Protestant who believes in the real presence

[AugustTherese]

You will also note that the office of priest is not instituted in the Bible

Nothing is instituted in the Bible! Christ is not a collection of books. He is a real Divine Person enfleshed that instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper.

Weird how in the 14th century Wycliffe translated Titus 1:5 as follows:

For cause of this thing I left thee at Crete, that thou amend those things that fail, and ordain priests by cities, as also I assigned to thee [as and I disposed to thee].
Titus 1:5 - Titus 1:5 WYC - For cause of this thing I left thee at - Bible Gateway

 

[Thom18]

Okay, start with the New Testament. I’m waiting.

Mind answering my question first? I’ve asked it three times and you’ve avoided it three times.

 

[Hodos]

You realize Wycliffe was translating from the Vulgate which was promulgating the mistranslation of the Greek word presbuteros do you not?

 

[Hodos]

Mind answering my question first? I’ve asked it three times and you’ve avoided it three times.

I do mind since I asked from the get-go for you to prove the positive argument from scripture and you have refused to do so to this point. So, no, I am not inclined to allow you to change the subject and then insist that I be ok with you ignoring my first request.

 

[AugustTherese]

You realize Wycliffe was translating from the Vulgate which was promulgating the mistranslation of the Greek word presbuteros do you not?

Which Greek word do we have for ‘elder men’ in the following from Wycliffe’s translation? :

And I saw, and lo! in the middle of the throne, and of the four beasts, and in the middle of the elder men, a lamb standing as slain, that had seven horns, and seven eyes [and in the middle of the elders, a lamb standing as slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes], which be [the] seven spirits of God, sent into all the earth.
Revelation 5:6 - Revelation 5:6 WYC - And I saw, and lo! in the middle of the - Bible Gateway

 

[Hodos]

Irrelevant, he was translating from the Vulgate. Again, the question is not how Wycliffe translated a word, the question is what does Presbuteros mean.

 

[steve-b]

Again, Christ is our high priest. Read Hebrews. The sacrifice was made already. Completely agree with the need for elders and overseers to preach, teach, and maintain good order.

Order depends on the rules already made by the only Church that Jesus created, and is already THERE. The one on Peter and those in union with Peter. No knock offs, as if THEY are an actual church with authority.

scripture condemned division

Where you say?

1. Tit 3:
   10 As for a man who is factious, αἱρετικὸν after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
2. [ Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 ]the same word in Greek is used for dissension, διχοστασίαι, …… And the consequence for that sin? “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”.
3. 1 Cor 11:18 σχίσματα divisions Re: the Lord’s Supper. Open the link. Read the definition. One who doesn’t follow the Church and forms sects and divisions from the True Church, isn’t valid (δόκιμοι) approved, acceptable http://bibleapps.com/greek/1384.htm in what they do… Not Acceptable for Whom? God.

Acts 1:

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry…’His office let another take" and the accepted Matthi′as as replacement for Judas. IOW, when an apostle died their office continued.

Same for Peter as head of the Church as well. Because it is Jesus Church, with Peter as the head with all those in union with Peter
.

Hodos:

The sacrifice was made already. Completely agree with the need for elders and overseers to preach, teach, and maintain good order.

Paul in his letters is only writing to a valid apostolic Church either the apostles established, or those under them. THEY are the ones with valid priests and bishops. See points 1-3 above. Divisions from this Church is condemned. Paul is NOT writing to divisions that happened from the true Church. He’s not writing to mere human distortions of the Church, calling themselves a church which they are NOT…

Paul’s style is to give someone 2 corrections. After that if no change occurs, he’s done with them.

example:

Paul to Bishop Titus 3:10-11.

10 As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος. from κατακρίνω iow God condemning one to eternal misery.

Hodos:

However, as 1 Corinthians demonstrates, Christ is truly present in the sacrament even when administered or received unworthily.

wrong

 

[AugustTherese]

Irrelevant

Just because you don’t know doesn’t make it irrelevant. The same exact Greek word used in Titus 1:5 is used in Revelation 5:8. So, why does Wycliffe use ‘priests’ in Titus 1:5 but ‘elder men’ in Revelation 5:6?

 

[steve-b]

Yep. Already done. As the author of Hebrews stated. You will also note that
the office of priest is not instituted in the Bible. Rather they were elders, bishops or overseers, and deacons. It is the Latin misinterpretation of Presbuteros that led to it being mistranslated as priest. Again, an innovation.

