"God became man so that we might become God"

The role of a presbyter (lit. old man) is not the same as the cohenim, which the word priest implies today. The cohenim made sacrifices of temporary atonement by the blood of animals which covered sin for no more than a year (Heb 10:1,3), but presbyters make no such sacrifice nor could anyone today do so for Jesus our Passover was sacrificed for us and only His sacrifice can make eternal atonement (not by covering, but by removing sin); and since He has provided that sacrifice for eternal atonement, the system of temporary atonement was abolished, which God signified by rending the veil (from top to bottom, to show that He rent it).

As the Scripture says, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb 10:4) If, therefore, the priests who were ordained by God Himself and who offered the sacrifices prescribed by the Scriptures could not remove sins, how can anyone expect the Romish imposters who were ordained by antichrist and offer sacrifices of blasphemy to do so?

[ February 23, 2003, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Hi Bill

You have been laying low lately, Carson. Midterms perhaps?

A girl, lots of reading, and projects.

Thanks for asking.

yours in our Eucharistic Lord,

Carson

 

The role of a presbyter (lit. old man) is not the same as the cohenim, which the word priest implies today.

In the Catholic Church as well as in some Protestant Churches, the traditional term "priest" is used, which comes from the Greek presbyteros, as I showed clearly above by referencing an official Dictionary. So, the word implies, today, a presbyter, as it implied, yesterday, a presbyter.

The cohenim made sacrifices of temporary atonement by the blood of animals which covered sin for no more than a year (Heb 10:1,3), but presbyters make no such sacrifice nor could anyone today

Amen

for Jesus our Passover was sacrificed for us and only His sacrifice can make eternal atonement (not by covering, but by removing sin)

Amen

and since He has provided that sacrifice for eternal atonement, the system of temporary atonement was abolished, which God signified by rending the veil (from top to bottom, to show that He rent it).

Amen.

It also signifies that the Temple in Jerusalem is no longer a Temple, because what makes a Temple a Temple apart from a building structure is the holy of holies. When the veil was rent, the Temple was defiled and thereby ceased being a Temple. This is to show that the Temple is now the Human soul.

As the Scripture says, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb 10:4) If, therefore, the priests who were ordained by God Himself and who offered the sacrifices prescribed by the Scriptures could not remove sins, how can anyone expect the Romish imposters who were ordained by antichrist and offer sacrifices of blasphemy to do so?

I would like to ask you how Malachi's prophecy is fulfilled in Christiainity:

"For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts." (1:11)

Apparently, God told Israel through Malachi that the Gentiles (the Nations) would offer in every place a pure offering.

I can easily answer this question.

The Christian philosopher and martyr (in the Roman Colisseum) Justin gives us this answer:

"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" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

The greatest theologian of the 2nd century who refuted the Gnostic heresies, Irenaeus, the renowned bishop of Lyons, Gaul, provides the same answer:

"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

yours cordially in Christ,

Carson

[ February 23, 2003, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Bob Said -- there were no Christian "PRIESTS" in the first century

Notice that the "argument" is based on the "definition" -- as IF Christians would be calling any pastor/elder/deacon - "A Priest".
Carson, your response pays no attention to the devastating historic evidence on this matter that your own Catholic historians are reporting.

They point out that the desire to be "distinct" from the other Jewish sects was so strong among the early Christians - that their leaders/elders/pastors/presbyters "REFUSED to be Called PRIESTS".

notice...

Your own Catholic historians do not seem to have any trouble reporting the evolution of the priesthood and the early Christian church not wanting to use that title - or even the function since they evolved from Bible teachers to "the sacred clergy" with "powers" to administer magic sacraments (in lay terms).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson, your response pays no attention to the devastating historic evidence on this matter that your own Catholic historians are reporting.

And your response ignores what I have clearly and plainly shown: that we get the English "priest" from "presbyter".

They point out that the desire to be "distinct" from the other Jewish sects was so strong among the early Christians - that their leaders/elders/pastors/presbyters "REFUSED to be Called PRIESTS".

Actually, Bob, the early Christians didn't speak English. They spoke Greek, and they called their pastors presbyteroi, which is what the English "priest" is one translation of.

Pay attention to what I'm writing before you respond. You then will avoid the mistake of wasting your time with a response to a misunderstanding.

 

Carson,

You did not respond to the devastating point of the previous post "they REFUSED to be called Priests" - being reported by your own historian.

