Brother. Where art thou?

[William]

Matt's Gospel
Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

and;

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Recently I had the misfortune of being accused of offending someone and someone else reported my offence to the authorities and without any further ado, I was penalized for it.

I cannot reveal the details of the case as it is soon to be under review [once I have finished documenting the details, and delivering these to the lawyers involved], but it got me to thinking about the alleged offence and the fact that I was not consulted because the evidence was accepted by the authority which received the complaint, as enough to warrant my being penalized.

Thus I simply had to pay the penalty [it was published and I first heard about it through the public domain] and now am lodging an appeal against the decision.

I have not been informed as to the identity of the complainant.

Based on the information re this situation and in relation to the script from Matts gospel;

QFD: Is it safe for me to assume, that it would not have been a Christian who lodged the complaint against me?

[William]

Matt's Gospel
QFD: Is it safe for me to assume, that it would not have been a Christian who lodged the complaint against me?

No. This passage refers to the interactions between Christians. If you are not a Christian then there is no expectation for you to obey Christian standards of conduct. You are also not bound by the authority of the church, which is the only authority the passage in Matthew references.

The passage in question has BJ specifically referring to judges, officers, prison and fines.

How do you reconcile that with the idea that the passage is only referring to "interactions between Christians" [to do with the Church] rather than how Christians should interreact with everyone, whether those ones are of the same religion or not, or for that matter, are non-religious?

A person cannot deny the authority of the church as a general rule, and then rely on the authority of the church when it would be beneficial for him/her to do so.

Out of interest [as it appears to be related to the OPTopic]
Q: Do you think that a person cannot deny the authority of the state as a general rule, and then rely on the authority of the state when it would be beneficial for him/her to do so?

[bjs1]

Matt's Gospel
QFD: Is it safe for me to assume, that it would not have been a Christian who lodged the complaint against me?

No. This passage refers to the interactions between Christians. If you are not a Christian then there is no expectation for you to obey Christian standards of conduct. You are also not bound by the authority of the church, which is the only authority the passage in Matthew references.

The passage in question has BJ

Who is BJ?

specifically referring to judges, officers, prison and fines.

How do you reconcile that with the idea that the passage is only referring to "interactions between Christians" [to do with the Church] rather than how Christians should interreact with everyone, whether those ones are of the same religion or not, or for that matter, are non-religious?

You have combined two separate passage here. One is from the 5th chapter of Matthew, and the other is from the 18th chapter in Matthew. You have taken the passage from chapter 5, which does discuss “judges, officers, prison and fines” and then sliced it into chapter 18 which is about the interaction between Christians. Such a blatant abuse of the scriptures cannot be taken seriously.

A person cannot deny the authority of the church as a general rule, and then rely on the authority of the church when it would be beneficial for him/her to do so.

Out of interest [as it appears to be related to the OPTopic]
Q: Do you think that a person cannot deny the authority of the state as a general rule, and then rely on the authority of the state when it would be beneficial for him/her to do so?

I do not think I person can deny the authority of the sate a general rule, and then rely on that authority when it would be beneficial for him/her to do so.

I cannot currently think of a way that, in practice, a person could deny the authority of the state. Obviously they could speak the words, but those words would have no practical effect if the state decided to exert its authority.

[William]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #12]

Who is BJ?

Shorthand for "biblical Jesus" - My bad for not making that clear in my post.

You have combined two separate passage here. One is from the 5th chapter of Matthew, and the other is from the 18th chapter in Matthew. You have taken the passage from chapter 5, which does discuss “judges, officers, prison and fines” and then sliced it into chapter 18 which is about the interaction between Christians. Such a blatant abuse of the scriptures cannot be taken seriously.

Judgement aside, I take whatever BJ offers without deferring to outside opinion about the validity of doing so.

In that, are you arguing that BJ was not talking to his followers regarding the fifth chapter, but to some other aspect of society?

If not, then I wonder why it is you felt you needed to make the judgement that I am blatantly misusing scripture and whether you might consider withdrawing the comment.

I cannot currently think of a way that, in practice, a person could deny the authority of the state. Obviously they could speak the words, but those words would have no practical effect if the state decided to exert its authority.

Do you believe that if the state using its authority to exert its judgment against those who do not agree with its authority, that in doing so, it is right?

iow - do you believe that authority can only be right and as such, even those who argue that an authority isn't right, [and perhaps even suffer any penalty incurred through protest], make that authority right, because protests have 'no practical effect?'

imow - Do you believe that "might is right" and there is no point in arguing against it?

[bjs1]

Judgement aside, I take whatever BJ offers without deferring to outside opinion about the validity of doing so.

In this case, you have not taken what Jesus offered at all.

In that, are you arguing that BJ was not talking to his followers regarding the fifth chapter, but to some other aspect of society?

In chapter 18 Jesus explicitly stated he was talking about the authority of “the church.” In chapter 5 he spoke of the authority of the “judge” and “officer.” One is about how Christian interact with each other; the other is about how Christian interact with people in general. The context, timing, setting, and texts themselves are entirely separate.

