Are the "Keys of the Kingdom" really that special?

[metis]

No, the Apostles appointed bishops to succeed them in the various churches that they founded. Hence the qualifications for electing bishops that St. Paul gives to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3.

This is a good argument against the Roman Papacy. However, it fails to account that the people in the churches eventually organized themselves along regional lines, so as to more efficiently keep the house clean, as it were. The only reason the Pope of Rome is as powerful as he is, is because he was the only major bishop in the West after about the 300's, so he was able to develop his power and jurisdiction over the Christian West in a vacuum. This peculiarity only became more solidified after the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire.


Really? The Apostles sure considered themselves the spiritual fathers of their children.

Taking this from 1 Corinthians 4:14-15, 14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Galatians 4:19, My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you,

In 1 John 2:1, St. John says this: My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. St. John constantly calls them his children throughout the epistle. And further in that same chapter:

12 I write to you, little children,
Because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake.
13 I write to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
Because you have overcome the wicked one.
I write to you, little children,
Because you have known the Father.
14I have written to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.

The Apostles most certainly did consider themselves teachers and fathers of their flocks, but this was not in contradiction to Christ's commands. Christ's commands refer to taking mortal men as teachers and fathers over and above God.
LOL! Are you seriously saying that the words we have in 1 Timothy 3, 1 Timothy 5, and Acts 6 didn't exist back in the 1st century?

After being ordained, yes--the Apostles didn't just take volunteers. They ordained them by laying hands on them. See Acts 6:1-6:

Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists,[a] because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.

What? Do you know even rudimentary Greek?

Philippians 1:1:
Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις:

Or in English:
Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ,To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops[a] (lit. overseers) and deacons:

And in 1 Timothy 3:
1Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος: εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ. 2δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν, . . . 8Διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεμνούς, μὴ διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, . . . 12διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων:

And in 1 Timothy 5:
1Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς, ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα, νεωτέρους ὡς ἀδελφούς, 2πρεσβυτέρας ὡς μητέρας, νεωτέρας ὡς ἀδελφὰς ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ.

You might want to look at your Bible again. I've already posted the English for these verses. You can't argue with the Greek.

And in 1 Peter 5:1-3, St. Peter says the following:
1Πρεσβυτέρους οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, ὁ καὶ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης κοινωνός: 2ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ θεοῦ [,ἐπισκοποῦντες] μὴ ἀναγκαστῶς ἀλλὰ ἑκουσίως κατὰ θεόν, μηδὲ αἰσχροκερδῶς ἀλλὰ προθύμως,

In English: The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly,[a] not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;

In the Apostolic Churches, "episkopos" means "bishop/overseer", meaning, one who has authority in the congregation. "diakonos" is transliterated into English as "deacon". "Presbyter" in Greek ended up in the contracted form of "priest" in English.

But continuing to teach and pass on what was taught by St. John does.

St. Ignatius wasn't trying to establish his own power. He willingly gave up his life for Christ, being thrown to the lions in the Coliseum in Rome. When the Christians at Ephesus offered to bail St. Ignatius out, he refused. He was an honest man who gave his life for Christ, and defended the faith vigorously; one of the heresies cropping up in the day was Docetism, which denied the humanity of Christ. Ignatius exhorted the various churches extensively to rebuff the heresy, disproving it as well. He wasn't pulling stuff out of his head.

Then why does Christ Himself call Nicodemus "teacher"? John 3:9-10
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

St. Paul says more in 1 Timothy 2:7, I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

St. James says this: My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

Thanks for going into the details-- nice job above.

 

[Pegg]

You are truly not aware of the appointments, which are mentioned in Acts and many of the epistles? And because of these appointments, there need not be 12 since the number of local churches exceeded that number. What happened is that the Bishop of Rome was viewed as only one of a myriad of bishops, but because of the "Chair of Peter", the Bishop of Rome had a special designation, which shows up in "Clement I" in Clement's letter to Ignatius of Antioch that was penned in the very early 2nd century.

penned by someone who was not appointed as an apostle, yes.

What all this shows is that it was not the apostles who changed the church, it was christians of a later period.

 

[Pegg]

No, the Apostles appointed bishops to succeed them in the various churches that they founded. Hence the qualifications for electing bishops that St. Paul gives to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3.

they were not given such titles in the first century. They were called 'older men' as can be seen by whats written in the scriptures. If your bible uses the word 'bishop', then its a bad translation. .

e·pi′sko·pos means 'overseer', not bishop.
pre·sby′te·roi means 'older man', not priest

The difference with the church of today and the 'original' church is that each congregation had a body of elders (overseers), not a monarchical one-man rule.—Acts 20:17; Philippians 1:1

This is a good argument against the Roman Papacy. However, it fails to account that the people in the churches eventually organized themselves along regional lines, so as to more efficiently keep the house clean, as it were. The only reason the Pope of Rome is as powerful as he is, is because he was the only major bishop in the West after about the 300's, so he was able to develop his power and jurisdiction over the Christian West in a vacuum. This peculiarity only became more solidified after the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire.

yes, they did exactly what Jesus told them not to do,

Luke 22:24*However, there also arose a heated dispute among them over which one of them seemed to be greatest. 25*But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. 26*YOU, though, are not to be that way. But let him that is the greatest among YOU become as the youngest, and the one acting as chief as the one ministering. 27*For which one is greater, the one reclining at the table or the one ministering? Is it not the one reclining at the table? But I am in YOUR midst as the one ministering

Really? The Apostles sure considered themselves the spiritual fathers of their children.

