Question for nominal Christians

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not so, its contradicted by the mere fact that Paul himself was considered an apostle, an
apostle to the nations, yet he was not among the twelve.

So, you are now calling paul a liar. Great!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry suzzianne your whole argument breaks down by the mere fact that there was no
clergy laity distinction in the first century, all were considered as worthy of the Good
News, indeed when Christ sent out seventy, what positions did those persons hold?
clearly they were not apostles, therefore what position did they hold? Paul states to
th ...[text shortened]... is great, do you
belong to a farming community, let me tell you no one sleeps in harvest time.

They were considered disciples, others call them apostles.

How can you say they were clearly not apostles? From the Greek, an apostle was one who was sent on a mission, a disciple was a student. The Seventy clearly were sent on a mission, and later on, nearly all of them became bishops.

What was your point again?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So, you are now calling paul a liar. Great!

what are you havering about now?

Originally posted by Suzianne
They were considered disciples, others call them apostles.

How can you say they were clearly not apostles? From the Greek, an apostle was one who was sent on a mission, a disciple was a student. The Seventy clearly were sent on a mission, and later on, nearly all of them became bishops.

What was your point again?

They might as well be called angels then, for that's the meaning of the term, a sent
one. Regardless, all of them went on a public ministry, as directed by the Christ.
Bishop is not a Biblical term.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They might as well be called angels then, for that's the meaning of the term, a sent
one. Regardless, all of them went on a public ministry, as directed by the Christ.
Bishop is not a Biblical term.

Why then is the word "bishop" in the Holy Bible then if it is not a
biblical term?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why then is the word "bishop" in the Holy Bible then if it is not a
biblical term?

Good question. Apparently "bishop" is etymologically related to latin episcopus, epi-scopus, overseer, from the 3rd C BCE Greek translation of the OT, e.g, Neh 11:22, where an ἐπίσκοπος or overseer of the Levites is mentioned. P's sometime become b's and with this it isn't too hard to see the etymological transition of the word from its Greek origin. It also isn't too hard to see a group of Christians headed by a bishop (overseer) as analogous to a tribe of Israel. So "bishop" seems to have as good a Biblical genealogy as many other words that started out as Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek.

ἐπίσκοπος is e, p, i, s, k, o, p, o, s, if you take the first letter of the greek alphabet as spelled out, e.g. epsilon, pi, iota, sigma, etc. (Lower case sigma has two symbols).

Originally posted by JS357
Good question. Apparently "bishop" is etymologically related to latin episcopus, epi-scopus, overseer, from the 3rd C BCE Greek translation of the OT, e.g, Neh 11:22, where an ἐπίσκοπος or overseer of the Levites is mentioned. P's sometime become b's and with this it isn't too hard to see the etymological transiti ...[text shortened]... as spelled out, e.g. epsilon, pi, iota, sigma, etc. (Lower case sigma has two symbols).

edit: RHP doesn't like Greek. Look for the Greek at http://www.newadvent.org/bible/neh011.htm

Originally posted by JS357
Good question. Apparently "bishop" is etymologically related to latin episcopus, epi-scopus, overseer, from the 3rd C BCE Greek translation of the OT, e.g, Neh 11:22, where an ἐπίσκοπος or overseer of the Levites is mentioned. P's sometime become b's and with this it isn't too hard to see the etymological transiti ...[text shortened]... as spelled out, e.g. epsilon, pi, iota, sigma, etc. (Lower case sigma has two symbols).

Very good!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why dont you teach and preach in obedience to Christ's command at Matthew 28:19,20
and in view of Pauls example at Acts 20:20? dont you believe the Christ's words?

(Luke 11:23) . . .He that is not on my side is against me, and [b]he that does not gather with me scatters.[/b]

Simple - because I am only a nominal Christian. Why would I teach and preach something I don't believe in?

Originally posted by JS357
Good question. Apparently "bishop" is etymologically related to latin episcopus, epi-scopus, overseer, from the 3rd C BCE Greek translation of the OT, e.g, Neh 11:22, where an ἐπίσκοπος or overseer of the Levites is mentioned. P's sometime become b's and with this it isn't too hard to see the etymological transiti as spelled out, e.g. epsilon, pi, iota, sigma, etc. (Lower case sigma has two symbols).

