Posted on 04/22/2010 9:55:26 PM PDT by Salvation
You posted: I suppose an alternate explanation is that the author of the first gospel deliberately focused on the primary meaning of “haalmah” by giving the more restrictive definition in Greek so that anyone reading it would have no doubt as to how the Hebrew word was being used in this context.
Very well stated! Actually, your whole post is instructive.
It is interesting for me to note that Biblical Christianity (by definition) accepts, respects, and appreciates the revelation of the Old Testament and the establishment of the physical seed of Abraham (through Isaac) as the people of God (Hebrews, Jews, or however appropriately identified). Beyond that, though, they believe in the further revelation promised throughout the Old Testament that there would be a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), which Christians believe includes the seed of Abraham by faith, and not only blood.
Conversely, non-Christian or non-Messianic Jews do not (as far as I am aware) accept the central beliefs of Christianity, which would move them into this new covenant as Bible believing Christians understand it. These beliefs include the integration of the “Gentiles” who have faith in God into the one people of God.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
You might ought to check with the professors and teachers in the religion departments of your seminaries before you say such a thing.
Besides, even if what you say were true, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Catholics (especially clergy and theologians) regard the "old testament" to be primitive mythology. No wonder the Catholic Church is in the mess it's in today.
Obviously it did NOT; for Passover is a YEARLY meal: still is.
If GOD thought a once a year reminder was good enough for His Chosen People; what makes Christians NEED a DAILY dose of Jesus Blood and Meat®?
It runs like this: communion with the Body and Blood of Christ is communion with God. It is spiritually very good. If one does it it frequently, it is good. If you wish to commune with God on a daily basis, both through prayer and through the Eucharist, that is a good and Christian thing. It keeps God first and foremost. We have many Catholics that are Chreasters (Christmas and Easter). They believe that twice a year is enough. They are not normally devout. Devout people put the worship of God to the front of their priorities.
I’ll cut to the chase:
I ‘believe’ that whether a person believes the elements actually turns into Christ’s body and blood when consumed or they do not, makes absolutely NO difference as to their salvation.
Then I will accept that. These folks that blithely state beliefs as if they were facts are irritating.
Look at the Creeds - “I believe...”
Christianity is belief. If that is your belief, then I will respect that as your belief.
The universal Catholic understanding is that the Old Testament cannot be correctly understood without the truth of Christ, and therefore without the New Testament. The Old Testament is, however, inerrant word of God in its entirety.
Further, the Holy Scripture cannot be understood without the study of patristic writing, in which all modern theological thought worth mentioning must be grounded.
To say that the Old Testament is “mere mythology” is aberrant and latecoming teaching.
That the Church is “in the mess today” is true. It is also true that allowing the desacralized Bible study by scholars and milkmaids alike, a Protestant heresy, is probably to blame for much of it.
Luckily, the Church doesn’t look to its modern pastors when they develop theories and theological fantasies. Those come and go. The Church remains because Christ and His saints in Heaven remain, our true Jerusalem.
We are not saved by faith alone, so indeed it is possible to be saved despite one’s weak or even absent faith. However, I would not say that lack of faith, in this case, in the Holy Sacrament makes “absolutely no difference”. Poor, misshapen faith is a huge obstacle for salvation.
A "Protestant heresy?" Before chr*stianity existed the Holy Torah was the birthright of every single Jew, from the King and the Kohen Gadol to the beggar on the streets. It was and is the duty of every Jew to study Torah--as a matter of fact, one of the mitzvot is that every Jew is required to write a Sefer Torah (though nowadays this is usually accomplished by either hiring a sofer to write one on one's behalf or in writing a single letter, since very letter in the Torah is equivalent to the entire thing), though in ancient times people probably wrote their on Torahs in their entirety.
Catholics look down on "brain-dead bibliolators" who believe in the Bible for no other reason than that they believe in it, but Catholicism's faith J*sus, though not held because "the Bible says so," is just as groundless and fideistic.
in the case of Jesus and the Eucharist we also have John 6 where His body is said to be "food indeed".
Absolutely, and He said that in the tone of spirituality. Remember, He also said that I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. One eats and drinks of His words by coming to Him for His words are of life! I could expound upon this, but I think you may understand what I just said.
