The "Reformation"

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,879
254
83
#21
BTW I fail to see how my "structure is poor" I have been using punctuation and indentation...
This is not a blog, we are not writing papers.

This is quite a fast internet chat, so its needed that your posts are easy to read and you go directly to your point.
 

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2014
62,302
1,249
113
#22
Trof, this is a forum, not a chat room. :) And it's Saturday. Probably one of the SLOWEST days on here, except for Sunday..
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,879
254
83
#23
Trof, this is a forum, not a chat room. :) And it's Saturday. Probably one of the SLOWEST days on here, except for Sunday..
I was thinking "should I use chat or forum word" :) Wrong one, again. Because you, people are calling this chat sometimes and so you are confusing me, poor non-English guy.
 
Last edited:
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#24
Because they do not believe that Christ is God.
UGH I get this much and again I would agree with this however there has to be stated reasoning as to why you believe your interpretation is correct rather than that of the JWs for instance. What you are doing here is proving my point that you can't when basing your understanding of scripture on the basis of personal interpretation what you end up with is circular reason as has been shown frequently throughout the thread
 

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2014
62,302
1,249
113
#25
I just got here. First time posting in this forum. I didn't call it a chat.. lol


I was thinking "should I use chat or forum word" :) Wrong one, again. Because you, people are calling this chat and so you are confusing me, poor non-English guy.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,879
254
83
#26
UGH I get this much and again I would agree with this however there has to be stated reasoning as to why you believe your interpretation is correct rather than that of the JWs for instance. What you are doing here is proving my point that you can't when basing your understanding of scripture on the basis of personal interpretation what you end up with is circular reason as has been shown frequently throughout the thread
I am not sure what you are not satisfied with about my response.

When somebody does not believe that Christ is God, its is not a "protestant sect", obviously.

The deity of Christ is not a matter of "my" interpretation. Bible says clearly that Christ is God. I do not need RCC to tell me that, if you are going this way.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#27
I am not sure what you are not satisfied with about my response.

When somebody does not believe that Christ is God, its is not a "protestant sect", obviously.

The deity of Christ is not a matter of "my" interpretation. Bible says clearly that Christ is God. I do not need RCC to tell me that, if you are going this way.
I am aware of this however what I am stating that should be obvious is that the JWs claim that the Bible does not say this. The question remains that without any sort of religious authority to guide the Christian people into truth as to what the Bible does indeed state who is to know whose interpretation is more valid than the next person the fact of the matter is that the protestant perspective is relativistic.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,879
254
83
#28
I am aware of this however what I am stating that should be obvious is that the JWs claim that the Bible does not say this. The question remains that without any sort of religious authority to guide the Christian people into truth as to what the Bible does indeed state who is to know whose interpretation is more valid than the next person the fact of the matter is that the protestant perspective is relativistic.
Well, you can look at the Bible, right? Thats what we have it for.

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."
R 9:5

They need to change Bible to conform it to their ideas, which itself proves them wrong.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
11,311
360
83
#29
If given a free hand Roman Catholicism would once again slaughter all who oppose her. In this she is like Islam and I believe one day they will unite as the one world religion spoken of that will come against Israel.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#30
Well, you can look at the Bible, right? Thats what we have it for.

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."
R 9:5

They need to change Bible to conform it to their ideas, which itself proves them wrong.
Ok good point and thank you for pointing out the obvious now the JWs was a mere example there are more complex theological issues that most will claim can be found merely in scripture without any sort of basis for understanding. Anyways going back to the example of the JWs I believe they would claim that this verse is corrupted anyhow which book is this Romans? I would like to share the New World Translation just to show the point being. The fact of the matter is that one has to appeal to something outside of the scriptures themselves to support their claims, the point being the JW claim is historically inaccurate.

My question for you is what makes the protestant claim accurate when it seems to be obvious that none of the protestant views namely sola scriptura and sola fide where present in Christendom before the 1100s at the very earliest with Peter Waldo.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,879
254
83
#31
Ok good point and thank you for pointing out the obvious now the JWs was a mere example there are more complex theological issues that most will claim can be found merely in scripture without any sort of basis for understanding. Anyways going back to the example of the JWs I believe they would claim that this verse is corrupted anyhow which book is this Romans? I would like to share the New World Translation just to show the point being. The fact of the matter is that one has to appeal to something outside of the scriptures themselves to support their claims, the point being the JW claim is historically inaccurate.

My question for you is what makes the protestant claim accurate when it seems to be obvious that none of the protestant views namely sola scriptura and sola fide where present in Christendom before the 1100s at the very earliest with Peter Waldo.
If my reading of R 9:5 is accurate or corrupted can be solved by textual criticism.

I can use my Nestlé Aland 27, UBS 5, Byzantine text by R-P, Textus receptus, whatever you wish. Christ is God in all of them.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,799
346
83
#32
It should be questioned as to if you are actually aware of what you are talking about the comment on 40,000+ protestant denominations is not "Catholic propaganda" in fact to say it is would seem a bit naïve of the obvious.