The Apostles most certainly did consider themselves teachers and fathers of their flocks, but this was not in contradiction to Christ's commands. Christ's commands refer to taking mortal men as teachers and fathers over and above God.

they dont use 'Father' as a title in any of their writings. They are spiritual fathers in the sense that a father looks after his children which is what those scriptures you posted show.

But the Pope applies the term 'Father' to himself as an honorary title. This is also against Jesus directions.

LOL! Are you seriously saying that the words we have in 1 Timothy 3, 1 Timothy 5, and Acts 6 didn't exist back in the 1st century?

the titles bishop pope priest... these words did not exist. Look at an original greek manuscript and you'll see that the words
e·pi′sko·pos means 'overseer', not bishop.
pre·sby′te·roi means 'older man', not priest

These words were changed by a corrupt group of men who seized power of the church and then proceeded to give themselves such titles and put themselves in Jesus position over the congregations.

Jesus is our leader, not the men who rule the churches of christendom.

After being ordained, yes--the Apostles didn't just take volunteers. They ordained them by laying hands on them. See Acts 6:1-6:

Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists,[a] because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.

yes, and these ones are called overseers and older men. They didnt give them titles such as Bishop or Pope or Priest.
And as a 'group' these older men looked after the congregational needs. There was not one of them in charge of the rest....they worked as a body together to make decisions and teach the congregations.

In English: The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly,[a] not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;

In the Apostolic Churches, "episkopos" means "bishop/overseer", meaning, one who has authority in the congregation. "diakonos" is transliterated into English as "deacon". "Presbyter" in Greek ended up in the contracted form of "priest" in English.

Yes, your scripture proves the point quite well. The apostles appointed older men to look after the flock...not as Lords of the flock but as 'examples'.

Episkopos does not mean 'Bishop', it means 'Overseer' and the position of an overseer was one who looked after the congregation.... but these overseers worked together as a 'body' according to the scriptures:

The qualifications for such a man have also changed according to 1 Timothy, they were to be husbands of one wife:

1Tim 3:1 That statement is faithful.
If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2*The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3*not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4*a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5*(if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation?)


And one congreation had several overseers and ministerial servants:
Phillip 1:1 Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in union with Christ Jesus who are in Phi·lip′pi, along with overseers and ministerial servants

Unlike to situation we have today where one 'bishop' rules a whole host of congregations. That is not the way it originally was.

But continuing to teach and pass on what was taught by St. John does.

St. Ignatius wasn't trying to establish his own power. He willingly gave up his life for Christ, being thrown to the lions in the Coliseum in Rome. When the Christians at Ephesus offered to bail St. Ignatius out, he refused. He was an honest man who gave his life for Christ, and defended the faith vigorously; one of the heresies cropping up in the day was Docetism, which denied the humanity of Christ. Ignatius exhorted the various churches extensively to rebuff the heresy, disproving it as well. He wasn't pulling stuff out of his head.

that doesnt mean his teachings were according to Christ. There have been popes who organized bloody crusades.... just being a pope doesnt mean everything you do and say is all based on christs teachings, does it?

Then why does Christ Himself call Nicodemus "teacher"? John 3:9-10
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

he was a teacher of the law... but it wasnt used as an 'honorary title'

 

[Shiranui117]

they were not given such titles in the first century. They were called 'older men' as can be seen by whats written in the scriptures. If your bible uses the word 'bishop', then its a bad translation.

It's not a bad translation. A bishop is one who oversees the life of the Christian flock under his care, teaching them and encouraging them in the faith, and taking disciplinary measures where they may be needed.

e·pi′sko·pos means 'overseer', not bishop.
pre·sby′te·roi means 'older man', not priest

The difference with the church of today and the 'original' church is that each congregation had a body of elders (overseers), not a monarchical one-man rule.—Acts 20:17; Philippians 1:1

An overseer without any authority isn't much of an "overseer" at all. In order to effectively be "overseers", bishops need to be able to maintain order, discipline false Christians, and teach the Faith. Your attempt to make it seem as if early Christian congregations had no authority over them is to deny what the very word "episkopos" means in the first place. If the early Church did have no one with any authority aside from the Apostles, then yes, a Great Apostasy probably would have happened. But that's not so--the presbyters and bishops met with the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 in order to deal with the issue of Judaizing. This shows that the presbyters and bishops also had authority to manage the affairs of their congregations and collaborate as a group to deal with large-scale problems in the Church. The Church was not a chicken running around with its head cut off after the death of the Apostles--they had left successors behind them, well-formed in the Faith and carrying on the Tradition of the Apostles.

And, in case you haven't noticed, priests are almost always older men.

yes, they did exactly what Jesus told them not to do,

Luke 22:24-27

I don't think you understand the concept that bishops are, ultimately, servants of the Church.

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

1 Peter 5:2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;

No, bishops should not be lords over their churches, and those who act as if they are are in error. But at the same time, they do have to have the authority to effectively shepherd their flock and ensure that 1: wolves don't come in and devour the sheep, and 2: that the sheep don't wander off and get themselves eaten.

they dont use 'Father' as a title in any of their writings. They are spiritual fathers in the sense that a father looks after his children which is what those scriptures you posted show.

Yes, and what do you call people who are spiritual fathers to Christians? Fathers. It's not hard to connect the dots.

What do you call your biological male parent? Father. Is calling your dad "Father" going against Christ's commands? What do JW's call their male biological parents?

