I will soon award this tournament over to your opponent. Remember, I'm still the umpire!

TV01,

Walkover for where? I just sprained my arm when making that first serve and called for break and I will be back when my physio has finished! I play the game and very well too!

I have been too busy and won't be chanced even over the next few days. Just get ready for a love game when I'm back.

Be blessed.

@Analytical,

Take all the time you need o jare. I'm all on your side, and we go win by force!

@TV01,
I have decided to relax the redcard for 3 yellow ones. Next time I won't be that lenient!

Meanwhile, I'm shopping around for some sports shorts and vests - looks like the umpire will be playing this unique tennis afterall! And I'll still hold ace!

I'm here. Flexin' my muscles, keepin' warm. Bring it on y'all!  .

Wey dem

TVeeeee

so you are still beating this dead horse thread. kai! 

i still remember you sent me to my room on this one. i'm not allowed.

trini_girl:

so you are still beating this dead horse thread. kai!

Actually, I aim to utilise this thread in my avowed mission to put the MOG myth to bed once and for all.

trini_girl:

i still remember you sent me to my room on this one. i'm not allowed.

And after that enforced sabbatical, I subsequently asked you to ride shotgun with me on this. Are you up for it.? It'll be fun .

^{I actually plan to switch sports on them. When they show up (finally?) all kitted out for tennis, they'll find it's 12 hard rounds of boxing. Doubtless there'll be cries of "You cannot be serious" as I lay into them with hurting combinations .}

God bless

I Tim. 6:11 >> But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

TV01:

Actually, I aim to utilise this thread in my avowed mission to put the MOG myth to bed once and for all.

I do hope that in your avowed mission, you don't put yourself to bed once and for all - "the MOG myth" is not a myth afterall.

Ah! Mr "travelalot", I figured you'd visit my world at some point. What's your mission?

4get_me:

I Tim. 6:11 >> But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

So then, an older more mature XTian calls a younger brethren a "man of God". How on earth does that marry with the contemporary usage to venerate and exalt certain people?

You won't make it past immigration with that kind of input (highly skilled migrants only!) .

You were right on one point though, it's not a myth, it's a nonsensical, man-made, religious construct  .

God bless.

@TV01,

I think there's a limit to stretching your tennis game over Scripture. A more appropriate place would be the Recycle Bin.

TV01:

You were right on one point though, it's not a myth, it's a nonsensical, man-made, religious construct .

That just about describes you; for these days you seem to be losing your grip on God's Word to the extent that Biblical teaching has become first a myth; and now "a nonsensical, man-made, religious construct." Well done; the Lord sees it all.

4get_me:

I think there's a limit to stretching your tennis game over Scripture. A more appropriate place would be the Recycle Bin.

Typical. Can't defend your position, so your resort too rubbishing the opposing one.

4get_me:

That just about describes you; for these days you seem to be losing your grip on God's Word to the extent that Biblical teaching has become first a myth; and now "a nonsensical, man-made, religious construct." Well done; the Lord sees it all.

As ever, the religious always stamp "God" all over their religiosity, in a lame attempt to  validate it.

"Show clearly from scripture that the MOG concept as used in contemporary church organisations is scripturally mandated"

But as it's not there and you can't do it, I expect you'll resort to your usual obsfucating wordiness and girlie ad-hominem barbs.

Come back when you are seasoned enough to play hardball, otherwise keep travellin'.

^{Or play at your usual level, which is too buttress already well-established and generally-accepted doctrine. Second stringer!}

Guys, I'm back!

Umpire seated.
TV01 on court.
Analytical on court.

Major 0-0
Minor 15-15

Analytical serving TV01. . .

Game on!

In talking about church structure and pastors,  I wish to state categorically that the scripture does not support someone taking advantage of the flock of Christ or use their positions as shepherds of His flock to venerate and exalt themselves or make merchandise of the people of God.  This is outright abuse of office and priviedge and they have their reward!

However, that people abuse God-given positions and offices does not render such (offices) unscriptural.  Taking it up from where we stopped the last time, there certainly exists a distinction between elders and pastors.  And there certainly exists a hierarchical authority structure/pattern in the New Testament Church.  The position of authority in the church does not lord it over people, rather it calls for service and greater responsiblity.

The scripture is clear about the ministry gifts to the church.  There is no mention of the office or gift of an elder, set in the church, in the references to ministry gifts in Ephes. 4 and 1 Cor 12 (viz. apostles, prohets, pastors etc).  The church structure as contained in Timothy and Titus and other references, talks of elders, and they are in plural, as noted by you.

The term 'elder' comes from the Greek word 'presbuteros' from where the English word 'priests' comes from.  It refers to the clergy.  The same term is used for the Sanhedrin of the Old Testament.  In the contemporary, the same term could be applied to the church leadership, or church council.  It is a word that refers to the entire leadership of a local assembly or church and not to a specific office within the 'eldership' or leadership.

I will use a simple analogy here as we proceed.  In the corporate world, you refer to the management.  This term does not refer to a specific position within organizational structure, but to the entire leadership of the organization.

Now over to TV01. . .

@TV01,

TV01:

Typical. Can't defend your position, so your resort too rubbishing the opposing one.

What position have I proposed so far, other than merely pointing out that the term "man of God" is categorically used in Scripture? If that is what you want me to defend, it is there in Scripture in the reference given earlier; and it is not a "myth", nor a "nonsensical, man-made, religious construct" as you supposed.

TV01:

As ever, the religious always stamp "God" all over their religiosity, in a lame attempt to  validate it.

Just because you have lost connection with the Word does not help your accusative bragado these days. If your synical remarks apply at all, it heavily falls on your lame attempt to push your own blind religiosity in the hope that you're serving tennis.

TV01:

"Show clearly from scripture that the MOG concept as used in contemporary church organisations is scripturally mandated"

If the reference "from scripture" given earlier has not helped you calm down in your vaunted games of ascribing it to a "myth" and "nonsensical, man-made, religious construct", then it is all the more obvious that you've been reading another book.

TV01:

But as it's not there and you can't do it, I expect you'll resort to your usual obsfucating wordiness and girlie ad-hominem barbs.

"It's not there", you said? Second confirmation that you've been reading another book and have lost your grip on Scripture. Read your Bible again - there are at least 73 verses bearing the appellation of "man of God." Your "obsfucating" and "girlie" exercise is more suited to a noisy motor-park; not to mention that your overheated hotheadedness feeds your eristic arguments.

TV01:

Come back when you are seasoned enough to play hardball, otherwise keep travellin'.

My travels haven't slowed my study of God's precious Word - the very same that you've been playing hardball over.

TV01:

Or play at your usual level, which is too buttress already well-established and generally-accepted doctrine. Second stringer!

And you actually have been waiting for cheap applause for being such a loser? Here's a friendly tip: go back and read God's Word - it doesn't hurt to humble yourself and let Him show you what you claim "it's not there".

Thunderous return  !

Analytical wrote;
In talking about church structure and pastors,  I wish to state categorically that the scripture does not support someone taking advantage of the flock of Christ or use their positions as shepherds of His flock to venerate and exalt themselves or make merchandise of the people of God.  This is outright abuse of office and priviedge and they have their reward!

TV01 replies;
Absolutely.