A "refusal" that your own "response" would claim is "impossible" since linguistically it "can't exist". ( I suppose we "could" argue that the NT church leaders "did not understand Greek as well as you", or maybe that the RC historian Bokenkotter does not have as firm a grasp on the Greek language as you do - but I am not comfortable going there).

In any case - still waiting for a response to the point raised.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You did not respond to the devastating point

OooOoOOOOOoo "devastating"...

Nice rhetoric.

"they REFUSED to be called Priests"

*Sigh* Must I reiterate what I've written?

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc:

\Priest\, n. [OE. prest, preost, AS. pre['o]st, fr. L. presbyter, Gr. ? elder, older, n., an elder, compar. of ? an old man, the first syllable of which is probably akin to L. pristinus. Cf. Pristine, Presbyter.]

The English Priest comes from the Old English "prest" or "preost", which is translated from the Latin "presbyter".

We believe that our "priests" are "presbyters". They are one and the same term. One is English. One is Latin.

It's simple Bob.

 

Carson:

By my first statement I mean that there must be a linguistic distinction between a priest in the proper cohanim/hiereus type sense (one who offers a sacrifice usually for atonement) and a presbyter (an elder who oversees the church) - otherwise there will be mass confusion. The best solution is to either simply call presbyters "presbyters" or to call them by the English equivalents to this Greek word such as elder (or Spanish equivalent in Spanish, etc.). There is an extreme amount of confusion caused by translating both hiereus and presbuteros as priests, is there not? One might assume from such that the cohanim and presbyters are the same! There must be a distinction! I think you ignore this distinction too much and that it is probably what Bob is referring to - that they refused to be called hiereus perhaps, seeing as how this is the Greek word that truly has the same meaning as priest in English.

I am glad, however, that you agree with me on so many points! You will also agree I'm sure that Peter in his first universal epistle speaking to all Christians says "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet 2:5) Therefore, since all Christians are priests in the sense that they are able to offer the spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to Christ, how could you argue for a special priesthood of any sort? Now, in your argument that the eucharist is a sacrifice, are you saying that atonement is made by it? Surely you simply mean that it is true and spiritual worship, right? Perhaps you believe that one recieves the atonement of Christ's sacrifice in it, but surely you do not believe that the one "officiating" makes any sort of atonement. Are you saying that it is invalid without a presbyter? How so, when all Christians are priests?

PS: Surely you would not extend your claim that priest and presbyter are interchangeable to say that all Christians being priests makes them all presbyters!

[ February 24, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Matt 6:7

 

Hi C.S.,

It's not I who is saying that Baptism is what unites us to Christ's meritorious death. It's Paul.

Paul says, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" (Rom 6).

No I would say as Paul did in Ephesians 2: by grace we are saved thru faith not of works lest any many should boast.

When Paul writes this, what "works" is he speaking of? I would suggest that Paul is addressing those Jews who believed that they were saved by keeping the ergos nomou (works of the Law), which, by way of ritual presumption they thought saved them. Keep reading past Eph 2:8 into 2:11-15, and you'll discover that Paul is addressing a particular problem in his day with regards to Judaizing Christians.

Baptism never saved anyone and never will nor will the catholic sacraments.

I understand that you feel this way, but the Bible explicitly says that baptism saves me.

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3:18-21)

Peter shows that the eight persons saved through the waters of the Deluge foreshadows the sacrament of baptism, which "now saves you".

Hebrews says without faith it is impossible to please Him and hopefully you have faith but faith that pleases God is not mixed with anything other than the power of God to save.

Amen brother. And what is the sacrament of faith? Baptism!

I don't believe that baptism alone can save. I believe that faith expressed in baptism saves.

I Pray that you will lay down all the trappings of your church and take up faith alone in Christ.

What you see as a "trapping", I see as part and parcel with New Testament Christianity through the Bible as my guide.

 

Hi Sola,

There is an extreme amount of confusion caused by translating both hiereus and presbuteros as priests, is there not?

Not for me. I don't regard my parish priest as anything other than what the New Testament presents him as by using presbyteroi.

since all Christians are priests in the sense that they are able to offer the spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to Christ, how could you argue for a special priesthood of any sort?

By showing how a presbyter has a different function than other Christians because he has received the gift conferred by the laying on of the hands. See:

Acts 20:28
Lk 22:19
Jn 20:22
Acts 6:6
Acts 13:3
Acts 14:22
1 Tim 4:14
2 Tim 1:6
Tit 1:5

Now, in your argument that the eucharist is a sacrifice, are you saying that atonement is made by it?

