OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 10:00:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Was Christ a Bishop to His Disciples?  (Read 3876 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« on: November 11, 2008, 09:21:44 PM »

In interpreting Scripture, what would you all say to the interpretation that Christ was a bishop to His disciples? 

I was discussing this in my Ecclesiology class and everyone looked at me like i'm crazy.  I am wondering if this is a common thought, or if it is totally out of wack, etc.  Any commentary would be helpful for me. 

Also, I left the statement vague b/c I wanted people's first impressions.  I can go into further detail about my thoughts on this interpretation, if necessary.  Thanks in advance! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,662


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2008, 12:39:05 AM »

Christ was more like a High Priest to the Jews and merely the Son of the Living God to His Disciples.  I would answer No.   Smiley
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2008, 01:22:09 AM »

Strikes me as odd.  How like a bishop?  He isn't succeeding anyone.  The only resemblance would be that He ordained.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2008, 08:09:53 AM »

Christ was more like a High Priest to the Jews and merely the Son of the Living God to His Disciples.  I would answer No.   Smiley

Ok and a bishop is considered the High Priest.  All of our theology about the bishop comes from Christ himself, so then can we not say that Christ was like a bishop to his disciples?


Strikes me as odd.  How like a bishop?  He isn't succeeding anyone.  The only resemblance would be that He ordained.

Apostolic succession came out of Ireneus' theology b/c he was fighting Gnosticism where they said that only they had the correct knowledge, and it was a secret one, and they were the only ones who knew the fullness of Christ.  So Ireneus said that it was the BISHOP, who was a successor to the APOSTLES who knew the true faith and was responsible for teaching his flock about XC and the church and etc. 

He is like a bishop in the sense that he was the overseer of this flock, of his disciples and then the other people who were around him.  He catechized them, had eucharist with them (mystical supper) and told them to continue doing that in remembrance of him.  He sent them out to preach and teach, like a bishop would today.  He sat with his people, teaching them about Himself (as theoretically a bishop should also be doing today, at some copacity). 

Basically I see that the entire structure of the church is derived from what Christ did with his disciples.  People thought that I was reading into scripture too much and making too any broad statements.  I thought that this would have been a very valid interpretation, so I am trying to figure out how I went wrong and what a better interpretation would be. 

Hope that's more helpful! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,828



« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2008, 09:40:08 AM »

A Bishop is often called a "shepherd" for his Flock, but in reality he is only imaging the "Good Shepherd" who is Christ . So it is more like  the fact that Christ just as He is "perfect man" so is He also "Perfect Bishop" shepherding his flock, giving his life up for his flock. He is the example  and  the perfect image or true icon of a bishop.

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2008, 09:48:53 AM »

Thomas,

Yes, absolutely.  What I was trying to establish is this:

In our class a classmate from a Protestant seminary said that the church ecclesiology should be a polycentric church, where each person is their own center (of authority, of the church, of church polity, etc.)

I told him that this "polycentric unity' makes no sense in light of the scriptural model of Christ, being a bishop to his apostles, and therefore setting up that kind of ecclesiology, as opposed to a polycentric one.  In fact I challenged him to tell me where in scripture it specifically talks about the apostles thinking that they were their own center?  Rather, they had a bishop (JC) and then his presbyterium (Apostles) and then the laity (people following JC on the fringes, etc.) 

I thought this was a fairly general interpretation but people in my class looked at me like I had sprouted horns.  Am I just not reading the rest of scripture and taking it into account?  Is it going too far to say that this is our ecclesiology?  If so, what other ecclesiology IS there in scripture? 

I hope this sheds further light on the topic. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,184


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2008, 07:38:58 AM »

Quote
He is like a bishop in the sense that he was the overseer of this flock, of his disciples and then the other people who were around him.  He catechized them, had eucharist with them (mystical supper) and told them to continue doing that in remembrance of him.  He sent them out to preach and teach, like a bishop would today.  He sat with his people, teaching them about Himself (as theoretically a bishop should also be doing today, at some copacity).

At first take, I don't see anything wrong with saying it like that, it's just that I've never heard it before so it's a bit of an oddity trying to wrap my head around the concept...
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2008, 09:28:24 AM »

Quote
He is like a bishop in the sense that he was the overseer of this flock, of his disciples and then the other people who were around him.  He catechized them, had eucharist with them (mystical supper) and told them to continue doing that in remembrance of him.  He sent them out to preach and teach, like a bishop would today.  He sat with his people, teaching them about Himself (as theoretically a bishop should also be doing today, at some copacity).

At first take, I don't see anything wrong with saying it like that, it's just that I've never heard it before so it's a bit of an oddity trying to wrap my head around the concept...

LOL  that's what my classmates said too.  It seemed really logical to me, but their reactions were so defensive, almost as if I were crazy to even suggest it.  I didn't think I was too far off base, but I was hoping to see if anyone's sharp mind here on the site could help me detect what could be wrong with this interpretation. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2008, 09:32:16 AM »

The problem I see with calling Christ "a bishop to His Apostles" is that it can be interpreted to mean that Christ's position in the Church is not unique.
If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 204


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2008, 12:27:52 PM »

If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.
A big issue with that interpretation is that no purely human bishop is ever Head of the Church.
Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2008, 12:46:54 PM »

The problem I see with calling Christ "a bishop to His Apostles" is that it can be interpreted to mean that Christ's position in the Church is not unique.
If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.

That's interesting...So if I am understanding you right, if JC is just a bishop, then where is the uniqueness of Him as God and etc. based on the rest of scripture..?  Is this correct?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 204


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2008, 02:39:32 PM »

He isn't succeeding anyone.  The only resemblance would be that He ordained.
Christ succeeded in doing the will of His Father, that is something important. There are many resemblances of Christ as bishop to His Disciples. He taught them, He was an example for them, the Disciples were to obey Him; actually in every type of way He is a bishop. Perhaps I am wrong...in what way are we to see Christ as not a bishop?







Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 204


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2008, 02:40:14 PM »

Christ was more like a High Priest to the Jews and merely the Son of the Living God to His Disciples.
The word merely is defined as, "only as specified and nothing more". Christ is not not merely ideas or words, but the Great God and Savior, which is far more than merely anything. Even though we might be ignorant of Christ as bishop does not preclude His being such. No doubt we all have a lot to learn.
Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2008, 02:57:23 PM »

If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.
A big issue with that interpretation is that no purely human bishop is ever Head of the Church.

Wha?  You do realize that what you have stated (i.e. no human bishop is the head of the church) is 100% implied in Ozgeorge's statement (which, when rearranged, is 'Christ can't be a bishop to His disciples because a bishop is a role that is part of the Body, but Christ is uniquely the Head').
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2008, 03:00:15 PM »

That's interesting...So if I am understanding you right, if JC is just a bishop, then where is the uniqueness of Him as God and etc. based on the rest of scripture..?  Is this correct?
What I mean is, Christ's unique position in the Church as it's Head would be lost because:
1) All Bishops are equal.
2) All Bishops' authority comes from Christ.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2008, 03:01:21 PM »

If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.
A big issue with that interpretation is that no purely human bishop is ever Head of the Church.

Wha?  You do realize that what you have stated (i.e. no human bishop is the head of the church) is 100% implied in Ozgeorge's statement (which, when rearranged, is 'Christ can't be a bishop to His disciples because a bishop is a role that is part of the Body, but Christ is uniquely the Head').

I just ignore this guy now unless I need to moderate him..... Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2008, 03:10:35 PM »

In interpreting Scripture, what would you all say to the interpretation that Christ was a bishop to His disciples? 

I was discussing this in my Ecclesiology class and everyone looked at me like i'm crazy.  I am wondering if this is a common thought, or if it is totally out of wack, etc.  Any commentary would be helpful for me. 

Also, I left the statement vague b/c I wanted people's first impressions.  I can go into further detail about my thoughts on this interpretation, if necessary.  Thanks in advance! 


Are you looking at it as Christ being "the Chief Shepard of the flock"?

Matthew 2:6
" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.' "



1 Peter 5:4
And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.


John 10:14
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—


I would love to hear your explanation. I personally don't see a problem with it. But I would love to hear what you have to say.


Christ is in our mist!!!



JNORM888
« Last Edit: November 16, 2008, 03:15:42 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2008, 03:14:10 PM »

A Bishop is often called a "shepherd" for his Flock, but in reality he is only imaging the "Good Shepherd" who is Christ . So it is more like  the fact that Christ just as He is "perfect man" so is He also "Perfect Bishop" shepherding his flock, giving his life up for his flock. He is the example  and  the perfect image or true icon of a bishop.

Thomas

Cool stuff!!!





JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2008, 03:20:24 PM »

Thomas,

Yes, absolutely.  What I was trying to establish is this:

In our class a classmate from a Protestant seminary said that the church ecclesiology should be a polycentric church, where each person is their own center (of authority, of the church, of church polity, etc.)

I told him that this "polycentric unity' makes no sense in light of the scriptural model of Christ, being a bishop to his apostles, and therefore setting up that kind of ecclesiology, as opposed to a polycentric one.  In fact I challenged him to tell me where in scripture it specifically talks about the apostles thinking that they were their own center?  Rather, they had a bishop (JC) and then his presbyterium (Apostles) and then the laity (people following JC on the fringes, etc.) 

I thought this was a fairly general interpretation but people in my class looked at me like I had sprouted horns.  Am I just not reading the rest of scripture and taking it into account?  Is it going too far to say that this is our ecclesiology?  If so, what other ecclesiology IS there in scripture? 

I hope this sheds further light on the topic. 


I think what you said was a great idea, especially when you look at Jesus as being "the Chief Shepard/Good Shepard". Bishops are shepards over the flock and I could be wrong about this but I think Saint Ignatius said something about viewing the Bishop as if he was......uh man.....I forgot. hmmm, let me read it real quick.

be right back.


Ok I got it!!!


"And the more anyone sees the bishop being silent, the more one should fear him. For everyone whom the master of a house sends for his stewardship, we must receive as the one who sent him. It is obvious, then that one must look upon the bishop as the Lord himself." Saint Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians  (page 79 in the book "The Apostolic Fathers" translated by Robert M. Grant & edited by Jack N. Sparks



JNORM888
« Last Edit: November 16, 2008, 03:30:01 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2008, 03:45:25 PM »

The problem I see with calling Christ "a bishop to His Apostles" is that it can be interpreted to mean that Christ's position in the Church is not unique.
If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.


If Christ is the "only" Chief & Good shepard then how would that destroy his uniqueness? If anything this would make him the head of the Church.

Scripture also talks about Christ as being the Chief corner stone. This makes him unique in regards to the other stones

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,




JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2008, 07:01:15 PM »

The problem I see with calling Christ "a bishop to His Apostles" is that it can be interpreted to mean that Christ's position in the Church is not unique.
If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.


If Christ is the "only" Chief & Good shepard then how would that destroy his uniqueness? If anything this would make him the head of the Church.

Scripture also talks about Christ as being the Chief corner stone. This makes him unique in regards to the other stones

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,




JNORM888

I said nothing about Christ being a Shepherd.
What I said was that if we consider Him a "Bishop" then we have to ditch the idea that all Bishops are equal.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2008, 08:11:43 AM »

I didn't want you guys to think I ditched you, but i'm inundated with stuff right now, so i'll have to get back to you probably tomorrow.  thanks for all your thoughtful considerations! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2008, 09:49:15 AM »

The problem I see with calling Christ "a bishop to His Apostles" is that it can be interpreted to mean that Christ's position in the Church is not unique.
If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.


If Christ is the "only" Chief & Good shepard then how would that destroy his uniqueness? If anything this would make him the head of the Church.

Scripture also talks about Christ as being the Chief corner stone. This makes him unique in regards to the other stones

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,




JNORM888

I said nothing about Christ being a Shepherd.
What I said was that if we consider Him a "Bishop" then we have to ditch the idea that all Bishops are equal.


I also was not talking about Him being a shepherd, and in fact that wasn't the correlation I was looking for. I was looking for something stronger, like the statement I made in the beginning, that JC was like a bishop to his disciples. 

OzGeorge,

I am not sure that we have to ditch the idea that all bishops are equal, because even in the world we live in today, we have the "first among equals" so Christ could still be the Head, as you mentioned was a possible problematic element, and yet at the same time he could be a "bishop" with the rest of the disciples because he sent them out to be bishops.  My whole thing is that the manner in which he sent the disciples out was to imitate Him, and do to His work, so he was administering them like a bishop, etc. 

I am not sure how CHrist was separated from his disciples in the sense of being a "bishop" and them not being bishops, because they still WERE bishops, after his ascension and etc. 

You have been very helpful so far George, so any further thoughts on this would be awesome.  Thanks! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2008, 11:47:49 AM »

The problem I see with calling Christ "a bishop to His Apostles" is that it can be interpreted to mean that Christ's position in the Church is not unique.
If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.


If Christ is the "only" Chief & Good shepard then how would that destroy his uniqueness? If anything this would make him the head of the Church.

Scripture also talks about Christ as being the Chief corner stone. This makes him unique in regards to the other stones

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,




JNORM888

I said nothing about Christ being a Shepherd.
What I said was that if we consider Him a "Bishop" then we have to ditch the idea that all Bishops are equal.



My bad, I always thought they were one and the samething.


What's the difference between a Bishop and a Sheperd?

The Bible calls Him "Chief Sheperd" & "good Sheperd".......this makes him unique, so we don't have to ditch the fact that all Bishops are equal. All Bishops/Sheperds under Christ(the Chief Bishop/Sheperd) are equal.




JNORM888
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 11:51:49 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2008, 11:56:00 AM »

The problem I see with calling Christ "a bishop to His Apostles" is that it can be interpreted to mean that Christ's position in the Church is not unique.
If Christ is "a bishop", then He is part of the Body and not the unique Head of the Church.


If Christ is the "only" Chief & Good shepard then how would that destroy his uniqueness? If anything this would make him the head of the Church.

Scripture also talks about Christ as being the Chief corner stone. This makes him unique in regards to the other stones

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,




JNORM888

I said nothing about Christ being a Shepherd.
What I said was that if we consider Him a "Bishop" then we have to ditch the idea that all Bishops are equal.


I also was not talking about Him being a shepherd, and in fact that wasn't the correlation I was looking for. I was looking for something stronger, like the statement I made in the beginning, that JC was like a bishop to his disciples. 

OzGeorge,

I am not sure that we have to ditch the idea that all bishops are equal, because even in the world we live in today, we have the "first among equals" so Christ could still be the Head, as you mentioned was a possible problematic element, and yet at the same time he could be a "bishop" with the rest of the disciples because he sent them out to be bishops.  My whole thing is that the manner in which he sent the disciples out was to imitate Him, and do to His work, so he was administering them like a bishop, etc. 

I am not sure how CHrist was separated from his disciples in the sense of being a "bishop" and them not being bishops, because they still WERE bishops, after his ascension and etc. 

You have been very helpful so far George, so any further thoughts on this would be awesome.  Thanks! 

Understood, but I don't see a difference between the words "Bishop & Shepherd". They mean the same to me.

Isn't the Bishop the Sheperd of his Diocese?





JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2008, 04:36:23 PM »

JNORM,

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I am looking for a distinction.  Because here is the thing, bishops and priests are of course shepherds, and Christ was a shepherd to his people and etc.  But what I am trying to advocate is an ECCLESIOLOGICAL principle that Christ was a bishop, in the sense of how a bishop operates, lives, directs, etc.

To say that he was a shepherd is not a strong enough correlation in terms of what Christ did or what bishops do.  Yes, the imagery is there, yes it is good for our understanding of what is the major action of bishops, but not in terms of ecclesiology.  Ecclesiologically we say that that we need the ministry of the one that unites the many.  That one is the bishop.  The many are the people.  So, in accordance with this principle, it would not make as much sense to say that the one is the "shepherd" because the shepherd could be a number of people, and does not necessarily designate the office of bishop. 

Maybe I am convoluting it too much.  I don't think that the terms are diametrically opposed, but neither is "shepherd" really what i'm looking for.  But you know....now that I think about it more...maybe calling Christ the "shepherd" instead of bishop is really what i'm looking for...

At the same time, by him being the shepherd that would make all of us sheep, and therefore powerless in a sense.  So perhaps the concept of "bishop" is better, as the one that unites the many, and etc. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2008, 05:14:50 PM »

Christ performed many of the tasks, and created many of the roles, that are filled by the Bishops after His ascension:

1. He sends His disciples out to be His ministers; just as the Presbyters were sent out in lieu of the Bishop.
2. He corrects His ministers, pastors them on how to lead, and how to deepen their spiritual life.
3. He acts as chief teacher of the Church.
4. He is the Good Shepherd.
5. He is the Great Arch-priest (through His institution of the Eucharist - giving us His Body and Blood as a blood-less sacrifice at the Mystical Supper)
6. His is an administrator of the flock (distribution of the loaves, crowd control, etc.)
7. He is the Great Confessor and the source of Forgiveness (which He empowers His disciples to do as well)

But to say that He was a Bishop I think disagrees with the writings of the Fathers; when reading what they wrote in the early centuries, they even made distinctions between the Apostles and those whom they appointed; how more so would a distinction be made between Christ and His Apostles.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 05:15:06 PM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
holdencaulfield
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 244


« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2008, 01:47:19 PM »

In interpreting Scripture, what would you all say to the interpretation that Christ was a bishop to His disciples? 
I would say no. The Disciples and Apostles were the first bishops and Christ was their God.
Logged

"For better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God" - St Gregory the Theologian
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,907


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2008, 02:00:08 PM »

In interpreting Scripture, what would you all say to the interpretation that Christ was a bishop to His disciples? 
I would say no. The Disciples and Apostles were the first bishops and Christ was their God.
What leads you to say this?
Logged
holdencaulfield
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 244


« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2008, 02:07:35 PM »

What leads you to say this?
Nothing in particular, I could go attempt to "back it up" but I don't really see a purpose. Christ is God and the Leader of the Church. The Apostles are His bishops that He instated on the earth. I don't really see any hinting otherwise.
Logged

"For better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God" - St Gregory the Theologian
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2008, 02:08:24 PM »

Christ performed many of the tasks, and created many of the roles, that are filled by the Bishops after His ascension:

1. He sends His disciples out to be His ministers; just as the Presbyters were sent out in lieu of the Bishop.
2. He corrects His ministers, pastors them on how to lead, and how to deepen their spiritual life.
3. He acts as chief teacher of the Church.
4. He is the Good Shepherd.
5. He is the Great Arch-priest (through His institution of the Eucharist - giving us His Body and Blood as a blood-less sacrifice at the Mystical Supper)
6. His is an administrator of the flock (distribution of the loaves, crowd control, etc.)
7. He is the Great Confessor and the source of Forgiveness (which He empowers His disciples to do as well)

But to say that He was a Bishop I think disagrees with the writings of the Fathers; when reading what they wrote in the early centuries, they even made distinctions between the Apostles and those whom they appointed; how more so would a distinction be made between Christ and His Apostles.

So then would you say that the Apostles are the models for bishops?  And if this is the case, where did they learn that model from?  From Christ?  In which case, would it not be possible to say that CHRIST was then the BISHOP for the APOSTLES because they learned the model from Him?  Sorry Cleveland, i'm just missing a step in here somewhere.  
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,662


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2008, 02:28:55 PM »

The Holy Spirit
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2008, 02:48:59 PM »

So then would you say that the Apostles are the models for bishops?  And if this is the case, where did they learn that model from?  From Christ?  In which case, would it not be possible to say that CHRIST was then the BISHOP for the APOSTLES because they learned the model from Him?  Sorry Cleveland, i'm just missing a step in here somewhere.  

Just because someone is the prototype or great influence for another person's role doesn't mean they are in that role.  If, say, George Washington admitted in his memoirs that his great influence in governance of the US was Cincinnatus (which he didn't), and that he learned how to be a good president from his model, we couldn't say that Cincinnatus was a President to GW, or that he was the "real" first President of the US.  One can learn all the appropriate attributes, attitudes, tools, mannerisms, best practices, etc. from someone who does not actually occupy the role that they aspire to / fit in to.    In this way we each can learn how to be the best of our own professions (doctor, advocate, servant, teacher, preacher, priest, bishop, deacon, etc.) from Christ's teaching and example, yet He was not actually a Doctor for His disciples, but rather was The Healer of All; He was not the lawyer for the destitute, but rather was The Great Advocate for Our Souls; and so on.  He may have been like a Bishop to His disciples, but He wasn't their Bishop - that wasn't His role to fill.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
holdencaulfield
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 244


« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2008, 02:59:16 PM »

He may have been like a Bishop to His disciples, but He wasn't their Bishop - that wasn't His role to fill.
Nice point.
Logged

"For better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God" - St Gregory the Theologian
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 204


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2008, 10:14:01 AM »


I just ignore this guy now unless I need to moderate him.....

An icon of the Prophet, Forerunner and Baptizer says, "Herod, why do you censor me?"

Soon we shall see who is ignored by Whom.
Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2008, 11:10:03 PM »

So then would you say that the Apostles are the models for bishops?  And if this is the case, where did they learn that model from?  From Christ?  In which case, would it not be possible to say that CHRIST was then the BISHOP for the APOSTLES because they learned the model from Him?  Sorry Cleveland, i'm just missing a step in here somewhere.  

Just because someone is the prototype or great influence for another person's role doesn't mean they are in that role.  If, say, George Washington admitted in his memoirs that his great influence in governance of the US was Cincinnatus (which he didn't), and that he learned how to be a good president from his model, we couldn't say that Cincinnatus was a President to GW, or that he was the "real" first President of the US.  One can learn all the appropriate attributes, attitudes, tools, mannerisms, best practices, etc. from someone who does not actually occupy the role that they aspire to / fit in to.    In this way we each can learn how to be the best of our own professions (doctor, advocate, servant, teacher, preacher, priest, bishop, deacon, etc.) from Christ's teaching and example, yet He was not actually a Doctor for His disciples, but rather was The Healer of All; He was not the lawyer for the destitute, but rather was The Great Advocate for Our Souls; and so on.  He may have been like a Bishop to His disciples, but He wasn't their Bishop - that wasn't His role to fill.

I like it.  Thanks brother. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2008, 11:39:01 PM »

I like it.  Thanks brother.  

No problem, serbski.  Without your good questions, this board would get far too boring with all the Political discussion.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,427


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2008, 09:36:19 AM »

I like it.  Thanks brother.  

No problem, serbski.  Without your good questions, this board would get far too boring with all the Political discussion.

LOL!  I rarely put new threads up but this topic was really bothering me.  i always feel like my questions are answered directly by everyone.  in fact, I don't think any of my threads ever even made it to 2 pages...lol. 

But you guys are always helpful, and it's nice to be able to bounce things off of people. 

If anyone ever gets any other ideas on this, I wouldn't mind ruminating about it again...(just leaving it open to others)...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Tags: Christology bishops 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.131 seconds with 64 queries.