Analytical wrote;
However, that people abuse God-given positions and offices does not render such (offices) unscriptural.  Taking it up from where we stopped the last time, there certainly exists a distinction between elders and pastors.  And there certainly exists a hierarchical authority structure/pattern in the New Testament Church.  The position of authority in the church does not lord it over people, rather it calls for service and greater responsiblity.

TV01 replies;
More good stuff, but I think I've spotted a "foot fault". Please go to the rules (bible) to categorically show the distinction between Elders & Pastors. And claiming a "hierarchical authority/structure pattern" in the NTC, is to me a double fault. Again, please show it from the good book

Analytical wrote;
The scripture is clear about the ministry gifts to the church.  There is no mention of the office or gift of an elder, set in the church, in the references to ministry gifts in Ephes. 4 and 1 Cor 12 (viz. apostles, prohets, pastors etc).  The church structure as contained in Timothy and Titus and other references, talks of elders, and they are in plural, as noted by you.

TV01 replies;
Would one not assume that gifts and offices work in tandem? If church structure revolves around the eldership and a deaconate per 1&2 Timothy & Titus, where and how do the other gifts/offices fit in?

Analytical wrote;
The term 'elder' comes from the Greek word 'presbuteros' from where the English word 'priests' comes from.  It refers to the clergy.  The same term is used for the Sanhedrin of the Old Testament.  In the contemporary, the same term could be applied to the church leadership, or church council.  It is a word that refers to the entire leadership of a local assembly or church and not to a specific office within the 'eldership' or leadership.

TV01;
I am not sure about your transalation of the word "presbuteros". I would have though the word was a transliteration in English, being rendered "presbyter". However, I can see no scriptural support for a Clergy/Laity (leader/Follower) split in NT Xtianity. Further to my immediately prececeeding point, please outline who in addition to the "eldership" would be included in the "leadership" - you may want to briefly outline how they function and compliment the elders and deacons.

Analytical wrote;
I will use a simple analogy here as we proceed.  In the corporate world, you refer to the management.  This term does not refer to a specific position within organizational structure, but to the entire leadership of the organization.

TV01 replies;
In a very loose sense and in rare instances, this analogy may well be appropriate. But trying to force the NTC into such a paradigm will lead to all sorts of problems. God is a "Father", the Head of a Family. Trying to overlay a corporate model will strip the church of much of it's essence.

Lets see how long this rally lasts!

God bless

You can't be the player and the umpire/coach at the same time!  Wey our umpire sef?

In all the references to the two words (Elders and Pastors) I have not seen a sngle instance where the same word was used for each other.  For clarity sake, the word translated 'elder' has two origins/meanings in Greek:

1. meizon  - elder, greater, more, especially in age.  This is not our focus here.

2. presbuteros/presbyteros -  a senior; specially, an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian presbyter (in addition to what I wrote previously)

Thank you for adding that word 'presbyter'.  But what does it mean?  And who is a presbyter?  It simply means a priest or a minister or elder.

On the other hand, the word translated 'pastor' in NT is 'poimen'.  It means shepherd.  There is therefore no confusion as to the original Greek words used in NT to refer to this two different words.

Like I said earlier, the elders refer to the leadership in a church.  This group and their qualifications are well spelt out in Timothy and Titus.  It includes everyone ordained as a leader/minister/elder in the NT church regardless of their ministry in the congregation, whether as an evangelist or a teacher, or in helps.

By calling and gifting, the office of the shepherd (pastor) who is also an elder (presbyter/minister), however, has the responsiblity of feeding the flock and nurturing it.  Every presbyter/elder is not a shepherd/pastor.

When you have a large local assembly or a group of churches, the office of the overseer is what the scripture calls 'episkopos' in Greek translated 'bishop' meaning a superintendent in charge of the church or overseer.

Tell me, who does an overseer oversee?  And don't tell me it's the same as shepherd.  They are also distinct.  However, a bishop may be a pastor by calling.  But the responsibility is not the same.  Remember that Jesus Himself is refered to as the Shepherd (Pastor) and Bishop (Overseer) of our souls in 1Pet2:25, operating in the two capacities.

When you consider all of them as leaders you refer to them collectively as elders.  However, there are distinctions in responsibilities, callings and authority.  Timothy was the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus that of Crete.  They have the authority to ordain elders in the churches.  They have authority to rebuke Titus 2vs15.

Please be informed that I'm not forcing the church into any paradigm that is alien to it.  Just as the Bishop oversees the flock of Christ and the elders, the Managing Director oversees the management of an organization.  Jesus believes in hierarchy.  All believers are equal before God, but there are differences in administration and authority.

A beg return serve. . .

Okay,

First, render the word/s as you will, but one cannot use semantics to somehow disregard the Priesthood of all believers in the NTC. You are rigidly enforcing an unscriptural split.

Secondly rendering the word pastor as shepherd and saying they are elders also wrong-foots your starting premise of distinct “elder/pastor” from post #43.

You said this
In all the references to the two words (Elders and Pastors) I have not seen a sngle instance where the same word was used for each other.  For clarity sake, the word translated 'elder' has two origins/meanings in Greek:

And then this
By calling and gifting, the office of the shepherd (pastor) who is also an elder (presbyter/minister), however, has the responsiblity of feeding the flock and nurturing it.  Every presbyter/elder is not a shepherd/pastor.

First saying they are different, and then claiming they are the same?

The Bible clearly shows that the pastoral function is carried out by elders.
1 Peter 5: 1 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, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.

There is no difference between bishop/overseer/presbyter/pastor//shepherd etc, however you translate or render them, they are all different facets of the same eldership role. Not a template for hierarchical structure in church. As you have rightly pointed out, not all elders assume all functions. Pastoring, overseeing and teaching are functions in NTC, carried out by elders.


You said;
Like I said earlier, the elders refer to the leadership in a church.  This group and their qualifications are well spelt out in Timothy and Titus.  It includes everyone ordained as a leader/minister/elder in the NT church regardless of their ministry in the congregation, whether as an evangelist or a teacher, or in helps.

My response;
Again you are making needless distinctions here and at the same time excluding certain scriptural imperatives. What of the deaconate? Functioning in “helps” does not necessarily make you an Elder. Elders minister/shepherd/teach/protect/lead the flock. It’s that simple. You have also failed to say how these other offices/leaders align with the eldership

Placing a Bishop as overseer of a group of churches? Please append scripture to show that individual churches were anything other than autonomous? The attempt to impose a hierarchy is of men not of the scripture. The passage I posted serves to dispel this notion as well. The elders are called to oversee in verse 2. I repeat, scripture does not show bishops as senior to or different from elders.

Referring to Timothy & Titus as hierarchical Bishops is simply mistaken. There was no church where they were at that time. They were helping establish it. They were acting more as apostles. As soon as there were suitably qualified men to function as elders, the church would have been up and running. Job done.

Serve returned.

Right.  Then take this stroke from the baseline. . .

First, render the word/s as you will, but one cannot use semantics to somehow disregard the Priesthood of all believers in the NTC. You are rigidly enforcing an unscriptural split.

