Ovedya Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Just a quick note: The office of "bishop" came from a 2nd century teaching by Ignatius, who claimed that the "office of bishop" was above that of "pastor." From this sprang the various other offices which were incorporated into the Roman church (Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, ect.) In 1 Timothy 3:2, and overseer is not a bishop. He is an elder of a local church - see Acts 20:28 and Phil. 1:1. There are really only three distinct authoritarian roles int eh church: An apostle, who plants churches; and elder, who oversees a local church; and a deacon, who serves the church in many practical and spiritual affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted January 8, 2007 In 1 Timothy 3:2, and overseer is not a bishop. Actually the Greek term for overseer is episkopos, epi = over, (as in epidermis, over-flesh, skin) and skop = see (as in telescope, far-see). The term "bishop" is simply an anglicized form of episkopos. I have no interest in defending the Roman institutions, mind you. But in Scripture, Bishop = overseer. KJV says Bishop in the same place that NIV says overseer. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted January 8, 2007 In 1 Timothy 3:2, and overseer is not a bishop. Actually the Greek term for overseer is episkopos, epi = over, (as in epidermis, over-flesh, skin) and skop = see (as in telescope, far-see). The term "bishop" is simply an anglicized form of episkopos. I have no interest in defending the Roman institutions, mind you. But in Scripture, Bishop = overseer. KJV says Bishop in the same place that NIV says overseer. Steve epi=over sop=seer Hence "overseer." Refers to the elder of a church locality, not a "bishop" in the sense that it has been known for the past 1,300 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Refers to the elder of a church locality, not a "bishop" in the sense that it has been known for the past 1,300 years. As I said, the function of the office is a different matter. But the words themselves are synonymous. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted January 8, 2007 1- ACTS 1: 21-22 disqualifies Paul from the office of Apostle if we use your criteria. 2- Paul tried to Kill the apostles, not "comapny" them. 3- Either these verses pertiain to the appointment of Mathias only, or Paul was not an apostle. Which is correct? 1- "My" criteria? I don't have any. 2- Yup. 3- I explained that above. Since Jesus appointed the Twelve - and Paul - personally, there is no need for him to explain his reasons. No humans were involved in their selection, so there is no need to specify the criteria. They are qualified because Jesus said they were, and he doesn't owe us any explanation. Still waiting for an answer to #4 above. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Why not just admit that that is not the qualification for all apostles ? I never said it was. Only that it disqualifies you and me, and anyone presently breathing. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I Cor 12:28 shows that there is an office of apostle. Yup. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted January 8, 2007 OK, hr. You win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted January 8, 2007 There are no apostles today that operate in anywhere close to the power and annointing of the Orig. 12, 13, or 14. Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts