B
BereanRuss
Guest
Regardless if you can separate them or not, Paul is referring to the Ten Commandments when he refers to covetousness being of the law. Paul’s definition of “law” includes the Ten Commandments.
- Status
B
BereanRuss
Guest
Why then if you believe literally that those who do not receive communion do not have life except by some rare merciful miracle, do you call protestants “separated brethren”?
If you know that they do not have life because they do not partake of the Eucharist (Jesus said, “…unless you eat…”) why do you refer to them as “brethren”? You too are not being straight forward about the Gospel if you refer to those who cannot possibly have life as having life such as you have.
B
BereanRuss
Guest
In other words, it is not your theology that is wrong, it is that the Bible is wrong or incomplete or insufficient.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
God proclaims that the scripture is able to make the believer “complete” and “thoroughly equipped” yet the NT does not include another earthly priesthood. How can the believer be complete without the priesthood? (…unless they are complete in Christ)
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: From whom did Paul receive his teaching. 1Cor11:23 for I received from the LORD what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread. Paul received a direct revelation from our Lord, beside the scriptures are God breathed so it is actually God speaking thru the instrument of man, prophets did the same and the Church does also.
JL: 1Cor11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, UNWORTHILY, SHALL BE GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. [You cut to soon. [If I take a photo of someone and shoot holes in it, will I be guilty of their body and blood? No, only if I shoot holes in their actual body would I be guilty.]
1Cor11:28 but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [You stopped to soon again.] 29 for HE THAT EATETH AND DRINKETH UNWORTHILY, EATETH AND DRINKETH DAMNATION to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY. 30 for this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: From whom did Paul receive his teaching. [1Cor11:23 for I received from the LORD what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread.] Paul received a direct revelation from our Lord, besides the scriptures are God breathed so it is actually God speaking thru the instrument of man, prophets did the same and the Church does also as it is the same Holy Spirit who leads them into all truth.
JL: 1Cor11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, UNWORTHILY, SHALL BE GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. [You cut to soon. [If I take a photo of someone and shoot holes in it, will I be guilty of their body and blood? No, only if I shoot holes in their actual body would I be guilty.]
1Cor11:28 but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [You stopped to soon again.] 29 for HE THAT EATETH AND DRINKETH UNWORTHILY, EATETH AND DRINKETH DAMNATION to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY. 30 for this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. They eat and drink DAMNATION, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY, evidently some mistakenly thought it was a symbol.
J
joe370
Guest
Russ you said:
Even if they did publically keep this a secret, why keep it secret in letters that only the church will read? The Epistles were written to believers, not non-believers.
Good question; why did they keep it a secret, even in their letters???
I have to hurry; the boss doesn’t like us using the company computer…Who do you think these newly converted Christians were? They embraced Christianity and walked away from their ingrained traditions vis-a-vis the ministerial priesthood, because of this concession…The conversion of a Levite priest would have been impossible, if they read a letter that envisioned Christ, Who was not a priest of the order of Levites, as their new High Priest. They no doubt had to reel them in slowly.
I believe if they would have used the word priest in said letters, many many converts would have bailed; the gentiles would not have cared, therefore it presented no problem to them, hence the change; after all they were/are performing a priestly act, as per the bible. BTW, the non-Christian Jews were trying to stamp out this new “pagan cult” so I am certain they would not have committed it to writing.
I’m sure is was a gradual warming up to the idea that their could be another priesthood other than Aaronic/Levite one!!!
Why don’t the other 26 books refer to Christ as a Priest? If He is in fact the new High Priest, why was it not expressed in the other books/letters? Why did Peter and the apostles fail to mention this important little nugget?
Got to go…here he comes…
Even if they did publically keep this a secret, why keep it secret in letters that only the church will read? The Epistles were written to believers, not non-believers.
Good question; why did they keep it a secret, even in their letters???
I have to hurry; the boss doesn’t like us using the company computer…Who do you think these newly converted Christians were? They embraced Christianity and walked away from their ingrained traditions vis-a-vis the ministerial priesthood, because of this concession…The conversion of a Levite priest would have been impossible, if they read a letter that envisioned Christ, Who was not a priest of the order of Levites, as their new High Priest. They no doubt had to reel them in slowly.
I believe if they would have used the word priest in said letters, many many converts would have bailed; the gentiles would not have cared, therefore it presented no problem to them, hence the change; after all they were/are performing a priestly act, as per the bible. BTW, the non-Christian Jews were trying to stamp out this new “pagan cult” so I am certain they would not have committed it to writing.
I’m sure is was a gradual warming up to the idea that their could be another priesthood other than Aaronic/Levite one!!!
Why don’t the other 26 books refer to Christ as a Priest? If He is in fact the new High Priest, why was it not expressed in the other books/letters? Why did Peter and the apostles fail to mention this important little nugget?
Got to go…here he comes…
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: God is not legalistic, he does not look for ways to condemn but to save. He has mercy on whom he wills.
J
joe370
Guest
Russ…
Why does your church commemorate our Lords Birthday and death every year; no where in the bible does it say to do that! If it’s not in the bible, then it’s not to be done --right? If the C.C. can’t call their ministers priests, since that word does not refer to ministers as priests, in a sacramental way, then your church can’t commemorate Jesus’ birth and death; these our Traditions of the C.C…The Holy Bible is dead silent …
The Holy Bible tells His one apostolic church to do just one thing in remembrance of Him; I respectfully ask: does your church do as He asked???
Why does your church commemorate our Lords Birthday and death every year; no where in the bible does it say to do that! If it’s not in the bible, then it’s not to be done --right? If the C.C. can’t call their ministers priests, since that word does not refer to ministers as priests, in a sacramental way, then your church can’t commemorate Jesus’ birth and death; these our Traditions of the C.C…The Holy Bible is dead silent …
The Holy Bible tells His one apostolic church to do just one thing in remembrance of Him; I respectfully ask: does your church do as He asked???
B
bradwill911
Guest
Russ,
I’ve asked before and you failed to answer, but do you believe in the Trinity?
J
joe370
Guest
Russ, If the C.C. continued to call their ministers presbyters, instead of priests, would you be OK with said presbyters taking the bread, blessing it and giving thanks, breaking it into pieces, and handing it to each brother and sister in Christ, saying: "take eat, this is Christ’s Body, which is given up for you, as per Jesus’ instructions, when He said: do this in remembrance of me???
B
bradwill911
Guest
Exactly, this seems like more of a problem with using the term “priest” since it is not used in the NT in the way that we use it. However, if one is familiar with etymology, the word priest is derived from presbuteros.
Here’s an explanation (linked below):
The English word priest comes from the Latin word presbyter, which comes from the Greek word presbuteros. Presbuteros can be literally translated into Latin as “senior,” and into English as “elder.” However, the Greek word presbuteros took on a special meaning in the Christian Church as an ecclesiastical office with the authority to perform and administer Christian rites. Because of the special connotations it had, it was not literally translated but rendering into Latin as presbyter, which was rendered into Old English as preost, which evolved into the Modern English word priest.
Another Greek word that has a similar definition is hiereus, which is also an office with the authority to perform and administer religious rites, and can be literally translated into Latin as “sacerdos.” Unfortunately hiereus and sacerdos do not have a literal equivalent in the English language; however, since a presbyter is a specific type of sacerdos, hiereus and sacerdos are commonly translated into English as “priest.”
It is unfortunate that both hiereus and presbuteros are usually translated as “priest” because the sacerdotal use of priest is often confused with the presbyterian use of priest. When one it talking about the priesthood of all Christians, or the Jewish and pagan priesthood, it is only in the sacerdotal sense. However, when one is talking about the clerical priesthood of the Catholic Church, it is not only in the sacerdotal sense, but also in the presbyterian sense.
The English word bishop comes from the Latin word episcopum, which comes from the Greek word episkopos. Episkopos can be literally translated into English as “overseer;” however, like the word presbuteros, episkopos took on a special meaning in the Christian Church as an ecclesiastical office. Because of the special connotations it had, it was not literally translated but rendering into Latin as episcopum, which evolved into the Vulgar Latin ebiscopus, which was rendered into Old English as bisceope, which evolved into the Modern English word bishop.
In the first century of the Church’s history, the words bishop and priest were used interchangeably. In the second century, the word bishop was restricted to the higher priestly office that could ordain other priests. Examples of this higher office found in the New Testament are Titus the Bishop of Crete (see intro to Tit), and Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus (see intro to 1Tim).
bible.grigaitis.net/essays/sacerdote.pdf
J
joe370
Guest
Russ you said: Even if they did publically keep this a secret, why keep it secret in letters that only the church will read? The Epistles were written to believers, not non-believers.
**Don’t you think these letters were read/preached in public, by an ordained presbyter/bishop/teacher, when Paul couldn’t be there in person? Paul, before his conversion traveled everywhere…he endeavored to find these new “Christian pagans” who assembled, and imprison them, thereby stamping out this new “pagan” movement; do you think he was the only one? It must have been a scary time to call oneself a Christian or brother in Christ!!! **
**Don’t you think these letters were read/preached in public, by an ordained presbyter/bishop/teacher, when Paul couldn’t be there in person? Paul, before his conversion traveled everywhere…he endeavored to find these new “Christian pagans” who assembled, and imprison them, thereby stamping out this new “pagan” movement; do you think he was the only one? It must have been a scary time to call oneself a Christian or brother in Christ!!! **
N
NotWorthy
Guest
How do you get that out of what I said?!?
Scripture is profitable. Scripture does not make one complete.
From the interpretation skills you’ve mis-demonstrated with what I posted, I wouldn’t trust my “completeness” on how well I read Scripture, if I was you.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Protestants are my brethren in Christ, by virtue of their Baptism. So, if you have been validly baptized, Russ, you are my brother in Christ, although you have chosen to separate yourself from the fold, from the Church the Good Shepherd founded.
C
cazayoux
Guest
Fantastic post! THANK YOU!
I’ve copied this into a word doc and put in my ‘Catholic resource’ folder.
michel
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But, just because one denies the Laws of Gravity, doesn’t mean one is not under the affects of the Law of Gravity.
Hence, one can separate from the Church, but that doesn’t make not “not of the Church”.
C
cazayoux
Guest
2 Tim 3:16-17
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
A couple of points.
You wrongly read into this that scripture is ‘sufficient’.
Scripture making you ‘complete’ is not the same as scripture being ‘sufficient’.
Having a rifle will make a soldier complete.
However, the soldier isn’t complete with ONLY a rifle.
He needs the boots, uniform, pack, ammunition, canteen, helmet, also.
Let’s look at scripture for an example that directly ties to the scripture you shared above.
Eph 6:11-17
[11] Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
[12] For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
[13] Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
[14] Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
[15] and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace;
[16] besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one.
[17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
So what does the WHOLE armor of God include?
truth (girding)
righteousness (breastplate)
gospel (foot shodding)
faith (shield)
salvation (helmet)
word of God (sword) ← not that it doesn’t just say ‘written’ Word of God
Wow … ALL these things together are considered the WHOLE armor of God.
Scripture is needed to make this soldier complete, but the scripture alone would not be sufficient.
Now … for arguments sake, let’s say you are actually correct that what is seen in 2 Tim 3:16-17 and it DOES mean the scripture in question is ‘sufficient’. What scripture is this?
We need to back up one more verse (context, context, context) and look at it again.
2 Tim 3:15-17
[15] and how ***from childhood ***you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Even though Timothy was a young man, it is impossible that the scripture he knew from his childhood was the bible that you have in your hands now. It couldn’t have been. All of the new testament writings weren’t even written yet. This passage is talking about the OLD TESTAMENT.
Do you actually believe the Old Testament alone is ‘sufficient’?
michel
R
ralphy
Guest
The building we gather at consists of born again believers drawn together to worship Jesus Christ who established His church as He is the chief cornerstone. Ralph
N
NotWorthy
Guest
… with no Eucharist… no Sacrament of Penance… no authority.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Those are your words not mine. I say, just as baptism is normatively necessary for salvation so is the Eucharist, it is normative NOT absolute. There are always exceptions, our Lord is not legalistic, as you would have it.
JL: All baptized are joined to the Church in spiritual unity, althought some in an imperfect spiritual unity. Protestant Christians are called separated brethren, because they are not ONE in visible unity with the one bride of Christ, the Church.
JL: Again, your words not mine. I do not say, nor refer to anyone as not having life because they do not partake of the Eucharist. The problem is with your interpretation of absolutely no exceptions, yet I bet you make at lest ONE exception to [Rm3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;] If you make one exception, Christ, then you are guilty of what you accuse others, you are not being straight forward about the Gospel. You contradict your own interpretation, which in the tradition of men, made a doctrine of God about 1521, sola scriptura that tower of babel I suppose contradiction is acceptable to some. Tell me how many faith groups has sola scriptura UNITED? How many has it DIVIDED?
- Status