kfc posts 58

kfc  #60

Yeah, all believers, from Jews and Gentiles are priests says KFC pointing to 1St.Peter 2:5!

And oops! Leauki bought that!

What is St.Peter saying? He's repeating what God said to Moses. "If ...you will....keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people....ANd you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation. Ex. 19:5-6. If these words meant that each believer is a priest, that had to mean the same thing when God said the same thing to the Jews in the OT. Was every Jew a priest?  NO.

All Isreal had been called a "priestly kingdom" becasue they alone in the ancient world preserved the knowledge and worship of the one true God, but they were not all priests. A separate priesthood ministered to the Altar. "Thou and thy sons look ye to the priesthood: and all things that pertain to the service of the altar, and that are within the veil, shall be executed by priests. If any stranger shall approach, he shall be slain." Numbers 18:7-8; 16:39-40; 17:1-10. God chose Aaron out of all the men to offer sacrifice to God, incense for a memorial to make reconciliation for his people.

The CC has always recongnized the priesthood of the laity who offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the priest while simultaneously upholding a separate priesthood called by Christ.

The priest is called, chosen out, separated from the laity. Hebrews 5:1, 3-4 "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, like Aaron."

The priest, the ambassodor of God, is the authorized preacher and teacher 2Cor. 5:20. As was the ancient nation of Isreal, those united through Baptism to the Church are called "a holy priesthood", but we are not all priests with priestly powers, any more than Core was. Only priests could offer sacrifice under the Old Covenant; and only validly ordained Catholic priests can offer the Sacrifice in the New Covenant.    

leauki posts

Scripture discloses that the institution of the New Covenant priests are not from one family, as was the Aaronic priesthood. The NC priesthood is a lasting priesthood, one "without father, without mother, without genealogy" Hebrews 7:3. The priests of the NC are now called "according to the order of Melchisedech," not according to the order of Aaron." 7:11, becasue the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law." 7:12.

St.Paul goes on in chapter 8...

1 Now of the things spoken, the sum is: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the holies, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord hath pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that he also should have something to offer:

4 If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest: seeing there would be others who should offer gifts according to the law,

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: See* (saith he) that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shewn thee on the mount.

6 But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises.

7 For if the former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith: *Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new testament with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda,

9 Not according to the testament which I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: for they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the testament, which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and I will write them in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them:

12 Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.

13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.

KFC posts:

Christ institued the priesthood and the Holy Mass at the Last Supper. Just as was the OC priesthood, the NC priesthood are ordained to offer Sacrifice to God. The NC priesthood is reaffirmed by St,Paul here in Hebrews 8.

Start with v. 3, which says all high priests are ordained to offer up to God some gifts and sacrifices....Christ our Eternal High Priest is in Heaven, and His priests on earth are, on the infinite merits and satisfaction of CHrist'd death and passion, offering up to God gifts and sacrifices in His name. The daily sacrifice of the Holy Mass all over the world from sun up to sun set is foretold by Malachais, 1:10-11. Malachais is describing "the clean oblation" first offered by Melchisedech, a priest, who offered to God sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. In St.John 6 Christ told His followers that He is the Bread of Life promising the Eucharist. We know Psalm 109 predicted Christ would be a priest "accodring to the order of Melchisedech, that is offering a sacrifice in bread and wine. The Holy Mass fits the bill and CHrist instituted the Holy Mass at the Last Supper when He said, of the bread and wine, this is My Body, this is My Blood, given for you....take and eat ....do this for a  commemoraton of Me.

In Verse 4 and 5 St.Paul tells us that Christ could not be a priest according to Judaism becasue He was of the tribe of Juda and not of Levi. He also tells us that the priesthood and its functions of the sacrifices under the Old Mosaic law were shadows of the heavenly things in the New Covenant becasue of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross.

Verse 6 is that Christ has obtained a more excellent ministry, priesthood, a mediator between God and man. The priesthood brings greater graces and blessings.      

oops! double post

None of that even begins to answer my question.

I didn't want to know why Catholic priests see themselves as priests of the type of Melchizedek rather than Aaron, I wanted to know how Melchizedek could have been a legitimate priest if his religion was not divinely inspires and priestly.

This adds some complications.

So now we know that the word "priest" means "elder".

Now the question is, does it mean "priest"?

We only have one stable anchor, the Hebrew word "kohen". It definitely means "priest" in the sense of Aaron and Melchizedek (the same word is used to describe both, I checked).

Now, the fact that the Greek word for "elder" exists in Germanic languages as "priest" doesn't mean that these "elders" are what we now consider "priests" to be. Are they kohens or not? Did the Greek even make a difference between an elder and a kohen?

