumously-written book. If the Spirit inspires it, it contains everything necessary for the fullness of salvation and is authoritative in matters of doctrine and faith. That is, in fact, what the Church taught was the nature of the Holy Bible anyhow.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree. My problem still however is this. You claim that Paul did not write Titus, when in fact my study bibles and commentries all say he did. I know the backgrounds of all the authours of these books and they are not ignorant to the Greek and to the cultural situation. I find it puzzeling that they all, including teachers in my church and in fact anything i have read on Titus could be ignorant to this idea.

Is this theory a well known one, or is it not taught often?

Yes, it was. You need to do some historical research on the Early Church and how it organized its clergy. The facts state that presbyteros meant what Anglicans, Vatican Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox today consider it; a priest. And they acted, those ancient presbyteroi, as priests do today.

You see...I am not concerned terribly with the Early Church you are referring to. I am not bound by Church Tradition, but rather by the biblical tradition. The Early Church I focus onis the one laid down in the Book of Acts. In Acts they seem to only have elders and deacons. They do not operate under the Traditions we hold today.

A problem I see with Traditions is th rules and regualtions. It can and has become legalistic, with focus on the traditional laws and rules. Rather we are now free in Christ, and abide in obedience to his will. We follow his New Testimentcommands and live our lives as shining stars in a dark world.

I suppose my original question has changed slightly.

I know now that Priests are simply a terminology for elder.

The Question now is, why is there Church Tradition that was not laid down in Acts and in NT. Why is it that Priests can preform these tasks such as communion and baptisim, and believers cannot. Where in scripture is there accounts or verses to support these ideas?

ThankYou.

 

[Ann M]

So, the current setup of leadership in some denominations is the way it is because of Church Tradition.

To me I am not concerned what Traditions are kept by churches. Most traditions except communion and baptisim are man made. Traditions can sometimes be good and sometimes be bad, but as long as they do not contridict scripture then I suppose it is fine to practice them.

However. The tradition of priests and bishops only being allowed to administer communion and baptisim, how and why did that arise, and what [if any] biblical argument is there to support it.

You see...I am not concerned terribly with the Early Church you are referring to. I am not bound by Church Tradition, but rather by the biblical tradition. The Early Church I focus onis the one laid down in the Book of Acts. In Acts they seem to only have elders and deacons. They do not operate under the Traditions we hold today.

A problem I see with Traditions is th rules and regualtions. It can and has become legalistic, with focus on the traditional laws and rules. Rather we are now free in Christ, and abide in obedience to his will. We follow his New Testimentcommands and live our lives as shining stars in a dark world.

I suppose my original question has changed slightly.

I know now that Priests are simply a terminology for elder.

The Question now is, why is there Church Tradition that was not laid down in Acts and in NT. Why is it that Priests can preform these tasks such as communion and baptisim, and believers cannot. Where in scripture is there accounts or verses to support these ideas?

ThankYou.

I know you say that you are not terribly concerned with Early Church, but , I believe, herein is they actual answer to your question. Whilst many people believe that the division in the Church is a 'new concept' dating back 500 or 1000 years, it must be remembered that from the very beginning there was division.

One need only look at the history of the Bible to realise that this is so. Why do we have a Bible? Because there was a very large collection of Gospels and Letters being circulated with the communities that were being touted as being the Word of God, that followers were to read and believe in. When the Church decided to assemble what we now call the Bible, they had to discuss and eith accept or reject many more 'books' then we have in today's Bible.

The same can be seen with various 'arms' of the faith. Essentially anyone Christian who deviated from the teachings, was able to set up their own commune whereby they could teach other Christians their interpretation of the Word of God. Was their interpretation correct? Obviously not as there are accounts detailing where these communities were discommunicated and even eliminated.

If there was no leadership of the Early Church, and not set of 'Traditions' or basic set guidelines, then we would not be arguing today over the claims of the Catholic Church vs the One True Apostolic Church, but rather we could have been looking at a situation whereby we might have 50 or 100 versions of the One True Apostolic church vs 1000 - 2000 different denominations today.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I know you say that you are not terribly concerned with Early Church, but , I believe, herein is they actual answer to your question. Whilst many people believe that the division in the Church is a 'new concept' dating back 500 or 1000 years, it must be remembered that from the very beginning there was division.

One need only look at the history of the Bible to realise that this is so. Why do we have a Bible? Because there was a very large collection of Gospels and Letters being circulated with the communities that were being touted as being the Word of God, that followers were to read and believe in. When the Church decided to assemble what we now call the Bible, they had to discuss and eith accept or reject many more 'books' then we have in today's Bible.