You have verbosely sidestepped the question. What is your source for claiming there are "40,000+ protestant denominations"? You have also employed yet another fallacy by appealing to "the obvious".

To make matters even worse with the sole exceptions of the Anglicans there is even bigger divisions within said denominations the Lutherans(whom I used to be a part of the irony in the people saying I am spreading lies about the reformations) have the Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, Evangelical Church in America, and thousands upon thousands of others such as the Church of Sweden and the Church of Denmark to make matters worse these groups don't differ only on regional or traditional grounds but rather on doctrinal ground.
This is an excellent example of a run-on sentence. I will not continue to respond to unnecessarily long sentences.

To claim I used an "argument from silence" fallacy would seem strange as mention of the trinity would seem unneeded in the point I was making the fact of the matter is that while the word "trinity" is never in the scriptures there are clear indicators within the context of the Bible that show that it is indirectly there.
You missed the point. You are claiming that "sola scriptura" is not scriptural because there isn't a specific verse that establishes it. That is your argument from silence. "Sola Scriptura" is clearly established in Scripture, but not from a single verse.

Which brings me to my next point the scriptures neither directly nor indirectly mention Sola Scriptura and the mass confusion within Christendom as to how the scriptures should be interpreted should evidently prove this. It should seem strange for a God who wanted his truth to preserve through the ages to have it be done so through the mind of the individual it would be clear to an all knowing being that man is corrupt and can change anything to fit his needs. While I do see where protestant may bring in "indirect proof" for there claims of "sola scriptura in the scriptures" at various points the fact of the matter is the protestant has no visible church to back this claim up as 1 Timothy 3 teaches us should be so in fact to claim something is true just because we understand it to be so without any sort of support would seem to be both a circular argument and blind faith.
Your assertion of "the fact of the matter" overlooks the fact of the existence of the protestant church. It doesn't need to be a single entity; neither you nor the RCC has the authority to define it. Your assertion of "circular reasoning" indicates a lack of understanding as to the nature of circular reasoning, and your assertion of "blind faith" is simply irrelevant, because our faith is not in "the church" but in Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church.

And also to claim the term prophecy in 2 Peter only means mere prophecy while we can interpret whatever we would like from the rest of the scriptures should be obviously problematic such reasoning is bringing Christianity down to the level of agnosticism. Your reasoning here is showing that you believe that all interpretations of the Bible are valid as long as they do not contradict scripture however I think me and you both know this is not what you actually think nor would many be willing to admit they believe this however in a way this is what Protestantism indirectly teaches by claiming it is in the will of the believer to be given the merits of the Spirit to find the meaning of scripture. This begs the question if this is so how would one know if they are in truth if it is merely up to them to find the true interpretation of the Bible without any sort of religious guidance
Strawman fallacy. You have invented an argument, attributed it to me, and attacked it. 1 Peter 1:20 clearly addresses prophecy. If you want it to apply to all interpretation of Scripture, you're welcome to do so, but I am under no obligation to consider your assertion sound. When you can come up with a scriptural rationale as to why "prophecy" doesn't mean "prophecy" then I may reconsider your position.

We non-Catholics trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in the plain meaning of words. The plain words of Scripture state that the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) will guide us into all truth. At the same time, we don't trust our own understanding exclusively, but read and listen to the views of other Christians. The difference is that we don't submit ourselves blindly to the interpretations of some central body.

On a final note to claim my reasoning is a "tu quoque" fallacy merely because I dismiss the claims of Protestantism and that what I view to be errors of Protestantism do not fix "errors of Catholicism" would seem to be a strange criticism of my claim as this claim it self is based on an "Ad hominem" you are attacking the church as false but refuse to give a reason as to why without appealing to your own understanding of scripture which results in a circular argument.

I did not call out your tu quoque fallacy "merely because(you) dismiss the claims of Protestantism..." but because the way you worded your statement made it look like you were justifying the heresy of Catholicism by highlighting an alleged problem with the protestants.

An ad hominem argument is "against the man". I have not attacked you personally.

I am challenging your assertions as fallacious. You have not asked me for any reason, so your assertion that I "refuse to give a reason..." is baseless.

You appeal to your own understanding of Scripture just as much as I do. Yours may be predigested through the RCC, but you still have enough intelligence to read it and interpret it... whether you realize you're doing it or not.
 

