Replies

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over."

That's the NIV translation which has the problems I mentioned in my earlier post. The Byzantine textform, the dominant text of historic Christianity, has the "against you," making personal offense a necessary feature of the Matthew 18 protocol: Here's the Greek, with the "against you" in bold and underlined:

Matthew 18:15 Ἐὰν δὲ ἁμαρτήσῃ εἰς σὲ ὁ ἀδελφός σου, ὕπαγε καὶ ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ μόνου. Ἐάν σου ἀκούσῃ, ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου·

SR: It’s only slander if it’s false. Truth is an absolute defense.>>>>>>>>

RW: That is true legally, but even if it is the truth and your sole intent is to defame some one the only difference is that it is legal in this country.

It's true morally, too. If a neighbor comes up to me and says, "your other next door neighbor is a pedophile," is that defamation? Not if it's true. It's being a good neighbor. Defamation as a false accusation is recognized world wide (See Wikipedia on global use of defamation). The same Wikipedia article defines defamation as::

"the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation."

Furthermore, it is well known that the Biblical law of protecting an individual's reputation from false accusation (Exodus 20:16) is the basis of defamation in common law jurisdictions (See this Wikipedia article for a list of common law jurisdictions - it may surprise you). In either case, falsity is an essential element of the offense. If you are thinking of some other offense, I am not aware of any name for the "offense" of "confronting someone in public for doing a real public harm."

The Matthew 18 protocol is there to protect private individuals from being harmed by the public airing of private matters. But if someone is drawing the whole congregation into error, the whole congregation needs to be part of the process of correction.

Peace,

SR

Here’s the Greek, with the “against you” in bold and underlined:

Ok, I am not going to pretend to know half as much as you do on the law or the technical definitions.

And I do believe the KJV is good authority and most likely all around the best

But I do not believe the ;against you; is confining it to a private matter.

Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Suppose you or I was accused in the place of Peter and was not even aware of doing anything wrong? gee, don`t you wish the accusers had of come to you first and at least give you a chance to repent or explain or deny their claim?

The first time I ever set foot inside a Church I was about 14 or 15 years old, I went because a friend of mine invited me.

I was a little late and there was no room to sit next to my friend and the sermon was already going so I sit in an empty seat a little ways away.

He heard me walking in and turned around and grinned like a possum eating a lemon and I grinned back.

That was a bad mistake, an elder or deacon or what ever he was came and grabbed me after the sermon and after pulling me to a standing position proceeded to tell me just what kind of a rotten person I was for laughing at God as the whole congregation watched and wondered what I had done.

What did I do wrong? I was only acknowledging my friends acknowledgement that I had got there, and I did not make a sound, I had always believed in God and would never laugh at him.

I had the hell scared out of me, I was saved by fear as Jude said Jude 1
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.

But did it save me? No.

I have no doubt this great man of God would swear that since it was a public matter that he was doing the right thing and according to you he was, even though he was the only one who saw me commit the terrible abomination.

It was about 63 years ago and I would not read the Bible or even consider going to Church for another 20 years.

I believe when Jesus said ;against you; he was addressing both private and public matters.

To apply the letter of law on two words of scripture when it does not agree with many of the things Jesus taught is doing just the same as the scribes and Pharisees did.

The Pauline crowd will happily agree with Paul that Peter was wrong but deny that Paul could possibly be wrong about anything.

So I guess when they repeat that all scripture is given by God they must just mean Paul`s scripture.

2 Corinthian’s 13
1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

So where were the two or three witness’s in Galatians 2:11

Why was Paul establishing something with out any witnesses at all? and he did establish the word which all Pauline’s believe today.

You can say there is no contradiction, you can say anything.

You can accuse me of picking the Bible apart that is up to you but if you can not take both the unfavorable with the favorable what kind of faith is that?

If we can take peter the way he was accused of being then I see no reason Paul can not be taken the same way.

It’s true morally, too. If a neighbor comes up to me and says, “your other next door neighbor is a pedophile,”>>>>>>

But it is legalism and also comparing apples to oranges.

But if someone is drawing the whole congregation into error, the whole congregation needs to be part of the process of correction.>>>>>>>>>>>

Not until the matter is discussed and understood in private.