Is 'Priest' biblical?

[Rev. Lowery]

psalms 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.

It doesn't mean that Gods name is holy and reverend. It means Gods name _____ is holy and reverend. This implies a different meaning when used by clergy its simply a position and not meant to mean that I or anyone else is revered.

To be Biblically correct my name should read,

Bishop Lowery

Bishop is often not understood here in the USA as a Protestant title for clergy but is often used by the RCC so I went with Rev. instead its more widely understood but I prefer Preacher, Brother, Bishop, Minister, or Pastor. On all official mailings and such I use Rev. Dr.

 

[Matt Black]

Eliyahu, you can't stop other BB members from posting in response to your posts! If you don't want them to respond, then don't psot anything yourself...

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
You can say anything you please. It doesn't trouble me a bit. If it gives you pleasure, go for it.

Cheers,

Jim

You must have a hard time to pretent to look holy as Chemarim, don't you?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Eliyahu, you can't stop other BB members from posting in response to your posts! If you don't want them to respond, then don't psot anything yourself...

Matt, it is quite possible to avoid any further crashes by not responding to any specific person if the person state the filthy words repeatedly.
I don't respond to him and he doesn't have to either.

Let's read the following:

Eliyahu said:
5. They appear in NT all the time as plural, except the case of definition , which rules out the Mono-Pastoral system, which means that every local church had several elders, not the single, mono-pastoral dictator system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemnitz said
This not true, επισκοπον as it is in Titus 1:7 is singular. Just because it appears in the plural in other places does not mean every church has multiple and only multiple elders.


I mentioned the EXCEPTION of Definition because Definition ( or Qualification) is to be mentioned in singular by its nature. Let's say a Cow is a Mammal or has 4 feet. In that case, it is mentioned as singular by its nature.
In such case, should I say to him " Stupid man! commenting without reading the post properly!" as he comment to me " as he says :I was willing to leave the whole incident in the pass despite the deceitful remarks ?



Tit 1:7 explains Bishop should be such and such and therefore it is talking about qualification or definition. In other places like Phil 1:1, Acts 20:17, 20:28, elsewhere Episkope appears plural all the time.


He refused to apologize for what he said. What is the solution for these garbages?

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for spouting such filth.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
How dare you insinuate such garbage.

 

[Matt Black]

The solution is to stop bringing your earlier dispute up; you're not going to resolve it (except maybe by PM), so don't keep bringing it up and derailing this thread, otherwise you'll have the mods down on us and they'll probably have to close the thread, which would be a shame, particularly for Nate who started it. You were the one who referred to your dispute with Chemnitz, not Chemnitz - why on earth did you dig it up?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The solution is to stop bringing your earlier dispute up; you're not going to resolve it (except maybe by PM), so don't keep bringing it up and derailing this thread, otherwise you'll have the mods down on us and they'll probably have to close the thread, which would be a shame, particularly for Nate who started it. You were the one who referred to your dispute with Chemnitz, not Chemnitz - why on earth did you dig it up?

Whenever he continue to respond to me in the same way as he did before, the only way is to remind him of the past problem. I am not creating new filthy words but referring to what he said.
This is not the first time, and he continues. Anyway, I feel this has to be brought up to the Mods.

How would you say to the followings?


Originally posted by Chemnitz:
How dare you insinuate such garbage.

Satan was able to trick you into doubting God's promises for you and thereby drive you to the brink of destruction.

I was willing to leave the whole incident in the pass despite the deceitful remarks made towards men such as myself

 

[Matt Black]

Why is that old dispute relevant to this thread?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Rev. Lowery:
psalms 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.

It doesn't mean that Gods name is holy and reverend. It means Gods name _____ is holy and reverend. This implies a different meaning when used by clergy its simply a position and not meant to mean that I or anyone else is revered.

To be Biblically correct my name should read,

Bishop Lowery

Bishop is often not understood here in the USA as a Protestant title for clergy but is often used by the RCC so I went with Rev. instead its more widely understood but I prefer Preacher, Brother, Bishop, Minister, or Pastor. On all official mailings and such I use Rev. Dr.

Main point with Reverend is that such word is used for God, no human being is Reverend.

Jesus kindly ask us to be called simply " Brethren" as in Mt 23:8, and the Bishops or Elders were called Brothers each other as we read :

Brother Paul ( 2Pet 3:15), calling Bishops in Philippi ( Phil 1:1, 3:1)and Brother appears about 330 times in NT and more than half of them were used for meaning Brothers in Christ.

There is no distinction between Laymen and Clergymen. There is no first class and second class believers in the church.
All believers are the Priests ( 1 Pet 2:5-9, Rev 1:6, Rev 5:10)

We used to call any preachers in our church as Brothers. If they are elders, we call them " Brothers working as elders" which is quite biblical.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Why is that old dispute relevant to this thread?