Enoch987

Senior Member
Jul 13, 2017
288
6
18
#33
The catholic plan of salvation didn't work for Martin Luther. He did not feel peace with God so he was emotionally driven to use his intellect to find a better plan in the Bible. The Protestant plan is salvation is not of works least anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9) but we are rewarded for our efforts done with the right motives to serve the Lord.
How do we know the Trinity is true?
Hidden from us by the KJV of the bible (the textus receptus) is God said Jesus is My chosen Son at the mt. of transfiguration in Luke 9.
When we follow this logic through to Hebrews 1:8-9, Jesus was anointed from His companions,
who were His companions. If I follow this through to it's logical conclusion, will I be kicked off this website?
Why does Paul always start his epistles with God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord but never the Holy Spirit,
only closing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in 2 Corinthians and in Titus 3.
Why doesn't John's gospel have the temptations of Christ?
Does it have to do with John seeing Jesus as equal to God and God cannot be tempted (James 1:13).
Why does 1 John require Father and Son to be God but not the Holy Spirit (F, S and HS in 1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus but not the earliest manuscripts).
Why does 1 John 2:1 call the risen Christ Jesus the Advocate?
Orthodoxy can only roll their eyes.
The Masoretic text from which the Protestant Bible gets it's old testament was finalized in 900 AD.
The Septuagint in 270 BC.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,799
346
83
#34
The catholic plan of salvation didn't work for Martin Luther. He did not feel peace with God so he was emotionally driven to use his intellect to find a better plan in the Bible. The Protestant plan is salvation is not of works least anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9) but we are rewarded for our efforts done with the right motives to serve the Lord.
How do we know the Trinity is true?
Hidden from us by the KJV of the bible (the textus receptus) is God said Jesus is My chosen Son at the mt. of transfiguration in Luke 9.
When we follow this logic through to Hebrews 1:8-9, Jesus was anointed from His companions,
who were His companions. If I follow this through to it's logical conclusion, will I be kicked off this website?
Why does Paul always start his epistles with God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord but never the Holy Spirit,
only closing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in 2 Corinthians and in Titus 3.
Why doesn't John's gospel have the temptations of Christ?
Does it have to do with John seeing Jesus as equal to God and God cannot be tempted (James 1:13).
Why does 1 John require Father and Son to be God but not the Holy Spirit (F, S and HS in 1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus but not the earliest manuscripts).
Why does 1 John 2:1 call the risen Christ Jesus the Advocate?
Orthodoxy can only roll their eyes.
The Masoretic text from which the Protestant Bible gets it's old testament was finalized in 900 AD.
The Septuagint in 270 BC.
Respectfully, I suggest you start a new thread to discuss these issues.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#35
[/FONT][/COLOR]

You have verbosely sidestepped the question. What is your source for claiming there are "40,000+ protestant denominations"? You have also employed yet another fallacy by appealing to "the obvious".



This is an excellent example of a run-on sentence. I will not continue to respond to unnecessarily long sentences.



You missed the point. You are claiming that "sola scriptura" is not scriptural because there isn't a specific verse that establishes it. That is your argument from silence. "Sola Scriptura" is clearly established in Scripture, but not from a single verse.



Your assertion of "the fact of the matter" overlooks the fact of the existence of the protestant church. It doesn't need to be a single entity; neither you nor the RCC has the authority to define it. Your assertion of "circular reasoning" indicates a lack of understanding as to the nature of circular reasoning, and your assertion of "blind faith" is simply irrelevant, because our faith is not in "the church" but in Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church.



Strawman fallacy. You have invented an argument, attributed it to me, and attacked it. 1 Peter 1:20 clearly addresses prophecy. If you want it to apply to all interpretation of Scripture, you're welcome to do so, but I am under no obligation to consider your assertion sound. When you can come up with a scriptural rationale as to why "prophecy" doesn't mean "prophecy" then I may reconsider your position.

We non-Catholics trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in the plain meaning of words. The plain words of Scripture state that the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) will guide us into all truth. At the same time, we don't trust our own understanding exclusively, but read and listen to the views of other Christians. The difference is that we don't submit ourselves blindly to the interpretations of some central body.




I did not call out your tu quoque fallacy "merely because(you) dismiss the claims of Protestantism..." but because the way you worded your statement made it look like you were justifying the heresy of Catholicism by highlighting an alleged problem with the protestants.

An ad hominem argument is "against the man". I have not attacked you personally.

I am challenging your assertions as fallacious. You have not asked me for any reason, so your assertion that I "refuse to give a reason..." is baseless.

You appeal to your own understanding of Scripture just as much as I do. Yours may be predigested through the RCC, but you still have enough intelligence to read it and interpret it... whether you realize you're doing it or not.



First and foremost to claim something is a run-on sentence merely because it is long shows total ignorance and a refusal to answer which is fine by me. The point being there is clear use of commas dividing the sentence you gave as an example as this sentence was showing a list so what an obscure criticism. Secondly the whole point of sola scriptura is that all scriptural truth must be in some way within the context of the Bible so by trying to avoid the issue you actually just contradicted yourself. And when I elaborate on this fact by deciphering where and how sola scriptura cannot be found even indirectly in the scriptures you make the claim that I am overlooking the "protestant church." The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as the Protestant Church in the sense that there is a Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church rather Protestantism is a movement not a singular religion the premise of Protestantism on a historical basis is essentially that the Catholics are wrong this can be shown by noting that not all protestants agree with the Lutheran interpretation of the Solae even among Trinitarian groups the Methodists and Anglicans make the claim of Prima Scriptura which is a bit different from sola scriptura the Anglicans for the most part would also reject sola fide.