But the Pope applies the term 'Father' to himself as an honorary title. This is also against Jesus directions.

The Pope didn't suddenly decide to call himself "Father". It was an endearing term given to him by the Christians in Rome. Pope literally means "Papa".

the titles bishop pope priest... these words did not exist. Look at an original greek manuscript and you'll see that the words
e·pi′sko·pos means 'overseer', not bishop.
pre·sby′te·roi means 'older man', not priest

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that there were entire Bibles written in English back then. Was the New World Translation around then, too?

These words were changed by a corrupt group of men who seized power of the church and then proceeded to give themselves such titles and put themselves in Jesus position over the congregations.

No, "presbyter" always remained "presbyter," and "episkopos" always remained "episkopos". They just don't mean what you want them to mean.

Jesus is our leader, not the men who rule the churches of christendom.

And all the bishops would agree with you wholeheartedly on that point--hence why absolutely no Orthodox bishop ever has ever claimed to be the "Vicar of Christ" as does the Pope. Christ is the head of the Church, and it's the Holy Spirit working through the Church that ensures the continuation of true teaching in the Church, not a bunch of clergy taking a vote like it's Congress.

yes, and these ones are called overseers and older men. They didnt give them titles such as Bishop or Pope or Priest.

But that's exactly what these titles mean.

And as a 'group' these older men looked after the congregational needs. There was not one of them in charge of the rest....they worked as a body together to make decisions and teach the congregations.

Yes, and that's still the overall pattern of Church life today--many bishops working in concert with each other to maintain harmony, unity and Orthodoxy among the faithful.

Yes, your scripture proves the point quite well. The apostles appointed older men to look after the flock...not as Lords of the flock but as 'examples'.

And that's exactly what priests and bishops do.

Episkopos does not mean 'Bishop', it means 'Overseer' and the position of an overseer was one who looked after the congregation.... but these overseers worked together as a 'body' according to the scriptures:

The qualifications for such a man have also changed according to 1 Timothy, they were to be husbands of one wife:

1Tim 3:1 That statement is faithful.
If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2*The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3*not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4*a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5*(if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation?)

And one congreation had several overseers and ministerial servants:
Phillip 1:1 Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in union with Christ Jesus who are in Phi·lip′pi, along with overseers and ministerial servants

Unlike to situation we have today where one 'bishop' rules a whole host of congregations. That is not the way it originally was.

The rule changed later on when it became the norm to have one bishop over many parishes, just due to how many parishes there were. The distinction between priest and bishop also occurred when one bishop who oversaw a local church, like the church at Antioch for example, now had several parishes in Antioch to watch over. So he ended up delegating his authority and sacramental duties to several presbyters, rather than having multiple bishops, which would have made the Church more decentralized and harder to keep together. One bishop over many parishes ensures that a whole bunch of bad people and false Christians in local congregations don't get elected and cause chaos--instead of having many bishops which can divide the Church in a given area, the damage can be limited, as it's easier to depose one bad bishop instead of many.

And because a bishop had so many things to take care of and oversee in the Church, it would have been unfair for the wife and children of a bishop if their husband and father had absolutely no time for them.So to be fair to married men and their families, the Church chose to only elect single men, widowers or monks to the position of bishop, while married men could still be ordained priests.

that doesnt mean his teachings were according to Christ. There have been popes who organized bloody crusades.... just being a pope doesnt mean everything you do and say is all based on christs teachings, does it?

There's a difference between being elected Pope and being a personal student of one of the Apostles for decades on end.

he was a teacher of the law... but it wasnt used as an 'honorary title'

Does that mean it's wrong to call them a teacher? Are preschoolers who call their teachers "Teacher" instead of "Ms. Smith" breaking Christ's command to call no one teacher? Is acknowledging that one of your university professors, high school teachers or martial arts instructors is your "teacher" a bad thing? I routinely call my martial arts instructor "Master," but in no way am I breaking Christ's commandment, because whereas my martial arts instructor is indeed my teacher and master in martial arts, I recognize that my true Master above all else is Christ.

As long as we recognize that all of our "Fathers" aren't greater than, equal to or replacing the Father, then we can call them "Father" and not break Christ's commandment. And as long as we recognize that our "teachers" or "masters" aren't greater than, equal to or replacing Christ our Teacher and Master, then we can call them "teacher" and "master" and not violate Christ's commandment.

 

[metis]

penned by someone who was not appointed as an apostle, yes.

What all this shows is that it was not the apostles who changed the church, it was christians of a later period.

Most of the "N.T." was not written by the apostles, nor was the canon selected by the apostles. Secondly, didn't Jesus say that he would guide the church until the end of time? Thirdly, I have to assume that the apostles are not running your congregation, so I guess you don't have any leadership, thus can't make any decisions.

Any body must have leaders or no decisions can be made. As new problems arise, who's going to make the decisions on how to handle them? Whose going to plan and organize things?

The problem that I think you have is that you're conflating "leadership" and "disagreement" together. We know leaders were set up by the early church, and if Jesus really didn't want leaders, why did he appoint the Twelve and give them powers? And if you were one of those apostles, and you know you're eventually going to die, doncha think you'd be appointing others to take your place, or at least let the congregation do so? You may disagree with some of those leaders, which is to be expected, but eliminating all leadership essentially would have likely ended Christianity.

BTW, it's possible that if Constantine had not converted and set forth some changes that you might not be Christian today. I can explain this, if you'd like.

