Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Of course I agree. That is not the question. The question is: which human beings are following the Spirit such that what they believe and teach most accurately conforms to the whole of the Apostle's doctrine/teaching?
-A8
Php 4:3 - Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Clement had been a companion of Paul and the Corinthians were familiar with him through the word of Paul as a man of faith. Clement was a Roman in Philippi, and he had the commendation of Paul, so it is no wonder that the Corinthian church founded by Paul would seek the advice of a man with Pauline approval. Philippi sent help via Epaphroditus while Paul was imprisoned in Rome, so the pattern of appealing to what was Pauline was evident in the churches Paul had founded. So with the Corinthians. It would be natural to inquire of a trusted friend of Paul for advice.
-A8
So you think this verse refers to your church's un-Biblical traditions and you use this verse to justify the other scriptures you posted...
In this verse the traditions which have been taught and the written epistles are identical...They are two in the same...
Think about it...Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught.
Do you suppose that if one group read the epistles that they were to stand fast in their beliefs, and another group heard the word of the traditions that were differnt than the written epistle, they were to stand fast in what they heard???
Talking to us in his written epistle Paul is saying that whoever heard the written epistle is to believe that, but if you also, or only heard the unwritten tradition, to believe that as well, or instead???
Sorry...Some churches had copies of the written epistles and others that didn't, heard the epistles spoken word for word from the written source...
And these epistles, spoken or written, became the tradition over the years of what Paul was preaching and teaching...Paul's tradition was his epistles, the bible...Your traditions are not the Bible, but the tradition of men...Paul talks about that as well...
The word in Titus 1:5 which is translated as "priest" (or as you would have it, as "elder") is in the Greek presbuteros. While it does mean "elder" in Greek, it was rendered as presbyter in Latin, which became priester in German and finally priest in English. Thus priest is just the English rendering of the Greek presbuteros and is a proper translation.
The difficulty in English is that in Catholic Europe the only experience that anyone had of a sacrificial temple priesthood was that that of the Catholic priest/presbyter at the Mass. Thus this term, "priest", came to be used for all such temple officials.
When we turn the to word "priest" in 1 Peter 2:5 we find that the Greek word is hieratenma, a "sacrficial temple priesthood". St. Jerome rendered this in Latin by sacerdotium. Unfortunately in English we have only one term, "priest", to translate both "presbyter priest" and "sacrificial temple priest".
This points to a serious flaw in the theory of sola scriptura. Few layman will have the proper training to even attempt to try to interpret the Bible on their own. Thus they must rely on the skill and authority of others. In essence, all that Protestantism has done is move the authority of Biblical interpretation from the episcopacy established by Jesus Christ to self-proclaimed academics. After 500, Protestantism is just as dependent on its own tradition as Catholicism.
But to return to the original subject, the Bible itself shows that our Lord established the authority of the Apostles which they then continued in the episcopacy through the laying on of hands. Whatever else the Protestants might claim, they do not posses this Christ established Biblical office from which they separated themselves when they left the Catholic Church.
But John says differently...
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Jeepers, some of us are sent as "sheep amongst the wolves" (Matt 10:16) - out in the open field, in the wolves' sector - facing malicious intent without the comfort of either other sheep or pens.
But that is a very great blessing! Amongst the wolves, the sheep relies only on the Shepherd. And that is exactly the way it is supposed to be, pens and other sheep notwithstanding.
And I thank God for the sheep pens because sanctification is a walk. It takes time to learn to love Him and trust Him enough to go through a gate following His lead - much less into the open field, much less into the company of wolves.
Do you really think it is a cosmic accident that you find yourself a Catholic at this point in your life?
There is either something in the Catholic sheep pen for you to learn or to do. And if He wants to lead you into another pen or out in the open field or amongst wolves, He'll call your name.
Follow Him.
Doesn't that lie at the heart of the Catholic reverence for Mary?
Which human beings are following the Spirit such that what they believe and teach most accurately conforms to the whole of the Apostle's doctrine/teaching?
-A8
And all the believers are little a "right" and a little "wrong," correct? Or are we all "right" and all those differences we proclaim are "nonessential?"
The error, imo, of the Protestant/Baptist world is that the focus is on the individual believer, who claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit but in truth relies entirely on his or her personal interpretation of the Bible and creates an entirely private theology and calls it "true."
It appears to be narcissism at its very worst. I believe it is arrogance and self-deception founded on "inner knowledge" (an extreme form of esoteric thinking) which, when expressed outwardly, shows a rainbow of beliefs, all different from each other, some more, others less so. Protestantism/Baptism thus appears to be thoroughly gnostic, cleverly disguised as it may be, but gnostic nonetheless.
Thus, when some Protestant tells me that some Mormons are "true" Christians because they accept Christ as their Savior, and ignores the fact that Mormons deny Triune God, that they are a polytheistic (pagan) cult using only Christian nomenclature for its gods, believing in three different "gods" and claiming that "God the Father" used to be a man, and that Christ's "brother" is none other than Satan, the nature of heresy becomes evident.
Obviously the Christ they claim is not the Christian God, yet some Protestants will embrace them as "true" believers, just because they claim "Christ" as their savior. Two wrongs don't make it right.
The Church is not "the people" who believe whatever they want. Only Satan would want us to believe that there is no one true Church, and that everyone's private opinion is true faith.
If it is the proper translation, as you claim, then why is the Greek "presbyteros" always translated "presbyters" [not "priests"] everywhere that it appears in my Catholic Bible??? Were those Catholic Bible scholars in error???
First thing you have to do is get the correct translation...The right translation says elders...Not priests...And how do we know this is so??? Because even your own Catholic bible says:
1Pe 2:5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
We are all a holy priesthood...Your very own Catholic bible confirms this...Jerome's translation...
So you can't have priests that are set apart from the priesthood...Wouldn't make sense...
So, there is no such thing as a church constitution that has priests...
The Apostles dind't walk around with the Christian bible in their hands. They wrote the New Testament later on. So, what keys were they using then?
The NT says nothing of using the Scriptures as the key to heaven, but it says "whatever you bind shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loosen shall be loosened in heaven..."
which begs the question of how exacly humans are supposed to be able to baptise with the Holy Spirit since they are not mightier than John the Baptist and are no more fit to touch Christ shoes...
Just the preference of the translator. "Presbyter" is an acceptable translation. Indeed, this is the word that is used in Latin. "Priest", the word that is used in the Douay-Rheims Bible, is just the English rendering of the Latin presbyter. Whatever you call this particular office, priest/presbyter/elder, it continues to exist in the Catholic Church and not among the Protestants.
Presbuteros means "elder." The Greek word for a priests is ierei. A bishops os episkopos. In the early Church, the ordained ministers were called "elders." They performed the same functions that are performed by priests.
Priests do not appear until the second century because until then the Christian communities were not large enough to require additional clergy. A priest is a bishop's deputy. A deacon is a priest's assistant. These are the only three ordained levels in the Church, regardless what you call them.
Sheep pens are not the Living Word of God - the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, is.
Sheep pens fall into disrepair and have to be patched now and again. Other sheep seem to replace the boards with bricks, build roofs or sound proof the pens so other sheep or even the Shepherd won't bother them. Others build all kinds of silly niceties within the pen or pens within pens. The sheep yell at each other between the pens arguing over who has the best pen.
I will not play that game - I am following the Shepherd. Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.