This should make it overwhelmingly obvious that Protestantism is merely a grouping Christian religious sects that popped up as a result of people such as Luther and Calvin and chose to make claims that the true church whatever that may be either fell into error, was hidden away, or needed restoration which directly contradicts multiple verses in the New Testament namely Matthew 16 "the gates of hell shall not prevail." On the other hand to quote Pope Benedict XVI most protestant communities cannot even be considered churches in the proper sense as most reject the episcopal polity set in motion by the apostles which includes the clerical ranks of deacon, priest, and bishop. Some groups the Baptists for instance go as far as to reject any clerical roles but rather have ministers who are ordained however this ordination is non sacramental so the minister would remain in the lay state and be nothing more than a preacher. It should also be asked as to if you actually know what a straw man fallacy is as my comment on 2 Peter and the protestant interpretation on this verse did not set up an attack on a false premise in this least. In fact I elaborated as to how the protestant understands what personal interpretation is and went further to present as to why I disagree with this and attacked the problems with it that is not a straw man. As it should be obvious from the scriptures themselves that Satan can be seen as an angel of light so just because one "feels they are in the spirit" does not mean it is so your attack on my supposed straw man fallacy and making claims in regards to this that ignore the problems results in circular reasoning.

And finally I did not claim your ad hominem was an attack on me personally rather it was a direct attack at Catholicism(the church being the person) without presented reason. You clearly made the claim "the heretical doctrines of Roman Catholicism are reason enough not to trust the Catholic Church." You did not present any examples of these supposed heresies nor did you give reason as to why they would be heretical as a result your entire response is circular and based on a very biased ad hominem against your highly likely false notions of what Catholicism is.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,799
346
83
#36
First and foremost to claim something is a run-on sentence merely because it is long shows total ignorance

I'm not calling it a run-on sentence merely because it is long. You tend to try to put a series of thoughts into a single sentence. Though they are related thoughts, and therefore belong in the same paragraph, putting them in the same sentence is grammatically incorrect and difficult to read.

Below, I have broken apart the last sentence in the first paragraph of your post above, which takes up almost six lines without a period. All I have done is add periods, a comma or two, and a few capital letters:

The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as the Protestant Church in the sense that there is a Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church. Rather, Protestantism is a movement, not a singular religion. The premise of Protestantism on a historical basis is essentially that the Catholics are wrong. This can be shown by noting that not all protestants agree with the Lutheran interpretation of the Solae. Even among Trinitarian groups the Methodists and Anglicans make the claim of Prima Scriptura which is a bit different from sola scriptura. The Anglicans for the most part would also reject sola fide.

Seriously, friend, your posts are difficult to follow because your sentences are way too long. That is totally separate from the other issues I will address. I offer this as constructive criticism. More people will interact with your posts if you shorted your paragraphs and your sentences. Reading "walls of text" is challenging.
 
Last edited:

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,799
346
83
#37
and a refusal to answer which is fine by me. The point being there is clear use of commas dividing the sentence you gave as an example as this sentence was showing a list so what an obscure criticism.
I have nowhere "refused to answer" anything. I may not have answered something buried in one of your walls of verbosity, but that is not a refusal. If you have a question for me, state it plainly, clearly, and without burying it.

Dividing a sentence with commas isn't enough to avoid having a run-on sentence. Rather, that is often the cause of them.

so by trying to avoid the issue you actually just contradicted yourself.
I have not tried to avoid the issue, and have not contradicted myself. I have addressed the numerous logical fallacies in your posts.

And when I elaborate on this fact by deciphering where and how sola scriptura cannot be found even indirectly in the scriptures you make the claim that I am overlooking the "protestant church."
Follow the flow of the discussion. I made that statement in direct response to your claim, "the fact of the matter is the protestant has no visible church to back this claim up". While it is correct to state that the protestant church is not centralized in the same manner as the RCC, to claim there is no visible protestant church is laughably inaccurate.

The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as the Protestant Church in the sense that there is a Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church rather Protestantism is a movement not a singular religion the premise of Protestantism on a historical basis is essentially that the Catholics are wrong

In terms of modern church function, the historical origin of protestantism, while important, is secondary. The churches now are based on Scripture. The one I attend certainly is.

This should make it overwhelmingly obvious that Protestantism is merely a grouping Christian religious sects that popped up as a result of people such as Luther and Calvin and chose to make claims that the true church whatever that may be either fell into error, was hidden away, or needed restoration which directly contradicts multiple verses in the New Testament namely Matthew 16 "the gates of hell shall not prevail."
Um, no, it doesn't. You're making the a priori assumption that the RCC is the "true church". I don't accept that.

On the other hand to quote Pope Benedict XVI most protestant communities cannot even be considered churches in the proper sense as most reject the episcopal polity set in motion by the apostles which includes the clerical ranks of deacon, priest, and bishop.
Biblically, "deacon" is not a clerical rank at all. "Priest" is Old Covenant; the Church has one High Priest, Christ Himself. There is no office of "priest" in the NT. "Bishop" is one possible translation of either episkopoi or presbuteros. The only "office" that the NT has is "elder". Funny... the RCC doesn't have "elders"....

It should also be asked as to if you actually know what a straw man fallacy is as my comment on 2 Peter and the protestant interpretation on this verse did not set up an attack on a false premise in this least. In fact I elaborated as to how the protestant understands what personal interpretation is and went further to present as to why I disagree with this and attacked the problems with it that is not a straw man.
"The Straw Man (also "The Straw Person" ""The Straw Figure"): The fallacy of setting up a phony, weak, extreme or ridiculous parody of an opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down or reduce it to absurdity with a rhetorical wave of the hand." source: Master List of Logical Fallacies

If you want to play at logic, you need to do your homework. Here is what you wrote:

"while we can interpret whatever we would like from the rest of the scriptures should be obviously problematic such reasoning is bringing Christianity down to the level of agnosticism. Your reasoning here is showing that you believe that all interpretations of the Bible are valid as long as they do not contradict scripture"

I claimed none of that. You invented it, then attacked it. That is the essence of a strawman fallacy.

Interpretation that ignores context is problematic. I don't claim that all interpretation of Scripture by protestants is valid or scripturally sound; I challenge poor interpretation here quite frequently. Still, 1 Peter 1:20 does not address this... no matter how much you want it to.


As it should be obvious from the scriptures themselves that Satan can be seen as an angel of light so just because one "feels they are in the spirit" does not mean it is so your attack on my supposed straw man fallacy and making claims in regards to this that ignore the problems results in circular reasoning.
I stated clearly why your reasoning was incorrect, by simply stating the scriptural text. I did not employ circular reasoning.

And finally I did not claim your ad hominem was an attack on me personally rather it was a direct attack at Catholicism(the church being the person) without presented reason.
Catholicism is not a person; therefore, it is not possible to make an ad hominem attack against Catholicism. Catholicism is a collection of ideas, and ideas are fair game for logical criticism.

You really need to do some homework if you want to use logic-based arguments.

You clearly made the claim "the heretical doctrines of Roman Catholicism are reason enough not to trust the Catholic Church." You did not present any examples of these supposed heresies nor did you give reason as to why they would be heretical
The Catholic Church holds to the exaltation of the "Queen of Heaven". Jeremiah 7 and 44 clearly identify the Queen of Heaven as a false god. Next?

as a result your entire response is circular and based on a very biased ad hominem against your highly likely false notions of what Catholicism is.

Your understanding of logical fallacies is not adequate to your employment of their terminology.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#38


I have nowhere "refused to answer" anything. I may not have answered something buried in one of your walls of verbosity, but that is not a refusal. If you have a question for me, state it plainly, clearly, and without burying it.

Dividing a sentence with commas isn't enough to avoid having a run-on sentence. Rather, that is often the cause of them.



I have not tried to avoid the issue, and have not contradicted myself. I have addressed the numerous logical fallacies in your posts.



Follow the flow of the discussion. I made that statement in direct response to your claim, "the fact of the matter is the protestant has no visible church to back this claim up". While it is correct to state that the protestant church is not centralized in the same manner as the RCC, to claim there is no visible protestant church is laughably inaccurate.



In terms of modern church function, the historical origin of protestantism, while important, is secondary. The churches now are based on Scripture. The one I attend certainly is.



Um, no, it doesn't. You're making the a priori assumption that the RCC is the "true church". I don't accept that.



Biblically, "deacon" is not a clerical rank at all. "Priest" is Old Covenant; the Church has one High Priest, Christ Himself. There is no office of "priest" in the NT. "Bishop" is one possible translation of either episkopoi or presbuteros. The only "office" that the NT has is "elder". Funny... the RCC doesn't have "elders"....



"The Straw Man (also "The Straw Person" ""The Straw Figure"): The fallacy of setting up a phony, weak, extreme or ridiculous parody of an opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down or reduce it to absurdity with a rhetorical wave of the hand." source: Master List of Logical Fallacies

If you want to play at logic, you need to do your homework. Here is what you wrote:

"while we can interpret whatever we would like from the rest of the scriptures should be obviously problematic such reasoning is bringing Christianity down to the level of agnosticism. Your reasoning here is showing that you believe that all interpretations of the Bible are valid as long as they do not contradict scripture"

I claimed none of that. You invented it, then attacked it. That is the essence of a strawman fallacy.

Interpretation that ignores context is problematic. I don't claim that all interpretation of Scripture by protestants is valid or scripturally sound; I challenge poor interpretation here quite frequently. Still, 1 Peter 1:20 does not address this... no matter how much you want it to.




I stated clearly why your reasoning was incorrect, by simply stating the scriptural text. I did not employ circular reasoning.



Catholicism is not a person; therefore, it is not possible to make an ad hominem attack against Catholicism. Catholicism is a collection of ideas, and ideas are fair game for logical criticism.

You really need to do some homework if you want to use logic-based arguments.



The Catholic Church holds to the exaltation of the "Queen of Heaven". Jeremiah 7 and 44 clearly identify the Queen of Heaven as a false god. Next?




Your understanding of logical fallacies is not adequate to your employment of their terminology.


I wish to know how I made an "a priori" assumption that the Catholic Church is the true church. First of all I stated that the scriptures indicate quite obviously that there is a visible church that was set in motion by Christ himself so that Christians may be guided into truth rather than through ones own interpretations.(Matthew 16, 1 Timothy 3, John 17) This is not an a priori assumption in regards to the validity of Catholicism as it does not state anything as to who the true church is(granted I would believe it is the Catholic Church). However simply by going over this step there are a few other viable options the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Churches of the East for example. My statement would simply cross off Protestantism as Protestantism rejects the idea of a "visible entity" in the sense we are speaking of. Granted the protestant can and should question as to how I come up with such a conclusion and how it is not merely my own personal conclusion or why it is any more valid than the protestant who claims the church is fully invisible this leads me to my next point lets look at some quotes from some early Christians whom I think would known better than you or I on the matter.

[h=3]St. Clement, Letterto the Corinthians, 42, 1 (ANF, Vol. I)[/h]
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the LordJesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so from God. Christtherefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Boththese appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, accordingto the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, andbeing fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ,and established in the word of God, with full assurance of theHoly Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of Godwas at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities,they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having firstproved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those whoshould afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, sinceindeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops anddeacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, "Iwill appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deaconsin faith."
[h=3]St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letterto the Magnesians, 6-7 (ANF, Vol., I)[/h]
Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned,beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort youto study to do all things with a divine harmony, while yourbishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in theplace of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons,who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry ofJesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before thebeginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, andremains the same for ever; for "of His kingdom there shallbe no end," says Daniel the prophet. Let us all thereforelove one another in harmony, and let no one look upon hisneighbor according to the flesh, but in Christ Jesus. Let nothingexist among you which may divide you; but be united with yourbishop, being through him subject to God in Christ.As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, forsays He, "I can of mine own self do nothing," so doyou, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anythingwithout the bishop. Nor let anything appear commendable to youwhich is destitute of his approval. For every such thing issinful, and opposed[to the will of] God. Come together into thesame place for prayer. Let there be one common supplication, onemind, one hope, with faith unblameable in Christ Jesus, thanwhich nothing is more excellent. Do you all, as one man, runtogether into the temple of God, as unto one altar, to one JesusChrist, the High Priest of the unbegotten God.
[h=3]St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letterto the Trallians, 2-3 (ANF, Vol. I)[/h]
Be subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for "he watchesfor your souls, as one that shall give account to God."Wherefore also, you appear to me to live not after the manner ofmen, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in orderthat, by believing in His death, you may by baptism be madepartakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary,whatsoever things you do, to do nothing without the bishop. Andbe subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of JesusChrist, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found.In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as anappointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, whois the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin ofGod, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is noChurch. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of thesame opinion. For I have received the manifestations of yourlove, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose veryappearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself apower; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence.
[h=3]St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letterto the Philadelphians, 4,1 (ANF, Vol. I)[/h]
Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God,and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of]preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the LordJesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; oneloaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup isdistributed among them all: there is but one altar for the wholeChurch, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, myfellow-servants. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being,God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Wordand man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also onepreaching, and one faith, and one baptism; and one Church whichthe holy apostles established from one end of the earth to theother by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; itbehooves you also, therefore, as "a peculiar people, and aholy nation," to perform all things with harmony in Christ.
[h=3]St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letterto the Smyrnaeans, 8-9 (ANF, Vol. I)[/h]
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ doesthe Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; andreverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let noman do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Letthat be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] eitherby the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Whereverthe bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people]also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CatholicChurch. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize orto celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of,that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done maybe secure and valid... It is not lawful without the bishopeither to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or tocelebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is alsowell-pleasing to God, that everything you do may be secure andvalid.And say I, Honor God indeed, as the Author and Lord of allthings, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image ofGod—of God. inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in hiscapacity of a priest. After Him, we must also honor the king. Forthere is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among allthe beings that exist. Nor is there any one in the Church greaterthan the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for thesalvation of the whole world. Nor, again, is there any one amongrulers to be compared with the king, who secures peace and goodorder to those over whom he rules. He who honors the bishop shallbe honored by God, even as he that dishonors him shall bepunished by God. For if he that rises up against kings is justlyheld worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order,of how much sorer punishment, do you suppose, shall he be thoughtworthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus bothdestroying the[Church's] unity, and throwing its order intoconfusion? For the priesthood is the very highest point of allgood things among men, against which whosoever is mad enough tostrive, dishonors not man, but God, and Christ Jesus, theFirst-born, and the only High Priest, by nature, of the Father.Let all things therefore be done by you with good order inChrist. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons tothe presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop toChrist, even as He is to the Father.
[h=3]St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letterwithout heading to the Lapsed (ANF, Vol, V)[/h]
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe,describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church,speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: "I say unto you,That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16.18).And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: andwhatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: andwhatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed inheaven." Thence, through the changes of times andsuccessions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Churchflow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, andevery act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.
[h=3]St. Cyprian of Carthage, EpistleXXXIX, Letter to the People (ANF, Vol, V)[/h]
There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church,and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord.Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made,except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gatherselsewhere, scatters.
[h=3]St. Irenaeus, AgainstAll Heresies, IV, 26, 2 (ANF, Vol. I)[/h]
Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are inthe Church,—those who, as I have shown, possess the successionfrom the apostles; those who, together with the succession of theepiscopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according tothe good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] tohold in suspicion others who depart from the primitivesuccession, and assemble themselves together in any placewhatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverseminds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again ashypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. Forall these have fallen from the truth
[h=3]St. Irenaeus, AgainstAll Heresies, V, 20 (ANF, Vol. I)[/h]
It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and totake careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but toflee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and benourished with the Lord's Scriptures. For the Church has beenplanted as a garden (paradise) in this world; therefore says theSpirit of God, "You may freely eat from every tree of thegarden," that is, Eat from every Scripture of the Lord; butyou shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any hereticaldiscord. For these men do profess that they have themselves theknowledge of good and evil; and they set their own impious mindsabove the God who made them. They therefore form opinions on whatis beyond the limits of the understanding. For this cause alsothe apostle says, "Be not wise beyond what it is fitting tobe wise, but be wise prudently," that we be not east forthby eating of the "knowledge" of these men (thatknowledge which knows more than it should do) from the paradiseof life.
[h=3]Tertullian, PrescriptionAgainst the Heretics, XX, 4 (ANF, Vol. III)[/h]
Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom thisdesignation indicates as "the sent." Having, on theauthority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosenMatthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, theyobtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift ofmiracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to thefaith in Jesus Christ throughout Judea, and rounding churches(there), they next went forth into the world and preached thesame doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in likemanner rounded churches in every city, from which all the otherchurches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith,and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, thatthey may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only thatthey will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being theoffspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing mustnecessarily revert to its original for its classification.Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great,comprise but the one primitive Church, (rounded) by the apostles,from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, andall are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in(unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title ofbrotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges which no otherrule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.
[h=3]St. Augustine: TheHoly Spirit the Soul of the Church (PL 38, Sermo 267; SundaySermons, Vol. III, 27-28)[/h]
... What the soul is to the body of man, the Holy Ghost isto the Body of Christ: which the Church is. What the soul does inall the members of one body, this the Holy Spirit does throughoutthe Church ... Do you think the soul follows the part cut thus off? While itbelonged to the body it lived. Cut off it loses life. So likewisethe Christian Catholic man; while in the Body he lives, becomingheretic he is cut off, for the Spirit follows no amputatedmember. If therefore you wish to live in the Holy Ghost, holdfast to the bond of charity, love the Truth, long for Unity, thatyou may attain to eternity.
The discussion as to who the true church actually is, is another conversation for another day I am still waiting for any sort of historical, scriptural, or logical proof that can show that Protestantism is at least a viable option. On the other hand as for your comment on the ranks of the clergy merely being one as elders and the deacon merely being a layman. Again let's look at 1 Timothy 3 to see what St. Paul has to say on the order of bishop, priest, and deacon, the elder being the priest.

 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#39


I have nowhere "refused to answer" anything. I may not have answered something buried in one of your walls of verbosity, but that is not a refusal. If you have a question for me, state it plainly, clearly, and without burying it.

Dividing a sentence with commas isn't enough to avoid having a run-on sentence. Rather, that is often the cause of them.



I have not tried to avoid the issue, and have not contradicted myself. I have addressed the numerous logical fallacies in your posts.



Follow the flow of the discussion. I made that statement in direct response to your claim, "the fact of the matter is the protestant has no visible church to back this claim up". While it is correct to state that the protestant church is not centralized in the same manner as the RCC, to claim there is no visible protestant church is laughably inaccurate.



