bible passage

[Wesrock]

Presbyter describes their role, too. We do, after all, continue to call our priests Father. The Patriarchs also made offerings to God and had priestly duties.

But really, you may as well object to the language around the Trinity. This developed even later than the language regarding the presbyters. Why object to this type of development? There’s nothing wrong with it, and the implication you’re going for in that development doesn’t follow. Given the adherance to the past that was so important for the early fathers, and from which we have the Trinity, you’d think the development of priestly language suggests further clarification of existing tradition, not sudden changes. Nor do we have any evidence that the real presence was ever a new idea in Church history (you’d expect to see it if it was). Really, your objection to the later use of priest seems to actually have the reverse effect in strengthening the historicity of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and how traditional that view of it is.

 

[susanlo]

Presbyter describes their role, too. We do, after all, continue to call our priests Father. The Patriarchs also made offerings to God and had priestly duties.

But really, you may as well object to the language around the Trinity. This developed even later than the language regarding the presbyters. Why object to this type of development?

The term Trinity pre-dates a Christian leader or presbyter being termed a hiereus. Tertullian was defending the Trinity around 200AD. The term trinity is not in the Bible however the concept is throughout the Bible. I believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who work as one because it is in the Bible and not because it was decreed at a 4th century council.

There’s nothing wrong with it, and the implication you’re going for in that development doesn’t follow. Given the adherance to the past that was so important for the early fathers, and from which we have the Trinity, you’d think the development of priestly language suggests further clarification of existing tradition, not sudden changes.

I do think that the change from elder to priest was a slow development as the idea of the Eucharist developed into more of a sacrifice as opposed to a thank offering (or Todah Sacrifice).
“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind”
newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm
Here Justin Martyr is describing a different type of sacrifice then the later propitiatory sacrifice that developed over the centuries.

Nor do we have any evidence that the real presence was ever a new idea in Church history (you’d expect to see it if it was). Really, your objection to the later use of priest seems to actually have the reverse effect in strengthening the historicity of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and how traditional that view of it is.

Not everyone believed in transubstantiation for the first few centuries. Anglican historian JND Kelly describes the development of the idea of conversion of Eucharistic elements in his book I linked. He calls Cyril of Jerusalem the pioneer of the conversion doctrine on the next page (441). Whether transubstantiation occurs or not, it is clear that there used to be a variety of understandings on the elements of the Eucharist.

archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up/search/440
“In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap.** In the first place, the figurative or the symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support**. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”

 

[PRmerger]

The term Trinity pre-dates a Christian leader or presbyter being termed a hiereus. Tertullian was defending the Trinity around 200AD. The term trinity is not in the Bible however the concept is throughout the Bible.

Yep.

And so is the concept of the priesthood.

I believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who work as one because it is in the Bible and not because it was decreed at a 4th century council.

Firstly, you only know what’s in the Bible because it was decreed in a 4th century council, susan.

(And you didn’t answer the question I posed to you pages back: if the Church is fallible, how can you know that she got it right regarding the 27 book canon of the NT?)

Secondly, there is NO WAY that anyone can read the Bible and discern "God is three consubstantial persons—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit— as “one God in three Divine Persons”.

You read the Bible with the lens given to you by Sacred Tradition, and that’s how you can say that the Trinity is found in the Bible.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct when they ask: if you were raised on a desert island and someone left a Bible there, would you determine that God is 3 Persons in 1 God after reading it from cover to cover?

No. No one would.

 

[jcrichton]

I’d put it down to “rationalization”; we humans are really good at that. :sad_yes:

Hi, Gorgias!
I fully concur–I recently caught myself in that trap (‘cause they are taking advantage… so I will…’); thanks God the Holy Spirit convicted me in time to stop my foolishness! :getholy::getholy::getholy:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[susanlo]

Firstly, you only know what’s in the Bible because it was decreed in a 4th century council, susan.

(And you didn’t answer the question I posed to you pages back: if the Church is fallible, how can you know that she got it right regarding the 27 book canon of the NT?)

The Scriptures were written in the 1st century by the Apostles and those who were close to their ministry. Scripture was Scripture as soon as it was written. A few fallible humans may have been confused about certain texts, but in general the New Testament was immediately recognized.

1 Timothy 5:18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”** **
Footnotes:
a.1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
b.1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (ca. 95AD)
Chapter 47
“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

So Scripture was known to be inspired Scripture long before a council ever occurred. I believe that the right books were listed 300 years later at the councils. Being right and being infallible are 2 different things.

