Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Salvation

Elders are ordained by the laying on of hands as is scripturally indicated..that does not make elders priests.

It may sound like a “priesthood “ to you.. but the ROLE (thanks) of one that offers sacrifices is not anywhere taught in the new church .. Just as there is NO apostolic succession taught in the NT

There were elders in the OT, that was a very separate calling than priest .

the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.

The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .

The greek have a couple words for priest

hiereus

1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ

and archiereus

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.

Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..

Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin

He is now our High Priest..

The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.

There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states,
“Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.”

“A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, ‘overseer’). In English this came to be translated as ‘bishop’ (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community’s Eucharistic assembly.”

“When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist.”

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.


13 posted on 06/13/2010 3:04:59 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: RnMomof7
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

The WORD priest evolved from the word presbyter. In the Catholic Church priests are often called presbyters, for example in some canons.

The Old Testament priesthood was fulfilled in Christ. I agree there.

However, you do not understand what we say about the priesthood, and so you speak of it as if it were essentially distinct from the eternal priesthood of Christ.

The false polemicists of your side love few things as much as they enjoy getting the vapors and twisted knicker syndrome over the idea of the Catholic presbyter being “another Christ.”

But their loud and cherished consternation looks as ridiculous and as false as most of their arguments and charges because they do not take the trouble to understand that with which they are disagreeing.

This is not mind-reading. It is a conclusion from the arguments made. As usual they are arguments not against what we hold but against what we do not hold.

You see, at least here on FR, the basic Protestant and anti-Catholic maneuver is to shift attack and shift defense. Argument is not used as a tool to find or uncover the truth. It is used rather as a kind of weapon to discomfit the other side. Since discomfiture rather than truth is the goal, when a refutation is made of some anti-catholic argument, the usual response is to change the subject. Thus, the anti-Catholics make the same arguments over and over again and never learn from them.

So, go ahead and cite Garry Wills. His iffy relationship with the Church makes sense in the context of his superficial understanding of her teaching. And the same for the other guy.

The argument, however, is circular. The assumption implicit in citing them is that the ‘true’ church somehow ceased about a generation after the death of John. And this assumption requires that the promised gift of the spirit was kind of a dud. In the protestant view it took the Holy Spirit about 1500 years to get his act together enough to make a successful stand against those awful, stupid, and superstitious successors of the Apostles. The martyrs of Rome and of the various persecutions might be worthy of a little respect, but they were just SO wrong about what really mattered.

So when Jesus promised the 12 that they would be led into all truth, he left out the part about “in 1450 years give or take.” That's what we are expected to believe. And the people who expect us to believe it repeat the same arguments over and over again like machines, while rarely demonstrating a willingness, to say nothing of ability, to understand what it is they are arguing against.

WHATever.

16 posted on 06/13/2010 3:52:14 PM PDT by Mad Dawg ("Be kind to everyone you meet, for every person is fighting a great battle" -- St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: RnMomof7
You appear to again be demanding Catholic conformance to Sola Scriptura which doesn't exist in the New testament. If you can make an extra-scriptural exception for that nonsense why the hostility towards Traditional priesthood?
34 posted on 06/13/2010 6:28:14 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson