-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V
And as I've pointed out, Paul does not refer to himself as a judge there, but as a poor man with no rights to be Christ's messanger, but who has become one nonetheless. So you can continue to claim that passage is your proof if you wish, but given that it isn't, you are still at Square One.
I have, by pointing out it is not saying what he claims it says as proof of the point. If it isn't sufficient for you, it's your problem, not mine.
I have, by pointing out it is not saying what he claims it says as proof of the point. If it isn't sufficient for you, it's your problem, not mine.
J
First of all, my desire isn't to humiliate you, but rather to try to reason with you that we might both come to the same proper Biblical understanding of the portion of scripture in question.
Secondly, I've already proven my point, but you've failed to see it as of yet. Again, in what immediately preceded the portion of scripture in question, Paul wrote:
I Corinthians chapter 5
[1] It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
[2] And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
[3] For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
[4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[5] To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
[6] Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
[7] Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
[8] Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
[9] I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
[10] Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
[11] But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
[12] For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
[13] But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Who were the "ye" here whom Paul chastened for not judging them that are within?
The clergy (the most esteemed)?
The laity (the least esteemed)?
C'mon...you know the correct answer, don't you?
Secondly, I've already proven my point, but you've failed to see it as of yet. Again, in what immediately preceded the portion of scripture in question, Paul wrote:
I Corinthians chapter 5
[1] It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
[2] And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
[3] For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
[4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[5] To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
[6] Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
[7] Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
[8] Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
[9] I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
[10] Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
[11] But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
[12] For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
[13] But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Who were the "ye" here whom Paul chastened for not judging them that are within?
The clergy (the most esteemed)?
The laity (the least esteemed)?
C'mon...you know the correct answer, don't you?
E
I do not think Paul was talking about church discipline.
I think he was talking about one brother wronging another. And taking the other to court to make a charge against them.
He is saying this should be handled in the church. The lowest esteemed person in the church is able to handle these events. more than the civil courts.
I think he was talking about one brother wronging another. And taking the other to court to make a charge against them.
He is saying this should be handled in the church. The lowest esteemed person in the church is able to handle these events. more than the civil courts.
V
So let me get this straight. You're trying to claim that the greatest of the apostles, the man who was met personally on the Damascus road by Christ Jesus Himself, in order to dissuade him from his lost cause of persecuting the church, was "least esteemed"?
Do you have any idea how ludicrous that is?? Paul was the most sought-after teacher in all of the Mideast, Asia, and Europe. The churches he founded flourished, and when they struggled, they sought out his advice.
And yet you are going to to try to make this passage stand as proof of his being "least esteemed"?
I'd be embarrassed, if I were you. This is the best you can do in attempting to prove that Paul or anyone told the churches in the First Century, and by extension, all churches, to appoint the "least esteemed" to judge between brothers/sisters in Christ? Wow.
Let me set you straight. Paul was an humble, righteous man. He did not esteem himself. But while Corinth church members may have, at times, taken issue with how he presented himself, no one in that early-church world, anywhere Christ's name was known, thought of Paul as "least esteemed". The thought is ridiculous.
His chastisement was of the entire church at Cornith, not just certain ones. No one had undertaken church discipline, so he did so himself, from afar.
Do you have any idea how ludicrous that is?? Paul was the most sought-after teacher in all of the Mideast, Asia, and Europe. The churches he founded flourished, and when they struggled, they sought out his advice.
And yet you are going to to try to make this passage stand as proof of his being "least esteemed"?
I'd be embarrassed, if I were you. This is the best you can do in attempting to prove that Paul or anyone told the churches in the First Century, and by extension, all churches, to appoint the "least esteemed" to judge between brothers/sisters in Christ? Wow.
Let me set you straight. Paul was an humble, righteous man. He did not esteem himself. But while Corinth church members may have, at times, taken issue with how he presented himself, no one in that early-church world, anywhere Christ's name was known, thought of Paul as "least esteemed". The thought is ridiculous.
His chastisement was of the entire church at Cornith, not just certain ones. No one had undertaken church discipline, so he did so himself, from afar.
Last edited:
J
So let me get this straight. You're trying to claim that the greatest of the apostles, the man who was met personally on the Damascus road by Christ Jesus Himself, in order to dissuade him from his lost cause of persecuting the church, was "least esteemed"?
Do you have any idea how ludicrous that is?? Paul was the most sought-after teacher in all of the Mideast, Asia, and Europe. The churches he founded flourished, and when they struggled, they sought out his advice.
And yet you are going to to try to make this passage stand as proof of his being "least esteemed"?
I'd be embarrassed, if I were you. This is the best you can do in attempting to prove that Paul or anyone told the churches in the First Century, and by extension, all churches, to appoint the "least esteemed" to judge between brothers/sisters in Christ? Wow.
Let me set you straight. Paul was an humble, righteous man. He did not esteem himself. But while Corinth church members may have, at times, taken issue with how he presented himself, no one in that early-church world, anywhere Christ's name was known, thought of Paul as "least esteemed". The thought is ridiculous.
His chastisement was of the entire church at Cornith, not just certain ones. No one had undertaken church discipline, so he did so himself, from afar.
Do you have any idea how ludicrous that is?? Paul was the most sought-after teacher in all of the Mideast, Asia, and Europe. The churches he founded flourished, and when they struggled, they sought out his advice.
And yet you are going to to try to make this passage stand as proof of his being "least esteemed"?
I'd be embarrassed, if I were you. This is the best you can do in attempting to prove that Paul or anyone told the churches in the First Century, and by extension, all churches, to appoint the "least esteemed" to judge between brothers/sisters in Christ? Wow.
Let me set you straight. Paul was an humble, righteous man. He did not esteem himself. But while Corinth church members may have, at times, taken issue with how he presented himself, no one in that early-church world, anywhere Christ's name was known, thought of Paul as "least esteemed". The thought is ridiculous.
His chastisement was of the entire church at Cornith, not just certain ones. No one had undertaken church discipline, so he did so himself, from afar.
I asked you whom Paul was chastening for not having judged within the church and you went on a ramble about Paul himself.
Anyhow, I guess that you believe that Paul was threatening to "come with a rod" which he was going to use against "the clergy", too...right?
I Corinthians chapter 4
[14] I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
[15] For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
[16] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
[17] For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
[18] Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
[19] But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
[20] For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
[21] What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?
Paul was clearly talking to his "sons" whom he had "begotten through the gospel" and he was ready to chasten them with the rod if need be. Yes, the fact that he sent Timothy unto them is more evidence that he wasn't addressing "the clergy" here.
Well, that's for those who believe the Bible and not the gibberish that you've been going on about.
V
No. I believe he was telling the entire church, pastor/elder down to "least esteemed," they weren't doing what Christ commanded in dealing with sin among the members. And you still haven't proven your point -- which is getting more obscure with each of your replies. I get the feeling you're moving the goal posts so you can achieve victory.
J
My point was that he had already avoided GaryA's post by responding with an ad hominem in relation to "King James Onlyism", so it was hypocritical of him to be complaining about what he wrongly perceived to be the same coming back towards him. My fake nose and glasses picture was meant in jest in response to his claim that I should be ashamed and that is why I added an "lol" at the end of it.
Anyhow, feel free to go back to the topic at hand...or to do whatever.
Btw, I'm confident that DesiredHaven got her answer and that my participation here actually helped in regard to the same. She can correct me if I'm wrong in that assessment.
Good night.
Anyhow, feel free to go back to the topic at hand...or to do whatever.
Btw, I'm confident that DesiredHaven got her answer and that my participation here actually helped in regard to the same. She can correct me if I'm wrong in that assessment.
Good night.
G
I do not know for sure if any of this is actually intended to include me, but - for what it is worth... :
I do not know about others, but - I do not have the "luxury" of having the time that it would take to write the 25,000 words a day that it would take to "keep up" with some here who seem to be able to "write novels" - "right off the fingers into the keyboard" - in every post.
It "takes me forever to write anything" ( exaggerated "just a bit" to make a point ) - a "side-effect" of some things I will not discuss here and now.
I write [ relatively ] short posts because I really do not have the time to write long ones.
If I get "drowned out" -- it is because others are more "at liberty" to "drown me" by simply being able to produce more words / posts than I am able to produce in the same time frame - or, from hour to hour - or, from day to day.
Otherwise, I have decided that it is not worth my while to try to explain myself [ thoroughly enough ] ( which would take 10,000 words or whatever - hence, too much time... ) --- so --- I usually write short posts, because - it would take too much time to write enough words to explain - or address - every last detail...
I have said "plenty enough" in this post.
( It took me over a half an hour to write this post. )
I do not know about others, but - I do not have the "luxury" of having the time that it would take to write the 25,000 words a day that it would take to "keep up" with some here who seem to be able to "write novels" - "right off the fingers into the keyboard" - in every post.
It "takes me forever to write anything" ( exaggerated "just a bit" to make a point ) - a "side-effect" of some things I will not discuss here and now.
I write [ relatively ] short posts because I really do not have the time to write long ones.
If I get "drowned out" -- it is because others are more "at liberty" to "drown me" by simply being able to produce more words / posts than I am able to produce in the same time frame - or, from hour to hour - or, from day to day.
Otherwise, I have decided that it is not worth my while to try to explain myself [ thoroughly enough ] ( which would take 10,000 words or whatever - hence, too much time... ) --- so --- I usually write short posts, because - it would take too much time to write enough words to explain - or address - every last detail...
I have said "plenty enough" in this post.
( It took me over a half an hour to write this post. )
D
I do not know for sure if any of this is actually intended to include me, but - for what it is worth... :
I do not know about others, but - I do not have the "luxury" of having the time that it would take to write the 25,000 words a day that it would take to "keep up" with some here who seem to be able to "write novels" - "right off the fingers into the keyboard" - in every post.
It "takes me forever to write anything" ( exaggerated "just a bit" to make a point ) - a "side-effect" of some things I will not discuss here and now.
I write [ relatively ] short posts because I really do not have the time to write long ones.
If I get "drowned out" -- it is because others are more "at liberty" to "drown me" by simply being able to produce more words / posts than I am able to produce in the same time frame - or, from hour to hour - or, from day to day.
Otherwise, I have decided that it is not worth my while to try to explain myself [ thoroughly enough ] ( which would take 10,000 words or whatever - hence, too much time... ) --- so --- I usually write short posts, because - it would take too much time to write enough words to explain - or address - every last detail...
I have said "plenty enough" in this post.
( It took me over a half an hour to write this post. )
I do not know about others, but - I do not have the "luxury" of having the time that it would take to write the 25,000 words a day that it would take to "keep up" with some here who seem to be able to "write novels" - "right off the fingers into the keyboard" - in every post.
It "takes me forever to write anything" ( exaggerated "just a bit" to make a point ) - a "side-effect" of some things I will not discuss here and now.
I write [ relatively ] short posts because I really do not have the time to write long ones.
If I get "drowned out" -- it is because others are more "at liberty" to "drown me" by simply being able to produce more words / posts than I am able to produce in the same time frame - or, from hour to hour - or, from day to day.
Otherwise, I have decided that it is not worth my while to try to explain myself [ thoroughly enough ] ( which would take 10,000 words or whatever - hence, too much time... ) --- so --- I usually write short posts, because - it would take too much time to write enough words to explain - or address - every last detail...
I have said "plenty enough" in this post.
( It took me over a half an hour to write this post. )
And I know this is to him but dont mistake him for someone who has the luxury of time he really doesnt
Since I have known him he has worked 16 hours or more a day 5 days a week, so he has never had the luxury of time on his side.
He will correct me if I am mistaken on any detail
He types much faster (at least much faster then me) but he copy pastes alot of scripture and so both are real time savers.
And in respects to myself I dont often post in the moment (like 70% of the time) because I copy paste from former studies that I can incorporate into a post I might be interested in, I might click "search" for that topic, take the most refined version I worked on and take a second pass on it adding to one of those before posting it.
Thats a real time saver.
I on the other hand have the luxury of time (as you say) because I am always home (whereas I know he is not) but he still seems to utilize his time better "somehow".
I think you do just fine on your posts GaryA, besides its not the length of the post is the substance.
Although I will say this (which I never said to him before either) he does tend to blow my mind in how he can sleep so little, work so much and still bring so much to the table (with the time available to him). And do so more thoughtfully (when he keeps it just scriptures) minus just a little of his unecessary trademark commentary (lol) but we are always at odds on that cause it gives me agita.
Having so little time he manages to post long but pretty thorough posts.
I always wondered what he could do if he actually had the time others are afforded.
Anyway, sorry I didnt mean to butt in there.
Your posts are just fine, heck, mine are longwinded and have alot less substance as I drone on and on, once and awhile I remind myself not to do that but I dont always catch myself, its a bad habit or something.
One of these days