If not, then I wonder why it is you felt you needed to make the judgement that I am blatantly misusing scripture and whether you might consider withdrawing the comment.

I do not withdraw my comment. The abuse of scripture in post 11 is blatant and irredeemable

I cannot currently think of a way that, in practice, a person could deny the authority of the state. Obviously they could speak the words, but those words would have no practical effect if the state decided to exert its authority.

Do you believe that if the state using its authority to exert its judgment against those who do not agree with its authority, that in doing so, it is right?

iow - do you believe that authority can only be right and as such, even those who argue that an authority isn't right, [and perhaps even suffer any penalty incurred through protest], make that authority right, because protests have 'no practical effect?'

imow - Do you believe that "might is right" and there is no point in arguing against it?

It depends what you mean. A person can say he denies the authority of the state all he wants with no ramifications, but he will still have to live within that authority. A person who commits murder may deny the authority of the state all he wishes, but it will not protect him from that authority. Might does not make right, but there are circumstances where might is required to enforce what is right (such as preventing or punishing murder).

[William]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #14]

Judgement aside, I take whatever BJ offers without deferring to outside opinion about the validity of doing so.

In this case, you have not taken what Jesus offered at all.

Say's who, and why?

In chapter 5 he spoke of the authority of the “judge” and “officer.” One is about how Christian interact with each other; the other is about how Christian interact with people in general.

Are you arguing that BJ was saying there are two distinct ways in which his followers should behave, one in matters of church and the other in matters of state?

I do not withdraw my comment. The abuse of scripture in post 11 is blatant and irredeemable

Shouldn't you be taking this allege offence to me privately, re BJ's instructions? Furthermore, should you be expressing your case with words of condemnation in a public forum?

It depends what you mean. A person can say he denies the authority of the state all he wants with no ramifications, but he will still have to live within that authority. A person who commits murder may deny the authority of the state all he wishes, but it will not protect him from that authority. Might does not make right, but there are circumstances where might is required to enforce what is right (such as preventing or punishing murder).

What about in the case of the alleged trails of BJ?

[Miles]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #12]

Who is BJ?

Shorthand for "biblical Jesus" - My bad for not making that clear in my post.

Just to interrupt for a second if I may. You said that "BJ" stands for "biblical Jesus." Q: Is this Jesus any different from the plain old "Jesus" most of us are familiar with? If so, how so? I guess what puzzles me is the possibility there's something such as an unbiblical Jesus.

Thanks.

Miles



.

[William]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #12]

Who is BJ?

Shorthand for "biblical Jesus" - My bad for not making that clear in my post.

Just to interrupt for a second if I may. You said that "BJ" stands for "biblical Jesus." Q: Is this Jesus any different from the plain old "Jesus" most of us are familiar with? If so, how so? I guess what puzzles me is the possibility there's something such as an unbiblical Jesus.

Thanks.

Miles

.

I use it in relation to the idea of Historical Jesus. [HJ] so as not to confuse the two...

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you arguing that [Jesus] was saying there are two distinct ways in which his followers should behave, one in matters of church and the other in matters of state?

Matthew 5 is part of the sermon on the mount. Jesus grew principles from the Jewish Temple based system that was in operation at the time of speaking

Matthew 18 was part of his instruction to his disciples as to how they should hands matters in his "church".

[William]

Are you arguing that BJ was saying there are two distinct ways in which his followers should behave, one in matters of church and the other in matters of state?

Matthew 5 is part of the sermon on the mount. Jesus grew principles from the Jewish Temple based system that was in operation at the time of speaking

What I find interesting is how BJ seems well versed in Personality Profiling, and can deliver a message to everyone and certain specific personality types, all at the same time.

Matthew 18 was part of his instruction to his disciples as to how they should hands matters in his "church".

These comments in of of themselves do not answer the question.

Q: Are you arguing that BJ was saying there are two distinct ways in which his followers should behave, one in matters of church and the other in matters of state?

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you arguing that BJ was saying there are two distinct ways in which his followers should behave, one in matters of church and the other in matters of state?

Matthew 5 is part of the sermon on the mount. Jesus grew principles from the Jewish Temple based system that was in operation at the time of speaking

What I find interesting is how BJ seems well versed in Personality Profiling, and can deliver a message to everyone and certain specific personality types, all at the same time.

Matthew 18 was part of his instruction to his disciples as to how they should hands matters in his "church".

These comments in of of themselves do not answer the question.

Q: Are you arguing that BJ was saying there are two distinct ways in which his followers should behave, one in matters of church and the other in matters of state?

No, because Jesus always encouraged his listeners to act honestly and wisely. In Matthew 5 : recognise that sacrifice is valueless to God if you neglect human relationships. In Matthew 18: seek to establish peace (human relationships) wherever possible. The situations may varey, the authorities may change but the act honestly and wisely (what Jesus was saying his disciples should do) should remain constant.