Mr. R, Alex is right on the money with this comment. One of the earliest icon depictions of Christ is as "Christ the High Priest". Christians viewed Christ as the "High Priest" for at least 10 centuries before anyone heard of the Reformers.
The Church is the True Israel, yes.
Protestant translations routinely mistranslate the Bible as pertains to the office of priests and bishops.
Both “presbyteros”, priest and “episcopos”, bishop occur in the New Testament in numerous places.
But more important is the question not of terminology but of function. The foundational verse for Christian priesthood is “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19). Neither “priest” or “bishop” is used, but what we have here is Christ taking on the role of the priest giving the Eucharist and immediately commanding those present do it likewise. This establishes Christian ministerial priesthood: men consecrated to offer the sacrifice of Christ to their flock.
It is true that the office of bishop (that is, a priest capable of ordaining other priests) was not fully distinct from the office of priest because in most churches, given the small numbers of the faithful, the bishop was able to offer the Eucharist without delegating it to a priest, with the help only of deacons.
It is also true that the Christian priesthood is not a mere continuation of Old Testament priesthood, for obvious reasons. It is a full-scale replacement.
Mr. R, Alex is right on the money with this comment. One of the earliest icon depictions of Christ is as "Christ the High Priest". Christians viewed Christ as the "High Priest" for at least 10 centuries before anyone heard of the Reformers.
“Protestant translations routinely mistranslate the Bible as pertains to the office of priests and bishops.”
Ummm...no. They translate what the words meant at the time, rather than what they came to mean after hundreds or a thousand years.
From Wiki:
“Some modern comentators believe that these presbyters may have been identical to the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops) and cite such passages as Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5,7 and 1 Peter 5:1 to support this claim.[2][3] The earliest post-apostolic writings, the Didache and Clement for example, show the church recognized two local church offices—elders (interchangeable term with overseer) and deacon.”
“[2] Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1997 edition revised 2005, page 211: “It seems that at first the terms ‘episcopos’ and ‘presbyter’ were used interchangeably ...”
[3] Cambridge History of Christianity, volume 1, 2006, “The general consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the first and second centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable.”
Christ was seen as High Priest at least since Hebrews was written:
“The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself...
...For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” — Heb 7 / 9
However, the writer of Hebrews doesn’t encourage the idea that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, requiring a human priest. For one thing, it is repeatedly pointed out that the sacrifice of Jesus is PAST, and that “he did this once for all”. And it also points out that Jesus is the one acting as Priest, not any human. He offers himself - he is not offered by a man.
How can that which was grafted become the main vine? The graft either becomes incorporated into the vine or kills it and takes over.
Both “presbyteros”, priest and “episcopos”, bishop occur in the New Testament in numerous places...But more important is the question not of terminology but of function...The foundational verse for Christian priesthood is "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke 22:19)...This establishes Christian ministerial priesthood: men consecrated to offer the sacrifice of Christ to their flock.
With all due respect, Alex, that is pure nonsense. I don't even want to go into this, because it would be tangential the topic, but suffice it to say that Chrstian priesthood evolved.
The Greek word for priest, Alex, is ἱερεύς (hierus), and you know that. One way or another, the word appears in the NT 30 times. It is a title for the one who offers sacrifices (the one who was to burn incense, as per Luke 1:9), and the priest's office or priesthood, is known as ἱερατεία (hierateia).
The difference is that the New Testament writers associated the terms priest(hood) with Jewish priest(hood), and did not think of their Apostles, and later of their elders (seniores in Latin translations, i.e. seniors) as being a "continuation" of Aaronic priesthood.
The ealriest Christians *and that certainly includes the Apostles) were still Jews, and in Judaism the priesthood is associated only with the Temple in Jerusalem and was an inherited tribal brithright and not a temporal appointment.
Clearly, then, no ordinary Jew, unless he was a Levi, could pretend to be a priest, and as far as I know, none of the 13 was a Levi. But anyone could offer thanks. That doesn't make one a priest!
Thus, offering thanks (as rabbis do at Seder) is not to be confused with offering sacrifice, or confusing rabbis with priests.
The fusion of the Christian presbyters with priestly fucntions of offering an actual sacrifice is a later development in the Church and not part of the pre-Jamnia Church.
Early Christians, being Jews, were not offering sacrifices, as that would have been contrary to their Jewish religious beliefs, and probably sufficient reason to be stoned to death.
That's why they call the Eucharist the "breaking of the bread" and do not speak of it as a "sacrifice" anywhere in the New Testament.
Of course, as the manuscript dates get closer and closer to the second century, so do New Testament concepts begin to change and attain their more familiar derived Christian meaning. That's why it is only in 1 Pet 2:5 that we see introduction of the "spiritual priesthood" and "spiritual sacrifice" (how convenient).
As for prebyteros not meaning "elder", you know you are not telling thew truth, Alex, because you know Greek (as well as Kolo, by his own admission). You know, then, that presbys means elderly and that the one who is presbys is older then the rest. Therefore, the Latin translation of presbyteros as senior is spot on!
As for episkopos not meaning "senior" you are right. Epi simply means "over" and skopos means "watchmen" — therefore, an "over-seer," or a Latin (literal) equivalent "super-visor" (from vision), one who is put in charge to make sure all tings are done right, a manager, one charged with overseeing things, a senior member in a work group.
Neither term means a "priest" directly or indirectly, and does not imply priestly duties. Priesthood was limited to the Temple in Jerusalem. Having a clear contextual picture of the environment in which the early church operated is crucial to unbderstahding how things evolved, Alex. Sometimes, the reality does not match the official truth or the myth that was either created or took hold on its own.
The early Christians attended service in synagogues (until they were thrown out of them, most probably following Jamnia's rejection of Christianity as a Jewish sect, at the end of the first century). You don't think they were making Eucharistic sacrifices in the synagogues, do you!?!
Paul never talks about making Eucharistic sacrifices. Why do you think that is, Alex? Neither does Mark, Matthew or John.
Christianity evolved. It's not something that just happened. The Church on day one in 33 AD would not have been the Catholic Church as we know it, theologically, ecclesiastically or ritually. Neither would its elders be the kind of hierarchy we see today. It's apples and oranges.