Does this mean all the leaders are going to be somehow perfect? The apostles weren't. Do you believe that the chance of some making bad choices would be solved by eliminating all leadership? That's "anarchy", and no church would last long under that condition.

 

[Pegg]

Most of the "N.T." was not written by the apostles, nor was the canon selected by the apostles. Secondly, didn't Jesus say that he would guide the church until the end of time? Thirdly, I have to assume that the apostles are not running your congregation, so I guess you don't have any leadership, thus can't make any decisions.

all of the nt writings were written and circulating in the first century when the apostles were still alive. Thats whats so significant about the canon....they were the writings that the apostles along with Jude, James and Paul, accepted as the word of God, as truth and as a proper reflection of Christs teachings.

And we do have leadership in our church because we use the bible as our guide, our basis for teaching and we use an elder arrangement. So we have a body of experienced and spiritually qualified men who oversee the congregations. And we have a 'governing body' who are spirit anointed christians like the disciples in the first century.

Any body must have leaders or no decisions can be made. As new problems arise, who's going to make the decisions on how to handle them? Whose going to plan and organize things?

decisions do not have to be made by one person. Group decisions are always best....even Moses learned that when he was told by God to 'delegate' work to suitably qualified 'older men'

The problem that I think you have is that you're conflating "leadership" and "disagreement" together. We know leaders were set up by the early church, and if Jesus really didn't want leaders, why did he appoint the Twelve and give them powers?

he appointed 12 to be his witnesses for what he was teaching, and they in turn taught them to others and baptised people. The 12 apostles were the ones who could confirm a teaching or deny a teaching. But no one was in charge of everything. Thats the big difference. Look at the account in Acts 15 regarding the issue of circumsicion...the older men were just as much a part of the discussions as the apostles. And the final decision was made by all of them based on the scriptures.

And if you were one of those apostles, and you know you're eventually going to die, doncha think you'd be appointing others to take your place, or at least let the congregation do so? You may disagree with some of those leaders, which is to be expected, but eliminating all leadership essentially would have likely ended Christianity.

yes and thats what they did. But they didnt appoint 'apostles' bishops or popes. They appointed qualified 'older men' to oversee the congregations and these ones did not do that alone... there were several older men appointed in all the various congregations and they worked together as a body.

Basically, in the original church the way that christ organized it, it was the laity who were looking after the congregations. There was no clergy class.

BTW, it's possible that if Constantine had not converted and set forth some changes that you might not be Christian today. I can explain this, if you'd like.

Does this mean all the leaders are going to be somehow perfect? The apostles weren't. Do you believe that the chance of some making bad choices would be solved by eliminating all leadership? That's "anarchy", and no church would last long under that condition.

having a clergy leads to a dictatorship. And that never leads anyone to a good place.

 

[metis]

all of the nt writings were written and circulating in the first century when the apostles were still alive. Thats whats so significant about the canon....they were the writings that the apostles along with Jude, James and Paul, accepted as the word of God, as truth and as a proper reflection of Christs teachings.

They were circulating, but not as a whole. For example, historians tell us that they believe about 1/3 of the churches didn't use "Revelations".

But you're still missing the point, namely that it was the church leadership centuries later that chose the scriptures and not the other way around, and we know that this selection process was very contentious.

And we do have leadership in our church because we use the bible as our guide, our basis for teaching and we use an elder arrangement. So we have a body of experienced and spiritually qualified men who oversee the congregations. And we have a 'governing body' who are spirit anointed christians like the disciples in the first century.

Yes, you use the Bible selected by the Catholic Church. Also, the "governing body" is leadership, which was the point I was making.

decisions do not have to be made by one person. Group decisions are always best....even Moses learned that when he was told by God to 'delegate' work to suitably qualified 'older men'

Actually, important decisions in the RCC are actually not made by one person. Canon Law has it that the Pope needs to work in conjunction with the cardinals and bishops, plus Popes also rely on feedback and advice from other personnel as well, including the laity.

he appointed 12 to be his witnesses for what he was teaching, and they in turn taught them to others and baptised people. The 12 apostles were the ones who could confirm a teaching or deny a teaching. But no one was in charge of everything. Thats the big difference. Look at the account in Acts 15 regarding the issue of circumsicion...the older men were just as much a part of the discussions as the apostles. And the final decision was made by all of them based on the scriptures.

See my comment above. No one could be in charge of everything because of the scattering of the church into the diaspora, and yet the "Chair of Peter" (i.e. the bishop of Rome) had a special designation, and this was in place even before the apostle John died. This even shows up in Acts whereas important decisions were referred back to the Apostles, and Paul is just one example of one whom does that.

yes and thats what they did. But they didnt appoint 'apostles' bishops or popes. They appointed qualified 'older men' to oversee the congregations and these ones did not do that alone... there were several older men appointed in all the various congregations and they worked together as a body.

The word "presbyterios (sp?) means "elder", which is also where the word "father" comes from in church tradition. Again, different words. BTW, you still didn't answer whom is married to your "mother"?

Secondly, "episcopoi" (sp?) means overseer, which is what "bishop" also means, so both come from Koine Greek and are found in scripture.

Basically, in the original church the way that christ organized it, it was the laity who were looking after the congregations. There was no clergy class.

Not true. The mark of the early church dealt with whom was appointed by whom, and this whole issue came to a head later when "heretical" churches were formed using different scriptures. The only way to tell which was the apostolic church was through this issue of whom appointed whom. Again, we know this is true from historical records, so this is not speculation on my part.

having a clergy leads to a dictatorship. And that never leads anyone to a good place.

