<<YouRang> you have repeatedly accused me of judging. Please cite the Greek for "judge" and cite the Scripture with an appeal to context to show that I've judged anyone in a way that is a violation of Scriptures.>

You declined to cite the Greek, and then made a lengthy post in which you failed to define the term "judge" even in English! It began: <Thank you for the invitation to "cite the Greek", but I'll decline. I wouldn't expect you to be impressed if I found an online Greek lexicon, and in return I promise not to be impressed if you do.>

OhioChessFan chessforum

You followed that post up (which had NO reference whatsoever to a working defintion of judge as you were allegedly providing to my request) with the next post that began <Biblical support for my position:>

OhioChessFan chessforum

Finally, you made this post on page 175:
<In the Bible, the word "judge" is used in a number of contexts, with subtly varying meanings ranging from "decide" or "determine" to "condemn". The concept of judging to which I refer pertains to "accusing" or "bringing a charge against". >

OCF: Not about judging those outside the church. >

Are you saying that this commandment doesn't apply as long as you're bearing false witness against someone outside the church?

~~~~~

<<YouRang: == Concerning Judging people based on their motives:

<I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.> 1Cor 4:3-5>

OCF: Not about judging outside the church. In fact, it was addressing judging inside the church, but about motives. Such distinctions don't concern you though as long as it provides some semi-related ammo to use against me.>

Well, I would agree that the subject is how believers should be proven trustworthy of the message they carry. But if you're saying that the comments made about judging apply only to believers, then I disagree.

The first couple sentence generalize the issue of judging (e.g. <judged by you or any human court>; <judge myself>; <the Lord who judges me>).

Next is a command to <judge nothing before the appointed time>, which can't very well be a command to not judge believers inside the church since Paul clearly teaches elsewhere that believers *should* judge other believers (see the next chapter even).

Finally, Paul gives his reason that the Lord will <bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts.>, which again, I think applies to both believers and unbelievers. The point being that *only* the Lord can judge hidden motives (which I think should be obvious anyway).

The last sentence <each will receive praise from God> is IMO the consequence that can be expected by believers who have proven trustworthy, which ties Paul's conclusion with his subject. Of course, this does *not* mean that each man that the Lord judges will receive praise from God.

To me, it's pretty clear that Paul is making general statements about judgement and applying them to the specific context of believers entrusted with the message.

~~~~~

<<YouRang: == What Paul taught regarding judging those outside the church (non-believers) vs. those inside (professing believers):

<12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."> 1Cor 5:12-13>

OCF: Hooray. Got one out of four points anyway. >

...And yet you judge those outside the church.

~~~~~

<<YouRang: == What Christians are taught with regard to how to treat non-believers:

<15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ....>

<27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you> Lk 6:27>

OCF: Not about judging outside the church. Next?>

Did I say it was? In case you've missed it, I'm the one arguing that Christians should NOT judge people outside the church, that is, regarding matters that depend on an assumption of Biblical authority (as I've explained).

Naturally then, I would not be presenting an argument about judging outside, would it?

The reason I presented these passages from Romans and Luke to show how Christians *should* treat those non-believers outside.

OCF: Baloney. Your very words about THAT post were QUOTE <No, those were points about Christians judging those *inside* the church.>>

Yes, that was my quote. Why are you making a big deal about it? Did I deny it? Am I not standing by it?

No, I didn't deny it, and yes I am standing by it for the reasons given.

I also explained that I worded it that way only to respond in kind to your post, in which you had (for no apparent reason) decided to reverse the context of my earlier post from <unbeliever judging believers> to <believers judging unbelievers>.

Do you deny that you reversed my context?
Do you care to explain why?
Do you think it was wrong of me to correct you?
What is your point, other than bluster?

<I have tended not to respond to such obvious inanities, because I don't think they'd persuade anyone of your position. So you claim some sort of victory by default? Great, you can claim a victory by default. Again, present the post to anyone and see if ANYONE agrees with you.>

How is it an "obvious inanity" on my part to correct a twisting of context committed by you?

Very well. My understanding of "judge" in 1 Corinthians 5 is "to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong", which seems to be the most fitting description from http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexi....

It also aptly applies to your statements about scientists.

~~~~~

But you are merely quibbling about terms. Evidently you intend to say that my case against you all hangs on some word usage.

However, the case against you is this: You claimed that scientists knowingly tell lies, and that their secret motive for doing so is to give reason to disbelieve the Bible. On top of that, you referred to those who agree with modern science as "brainwashed students".

Call it judging, call it accusing, call it insulting, call it whatever you like.

Whichever word you or I choose doesn't change the fact that you have no power to know the minds and motives of others as implied by your claim. Furthermore, the insuing debate demonstrated that:

- Your claim is based only on your 100% confidence in a specific literal interpretation of Genesis -- an interpretation that highly debatable even have among Christians.

- You lack a basic understanding of science, and the bit that you think you know is full of misconceptions.

- You are apparently unable to explain how these claims against scientists are Biblically defensible (I've asked you to do so 3 times now with no response).

There is no amount of word fiddling that can make your claims against scientists, let alone those who agree with scientists, justifiable. Your efforts to justify those claims turned out to be strawman attacks, bald assertions, if not complete silence.

I accept that the apostle Paul was a Jew who converted to Christianity and later preached of the risen Christ. I don't have any reason to doubt that; after all, there's nothing particularly unlikely about any of these basic details and they fit what we know about the mid-1st century.

Similarly, I accept you're a chess fan from Ohio on the basis that you frequent a chess site, act extremely American, wouldn't have anything to gain by misleading us on this point and I can't see any problems with this explanation.

I am more than just skeptical of the Bible being an accurate historical record, insofar as "accurate" here is a synonym for "unerring": I'm completely convinced it isn't, but that doesn't mean it's got <everything> wrong. It just means you can't treat it as one big unit when looking for accuracy.

Yes, much of Bible is written by non-contemporary authors and you're right in apparently surmising I find that a problem, but it's not the main problem.

I think we've both stated our positions and we disagree on a number of levels. Neither of us are going to convince the other, but I'm satisfied that I've presented my case. If any members of the jury are still awake, or even still alive, they have probably rendered their verdict long ago.

As for you, I think you are probably a real nice guy well liked by many people. Theologically, I think you are what I once was: A fellow who thought that the Christian witness was all about going to battle with unbelievers over doctrine. I accept that you believe you are doing what is right and are standing firm for the faith.

I since moved away from that theological view for all the reasons discussed. I found that my old view was not at all what Christ was doing or asking us to do. I found that strict adherence to literal interpretations was not only unnecessary, but exactly the sort of thing that made Christianity look bad historically. I found that in church, we were told that we were "showing love", and yet it was clear that my approach came across to others as hostile and backward. I had to admit that if I were in the other person's shoes, I wouldn't see it as "love" either.

Anyway, we've discussed all of that, and the current level of rancor between us was never where I wanted to end up, so I am going to drop out of this discussion -- for good this time (I think).

For instance: who can dispute the facts you present about corruption in the church (Haggard, Hinn, etc?)? I really don't think St. Paul would be favorably impressed by Peter Popoff. Who in his right mind would try to defend such goings-on?

But as I've said before, consider all the genuine saints and prophets murdered by the world... It's wrong to put them in the same category as religious mountebanks who deserve our scorn: and we should probably pity the poor suckers who are taken in by them.

Nothing. I just wanted some plausible starting point. As an extreme example, if you'd said "None of the New Testament was written before 250 AD" I would have gracefully declined to pursue the matter.

FWIW, I am going to do my best to work completely on my own. I am aware there are any number of resources available on this matter, and I am aware you could find those with a quick google search if you so desired. I think it will be good for both of us to work without a net. If I have some reason to consult an outside source, I'll make that known.

I wish to enter into the record the eyewitness testimony of the apostle John. John was a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth. John wrote an account of the life of Jesus that is commonly referred to as the gospel of John. John also wrote 3 letters that are typically referenced as First John, Second John and Third John. John also wrote the book of Revelation, which is a consenus choice for the last book of the New Testament in chronological terms. All of John's writings are believed to have been written in the first century by the vast majority of Bible scholars. While you can find a number of people who would deny any/all of those points, they are a decided minority.

John the apostle spent 3 years in the company of Jesus in a travelling ministry. He was in close company with Jesus, and a strong case can be made John was one of the 3 most prominent apostles in the lifetime of Jesus, along with his brother James, and also the apostle Peter. John claimed to be an eyewitness of the trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. John very adamantly affirmed as an eyewitness he saw a Roman soldier pierce the side of Jesus with a spear, and that blood and water came out.

John recorded many instances where Jesus was at great odds with the prevailing religious order. John recorded the conspiracy of those who sought to put Jesus to death. John cited in particular the traitorous behavior of another apostle, Judas Iscariot.

John also recorded his discovery of an empty tomb three days after the death of Jesus. That tomb was well known to John. John and Peter entered the tomb and were quite surprised to discover it was empty. Later that same day, John was visited by the man he had last seen dead, Jesus of Nazareth. John never renounced that claim. John took great pains to emphasize his eyewitness status. In particular, John records these words about Jesus of Nazareth:

<That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. >

<whatthefat> I read a little sarcasm into the <Do I consider you an intellectual inferior? Before this debate: No. Now: Yes. > remark, and in fact did get a chuckle out of it. If you meant it de facto, that's fine too. It's not too far off from something I might say, or at least think. Some days at work, quite often. If you're trying to be real and trying to say something that's the truth, that's okay. I recall you made a comment about the sincerity of an apology. That was correct. I can't stand apologies with explanations, etc and that does in fact give an appearance of insincerity. I know I did that and I know I threw in some sarcasm too. So, I am sorry for what I said.

I'm glad, it wasn't meant sincerely.

<So, I am sorry for what I said.>

Do you mean where "the sun stands still" thing? I mean, every one knows the earth moves around the sun, right?>

Of course I was being sarcastic there to make a point.

But no, not everyone knows the earth moves around the sun.

See www.reformation.org for a nice example of backward thinking by extreme Bible literalists who are still geocentrists. There, you'll learn that Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo are the "3 deadly Darwins".