The same can be seen with various 'arms' of the faith. Essentially anyone Christian who deviated from the teachings, was able to set up their own commune whereby they could teach other Christians their interpretation of the Word of God. Was their interpretation correct? Obviously not as there are accounts detailing where these communities were discommunicated and even eliminated.

If there was no leadership of the Early Church, and not set of 'Traditions' or basic set guidelines, then we would not be arguing today over the claims of the Catholic Church vs the One True Apostolic Church, but rather we could have been looking at a situation whereby we might have 50 or 100 versions of the One True Apostolic church vs 1000 - 2000 different denominations today.

"Ann M" speaks wisely.


Forgive me...

 

[Archangel]

I know you say that you are not terribly concerned with Early Church, but , I believe, herein is they actual answer to your question. Whilst many people believe that the division in the Church is a 'new concept' dating back 500 or 1000 years, it must be remembered that from the very beginning there was division.

One need only look at the history of the Bible to realise that this is so. Why do we have a Bible? Because there was a very large collection of Gospels and Letters being circulated with the communities that were being touted as being the Word of God, that followers were to read and believe in. When the Church decided to assemble what we now call the Bible, they had to discuss and eith accept or reject many more 'books' then we have in today's Bible.

The same can be seen with various 'arms' of the faith. Essentially anyone Christian who deviated from the teachings, was able to set up their own commune whereby they could teach other Christians their interpretation of the Word of God. Was their interpretation correct? Obviously not as there are accounts detailing where these communities were discommunicated and even eliminated.

If there was no leadership of the Early Church, and not set of 'Traditions' or basic set guidelines, then we would not be arguing today over the claims of the Catholic Church vs the One True Apostolic Church, but rather we could have been looking at a situation whereby we might have 50 or 100 versions of the One True Apostolic church vs 1000 - 2000 different denominations today.

Yeap. I 100% agree that there has to be Church Leadership. Paul warned usof the super apostles and the false prophets, as did Peter, John, Jude and our Lord Jesus.

I am not disreguarding Church Leadership. What I am wondering about is the traditions we have that are not in the NT and Acts. Why do we still follow many traditions when we have the perfect example of whata Church should be from the Book of Acts.

Many have become part of a legalistic church obsessed with regulations traditions and tapestry. What we have in Acts is a body of believer who meet anywhere! Peoples houses, the temple courts, marketplace, anywhere.
In the bible Jesus laid out a method of church body, discipleship. He showed us that we ust disciple each other and love one another as a body. Acts shows us what that is like. Acts 3 "the believers had everything in common and shared all their possessions"

Why do we have churches were the building and the looks and regulations are the focus rather than what God wanted the focus to be?

Do traditions matter? And if so...how?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Yeap. I 100% agree that there has to be Church Leadership. Paul warned usof the super apostles and the false prophets, as did Peter, John, Jude and our Lord Jesus.

I am not disreguarding Church Leadership. What I am wondering about is the traditions we have that are not in the NT and Acts. Why do we still follow many traditions when we have the perfect example of whata Church should be from the Book of Acts.

Many have become part of a legalistic church obsessed with regulations traditions and tapestry. What we have in Acts is a body of believer who meet anywhere! Peoples houses, the temple courts, marketplace, anywhere.
In the bible Jesus laid out a method of church body, discipleship. He showed us that we ust disciple each other and love one another as a body. Acts shows us what that is like. Acts 3 "the believers had everything in common and shared all their possessions"

Why do we have churches were the building and the looks and regulations are the focus rather than what God wanted the focus to be?

Do traditions matter? And if so...how?

The correct traditions do matter... there are many false traditions....

There are many lies but there is only ONE Truth.

The Church is not about the Bible, the Bible is about "The Church".

The Church existed before the Bible... the "Holy Traditions" of the Church is what the Bible is all about....

It's funny you speak of the Church in Acts. I belong to the "Antiochian" Church spoken of in Acts... it still exists and has not changed any doctrine.


Forgive me....

 

[Archangel]

The correct traditions do matter... there are many false traditions....

There are many lies but there is only ONE Truth.

The Church is not about the Bible, the Bible is about "The Church".

The Church existed before the Bible... the "Holy Traditions" of the Church is what the Bible is all about....

It's funny you speak of the Church in Acts. I belong to the "Antiochian" Church spoken of in Acts... it still exists and has not changed any doctrine.


