Let’s talk about this one for a moment, shall we?
Of course, then you don’t have to answer the other questions I asked in the thread, right? Are you going to show me where any respectable NT translation use the word priest when translating presbyteros?
Did Jesus establish this office in the Church? No. Who did? The Apostles. By what authority? By the authority given to them by Jesus Himself. Initially, the Bishops appointed helpers. Later, they also appointed priests creating another new office.
The Apostles authority was unique. They were operating under the inspiration of God when establishing the church so you are right they had the authority. By the way, they were Elders who performed the role of overseer(i.e. Bishops), just like some Elders perform the roles of shepherds/pastors. The Apostles never appointed priests, by the way this is a different argument. Your initial claim was that priests were an office an in the NT. Do you still say this is true?
You may wish to deny the priesthood of the Catholic Church, but I don’t see what good it does you to do so.
Umm, is because it is unbiblical not a good reason to do so.
The fullness of the Apostolic Succession resides within the Bishop, the priest does not have all of the faculties of a Bishop - though he can say mass, hear confessions, etc.
There is no NT biblical office of a priest no matter how you spin it. It is that simple.
So, if you really want to attempt a mortal blow at the Catholic hierarchy, it has to be aimed at the Bishops and not the priests. But this you cannot do since the Word of God is plain that the office of Bishop existed at the time that Paul was writing his epistles.
It would be silly for me to try and refute something that is biblical. Bishop is role performed by an Elder, that is very biblical. Elders and Deacons are the two offices of the church. The office of priest is another one of the Catholic inventions that is not supported by Scripture. So quit abusing Scripture and just admit it came from Oral Tradition and not Scripture.
Therefore, 1) you have granted that the Bishops had authority to create the office of deacon which by logical extension means they could create the office of priest as well if they chose to do so (and they did), and
No, I have granted that the Apostles had that authority. There are no Apostles today, there office was extraordinary as were the Prophets
- the Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles in whom Apostolic Authority resides and they skate right past the guard you have posted bringing the power to administer all seven sacraments fully with them.
Oh brother, you are preaching now, not making arguments.
And all of this stands completely independent of your objections to the translation of the word “presbyteros.” Even if I conceded your point (which I don’t), I would still arrive at the same point: Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
LOL!!! You go from one set of fallacious arguments to another set as if that helps your position. Your not conceding the argument in reference to priest and presbyteros tells me more about you then the argument. You refused to be confused by the facts in your service of Rome. Forget handling the word of God in a respectful way if you think you are saving Rome. What you don’t realize is that even intelligent Roman Catholics would tell you your argument is nonsensical. For example, Fr Mitch Pacwa who speaks like 7 languages including Hebrew and Greek would agree with me. He still believes in the priestly office, however he would not make the false argument that you are trying to make(i.e. presbyteros can be translated a priest in the NT ).
You know I’m surprised I’ve dialogued with you so long, because you have shown yourself to not only understand the issues most of the time, but you refuse to admit obvious points when you are wrong.
LOL … every “Moo” is not a cow. Keep trying though you may attract some.
? ##