Where are priests in the New Testament? Ephesians 4?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Markie_Boy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Markie_Boy said:
I see Bishop and Deacon clearly, but Presbyters generally simply meant an elder, where the term Priest would be someone to offer sacrifice.

If it were intended for there to be Priests to offer sacrifice, why was it not stated?
Click to expand...
Note that this was a newborn Church. They had to figure things out as they went. Just as it is with doctrine, the structure of the Church had to be pondered, argued and settled upon. Like the bible, the Church did not just drop fully formed out of the sky. The New Testament was not even settled until 380-405! Think about that.
 
Bookcat said:
Keep in mind what the New Testament is and what is is not.

It is yes the Inspired Word of God.

It is not a systematic textbook or Catechism or intended to lay out everything - Jesus founded a Church - gave authority to men (and the Holy Spirit!) he did not hand them a textbook or an instruction manual.

The Letters contained in the NT are rather “partial” by nature. They are written to (as a first audience) a particular community or communities - addressing particular issues.

They presume a great deal…and were not written by say Paul to lay out everything (indeed he notes at times he is reminding them …and to be faithful to what he taught when he was with them etc).

They are wonderfully the Word of God - the Sacred Scriptures.

But they were not meant to be something systematic and all inclusive.

(that said others have discussed your particular question…but I wanted to lay out this more general understanding which is of great importance. Those who come newly from a Protestant background can often expect something from the Bible that is not intended to be there).
Click to expand...
Speaking from experience it’s a difficult habit to break. You must change your mentality to early Church and stay in that lane. Apostles/Councils/Tradition were always of the utmost importance in Christianity.

But when you are a SS practicing Christian and you see how harsh Jesus was on the Jews and their traditions of men, you have great pause when you see anything outside the bible that others claim to be authoritative .

Realizing that God was fully capable of raining down textbooks from the sky, yet did not tells me He intended for the Church to be Jesus and WE instead of Jesus and ME(me and my bible) And at that all this stuff outside the bible from the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary.
 
Yes - have thought on that. Coming from a Baptist background, I have heard the perspective that the church was already getting of track in the book of Acts, which would imply it would be correct when??? Allowing not much to form.

I have heard from the same source that doctrine is developing (I think it was meant, after the Reformation, as I questioned that all the reformers seemed to retain a concept of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist - not just symbolic.)

These two ideas don’t seem to play well together.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
But when you are a SS practicing Christian and you see how harsh Jesus was on the Jews and their traditions of men, you have great pause when you see anything outside the bible that others claim to be authoritative .
Click to expand...
Yes - that holds my attention a LOT.

What would you recommend as best sources of early church outside of scripture?
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Speaking from experience it’s a difficult habit to break. You must change your mentality to early Church and stay in that lane. Apostles/Councils/Tradition were always of the utmost importance in Christianity.

But when you are a SS practicing Christian and you see how harsh Jesus was on the Jews and their traditions of men, you have great pause when you see anything outside the bible that others claim to be authoritative .
Click to expand...
Not once one understand what Jesus meant by their “traditions of men”…

All pauses then removed.

And also at another point he told listeners to do what? to do what they said…why?..for the sit on the seat of Moses…but do not do what the do

And of course calling to mind what the Early Christians knew …he founded a Church…
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Realizing that God was fully capable of raining down textbooks from the sky, yet did not tells me He intended for the Church to be Jesus and WE instead of Jesus and ME(me and my bible) And at that all this stuff outside the bible from the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Realizing that God was fully capable of raining down textbooks from the sky, yet did not tells me He intended for the Church to be Jesus and WE instead of Jesus and ME(me and my bible) And at that all this stuff outside the bible from the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...
A quote from Pope Benedict XVI

"In choosing the Twelve, introducing them into a communion of life with himself and involving them in his mission of proclaiming the Kingdom in words and works (cf. Mk 6: 7-13; Mt 10: 5-8; Lk 9: 1-6; 6: 13), Jesus wants to say that the definitive time has arrived in which to constitute the new People of God, the people of the 12 tribes, which now becomes a universal people, his Church…

With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one. The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself.

In this light, one understands how the Risen One confers upon them, with the effusion of the Spirit, the power to forgive sins (cf. Jn 20: 23). Thus, the Twelve Apostles are the most evident sign of Jesus’ will regarding the existence and mission of his Church, the guarantee that between Christ and the Church there is no opposition: despite the sins of the people who make up the Church, they are inseparable.