Further, if you were going to suffer and die and your words to me were, pointing at bread, "This is my body", I would at least have the courtesy, knowing you as a thoughtful person to assume you meant it literally and not joking around on a solemn moment like this.
You shouldnt assume anything from me. I would have been serious about such a topic. It would have been allegorical, not literal. Thats no joke!
The Apostles did take Christ literally.
Yes, they did, but they did not leave him they had no where else to go or to believe in, maybe because Jesus had shown them He was no ordinary guy. However, there were some who were following Him that just couldnt get away from the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood. Its that way today, also.
St. Paul, for example, considers "not discerning the body" in the Eucharistic bread a great sin, akin to spiritual death (1 Cor 11:23-30). The ideas that the Eucharist is merely a memorial meal with bread and maybe grape juice is a late invention, wholly outside of the Apostolic tradition.
I would say that to get the whole context you would have to read from I Cor. 11:17-34 right? I agree with you that the Lords Supper is NOT merely a memorial meal. It is a communion with the Lord Himself! Those who do not distinguish that the bread and cup refers to Christs body eats and drinks judgment upon themselves. We are not far apart on this, and I never put down Catholics on their communion ritual I just disagree with the transubstantiation dogma for there is nothing in the Scriptures that would prove that the bread and fruit of the vine are literally changed (they really arent!) into flesh and blood. It is a spiritual thing that Jesus said, pointing out that we are to take part in this eating of the bread and drinking of the cup in remembrance of his death and resurrection until He comes again.
This transubstantiation dogma is the thing that is a late-comer in your belief system.
Why, you are correct that in Acts 20:17, 2728 St Paul speaks of the holy office of the Episcopacy:
Thank you. My only objection to that is your use of the word holy, which is a word found in the NT some 240 times hagios, translated 166 times as holy and the rest as saint. Let me expound on this for the benefit of all readers. Obviously, God is trying to tell us something. But what? The root from which the word hagios stem has to do primarily with separation, particularly when the separation is for a special purpose. Thusly:
1. A person set apart is a saint.
2. The act of setting apart is to sanctify.
3. The state of being set apart is sanctification.
4. A place set apart is a sanctuary.
Perhaps you have seen a sign that said Bird Sanctuary. That is for the birds, literally. Seriously, it really is. It was set apart for their habitation and preservation. Popular usage reflects the Romanist corruption of the term (Im speaking bluntly, please dont take offense it is just my way of writing and talking). A friend of mine once observed that in the popular mind a saint is either someone who is too old to get into mischief, or those dead so long all the mischief they got into has been forgotten. That is almost to true too be funny, or better stated, it is too sad to be funny. Address a fellow believer in your sect as a saint and note the response. You will be thought of as being playful, not serious. Paul was serious, though! (Cp. Rom. 1:7, I Cor. 1:2, Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:2, I Thess. 3:13, II Thess. 1:10, I Tim. 5:10, Philem. 5, plus multiple times throughout his letters. Jude, the Hebrew writer, John, etc., also uses the expression. John Chrysostom, a famed 4th century writer, counseled parents to bestow an ennobling name on their children, and then keep its meaning and challenge before them. What a challenge for us today. We are called (to be) saints, and to be separated from the world and called into the ekklesia of Christ.
Using holy, as you did, tells me that you consider the office of the episkopos a separated office from the saints of God. I dont, for many reasons, only one of which I wrote on above. There are many more later, perhaps, or not.
Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Act 20:28)
Let me give you what I translated that verse as directly from the Greek manuscripts: Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the holy (agion) spirit (pneuma) placed you as overseers (episkopous), to shepherd (pastor- poimainein) the called out assembly (ekklesian) of God, which he acquired through the his own blood.
As you see, there is a difference in the meaning from what you quoted (from the Vulgate?) There is no Greek term that could be called rule over the assembly. Bishops are not to rule over the saints, period according to the directions given by the apostle Paul. Peter did not rule anyone, period. He was merely a fellow-elder with the other elders, as he said. Other than that, well, its acceptable
Was your point that priesthood was at the time not separated from episcopacy? That is correct also, -- the Church was not big enough to have preists who are not bishops. That is also clear from 1 Peter 5:
1 The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre's sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
This speaks of the consecrated character of the priesthood, no?
