TS: Universal Priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6)

[ArmoredCatholic]

@catholicexodus

The English word "priest" comes from the Greek word presbyteros which the King James Version renders as "elder," so yes it is in there. Plus, all that the Church means by the ministerial priesthood is found in the New Testament.

[jjpetkusiii]

@ArmoredCatholic

"Presbyteros" did not mean priest in Koine Greek and does not convey any sense of priesthood. "Hiereus" meant priest, and "presbyteros" means elder as it is correctly translated in the King James Bible which is the Holy Scriptures in English.

[ArmoredCatholic]

@jjpetkusiii

You completely misunderstood me. I said the ENGLISH word "priest" comes from the Greek word "presbyteros." That is its etymological origin.

Besides, Strong's G4245 says that this word can refer to someone who holds an office in the Church, and is the same word that would refer to the Jewish Sanhedrin. James 5:14-16 says that their prayers could heal the sick and forgive sins. Hmm...

[jjpetkusiii]

@ArmoredCatholic

No, people who think that "elder" means "priest" misunderstand ENGLISH, or Koine Greek, or both.

Free of errors, omissions, and additions, the King James Bible preserves the Hebrew of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and the Greek of the New Testament with unfailing accuracy. For the English-speaking peoples, the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible (KJV) is the Holy Scriptures, the fully reliable final authority in all matters.

[ArmoredCatholic]

@jjpetkusiii

Oh, you're a KJV onlyist? Haha wow. I bet you're in love with Ruckman too.

[jjpetkusiii]

@ArmoredCatholic

Neither you nor anyone else has ever proved any error anywhere in the Biblical text of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, and that failure per se constitutes prima facie proof of the KJV's infallilbility.

Only the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures, both preserved by God Himself and fully legible in English today.

[ArmoredCatholic]

@jjpetkusiii

In Isaiah 13:15 the KJV reads "joined." There is no support for this reading in any Hebrew manuscript, text, ancient version, or rabbinic tradition. Instead, the correct reading is "captured." Possibly, the KJV translators misread one Hebrew letter for another, mistaking the word såpåh, "capture," for såpa˙, "join." Whatever the case, the reading of the KJV is not the reading of the autographs and is thus an indisputable error.

[jjpetkusiii]

@ArmoredCatholic

It seems to me that you are fruitlessly arguing the dubious blessings of "what-if" thinking. The "original autographs" line is just a faithless dodge to cover up disbelief in the sound Biblical doctrine of the preservation of the Holy Bible in its entirety by God Himself--instead of the conveniently flexible opinions and frauds of Alexandrian "scholars."

[jjpetkusiii]

God has preserved the Holy Bible in its entirety, but the appeals to the absent "original autographs" are nothing more than a semantic boondoggle. Those manuscripts are irrelevant today because the text of the Tanakh and New Testament has already been preserved.

Moreover, the Biblical text of the King James Bible today is the same as it was in 1611 as a matter of historical fact.

[ArmoredCatholic]

@jjpetkusiii

Read the Masoretic Text from which it was translated. In fact, read ANY text and you will NEVER find an instance of the word såpa˙ in Isaiah 13:15. This is clearly a mistake, and the only "what if" I employed was to identify the possible cause of the mistake. Nevertheless, it is a mistake.

[ComeHomeCatholics]

Another excellent video! I wonder why protestants still use the word "ordain" when they institute a pastor or minister. Because the word "ordain" is connected to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, I believe that is where the word "ordain" comes from.

[random331]

The verses you gave (Rom. 15:16, 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17, or Titus 1:7) don't mention "priest" at all.

John 20 is all Christians, we all have the Holy Ghost: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom 8:9.

Christ sacrifice of himself for sins is not done by any priest but himself (Heb.10:12).

Christians only sacrifice their spiritual service to God - Rom 12:1; Heb.13:15-16; Phil. 4:18; 2:17.

Any other sacrifice by a priest is devilish idolatry: 1 Cor 10:20.

[ArmoredCatholic]

The verses I gave spoke of special offices of the Church. These offices are the ministerial priesthood of the New Testament.

So where did the Ministerial priesthood go? The high priesthood and the universal priesthood are still here, just like in the Old Testament, but according to you the ministerial priesthood just vanished!

John 20:23 is very clear. The ones whom Jesus breathed upon received the special authority to forgive sins. Jesus said it. This is a special grace of the Spirit.

