(Ron) Consistent Since Its Inception?
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sat, 09 May 1998 11:13:38 -0700 (00894759218, 2.2.32.19980509181338.0067c668@midwest.net)
At 11:06 PM 5/8/98 -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
>TILL
>There were no priests in the NT church in the sense that you're talking
>about. The book of Hebrews presents Jesus as the "high priest" of
>Christians, and 1 Peter 2:5, 9 describe Christians in general as a
>"holy" or "royal" priesthood. This view is also taught in Revelation 1:6
>(see also Revelation 5:10 and 20:6). So in the NT church all Christians
>were priests, just as all Christians were saints, but there were no priests
>who got their jollies from sitting in booths listening to people catalogue
>their sins. If I'm wrong, then show me where the NT teaches that there was
>any such office. I have shown that the NT used the terms "elders" and
>"bishops" interchangeably. Despite Taylor's etymological comments, he
>did not remove the fact that the terms were used interchangeably in the
>NT, as I showed in my posting on the subject. Read Titus 1:5-7 again and
>try to notice that "Paul" told Titus to appoint "elders" in every city. He
>then proceeded to give the qualifications that they should have: blameless,
>the husband of one wife, children who believe and are not accused of being
>riotous or unruly (v:6). He then stated why these qualifications were
>necessary: "For [because] the BISHOP must be blameless...." That's
>clear enough that even you should see it. "Elders" were to be appointed
>who had certain qualifications, and the qualifications were essential
>because a BISHOP should be blameless. I also pointed out that Acts
>20:17 states that when Paul was in Miletus, he called to him the ELDERS
>of the church at Ephesus and made a speech in which he said that the
>Holy Spirit had made them BISHOPS. Now that is also clear enough that
>you should see that these elders were bishops, and these bishops were
>elders. The concept of A bishop who was THE top dog in a congregation
>began to develop in the 2nd century.
>
>Peter was the first pope? I'd like to see your proof of that. It's very
>telling that you said nothing about my posting that showed clear
>indications that James was the big wheel in the Jerusalem church and that
>even Peter recognized this. Apparently your way of responding to
>postings that disprove your Catholic views is to ignore them.
>
>RON
> Where you make your mistake is in the assumtion that the greek word
>"heiros", translated as "priest" (as in "high priest") is the same word
>as "presbyteros", which is translated as "elder" in english TRANSLATIONS
>of the N.T.
TILL
No, I'm not assuming that. Where have I even implied such a thing? My
argument has been that the NT writers used the terms "elders" and "bishops"
interchangeably to refer to the same church "office," and this indicates
that in the NT church elders were bishops and bishops were elders. They
were the same.
RON
>The english word "priest" is derived from the latter
(presbyteros-prester-priest).
>So when the Bible says we are all "priests", the word is "heiros" not
>"presbyteros" elder.
TILL
What does the etymology of the English word "priest" have to do with this?
If the Greek word "heiros" meant to Greeks what the word "priest" means to
those who speak English, then it would be true that the NT taught that all
Christians are "priests," and the derivation of the word "priest" would be
irrelevant. You're trying to impose the Catholic concept of "priest" onto
the meaning of the Greek text.
RON
> The offices of the ministers in the Church are derived from those of
>the synagogue, not the Temple, though the ritual in both was patterned
>to some extent after that of the Temple. Hence in the church the Seat of
>Moses is replaced by that of the Bishop. The Elders are still "Elders",
>with one important distinction: the hierarchy of the Church was
>instituted by God (Christ) while that of the synagogue was originally a
>teaching institution, not meant to replace the Temple, the ONLY place
>where the Jewish sacrifices could be performed.
TILL
Again you are arguing that because it is this way in the Catholic Church, it
has to be that NT writers used the terms "elders" and "bishops" in the same
way that Catholics now use them. I have shown that this is not true, and
you have repeatedly ignored the evidence.
1. When Paul was in Miletus, he called to him the "elders" of the church
at Ephesus, and in his speech to them, he said that the Holy Spirit had made
them "bishops" to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own
blood. Why won't you address this issue?
2. Paul left Titus in Crete to appoint "elders" in every city. Then he
proceeded to give the qualifications that these elders should possess.
After giving the qualifications, he gave the reason why they were necessary:
"For a BISHOP must be blameless...." Why won't you address this issue?
The problem is simple. What did the terms "elders" and "bishops" mean to
the NT writers when they used them in reference to the office of those who
were chosen to "feed the flock"? To decide what the words meant to them, we
must examine the contexts of the way the words were used THEN. How they may
be used now is irrelevant. If, for example, we wanted to know what Chaucer
meant in using a certain word, we would have to make that determination on
how the word was used THEN and not on how it is used now. This is obvious
enough that even you should be able to see it.
RON
> James was the "Big Wheel" of Jerusalem. Peter was the "Big Wheel" of
>the whole Church.
>
TILL
Of course, that's why Peter, the Big Wheel of the WHOLE church, was afraid
of what James might think about his eating with Gentiles (as Paul claimed
was the case in Galatians 2:11-17), and Paul withstood the Big Wheel of the
WHOLE church to his face, because it's just standard procedure in the
Catholic Church for underlings to square off against the pope.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net