In terms of modern church function, the historical origin of protestantism, while important, is secondary. The churches now are based on Scripture. The one I attend certainly is.



Um, no, it doesn't. You're making the a priori assumption that the RCC is the "true church". I don't accept that.



Biblically, "deacon" is not a clerical rank at all. "Priest" is Old Covenant; the Church has one High Priest, Christ Himself. There is no office of "priest" in the NT. "Bishop" is one possible translation of either episkopoi or presbuteros. The only "office" that the NT has is "elder". Funny... the RCC doesn't have "elders"....



"The Straw Man (also "The Straw Person" ""The Straw Figure"): The fallacy of setting up a phony, weak, extreme or ridiculous parody of an opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down or reduce it to absurdity with a rhetorical wave of the hand." source: Master List of Logical Fallacies

If you want to play at logic, you need to do your homework. Here is what you wrote:

"while we can interpret whatever we would like from the rest of the scriptures should be obviously problematic such reasoning is bringing Christianity down to the level of agnosticism. Your reasoning here is showing that you believe that all interpretations of the Bible are valid as long as they do not contradict scripture"

I claimed none of that. You invented it, then attacked it. That is the essence of a strawman fallacy.

Interpretation that ignores context is problematic. I don't claim that all interpretation of Scripture by protestants is valid or scripturally sound; I challenge poor interpretation here quite frequently. Still, 1 Peter 1:20 does not address this... no matter how much you want it to.




I stated clearly why your reasoning was incorrect, by simply stating the scriptural text. I did not employ circular reasoning.



Catholicism is not a person; therefore, it is not possible to make an ad hominem attack against Catholicism. Catholicism is a collection of ideas, and ideas are fair game for logical criticism.

You really need to do some homework if you want to use logic-based arguments.



The Catholic Church holds to the exaltation of the "Queen of Heaven". Jeremiah 7 and 44 clearly identify the Queen of Heaven as a false god. Next?




Your understanding of logical fallacies is not adequate to your employment of their terminology.


Now it should also be clear that we should address the question as to how the early Christians understood St. Paul's letter to St. Timothy to mean when it spoke of the ranks of deacon, "elder", and "episcope"

[h=2]Ignatius of Antioch[/h] “Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).
“Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (ibid., 13:1–2).
“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).
“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2).
“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience” (ibid., 7:2).
“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).


[h=2]Clement of Alexandria[/h] “A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere” (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).
“Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel” (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).


[h=2]Hippolytus[/h] “When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .
“On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains.
“Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’” (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).


[h=2]Origen[/h] “Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able to be twice married” (Homilies on Luke 17 [A.D. 234]).


[h=2]Council of Elvira[/h] “Bishops, presbyters, and deacons may not leave their own places for the sake of commerce, nor are they to be traveling about the provinces, frequenting the markets for their own profit. Certainly for the procuring of their own necessities they can send a boy or a freedman or a hireling or a friend or whomever, but, if they wish to engage in business, let them do so within the province” (Canon 18 [A.D. 300]).


[h=2]Council of Nicaea I[/h] “It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


[h=2]John Chrysostom[/h] “[In Philippians 1:1 Paul says,] ‘To the co-bishops and deacons.’ What does this mean? Were there plural bishops of some city? Certainly not! It is the presbyters that [Paul] calls by this title; for these titles were then interchangeable, and the bishop is even called a deacon. That is why, when writing to Timothy, he says, ‘Fulfill your diaconate’ [2 Tim. 4:5], although Timothy was then a bishop. That he was in fact a bishop is clear when Paul says to him, ‘Lay hands on no man lightly’ [1 Tim. 5:22], and again, ‘Which was given you with the laying on of hands of the presbytery’ [1 Tim. 4:14], and presbyters would not have ordained a bishop” (Homilies on Philippians 1:1 [A.D. 402]).


[h=2]Patrick of Ireland[/h] “I, Patrick, the sinner, am the most rustic and the least of all the faithful . . . had for my father Calpornius, a deacon, a son of Potitus, a priest, who belonged to the village of Bannavem Taberniae. . . . At that time I was barely sixteen years of age . . . and I was led into captivity in Ireland with many thousands of persons, in accordance with our deserts, for we turned away from God, and kept not his commandments, and were not obedient to our priests, who were wont to admonish us for our salvation” (Confession of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 452]).
“I, Patrick, the sinner, unlearned as everybody knows, avow that I have been established a bishop in Ireland. Most assuredly I believe that I have received from God what I am. And so I dwell in the midst of barbarous heaths, a stranger and an exile for the love of God” (Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus 1 [A.D. 452]).


As for your statement on "the queen of heaven" and the Book of Jeremiah this has absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church and Marian veneration as if we look at this historically it is clear the book is talking about devotees of the Egyptian goddess Isis so this statement here would be an unsound equation made.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#40
the Greek word presbyter translates as priest just an FYI