[jjpetkusiii]

The words "clergy," "laity," "magisterium," "Mediatrix," "apostolic succession," "Catholicism," "papacy," "novena," "sacrament," "sign of the cross," and "indulgences" are absent from the Holy Scriptures, which instructs regenerated believers in the Lord Jesus Christ that He is their Mediator and that no further sacrifice is necessary. The mass is a wicked fable which mocks the Son of God Who died once for all.

Rome, the great whore, is the Mother of Harlots and Abominations.

[ArmoredCatholic]

Guess what? The word "Trinity," "Incarnation," and "Bible" are all absent from the Bible.

So are the terms "rapture," "faith alone," "Scripture alone," and on and on.

I think we can both agree that just because a word is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture doesn't mean that the concept isn't in there. Your reasoning is flawed.

[jjpetkusiii]

No, ArmoredCatholic, my reasoning is not flawed, and your exegesis is a joke in bad taste. Simply put, your premises derive from a body of traditon which denies and contradicts the Holy Scriptures, the inspired words of God. This video merely propunds the false doctrines of men.

"And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters" (Rev 17:1).

[ArmoredCatholic]

You completely ignored my point. Just because the Bible doesn't explicitly mention a term doesn't mean the concept is not Scriptural.

You must agree here unless you wish to simultaneously throw out many of your own cherished beliefs.

[random331]

Acts 4:36-37 says Barnabas was a Levite, but he gave of his money to the apostles - his status as a Jewish priest didn't give him a better role to play in the Church body. So OT ways are discarded.

Yes, elders/bishops lead spiritually in Church administration (and in forgiving Church offences: 2Cor 2:11; Mt 18:17), but they cannot act as "priests" for others in salvation (1 Tim 2:5) or in forgiveness of sins (1 John 2:1) because that only comes directly from Jesus Christ, not through priests.

[ArmoredCatholic]

The Levites have nothing to do with the ministerial priesthood of the NT. Just as God's House was opened to all, so was his ministries opened to all.

John 20:23 does not say these men have the authority to only forgive church offenses. It actually says they can forgive sins.

I am not saying that these men forgive on their own, bur rather, Christ forgives through them. Just as God spoke through the prophets in the OT, he still works through men in the NT.

The ministerial priesthood did not go.

[jjpetkusiii]

@ArmoredCatholic Willy nilly, your last Text Comment is blaspemous nonsense. Stephen the martyr prayed that the sin of those who were murdering him would be forgiven just as he forgave them. Only God forgives sins--not some clown in a monkey suit who calls himself a "Catholic clergyman."

[ArmoredCatholic]

Then why does Jesus say in John 20:23 that the apostles could forgive and retain sins?

He didn't say they could just forgive people. He actually said they could forgive SINS.

[jjpetkusiii]

@ArmoredCatholic Why did you delete my Text Comment in response to random331? Your "cherished beliefs" contradict the Holy Scriptures, and the disciples who do not forgive the trespasses (sins) of others against them disobey the Son of God sinfully in the exercise of their own free will. Nonetheless, unless a man is born again he will spend eternity in hell without Christ and without hope.

[ArmoredCatholic]

I deleted it because I had already addressed his comment, and you ignored my response as if it didn't exist. His statement has been addressed, and so I expect that to be taken into consideration.

You seem to be very good at ignoring John 20:23. Jesus says the apostles can forgive sins. End of story. To say otherwise is to oppose Scripture.

[jjpetkusiii]

@ArmoredCatholic First of all, you are not an apostle, as that office ended with the death of St. John the Evangelist--the last of the twelve disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ who were called by Him. Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, was called by God directly and his apostolic ministry was unique according to Holy Scriptures. The explanation of John 20:23 can by found in my previous comments.

[ArmoredCatholic]

You did nothing to explain John 20:23. I refuted your interpretation by pointing out that Jesus used the word "sin" in relation to what the apostles had the authority to forgive.

Yes, the apostles died, but they passed their authority on to others by an ordination of men via a laying of hands (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14). Peter even said that others would replace the apostles (Acts 1:15-26).

That is exactly the way authority was transferred in the Old Testament (Numbers 27:18-20).

[jjpetkusiii]

@ArmoredCatholic You are wrong again. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

By the way, your aversion or inability to perceive Biblical truth does no constitute an error in anyone else's comments (e.g., mine).