I guess I can check my Hebrew version of the Christian Bible to see whether whoever translated the New Testament into Hebrew thought that it ought to mean "kohen". But even that wouldn't prove anything, since the translation into Hebrew is not a primary source.

An old Aramaic text might help us. How did Christians 1700 years ago understand the concept of an "elder"? Was it to them an old and wise leader or a "kohen"?

(Did the Greeks use "presbyteroys" for their pagan priests?)

Investigating further I found that the Greek word for "priest" (in the "kohen" sense) is ιερέας (iereas?).

And then I ran into this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest#Terminology

The English word priest is ultimately from Latin presbyter, the term for "elder", especially elders of Jewish or Christian communities in Late Antiquity. [...] This word did not refer to a religious function, the word for "priest" being Latin sacerdos, Greek hiereus.

(It's apparently "hiereus".)

No, Lula, I don't think you can make the case that the New Testament speaks of "priests" in the kohen sense based on the coincidence that Germanic languages used a Greek word meaning "elder" to mean what is "hiereus" in Greek.

If we were discussing this same issue here in any non-Germanic (or possibly non-European) language, that coincidence wouldn't even have occured to us and would never have become an argument at all.

(I really love how lingustics can be used to prove or disprove theories about historic events!)

exactly.  Didn't I say this way back in #58?  So Lula for your many words you have proven nothing! 

Lula, I told you.  Go to a Greek bible (there are many Greek/English bibles out there) and you'll see it IS NOT the word "hiereus"  (priest)  written there.  It's the word "presbuteros."  You can make it say priest if you wish but you would be wrong. 

There is NO need for a priest mediator anymore because Christ as our High Priest mediates on our behalf to the Father.  That's exactly what the book of Hebrews is about.  It's done for us.  The priests daily stood for hours performing their duties.  Jesus, it is written, sat down.  Because it was finished!  Completed.  No more sacrifices have to be done. 

Christ did not ordain or institute any sort of Christian priesthood Lula.  Deep down, you know this.  But to admit it, means that you would have to question the authority of the RCC (oh my) and we can't do that can we? 

For what it's worth, I checked my Hebrew "New Testamant" and the word used is "zeqnim". It means "old", "oldster", "grandfather", "scholar", "wise man".

This doesn't prove anything except that whoever translated the Greek into Hebrew (I assume they started from the Greek), didn't think the word should be "kohen" (priest).

exactly Leauki.  Lula wants to believe it's priest because it fits better with the RCC theology which states that Jesus instituted the priesthood ONLY in the RCC which is not true. 

She's using the book of  Hebrews but not realizing that when that was written (prior to 70 AD) the temple was still standing and the audience intended for that letter was the Jews who were still performing sacrifices.  He was making a distinction between the priests who were forever standing in the temple to the genuine High Priest who sat down because He was finished. 

Probably when the veil of the temple rent from top to bottom the priests ignored the big (in your face) sign that it was finished.  So they fixed the veil and continued on which is exactly what Lula is believing.  In the book of Acts we also see that many of these priests did believe.  But not all of them.  And that word was PRIESTS in the Greek!  Not Elders. 

"and the word of God increased and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."  Acts 6:7

The short answer is Melchisedech belongs to a priesthood established by God in pre-Mosaic times. So Melchisedech's priesthood was Divinely inspired.

The long answer....

We know something about Melchisedech from reading Genesis 14:18-20; Ps. 75 (76):3; and 109 (110):4; and Hebrews 5:6-10; 7:1-17.

Melchisedech (Heb. melki-sedeq, my king is justice, or (the god) Sedec is my king) was Priest-King of Salem.

From Genesis we learn that Melchisedech was v.18, "the priest of the Most High God", 19 blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram, by the most High God who created heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be the Most High God by whose protection the enemies are in thy hands. ...."

Melchisedech was a priest of the one true God. He had knowledge of God....He was El-Elyon, the Most High God which is the same name as Abraham's God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has

[Gr. Melchisedek , from the Hebrew meaning "King of righteousness (Gesenius)] was King of Salem (Gen. xiv, 18-20) who, on Abraham's return with the booty taken from the four kings, "bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, blessed him", and received from him "the tithes of all" (v. 20). Josephus, with many others, identifies Salem with Jerusalem, and adds that Melchisedech "supplied Abram's army in a hospitable manner, and gave them provisions in abundance. . .and when Abram gave him the tenth part of his prey, he accepted the gift" (Ant., I, x, 2).

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephesus 37-100AD, refers to Melchisedech as a "prince of Canaan" who founded and was high priest of Jerusalem.

Besides Josephesus, we can link Salem to Jerusalem and connect Melchisedech as an ancient predecessor of David in Jerusalem.  

In Psalm 75 (76):2-3, Salem is paralled to Sion (Jerusalem, the ancient Jebusite city captured only centuries later by David).  Also, in the days of the Israelite invasion of Canaan the name of the ruler of Jerusalem was Adonisedec. Note the similiarity of his name...Heb. adoni-sedeq, my lord is justice, or (the god) Sedeq is my lord.  

The act of Abram's paying tithes to the priest of Jerusalem provides the historical antecedent to accept David and David's priest Sadoc as successors of Melchisedech to whom their father Abraham gave tithes.

This is the link that allows the later development seen in Psalm 109 (110):4. This Psalm commemorates the accession of some unknown successor of David (Christ), to the throne of Jerusalem. David became King of Jerusalem where Melchisedech had ruled, so the Psalmist says the later Davidic King (Christ) became "a priest according to the order of Melchisedech" by his accession. Following the promise of Nathan to David, the messianic hopes of Israel were expressed in terms of the Davidic line, and so Melchisedech entered this sacred plan.

Psalm 110:4 adds fuirther revelation to that of Genesis....the promised Messias, a descendant of David, will not only be a King, which they already knew, but also a Priest and He will not be a priest of Aaron.  He will be a priest by a new dispostion of God, according to the Hebrew text of St.Paul "after the manner of Melchisedech".

leauki posts:

Interesting! The Hebrew word for priest Kohen or cohen root meaning is "bridge or guardian".

KFC posts: 58

On these, we agree. .....HOWEVER, during the Apostolic age the term "elder" was fluid.

gotta ask...in Sacred Scripture was an elder just an old man? No, not according to St.Paul writing to Timothy, "These things command and teach. Let no man despeth your youth....neglect not the grace that is in thee, which is given thee by prophecy, with the imposition of the hands of the priesthood." Timothy commanded and taught the faithful not becasue he was an elder, or greater in age, but because he had received the powers of the priesthood in the sacrament of imposition of hands, 2Tim. 1:6.  

And we certainly can see the difference in 1Tim 5:1; 17

KJV, v. 1 "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren:"

v. 17 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine."

DR, v. 1, "An ancient man, rebuke him not, but entreat him as a father; young men as brethren."

v. 17, "Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour; especially they who labor in the word and doctrine."

When the priesthood of the New Covenant was just beginning, the early Church titles were:

 "Bishops", (episkopoi) or overseers. They cared for multiple Church congregations, appointed, ordained, and disciplined priests and deacons. Timothy and Titus were two first century Bishops in the early Catholic Church.

"Priests" or "Elders" were known as (Presbyter or presbuteroi). They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given Church congregation.

"Deacons"; diakonoi are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Chruch tasks, such as the distribution of food. Acts. 6:1-6.  

In the liturgical rite that included the imposition of hands, (Acts. 14:23; 1Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2Tim. 1:6,) the candidate who satisfied the Chruch's moral and spiritual requirements (1Tim. 3:2-7, Titus 1:6-9), was raised to the presbyterate by Apostles, such as St.Paul and St. Barnabas ( Acts 14:22) or by an episcopo-presbyter such as Timothy or Titus.

The authority of the presbyter was mediated by ordaination 2Tim. 1:6. The sacerdotal aspect of his office was evident in the liturgical function he performed in the breaking of the bread. The Presbyter by reason of his office, ruled, and gave good example to his community (Acts 20:28; 1St.Peter 5:1-3; Titus 1:5),.and was viligent against false teachers Acts 20:31 and anointed and prayed for the sick, James 5:14-15, presided at the celebration of the Eucharist, Acts. 2:42; 1Cor. 10:16-21 and was an authoritative teacher and arbiter of doctrine as seen in the Council of Jerusalem. Acts. 15: 2, 4, 6, 22, 23. and if he was an episcopo-presbyter like Titus, he constituted and directed fellow presbyters. Titus 1:5-6.

By the beginning of the 2nd century, these terms took the form in precise meanings in which they are used today. On this we have the writings of St.Ignatius of ANtioch in 110, of Clement of Alexandria in 191, of Hippolytus in 215, of Origen in 234, of the Council of Elvira in 300, of the Council of Nicea I in 325 and St.John Chrysostom in 402 and St.Patrick of Ireland in 452.

Where do you get that?

