William wrote:
William: As far as I can tell, Christians nor the Church have any jurisdiction in relation to judging others, as Jesus is the Judge, and Judged himself guilty by taking on the sins of the world.
The Script:Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
William: The example offered shows Paul speaking about no one Judging any other. That was the basis of my argument above.
The example I provided shows Paul clearly deems it appropriate for the church to judge its members.
shnarkle: This translation adds "is" in the last sentence. It should read, "but the body of Christ (i.e. "the church" should judge these matters)"
William: In matters of translation, there is no consensus offered with your argument.
There is no need to seek a consensus when it comes to the manuscripts themselves. My claim stands, and is easily verified by looking at the manuscripts themselves. There simply is no "is" in the sentence. It doesn't matter if there is a consensus because it makes the most sense to point out that it is the church that judges its members, rather than the previously stated "man", e.g. "let no man judge you....etc."
The Church was not given the right to be judge jury and executioner of anyone.
Sure it was, and I just provided you with an example from Paul's letters.
shnarkle: No one judged Jesus guilty. Not Jesus, not the father, no one.
William: That is not how the whole story presents.
It gets down to human propensity to being judgmental, often with hypocrisy concealing truthfulness.
I stand corrected. I wasn't thinking of those who wanted him dead.
The demand was for a holy sacrifice, and Jesus obliged.
yep, and there can be no sacrifice when the offering is blemished/guilty of sin.
We can both agree that Jesus may indeed not really have judged himself "Guilty" but his actions generally give one that impression, and the impression itself is not in itself..."Wrong" to understand it in that manner.
Okay, let's assume your correct, then Jesus was a sinner guilty of actually sinning, hence his sentence of guilt.
the individual who believes that they are guilty of sinning, is encouraged to believe that Jesus paid the price, and took on that guilt,
Taking on guilt is not the same as being guilty.
William: Jesus is not some ignorant beast of the field which has no say in that matter.
Isaiah 53:7 7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth
shnarkle: This is what qualifies him as the sin offering. It is what allows the sin of the world to be placed upon him. This doesn't make him guilty, it only shows that he must pay the penalty for the guilty. He is marked or counted with the transgressors, but he is not, and never will be guilty.
Semantics, alongside translations, are insignificant...unless of course, such are used as a means of trying to take the right of Jesus to be Judge and hand it over to the Church...in which case, since the Church is not that which took on the guilt and penalty of the sins of the world, the Church has no authority to Judge.
I'm only referring to what the texts actually state. I'm not suggesting that the church is the ultimate authority, but that the church is given the power to judge according to God's authority. As Matthew points out, "those sins you shall retain, they are retained, and those sins you shall loose, they are loosened" The church is given the power to judge as they see God judge. They are given the authority to judge as according to God's authority. In other words, they are not judging according to their own will, but God's will.