Naturally, I dont accept your translation here. Let me explain. First your last sentence: Yes, Ill say NO a definite NO. There is no priesthood of the leadership in the assembly of saints all of the assembly are priests! I realize that your church takes the Latin transliteration of the Greek presbuterous and change its meaning to mean a priest. Let me bring out what your Latin Vulgate translates the Greek as in the verses from I Pet. 5:1-5 -
(1) seniores ergo qui in vobis sunt obsecro consenior et testis Christi passionum qui et eius quae in futuro revelanda est gloriae communicator (2) pascite qui est in vobis gregem Dei providentes non coacto sed spontanee secundum Deum neque turpis lucri gratia sed voluntarie (3) neque ut dominantes in cleris sed formae facti gregi et ex animo (4) et cum apparuerit princeps pastorum percipietis inmarcescibilem gloriae coronam (5) similiter adulescentes subditi estote senioribus omnes autem invicem humilitatem insinuate quia Deus superbis resistit humilibus autem dat gratiam
Jerome sure didnt translate presbuterous as ancients, nor did he use any word that would make it mean priests! Lets take an educated look at the term priest.
Priest: From the Greek term hiereus.
This word is used in Scriptures to identify one who offers sacrifice and has charge of the things pertaining to it. It is found only 33 times in the New Covenant Testament of God. 18 of these times it has direct reference to the Jewish Levitical Priests. Of the remaining 15 times, 8 have direct reference to our Lord Jesus Christ, 3 have reference to Melchizedek, 1 to the pagan priests of the god Jupiter, and the remaining 3 refer to the entire membership of the Church the community of saints who are described as a kingdom, and priests to God (revelations 1:6). As you can see, it is not used in very many places, especially to Christians or the Church.
Let us now look and shed some light on this. In searching the New Testament we find that the word priest is NEVER ONCE applied to a special ministry or caste in the Church of Christ. NOT ONCE do we find an evangelist, bishop, or deacon referred to as a priest in any distinctive sense; no such individual was priest by right of office. The only use of the word priest when used to describe Christians, and that in only 3 places, always meant the common members and not the leaders only (as an office).
Before I bring out more on this topic, I want you to understand that I do not write this to appear contemptuous, proud, or arrogant, but to find out what God says and not man. I am not a partisan of any group of Christianity except the group God has called-out to be saints. Yes, the word saint, the way the Holy Scriptures uses it, is aptly able to describe the term priest but that is something to be expounded upon at another time. Be that as it may, I am forced to use terms just as the Holy Spirit used them, for if I dont, there is no way that we can have the truth God wanted us to know. Lets look at the next word that is used by partisans to describe a special group of men before we go on to bring them all together.
Clergy: From the Greek term kleeros.
This word has caused a lot of confusion among Gods people. When the average man hears it used he immediately thinks of a special caste or group of distinguished men. His thinking is prejudiced because of its long use, and only partially right. It is to whom he relates it to that he is wrong. The meaning of this word as used in Scriptures is not what the average man relates to. He runs to a modern day dictionary and sees that it is a general term or title given collectively to priests and ministers. The trouble is that the word in its original meaning and use during the New Testament times of the first three centuries of Christianity was never designated to apply to or create a special caste or group of men (or women).
What then, does it mean? We find in our investigation that the Greek word kleeros means a lot, an inheritance. In the New Testament Scriptures of God it is used a total of 13 times, but is never translated as clergy, clergyman or cleric. It is rendered 1 time as heritage, 2 times as inheritance, 3 times as lot, 5 times as lots, and 2 times as part. It is never used to mark off a segment or special caste in the Church. It is used to designate ALL who have been redeemed and immersed into Christ. It is Gods people who constitute the heritage (kleeros) of Him! God, through Christ, has not selected a special caste or group from among those called-out to be Christians to serve as His lot or inheritance!
