The Bereans

Standing Up said:

Love that verse. Polycrates and the other bishops quoted it when responding to Rome's request.

Click to expand...

And Irenaeus and other bishops rightly corrected Pope Victor I, who reversed his decision. Piety (following the traditions of the ancestors) and charity was the correct response to the Quartodeciman controversy since it was not a theological issue but a practical one.

For "Sola Scriptura" types:

* Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth?

* Where does the Bible say what books make up the Bible?

Adding again (this is fun)

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

2John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.


John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Romans 3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Heb 1:9 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

Luke 9:35... This is my beloved Son: hear him.

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.


John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

1Titus 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings...

John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

John 8:31 If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed

1Titus 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

2Titus 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Fireinfolding said:

Adding again (this is fun)

Click to expand...

It may be fun and colorful but does it answer the question?

PilgrimToChrist said:

It may be fun and colorful but does it answer the question?

Click to expand...

To me it sure does, but then ofcourse I really wasnt speaking to you PilgrimToChrist but posting to the OP. I said in my post I would add more when I had adequate time

I find joy in Him and in his words

I dont find much joy in or much worth while conversation among some which do very much appear to make it their sole mission to cast doubt on Him and His words.

Couldn't this mean that they tested what St Paul said in his letters (the book of Romans, Corinthians, etc..) as well against the Scripture (the Old Testament)? I say OT because at that time the OT was "the Scripture". No reason to believe this applied only to what he said orally and not in writing.

Standing Up said:

Umm, you attempted a point with Timothy; that is, that Paul was speaking to one, but not to all, for if Paul had meant all, he would have said brethren. That is what he said, however, when instructing the Corinthians (and us ) about the eucharist. Nothing about priests, bishops, deacons, etc, but brethren.

1 Cor. 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

v23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:

v33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

So, we searched the scriptures and found that it is brethren who are called to the thanksgiving, to the eucharist, to the meal. Now what?

Click to expand...

Well yes, we are all called to the meal. Part of being called to the meal is understanding the purpose of the meal. So Paul is instructing the brethren in the purpose of the meal, and the need to show up.

That does not make them all stewards of the mystery. Steward, as in one appointed to manage and supervise.

Another example -- why in James are people told to go to the elders to be annointed with oil for healing? Why not to any of the brethren. Is this not too, an ordinance?

narnia59 said:

Well yes, we are all called to the meal. Part of being called to the meal is understanding the purpose of the meal. So Paul is instructing the brethren in the purpose of the meal, and the need to show up.

That does not make them all stewards of the mystery. Steward, as in one appointed to manage and supervise.

Another example -- why in James are people told to go to the elders to be annointed with oil for healing? Why not to any of the brethren. Is this not too, an ordinance?

Click to expand...

Okay, we can move on, but first, Paul instructed the brethren about the eucharist. Nothing about a priest.

And James? Maybe this will help:

Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

We don't send babies to battle. Call the elders.

Standing Up said:

Okay, we can move on, but first, Paul instructed the brethren about the eucharist. Nothing about a priest.

And James? Maybe this will help:

Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

We don't send babies to battle. Call the elders.

Click to expand...

Great post, how can one fight the battle if they are unequipped. I believe you are right on regarding why James speaks to having elders lay hands. We see the qualifications of elders in Timothy, these guys aren't light weights.

PilgrimToChrist said:

For "Sola Scriptura" types:

* Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth?

* Where does the Bible say what books make up the Bible?

Click to expand...

This idea that the bible somehow sprung up out of thin air keeps coming up. There's been a few threads about answers. This might help your understanding that God has done these things and done so for a reason, not leaving things to chance, but to those He called, raised up, and instructed to leave a witness.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

The only reason people know that Jesus is the Christ is because of the law and prophets of which John the Baptist was one.

Jn. 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Jn. 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Folks seem to think that God wouldn't somehow make sure that was recorded. They think if there isn't a table of contents that except for some council we'd have got it wrong

Acts 14:7 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

So sure, God gave us the rain as a witness of Him. Just as He gave us scripture.

Jn. 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Acts 1:18 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The only way they could do that was by our believing their written witness. The eyewitnesses knew they had to write it down.

Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

As they did, so do we.

simonthezealot said:

Great post, how can one fight the battle if they are unequipped. I believe you are right on regarding why James speaks to having elders lay hands. We see the qualifications of elders in Timothy, these guys aren't light weights.

Click to expand...

Nope, not lightweights. They have been appointed by bishops (Tit 1:5) and ordained by the laying on of hands. (Ac 13:3, 1Ti 4:14, 1Ti 5:22).

1Ti 4:14 said:

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

Click to expand...

PilgrimToChrist said:

Originally Posted by 1Ti 4:14

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.
​

Click to expand...

From what version do you quote that?

I've looked at 11 versions and they're all elders/presbytery.

Christos Anesti said:

Couldn't this mean that they tested what St Paul said in his letters (the book of Romans, Corinthians, etc..) as well against the Scripture (the Old Testament)? I say OT because at that time the OT was "the Scripture". No reason to believe this applied only to what he said orally and not in writing.

Click to expand...

Makes sense because what difference 'how' he taught (orally, epistle)
Since they searched (or examined.. wish i could figure out my new Bible program ) the Scriptures "daily" I would think they did check everything
against it lol.

Standing Up said:

From what version do you quote that?

I've looked at 11 versions and they're all elders/presbytery.

Click to expand...

All my Scripture quotes come from the Douay-Rheims.

The original Douay-Rheims pre-dates the King James Version by a few years (NT completed in 1582, OT in 1610; KJV: 1604-1611). It was, however, extensively revised by Bp. Challoner in 1750, who also inserted commentary, and adopts many of the King James Version phrasings. Like Protestantism and the King James Version, the Douay-Rheims maintains common usage, especially among more conservative or traditional Catholics. For myself, I like the precision of Elizabethan English (e.g. thee, thou, you) and its association with a dignified presentation of the Scriptures. Since it is a more modern translation (referring to the ubiquitous Challoner revision), it avoids some of the more antiquated words that the King James uses (which were outdated even at the time of its publication), which can lead to confusion (as the preface to an RSV Bible I have states and gives examples). I find it better than the King James.

1Ti 4:11 (D-R) said:

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

Click to expand...

1Ti 4:11 (KJV) said:

Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Click to expand...

The Greek here is πρεσβυτερίου (presbyterion). This was adopted into Latin as presbyterii.

So the King James use of "presbytery" is obviously quite close to the Latin and to the original Greek. But it is also not wrong to use the word "priesthood". Indeed, the word "priest" and the word "presbyter" both come from the Greek word πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros).

It has come to be that English-speaking Catholics (also, Orthodox and Anglicans) use the word "priest" while most Protestants prefer "presbyter" (hence, the Presbyterian denomination). Protestants tend to see the word "priest" as connoting sacrificial functions and since they deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass, prefer the word "presbyter" or by-passing that Greek word altogether, the word "pastor" (meaning, "shepherd") or "minister".

However, the word "priest" does not actually refer to sacrifice. In Latin, that word is sacerdos, hence the English "sacrifice" and "sacrificial". Thus, we refer to the "sacrificial priesthood" as contrasted with, say, the "common priesthood of all believers". In Catholic thought, we all share in the priesthood of Christ our High Priest, but we do not all do so in the same way.

So, that is a long explanation for a simple answer -- "presbyter" and "priest" are both English forms of the Latin "presbyter" or Greek "presbyteros".

Fireinfolding said:

To me it sure does, but then ofcourse I really wasnt speaking to you PilgrimToChrist but posting to the OP. I said in my post I would add more when I had adequate time

Click to expand...

Sorry for snapping. I was trying to get you to give some explanation and interpretation of the many verses that you posted.

I find joy in Him and in his words

Click to expand...

As do I, which is why I should probably be getting to bed and say Compline before I fall asleep at the computer... Debating religion is certainly not as important as actually practicing it, arguing shouldn't cut into my prayer time.

I dont find much joy in or much worth while conversation among some which do very much appear to make it their sole mission to cast doubt on Him and His words.

Click to expand...

I would hope and pray that no one here intends to cast doubt on God and His words! We may argue but we are all still Christians and hold Sacred Scripture in the highest regard.

When we discuss and debate the issue of Scripture between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants what we are really asking is not whether or not the Scriptures are inspired by God and infallible (leave that to The Jesus Seminar and other modernist assaults on the faith). What we really are asking is this:

What is the Bible to you?

To the Protestant, the Bible is a collection of writings upon which he bases his faith -- it tells him about Jesus and how to live rightly and worship God.

To the Catholic or Orthodox, the Bible is a collection of works written by the Church, it is part of the sacred teachings of the Church which has been written down. The sacred teachings of the Church as a whole tell him about Jesus and how to live rightly and worship God.

When Catholics see Protestants saying that we must build a church which conforms to what the New Testament says, it sounds to us quite strange, like saying that we should build a community named "Israel" by conforming to what the Old Testament says. Certainly, Israel existed before the Old Testament was written down and there were teachings and practices of the Israelites which did not get written down. The Old Testament is a chronicle of the Israelites, it shows us history and the words of the prophets.

In the same way, the New Israel -- the Church -- existed before the New Testament was written down and there are teachings and practices of the Church which did not get written down. The New Testament is a chronicle of the Church, it shows us the life of Jesus (Gospels), history (Acts), letters to bishops and other individuals in different cities (Epistles) and prophecy (Revelation).

The New Testament didn't just fall from Heaven intact like Mohammed or Joseph Smith who claimed to receive scriptures from an angel. Most of the New Testament is composed of letters between different cities and people in the Church (mostly by St. Paul), so clearly there was a Church that was thriving even while the New Testament was being written.

And I'm reasonably sure that St. Paul had no idea that what he was writing was going to be put on the same level as the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament), he was just writing letters trying to educate the Church in different cities about the faith. The faith already existed, he wasn't creating it out of thin air or even by being inspired by God. He was just preaching the faith that already was being taught throughout the Church, in order to strengthen the believers in different cities. Most of what was written in the New Testament was not new to the Church (Revelation being an exception), but it was explained in a way that was inspired by God the Holy Ghost (though St. Paul and the other authors had their own style).

So if the Church existed before the New Testament was compiled and even before and while it was being written, how can the Church be a construction based on the New Testament? Not anymore than Israel was a construction based on the Old Testament.

That's the underlying problem of "Sola Scriptura", it has nothing to do with any sort of assault on the integrity and importance of Scripture. The real question is: What is the Bible, specifically the New Testament? Is it writings upon which the Church is founded or is it writings of the Church? Is the Church based on the Bible or is the Bible based on the Church? If it the former, Sola Scriptura is a necessity; if it the latter, it is an absurdity.

PilgrimToChrist said:

All my Scripture quotes come from the Douay-Rheims.-snip-

Click to expand...

FWIW- . The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation
Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the King James use of "presbytery" is obviously quite close to the Latin and to the original Greek. But it is also not wrong to use the word "priesthood". Indeed, the word "priest" and the word "presbyter" both come from the Greek word πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros).

It has come to be that English-speaking Catholics (also, Orthodox and Anglicans) use the word "priest" while most Protestants prefer "presbyter" (hence, the Presbyterian denomination). Protestants tend to see the word "priest" as connoting sacrificial functions and since they deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass, prefer the word "presbyter" or by-passing that Greek word altogether, the word "pastor" (meaning, "shepherd") or "minister".

However, the word "priest" does not actually refer to sacrifice. In Latin, that word is sacerdos, hence the English "sacrifice" and "sacrificial". Thus, we refer to the "sacrificial priesthood" as contrasted with, say, the "common priesthood of all believers". In Catholic thought, we all share in the priesthood of Christ our High Priest, but we do not all do so in the same way.

So, that is a long explanation for a simple answer -- "presbyter" and "priest" are both English forms of the Latin "presbyter" or Greek "presbyteros".

Click to expand...

It requires a priest to sacrifice. So, rather than translate it accurately, they use priest. Had the apostles intended us to understand the word as priest, they'd have used hurieos (sic).

PilgrimToChrist said:

And I'm reasonably sure that St. Paul had no idea that what he was writing was going to be put on the same level as the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament),

Click to expand...