Most clergies are in no way dictatorships, so you've severely overstated your case. People in church can leave, and even in the RCC there are procedures that limit the power of the Pope.

Seems strange even to me to be here defending the RCC.

 

[Vouthon]

Not true. The mark of the early church dealt with whom was appointed by whom, and this whole issue came to a head later when "heretical" churches were formed using different scriptures. The only way to tell which was the apostolic church was through this issue of whom appointed whom. Again, we know this is true from historical records, so this is not speculation on my part.

Excellent point my friend! :bow:

Apostolic succession is the transmission of episcopal authority, by the laying on of hands. In the Gospels Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively shepherd others, conferring upon them authority to govern his ecclesia (assembly of believers, the church). As early as the Letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, which although not actually authored by the Apostle Paul but by a later disciple of the Pauline school, most likely draw on written sources by or nearer to him in time, we see the clear primacy of the episcopacy (Bishops) as the leadership organs of the Church, the centre of unity at the local (diocesan) level and tasked with the duties and virtual office of the Apostles.

The early Christians were extremely self-confident and assured of their Apostolic Succession. In fact so convinced where they of its authenticity, that they often challenged their pagan opponents to go and check the records for themselves. Romans were meticulous with dates, and the Imperial Archives must have had an impressive range of documentation, even on the rise of the marginal but troublesome Christian sect.

In light of all this, read these self-confident words of Tertullian:

Tertullian (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [A.D. 200]) "But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men--a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter."

He's challenging the Roman authorities. Tertullian was a jurist, familiar with the Roman archives. Indeed he tells us himself that he had the privilege of visiting them frequently. Remember that the Church Fathers were among the intelligentsia of their era. They were of the upper class, equestrian and other higher ranks, sophisticated scholars, often among the greatest thinkers of their eras. Such men would not surely challenge their Roman opponents to go and check the records of the churches and see for themselves unless they had possession and/or knowledge of those very records. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.”

Among early evidence outside the Bible of Bishops being the successors to the Apostles, we have the writings of the apostolic father and Roman Bishop (therefore known later by the title of 'pope') Saint Clement I from around the year 80 - 90. This is quite a remarkable document since it was written at the very "end" of the Apostolic Age, when the apostles could still have been within living memory. He wrote, at this early stage:

"...Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry...But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience..."

- Pope Saint Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80-90]

We can see the pattern of authority, according to Clement above. God recognized the lordship of Christ, who in turn shared his authority with the apostles. The apostles then passed on their unique authority to the bishops who are empowered by the Spirit to preach the Gospel and shepherd the Church. This divine order is established by God for the good of the Church.

The Church exists in communion with Christ as the means through which Christ is made present in the world. He uses, later in the letter, the OT example of Moses, showing that God appoints leaders as He did with the priesthood and those leaders appoint the next generation "with the consent of the whole Church." (1 Clement 44.2) Clement is familiar with Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians), referring to it in chapter 47, yet no NT text is ever quoted - his biblical citations and illustrations all come from the OT. Although he also quotes from Paul's letter to the Romans, his view of faith is more in line with James, "being justified by our works, and not our words." (1 Clement 30.3) This man is writing at a time when even Paul's letters and the not long ago composed Gospels were not yet even recognised universally and infallibly as "scripture". It was that early. :areyoucra

About a hundred years later we have the witness of Irenaeus:

Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]) "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the Tradition of the Apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about"; (ibid., 3:3:2) "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such as volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul--that church which has the Tradition and the with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because if its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic Tradition"; (ibid., 4:26:2) "It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church--those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [also] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth".

 

[dan p]

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
”

Hi , and they only have meaning to the 12 apostles and the right to sit of 12 thrones !

Then you have to say when the Kingdom of Heaven is in operation , and it obviously not now , but in the Future !!

dan p

 

[Pegg]

They were circulating, but not as a whole. For example, historians tell us that they believe about 1/3 of the churches didn't use "Revelations".

but this is not at all surprising when you consider they didnt' have a postal service, there were not printers or computers or emails.... and some of the letters were given to specific people or congregations. They certainly worked at making copies of those letters but distribution took time.

But you're still missing the point, namely that it was the church leadership centuries later that chose the scriptures and not the other way around, and we know that this selection process was very contentious.

and what do you think the contention was about?? The contention was about which scriptures were accepted and known to the apostles, and which were not.

Thats what the issue was. By the 2nd or 3rd centuries, there were numerous christian teachers who were writing their own ideas and circulating them among the congregations... with so many different ideas in circulation, they had to make clear what what came from the apostles and what did not.

Yes, you use the Bible selected by the Catholic Church. Also, the "governing body" is leadership, which was the point I was making.
Actually, important decisions in the RCC are actually not made by one person. Canon Law has it that the Pope needs to work in conjunction with the cardinals and bishops, plus Popes also rely on feedback and advice from other personnel as well, including the laity.

but when it comes to authority over scripture, we are talking about 'doctrines and teachings' The issue is not about the purchase of buildings or meeting times for services or who' is going to do the banking. That work is obviously delegated to many individuals. But who decides the doctrines? The Pope.
And that is not the way Jesus apostles functioned.

The word "presbyterios (sp?) means "elder", which is also where the word "father" comes from in church tradition. Again, different words. BTW, you still didn't answer whom is married to your "mother"?

