My advice is that when someone insists on perishing in the heresy of Korah, let em'.
Posted on 08/01/2015 3:50:22 PM PDT by Salvation
“Then I will have to insist that from now on all non-Catholics use these words as they were initially used and only that way from now on...”
Actually, you should insist that everyone, Catholic, Baptist or Hindu, interpret an author using the meaning of the word at the time the author used it.
That goes for every word in the New Testament - interpret it using the meaning the Apostle attached, rather than one that developed 1,000 years later.
Heck, I’d love it if judges would do the same with the US Constitution! I’m not a Kagan or Ginsburg, not when looking at the Constitution and not when looking at scripture...or Beowulf.
My advice is that when someone insists on perishing in the heresy of Korah, let em'.
Paul called all believers a royal priesthood. Christ is our great High Priest we need no other. Teachers, elders, pastors serve their purpose in the Body. Christs once for all sacrifice has been made for sin, there is no further need for a priest to stand between God and His people or to offer a sacrifice on their behalf.
Back to propaganda. No, it is a difference of theology and understanding. The word Presbyter only means “elder Man”. That is the literal meaning, as opposed to younger man. That is all one can say definitively the word means.
The issue at had is what did “those elders” do in terms of ministry. You all say all they did was govern Churches, maybe teach, and preach, etc.
Catholics see that Presbyters received the same ministry that the Apostles received from Christ, offering the Eucharist has by its very nature a “sacrificial nature”, The Epistle of Saints James speaks of elders “anointing the sick” which is a priestly function, forgiving sins or hearing confessions, which are again ministries the APostles received from Christ and now as the Apostles pass on, these “older men (elders)” are in terms of ministry performing “priestly ministries”.
Saint Paul does indeed describe his ministry as a “priestly service of the Gospel” (cf. Romans 15:16].
In 2 Corinthians 2:10-11 Saint Paul writes “Anyone whom you forgive I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if anything for your sake in the presence of Christ to Keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us...
The Greek for “in the presence of Christ” is en prosopo Christou” The word prosopo means “in the face of “ and the Latin equivalent is “in persona”, which is how Saint Jerome translated this passage in the Vulgate, hence Saint Paul is forgiving “In persona Christi” These words are connected to the Trinitarian Dogmas defined at Nicea in 325 and Constantinopile in 381. As early as Tertullian, while he was still an orthodox Catholic, the word Persona was being used to speak of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Greek theologians in the 4th century used Prosopo, the word in 2 Corinthians 2:10-11 to translate the Latin “persona”
Thus, in the context of the passage, it seems pretty clear to both Catholics and Eastern ORthodox that Saint Paul was not only acting in the presence/person/face of Christ, but performing a Priestly Ministry.
To this Day, In the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Tradition, the Penitent goes to confession and the Priest has an Icon of Christ and says something to the effect Christ is hear invisibly, the Icon is a reminder of who is forgiving, the Priest is his witness and is speaking words only in the person-face of Christ.
So you use the word propaganda to describe the Catholic position, I could just as easily say your protestant understanding is propaganda.
The reality is the word Presbyter means “elder man” PERIOD. That is all it means, this entire debate centers on what did these “elders” do in terms of ministry. Catholics and Orthodox say they acted in the person/presence of Christ and performed priestly ministries, you Protestants say all they did was admin duties and preaching and teaching, etc.
Ok, that is what it is.
What are you doing on a RF thread making sense like that?
As your premise is wrong so is your question. The issue is not that the meaning of words change, but that of the validity of the change, and of it being defended by inferring the original word (which was only used in a specific office) it evolved from originally meant the same thing, as having equivalence, as elder/senior does to presbuteros. So that since presbyteros incorrectly became priest from preost, therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors.
Since we are dealing with a often used but specific word which is only used for Jewish and pagan priests, and never for NT pastors, the issue is the basis for doing what the Holy Spirit never did. Which, as said, was a result of imposed functional equivalence, ascribing to NT pastors a unique sacerdotal function they are never shown to have, based upon the erroneous premise that the Lord's supper is a sacrifice uniquely officiated by NT presbyteros.