Forgive me....

I agree that the bible is about the church. But church doctrine must be from the bible, because if it is not from scripture then it is not abiding by the laws God has put in place for his church.

Where does the bible speak of the Holy Traditions?
What doctrine is it that you follow in the Antiochian Church?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I agree that the bible is about the church. But church doctrine must be from the bible, because if it is not from scripture then it is not abiding by the laws God has put in place for his church.

Where does the bible speak of the Holy Traditions?
What doctrine is it that you follow in the Antiochian Church?

Did the Church come first or the Bible?

The bible speaks about many Holy Traditions... Baptism and Communion are just two examples.... Holy Tradition tells us how to do these things correctly... not the Bible...

In the Communions that you have seen or taken part of... what was served? Grape Juice? What about the bread?

How is a baptism to be performed? Are detailed instructions given in the Bible?

How about funerals and the care for the dead? Are detailed instructions given in the Bible?

How about marriage... any details?

The Bible itself states quite clearly that there is more than just what is written.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one. I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


For the doctrines of The Orthodox Church:
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/index.htm
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A/index.html

Forgive me...

 

[Archangel]

Did the Church come first or the Bible?

The bible speaks about many Holy Traditions... Baptism and Communion are just two examples.... Holy Tradition tells us how to do these things correctly... not the Bible...

In the Communions that you have seen or taken part of... what was served? Grape Juice? What about the bread?

How is a baptism to be performed? Are detailed instructions given in the Bible?

How about funerals and the care for the dead? Are detailed instructions given in the Bible?

How about marriage... any details?

In the communions I have taken part of there have been both alcholic wine, and fruit juice. Our church has little cups in the middle filled with non alcoholic juice so that everyone can participate [for example childre, and those who have given alcohol up for the Lord (seeRomans 12:1-8;1Cor10]

In the bible there is only one baptisim. The Believers baptisim, full emersion. The bible does not support infant baptisim. The Greek baptize means to immerse or submerge. The bible clearly outlines that the person should be a believer in Jesus and that they should be immersed underwater.

Funerals, well I suppose weddings and funerals should be performed in whatever way the culture is, as long as it is not sinful. Do we really need the bible to tell us how to get married or how to despose of the dead?

The Bible itself states quite clearly that there is more than just what is written.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one. I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Yes, more to the life of Jesus...not more doctrines. These are things that Jesus did and said that we dont need to know. This verse is not talking about traditions.

For the doctrines of The Orthodox Church:
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/index.htm
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A/index.html

Forgive me...

Thank You for the links...ill cheakthem out!

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

In the communions I have taken part of there have been both alcholic wine, and fruit juice. Our church has little cups in the middle filled with non alcoholic juice so that everyone can participate [for example childre, and those who have given alcohol up for the Lord (seeRomans 12:1-8;1Cor10]

In the bible there is only one baptisim. The Believers baptisim, full emersion. The bible does not support infant baptisim. The Greek baptize means to immerse or submerge. The bible clearly outlines that the person should be a believer in Jesus and that they should be immersed underwater.

Funerals, well I suppose weddings and funerals should be performed in whatever way the culture is, as long as it is not sinful. Do we really need the bible to tell us how to get married or how to despose of the dead?



Yes, more to the life of Jesus...not more doctrines. These are things that Jesus did and said that we dont need to know. This verse is not talking about traditions.




Thank You for the links...ill cheakthem out!

The baptism of water is to be immersed 3 times... In the name of the Father ,Son and Holy Spirit... and then follows Chrismation (anointing with oil, which is the seal of the Holy Spirit) you wouldn't know what to expect unless you had seen it done.... the details are not in the Bible.


Correct communion is always "wine mixed with bread" changed by Christ's blessing, through the Priests prayers, to be the true blood and body of Christ.

The care of the body after death is also important... for instance, we should not be imbalmed (sp?) nor should we be burned.

Christ taught these thing to the Apostles and they have been traditioned (handed down).

Additional support for verbal traditon is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethern, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or epsitle.

Forgive me....

 

[Archangel]

The baptism of water is to be immersed 3 times... In the name of the Father ,Son and Holy Spirit... and then follows Chrismation (anointing with oil, which is the seal of the Holy Spirit) you wouldn't know what to expect unless you had seen it done.... the details are not in the Bible.


Correct communion is always "wine mixed with bread" changed by Christ's blessing, through the Priests prayers, to be the true blood and body of Christ.

The care of the body after death is also important... for instance, we should not be imbalmed (sp?) nor should we be burned.

Christ taught these thing to the Apostles and they have been traditioned (handed down).

Additional support for verbal traditon is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethern, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or epsitle.

Forgive me....

Indeed these things are all traditions, but they are not in scripture, and if we follow them we are just following traditions rather than the scripture that God has placed before us.

"All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God maybe thoroughlt equipped for every good work" [2 Tim 3:16-17]

It is true that Paul said this to the Thessalonians concerning the antichrist, and there are similar accounts with Timothy and even the church in Acts were under the oral teaching of the apostles.

But remember, this was before there was a completed canon of scripture. We now have the Inspired Word and truth of God in a library of books knownas the bible, which provides the information required for salvation, the new covenant, God's will, spiritual gifts, fruit of the spirit, leadership, discipleship, discipline, communion, church, baptisim, future, prophecy, judgment, etc etc

We now have a living example of the church in the Book of Acts, and we have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ann M]

Arch Angel,

Are there things that you do today because your parents taught you them, and their parents taught them? Do you consider these your traditions? Do you do them exactly the same as your parents & grandparents did them or have you adapted them to suit you?

As an analogy, think of a recipe for a fruitcake. When the first person developed this recipe they used what they had on hand to create their cake, and they were happy. They shared the cake and the recipe with others, and some of these others liked the cake and some didn't. Some started to make their own cakes, and they used exactrly the same ingredients as the first, but others started to play with the ingredients and they were pleased with their results.. These people shared their cakes and recipes with others and so on. Now centuries later we pick up a recipe book and find a recipe for a fruitcake. We look at this recipe and we bake, then we say "This is a fruitcake". Our recipe has 23 ingredients - the original had 6. This recipe has ingredients from all over the world, the original used only ingredients locally available. This recipe bakes a cake in a 16'" pan, the original was baked in a tin measuring 4" x 6". This recipe says to beat on high with a mixer for 20 mins, the original says to beat with a wooden spoon for 10 minutes. Now if you were given the ingredients list from the original recipe and told to bake it would you be able to do it, and would you recognise what it is that you are baking?

In alot of ways the Bible is like an ingredients list. Whilst it gives us alot of information, it doesn't give us ALL the information. Often if something was widely know and accepted it wasn't written down as everyone knew it to be and so it was.

We only have to look back 100-200 years to get a modern day equivelant of this. For all the historical writings that abound, often it is only when you pick up someone's personal diary do you really get a clear look at what the world was like back then. A Housewife's diary that details daily tasks, has a copy of the shopping list, details the accounts of the tradesman, or how to cook a certain joint or even the journey in a wagon train, can give much more relevant information that any historical tome Doesn't history happen because of what occurs in our daily lives?

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Indeed these things are all traditions, but they are not in scripture, and if we follow them we are just following traditions rather than the scripture that God has placed before us.

"All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God maybe thoroughlt equipped for every good work" [2 Tim 3:16-17]

It is true that Paul said this to the Thessalonians concerning the antichrist, and there are similar accounts with Timothy and even the church in Acts were under the oral teaching of the apostles.

But remember, this was before there was a completed canon of scripture. We now have the Inspired Word and truth of God in a library of books knownas the bible, which provides the information required for salvation, the new covenant, God's will, spiritual gifts, fruit of the spirit, leadership, discipleship, discipline, communion, church, baptisim, future, prophecy, judgment, etc etc

We now have a living example of the church in the Book of Acts, and we have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

So, where in Scripture does it say we should discard the traditions handed down from the Apostles as soon as the Bible is canonized?

All Scripture IS God breathed and is useful for teaching, etc, etc. This verse clearly does not say that "Scripture is all that is God breathed and is useful for teaching, etc, etc."

Also, what Scripture is Paul referring to here? Must be the OT since the NT hadn't been written yet (not most of it, anyway) and certainly not canonized. Guess that means we don't need the NT since the Scripture he was referring to in this verse, the OT, is all we need.

And if the Bible was all we need, it would have a lot more content to prevent the massive amount of misinterpretations and divisions that have so splintered Christianity in the world today. Unless, of course you don't think God feels it is too important that we be able to understand the full Truth. So, who has the correct interpretation of the Bible and how do we tell? Is it the Calvinists, the Arminians, the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Pentecostals, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Gnostics, the Campbell/Stone Restorationists, the Baptists, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?