Secondly, "episcopoi" (sp?) means overseer, which is what "bishop" also means, so both come from Koine Greek and are found in scripture.

but you see, an 'elder' in the original church was a man with knowledge of the scritpures and a record of faithfulness. An 'overseer' was an 'elder' who had been appointed to serve a congregation along with many other elders....a bishop on the other hand means something very different. It is a position of authority over an entire congregation. The original church did not appoint 'one' person to be the boss.... there was a group of men who all worked together, but not one of them held authority over the others.


With regard to 'father', i can call my own father by that title... but why should I call a priest or a bishop or the pope my father? They are not my father..... i have one earthly father, and one heavenly Father.

Most clergies are in no way dictatorships, so you've severely overstated your case. People in church can leave, and even in the RCC there are procedures that limit the power of the Pope.

Seems strange even to me to be here defending the RCC.

the clergy dictate doctrine and application of scripture...for example, they dictate that a woman cannot use contraceptions to prevent pregnancy. They dictate that a priest cannot marry. They put our their hands and expect the flock to kiss the rings on their fingers.
They create doctrines which are not part of scriptures and dictate that the flock should believe it. And if a country goes to war, the priests dictate to their followers that they should support the war and send their sons to the slaughter in the name of christ.


This is not what Christ would want.

 

[Shiranui117]

but this is not at all surprising when you consider they didnt' have a postal service, there were not printers or computers or emails.... and some of the letters were given to specific people or congregations. They certainly worked at making copies of those letters but distribution took time.

Not necessarily. Do you think the Ephesians wanted the letters the Corinthians got, and vice-versa? Each church got advice tailored to their own needs and condition, and as has been pointed out, the letters of the Apostles were not considered Scripture in the first and second centuries, and no one wanted advice that didn't apply to their own circumstances, or to be told things that they already knew full-well. The Gospels weren't even called the Gospels yet, much less viewed as Scripture on par with the OT.

and what do you think the contention was about?? The contention was about which scriptures were accepted and known to the apostles, and which were not.

And it was common knowledge back then that 2 Peter wasn't written by Peter, nor by any Apostle, but the clergy still included it in the Scriptural canon.

Thats what the issue was. By the 2nd or 3rd centuries, there were numerous christian teachers who were writing their own ideas and circulating them among the congregations... with so many different ideas in circulation, they had to make clear what what came from the apostles and what did not.

It wasn't a concern of what exactly came from the Apostles, it was a concern of what came from the Apostolic Faith and Apostolic Tradition (of which the Bible is only the miniscule written part).

but when it comes to authority over scripture, we are talking about 'doctrines and teachings' The issue is not about the purchase of buildings or meeting times for services or who' is going to do the banking. That work is obviously delegated to many individuals. But who decides the doctrines? The Pope.

As has been pointed out, this is not the case. If you look at the entire first thousand years of Christianity, never once did the Pope "decide" (a better word is "clarify" here) any doctrines. All that work was done by the Holy Spirit working through hundreds of bishops in Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils (like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15) is where the real magic happens. The Pope on his own actually doesn't have a whole lot of power. On paper he does, yeah, but in reality, the Pope is absolutely nothing without the rest of the bishops in the Church supporting him.

And that is not the way Jesus apostles functioned.

Nor is it the way the Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church functions. You don't seem to have a solid grasp on what the actual teaching and structure of the Church is...

but you see, an 'elder' in the original church was a man with knowledge of the scritpures and a record of faithfulness.

As well as a man with authority to teach others, maintain harmony in the Church and celebrate the Eucharist and perform the other Sacraments.

An 'overseer' was an 'elder' who had been appointed to serve a congregation along with many other elders....a bishop on the other hand means something very different. It is a position of authority over an entire congregation. The original church did not appoint 'one' person to be the boss.... there was a group of men who all worked together, but not one of them held authority over the others.

As I said before, an overseer without any authority to enforce discipline and order in the Church, cast out wolves among the flock, teach, and shepherd the flock is no "overseer" at all. Bishops are servants of their flocks--but they also have the authority to maintain discipline and ensure that his flock isn't led astray by heresy and false Christians.

With regard to 'father', i can call my own father by that title... but why should I call a priest or a bishop or the pope my father? They are not my father..... i have one earthly father, and one heavenly Father.

But you're calling someone else aside from God your father. Doesn't that break Christ's command the exact same way as calling a priest or bishop "Father", by your logic? If you have one earthly father and one heavenly Father, then doesn't that violate Christ's teaching that we only have one Father?

the clergy dictate doctrine and application of scripture

Yes, because they continue in the tradition and succession of the Apostles and those who were appointed by them.

...for example, they dictate that a woman cannot use contraceptions to prevent pregnancy.

This is only in the Roman Catholic Church. In the Orthodox Church, married couples are permitted to use non-abortive contraception if they aren't ready yet to have a child, and if it is understood that they will eventually be having a child.

They dictate that a priest cannot marry.

Priests have never been able to marry, but married men can become priests. The Romans only changed this teaching 800 years ago. In Orthodoxy, and even in Eastern Catholicism, married men are still routinely ordained as priests.

They put our their hands and expect the flock to kiss the rings on their fingers.

Actually, I personally know numerous priests who will refuse to have their hands kissed when the faithful kiss the cross that the priest holds at the end of Liturgy--"I'm not a Saint!" they'll tell me. It's quite common, in fact. I've heard of more than one bishop refusing to have their hands kissed as well. Letting their hands be kissed actually for the clergy a lesson in humility--accepting the love and respect of their flock, regardless of how sinful and unworthy they view themselves.

They create doctrines which are not part of scriptures and dictate that the flock should believe it.