Secondly, there is NO WAY that anyone can read the Bible and discern "God is three consubstantial persons—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit— as “one God in three Divine Persons”.

You read the Bible with the lens given to you by Sacred Tradition, and that’s how you can say that the Trinity is found in the Bible.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct when they ask: if you were raised on a desert island and someone left a Bible there, would you determine that God is 3 Persons in 1 God after reading it from cover to cover?

No. No one would.

There is one God:
Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,

Isaiah 45:22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

1 Corinthians 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Jesus is God:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

John 8:58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
Reference to Old Testament - Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
The reaction of stoning Him shows that they realized the significance of what He was saying.

Jesus also refers to Himself as “the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” a few times in Revelation (1:8, 21:6 and 22:13). God refers to Himself as the first and the last in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit work together:
John 10:25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth.

Hebrews 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[a] so that we may serve the living God!

I think the case is pretty clear. What is in the Doctrine of the Trinity that isn’t Scriptural? I don’t understand why this question of the Trinity keeps arising on these forums.

 

[PRmerger]

The Scriptures were written in the 1st century by the Apostles and those who were close to their ministry.

Correct.

Scripture was Scripture as soon as it was written.

Yes.

A few fallible humans may have been confused about certain texts, but in general the New Testament was immediately recognized.

How?

And did everyone have the authority to “recognize” these texts as theopneustos?

And it sounds like you’re comparing the “fallible” humans who were in error with…“infallible” humans who knew what was inspired? Yes? Is that your position?

 

[PRmerger]

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (ca. 95AD)
Chapter 47
“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

So Scripture was known to be inspired Scripture long before a council ever occurred.

What about Hebrews? How did one “know” that this was theopneustos?

And why isn’t Clement’s letter inspired? He was one of those “close to the ministry” of the Apostles.

I believe that the right books were listed 300 years later at the councils. Being right and being infallible are 2 different things.

But how do you know they are “right”?

What if the Church erred, esp. since you don’t believe that men can be infallible (although, curiously, I assume you do believe that our first pope, when he wrote his first encyclical was infallible, yes?)

And can you please expound upon this “the early Christians just knew” what was theopneustos.

*How *did they know? Just from a feeling? A burning in their bosom?

And where do you get this info from that they “just knew” it? Is there a Bible verse that states that this would occur?

 

[PRmerger]

I think the case is pretty clear. What is in the Doctrine of the Trinity that isn’t Scriptural? I don’t understand why this question of the Trinity keeps arising on these forums.

All of the above verses you offered are great for providing apologia for the Trinity.

But they only work because you are reading those verses with a Trinitarian lens.

Were you to give the Bible to someone who had never heard of the Trinity, Christianity, the Incarnation… and ask him to read it from cover to cover and see if he can conclude “3 Divine Persons in One God”…he would never come up with that.

Not in a million years.

 

[susanlo]

What about Hebrews? How did one “know” that this was theopneustos?

And why isn’t Clement’s letter inspired? He was one of those “close to the ministry” of the Apostles.

But how do you know they are “right”?

What if the Church erred, esp. since you don’t believe that men can be infallible (although, curiously, I assume you do believe that our first pope, when he wrote his URL=“http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm#1 Peter”]first encyclical

was infallible, yes?)

And can you please expound upon this “the early Christians just knew” what was theopneustos.

*How *did they know? Just from a feeling? A burning in their bosom?

And where do you get this info from that they “just knew” it? Is there a Bible verse that states that this would occur?

Did Clement state he was writing under guidance of the Holy Spirit? I didn’t know that he - or more accurately the church that communally wrote the letter - stated that they were inspired.

I do not precisely know why Hebrews was accepted by many early on and questioned by others. I see Clement’s Roman church cited the book in his letter to the Corinthians in 95AD.

By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, “who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Hebrews 1:3-4 For it is thus written, “Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.” But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: “You are my Son, today have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the heathen for Your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession.” And again He says to Him, “Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool.” But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God.

Chapter 36 newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

The Apostles were not infallible. The Holy Spirit inspired them to write infallibly. They knew they were inspired and clearly conveyed this.

1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[a]

1 Thessalonians 4:15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

They knew that inspired writing was Scripture.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

 

[susanlo]

All of the above verses you offered are great for providing apologia for the Trinity.

But they only work because you are reading those verses with a Trinitarian lens.

Were you to give the Bible to someone who had never heard of the Trinity, Christianity, the Incarnation… and ask him to read it from cover to cover and see if he can conclude “3 Divine Persons in One God”…he would never come up with that.

Not in a million years.

What would they say the deity was after reading the Bible? Would they not know that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit existed? Would they not know Jesus was divine? Would they not know that there was one God? What information is the Bible lacking in?

 

[PRmerger]

Did Clement state he was writing under guidance of the Holy Spirit? I didn’t know that he - or more accurately the church that communally wrote the letter - stated that they were inspired.

Is that a requirement for something to be part of the Bible? He has to declare that he is under the guidance of the Holy Spirt?

I don’t see that in hardly any of the inspired writers–can you point me to where each of the authors says that they are writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Incidentally, Mohammad claimed to be writing Scripture, so does that make it s?

I do not precisely know why Hebrews was accepted by many early on and questioned by others

.

Exactly.

QED.

You go by the Church’s authority. Just like every other Christian.

I see Clement’s Roman church cited the book in his letter to the Corinthians in 95AD.

Chapter 36 newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Not sure what you’re saying here?

The Apostles were not infallible. The Holy Spirit inspired them to write infallibly.

Well, then! What exactly do you think infallibility is if not exactly what you describe above!

So you do believe in what the Catholic Church professes: men can be infallible.

They knew they were inspired and clearly conveyed this.

I would be interested to see your evidence for this.

Where does Mark say that he knew he was inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

What would they say the deity was after reading the Bible? Would they not know that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit existed? Would they not know Jesus was divine? Would they not know that there was one God? What information is the Bible lacking in?

They might espouse one of the dozens of heresies prescribed by folks who quoted the Bible but denied the Trinity.

Arianism
Docetism
Nestorianism
Monophysitism
Sabellianism

etc etc etc

Remember, all of those heretics read the Bible and used the Bible to support their heresies.

But they said: Trinity? Nah. The Bible doesn’t say that.

 

[Gorgias]

The term Trinity pre-dates a Christian leader or presbyter being termed a hiereus.

Here’s the thing, though: it’s anachronistic to expect that the earliest Christians would call their priests ‘hierus’. After all, a Jewish priest offered sacrifices of animals and foodstuffs, whereas a Christian priest did no such thing. With this in mind, it’s reasonable that Christians would call their leaders ‘presbyteros’ or ‘episkopos’, while refraining from calling them ‘hierus’. Following the destruction of the temple, however (at which point Jews absolutely lost the priesthood and its sacrificial offerings), things changed: Christians (who now were ejected from synagogue worship) were in a position to see that they were distinct from Jews – they still had a sacrifice and a person who re-presented that sacrifice at their worship services!

Moreover, the terms ‘presbyter’ and ‘elder’ were used somewhat interchangeably, even in the Bible! Look at Titus 1:5-7. Speaking of a single group of people, he calls them * πρεσβυτέρους in v.5, but * ἐπίσκοπον in v.7! (Similarly, in 1 Peter 5, he addresses them as ‘presbyterous’, but calls their role ‘episkopountes’. So, if you’re trying to make hay over the use of the word ‘presbyter’, it’s necessary to realize that it was the Apostles – that is, the first bishops – who were the episkopoi (‘overseers’ / ‘bishops’) and presbyteroi (what we would now call ‘priests’).

Tertullian was defending the Trinity around 200AD.

I do think that the change from elder to priest was a slow development as the idea of the Eucharist developed into more of a sacrifice as opposed to a thank offering (or Todah Sacrifice).

Not as slowly as you might think, however. The Didache exhorts the faithful, “assemble on the Lord’s Day, breaking bread and celebrating the Eucharist; but first confess your sins that your sacrifice may be a pure one.”

Moreover, the Didache speaks of those who offer sacrifice as ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’, and at 13.3 states, “every first-fruit… you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests”, using the term you’re looking for (ἀρχιερεῖς – ‘arch-hiereis’). So, at least as early as the first or second century AD, the Christian community was speaking of the Eucharist being led by a hierus.

Please note that this pre-dates Tertullian’s defense of the Trinity.

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind”

Here Justin Martyr is describing a different type of sacrifice then the [Eucharist].

You’re right – he is! In fact, in the sentence before your quote, Justin says, “you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices.” So, speaking to a Jew, he notes that his interlocutor, when referring to prayers, calls them ‘sacrifices’. Clearly, that’s not what Justin would consider a sacrifice. What, then, would Justin call a ‘sacrifice’? That’s easy – just look at the beginning of the paragraph you quoted, in which Justin, talking about Christian worship, says, “God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.”

Clearly, Justin is drawing a distinction between Christian sacrifice – which he explicitly calls ‘the Eucharist’ – and Jewish sacrifices of prayer. (Your quote kinda helps prove the Catholic case, not yours. )

Not everyone believed in transubstantiation for the first few centuries.

Transubstantiation only describes the ‘how’, not the ‘what’. The Christian communities believed that the Eucharist was Jesus, even though they hadn’t developed the theological language to describe it as happening through transubstantiation. The fact that this later description hadn’t yet been developed doesn’t imply that there was a different idea of what the Eucharist really was…

 

[jcrichton]

Here’s the thing, though: it’s anachronistic to expect that the earliest Christians would call their priests ‘hierus’. After all, a Jewish priest offered sacrifices of animals and foodstuffs, whereas a Christian priest did no such thing. With this in mind, it’s reasonable that Christians would call their leaders ‘presbyteros’ or ‘episkopos’, while refraining from calling them ‘hierus’. Following the destruction of the temple, however (at which point Jews absolutely lost the priesthood and its sacrificial offerings), things changed: Christians (who now were ejected from synagogue worship) were in a position to see that they were distinct from Jews – they still had a sacrifice and a person who re-presented that sacrifice at their worship services!

Moreover, the terms ‘presbyter’ and ‘elder’ were used somewhat interchangeably, even in the Bible! Look at Titus 1:5-7. Speaking of a single group of people, he calls them * πρεσβυτέρους in v.5, but * ἐπίσκοπον in v.7! (Similarly, in 1 Peter 5, he addresses them as ‘presbyterous’, but calls their role ‘episkopountes’. So, if you’re trying to make hay over the use of the word ‘presbyter’, it’s necessary to realize that it was the Apostles – that is, the first bishops – who were the episkopoi (‘overseers’ / ‘bishops’) and presbyteroi (what we would now call ‘priests’).

Not as slowly as you might think, however. The Didache exhorts the faithful, “assemble on the Lord’s Day, breaking bread and celebrating the Eucharist; but first confess your sins that your sacrifice may be a pure one.”

Moreover, the Didache speaks of those who offer sacrifice as ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’, and at 13.3 states, “every first-fruit… you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests”, using the term you’re looking for (ἀρχιερεῖς – ‘arch-hiereis’). So, at least as early as the first or second century AD, the Christian community was speaking of the Eucharist being led by a hierus.

Please note that this pre-dates Tertullian’s defense of the Trinity.

You’re right – he is! In fact, in the sentence before your quote, Justin says, “you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices.” So, speaking to a Jew, he notes that his interlocutor, when referring to prayers, calls them ‘sacrifices’. Clearly, that’s not what Justin would consider a sacrifice. What, then, would Justin call a ‘sacrifice’? That’s easy – just look at the beginning of the paragraph you quoted, in which Justin, talking about Christian worship, says, “God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.”

Clearly, Justin is drawing a distinction between Christian sacrifice – which he explicitly calls ‘the Eucharist’ – and Jewish sacrifices of prayer. (Your quote kinda helps prove the Catholic case, not yours. )

Transubstantiation only describes the ‘how’, not the ‘what’. The Christian communities believed that the Eucharist was Jesus, even though they hadn’t developed the theological language to describe it as happening through transubstantiation. The fact that this later description hadn’t yet been developed doesn’t imply that there was a different idea of what the Eucharist really was…

Hi, Gorgias!
Is the Didache found on-line?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[susanlo]

Here’s the thing, though: it’s anachronistic to expect that the earliest Christians would call their priests ‘hierus’. After all, a Jewish priest offered sacrifices of animals and foodstuffs, whereas a Christian priest did no such thing. With this in mind, it’s reasonable that Christians would call their leaders ‘presbyteros’ or ‘episkopos’, while refraining from calling them ‘hierus’. Following the destruction of the temple, however (at which point Jews absolutely lost the priesthood and its sacrificial offerings), things changed: Christians (who now were ejected from synagogue worship) were in a position to see that they were distinct from Jews – they still had a sacrifice and a person who re-presented that sacrifice at their worship services!

Yes. Many early Jewish Christians continued to make sacrifices at the temple. (Acts 21:26). They were still living under Jewish law. The Gentile converts could not be doing this. I think that the early Jewish Christians did not think that the Eucharist replaced their temple sacrifices by a priest.

Moreover, the terms ‘presbyter’ and ‘elder’ were used somewhat interchangeably, even in the Bible! Look at Titus 1:5-7. Speaking of a single group of people, he calls them * πρεσβυτέρους in v.5, but * ἐπίσκοπον in v.7! (Similarly, in 1 Peter 5, he addresses them as ‘presbyterous’, but calls their role ‘episkopountes’. So, if you’re trying to make hay over the use of the word ‘presbyter’, it’s necessary to realize that it was the Apostles – that is, the first bishops – who were the episkopoi (‘overseers’ / ‘bishops’) and presbyteroi (what we would now call ‘priests’).

Yes. The terms for leaders were used interchangeably. I understand that over the early centuries there became one bishop in each church. Later that changed to one bishop over multiple churches. This all developed over time.

Not as slowly as you might think, however. The Didache exhorts the faithful, “assemble on the Lord’s Day, breaking bread and celebrating the Eucharist; but first confess your sins that your sacrifice may be a pure one.”

Moreover, the Didache speaks of those who offer sacrifice as ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’, and at 13.3 states, “every first-fruit… you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests”, using the term you’re looking for (ἀρχιερεῖς – ‘arch-hiereis’). So, at least as early as the first or second century AD, the Christian community was speaking of the Eucharist being led by a hierus.

Please note that this pre-dates Tertullian’s defense of the Trinity.

But surely high priest is just used as an analogy to providing support to those God calls to serve in his church. Jesus is the one and only High Priest forever. (Does Catholicism have high priests?!?) Hebrews 6:20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/6-20.htm

The early Christians did refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. It was a thank offering or sacrifice of praise. Eucharist means thanksgiving. It was similar to the Old Testament Todah Sacrifice: catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/from-jewish-passover-to-christian-eucharist-the-story-of-the-todah.html

Continued…

 

[susanlo]

You’re right – he is! In fact, in the sentence before your quote, Justin says, “you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices.” So, speaking to a Jew, he notes that his interlocutor, when referring to prayers, calls them ‘sacrifices’. Clearly, that’s not what Justin would consider a sacrifice. What, then, would Justin call a ‘sacrifice’? That’s easy – just look at the beginning of the paragraph you quoted, in which Justin, talking about Christian worship, says, “God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.”

Clearly, Justin is drawing a distinction between Christian sacrifice – which he explicitly calls ‘the Eucharist’ – and Jewish sacrifices of prayer. (Your quote kinda helps prove the Catholic case, not yours. )

Justin does consider the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. This passage is about a prophecy in Malachi 1:10-11 10 “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands. 11 My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty.
The term for offering in these verses is minchah. This means: From an unused root meaning to apportion, i.e. Bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary) – gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice. biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/4503.htm
biblehub.com/text/malachi/1-10.htm
biblehub.com/text/malachi/1-11.htm

So the prophecy was about a voluntary gift and not a propitiatory animal sacrifice for sin.

Also in the Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr mentions:
“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time** thank God** for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”

Another example of a sacrifice of praise. This is different from a propitiatory sacrifice of which I don’t see any evidence for this type of a belief yet.

Transubstantiation only describes the ‘how’, not the ‘what’. The Christian communities believed that the Eucharist was Jesus, even though they hadn’t developed the theological language to describe it as happening through transubstantiation. The fact that this later description hadn’t yet been developed doesn’t imply that there was a different idea of what the Eucharist really was…

Yes. There were many understandings of the Eucharist over the first few centuries. Some believed it was symbolic or figurative, some believed in a spiritual presence and others believed that the bread converted to Christ’s actual body and blood. A disagreement among monks in the 9th century started the course for the creation of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[fbl9]

major chop job…

I think the case is pretty clear. What is in the Doctrine of the Trinity that isn’t Scriptural? I don’t understand why this question of the Trinity keeps arising on these forums.

Perhaps you have not heard of a group called oneness pentacostals…These spirit filled people do not hold a belief in the trinity. Or the Jehovah Witnesses. Both use the same(sorta) scripture to hold their beliefs.
By what authority can you state that these are wrong in their beliefs?
You have nothing by which you can make claim of incorrect doctrines. Both of you have arrived at your respective positions by the same exact methods.
Just as they know they are right in their positions would they be also right in being able to say so about what should and should not be scripture.
The biggest thing here is that we don’t have the old books that were deemed to be in error for your group or any other group to pick from.

 

[Gorgias]

Is the Didache found on-line?

Angel,

Yes – just do a Google search on ‘Didache’ and you’ll find lots of info and texts (in Greek and in a variety of English translations)!

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. Many early Jewish Christians continued to make sacrifices at the temple. (Acts 21:26). They were still living under Jewish law. The Gentile converts could not be doing this.

That’s right. And so, although they would’ve thought about Christ’s sacrifice, presented as a Eucharist at their liturgies, as something that was performed by an apostle/bishop, they wouldn’t have used the cultic title ‘priest’ until after the Jewish temple had been destroyed. However, that doesn’t mean that this role didn’t exist – just that it wasn’t called by that name until later.

So… if you didn’t call your mother “Mom” for the first two years of your life, would that mean that she wasn’t your mother during that time? Of course not! It’s just that you didn’t have the word to express it. But, she was still your mom, and doing maternal things. Same thing here – the objection “it ain’t in the Bible” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny as a justification for excluding the priestly role in the early Church.

(Incidentally, since you cited the Dialogue with Trypho, I should point out that Justin uses the term ‘hieros’ there, so we know that at the very least, by the mid-2nd century, that usage was already non-controversial.)

I think that the early Jewish Christians did not think that the Eucharist replaced their temple sacrifices by a priest.

For the first 30 years of the Church? Maybe. Yet, the Eucharist was necessary, even if the temple observations were, too. This argument doesn’t impinge on the liturgical role of the bishop/presbyter.

But surely high priest is just used as an analogy to providing support to those God calls to serve in his church.

If it were analogy, why not say that “apostles are like high priests”? No, clearly they were pointing to one office and telling the faithful that these were the ones who filled that role now for Christians.

Jesus is the one and only High Priest forever.

Agreed. But, as you’ve argued above, Jewish Christians still attended the sacrifices of the Jewish high priests. It’s this role – the humanly hieros – that the Didache is telling the faithful is now filled by apostles/bishops.

(Does Catholicism have high priests?!?) Hebrews 6:20

In a certain way of thinking, YES. Each Catholic priest acts ‘in persona Christi’ – that is, his ministry is the ministry of the Eternal High Priest. A Catholic priest is not personally a high priest (to the exclusion of any other Catholic priest); but, each has a share in Christ’s ministry as priest, prophet, and king.

The early Christians did refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. It was a thank offering or sacrifice of praise. Eucharist means thanksgiving. It was similar to the Old Testament Todah Sacrifice:

Similar, but not identical to. The article you cite points out that the Christian Eucharist has correspondences to the Todah sacrifice, but is rooted in the Last Supper, in which Christ clearly identifies that first Eucharist as the sacrifice through which His “New Covenant” is ratified.

In any case, your claim in post 42 was that it was a “slow development” that “the idea of the Eucharist developed into more of a sacrifice as opposed to a … Todah.” The earliest Christian writers, however, identified the Eucharist with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, so it’s really difficult to see how your claim holds up…

Justin does consider the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. This passage is about a prophecy in Malachi

I think I would assert that he merely utilizes the prophecy to make the point that the Christian sacrifice of the Eucharist has replaced the Jewish sacrifices.

The term for offering in these verses is minchah.
This means… specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary) – gift, oblation, (meat) offering,

So the prophecy was about a voluntary gift and not a propitiatory animal sacrifice for sin.

Not sure what you’re trying to prove here. The word minchah can mean “meat sacrifice”, as you demonstrate. It seems you’re nit-picking here: Justin’s point is only that the offerings of the Jews aren’t accepted, while the Eucharist is acceptable to God. Trying to shoehorn in a reference to grain offerings, as if that’s all the Eucharist is, seems to be somewhat overwrought.

Also in the Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr mentions:
“And the offering of fine flour…was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity…for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were.”

Another example of a sacrifice of praise. This is different from a propitiatory sacrifice of which I don’t see any evidence for this type of a belief yet.

Not quite sure how you can say “not propitiatory” when, in the very quote you cite, Justin refers to the Eucharist in the context of “the suffering which [Jesus] endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity.” If that’s not ‘propitiatory’, I don’t know what is…

Yes. There were many understandings of the Eucharist over the first few centuries. Some believed it was symbolic or figurative, some believed in a spiritual presence and others believed that the bread converted to Christ’s actual body and blood.

