Is there a true church?

[glassjester]

Wow... an outright lie in the first sentence... priest does not come from the greek word presbtyros..... A first year greek student would know that.

I know of at least two people that disagree with you.

Their names are...

Merriam...

and...

...Webster.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priest
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presbyter

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Do you believe that Christ literally rose from the dead?

No. It's symbolism for reconnecting with the child-like part of us that was left behind during our transition to adulthood. That is when we were closest to the soul. It is a feeling of innocence, purity, imagination, playfulness, enchantment, magic and wonder. Being born again makes us feel like a kid again.

 

[glassjester]

I asked if you believe that Christ rose from the dead. You responded:

No.

We might not have enough common ground to discuss Christian doctrine or Biblical interpretation.


1 Corinthians 15:12 - 14

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I asked if you believe that Christ rose from the dead. You responded:



We might not have enough common ground to discuss Christian doctrine or Biblical interpretation.

Sure we do. I was a Catholic for 35 years.

 

[glassjester]

Sure we do. I was a Catholic for 35 years.

What are you now?

 

[Prizebeatz1]

What are you now?

The soul is my ultimate identity. There's nothing wrong with being a Catholic but not at the expense of our infinite and eternal self. The path to the soul is not easy. It requires learning to let go of who and what we take ourselves to be. We quit hanging on to our sense of identity through the personality and release ALL our beliefs with it. It's pretty scary and I don't think most people are willing to face it. That is why Christianity is so popular. It's much easier and more convenient not to have to face the truth. But as Jesus says "...the truth will set you free (John 8:32)".

Notice the personality resists letting go party because it is unconsciously proud. It is extracting unconscious pleasure by establishing itself as its own foundation. This brings it comfort, security, stability and a sense of control. It runs deep as we are programmed as humans to survive. Unfortunately what the personality takes to be survival is actually the opposite. "Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. (Luke 17:33)." Once we get a glimpse of what is real in the soul the traditional literal interpretation doesn't really make sense anymore but I can see why people are skeptical and would not want to let go.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I asked if you believe that Christ rose from the dead. You responded:



We might not have enough common ground to discuss Christian doctrine or Biblical interpretation.


1 Corinthians 15:12 - 14

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

The literal interpretation of Christ being raised from the dead is not totally useless BTW. Maybe it's all we can handle at one point in our lives. It can become painful, however, if we grow totally dependent on it for our self-worth. It can become a barrier to experiencing our divinity. It conditions us through fear which can be helpful and even necessary for certain individuals. Often we will resist letting go of the personality because of vulnerability to fear of the unknown and loss of the familiar identity. The truth is "my power is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9)." So feeling vulnerable is a natural part of realizing that our true strength comes from the fact that we are one with God. We let go of our man-made efforts to hold onto beliefs and to define ourselves through the personality and allow what is infinite and eternal to define us instead.

 

[Crucible]

The literal interpretation of Christ being raised from the dead is not totally useless BTW.

:doh:
There is no other interpretation.

He rose, and there were eyewitnesses of him assuming into Paradise. It was literal. People weren't being martyred and crucified on a metaphor, Broseph.

 

[glassjester]

:doh:
There is no other interpretation.

He rose, and there were eyewitnesses of him assuming into Paradise. It was literal. People weren't being martyred and crucified on a metaphor, Broseph.

Agreed. If Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain.

 

[glassjester]

The literal interpretation of Christ being raised from the dead is not totally useless BTW. Maybe it's all we can handle at one point in our lives. It can become painful, however, if we grow totally dependent on it for our self-worth. It can become a barrier to experiencing our divinity. It conditions us through fear which can be helpful and even necessary for certain individuals. Often we will resist letting go of the personality because of vulnerability to fear of the unknown and loss of the familiar identity. The truth is "my power is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9)." So feeling vulnerable is a natural part of realizing that our true strength comes from the fact that we are one with God. We let go of our man-made efforts to hold onto beliefs and to define ourselves through the personality and allow what is infinite and eternal to define us instead.

Should we just ignore 1 Cor. 15:14?

 

[HisServant]

I know of at least two people that disagree with you.

Their names are...

Merriam...

and...

...Webster.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priest
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presbyter

What would they know about ancient greek?... you cannot ignore the Catholic Churches corruption of language.

Hieros is the Greek word for priest, and it is only mentioned once in the New Testament. Presbtyr is a term that English translators typically translate to bishop, pastor or elder... depending on however the wind seems to be blowing at the time. Elder is the preferred and more accurate rendering.