Tell me one doctrine of the Faith created by the Orthodox Church which wasn't believed by the Apostles and those they personally taught.

And if a country goes to war, the priests dictate to their followers that they should support the war and send their sons to the slaughter in the name of christ.

Absolutely not. In the Orthodox Church, we have no doctrine of "just war" as in the West. War is always sinful and wrong. It's just that sometimes we have to sin ourselves rather than sit by and watch as others are brutalized and murdered by foreign powers--sitting by and watching as others die and doing nothing when we have the power to do so makes us just as guilty of murder as the murderers themselves.

If a Jehovah's Witness saw dozens of innocent people being massacred, and he had the power to stop it only by violent force, would he do so? Or would he stand by and let those people die?

This is not what Christ would want.

No, war is far from being an ideal situation for anyone. All we can choose between is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Me Myself]

Matthew 23:9 “Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.”

How do you call the male that give the semen necessary for your biological encarnation?

 

[Sees]

To me the not calling anyone on earth your father bit was about getting a point or lesson across...kind of like the bits about rich people having such a hard time entering the kingdom of God/heaven, lustful thoughts = adultery, etc.

Jesus seemed to frequently use shock tactics to get his points and lessons driven home but how many of those were meant to be literal doctrine and dogma? He seemed more concerned that there was a transformation of the heart that lead to understanding and living the spirit of the laws and teachings, rather than just mouthing and acting them out like a parrot or robot. The verbal shocks and knocks upside the head were to get people to become a holy person and live it for real. Each teaching seems to be reflective of this. The father bit was his way of directing focus, not authoritatively dictating language usage.

 

[Pegg]

How do you call the male that give the semen necessary for your biological encarnation?

I certainly dont call my father 'the most holy father' thats for sure. The church uses 'Father't as a religious title for its priests

Thats the problem. Jesus never used it as a religious title for himself, nor did Jesus expect his followers to call him 'Father'... but that is what the priests expect to be called.

The pope is called “Holy Father.”
Italian staff address him as 'Santissimo Padre', meaning “Most Holy Father.” The only time this title appears in the Bible is at John 17:11. Jesus used this title exclusively for God Almighty who is the Supreme Being.

Would you think its right address any imperfect human by this title??

 

[metis]

Excellent point my friend! :bow:

Apostolic succession is the transmission of episcopal authority, by the laying on of hands. In the Gospels Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively shepherd others, conferring upon them authority to govern his ecclesia (assembly of believers, the church). As early as the Letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, which although not actually authored by the Apostle Paul but by a later disciple of the Pauline school, most likely draw on written sources by or nearer to him in time, we see the clear primacy of the episcopacy (Bishops) as the leadership organs of the Church, the centre of unity at the local (diocesan) level and tasked with the duties and virtual office of the Apostles.

The early Christians were extremely self-confident and assured of their Apostolic Succession. In fact so convinced where they of its authenticity, that they often challenged their pagan opponents to go and check the records for themselves. Romans were meticulous with dates, and the Imperial Archives must have had an impressive range of documentation, even on the rise of the marginal but troublesome Christian sect.

In light of all this, read these self-confident words of Tertullian:




He's challenging the Roman authorities. Tertullian was a jurist, familiar with the Roman archives. Indeed he tells us himself that he had the privilege of visiting them frequently. Remember that the Church Fathers were among the intelligentsia of their era. They were of the upper class, equestrian and other higher ranks, sophisticated scholars, often among the greatest thinkers of their eras. Such men would not surely challenge their Roman opponents to go and check the records of the churches and see for themselves unless they had possession and/or knowledge of those very records. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.”

Among early evidence outside the Bible of Bishops being the successors to the Apostles, we have the writings of the apostolic father and Roman Bishop (therefore known later by the title of 'pope') Saint Clement I from around the year 80 - 90. This is quite a remarkable document since it was written at the very "end" of the Apostolic Age, when the apostles could still have been within living memory. He wrote, at this early stage:





We can see the pattern of authority, according to Clement above. God recognized the lordship of Christ, who in turn shared his authority with the apostles. The apostles then passed on their unique authority to the bishops who are empowered by the Spirit to preach the Gospel and shepherd the Church. This divine order is established by God for the good of the Church.

The Church exists in communion with Christ as the means through which Christ is made present in the world. He uses, later in the letter, the OT example of Moses, showing that God appoints leaders as He did with the priesthood and those leaders appoint the next generation "with the consent of the whole Church." (1 Clement 44.2) Clement is familiar with Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians), referring to it in chapter 47, yet no NT text is ever quoted - his biblical citations and illustrations all come from the OT. Although he also quotes from Paul's letter to the Romans, his view of faith is more in line with James, "being justified by our works, and not our words." (1 Clement 30.3) This man is writing at a time when even Paul's letters and the not long ago composed Gospels were not yet even recognised universally and infallibly as "scripture". It was that early. :areyoucra

About a hundred years later we have the witness of Irenaeus:

Thank you, and thanks for the details above. Have a great weekend.

 

[metis]

but this is not at all surprising when you consider they didnt' have a postal service, there were not printers or computers or emails.... and some of the letters were given to specific people or congregations. They certainly worked at making copies of those letters but distribution took time.

Three centuries worth? No, what happened is that different churches had chosen different books, although there obviously was much overlap between them.

and what do you think the contention was about?? The contention was about which scriptures were accepted and known to the apostles, and which were not... Thats what the issue was. By the 2nd or 3rd centuries, there were numerous christian teachers who were writing their own ideas and circulating them among the congregations... with so many different ideas in circulation, they had to make clear what what came from the apostles and what did not.

