Is 'Priest' biblical?

[Chemnitz]

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

Don't bother me none.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Knowing...

Great I'm glad some RCC apologist wrote about the term Priest. We are discussing whether or not the term is biblical and I have yet to see a reasoned response to my first two posts. and Matt's original point.

 

[Jim1999]

Have you prayed for Roman Catholics to-day? Might be a good place to start the day. You know, if we take the words in the Bible literally, we could be in all kinds of jams. For instance, "reverend and holy is His name." That means we can't ever use the term "holy" in an address, and with "call no man on earth father" we are stuck with our own male parent...I guess that's why we called him "pa". Yes, I do know the real meaning, but it shows how simple we can get over some words without appreciating what they meant to the original audience.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
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 [/QB]

Are these not dirty words?

I know you have much dirtier words in your mouth which are not spouted yet.

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
[/QUOTE]

Shame on him and his advocators.

 

[Chemnitz]

No, just truthful commentary on things that you have said. Maybe instead of bringing them up every few post you should spend your time contemplating why someone would respond to things you have said in such a way as that. I will help you out, it wasn't because you were telling the truth.

Besides the B-Board doesn't allow the use of dirty words.

 

[Eliyahu]

You must remember the reminder is given from time to time as you refuse the simple apology and continue to make the false accusation. I was telling the truth according to the Bible. If you were on the truth, you didn't have to say so. You may feel ashamed about what you said, or you may be proud of it.

 

[Matt Black]

I fail to see how Chemnitz has used a 'dirty word'. If he had, it would have been deleted by the mods as swearing and ad hominem remarks aren't allowed here.

IIRC, you made an unhelpful allegation about Lutheran pastors and Chemnitz, understandably IMO given the remark, got angry with you and challenged you on your allegation. No 'dirty words' were said. What's your problem?

 

[Eliyahu]

Then, what is your problem if I re-post the words that he posted, if they are not dirty ?
I mentioned the facts about the Lutheran Pastor who used to carry a bottle of wine and taking cigar. Are you angry about Mohammed Cartoon?

 

[Matt Black]

Unless you should substantiate your allegation about the Lutheran pastor with some evidence, then you shouldn't make such an allegation.

My problem with you reposting the words is not that they are 'dirty' (they are not) but that they are wholly irrelevant to and are derailing this thread.

 

[Eliyahu]

How do you accept that Satan tricks me ?
Do you know how he can substantiate the allegation? That comment happened much before I talked about Lutheran Pastor. Do you think it is wise to continue to debate on such bases?
If the words are not dirty, it will be OK for me to re-post them
As for irrelevance, I told you that he should not respond to me to avoid any further unpleasant talks, but if he continues to do so, then I would remind such unpleasant talks, as the future result will be the same unless he rescind them, therefore it is relevant!

 

[Jim1999]

Back to the priest thing.

I grew up in a patriarchal England. The woman was meant to serve the man. That's how it was. There has been some progression over the years and women are less subservient to-day. I say less because I still detect the overlording in some circles.

I think the church is much the same. Whilst there are certain principles in scripture that are cast in concrete, whilst there are other concerns that have changed with the times. The changes do not affect our worship of God, our belief in the word, and certainly not our salvation or dedication to the Lord Jesus.

We, therefore, ought to be more concerned about the concrete things of the word, and not sweat about the little things. Whether a leader calls himself or herself "priest", "father" "archbishop" or "minister" it just doesn't matter. It doesn't affect how we serve and present the gospel of Christ.

Cheers,

Jim, vicar emeritus of Christ Church (Anglican) of Tamworth.

 

[Chemnitz]

Do you know how he can substantiate the allegation?

You, Eliyahu, once admitted on the board to being suicidally depressed to the point of nearly strapping a bomb to yourself. I would call that level of despair a trick of Satan.

 

[Eliyahu]

Maybe you have a special relationship with him like father and son as mentioned by Jesus in John 8:44, that's why you know it.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
Whether a leader calls himself or herself "priest", "father" "archbishop" or "minister" it just doesn't matter. It doesn't affect how we serve and present the gospel of Christ.
[/QB]

Sounds like that we can change the name or title if the intention is good for the Lord.
Some organization calls the leader as Chairman or Director inside the church. Bible is not insufficient for teaching us for the new era and any human idea cannot improve what God has demonstrated in the Bible.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Maybe you have a special relationship with him like father and son as mentioned by Jesus in John 8:44, that's why you know it.

Now, if that's not a personal attack, then I don't know what is.

 

[Chemnitz]

Maybe you have a special relationship with him like father and son as mentioned by Jesus in John 8:44, that's why you know it.

Not quite, more like know your enemy.

Now, if that's not a personal attack, then I don't know what is.

Not the first time he has tried to tar me with that brush.

Originally posted by Jim1999:
Whether a leader calls himself or herself "priest", "father" "archbishop" or "minister" it just doesn't matter. It doesn't affect how we serve and present the gospel of Christ.

Sounds like that we can change the name or title if the intention is good for the Lord.
Some organization calls the leader as Chairman or Director inside the church. Bible is not insufficient for teaching us for the new era and any human idea cannot improve what God has demonstrated in the Bible.

Well if it doesn't matter, I think I will stick with pastor.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Sounds like that we can change the name or title if the intention is good for the Lord.
Some organization calls the leader as Chairman or Director inside the church. Bible is not insufficient for teaching us for the new era and any human idea cannot improve what God has demonstrated in the Bible.

Yet you have no Scripture to back any of this. While on the other hand using Dictionaries we have traced the roots of the English word Priest back to Presbyter a word Paul himself used was St. Paul wrong?

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
We, therefore, ought to be more concerned about the concrete things of the word, and not sweat about the little things. Whether a leader calls himself or herself "priest", "father" "archbishop" or "minister" it just doesn't matter. It doesn't affect how we serve and present the gospel of Christ.

Cheers,

Jim, vicar emeritus of Christ Church (Anglican) of Tamworth.

Good point I heartily concur.

 

[BobRyan]

First of all a "big thanks" to those pro-RC posters who either stated that they are happy to see that the RC quote below admits that the NT saints REFUSED to be called priests and to those that stated that they did not want to know how the early NT saints - Bible authors "Real Church fathers" thought of this - they simply want to know what the Bible says in the OT about priests!

Secondly - I am giving the post with "highlights" so that you have a harder time glossing over the incovenient details that refute your arguments.

Originally posted by 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"
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
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.
</font>[/QUOTE][/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

So my question is WHY do you suppose the saints of Bible times "REFUSED" to be called priests as the RC historian Bokenkotter points out in the quote above?

Why do we never see Paul calling Peter "priest" or Peter calling Paul a priest?

COULD it be that Heb 7 and 8 "thing" where the earthly priesthood ENDS??!!

Hmmm - how about that "sola scriptura" thing guys?

Looks like BOTH the "scritpure" and even the RC historians are debunking the "pro-priest" idea!

In Christ,

Bob