• Episcopos & presbuteros are both in scripture Where in the New Testament Are "Priests" Mentioned? | Catholic Answers
• the innovation is Protestantism of ALL stripes

 

[Thom18]

Thom18:

Mind answering my question first? I’ve asked it three times and you’ve avoided it three times.

I do mind since I asked from the get-go for you to prove the positive argument from scripture and you have refused to do so to this point. So, no, I am not inclined to allow you to change the subject and then insist that I be ok with you ignoring my first request.

I’ve already asked you a yes or no question three times that you’ve chosen to ignore (just like you ignored my criticism of your “read an entire book from the Bible to get what I’m saying so I don’t have to explain myself” method). Since you’re not interested in discussing, I’ll leave you to it.

 

[Thom18]

Hodos:

Yep. Already done. As the author of Hebrews stated. You will also note that
the office of priest is not instituted in the Bible. Rather they were elders, bishops or overseers, and deacons. It is the Latin misinterpretation of Presbuteros that led to it being mistranslated as priest. Again, an innovation.

• Episcopos & presbuteros are both in scripture Where in the New Testament Are "Priests" Mentioned? | Catholic Answers

To supplement this, the word presbyter was used in place of the familiar term of priest to distinguish the priesthood of Jesus Christ from the Jewish and pagan priesthoods.

 

[Thom18]

Since I’m not being answered (maybe someone just doesn’t want to consider it?):

If the Eucharist is Jesus’ Body and Blood as the early Church proclaimed (and as He Himself taught)- if this Body and Blood is what Jesus told His apostles to offer in memory of Him (using the same language here that is used in the Old Testament to describe the sacrifices for the priestly ordinations of Aaron and his sons), and if Jesus did die to attain our forgiveness- then His death was nothing less than a sacrifice. This same death- never repeated, once for all- is made present to us at every Mass in the consecration of the Eucharist. And so, every Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

In the Old Covenant, it was once common for anyone to offer sacrifice to God- but after the incident with the golden calf, a priesthood was instituted, and from then on only the priests could offer Him sacrifice. Fast forward to the New Covenant, things haven’t changed- Jesus gave us no indication that He wished to abolish the priesthood, particularly since there is still a sacrifice for us to participate in. There can be no sacrifice without a priest- and though Jesus is our High Priest, He has entrusted the apostles and their successors- no one else- to offer it for Him, though through and because of Him.

Hodos, what you propose is simply unbiblical- I haven’t even gotten into ancient Tradition and the proclamations of the Councils yet, and your propositions have already failed. You have no proof that the laity or other faith traditions can consecrate the Eucharist because Jesus didn’t leave us that option. He gave the command to offer His Flesh and Blood to His apostles only- those men whom He washed the feet of, as Jesus’ Father instructed Moses to wash the feet of Aaron and his sons. And on this same evening, Jesus told Peter that he could have no part (meros) in Him if he did not allow Him to wash his feet- echoing the words of God when He said to Aaron, “You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion [meris ] among them; I am your portion [meris ] and your inheritance among the people of Israel”.

By going against Scripture, you fight a losing battle.

 

[steve-b]

You misunderstand the full breadth and width of the priestly role, which Hebrews explains. The sacrifice was once for all time, his role as mediator before God in light of that sacrifice is eternal. Once again, Hebrews addresses this. Crack it open.

Hodos:

No, an apostolic one. My doctrine matches what the author of Hebrews proclaimed.

Heb 10 is talking about deliberately missing Mass (The Eucharist) on Sunday

Heb 10: (all emphasis mine)
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment,and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Unpacking that

deliberate Failure to meet on the Day, is already a huge sin
“the Day” = the LORD’S DAY / Sunday/ the Day Our Lord Resurrected

when they meet?

They are offering the “sacrifice for sin”, & and; “blood of the covenant” = the words Our Lord spoke instituting the
Eucharist
Matthew 26:28 , https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt+26:28&version=RSVCE

Mark 14:24 , https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14:24&version=RSVCE

They are celebrating the Mass, the Eucharist

those who deliberately fail to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday after being given the knowledge of truth,
◦ no longer remains, a sacrifice for sin and blood of the covenant for THEM
◦ They Spurn the Son of God
◦ They outrage the spirit of grace
◦ a fearful prospect of judgement awaits Them
◦ and a fury of fire will consume these adversaries

Re: that sin
Based on the consequences,

Mass on Sunday is a command
to deliberately miss Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin

 

[steve-b]

I agree. I just don’t think it is worth going there unless they’re claiming to actually have the Eucharist as we understand it.