The contention took different forms, with one of them being who was the author, which is often not clear because it was common then for a disciple to write on behalf of his mentor. Secondly, there were roughly nearly 1000 books to chose from, so deciding even what criteria should be used was itself conjectural. And then there was the matter as to whether Torah and Tanakh should be included, so that was argued back and forth.

But no matter how you want to look at it, it was the Catholic Church that chose your Bible, and that we know as a fact.

But who decides the doctrines? The Pope.
And that is not the way Jesus apostles functioned.

Wrong. The Pope, according to Canon Law, must work in conjunction with the cardinals and bishops, even when speaking "ex cathedra". And you're wrong about Jesus and the apostles, as the scriptures says that Jesus "taught with authority" (not through a panel of elders) and bestowed powers onto the apostles to do the same (and there was a "pecking order" there as well as you see Peter making the final decisions), and there's no evidence in scripture that anything was up up to a vote (Judas was replaced by drawing from lot). And then the apostles followed suit by appointing others. Again, this is not speculation-- it's history that even shows up in Acts and the epistles.

but you see, an 'elder' in the original church was a man with knowledge of the scritpures and a record of faithfulness. An 'overseer' was an 'elder' who had been appointed to serve a congregation along with many other elders....a bishop on the other hand means something very different. It is a position of authority over an entire congregation. The original church did not appoint 'one' person to be the boss.... there was a group of men who all worked together, but not one of them held authority over the others.

And for some reason you simply cannot get it into your head that the bishop is an overseer. That's what is found in Acts, which I told you in my previous post. And the issue of "father" clearly does not mean biological father or heavenly father, so how many times do you have to be told that before it sinks in? The root words are different.

With regard to 'father', i can call my own father by that title... but why should I call a priest or a bishop or the pope my father? They are not my father..... i have one earthly father, and one heavenly Father.

But you quoted "call no man father", so by how you posted it, you're violating scripture. You simply can't have it both ways.

the clergy dictate doctrine and application of scripture...

The church operates like a Roman traffic cop, namely that it teaches what it believes is the truth. However, like what you see in Rome, many people will obey but many will simply do their own thing.

However, where I do agree with you, as I'm sure most Catholics would agree with you, was that there were times in history when popes simply got too chummy with the secular leaders, and that's when things sometimes went terribly wrong. However, we also have seen that happen in many non-Catholic denominations as well, although that certainly doesn't make it acceptable.

And we also should remember that the behavior of even the apostles wasn't always exemplary either. And I betcha that you can find less than exemplary behavior within your own congregation as well, as one of our neighboring families who left the J.W.'s did about 5 years ago.

Anyhow, this probably will be my last post on the subject since there are others who can get into more detail.

 

[metis]

The pope is called “Holy Father.”
Italian staff address him as 'Santissimo Padre', meaning “Most Holy Father.” The only time this title appears in the Bible is at John 17:11. Jesus used this title exclusively for God Almighty who is the Supreme Being.

Would you think its right address any imperfect human by this title??

The word "holy" does not mean "perfect"-- it means "special". So, the way to render this is "special overseer" or "special elder", depending on which early term you're dealing with. Early Christianity, including with the apostles, was not a democratic institution.

 

[2ndpillar]

The word "holy" does not mean "perfect"-- it means "special". So, the way to render this is "special overseer" or "special elder", depending on which early term you're dealing with. Early Christianity, including with the apostles, was not a democratic institution.

Dear metis,

Here is the definition of holy":Full Definition of HOLY
1
: exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness

2
: divine <for the Lord our God is holy — Psalms 99:9(Authorized Version)>
3
: devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity <a holy temple> <holy prophets>
4
a : having a divine quality <holy love>

b : venerated as or as if sacred <holy scripture> <a holy
Holy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

What it doesn include is "special".

 

[metis]

Dear metis,

Here is the definition of holy":Full Definition of HOLY
1
: exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness

2
: divine <for the Lord our God is holy — Psalms 99:9(Authorized Version)>
3
: devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity <a holy temple> <holy prophets>
4
a : having a divine quality <holy love>

b : venerated as or as if sacred <holy scripture> <a holy
Holy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

What it doesn include is "special".

Check this out:

ho·ly [hoh-lee] Show IPA
adjective, ho·li·er, ho·li·est.
1.specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated: holy ground.
2.dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion: a holy man.
3.saintly; godly; pious; devout: a holy life.
4.having a spiritually pure quality: a holy love.
5.entitled to worship or veneration as or as if sacred: a holy relic...

Something that is sacred while sometimes accepted as entitled to religious veneration, may have its sanctity from human authority: a sacred oath. Something that is consecrated is specially or formally dedicated to some religious use: a life consecrated to service. -- Holy | Define Holy at Dictionary.com [please note the underlined part from me]

And if you check it out in Greek, it's "hapios", which means "separate". When we say "... remember the Sabbath and keep it holy", this doesn't mean that Shabbat is somehow without sin but, instead, that it's a special day.

 

[Pegg]

The word "holy" does not mean "perfect"-- it means "special". So, the way to render this is "special overseer" or "special elder", depending on which early term you're dealing with. Early Christianity, including with the apostles, was not a democratic institution.

regardless of how you think it can be rendered, it is still the title Jesus applied to his Father Jehovah, the most high over all the earth and the only True God.

to apply it to 'any' human being is heresy.