All I get from my Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries is meanings related to "priest", "service", "perform (rites)", "be enriched", and "flourish". Where would "bridge" or "guardian" come in?

In my study of the Israelite priesthood. The term kohen is used for priests of pagan gods in Gen. 41:45; 50; 1Sam. 5:5; 6.2; 4kings 10:19 as well as for priests of Yahweh. Possibly the word lewi (Levite) was used originally in the sense of priest or those who exercised special functions in the worship of Yahweh.

The Apostles rejected the word kohen becasue it would have confused the first Christians, converts from Judaism. They favored "presbyter" becasue they wanted to make a distinction between the Church and a Jewish sect.

I thought the Hebrew kohen strictly as priest, not elder.  A Protestant reference book, Smith's Bible Dictionary, of "priest" is derived from the Greek Presbyter, signifying "elder" (Heb. cohen).

In some instances the Septuagint uses the plural to translate the hebrew word z qenim (Ex. 19:7; Num. 11:16; 24; Ru 4:2. as OT elders who had authority in the Isrealite community. In the NT, this  Greek word is used for Jewish elders, members of one of the groups of the Sanhedrin. St.Matt. 16:21; 21:23; 26:3.

since a half truth is a whole lie, I have to call this a lie Lula.  Yes, Timothy was young.  An elder was one who was mature in the faith.  It's not speaking about fleshly youth but spiritual maturity.  It's a physical word used for a spiritual meaning.  Timothy was an elder.  Young in the flesh but mature in the spirit.  He was NOT A PRIEST.  He was an elder.  Big diff.  If he were a priest then the Greek word for priest would have been used as it is elsewhere.  It was not.  For good reason that you just can't accept. 

no, that can't be true because we are called the priesthood of believers both by John and Peter.  And they used the word Priests then.  The writer to the Hebrews also used the word priests.  There is a definition purpose in their using of these two words.  To argue is to argue against the one who breathed the words.  You need to take it up with God. 

You're not understanding the whole concept Lula.  You're stuck on the physical "priest" and not on the whole concept of what God was doing here.

Moses was given a blueprint for the tabernacle where God would dwell among His people until a more permanent house could be built in Jerusalem.  Everything in the temple had significance.  In order to understand the purpose of the tabernacle (and priests) we need to go all the way back to Genesis where we read that the Lord used to walk with Adam and Eve in Eden showing the close intimate fellowship they enjoyed with the Creaor before sin entered in.  After that Adam and Eve were banished from the immediate presence of God and since that day the goal of salvation has been to restore that face to face communion between God and His people. 

The tabernacle was the vehicle thru which God manifested His presence among Israel and later Solomon's Temple.  His presence would fill first the tabernacle and later the Temple.  Now the people had a tent/Temple where they could meet the Creator.  It still did not go far enugh.  Sin had not yet been atoned for and only a select few (priests) could enter into the tabernacle and enjoy God's presence.  Once sin had been atoned for all had access to God, not only the priests. 

The Jerusalem Temple did fall but Christ is the true temple in whom we now meet.  In Christ we have access to the holy place in heaven where we can commune with God.  Just as the tabernacle reminded Israel of God's presence so too does the cross remind us that have access to the Lord.  No longer are priests needed to mediate us because Christ now is our mediator. 

God has met us face to face in Christ and we can be assured that He will never leave the temple that He is building in His son with us as living stones (1 Peter 2).  We are now part of the holy temple that God is making His church to be. 

That's why John wrote "and has made us kings and priests to God"...Rev 1:6

"and has made us unto our God kings and priests and we shall reign on the earth."  5:10

The true temple is NOT in the stones and beauty of Jerusalem's worship center but in the resurrected body of Jesus.  We are now the priesthood of believers. 

Just as the original Paradise was a place where man and God communed together so the ultimate paradise is a place of eternal communion between man and God thru Christ.  That's why the veil was torn down.  Full access to the throne. 

Therefore, Priests are no longer needed.  That's why elders were named instead. 

Lewi is the priestly tribe. All (Israelite) Kohens are of the tribe of Lewi. But not all Lewites are Kohens.

Kohen describes Israelite priests as well as Canaanite priests of the same god or other gods as well as Zoroastrian priests and pagan priests.

Or they rejected the word "kohen" because they didn't want a priesthood.

It's also possible that the early converts fully respected Jewish and Zoroastrian priests and didn't plan to replace the existing priesthoods.

The Hebrew "kohen" is strictly "priest", not "elder", as we have been telling you.

Therefor the New Testament does not speak of priests when it talks about elders, even though the English word for kohen derives from a Greek word for elder.