However, as regards your examples (you should have provided the English words also), these fail to help your case since they do not deal with often used words which were only used to denote a specific function/office, and latter applied to another office under the premise that they denote the same specific function of office.
πτόησιν 1 Peter 3:6
(1Pe 3:6) Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement [πτόησιν].
Amazement (KJV); intimidation (NAB). This word only occurs once in Scripture, and from denotes alarm. How this is basically used differently today is not stated, nor how a word with a specific distinctive meaning and use would defend using it to denote those of a specific office of function which Scripture never used it for or describes them engaging in, and for whom a different word was used.
μεριμνᾷς Luke 10:41
(Luk 10:41) And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful [μεριμνᾷς] and troubled about many things: Careful (KJV; DRB); burdened (NAB). The word denotes concern, anxiety, being burdened, stress by concerns, thus its used elsewhere denotes the same, as in "take no thought [μεριμνᾷς] what ye shall eat." How this is used differently today is not stated, as it would basically mean the same thing.
How this is basically used differently today is not stated,nor how a word with a specific meaning and use would defend using it to denote those of a specific office of function which Scripture never used it for or describes them engaging in.
ἀναστροφήν Galations 1:13
(Gal 1:13) For you have heard of my conversation [ἀναστροφήν] in time past in the Jews' religion: how that, beyond measure, I persecuted the church of God and wasted it.
Conversation (KJV; DRB); way of life (NAB). The word denotes how one conducts himself, behavior, lifestyle, and is consistently used that way in the KJV. "Criminal conversation" is a legal term having to do with adultery, and is used today to denote how conducts himself in speech. This does not support using a word with a distinctive use to denote those of a specific office of function which Scripture never used it for, and for whom a different word was used.
If the word was used for persons who were not delegates, and to whom Scripture nowhere gives that title to, but to whom that function was later ascribed as a result of an interpretation of an event which would make them delegates, then this would be analogous to giving presbyteros the title hiereus which is only given to Jewish and pagan priests due to their unique sacerdotal function.
ἀπόστολος, Romans 1:1
(Rom 1:1) Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle [ἀπόστολος], separated unto the gospel of God,
Apostle (KJV; DRB; NAB) messenger (KJV; NAB, of Epaphroditus in Phil 2:25) Messenger (NAB in Jn. 13:16). This word basically means a delegate, and as such it also is not restricted to those of a specific office, and would not defend using a distinctive word which was only used for those of a specific office to denote an office of function which Scripture never used it for and for whom a different word was used, but which function is ascribed to them by the interpretation of a practice.
εὐαγγελίου Mark 1:1
(Mar 1:1) The beginning of the gospel [εὐαγγελίου] of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
The word means good message, and as such is only translated gospel in the KJV. How this is basically used differently today is not stated, nor how a word with a specific meaning and use would defend using it to denote those of a specific office of function which Scripture never used it for or describes them engaging in and for whom a different word was used.
γραφὴ John 7:38
(Joh 7:38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture [γραφὴ] hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
The word basically means document, but is only used for Scripture (in the KJV at least). While its use as meaning another authoritative document in Scripture might be defended due to that basic meaning, in contrast, presbuteros literally means senior/elder and episkopos means superintendent/overseer, neither one denoting a unique sacerdotal function as "priest" does.
Scripturally, one can be an OT priest and also be an elder, but Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47)
ἐπισκευασάμενοι Acts 21:15
Act 21:15 And after those days we took up our carriages [ἀποσκευασάμενοι in KJV], and went up to Jerusalem.
The word only occurs here, and denotes to pack up ("made preparations" in NAB; "prepared" in DRB). How this is basically used differently today is not stated, nor how a word with a specific meaning and use would justify using it to denote those of a specific office of function which Scripture never used it for or describes them engaging in, and for whom a different word was used.
ἐπίσαγμα Leviticus 15:9
Lev 15:9 And what saddle soever he rideth upon that hath the issue shall be unclean.
The words mean pack-saddle, but I do not have the resources now to search this out nor see how it any more relevant to the other examples.
λαμπρὰν James 2:2-3
(Jas 2:3) And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay [λαμπρὰν] clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
The word denotes radiant, bright, clear, or gorgeous, fine, which could thus denote "gay" clothing (as well as a clear as crystal river) when the KJV was written (and "leasing" meant lying). Which was a valid translation, consistent to what the original conveyed . But if this term was only used for a specific type of person or office, and later was distinctively used for those of an office for which a different word was used, and never the former term, and which adoption was based upon a presumed functional equivalence, then this would be analogous to giving presbyteros the distinctive title hiereus which is only given to Jewish and pagan priests, in recognition of their unique sacerdotal function.
Do we really think Paul would not be in agreement with this body of believers in forgiving this individual?
We should note that the church did not come to Paul asking for this man's forgiveness....whatever wrong was committed had already been forgiven.
Paul is in agreement with the church to forgive this person. He states the reason why: so as not to give Satan an advantage.
If a Christian brother/sister comes to you and asks forgiveness....would you not forgive them?
Colossians 2:13-14 notes all of our sins have been forgiven and nailed to the Cross....where they remain today.
What not an except with a link?
You may have made paragraphs but it is still a wall of text to read.
I didn’t take the time to read it.
I’m a priest and I have better things to do with my time.
You are wrong.
βιβλίο Book
πτόησιν 1 Peter 3:6 Terror
μεριμνᾷς Luke 10:41 careful/
ἀναστροφήν Galations 1:13 conversation (1) way of life,
ἀπόστολος, Romans 1:1 One who is sent
εὐαγγελίου Mark 1:1 Good news
γραφὴ John 7:38 writing
ἐπισκευασάμενοι Acts 21:15 Carriages
ἐπίσαγμα Leviticus 15:9 Furniture
λαμπρὰν James 2:2-3 Gay
I feel pretty; oh so pretty.
I feel pretty and witty and GAY!
Could you post your source for the definitions?
Rather, all of them are what one source says, and are all within that scope of meaning, and thus most can have variations in translations, as searching even Cath. translations will show, but unlike presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) meaning "priest," one who offers sacrifices, which title NT pastors are never distinctively given.
Plastic Meaning: How changes in language over time affect Bible translations
What do words in the King James Bible MEAN?
King James Bible Wordlist & Definitions
You will note that none of them is a Catholic Site.
Enjoyed the links, thanks!
Good links and information. It reinforces the need to understand the text in the original language and context in which they were written.
ealgeone:
I am not debating that part of the passage, clearly this is in line with the Lord’s prayer where we forgive others, that is not the point.
But nowhere in that context our we forgiving others sins in the context that Saint Paul speaks of for Saint Paul clearly is clearly stating if he forgives, he does so “in the person [prosopo]” of Christ. In other words, he is acting in a priestly ministry of making visible Christ and forgiving in his person or put another way, Christ forgives but Saint Paul is his priestly minister such that Christ acts through him. Saint Paul as an Apostle is forgiving consistent with the manner Christ gave the Apostles in the Gospels [John 20:19-20; Mt 18:18]. All I am stating is that these Passages point to the Apostles [Saint Paul included] performing priestly ministries, i.e. Forgiving sins in Christ Name or as Saint Paul states “In the Person of Christ” [2 Cor. 2:11]. Christ command for the Apostles to celebrate the Rite of the Eucharist in Liturgical language [Mt 26: 26-29; Mark 14: 22-25; Luke 19: 19-20; 1 Corinthians 10: 16-17, 11:23-30]. Christ commanded the apostles to Heal the Sick and annoint with oil [Mt 10:38; Mark 6:12-13]. So all of These ministries are connected to the Eternal High Priest, Christ himself and thus the Apostles [meaning Sent] are commanded to share in Christ priesthood by performing priestly ministries.
If you want to debate that issue, then you are not being honest. The issue of this thread is after the Apostles died, did Christ priestly ministry continue with the “Presbyters {Elders}. Again, the literal meaning of the word Presbyter is “Older Man” it only describes Gender [Male] and Age [Older]. There is no clear directive of what the ministries of Elders is to be in the NT.