The word kleeros was first used around 1500 years before Christ by God to apply to those who were to be his lot or inheritance. The kleeros clergy of God were originally to be every member of the tribes of Israel. But, as Scriptures tell us, God changed His mind when the people wouldnt take on that responsibility, and then chose only the descendents of Aaron to be priests, and the rest of the Levites to be servants or ministers to the priesthood of Aaron (See Numbers 3:113). That is how the title, Levitical priests, came about. Thusly, all Levites were Gods clergy, but not all Levites were priests. To be a priest, one had to be a direct descendent of Aaron.
The presbuteros (transposed from the Greek into our Bible as presbters), were the elders of each of the other 12 tribes of Israel. NONE of these elders were able to be priests, nor high priests. There were many of these presbyters which means elders in each of the 12 tribes of Israel. They were to be the bishops, thats right, the overseers of their individual tribes or families. What is important to see is that not a one of these elders (presbuteros) who occupied that office of overseer (episkopos/bishop) were ever called priests (hiereus) or clergy (kleeros) of God.
It is futile to think a person could find this word used to apply to priests and ministers as a separate group within the realm of Christianity in the first three centuries, and even for a time thereafter, for its use was ONLY applied to Christians as a whole. Later on, as ecclesiastical groups started forming, they started to use this word to apply to only the elite, that is, only to those who were the leaders. But they had trouble doing this. If they used the term of kleeros to apply only to the leaders, the Scriptures would end up saying that ONLY THE LEADERS WERE CHRISTIANS! But that was something they could not do, so they invented the term clergy, and in so doing, were forced to invent the word laity also. Understand this: The word kleeros, Gods lot or heritance, is still applied by those who call themselves clergy, to the whole of Christianity. Clergy comes from the Greek word kleeros. Notwithstanding the appropriation of the term clergy to apply to a special select group, the laity are still referred to as the kleeros of God! Notice how the word kleeros, which is taken to mean clergy has been redefined into two separate words with very different meanings, although related. This being so, lets look at this word laity.
Laity: From the Greek laos.
This word laos, from which we get the transposed or the transliterated word laity, is found 141 times in Gods New Covenant Scriptures. STOP! You will never find the word laity in your Bible! It is ALWAYS translated people. Laos is NEVER translated by the term laity. It is ALWAYS translated people. In every instance when it is applied to the community Christ founded, it refers to the whole body of believers. Laity is a word invented by the ecclesiastical class to apply to the members of their organization or church. The way it is being used today by the clergy has no foundation in Scriptures, nor in the history of the early church up to the time the word clergy was invented. This Greek word laos was never used by the writers of Scriptures to refer to a group as distinguished from a priestly or a ministerial caste or class of people. In fact, the Apostle Peter used the term laos to designate all Gods clergy. Hear Him: But you are a chosen race, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, a holy nation, Gods OWN PEOPLE (laos), that you may declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9). Again: Draw near to Him (Christ), a living stone, indeed rejected by men but chosen and honored by God. Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house, a HOLY PRIESTHOOD, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:45).
This passage by Peter is real clear and also very significant, for it identifies the PRIESTHOOD the CLERGY of God, as Gods LAITY, Gods called-out ekklesian, the Church of Christ. Yes, Gods CLERGY are His LAITY, and as Peter said, all Gods laity (people) are members of the priesthood a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD.
What shall we say to this then? Shall we continue to ignore what God has said and go on our merry way? Shall we continue to apply the words God used in a sense that He never applied them? Absolutely NOT. At least, I wont. Every priest of God is one of His laity, and every member of Gods laity is a priest in the royal priesthood of God. Every child of God is His lot or heritage through the shed blood of Christ, all of Gods children are His clergy. Since Peter designated the laity as clergy, there can never be a distinction between them in Gods kingdom.
Ive been quite wordy in this post, but it, IMHO, was needed. Im also somewhat blunt in what I say, so please forgive me if it offends you no offense was intended. Its now your turn
may Gods spirit be with you.
Aboslutely, every Catholic should study the Holy Bible with zeal and reverence, and the Catholics today don’t do it nearly enough. The heresy is to study it in a self-styled, undisciplined way. To study it through the eye of the Church is a duty and a blessing.