The use of the Greek words as used in the scriptural references is not to semantically disregard anything.  Rather, it is to lay a good foundation for the meanings of the terms in our discourse.  You will agree with me that English is sometimes inadequate in properly dividing the word.  Some words have simply lost their original meanings in English.  Check the word translated 'charity' (1 Cor. 13-KJV) for example, would you believe it is 'agape'?

Secondly, I don't disregard the priesthood of all believers in the NT church.  We have all been made priests and kings unto our Lord and we are a royal priesthood.  I believe.  The former Levitical priestly order (the type in th OT) has found fulfilment in believers, to the extent that we require no priest to perform any mediating role nor animal sacrifices for us again.  But we now offer a different type of sacrifice- that of praise and our bodies as living sacrifices and we now all have access to our Father.  Just to clarify that.

So, in that wise I'm not enforcing a strict split.  All I did was to offer the different shades of meaning and usage of the terms, as used in both OT and NT.

Secondly rendering the word pastor as shepherd and saying they are elders also wrong-foots your starting premise of distinct “elder/pastor” from post #43.

If you follow me very well, you will understand my analogy here.  In the same sense as the MD of an organization is part and parcel of the management of the same, the pastor is also part of the leadership (elders) in an assembly, hence Paul himself saying he is also an elder, because the term refers to a Christian Leader, in our context.

There is no difference between bishop/overseer/presbyter/pastor//shepherd etc, however you translate or render them, they are all different facets of the same eldership role. Not a template for hierarchical structure in church. As you have rightly pointed out, not all elders assume all functions. Pastoring, overseeing and teaching are functions in NTC, carried out by elders.

Not quite.  That all of them are elders, I concur, if you follow the explanation above.  But within the leadership/eldership there is certainly an hierarchy.  What do you make of one who has the authority to ordain another if not a higher authority?  Or the one who has the power to promote? 

1 Tim 3 vs 17

17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

Someone is certainly above another here.  It also means that there are different types/categories of elders and they can be promoted!  Consider this also

1 Tim. 3 vs 1
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

Other translations render it 'desires the office of a bishop'.  How do you desire something that is not a higher office?  Note that part of the qualification is that the one who is desiring should not be a novice.  We are talking of a leader desiring a higher office here!

Again you are making needless distinctions here and at the same time excluding certain scriptural imperatives. What of the deaconate? Functioning in “helps” does not necessarily make you an Elder. Elders minister/shepherd/teach/protect/lead the flock. It’s that simple. You have also failed to say how these other offices/leaders align with the eldership

I thought we agreed (from the beginning of the thread) that the deaconate is not in question here.  Hence, the focus on the elders.  I agree that functioning in helps does not necessarily make you an elder.  You can be a deacon and still function in helps.  You don't even have to be a deacon for you to function in helps if that is your gifting.

Placing a Bishop as overseer of a group of churches? Please append scripture to show that individual churches were anything other than autonomous? The attempt to impose a hierarchy is of men not of the scripture. The passage I posted serves to dispel this notion as well. The elders are called to oversee in verse 2. I repeat, scripture does not show bishops as senior to or different from elders.

Considering the very office of the bishop as a superintendent/overseer, it is not out of place for him to oversee a group of churches.  Churches were in houses in those days (partly because of the persecution of the era) and each has their leaders.  In a city then, you certainly have more than one.  As a result, the office of the bishop oversees the churches.  This is the NT church.

Referring to Timothy & Titus as hierarchical Bishops is simply mistaken. There was no church where they were at that time. They were helping establish it. They were acting more as apostles. As soon as there were suitably qualified men to function as elders, the church would have been up and running. Job done.

Yes, Timothy and Titus were more as apostles in as much as they moved with Paul to plant churches from place to place.  However, the moment they were placed over the regions of Ephesus and Crete respectively, they were effectively acting in the capacity of the overseer/bishop of the churches in those regions.  This they did for a long time and not just as soon as they establish elders.

I'm sure you will find it hard to return this stroke. . .

My excellent serve volley game enables me to play beautiful approach shots, keeping the rallies short and frustrating even the most tenacious of baseliners  .

^{I won’t let this discussion be bogged down in semantics. The proper order is clearly outlined in the biblical narrative  .}

Anaytical wrote;
If you follow me very well, you will understand my analogy here.  In the same sense as the MD of an organization is part and parcel of the management of the same, the pastor is also part of the leadership (elders) in an assembly, hence Paul himself saying he is also an elder, because the term refers to a Christian Leader, in our context.

TV01 replies;
I have repeatedly asked you to outline the other members of the management/leadership team apart from elders. Specifying their function and how they work in tandem. Trying to forcefully overlay an organizational model and ignoring the detail won’t wash sir. Paul never described himself as an elder as he was mostly itinerant. If you meant Peter, I will speak further to his position later in this post.

Analytical wrote;
Not quite.  That all of them are elders, I concur, if you follow the explanation above.  But within the leadership/eldership there is certainly an hierarchy.  What do you make of one who has the authority to ordain another if not a higher authority?  Or the one who has the power to promote? 

TV01 replies;
There is no hierarchy. Peter who had been an eye-witness of His glory, called himself a “fellow elder”, and beseeched the others. Eldership is at once in plurality and equality. Peter appealed to other elders as equals (which all elders are even if functioning in different capacities), he did not command as senior.

Timothy was ordained by the laying on of hands of the eldership. He aspired, qualified and was ordained “as an equal”, not a junior or associate. He in turn was called to nurture others who could function as elders and commit responsibility to them.

The distinction is not successive levels of authority, but merely the maturity and qualification to assume an eldership role. The need to force a ranking hierarchy into church structure has led to the further error of over-stated authority and submission precepts and the utterly bogus covering doctrine.

Analytical wrote;
1 Tim 3 vs 17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

Someone is certainly above another here. It also means that there are different types/categories of elders and they can be promoted! Consider this also

TV01 responds;
How? Why? This merely points out that those elders who demonstrate exemplary leadership & labour in doctrine should be especially honoured. It doesn’t denote them as senior. Taking the time to study and share the word is an additional burden on such elders and should be acknowledged.

As for types/categories, you toss something in that you cannot validate from scripture, or can you?

Analytical wrote;
Other translations render it 'desires the office of a bishop'.  How do you desire something that is not a higher office?  Note that part of the qualification is that the one who is desiring should not be a novice.  We are talking of a leader desiring a higher office here!

TV01 replies;
You are still reading something into the narrative that is simply not there. A male believer (novice), who aspires to eldership has to mature and qualify, simple.

Unsurprisingly, you make it sound like the upward career trajectory of an ambitious corporate executive. A  natural consequence of trying to apply an organizational paradigm to what is a family structure. A Father with offspring of different ages, maturity, talents and responsibility. The Word is so simple, so straightforward, so beautifully intuitive to those who approach it with a childlike innocence. It takes a “man-made religious mindset” to complicate it.

Analytical wrote;
Considering the very office of the bishop as a superintendent/overseer, it is not out of place for him to oversee a group of churches.  Churches were in houses in those days (partly because of the persecution of the era) and each has their leaders.  In a city then, you certainly have more than one.  As a result, the office of the bishop oversees the churches.  This is the NT church.

TV01 replies;
Again, the narrative shows that elders minister to the flock they are a part of. What is a Bishop as described above needed to oversee? In a fully functioning church the incumbent eldership is responsible for the functions (previously outlined). Granted there may be need or desire for inter-church counsel in a metropolis, but that does not prescribe a hierarchy.

Analytical wrote;
Yes, Timothy and Titus were more as apostles in as much as they moved with Paul to plant churches from place to place.  However, the moment they were placed over the regions of Ephesus and Crete respectively, they were effectively acting in the capacity of the overseer/bishop of the churches in those regions.  This they did for a long time and not just as soon as they establish elders.

TV01 replies;
As was Paul’s practice, he would often remain in area until the church was mature enough to function without his oversight. He would then move on. Visiting when possible to strengthen and encourage. Timothy and Titus merely replicated this pattern. If they “settled” in a particular area they would have functioned as elders in their local congregations.

This is exactly the case with Peter who remained in Jerusalem. As the church there was established and mature, he discarded the “Apostle” tag. Apostolic work is foundational. Once the church is founded, the apostolic becomes redundant in a day-to-day sense. As I have petitioned you previously, please outline what Apostles do in NTC and how their “ministry” dovetails with that of the local assembly.

The scripture outlines the mandate for two offices only Bishop & Deacon. As I have often stressed those are the only two. The SAP role is a man-made construct and cannot be honestly inferred from the Bible. As ever, I stand to be corrected if you can show it.

I’m sensing another straight sets victory  .

God bless

I'm not just a baseliner but an all-court action person that forces serve and volley guy like you into unforced errors. . .

I have repeatedly asked you to outline the other members of the management/leadership team apart from elders. Specifying their function and how they work in tandem. Trying to forcefully overlay an organizational model and ignoring the detail won’t wash sir. Paul never described himself as an elder as he was mostly itinerant. If you meant Peter, I will speak further to his position later in this post.

Sorry for that typo, I meant Peter.  I'm not forcing any model, I just used a simple analogy you can relate with in a contemporary setting.  For the umpteenth time, I repeat the elders refer to the group of leaders in the church, and not an office.  Anyone called to a leadership position based on the criteria set in Timothy and Titus qualifies as elder.

This group will include the heads of the various units/departments/groups depending on the usage, and those ministers in the speaking ministries (preaching and teaching) like the pastors, teachers and evangelists within the church.  Note that it's not all with pastoral gifts that are in charge of a church.  These all consititute the elders of the church, with the overseer in charge.  This is why the scriptures in speaking about elders quickly followed with the particular office of the bishop who oversees the work.

Titus 1:

5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,

6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.

7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

Timothy was ordained by the laying on of hands of the eldership. He aspired, qualified and was ordained “as an equal”, not a junior or associate. He in turn was called to nurture others who could function as elders and commit responsibility to them.

He was ordained into ministry by the laying on of hands of the elders.  Yes.  But this happened  before he became a companion with Paul in the apostolic missions and definitely way before he became the bishop at Ephesus.

The distinction is not successive levels of authority, but merely the maturity and qualification to assume an eldership role. The need to force a ranking hierarchy into church structure has led to the further error of over-stated authority and submission precepts and the utterly bogus covering doctrine.

So how do you force something that has been there all the while or doesn't the simplistic reading of the two books of Timothy and Titus even point to the fact that these were individuals having a higher authority to rebuke, teach, exhort, ordain, set things in order, oversee, appoint, denounce, organise etc?

Why do you think the books were not addressed to the elders in Ephesus and Crete if everybody was in charge?

How? Why? This merely points out that those elders who demonstrate exemplary leadership & labour in doctrine should be especially honoured. It doesn’t denote them as senior. Taking the time to study and share the word is an additional burden on such elders and should be acknowledged.

How do you then honour them?  What then have these elders, in your definition, been doing that to study and share the word is now additional burden on them?  What are their functions apart from wearing the tag?

Unsurprisingly, you make it sound like the upward career trajectory of an ambitious corporate executive. A  natural consequence of trying to apply an organizational paradigm to what is a family structure. A Father with offspring of different ages, maturity, talents and responsibility. The Word is so simple, so straightforward, so beautifully intuitive to those who approach it with a childlike innocence. It takes a “man-made religious mindset” to complicate it.

Good.  A family structure it is.  But isn't the father in charge as the head in a family, even though each member has different responsibilities?  Well said this: The Word is so simple it takes a “man-made religious mindset” to complicate it!

From the insitutions ordained by God Himself (home, government and the church), which one of these have the pattern where everyone is in charge and no one is the head?  Certainly not the home, for the husband is the head, and not the government where there are the kings and those placed in authority.  Why then the church having a parallel model where no one is responsible and accountable but all?

As was Paul’s practice, he would often remain in area until the church was mature enough to function without his oversight. He would then move on. Visiting when possible to strengthen and encourage. Timothy and Titus merely replicated this pattern. If they “settled” in a particular area they would have functioned as elders in their local congregations.

Excuse me sir, they did settle for a long time at both Ephesus and Crete.  They did not function as apostles here but as bishops overseeing the churches in their respective regions and effectively administering the same as contained in the books written to them for the same purpose.

This is exactly the case with Peter who remained in Jerusalem. As the church there was established and mature, he discarded the “Apostle” tag. Apostolic work is foundational. Once the church is founded, the apostolic becomes redundant in a day-to-day sense. As I have petitioned you previously, please outline what Apostles do in NTC and how their “ministry” dovetails with that of the local assembly

Peter remained an apostle till death.  The discussion will certainly cover that request of yours later [as you have made that unforced error of playing right into my path ] since this is a more appropriate thread to thrash that as well.

The scripture outlines the mandate for two offices only Bishop & Deacon. As I have often stressed those are the only two. The SAP role is a man-made construct and cannot be honestly inferred from the Bible. As ever, I stand to be corrected if you can show it.

I thought you meant elders and deacons (in plural)

Not so fast as a straight set.  Just concentrate on your game and leave the scoring for the umpire.  I'm going to make the next points drop shots. . .

End game coming up  !

Analytical wrote;
For the umpteenth time, I repeat the elders refer to the group of leaders in the church, and not an office.  Anyone called to a leadership position based on the criteria set in Timothy and Titus qualifies as elder.

My response;
And for the umpteenth time, please outline your scriptural understanding of what these different leadership positions are and how they align to operate as “leadership”

Analytical wrote;
This group will include the heads of the various units/departments/groups depending on the usage, and those ministers in the speaking ministries (preaching and teaching) like the pastors, teachers and evangelists within the church.  Note that it's not all with pastoral gifts that are in charge of a church.  These all consititute the elders of the church, with the overseer in charge.  This is why the scriptures in speaking about elders quickly followed with the particular office of the bishop who oversees the work.

My response;
As ever you are institutionalising church. Units? for what? departments? what for? It is not an organization. The error stems in part from a failure to properly understand exactly what church is and what it is for. Believers come together for two main reasons (1) For mutual impartation/edification leading to growth and maturity (2) body welfare. It’s why just the two offices Elder (Bishop) or deacon are required.

You continually insist that elders in turn are under a bishop. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest this. Again, and as any concordance will show, pastor/bishop/presbyter/shepherd/overseer etc are all facets of eldership. In all his travels, Paul always addressed Elders (as did Peter), as they were charged with leading the flock. Further, no one can show from scripture a mandate for SAP the way it is manifest in many churches today. That's an invite for you to do so by the way.

Analytical wrote;
So how do you force something that has been there all the while or doesn't the simplistic reading of the two books of Timothy and Titus even point to the fact that these were individuals having a higher authority to rebuke, teach, exhort, ordain, set things in order, oversee, appoint, denounce, organise etc?

Why do you think the books were not addressed to the elders in Ephesus and Crete if everybody was in charge?

My response;
The above quote and ensuing question are both misguided and disingenuous. At Ephesus, Paul did address the elders, repeatedly. At Crete, there were no elders. Indeed the church was embryonic, and what Titus was commissioned to do, was strengthen and establish it by raising up mature believers and men qualified for eldership. In their apostolic capacity, Timothy & Titus would have had to have been jacks of all trade until such time as the church matured.

Analytical wrote;
How do you then honour them?  What then have these elders, in your definition, been doing that to study and share the word is now additional burden on them?  What are their functions apart from wearing the tag?

My response;
As we have both stated, not all elders share the Word. The bible simply states that those that do (and those that lead well), should be given double honour. The role of elder is not a paid position. So in addition to family and career/business responsibilities, they have the additional burden of eldership. And as such should be honoured. 

Analytical wrote;
From the insitutions ordained by God Himself (home, government and the church), which one of these have the pattern where everyone is in charge and no one is the head?  Certainly not the home, for the husband is the head, and not the government where there are the kings and thos eplaced in authority.  Why then the church having a parallel model where no one is responsible and accountable but all?

My response;
The Head of the Church is The Lord. All are personally accountable to "Him to whom we must render account". In the body, some have more responsibility.

I will post some references to eldership and ask that you do likewise for sole authority pastors or overseeing bishops.

Acts 14:23 ~ So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Elders clearly appointed to oversee churches.

Acts 15:6 ~ Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

No sight or sound of OB or SAP luminaries?

Acts 15:22 ~ Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 ~ They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.

Still no OB or SAP??

Acts 20:17 ~ From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. 18 ~ On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

Wey them? Hmmm, Paul appears to be addressing elders and at Ephesus!!!

Philippians 1:1 ~ Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Wait a minute, here they are at last! Bishops. Hold on, where are the elders? Can they have been excluded for some reason? Or addressed elsewhere? No dude, the terms elder & bishop are simply synonymous. They just happen to be different renderings of the same role. QED

1 Timothy 5:17 ~ Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Surely it’s the Pastor/SAP who labours in doctrine?

Titus 1:5 ~ For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.

Things lacking in Crete would suggest an as yet mature church that needed building up. Which task Titus was charged with! Apostolic not SAP or OB!

James 5:14 ~ Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

One would have thought the SAP or OB would be called into action here.

Truth is there are no such offices. Nowhere found, outlined or mandated in scripture. Please feel free to apply such paradigms to your own construct if you wish, but please don’t misrepresent them as scripturally inferred.

I'll  end the final game to love and with a flourish  .

God bless

End Game? Except if you decide to abandon the game.  Now to the drop shots. . .

And for the umpteenth time, please outline your scriptural understanding of what these different leadership positions are and how they align to operate as “leadership”

I just did.

As ever you are institutionalising church. Units? for what? departments? what for? It is not an organization. The error stems in part from a failure to properly understand exactly what church is and what it is for. Believers come together for two main reasons (1) For mutual impartation/edification leading to growth and maturity (2) body welfare. It’s why just the two offices Elder (Bishop) or deacon are required.

God insituted the home and marriage, government and the church.  Maybe you have another revelation as to what the church is.  The church ('ecclesia') means 'called out'.  Those called out from the world to serve the Living God.  The NT from Acts to Revelation shows the organization of this called-out people, from embryo stage to rapture!  It is not a chaotic, orderless, free-for-all gathering, hence the instructions as to worship, administration, care, welfare, officers, offering, even ex-communication, etc found in the scriptural narratives.

Believers come together for mutual edification and body welfare, but that does not foreclose the organization or modality of going about it, which was clearly the case when the first deacons were chosen, to properly and effectively administer the welfare aspect of the increasing work.  If that is not organization, tell me what it is?

Part of the reasons why we gather is also to be empowered for further service in the kingdom, to do the work of ministry (Ephesians 4).  This surely calls for proper administration.  Why did Paul and the other missionaries keep going back to Antioch to give reports of their missions?

Can you please educate us what a church is and how it functions?

The above quote and ensuing question are both misguided and disingenuous. At Ephesus, Paul did address the elders, repeatedly. At Crete, there were no elders. Indeed the church was embryonic, and what Titus was commissioned to do, was strengthen and establish it by raising up mature believers and men qualified for eldership. In their apostolic capacity, Timothy & Titus would have had to have been jacks of all trade until such time as the church matured.

Now you deliberately parry.  I mentioned the books I was referring to i.e. Timothy and Titus.  These were written to individuals and not to elders.  How could I have said otherwise?  Please read again.

As we have both stated, not all elders share the Word. The bible simply states that those that do (and those that lead well), should be given double honour. The role of elder is not a paid position. So in addition to family and career/business responsibilities, they have the additional burden of eldership. And as such should be honoured.

Please highlight for us how to give double honour to someone who has performed his task creditably well.

The Head of the Church is The Lord. All are personally accountable to "Him to whom we must render account". In the body, some have more responsibility.

And the head of every home and government is the Lord too.  That is why he is the Lord (Master).  The husband will render account to him and so will those placed in authority as kings and rulers, and everyone for that matter.  So don't stretch that.  So in His divine wisdom, he placed people in authority and equips them for same.

I will post some references to eldership and ask that you do likewise for sole authority pastors or overseeing bishops.

Please replace the word 'elders' with 'ministers' or 'leaders' or 'officers' in all the references and the meaning will come clearer.  Those are the synonyms for the word 'elders'.  Any mention of the different offices included is just not necessary as the word 'elders' suffices.

I will end this set with this drop shot. . .

Who were being addressed in the message of Jesus Christ to the seven churches of Asia in Revelations 2 vs 1,8,12,18 and 3 vs 1, 7 & 14:

'To the angel of the church in . . . '

That is a winner surely. . .

First to answer your question;
Who were being addressed in the message of Jesus Christ to the seven churches of Asia in Revelations 2 vs 1,8,12,18 and 3 vs 1, 7 & 14:

'To the angel of the church in . . .

The angel or messenger of the church. Please don't attempt that old ploy of translating the word angel/messenger into pastor. It doesn't wash, neither is it corroborated by any other passage of scripture. I have shown variously that the SAP role is nowhere to be found or substantiated in scripture. Not even the shoddiest scholarship can attempt to infer what is simply not there!

A poorly executed drop shot, merely enabling me to reply with a clean winner of my own .


All references from the NKJV.

There is only 1 reference to pastor in the NT (more later). There are 2 pertinent references to the overseer in the NT, both in conjunction with and inseparable from eldership. There are 4 for Bishop 3 of them pertaining to the qualities requisite for the position (which is undeniably synonymous with eldership) and one (Phil 1:1), which is used in exactly this synonymous way. There are over 20 references to elders. To a large degree church-based activity and dynamic turn on this pivotal role.

The other 3 references to Bishops are all in the pastoral epistles as follows;

1 Timothy 3:1 ~ This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,* he desires a good work.

1 Timothy 3:2 ~ A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behaviour, hospitable, able to teach;

Titus 1:7 ~ For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money

If as you have claimed, Timothy & Titus were “Overseeing” Bishops, why would they be asked to appoint other OB’s? It makes no sense unless you see that bishop = elder. Even if they were setting up a hierarchical church, why would they replicate their roles, which you have claimed to be the singular head of the hierarchy? Surely you must see that your inferences are all flawed in this regards?

Likewise, the overseer is not distinct and senior to the elder, they are synonymous. Note the following two relevant instances where it occurs;

1 Peter 5:1 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, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;

Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. 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.

These passages clearly show that both shepherding & overseeing are indubitably eldership functions. Claiming that all offices/functions are first of all elders and then different levels and offices is simply not borne out by the scriptural narrative.

The word “pastor” is used just the once. Nowhere is a mandate or remit outlined for this role. Nowhere is the role shown as having sole authority over a church, or reporting into an overseeing bishop. The word best translates shepherd as you yourself pointed out. The shepherding (pastoral) function is carried out by elders as is the teaching role. As I have shown clearly from scripture.

Ephesians 4:11 ~ And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,

Here is a verse quoted variously to validate an organisational hierarchical approach to church.

Apostles under divine inspiration helped found the church after the OT prophets had heralded the coming of the Founder and Chief Cornerstone.

The church having been founded and established has no more need of Apostles. The Lord having come and left has fulfilled all the preceding prophetic utterance. Goodbye OT style Prophet.

As ever, if as you clain the roles of Apostle & Prophet still exist in the original types, please outline the following;
1. How they fit into the NTC and work in align with other “leadership” positions.
2. Exactly what they do

The church now only requires evangelists to propagate the gospel and pastors & teachers to help it to mature from within. That simple.

Closed with an ace. Game, set & match methinks !

Analytical, do you like boxing ?

God bless

This game is surely getting too hot for you to handle now, hence your desire to end it by all means by taking over the job of the umpire. . .

I knew you were never going to return that last drop shot.  I told you I'm an all-court action player.  It surely is a winner. . .

Revelations 2 vs 1,8,12,18 and 3 vs 1, 7 & 14:

'To the angel of the church in . . .

Here is the exegesis of this-I sure like analysis!

The Lord Jesus Christ was sending a messages to the 7 churches in Asia at this time.  John, the last of the original 12 apostles was banished to the island of Patmos.  Jesus was glorified at this time, so He was not a human being, but Spirit.  He, as such, had no need to send John, a human being, to deliver a message to a spirit.  That will be absurd!  Jesus could have delivered the messages to the angels himself since they are always at his beck and call in the spirit realm.

The angels in these verses are not spirit beings!  Also, the messages were for the churches and were to be written down.  They are certainly messages meant for human beings and not spirit beings.

Secondly, the word 'angel' in the 7 instances was always in singular meaning they are messages for a single person in each instance.  This is coming from Jesus Christ himself!  There goes you plural and parallel model of authority!

Checking the Greek word translated 'angel', you find 'aggelos'.  What does it mean?  From Strong Greek dictionary:

aggelos-  a messenger; especially an angel; by implication, a pastor -- angel, messenger.

The Chief Shepherd and Bishop Himself was giving messages to the churches through His last of the 12 he commisioned and He addressed them to the pastor and not the elders of each church.  The pastor is the messenger (that gives messages) to the church.  You may also interprete it as the 'minister' or shepherd of the church.  What does this tell you of authority and hierarchy?  The revelation was the last book (in choronological order) and the visions happened when the church was well established and not just embryonic.

I said earlier that Jesus believes in hierarchy and order.  Tell me where in the OT or NT, human or spirit realm, where there is no hierarchy.  In the pattern  in OT there is structure and hierarchy,  even in heaven there is hierarchy, among angels you have arch-angels.  Why would the church of the Living God not have structure and hierarchy?  The end-time army of Joel (talking prophetically about the church) is one that doesn't break its ranks!!

What it then means is that operating according to your model, while not a sin, simply robs you of the fulness of the blessings of building according to the pattern, and that of spiritual parental oversight and mentorship that makes for guidance and maturity!

I will respond to the last part of apostles tomorrow.  I gotta rush somewhere.

Meanwhile it's Game, Set & Match (for Analytical) and it will be Tournament tomorrow  !!

Blessings!

Analytical:

This game is surely getting too hot for you to handle now, hence your desire to end it by all means by taking over the job of the umpire. . .

I knew you were never going to return that last drop shot.  I told you I'm an all-court action player.  It surely is a winner. . .

Revelations 2 vs 1,8,12,18 and 3 vs 1, 7 & 14:

'To the angel of the church in . . .

Here is the exegesis of this-I sure like analysis!

The Lord Jesus Christ was sending a messages to the 7 churches in Asia at this time.  John, the last of the original 12 apostles was banished to the island of Patmos.  Jesus was glorified at this time, so He was not a human being, but Spirit.  He, as such, had no need to send John, a human being, to deliver a message to a spirit.  That will be absurd!  Jesus could have delivered the messages to the angels himself since they are always at his beck and call in the spirit realm.

The angels in these verses are not spirit beings!  Also, the messages were for the churches and were to be written down.  They are certainly messages meant for human beings and not spirit beings.

Secondly, the word 'angel' in the 7 instances was always in singular meaning they are messages for a single person in each instance.  This is coming from Jesus Christ himself!  There goes you plural and parallel model of authority!

Checking the Greek word translated 'angel', you find 'aggelos'.  What does it mean?  From Strong Greek dictionary:

aggelos-  a messenger; especially an angel; by implication, a pastor -- angel, messenger.

The Chief Shepherd and Bishop Himself was giving messages to the churches through His last of the 12 he commisioned and He addressed them to the pastor and not the elders of each church.  The pastor is the messenger (that gives messages) to the church.  You may also interprete it as the 'minister' or shepherd of the church.  What does this tell you of authority and hierarchy?  The revelation was the last book (in choronological order) and the visions happened when the church was well established and not just embryonic.

I said earlier that Jesus believes in hierarchy and order.  Tell me where in the OT or NT, human or spirit realm, where there is no hierarchy.  In the pattern  in OT there is structure and hierarchy,  even in heaven there is hierarchy, among angels you have arch-angels.  Why would the church of the Living God not have structure and hierarchy?  The end-time army of Joel (talking prophetically about the church) is one that doesn't break its ranks!!

What it then means is that operating according to your model, while not a sin, simply robs you of the fulness of the blessings of building according to the pattern, and that of spiritual parental oversight and mentorship that makes for guidance and maturity!

I will respond to the last part of apostles tomorrow.  I gotta rush somewhere.

Meanwhile it's Game, Set & Match (for Analytical) and it will be Tournament tomorrow  !!

Blessings!

The inference that Aggelos (Angelos) => Pastor is one strongs does not make. That is your own forceful interpretation of it (and slightly fraudulent is the manner you attempted to ascribe it to Strongs  ). I will show you why it is tenuous at best. Strong denotes as follows;

"a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God"

The word is used numerous times in scripture. Some instances include John the Baptist (Luke 7:27), the messenger of Satan (2 Cor 12:7), and even Satan himself (2 Cor 11;14). Pertinently, Paul also uses it in Galatians 1:8 to specifically refer to an angel from heaven bringing a message. And it means just that!

I will not even take you to task on your "Jesus as Spirit". The Bible clearly portrays The Lord as having a glorified body. You have used lots of verbal sleights, erroneous inferences and tenuous connections in an attempt to make your point, but you cannot clearly trace any of your claims from scripture alone, as I have gone to great lengths to do severally.

The old trick of quoting a verse (usually out of context) and then going on to weave a whole (read totally wrong) dissertation around it is favoured by many in an attempt to justify their back to front (set-up to scripture instead of vice-versa) approach.

In as much as the messages where meant for the church, it means just that, all the church. You also reveal your belief that God speaks through mediators other than The Lord, Who as scripture shows speaks directly to His sheep. Presumably it's the same MOG who fed you this bunkum that told you that?

It speaks nothing of hierarchy, you just insist on implying it does. Please enunciate the hierarchy you are so fond of refering to? How many levels? What is the geographical area? How about numbers? Non of this works in practice. From the Pope down to the Catholic faithful, there are something like 14 different levels! Is that scripturally mandated? How exact is it?

Even the reference to The Lord as the Chief Shepherd & Bishop makes a nonsense of your stance. That is one person (office), clearly carrying out the different functions. 

Your "Spiritual Parent Oversight" remark further betrays how your error is compounded. There is no such precept validated by the scripture! Please show it? Humans do not cover humans. That's flesh covering flesh. Nor do they give "spiritual birth" to other believers. Your fixation with a fleshly hierarchy leads you to place men between believers and God and usurp the roles of The Lord & The Holy Spirit. Mentorship & Leadership comes from Elders. The word rule is better understood as "lead by example". As the Lord (& Peter) Himself said, believers are not to rule/lord it over each other.

Your shot variety and selection are both poor, and your on-court movement limited 

Join 4get_me on the challenger circuit   .

God bless

This is serious turning the teachings and Word of God into Tennis game!

Study to show thyself approved a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the Word of truth.

Not turning it to a game of serve I serve.

TV01:

Join 4get_me on the challenger circuit   .

Hehehe. . .

I haven't even set forth any challenges as yet; and I'm already listed on "challenger circuit."

mrpataki:

This is serious turning the teachings and Word of God into Tennis game!

Study to show thyself approved a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the Word of truth.

Not turning it to a game of serve I serve.

I don't really have any problems with people using descriptive language to put forward their discussions. I think the Bible in some instances used proverbial sporting language to exhort us. For instance, in Heb. 12:1 -

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us."

However, I only tried to point out that we should be careful in this 'tennis' court so that we do not inadvertently deny what the Scriptures categorically teaches as regards the term "man of God." I was neither the umpire nor a contestant - and the next I knew was the booing out of court!

First to clear the air, guys.

Using sports parlance does not mean we are toying with the word of God here.  We are doing a serious dividing of the word.  The manner in which we go about it is responsively, hence the tennis jargons.  Like 4getme said, the scriptures use such descriptive language sometimes- races, farming, military, etc.  Check Paul's writings.

4get_me, even though I didn't make any comment on your posts #39 and #44, you were dead right!  I was glad you pointed it to TV01 becuase I was going to use that as well in my replies.  Please don't be booed out, your posts are most welcomed.  In fact the more the better.  TV01  seems to have a phobia for anything 'man of God' or MOG as he calls them, even though the divine afflatus is replete with  many instances including the 1 Tim 6:11 as clearly stated.

But we have a player here (TV01) who doesn't give up easily on his grounds.  If you must play with him, then you must be dogged.  He will use intimidation and other tricks to boo you out of contention.  But in the spirit of fairplay and sportsmanship let's play the game with him.

Mrpataki, I thought you are with me!

Bless you all.

Now back to play.

TV01 you don't give up, do you?  I thought you should know when you are being drubbed.

The inference that Aggelos (Angelos) => Pastor is one strongs does not make. That is your own forceful interpretation of it (and slightly fraudulent is the manner you attempted to ascribe it to Strongs  ). I will show you why it is tenuous at best. Strong denotes as follows;

"a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God"

What are you trying to infer?  For the avoidance of any doubt, I will do a direct cut and paste from Strong's Greek Dictionary for the word 'aggelos' (pronunciation-an'gelos) translated 'angel':

Strong Entry #32: aggelos :from aggello (probably derived from agw - ago 71; compare 34) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:--angel, messenger.

There you have it.  Refute it if you can!  There is none of my input there and I repeat that is Strong's.  Please be truthful.

Even Easton's Bible Dictionary and others acknowledged that the word is used for the ministers of the New Testament Church among others.

The truth is that that word angel is used not only for spirit beings who are ministering spirits (the common use of angel), it's also used for human beings as ministers, or pastors, or messengers.  It is now left for you as a student of the word to rightly divide in the context used whether the person being reffered to is a spirit or a human being and the context will certainly reveal that.

In the case of who the messages 'To the angel of the church in . . .' were being addressed, there is surely no ambiguity given the context of the messages.  The explanation was given in preceeding chapter 1 verse 20 as to the meaning:

Rev. 1vs 20 (NASB)
"As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

If you make a crosscheck with other translations, the word 'angel' was properly interpreted either as 'minister' or 'messenger', as I stated earlier.  The minister of the church is the pastor or overseer of the church to whom others are surbordinate and has the peculiar care of that flock.  Jesus addressed his message to the church to its overseer.  This is simple enough.  Trying to explain it away is denying the very words of Jesus.

I will not even take you to task on your "Jesus as Spirit". The Bible clearly portrays The Lord as having a glorified body. You have used lots of verbal sleights, erroneous inferences and tenuous connections in an attempt to make your point, but you cannot clearly trace any of your claims from scripture alone, as I have gone to great lengths to do severally.

Now I see you have decided to switch to boxing with your below-the-belt punches.  I clearly stated that at the point of this revelation of John, Jesus is glorified, and that means He is a spirit being and no longer human!  That was why John was afraid and fell as though dead at His sight.  This was not Son of Man talking, but the Alpha and Omega Himself- He said as much.

In as much as the messages where meant for the church, it means just that, all the church. You also reveal your belief that God speaks through mediators other than The Lord, Who as scripture shows speaks directly to His sheep. Presumably it's the same MOG who fed you this bunkum that told you that?

Now you are really showing signs of fatigue!  Your returns are not crossing the net again.   The messages were specific, even the names of the churches were mentioned because the messages vary from church to church.  The Chief Shepherd was overseeing His flock from above and knows exactly what was going on in each church.  Are you denying that he gave the messages to John to write down and pass to them?  No MOG fed me this.  The Holy Spirit through the bible and careful exegesis did!  Remember your own words, the scripture is simple, don't complicate it.

I will ask the question again:  Will Jesus send John a human being to give a message to a spirit being, if the angel here is to be a spirit?  Please search again.

I will agree if you say by extention the messages also concern us the whole church because the scriptures is for our example and learning and so, profitable for direction and instruction.

It speaks nothing of hierarchy, you just insist on implying it does. Please enunciate the hierarchy you are so fond of refering to? How many levels? What is the geographical area? How about numbers? Non of this works in practice. From the Pope down to the Catholic faithful, there are something like 14 different levels! Is that scripturally mandated? How exact is it?

I'm not implying any legalistic hierarchy that frustrates the Holy Spirit in doing His work.  NO.  All I have been saying is that in any assembly of believers, there are deacons and elders who are under the authority of the overseer (pastor or bishop) of that assembly who is responsible for both the leadership and the brethren (congregation).  This is the NT church.  Within the deaconery, there are differences of giftings and within the elders too differences of callings, giftings and administration.  But all are under the authority of the angel of that assembly, the overseer.  It is not a calling to be lord for to whom much is given, much is desired.  It is a call for service (and I dare say servanthood) for which accounts shall be rendered to Him.

Even the reference to The Lord as the Chief Shepherd & Bishop makes a nonsense of your stance. That is one person (office), clearly carrying out the different functions.

No, it clearly highlights my position.  He is the one person functioning in two different capacities here as the One who feeds us people of His pasture and oversees us.

Your "Spiritual Parent Oversight" remark further betrays how your error is compounded. There is no such precept validated by the scripture! Please show it? Humans do not cover humans. That's flesh covering flesh. Nor do they give "spiritual birth" to other believers.

Don't tell me!  What do you say of Paul calling Timothy his son in the faith, even though he has a biological father?  Or of Onesimus whom he gave birth to in his bonds, or the whole church in Corinth?

1 Tim. 1 vs 2:
2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Tim. 1 vS 2:
2 To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Philemon 1 vs 10:
10 I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment,

1 Cor 4:
14 I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.

15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

16 Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me.

17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church

Satisfied?

This tournament is about ending. . .

@ Analytical,
I will watch from the sidelines for now, then chip in my own service oce in a while!

Yes I am game with you.

Analytical:

This tournament is about ending. . .

Not so fast. Looks like a hard 5-setter (and in the absence of an impartial umpire you have introduced tag-teaming ). No probs, I worked hard in the off-season to build up my stamina. I going to revert to a grinding point by point game .

mrpataki:

@ Analytical,
I will watch from the sidelines for now, then chip in my own service oce in a while!

Yes I am game with you.

Dude, your cheeleading efforts will not affect the outcome of this match !

I'll be right back after this time out!

God bless

Roger

I'm back. New balls please  !

Analytical;
The crux of your position is the “pastor” title/office. You have (and quite creatively I admit), built your whole thesis on this point. However, you did so without actually showing it as extant in or mandated by the scriptures. I have repeatedly stressed that it is simply not to be found. Further, I have shown how it is wrapped up within the Eldership function, which is (and I have) extensively detailed.

So I’m serving with this, and please reply to this directly. No digressional tactics or   ploys to obfuscate.

~ Kindly show directly from scripture the Sole Authority Pastor office/role, as distinct from that of elder and overseeing bishop (if you can, please detail that of the OB as well as the SAP). Not by inference or by implication. After all, if the junior and less weighty role of deacon is clearly outline (not inferred or implied), one would reasonably expect that of the senior roles to be also. ~

4get_me;
Here is your opportunity to make a cogent argument, and one that’s thread-relevant. I’m sure you fully realise that no one would start a thread just to prove that the term “man of God” is not in the bible?

However, since you are grasping firmly to it having some sort of tangible form and application, please articulate in your own words ~ How this MOG concept works out in practical NTC. Is it an office/title/rank/position/ministry/calling? How does one worthy of or who aspires to be a MOG qualify? How do MOGS differ from non-MOGS? Or those who are not deemed qualified or worthy of MOGship ~  A short thesis with pertinent scriptural back-up would be greatly appreciated and edifying to all. Thanks.

Mrpataki;
How about a few cartwheels and back-flips during the toilet break  !!!

I sense an ace (actually, 3 aces)  !

God bless

Boris

Very well then.

The crux of my position is not the 'pastor' title/office.  Rather, it is my disagreement with the plurality and parallel nature in which your model functions that makes everybody equal and in charge and doesn't make them accountable to any.  I cannot find any such type or pattern in the scriptures, anywhere.

I have made my position as plain as I could.  Call him whatever you want, there is a bishop/overseer/superintendent/minister-in-charge/Senior officer/pastor in a church ably assisted by elders/leaders/ministers and supported by deacons for the purpose of administering the flock over which the Lord has made them leaders.

The qualifications/criteria for the office is well spelt out and well discussed already in Timothy and Titus and in your post #53 above.  The same office the Lord addressed in His messages to the churches.

The robustness and number required on the structure varies depending on the size and maturity of the church.  In a baby church, the pastor/teacher is the elder and deacon.  As the church grows in size and maturity and spreads, it calls for more structure to be put in place to carry and share the burden.  Hence the emergence of the deacons and more elders, to be put in place by the pastor (now bishop) overseeing the church.

This leads me to the unfinished business of apostles and others and how they fit in the NT church.

Ephe 4:
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ

The purpose of the five-fold ministry as contained here (and in 1 Cor 12) is clear in verse 12 i.e. to equip the saints, for the work of service/ministry and to build upthe body.  The duration for them is also clear in verse 13 as it states until. . .  And like I said before, if we have not yet all come to that unity of faith, to maturity and to the measure of Christ's fulness then the offices are still here with us.  Are there saints still to be equipped?  The work of service/minstry to be done?  The body to be built up?  Then sir, the offices remain.

Let me state briefly how it fits in in the contemporary.  It is still the same way it was in the early church.  The apostles and prophets lay the foundation.  They are what I refer to as the earth-moving equipment (or the bulldozers) in preparing a virgin land or a site for construction.  The evangelists are the harvesters or the rakers that proclaim the good news and bring in the souls.  The Pastors stay with the souls to feed them and nurture them to maturity like a good shepherd does.  The teachers break down the word and brings it down to the level of each member of the flock, baby to adult.  Some times pastoral and teaching grace combine in the same person.

The NT prohets are not to be confused with the OT prohets of old that primarily does foretelling and are sometimes called seer.  The NT prophets exhorts.  Each office have their peculiar giftings and unctions that make their functions effective as the Holy Spirit enables them.

From my little study, I have been able to see about 3 categories of apostles.  This classification is entirely mine and is just for the purpose of explanation and is open for modification.

The 1st category apostles- the original 12 apostles that were chosen by Jesus.  These have all died and are no more.  You cannot add to their number again.

The 2nd category apostles- like Paul, Barnabas, Apollos etc that are mostly itinerant.  These plant churches and establish structures and raise the leadership.  We can also add Timothy, Titus to these as examples.

The 3rd category apostles- are those that establish the truth or re-establish a lost/forgotten truth of the word or sent for a particular mission, to a specific people or sphere of operation.  These are seen in their operation like Paul was the Apostle to the Gentles, John Apostle of Love etc.

To the 2nd and 3rd categories, the Holy Spirit still gives men even in our contemporary days. To take the gospel to virgin lands, plant the churches and establish them, apostles are required.  They may not wear the tag, but they can still be identified.

Bless you all.