To avoid any further dispute.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Why is that old dispute relevant to this thread?

To avoid any further dispute.

 

[Chemnitz]

duplicate

 

[Chemnitz]

They appear in NT all the time as plural, except the case of definition ,

So sue me for missing one little phrase , not everything people do is out of maliciousness. I goofed all you had to do was point out the mistake, not accuse me of being deceitful.

But it still doesn't prove your point that it is against Scripture to have only one pastor in a congregation. In fact, the number of pastors for a congregation is never spelled out. All you have are a bunch of inferences that do not prove your point, because they can be easily explained as men from different congregations from with in the same city or region.

Why is that old dispute relevant to this thread?

I can tell you why it is relevant, Matt, it is the oldest trick in the book. When you know you can not win the debate by facts, you try to win by trying to cast doubt on the honesty of the opposition.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
Why is that old dispute relevant to this thread?

To avoid any further dispute. </font>[/QUOTE]How does raking over the coals from another thread like this 'avoid any further dispute'? Your reasoning strikes me as being about as logical as a pork chop at a bar mitzvah

 

[Chemnitz]

How does raking over the coals from another thread like this 'avoid any further dispute'? Your reasoning strikes me as being about as logical as a pork chop at a bar mitzvah

MMMMM... Pork Chops.

 

[Eliyahu]

I enjoy these garbages burning on the Charcoal !

Chemnitz said

Satan was able to trick you into doubting God's promises for you and thereby drive you to the brink of destruction.

How dare you insinuate such garbage.


You ought to be ashamed of yourself for spouting such filth

I was willing to leave the whole incident in the pass despite the deceitful remarks made towards men such as myself

Shame on him and his advocators!

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
To avoid any further dispute.

That's the only reason you are on this board...to rant and to rave. So stop posting in any of these forums-if you do not want "further dispute".

 

[Eliyahu]

As the poster refuse to apologize and continue to spout out the dirty words, it is very much appropriate that I remind him of what he spouted out and I will enjoy it!
I don't rant but reveal what kind of man he is! Telling the truth whenever he respond to me with the false and wrong accusation.

 

[Jim1999]

You mean when you poured the same vindictiveness on me, when, in fact, I did nothing to you?

I see, enjoy yourself. I am confidant about who I am, and suffer no insecurities.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Chemnitz]

You mean when you poured the same vindictiveness on me, when, in fact, I did nothing to you?

I see, enjoy yourself. I am confidant about who I am, and suffer no insecurities.

Cheers,

Jim

Shame he did that to you Jim. Personally, I think you are great guy, Always so cheerful . I guess he was not satisfied pour out his vitrolic words on me. Funny part is, I never used any 'dirty' words, go figure.

Cheers,

Chemnitz

 

[BobRyan]

knowing how much the pro-RCC faction here hates to see RC sources quoted --

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church"

pg 49
"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the OT priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule..for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"
Ibid Pg 50 “The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with its features borrowed from Paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage”

How did the Pope and the Papacy “evolve”?

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church"
pg78 It may be true as some (Catholic) (and many non-Catholic) historians say, that the council of Nicaea “knew nothing of the doctrine of papal supremacy”
T. Jalland acknowledges that Until the fourth century the church had hardly yet accustomed itself to “speak in the language of jurisdiction whether Papal or otherwise”.
(Pope) Damasus (366-384) was the first to formally “Claim” the possession of “primacy” over all other churches. (At a council in 382). His claim was not made by virtue of any conciliar decisions. Ibid pg 78
“he (Pope Gregory (604) established the Popes as de facto rulers of central Italy, he strengthened the papal supremacy over the churches of the West… in DEFAULT of ANY strong leadership from the civil authorities he BECAME the Ruler of central Italy and PREPARED the WAY for Papal CONTROL of the Papal states” ibid 92
“Gaul and Spain still maintained a practical Independence…he “accustomed them” to look to Rome ibid 92.

(In fact his claim was made in the same form as the claims made in the “Donation of Constantine”. He asserted that it was Peter’s right retroactively and then presumed that all who claimed succession to Peter must also have this grandfathered “right” given to Peter from the Bishop of Rome)
NOTE:
The term “pontiff” formerly applied to any bishop, but became corrupted when adopted by the “supreme pontiff” as Pontifex Maximus, an exclusively pagan title. Many bishops employed the title “pope” (meaning “father”) in the early Church. Pope Leo in the fifth century was the first to use it officially. Pope Gregory in the eleventh century, by decree, reserved the title for the Bishop of Rome.
[/quote]