Indeed, -- the Eucharist is the kind of food from which the flesh does not profit. Yet, it is Hs flesh and it is "food indeed". This is the Real Presence as the Church teaches it.
This transubstantiation dogma is the thing that is a late-comer
Transubstantiation is a way to explain the Real Presence in the light of modern (that is to say, Medieval) philosophy. It is indeed a medieval construct, not terribly popular in the East either. But the real dispute is the Real Presence of Christ in full in the Eucharistci meal. That is taugth directly in the Bible. There are allusions to the transubstantiation as well, but they are more subtle.
**This transubstantiation dogma is the thing that is a late-comer in your belief system.**
I’m wrinkling my brow and questioning your use of the word “latecomer.”
The first tansformation of substance (transubstandiation) took place in the hands of Jesus Christ. That is hardly “latecoming” as you say.
Your prior post, criticizing the reading of the Bible by theologians and "milmaids," implied otherwise.
The whole point of my argument, however (which you well know) is that most Catholics dismiss the Hebrew Bible as primitive mythology while hypocritically insisting on the literal interpretation of the "new testament." There is no defense for such inconsistency.
We was a fellow priest and bishop. The office of the bishop is to oversee priests. The office of priest is to consecrate the Eucharist. Both offices are holy as they deal with the holy matter: the sacrifice of Christ. Which of that do you object about, and more importantly think that the scripture teaches different?
There is no priesthood of the leadership in the assembly of saints all of the assembly are priests!
There is both kids of priesthood. This is what the Church teaches about that.
Ontologically there are no priests other than Christ Himself. He is The Priest. When a properly consecrated priest today says Mass, it is nto the priest as a human being consecrating the bread, it is Christ Himself doing it through the priests moth and finger.
The priest is someone sent by Christ to consecrate the Eucharist (Luke 22:19) and to forgive or retain sins (John 20:21). In that task Christ is acting through him (Luke 10:16). The bishop is a priest who is also in charge of selecting and ordaining priests (Titus, Timothy both books).
Finally, the head of Christian household is a priest in charge of teaching his house. He is priest inwardly to his family and himself. That capacity of a confirmed Christian is of course also holy (1 Peter 2).
Much of your post deals with linguistics rather than the function. I don't have time or inclination to argue about words. Functionally, the above is what priesthood is. If you think the Bible teaches different, show me. Feel free to refer to the Greek original directly, I read and understand Greek.
Again, the heresy is not the study itself, but a study outside of the authentic tradition which produced the holy books in question. Yes, some Catholics are guilty of it as well.
The transubstantiation did occur at the hands of Christ roughly 2000 years ago at the Last Supper. But the theologians of the Early Church did not use the term, because the concept of substance and accident was not known to them. In that sense it is a late addition: a way to explain the Real Presence more effectively. The Early Church simply refused to attempt any logical explanation of the Eucharistic miracle.
I'm not surprised one bit with the tone of your post, the hurried typing with errors and the ignoring of what I posted. IMHO you probably can't really address what I brought out from the "holy" Scriptures - which seems to be the MO of Catholics, educated or not.
I also refer, read and understand the Greek. And I use it almost all the time in my exegesis of the old manuscripts. What you posted is not to be found in the Scriptures, period. It comes from the philosophical meanderings of the natural (sinful) man.
We was a fellow priest and bishop. The office of the bishop is to oversee priests. The office of priest is to consecrate the Eucharist. Both offices are holy as they deal with the holy matter: the sacrifice of Christ. Which of that do you object about, and more importantly think that the scripture teaches different?
ALL OF IT! I don't "think" the scriptures teaches differently, I "KNOW" the scriptures teach differently than what you said above. And I've given you what the scriptures have to say about the offices of the church, period.
I believe that the readers of this thread can distinguish between the Scriptures and what each of us had to say. I made a comment in a previous post that your church is a super cult of Christianity - I stick with that even more so now that you have confirmed it with your assertions.
However, I do praise God that you preach Christ and Him crucified, buried and resurrected for the forgiveness of sinful man that believes and obey Him. I will also pray that the holy Scriptures correct your thinking of the topic discussed.
History says you are dead wrong! LOL!
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.