No – some wrote about the symbol of the Eucharist, but not that it was purely symbolic or spiritual.

 

[susanlo]

That’s right. And so, although they would’ve thought about Christ’s sacrifice, presented as a Eucharist at their liturgies, as something that was performed by an apostle/bishop, they wouldn’t have used the cultic title ‘priest’ until after the Jewish temple had been destroyed. However, that doesn’t mean that this role didn’t exist – just that it wasn’t called by that name until later.

So… if you didn’t call your mother “Mom” for the first two years of your life, would that mean that she wasn’t your mother during that time? Of course not! It’s just that you didn’t have the word to express it. But, she was still your mom, and doing maternal things. Same thing here – the objection “it ain’t in the Bible” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny as a justification for excluding the priestly role in the early Church.

An infant can not address his/her mother at all. The first word they use would be a motherly word of some sort, like mama. The mother would be identified as mother by everyone around even if the infant can’t speak.

If a 10-year old had a nice neighbor lady named Mrs. Smith who then married his/her father, then the change to calling the neighbor mom would be because Mrs. Smith is actually changing in her role to the child.

There are countless examples. Sometimes a title changes for a particular reason - other times a title could change without reason.

(Incidentally, since you cited the Dialogue with Trypho, I should point out that Justin uses the term ‘hieros’ there, so we know that at the very least, by the mid-2nd century, that usage was already non-controversial.)

I don’t have it in the original language, but the one I read online only uses the English word priest in reference to Jewish priests, Jesus the High Priest and a few references to the new priestly race of people. I don’t see where there is a priest as a leader of a Christian church anywhere in the writing.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Similar, but not identical to. The article you cite points out that the Christian Eucharist has correspondences to the Todah sacrifice, but is rooted in the Last Supper, in which Christ clearly identifies that first Eucharist as the sacrifice through which His “New Covenant” is ratified.

In any case, your claim in post 42 was that it was a “slow development” that “the idea of the Eucharist developed into more of a sacrifice as opposed to a … Todah.” The earliest Christian writers, however, identified the Eucharist with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, so it’s really difficult to see how your claim holds up…

I think I would assert that he merely utilizes the prophecy to make the point that the Christian sacrifice of the Eucharist has replaced the Jewish sacrifices.

Not sure what you’re trying to prove here. The word minchah can mean “meat sacrifice”, as you demonstrate. It seems you’re nit-picking here: Justin’s point is only that the offerings of the Jews aren’t accepted, while the Eucharist is acceptable to God. Trying to shoehorn in a reference to grain offerings, as if that’s all the Eucharist is, seems to be somewhat overwrought.

Not quite sure how you can say “not propitiatory” when, in the very quote you cite, Justin refers to the Eucharist in the context of “the suffering which [Jesus] endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity.” If that’s not ‘propitiatory’, I don’t know what is…

Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of all mankind who accepts His sacrifice and believes in Him. That sacrifice is complete and all who confess to God can receive forgiveness because of Christ’s completed sacrifice.

Eucharist/communion is similar to an Old Testament Todah/Thanksgiving sacrifice that was offered for gratitude for being rescued or saved. This isn’t exactly like communion, but seems to be a good reflection of it.

I am not an expert on Jewish sacrifices, but this is an interesting source: jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm
About 2/3 of the way down it lists the different types of sacrifices. Here is what is says about the peace offering of which a Todah sacrifice is part of:

Zebach Sh’lamim (in Hebrew)Zebach Sh’lamim: Peace Offering

A peace offering is an offering expressing thanks or gratitude to G-d for His bounties and mercies. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is zebach sh’lamim (or sometimes just sh’lamim), which is related to the word shalom, meaning “peace” or “whole.” A representative portion of the offering is burnt on the altar, a portion is given to the kohanim, and the rest is eaten by the offerer and his family; thus, everyone gets a part of this offering. This category of offerings includes thanksgiving-offerings (in Hebrew, Todah, which was obligatory for survivors of life-threatening crises), free will-offerings, and offerings made after fulfillment of a vow. **Note that this class of offerings has nothing to do with sin; in fact, the Talmud states that in the age of the messiah (when there is no more sin), this will be the only class of offering that is brought to the Temple. **

We can celebrate this Thanksgiving sacrifice because Christ has already completed the atonement sacrifice. That is how I understand it. I am going to look into the sacrifices more, though. Now I am intrigued.