TedM

Is that really any different than a bishop? If is it, how is it different? It seems to me that by the time Justin wrote this, churches had 'leaders'. That sounds a lot like a presiding 'bishop' to me. Is anyone suggesting that the terms, bishops, presbyters, or deacons were not used before Justin? I"m aware of the term being used in the Pastorals, Ignatius, and 1 Clement, but am wondering if there are other references that some consider to be pre-Justin.

stephan huller

I don't know. Canada has a prime minister but the governor general as head of state who is nominated by the party with the most votes in parliament. In the United States the head of state is called president and is put into office by a direct election. Is that the same thing?

stephan huller

And how were bishops and presidents nominated in antiquity? I haven't a fucking clue. I know what the propaganda says or what tradition says about it. However I am not convinced we know enough to say definitively how bishops were selected.

Sheshbazzar

I have just finished reading in their entirety the 7 Epistles of Ignatius that are accepted by most scholars as being authentic. It is noteworthy that submission to a 'bishop', and 'do nothing without the bishop' is a recurrent theme in virtually all of them. Which trail if followed step by step develops a theme through these Ignatian Epistles, with each introducing an ever increasing amount of authority and control in the hands of the 'Bishop', finally ending with him holding absolute and unquestionable dictatorial authority over all others; Welcome to the 'Papal' system of Church government and 'authority'.

As I stated above, I cannot but conclude that these Ignatian Epistles were either composed in their entirety, or at the least underwent considerable additions by post-Justinian 'catholic' writers to 'legitimatize' their claims to the doctrine of 'Apostolic Succession', and to facilitate this power grab they had to create a false trail of 'Bishops' leading all the way back to 'Peter' and 'Paul'.
....and of course this 'Paul', whom Justin apparently knew nothing at all about in 150 CE, is mentioned and well known to Ignatius way 'back' in 100-117 CE.

To me it is evident that these Epistles of Ignatius were forged either in whole or in part (the 'Paul' and 'Bishops' references) sometime after 150 CE. and Justin's writings.

Considering the relative unimportant nature of the other material within these Epistles it appears that they were deliberately forged with an almost single purpose of retrojecting the term 'Bishop' into the past. 'Paul' of whom Justin also knew nothing, being late invented, went along for that ride into a fabricated church past.
'Presbyters' or 'deacons' were the terms in use before Justin, and were evidently used interchangeably until the writings of Ignatius appeared sometime after c. 150 CE.

sotto voce

The original method of bishop creation was simple ageing, based on the premise that wisdom comes with experience. When the Israelites were established in Israel, it was as a democracy, that pre-dated Greece. There were judges who decided disputes, and led the army in time of war, but nothing besides that, politically. Time and again there is reference to 'all the people' who not only had to be consulted, they had to take responsibility for their actions. This factor is essential to understanding the history of Israel, and of the church, too. What governance existed, at tribal and national level, was via elders, the older men of families that by law were never permitted to acquire much more wealth than any other. So there was no elite power base that was and is always the driving force of any other social system, that is always based on economic power. There was no precedent for anything else, because the patriarchs were totally independent, and indeed wealthy enough to be so.

The purpose was that each Israelite was to be 'a royal priest'; i.e. a person who, like Abraham, Isaac, Israel and Joseph, communicated with deity directly, and who were known as 'friends of God'. This priesthood was the claim made by certain kings whose role was to act as vox dei for his subjects. Any sort of intermediary between God and man was therefore totally out of place in Israel. There were no teachers (rabbis). Each father and mother was to teach their children the whole law (that must therefore have been orally transmitted), and this was evidently clear enough to regulate society without teachers. There was no king intended, and ritual priests, who in other societies acted as tools for monarchy, in Israel had no social or political role, and their upkeep was as tithe from all others because there was no separate authority to pay for them.

So pre-monarchy Israel was completely unlike any other nation, before, or since. Unless this is understood, no correct understanding of the development of true Christianity can be gained. There are very few who have this understanding; or at least, there are very few have it, and are prepared to admit it. There are ulterior motives, personal and/or political reasons, that lead to this situation. There are many who actively seek to propagandise the view that Christians have leaders, knowing well that whoever is led by human wisdom is no Christian. There's faith for you.

Democratic Israel was intended as a model for 'the new Israel', that was the church. In the church, ritual priests (many of whom became Christian) were replaced by the perception that human priesthood was no longer necessary or desirable. Each Christian, known as a saint, and as having possession of 'the keys to the kingdom', was held to possess the power to 'bind and loose' (a characteristic previously assigned only to rabbis), to be a 'temple of the Holy Spirit'. This 'priest-king' condition was thought to be one only rarely observed in the old Israel because sufficient motivation was not there via ritual: 'it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.'

So how did the democratic church acquire 'bishops'? The word 'bishop' is equivalent to 'presbyter' (shortened to 'priest' in English) and 'elder'. So a bishop is merely an older man, ontologically, and no more than that. There is no caste concept, as in denominations (aka demon nations). In synagogue meetings, which in the diaspora and in Galilee were meetings of 'Israel in microcosm', the responsibilities of elders would have been only for the orderly conduct of meetings, at which any man could speak. (Supposed churches of the denominations, with their one-man band experience, are not even in the same ball park.) So real bishops never act alone in any one church meeting (unless the church is very small indeed), never issue commands about moral behaviour, never decide on interpretations of the Bible. They can place no limit what can be said. This is for the whole congregation to decide. One cannot teach people that they have 'the mind of Christ' and then tell them what to think!

Find a denomination that meets those criteria, and you have witnessed the miraculous!

Toto

"bishop" = episcopus is literally an overseer, someone who checks up on people and enforces things.

A president could just be someone the group chooses to open the services, without any real power to tell others what to do or believe. You notice that any group of people larger than about 10 will tend to look to one person as a leader, just for administrative convenience. But that person is as much a servant as a ruler.

"deacon" has implications of a minister or a servant to the group. IIRC Pliny refers to the Christians he interrogated as deaconesses.

sotto voce

Read my post.

Toto

I don't know where sotto voce got that imaginative post.

Toto

Bishop - etymology

sotto voce

So are we going to get involved in actually reading the Bible? Because the above opinion is to be treated as total, unscholarly nonsense until the Bible is referred to.