Presbyter (Greek πρεσβύτερος, : "elder" or "priest" in Christian usage) in the New Testament refers to a leader in local Christian congregations, with presbyter being from the Greek "presbyteros" and meaning elder/senior and episkopos meaning overseer, referring exclusively to the office of bishop, but with presbyteros being understood by many as referring to the same person functioning as overseer.[1][2] In modern Catholic and Orthodox usage, presbyter is distinct from bishop and synonymous with priest. In mainline Protestant usage, the term is however not seen as referring to a member of a distinctive priesthood and terms such as minister, pastor and elder are used.

Interesting, apparently the Roman use if it is a modern one, specific for them... apparently to justify their mangling of the New Testament and keep their members blind.

 

[glassjester]

What would they know about ancient greek?... you cannot ignore the Catholic Churches corruption of language.

Hieros is the Greek word for priest, and it is only mentioned once in the New Testament. Presbtyr is a term that English translators typically translate to bishop, pastor or elder... depending on however the wind seems to be blowing at the time. Elder is the preferred and more accurate rendering.

Hieros is not the origin of the English word, "priest."

Presbtyros is. You don't have to like it, for it to be true.

 

[HisServant]

Hieros is not the origin of the English word, "priest."

Presbtyros is. You don't have to like it, for it to be true.

I amended my post above to show that only Catholics use that MODERN meaning of the word. Which shows that it was not the meaning contemporary with the writers of the New Testament.

Romanists are the worse word manglers in history.... they do it all the time to justify their non-christian roman traditions being added to its church.

 

[glassjester]

I amended my post above to show that only Catholics use that MODERN meaning of the word. Which shows that it was not the meaning contemporary with the writers of the New Testament.

Romanists are the worse word manglers in history.... they do it all the time to justify their non-christian roman traditions being added to its church.

You realize we're talking about English, right?
None of the words we're using right now were used by the writers of the New Testament.

 

[HisServant]

You realize we're talking about English, right?
None of the words we're using right now were used by the writers of the New Testament.

Yes, but presbyter never meant priest when looking at contemporary writings to the New Testament... No ENGLISH translation except for CATHOLIC ones have ever translated presbyter as Priest. Geneva, Great, Bishops and the KJV never do.

 

[glassjester]

Yes, but presbyter never meant priest when looking at contemporary writings to the New Testament... No ENGLISH translation except for CATHOLIC ones have ever translated presbyter as Priest. Geneva, Great, Bishops and the KJV never do.

The word "trinity" isn't there either. Neither is "bible." Neither is "protestant," or "Lutheran."

This doesn't negate the fact that the English word "priest" is literally derived from the word "presbtyros."


Use any word you'd like. Call them dandelions. It's the meaning that matters. What were the responsibilities of the presbyters? How were they chosen? What function did they assume in the early church?

 

[HisServant]

The word "trinity" isn't there either. Neither is "bible." Neither is "protestant," or "Lutheran."

This doesn't negate the fact that the English word "priest" is literally derived from the word "presbtyros."


Use any word you'd like. Call them dandelions. It's the meaning that matters. What were the responsibilities of the presbyters? How were they chosen? What function did they assume in the early church?

only for catholics.

FYI, I disagree with the term trinity, especially with the RCC's convoluted definition of it.

Presbyter had to be men of mature age, husband of one wife and had to have a family to examine to determine whether they were fit for the job. They also had to work outside of the Church for their living so that their reputation in the secular world could be examined because they had to have a good reputation both inside and outside of the church.

Seems like the RCC has forgotten what presbyters were supposed to be.... and replaced them with the Roman pagan type priestly duties instead. Which makes a lot of sense for them given the evolution of their church post AD300.

 

[glassjester]

only for catholics.

Ok. If not the Greek "presbyteros," then from what language(s) and word(s) is the English word "priest" derived?

Presbyter had to be men of mature age, husband of one wife and had to have a family to examine to determine whether they were fit for the job.

From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

 

[Crucible]

Presbyterians are one of the most Protestant among the Protestants. They adopted Reformed, Calvinist doctrine for crying out loud.

And their church goes exactly by it's name- it is an elder based establishment. Being Reformed, I tend not to criticize Presbyterians too much, however I don't agree with with what the presbyters are condoning- if I'm not mistaken, they have become friendly with homosexual marriage which is an automatic red flag. They are becoming more and more liberal by the day which is apparently something that comes with fathers running a church- looking at the Vatican and Canterbury, for example. :think:

 

[HisServant]

Ok. If not the Greek "presbyteros," then from what language(s) and word(s) is the English word "priest" derived?

hiereus and papas


What it calls absurd, I do not.

And we do know that Paul was married at one point.

As far as childless not being able to be elders, that would be God's will for them. It is God that equips and bestows the gifts necessary to be an elder... to not rest in him and be ambitious to be an elder even when God has shown you that you are not to be one is absurd.

God decides who works in his church, not men.