Yet If the opportunity presents itself, we need to give answers for the hope that’s in us. That’s why I gave this as well Post 29

And as it turns out the one in question is questioning all of this.

 

[Hodos]

Nothing of which you said in your argument was proposed or written about in any of the New Testament record. And in fact, what is normative in the book of Acts is that the apostles frequently were working in areas AFTER believers had already been established, such as in Samaria, Antioch, etc., because of the dispersion of Christians due to persecution Again, this doesn’t revoke the need for overseers, elders, deacons, etc., for the purpose of preaching, teaching, and maintaining good order within the Church (as I had already stated). However, it demonstrates that the apostolic generation was not operating and administering the sacraments under the anachronistic understanding of church authority that you are presenting here now. That was all later development, primarily in the third century due to the issues with re-admitting the Lapsed. Again, I have no issues with the maintenance of good order. I do have an issue with someone saying that the efficacy of the sacrament is dependent upon the person ministering the sacrament, which was already demonstrated through the use of 1 Corinthians 11 to be false. Bottom line, Protestants who proclaim Christ crucified receive the same sacrament you do.

 

[Hodos]

Just because you don’t know doesn’t make it irrelevant. The same exact Greek word used in Titus 1:5 is used in Revelation 5:8. So, why does Wycliffe use ‘priests’ in Titus 1:5 but ‘elder men’ in Revelation 5:6?

Again, irrelevant. You don’t comprehend that your question makes no sense. Wycliffe wasn’t translating from the Greek text. He was translating from the Vulgate. In other words, he wasn’t translating Greek, he was translating Latin. If I hand you an English Bible and tell you to translate it into Spanish, I could not then ask you which Greek word you are using to translate from English to Spanish.

 

[Hodos]

Heb 10 is talking about deliberately missing Mass (The Eucharist) on Sunday

That is a huge eisegetical leap. Your interpretation is completely out of context of the entire book of Hebrews, which doesn’t address the Mass at all. Hebrews is addressing the fact that Jesus stands before the right hand of the father always making intercession for us because he has already performed the one and only sacrifice required for all eternity. This is mentioned several times throughout the book of Hebrews, and the repetition should not be lost on you, but apparently was (which is why I kept recommending you to read the entire book, rather than pointing to a specific passage). The sin that is being mentioned is apostasy from the faith (the entire point of Hebrews was to encourage Jewish believers not to reject Christ and return to temple Judaism for atonement). The sacrifice that is being mentioned is spurning the sacrifice on the cross by turning from faith.

 

[Hodos]

Since I’m not being answered (maybe someone just doesn’t want to consider it?):

I am glad to answer you as soon as you demonstrate the courtesy of answering my initial request, which you changed the subject from.

By going against Scripture, you fight a losing battle.

I guess we won’t know because you refuse to demonstrate from scripture that the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper is dependent upon the ministering agent.

 

[Hodos]

To supplement this, the word presbyter was used in place of the familiar term of priest to distinguish the priesthood of Jesus Christ from the Jewish and pagan priesthoods.

I completely agree that Episcopos and Presbuteros are both in scripture. One means overseer, the other means elder. This is in contrast to the Greek word hieros which was used for priest and readily available for apostolic use should they choose to use it. They purposefully chose not to use hieros for what we deem for pastors and bishops, using the word hieros for Christ instead, because it is Christ that has already made the sacrifice, once for all (see Hebrews again), and is our eternal mediator before the Father. The term priest (sacerdos) was a Latin innovation introduced somtime around the third century in the Western Church. Coincidentally, the man who likely introduced this concept (or at least popularized it) agreed with me that Baptism as a sacrament is not dependent upon the person ministering it. So far you are wrong syntactically, scripturally, and historically. I think you covered all the bases.

 

[AugustTherese]

You don’t comprehend that your question makes no sense. Wycliffe wasn’t translating from the Greek text. He was translating from the Vulgate. In other words, he wasn’t translating Greek, he was translating Latin

And, I’m asking why did he have two different translations for those two passages. Just because Greek was translated into Latin doesn’t mean the inherent original meaning was completely lost. Quit stating the obvious for an attempt to patronize.