The Eucharist is the body of Christ, which is the sacrifice of the New Covenant.

surely you do not believe that the one "officiating" makes any sort of atonement.

Of course not. Jesus Christ is both High Priest and Victim in the once for all sacrifice of the New Covenant.

Are you saying that it is invalid without a presbyter? How so, when all Christians are priests?

Yes, because Jesus didn't command all Christians to "do this in remembrance of me", but only his Apostles, of whom the clergy are ordained in direct succession from by the imposition of hands.

The Lord’s Supper is the equivalent of the Old Testament Passover feast, in which the sacrificed paschal lamb was consumed (1 Cor. 5:7-8). In the original Greek, Luke 22:19 ("Do this in remembrance of me") is “Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin”. The Greek word “poiete” (do) is also translated as “offer” in Exodus 29:38, and the Greek word “anamnesin” (remembrance) has the sacrificial overtone of a memorial offering such as its use in Hebrews 10:3.

Surely you would not extend your claim that priest and presbyter are interchangeable to say that all Christians being priests makes them all presbyters!

No, and that is why we make the distinction:

(1) Priesthood of all believers
(2) Ministerial priesthood

Both are of equal dignity, but of different function. One is universal; one is ministerial.

 

Hi Keith,

You quoted, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Matt 6:7"

Can I say "Amen!"?

The people who make these accusations against Catholics don't understand, apparently:

(1) That the verse in question reads, in the King James version, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." The operative Greek word here for "vain repetitions" is battalogeo, or babbling. That is, the heathens had a magical perception of prayer and thought the more they babbled to their gods, the more that that god would respond: I Kings 18:26: "And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered."

(2) That, two verses after the warning in Matthew against "vain repetitions," Jesus gave us the "Our Father" prayer which most Protestant Christians pray with no qualms about praying "in vain." The same command in Luke 11:2 reads: "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father..." -- "when you pray, say..."

(3) That Christ Himself prayed in repetitions. Matthew 26:44: "And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words". Mark 14:39 reads: "And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words."

(4) That the angels pray repetitiously. Revelation 4:8: "...and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come."

(5) That God commanded Moses to tell the Israelites: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." (Deuteronomy 6:4-7)

(6) That the Psalms are nothing but a collection of prayers and litanies which were prayed formally in the pre-Christian synagogues and early Christian churches, are still prayed in synagogues and Catholic churches today -- and were even prayed by Christ from the Cross.

(7) That the liturgy of the synagogue was (and is) filled with repetition and formalized prayer. Christ said "use not vain repetitions, as the heathens do". Were the Jews heathens? They prayed (and still pray) the sh'ma twice a day and, in their liturgy, the Shemoneh Esrei, the Kaddish, the morning blessings, the Aleinu, etc. Check out a Jewish siddur (missal) sometime; does it look more typically Protestant or Catholic (Lutherans and Anglicans excepted)?

(8) That hymns are prayers. Is it "vain" to sing "Amazing Grace" or "The Old Rugged Cross" more than once?

Considering all things,

Carson

 

i think you are very confused. earlier you said that Jesus saves. but now you are saying that baptism saves. make up your mind. baptism is works man. it is trusting in something YOU did.

carson if you died right now and Jesus asked you why He should let you into Heaven, what would you say?

 

couple things about this. first off, i (and probably most people on the BB) never quote the Model Prayer. as for the rest of the "protestant" groups, most of them are apostates anyway and are wrong for their vain repetitions too.

secondly, as i just said, it is the Model Prayer. the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray. and Jesus said "After this manner therefore pray ye" He is telling how to pray, not to pray exactly these words. the Model Prayer can be broken down to show how to pray...

"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name" - we should honour God and worship Him in prayer

"Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." - humble yourself before God and acknowledge His perfect will

etc...

The real Lord's Prayer is found in John 17, and should not be repeated in vain either.

 

Hi Keith,

You wrote, "earlier you said that Jesus saves. but now you are saying that baptism saves.

Yes, I'm saying that because that's what the Bible says.

The Bible explicitly says that baptism saves me.

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3:18-21)

Peter shows that the eight persons saved through the waters of the Deluge foreshadows the sacrament of baptism, which "now saves you".

The question isn't whether baptism or Christ saves me. The question is whether baptism unites me to Christ who saves me. The question is whether baptism is Christ's instrument of salvation.

make up your mind. baptism is works man. it is trusting in something YOU did.

What about faith? Is having faith works? Is having faith something that I do that earns salvation? You see, you're creating false dichotomies. Christ is the minister of baptism. Christ is the author of my faith. Christus solus.

carson if you died right now and Jesus asked you why He should let you into Heaven, what would you say?

I would answer, "Because I am God's son in You, the only Son of God, who died in atonement for my sins and paid the price of redemption, so that I might be adopted into God's covenant family."

"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." (Gal 4:4-5)

With that said, salvation isn't a theological test. Our salvation or damnation isn't going to be dependent upon the "right answer", but upon the expression of Christ's righteousness in our lives through faith, hope, and love. See Matthew 25 and Jesus' description of the Final Judgment.

He is telling how to pray, not to pray exactly these words.

I made 8 points above, and you responded to one of those points. I'll take it that the other seven were sufficient in demonstrating that Jesus' command in the Sermon on the Mount to not pray in vain repetitions does not negate formal prayer or Christian prayer that contains repetition.

God bless you!

Carson

 

C.S., my man,

About Romans 6:1ff, you wrote, "I believe it is speaking of Christ in me the hope of glory not water baptism."

Wow! I can't believe my eyes! You, a pastor - out of all people, actually have said that this passage isn't speaking of water baptism. Are you sure Paul isn't speaking about baptism when he speaks of baptism (I can't believe I'm even asking this question)?

Murphy this reminds me of some misguided denominations who also claim the necessity of baptism for salvation and to them and you I ask what about the theif who Christ promised would be with Him in paradise?

What about him? What was Jesus' promise? (Hint: pay careful attention to Jesus' words)

(also, for your information, the Church has taught from the beginning that water baptism is the ordinary means of receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, being adopted as sons in the Son, and obtaining Christ's once for all redemption. But the two extraordinary means are 1. Baptism of Desire [Those who die before being baptized, yet would be baptized if given the opportunity to do so] and 2. Baptism of Blood [Martyrs who die for Christ before they are baptized])

Murph this Carson is my point you add something to faith in Christ alone to save

And you've added faith to Christ alone to save. Why can't Christ save you alone, Murph? Why must you trust in your own faith, which is a work?

Baptism is the instrument that unites us to Christ's meritorious death because, in it, we swear the oath that allows us to enter the New Covenant. We are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and thereby enter into the New Covenant, made in the blood of Christ, which alone takes away sin.

Water cannot wash away my sins but only the blood of Christ.

Really? If only the blood of Christ can wash away your sins, then have you been washed in his blood? Have you actually come into contact with Jesus' physical blood? I have, in the Holy Eucharist, where he cleanses me of my venial sins every day in the divine liturgy. I actually touched Jesus this afternoon!

God bless,

Carson

[ February 24, 2003, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

C.S,

Carson are you trying to say that Jesus was referring to something other than the promise of Heaven to the thief?

What did Jesus say?

"Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Lk 23:43)

Where did Jesus go that day? Where was Paradise for the just on the day of Good Friday?

What about Cornelious when Peter went to his house and many received the HS without being baptised in water.

God has bound his action to the sacraments, but God himself is not bound to the sacraments. "The wind blows where it wills" (John 3:8).

Charismatic gifts are distinct from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul, which alone brings about our salvation and sanctity. I've seen unrepentant sinners who knew that they were without the grace of Christ receive and experience charismatic gifts, and it was those charismatic gifts that lead them to conversion and subsequent faith in Christ.

I don't trust in my faith but rather I have faith in His faithfulness.

Ah, but you're still the one having the faith, brother. You're doing it. At least, that's what you must say if you're going to say that anything we do cannot be Christ's work. (I wouldn't say that Christ is the giver of our faith, as Christ is the giver of our hope, our charity, our baptism, the Holy Spirit, and all good gifts)

The writer of Hebrews says without faith it is impossible to please God.

Amen!

There my friend is where I fear you and I may be seperate, you feel that you touched Christ thru the man made ritual of the catholic church

Excuse me, Pastor Murphy, but I believe Jesus made the ritual!

"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, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks DAMNATION upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Cor 11)

but on the other hand thru simple faith alone Jesus touched me this afternoon.

And, brother, Jesus touches me apart from his Eucharistic presence throughout my daily life. I don't deny your experience, but, rather, affirm it!

Bless you,

Carson