So at this point, we all have are theological principles to determine how we analyze the data in the NT. As I stated earlier, Saint Paul in Romans 12:1-2 describes worship as a Spiritual sacrifice [priestly connotation]. Later he decribes his entire ministry as “priestly service of the Gospel” [Romans 15:16]. If you read 2 Corinthians 2: 10-15, you will see after Saint Paul states he forgives “in the Person of Christ” he mentions Titus and he then goes on to say Christ Through us [Saint Paul and his co-workers, i.e. Titus, Timothy, etc] spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him...for we are the aroma of Christ...
The words Aroma and fragrance in the OT clearly have priestly connections to the OT and were used to describe the pleasing odor of sacrifices offered to God [Gen 8:21; Ex 18:18; Lev 1:9-13; Ex 15:3]. These are but a few passages that speak of Fragrance, Aromoa, odor, etc [By most counts, this type imagery is used some 40 times in the OT] and they all have priestly connections. THus, Saint Paul drawing on these themes clearly is reinterpreting them in the context of Christ and the NT, but the fact that he uses so much “priestly terms” suggest he does indeed see his Apostolic Ministry, and by extension his coworkers Titus and Timothy’s [Both Bishops] ministry as priestly.
So what we are left with is “What was the role of Elders”. Again, the NT is not too clear. The clearest directive is in James 5: 14-16 where the Presbyters [Elders” are called and asked to pray over the sick, annoint them with oil in the name of the Lord, and in this Rite of Annointing the Sick, sins are forgiven. So now these Presbyters are sharing in the Apostles commission received from Christ to Heal the Sick [Mt 10:8, which is right after the 12 were called] and annoint with oil [See Mission of the 12 passage in Mark 6: 7-13 and forgive sins, which are all priestly ministries. We see elders/presbyters in Acts 15:2, 6, 22-23 but all it says is they were with the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem, which suggest they were more than just a ruling group of older men at local churches, they were at the Council to help clear up the theological question at hand, etc. No definition of there ministry here. 1 Timothy 4:14 speaks of the elders laying on hands to ordain other men, which begs the question, where did they get the authority to lay on hands to ordain, the only logical explanation is that Saint Paul ordained Timothy, a Bishop who then ordained presbyters. 1 Timothy 5: 17 speaks of presbyters who rule being worthy of double honor, especially those who preach [So authority and preaching are 2 duties listed here]. 1 Timothy 5: 22 states that Timothy should not be hasty to lay on hands [ordain a man to the presbyters] so ordaining using the Rite of Laying on of hands is a duty to a Bishop in this context. Titus 1:5 is consistent with Paul’s directive to Timothy to Appoint presbyters to every town [no Definition of the ministry of Presbyters here]
2 John 1 we see Saint John saying “The Elder/presbyter to the elect lday... and in 3 John 1 we see The Elder to the beloved Gaius. Well Saint John was clearly a presbyter [Older man] but he was also an Apostle. Thus he was both and as the Gospels clearly indicate the Apostles were commanded by Christ to perform priestly ministries. So in the context of Saint John the Apostle, who was an Elder, he was commanded to heal the sick, annoint the sick, here confessions and forgive sins in Christ name, and celebrate the Eucharist {do this in memory of me], all which have priestly functions. 1 Peter 5: 1 we see Saint Peter, again an Apostle writing to elders as a fellow elder. So again, Peter, like John, was both Apostle and Elder, and he too was commanded to carry out Christ priestly ministry, yet he calls himself a presbyter, but we know he was an Apostle. So is it possible that the fact that Saint Peter and John, who were both Apostles, in using the word presbyter to describe themselves, are in act connecting their Apostolic Ministry to the ministry of the presbyters [elders]. I for one believe that is the case.
In summary, as I said at the top, the word Presbyter means literally “older Man” Nothing more and nothing less, as to what were the ministries that the presbyters were to perform, the NT is not that specific, to say that it does so, does not make it true. However, the weight of the evidence suggests that the role of presbyters was more than what the FR Protestants say it is, unless you want to throw out passages or books you don’t like [i.e. Saint James epistle]
Excellent post.
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.