Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They weren't called "Priests" per say. That's a modern western word that we use in translation. They were deacons (ACTS 6) who were promoted, trusted to be able to handle more resposability. They were called elders, presbyteros (from whence comes our translation.)
Only to the western mind. We all need a good bit of eastern education.
Christianity is not from the west. It's not Latin. It's Greek and Hebrew.
It's middle eastern, coming out of Jerusalem and all of Judea.
We must learn to think the way they did... and still do, if we are to have the "TRUE" catholic (kataholos = concerned with the whole church body) mind.
Now why don't we go on and admit that what we don't like is what has come out of the western Preisthood. But it's not about the office of Priest. It's about the men that we don't like and don't trust that hold the office in the west. And the laity of the west is all but powerless to against them. So, instead of getting rid of the bad clergy, we leave the Church and go find somewhere else that we are more comfortable.
That's a copout. The Church is the responsability of the whole Church, laity included. We don't want to have to deal with it... so like most everybody in the free world, we leave.
Forgive me...
In your replying, forget not that you were the one who admitted the issue. I'm agreeing with your admission and trying to build thereon. Why return to what you just admiitted is a western thing?
Well, the clergy/laity split is a problem in the East and West. But part of that comes from not defining and sticking with the words we use or the Biblical definitions.
Admitted what? That "Priest" is the english intepretation of the greek word Presbyteros?
For one who has no education as to the Churches of the east I find that rather remarkable.
As I said The Christian Church has NEVER been without Clergy.
I belong to the greek speaking Church friend. You want to change languages, fine by me. English is not nor has it ever been a liturgical language.
Forgive me...
Okay, so what do you mean? What are you saying here:
Originally Posted by OrthodoxyUSA
They weren't called "Priests" per say. That's a modern western word that we use in translation. They were deacons (ACTS 6) who were promoted, trusted to be able to handle more resposability. They were called elders, presbyteros (from whence comes our translation.)
That the word Priest is an english translation of the greek word used for elders... presbyteros.
Tts 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Textus Receptus
Τούτου χάριν κατέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην
πρεσβύτερος = presbyteros
Obviously Bishops (Titus) had the authority to ordain presbyteros.
Forgive me...
The Christian Church was NEVER without a clergy. (Anybody that gets past Matthew, Mark, Luke and John knows that.)
In the very earliest of Christianity the Bishops did most everything themselves.
They ran into the same problem as the Apostles in ACTS. They can't be everywhere and take care of so many people. So, they did exactly what the Apostles did. Divide up the work and make more like themselves. (ACTS 6)
They weren't called "Priests" per say. That's a modern western word that we use in translation. They were deacons (ACTS 6) who were promoted, trusted to be able to handle more resposability. They were called elders, presbyteros (from whence comes our translation.) They were elected of the people, by the people, for the service of people. To this day in the EO, clergy are still chosen this way.
The question is:
Did they have the right to do what the Apostles did in ACTS 6 or not?
Did they have the right to promote these men to the next level?
Did they have the right to "train" these deacons to become the next Bishops?
Did they have the right to create an office between Deacon and Bishop?
Yes or No?
Forgive me...
Yes. So why the issue saying elders, rather than priests?
Here's the model: born-again, baby, wean, elder. Should take about 4 years. 3 years of training. 1 year of "doing it back" to the trainer. Go from there.
Whoa there, Where did I state that we don't need 'clergy'? I didn't, I said the need for a Priest, like there was in the OT, offering sacrifices continually was not needed. A priest is not needed is all I implyed or said.
I don't like your tone towards me one bit. You seem like you are gonna crack my knuckles with a ruler if I don't answer your all of your questions.
unsubscribing
We still make sacrifices, we offer our first fruits. On Sundays we do it collectively. We offer bread and wine, and the Lord offers himself back through the one and only sacrifice that he made for all time.
The tone... I know you're new here. This is a debate area.
Everyone here knows that reading a persons word on the screen never comes through the way it would if we were speaking to one another. We tend to get a little thick skinned around here.
I'm very direct, that my personality. I didn't actually mean to upset you.
Forgive me...
Yes. So why the issue saying elders, rather than priests?
Here's the model: born-again, baby, wean, elder. Should take about 4 years. 3 years of training. 1 year of "doing it back" to the trainer. Go from there.
You didn't upset me at all.
I didn't like how you responded especially when my first post in this thread showed I was willing to listen to what you had to say on the subject, by my asking if their was a need for a Priest to begin with.
I know this is a debate forum at CF
I also know about debate forums since I have participated at others, whether political, religious, etc over the years so I don't need a lesson. CF is not the only forum in town.
I still feel like I'm giving you a bad impression. Are you a morning person? I am...
Good Morning!
In this particular thread I really want the average Protestant to acknowledge that the Church had every right and authority to set up any office that was needed. Not to debate the need. Just the rights.
Forgive me...
Yes I am a morning person, good morning to you also!
I feel like you are standing over me wagging your finger giving me a lecture is all.
I see your convictions are strong, rock solid to you. At CF, in this type of forum here, I am here to give what I believe, but I am different then you for I only offer my strong 'opinions' on what I believe. I come even more to see what others think and to learn.
Back to the OP, I know it is not about the need but the right to have an office of Priest, though that is what I am interested in.
To answer your question as fully as I can, if there is the need, then the early church had the right to have the office of Priest carried forward to the church, or in other words to establish said office.
okey dokeyThanks Rebekah!
You changed you avatar.
Let's get to the need for the office in another thread.
Forgive me...
okey dokey
I just wanted to add that the church at the Council of Jerusalem decided that circumcision was no longer needed, so we know the church had the right to decide something that was not spelt out in Scripture.
Besides the priesthood of Melchizedek, there's only one OT priestly line--Levitical. Levi had 3 sons, one of which was Aaron. He was picked to be the High Priest lineage of the Levitical tribe. The others' responsibilities were to carry, set up, tear down the Tabernacle.
The Israelites as a nation refused to hear the Voice of God, so God separated out the Levites. The other 11 tribes were then known as the children of Israel.
In the OT, there was no priesthood of men.
That is the distinction for those born-again of Christ who was of the tribe of Judah. No priesthood, save the eternal one of Melchizedek. Now, we are SUPPPOSED to be the priesthood of believers, but maybe language barriers are preventing a common understanding here.
So, just to make things easier, perhaps we could drop the priest backwardation when referring to believers and go with this model:
Born again, baby, weaned, elder.
So, just to make things easier, perhaps we could drop the priest backwardation when referring to believers and go with this model:
Born again, baby, weaned, elder.
Thats it huh?
How long you been doing it now?
Forgive me...
Wrong.
There was a priesthood of men in the OT, it was carried forward to the NT era also
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine;
Exo 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."
Rev 1:6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Yep, by this time, you should ... , scolds Hebrews. The lesson is from the OT fruit tree by the way should you think I somehow just made it up.
I'll have to start a threads on the 7 fundamentals of the faith and see what comes out from it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?