Don't let hypocritical Christians ruin your li...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
"There is, then, [b]now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit; for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death" (Romans 8:1-2).

Put that right alongside John 3:18:

"He who is believing in him is not judged, but he ...[text shortened]... at at Jerusalem)
5. right, justice

(Source = crosswalk.com)[/b]

Just a quick note: “Judgment” is a word with multiple uses, depending on context of course. I judge someone as guilty or innocent, as happy or sad, as well or ill, etc. Even the meanings you listed are variable (though certainly related): e.g., even after separating/selecting, one might not feel comfortable reaching a final opinion... To sort that all out, I would have to do a compete search of the usages of krisis in the texts—a good exercise, perhaps, but one that will take more time than I have at the moment.

A physician uses judgment when making a diagnosis. Again, how judgment is seen to apply may depend on whether ones views salvation more in terms of healing (which seems to be the most prominent view both in the early church and in the Eastern Orthodox churches) or in terms of jurisprudence. I think both views can be found within the NT texts.

As I said, I’m just thinking out loud about it... If I become prepared to suggest an argument, I’m sure you’ll be there..🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Just a quick note: “Judgment” is a word with multiple uses, depending on context of course. I judge someone as guilty or innocent, as happy or sad, as well or ill, etc. Even the meanings you listed are variable (though certainly related): e.g., even after separating/selecting, one might not feel comfortable reaching a final opinion... To sort that all ou ...[text shortened]... out loud about it... If I become prepared to suggest an argument, I’m sure you’ll be there..🙂

Try not to make it too complicated. I'm a simple-minded man. I was led to believe the NT was written in common Greek, for common men. 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Try not to make it too complicated. I'm a simple-minded man. I was led to believe the NT was written in common Greek, for common men. 🙂

I do not think you are simple-minded! 🙂 We have had some sharp words in disagreement, and we have what is probably a fundamental impasse on how we view the Bible. But simple-minded, I do not think you are...

I recall that Palynka—who is multilingual—said something the other day about the first time he realized he was actually thinking in another language. He said that what really impacted him was that he discovered that thinking in a different language—without any mental translation—changed his perspective while he was doing it. I’m not there; other languages come hard to me, and it takes a lot of time.

For me, there are, however, a few words that I can no longer translate from the original language, be it Hebrew or Greek. Logos is one of them; and Palynka is right about the shift in thinking and perspective. I was just reading a philosopher who wrote an introduction to a book on Stoic philosophy: he claims that logos is virtually untranslatable because of the richness of its multi-layered meanings. A native Greek listener hears more than one layer at once, even if there is some narrowing due to context.

If we lose that original language, then I think we lose something of what the original listeners/readers heard, and how they understood it. And that is why I try to work, as best I can (and hopefully will become better), with the original languages, with all the tools at my disposal—and why I explore the early church writers and the Greek Orthodox writers of today. If their soteriology is different from what I grew up with, then I want to know why.

The Stoics seem occasionally to speak of logos in personal terms, but it seems just to be a manner of speaking and nothing more. Christian theology personalizes the logos in Jesus as the Christ. The author of the Gospel of John weaves this powerfully in chapter 1:1-18. I’m not sure how common his Greek is—it is certainly koine and not classical. But, according to the writer of the introduction to this gospel in one Bible I have—

“It uses language that is rich in symbolism and subtle shades of meaning. Irony and paradox are common in John; people often misunderstand what Jesus says, but in a way that opens up new levels of meaning.” (David K. Rensberger in The Harper-Collins Study Bible.)

Originally posted by vistesd
I do not think you are simple-minded! 🙂 We have had some sharp words in disagreement, and we have what is probably a fundamental impasse on how we view the Bible. But simple-minded, I do not think you are...

I recall that Palynka—who is multilingual—said something the other day about the first time he realized he was actually thinking in anothe ...[text shortened]... pens up new levels of meaning.” (David K. Rensberger in The Harper-Collins Study Bible.)

Logos is a good one indeed. Very rich. My 'argument' is, no matter how rich the language, there must be a Reality which props it up. Logos refers to a Reality, personal and divine, and because it does so the word itself, whether completely understood or not, is infused with Its meaning. At what point do we leave the words on the page behind and actually interact with the Reality Itself (Himself)? (I'm not referring here to interacting with the said Reality conceptually, but by direct experience/knowledge.)

This is what, I believe, Paul talks about when he says the things of God are 'spiritually discerned.' "The natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know [them], because spiritually they are discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

This is what I've been attempting to communicate to you in my flawed, confrontational way: you can know everything you can about the Logos, but until you directly interact with the Reality referred to by the word Logos you don't really know the Logos at all. One must be Holy Spirit filled in order to delve into and see into the deep, deep riches of God's written word; every other means of discovering knowledge about the Logos is doomed to superficiality.

Originally posted by vistesd
I do not think you are simple-minded! 🙂 We have had some sharp words in disagreement, and we have what is probably a fundamental impasse on how we view the Bible. But simple-minded, I do not think you are...

I recall that Palynka—who is multilingual—said something the other day about the first time he realized he was actually thinking in anothe ...[text shortened]... pens up new levels of meaning.” (David K. Rensberger in The Harper-Collins Study Bible.)

Surely you also notice what I'm insinuating, that God's way of salvation is meant to be clear to simple-minded people. The Good News of the Gospel is easily understood by the layman, as is only becoming of a gracious God. Of course, that is not to say an infinite degree of nuance may be procured from the texts, but the essential Gospel is 'plain' for all to see.