Translations are good and bad, good in that we get what we need in our
own language, bad in that sometimes depending on the translation we can
get it wrong. Not because the words used are 'wrong' but may mean one
thing in the time of the translation that don't hold true later in time, or that
cultures can alter the true meaning. I like reading several english translations
mainly to get a better understanding of the text, and go to the origional for
word study to try and glean all the meaning I can if I run across something
that I feel need more than what I'm getting to grasp the point.

The sermon on the mound is a good example, the culture of the day was one
thing and so Jesus' words came in great contrast to what everyone thought at
the time. Now we view them as how to sort of thing if we are not careful.

Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Translations are good and bad, good in that we get what we need in our
own language, bad in that sometimes depending on the translation we can
get it wrong. Not because the words used are 'wrong' but may mean one
thing in the time of the translation that don't hold true later in time, or that
cultures can alter the true meaning. I like reading several e ...[text shortened]... ught at
the time. Now we view them as how to sort of thing if we are not careful.

Kelly

The faithful can trust that God will assure that they will not make a grievous error due to a mistake in translation or understanding of the Bible they are using. But this forum shows that people who think they have done sufficient study, can disagree on things they think are of utmost importance.

The bystander may ask if it is possible that God would allow both of the unyielding advocates of opposing views to gain salvation? Alas, this question will itself, result in opposing views.

It does not help the bystander to choose in favor of the best argument on such matters, because no argument made by a human is perfect, and the truth trumps all arguments. So I suppose this is one item for which direct revelation is to be sought. Diligent study and prayer may lead to it, but do not in my opinion, substitute for it.

Who here is willing to state that direct revelation is the real source of their faith concerning such issues? And if it is, aren't they bound to admit that their own arguments are insufficient even for themselves?

Originally posted by Nordlys
Simple - because I am only a nominal Christian. Why would I teach and preach something I don't believe in?

why would you call yourself a Christian if you dont advocate nor belief the teachings of
the Christ, why stop at nominal?

Originally posted by JS357
Good question. Apparently "bishop" is etymologically related to latin episcopus, epi-scopus, overseer, from the 3rd C BCE Greek translation of the OT, e.g, Neh 11:22, where an ἐπίσκοπος or overseer of the Levites is mentioned. P's sometime become b's and with this it isn't too hard to see the etymological transiti ...[text shortened]... as spelled out, e.g. epsilon, pi, iota, sigma, etc. (Lower case sigma has two symbols).

The Greek term episkopos, meaning “overseer,” originally described each and all of
the elders who had the duty of looking out for or overseeing the interests of the
congregation, caring for their spiritual welfare like a shepherd. (Acts 20:28) But the
English word “bishop” (drawn from episkopos through the Latin episcopus) came to
stand for a religious official who exercised dominant authority over many
congregations in a wide area. This culminated in the development of the papacy in
which one overseer, the bishop of Rome, claimed primacy and the sole right to
preside over and direct all Christian overseers and congregations everywhere.

(Acts 20:28) . . .Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the
holy spirit has appointed you overseers (episkopous), to shepherd the congregation
of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son. . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Greek term episkopos, meaning “overseer,” originally described each and all of
the elders who had the duty of looking out for or overseeing the interests of the
congregation, caring for their spiritual welfare like a shepherd. (Acts 20:28) But the
English word “bishop” (drawn from episkopos through the Latin episcopus) came to
stand for a ...[text shortened]... s), to shepherd the congregation
of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son. . .

I was addressing someone's comment that the word "bishop" is not Biblical. It is reportedly an etymological descendant of episkopus, which was used in translating the OT to Greek (Neh 11-22). This does not mean I endorse the RCC's structure of organization and authority.

Originally posted by JS357
I was addressing someone's comment that the word "bishop" is not Biblical. It is reportedly an etymological descendant of episkopus, which was used in translating the OT to Greek (Neh 11-22). This does not mean I endorse the RCC's structure of organization and authority.

yes, but it is a term that has been subject to bastardization, so that what it originally
was intended to portray has been lost in its present state. I was not chastising your
etymological research nor the validity of the statement, merely pointing out its
divergence from the original.