If the Bible is the full, complete, exhaustive guide to Christian belief and practice, then there must be a way to interpret it correctly. So how do we determine who has the correct interpretation?

 

[Archangel]

Arch Angel,

Are there things that you do today because your parents taught you them, and their parents taught them? Do you consider these your traditions? Do you do them exactly the same as your parents & grandparents did them or have you adapted them to suit you?

As an analogy, think of a recipe for a fruitcake. When the first person developed this recipe they used what they had on hand to create their cake, and they were happy. They shared the cake and the recipe with others, and some of these others liked the cake and some didn't. Some started to make their own cakes, and they used exactrly the same ingredients as the first, but others started to play with the ingredients and they were pleased with their results.. These people shared their cakes and recipes with others and so on. Now centuries later we pick up a recipe book and find a recipe for a fruitcake. We look at this recipe and we bake, then we say "This is a fruitcake". Our recipe has 23 ingredients - the original had 6. This recipe has ingredients from all over the world, the original used only ingredients locally available. This recipe bakes a cake in a 16'" pan, the original was baked in a tin measuring 4" x 6". This recipe says to beat on high with a mixer for 20 mins, the original says to beat with a wooden spoon for 10 minutes. Now if you were given the ingredients list from the original recipe and told to bake it would you be able to do it, and would you recognise what it is that you are baking?

In alot of ways the Bible is like an ingredients list. Whilst it gives us alot of information, it doesn't give us ALL the information. Often if something was widely know and accepted it wasn't written down as everyone knew it to be and so it was.

We only have to look back 100-200 years to get a modern day equivelant of this. For all the historical writings that abound, often it is only when you pick up someone's personal diary do you really get a clear look at what the world was like back then. A Housewife's diary that details daily tasks, has a copy of the shopping list, details the accounts of the tradesman, or how to cook a certain joint or even the journey in a wagon train, can give much more relevant information that any historical tome Doesn't history happen because of what occurs in our daily lives?

So Tradition is experience, and we can alter it as well. We cannot base our faith on our personal experience alone...or the personal experiences of many alone. We need the words God has given us, and our experience.

You say we can take the bible as an ingredients list, fair enough it does not give us all the information. For example the bible does not tell me what I should do with my bag of sweeties, or with my life? Why did Jesus leave his Holy Spirit?

John 16:7-11 tells us why...to guide us and teach us, among the many other things.

The Scripture and Holy Spirit lead and guide our lives.

 

[Archangel]

So, where in Scripture does it say we should discard the traditions handed down from the Apostles as soon as the Bible is canonized?

It doesn't..because the traditions the apostles set that God requires us to follow are contained in scripture, For example, baptisim and communion, eldership, discipleship and church discipline.

All Scripture IS God breathed and is useful for teaching, etc, etc. This verse clearly does not say that "Scripture is all that is God breathed and is useful for teaching, etc, etc."

Also, what Scripture is Paul referring to here? Must be the OT since the NT hadn't been written yet (not most of it, anyway) and certainly not canonized. Guess that means we don't need the NT since the Scripture he was referring to in this verse, the OT, is all we need.

Well...scriptures are sacred writings, so Paul was not just talking about the Torah and prophets and psalms etc...but also the letters sent to the churches.

15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
[2 Peter 3:15-16]

Peter here reguards Pauls letters as scripture because he includes the understanding of them along with the "other scriptures"

Since the 2Tim verse is in the context of the whole bible now then it speaks for the whole bible...for all scriptures. God has inspired everything in his word.

And if the Bible was all we need, it would have a lot more content to prevent the massive amount of misinterpretations and divisions that have so splintered Christianity in the world today. Unless, of course you don't think God feels it is too important that we be able to understand the full Truth. So, who has the correct interpretation of the Bible and how do we tell? Is it the Calvinists, the Arminians, the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Pentecostals, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Gnostics, the Campbell/Stone Restorationists, the Baptists, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?

If the Bible is the full, complete, exhaustive guide to Christian belief and practice, then there must be a way to interpret it correctly. So how do we determine who has the correct interpretation?

The misinterpretations are the fault of who? God? The incomplete bible? Or MAN?

Man has made denominations, man has misinterpreted scripture because man is imperfect. Paul says in 1 Cor 13 that at the moment we are imperfect, but when we see God face to face we will be perfect. This is not a perfect Bride until she reaches heaven and is clothed for her wedding feast. God has given us a book and his Spirit, and a responsibility...to lead people to Jesus and bepart of a body. The Body of Christ is a unity of love.