Therefore, a slogan that was popular some years back: “Jesus yes, Church no”, is totally inconceivable with the intention of Christ. This individualistically chosen Jesus is an imaginary Jesus."

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2006.index.html

Get the book here

ignatius.com/Products/JAEC-P/jesus-the-apostles-and-the-early-church.aspx **Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church -Pope Benedict XVI
**

(such of course is not a slight directed to Protestant Christians per se…as if they do not know Jesus or are not Christians…but it is a great quote to meditate upon…)
 
Markie_Boy said:
Yes - that holds my attention a LOT.

What would you recommend as best sources of early church outside of scripture?
Click to expand...
Absolute gem right here:

amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Vol-1/dp/0814604323

And another gem when dealing with the protestant position:

amazon.com/Protestants-Dilemma-Reformations-Consequences-Catholicism-ebook/dp/B00IKXWCGO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483568319&sr=1-1&keywords=protestants+dilemma

If you don’t want to spend money now you can read some of this stuff for free on the net. For example, read the Didache and the First apology of Justin Martyr. These are some of the earliest writings we have. Pay close attention to the parts discussing worship and Church practice/sacraments. Then attend a Baptist service and a Catholic Mass and ask yourself what is closer to the authentic Christianity you just read about. And that alone will motivate you to do more research and perhaps dig into to some of these books recommended here.

** To be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant.**
*
  • Cardinal John Henry Newman, a convert to the Catholic Church*
 
Dorothy said:
Perhaps this can be of help? The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch

ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/IGNATIUS.HTM
Click to expand...
Another good one as he taught submission to the Bishops. The idea of people just starting their own churches was extremely foreign to the early Church. Those people were not called separated brethren, they were called heretics lol. Today’s Church is much more tactful and sensitive in her words.
 
Markie_Boy said:
Yes - have thought on that. Coming from a Baptist background, I have heard the perspective that the church was already getting of track in the book of Acts, which would imply it would be correct when??? Allowing not much to form.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ve heard that theory as well.

I mean that is just ridiculous cause if you read Acts 9:4 you see just how intimate Jesus plans on being with his church. So we are supposed to believe that He allowed His Church to go off the rails for 1500 years until the reformation? Total non sense. I guess they don’t believe Matthew 16:18. Might as well go ahead and rip that page out of their bible!!!
 
Bookcat said:
Not once one understand what Jesus meant by their “traditions of men”…

All pauses then removed.

And also at another point he told listeners to do what? to do what they said…why?..for the sit on the seat of Moses…but do not do what the do

And of course calling to mind what the Early Christians knew …he founded a Church…
Click to expand...
Right, Jesus was opposed to traditions of men, but he certainly was NOT opposed to apostolic tradition as HE is the one who implemented it. I find it interesting that not one time in scripture is Jesus recorded as saying…WRITE THIS DOWN. Jesus established His Church this way and who am I to argue with the creator of the universe?
 
Markie_Boy said:
Yes - have thought on that. Coming from a Baptist background, I have heard the perspective that the church was already getting of track in the book of Acts, which would imply it would be correct when??? Allowing not much to form.
Click to expand...
Our Lord clearly said, in Matthew 16:18, that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” That does not mean that there will be no disagreement or heresy or schism - it means that, 2,000 years later, that same Church still stands. There have been some really bad Popes, Cardinals, Priests - and let us not forget about the sinful laity! But, to throw out doctrines held since the Apostles in that “reformation” simply takes things way too far.

The reformation brought about the need to allege that the Church had somehow failed and therefore needed European ideas injected into it. If the Church had not failed, there was no need to be Protestant - but what about our Lord’s prophecy? Do we simply disregard it? Are we like the Mormons, believing in the nebulous concept of a “great apostasy” which makes Jesus either a liar or a false prophet?
 
I am interested in the Apostolic Fathers - do any of them refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice?

I did not see it in the Didache, or Ignatius letter to the Smyrnaeans?
 
Markie_Boy said:
I am interested in the Apostolic Fathers - do any of them refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice?

I did not see it in the Didache, or Ignatius letter to the Smyrnaeans?
Click to expand...
Below are two examples specific to your request. There are certainly others…

“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy [presbyters] and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 107]).
 
Markie_Boy said:
I am interested in the Apostolic Fathers - do any of them refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice?

I did not see it in the Didache, or Ignatius letter to the Smyrnaeans?
Click to expand...
Notice the last sentence in the quote below from Justin Martyr…

“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top