Of course he knew. God had told him he'd be a witness. You don't seem to get the purpose.

Paul quoted Deut and Luke and said they were scripture. Peter calls Paul's writings scripture.

Paul heard of the false Thessalonica letter and wrote them a true letter, telling them he marks the ones from him. So you'll know.

he was just writing letters trying to educate the Church in different cities about the faith. The faith already existed, he wasn't creating it out of thin air or even by being inspired by God. He was just preaching the faith that already was being taught throughout the Church, in order to strengthen the believers in different cities. Most of what was written in the New Testament was not new to the Church (Revelation being an exception), but it was explained in a way that was inspired by God the Holy Ghost (though St. Paul and the other authors had their own style).

So if the Church existed before the New Testament was compiled and even before and while it was being written, how can the Church be a construction based on the New Testament? Not anymore than Israel was a construction based on the Old Testament.

That's the underlying problem of "Sola Scriptura", it has nothing to do with any sort of assault on the integrity and importance of Scripture. The real question is: What is the Bible, specifically the New Testament? Is it writings upon which the Church is founded or is it writings of the Church?

Click to expand...

The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Not that it IS the truth. The truth is written down, entrusted to faithful men.

Standing Up said:

FWIW- . The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation
Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

FWIW- The purpose of the King James version, both the text and notes, was to uphold the Protestant Reformation, specifically the Church of England.

Yes, the Douay-Rheims is a Catholic Bible, produced under the auspices of the Church. The King James Version is a Protestant Bible, produced under the auspices of the king (head of the Church of England). They are very similar (following the Challoner revision) but they do have their own "spins", of course.

It requires a priest to sacrifice. So, rather than translate it accurately, they use priest. Had the apostles intended us to understand the word as priest, they'd have used hurieos (sic).

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "accurately", the word "priest" entered the English language back in Old English and is mirrored in Old Icelandic, Old Swedish, Old French, and Old High German. The word "presbyter" is essentially a transliteration of the same Latin word which occurred much later. They are two English words adopted from the same Latin word. To draw a theological distinction between the two is an error.

I explained that Protestants tend to believe that the word "priest" has sacrificial connotations and that is why they have a preference for the word "presbyter" but really "priest" and "presbyter" are the same word. English-speaking Catholics also use words such as "presbytery". Both English words are completely valid version of the Latin.

I addressed the issue of sacrifice as well, which is from the Latin word sacerdos, the Greek ἱερεύς (hiereus) is not related etymologically and so I did not mention it. I said that in order to refer to the priesthood which sacrifices we directly say "Sacerdotal Priesthood" or "Sacrificial Priesthood".

It is true that the word ἱερεύς is not used to refer to Christian ministers but instead the word πρεσβύτερος is used. It is a good thing that the word ἱερεύς was not used, because it would cause confusion. This is because the Christian priesthood is fundamentally different than the pagan or Jewish priesthood.

But really, that is a different topic. My concern was only with the etymology of the English words "priest" and "presbyter". They are the same word, to draw a distinction between them is faulty.

Standing Up said:

Of course he knew. God had told him he'd be a witness. You don't seem to get the purpose.

Click to expand...

Is a witness primarily someone who writes? Paul did many other things and preached much more than he wrote.

Peter calls Paul's writings scripture.

Click to expand...

2Pe 3:15-16 said:

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Click to expand...

I think that you are "wresting" that idea from this passage. He says that some people are distorting Paul epistles, just as they do Scripture. Here he says that people must understand what Paul is teaching correctly, or in other words (from two chapters back).

2Pe 1:20-21 said:

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

We must have the correct understanding of Scripture, not our own personal interpretations.

The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Not that it IS the truth. The truth is written down, entrusted to faithful men.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that everything that is true was written down? If it was, the NT would be a lot longer.

How do we have the Bible? How do we know to trust it? How do we know what books should be in it? How do we know how to correctly interpret it?

PilgrimToChrist said:

Exactly. How do Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans and others feel about naming themselves after men?

Click to expand...

What of the Benedictines, Domincans, Franciscans, Augustinians?