Can a Dead Body Sin?

[DHK]

Bob,
What part of: "ye do wrong" do you not understand.
When replying keep it in context of this verse:

1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,
What part of: "ye do wrong" do you not understand.
When replying keep it in context of this verse:

1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

If what you say is true, then how can I suffer the wrong, if we are talking about stealing? You tell me.

1Cr 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?

1Cr 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

Now tell me Sir, if I defrauded my brother, then how can I rather suffer to be defrauded?? If I lie to my brother, how can I, rather than go to law, suffer that I was the one who lied.

This is a simple scripture of Paul telling them not to take their brethren to law. That is all it is. If someone else stole, I can just suffer and be the one who did the stealing. Silly.

Instead of suffering defraud, he defrauded. How do you do that???
BBob,

 

[DHK]

If what you say is true, then how can I suffer the wrong, if we are talking about stealing? You tell me.

1Cr 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?

1Cr 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

Now tell me Sir, if I defrauded my brother, then how can I rather suffer to be defrauded?? If I lie to my brother, how can I, rather than go to law, suffer that I was the one who lied.

This is a simple scripture of Paul telling them not to take their brethren to law. That is all it is. If someone else stole, I can just suffer and be the one who did the stealing. Silly.

Instead of suffering defraud, he defrauded. How do you do that???
BBob,

There are two parties here Bob.
One person came, coveted another man's property and defrauded him of it. That of course is sin. He broke two "Big Ones" didn't he?

The second person wanted his revenge, and his property back. So he took the first man to court and sued him. Paul rebukes them both. He said to the second man that he should just suffer the loss instead of going to court. But before that he should try to settle the matter among themselves, among the Christian Community, not the civil authorities. It is wrong to take your brother to court. Believer could intervene on his behalf.

Paul was blunt concerning the other believer.
He had coveted and stolen another man's property.
You did wrong!
There was no question about it. He was rebuked thoroughly.

 

[Brother Bob]

There are two parties here Bob.
One person came, coveted another man's property and defrauded him of it. That of course is sin. He broke two "Big Ones" didn't he?

The second person wanted his revenge, and his property back. So he took the first man to court and sued him. Paul rebukes them both. He said to the second man that he should just suffer the loss instead of going to court. But before that he should try to settle the matter among themselves, among the Christian Community, not the civil authorities. It is wrong to take your brother to court. Believer could intervene on his behalf.

Paul was blunt concerning the other believer.
He had coveted and stolen another man's property.
You did wrong!
There was no question about it. He was rebuked thoroughly.

It does not say that at all DHK; Please read closely.

1Cr 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?

1Cr 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

Why do ye not suffer the defraud, instead of defrauding your brother.

In other words, why not let his brother "defraud" him, instead of "defrauding" his brother.

If it is stealing as you say. How can you not just let your brother do the stealing, instead of you stealing from him? Does not make sense at all DHK, unless its like the Greek and instead of defraud it is "loss", then you could lose to your brother, instead of forcing him to lose to you, over a desputed parcel of property.


In no way, does it say what you say it does.

Greek Defraud = Loss

How can both parties suffer "defraud"? They both are brothers, so how do they both suffer defraud? Paul is talking to both.

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You are only partly right.
1. They were not to go to the secular judges but to judge thing among themselves.
2. They were to suffer loss, if necessary. However:
3. They actually committed the sin of theft. They did defraud! or steal.

1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

The sin is committed, and Paul rebukes them for it.
They came. They looked. They coveted. And they stole.

HP: Brother Bob is correct on this one. :thumbs:

There is absolutely nothing in the text to support your conclusion DHK. Where does it say they looked, or coveted, or stole?? Again the issue of defrauding, according to the context, deals with the manner in which each sought justice, NOT in one or the other looking, stealing, or coveting. You are simply and plainly reading into the text something that is not stated or implied.

 

[DHK]

How can both parties suffer "defraud"? They both are brothers, so how do they both suffer defraud? Paul is talking to both.

BBob,

Perhaps the second brother was trying to take more than his share.
He, then, too would be guilty of defrauding his brother. The text doesn't say.
We have to take at face value what the text does say.
It does say that they were both in the wrong; they both sinned; and both sins were condemned by Paul even though they were believers. Those are the facts.

 

[DHK]

HP: Brother Bob is correct on this one. :thumbs:

There is absolutely nothing in the text to support your conclusion DHK. Where does it say they looked, or coveted, or stole?? Again the issue of defrauding, according to the context, deals with the manner in which each sought justice, NOT in one or the other looking, stealing, or coveting. You are simply and plainly reading into the text something that is not stated or implied.

It doesn't say Mother Goose laid the golden egg either.

So instead of being critical throughout, offer what does it say.
It does say: YOU ARE WRONG!

What were they wrong about? What sins had they committed?

 

[Brother Bob]

Perhaps the second brother was trying to take more than his share.
He, then, too would be guilty of defrauding his brother. The text doesn't say.
We have to take at face value what the text does say.
It does say that they were both in the wrong; they both sinned; and both sins were condemned by Paul even though they were believers. Those are the facts.

You come up with a second brother, when Paul was talking to a group. You make up stuff DHK; and add what ever makes your belief sound better.

Paul is talking to the whole group. Teaching them, not to take their brother to law, as I also do in our church. There is none taking their brother to law, I just let them know what scripture says about it and not to do it. So was Paul.


BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: How can both parties suffer "defraud"? They both are brothers, so how do they both suffer defraud? Paul is talking to both.

HP: I would answer that this way. DHK has charged me with slander on more than one occasion. In his own mind he must in fact see it this way. I on the other hand do not feel I have slandered him in any way. What we have here is a difference of opinion as to who is doing the defrauding. I may feel slandered by what I see as a false charge of slander.
So, the truth of the matter is either one party is wrong or both are wrong. In either case both sides can see it here and now as being defrauded by the other. What we can both hope for is that it time it will become apparent that neither has in reality defrauded the other as both may now believe to be the case, but rather it was a simple matter of poor judgment on both our parts.


Both parties may be suffering ‘defraud’ due to the exercising of poor judgment on both their parts. What might appear to be the case believed by both may in the end be seen as error on both parties in this finite world of imperfect or flawed assessment of the honest facts.

From the text in question there is no way to determine whether or not either has in reality defrauded the other apart from defrauding the other 'by the means by which' they sought to have a verdict rendered in their favor. Therein lies the defrauding of the other.

If DHK or myself would take the other to court over the matter, I believe we would be defrauding each other as Christian brothers. Again, even if both parties would be found innocent of wrongdoing by the court, we would still, as believers, be guilty of defrauding the other. The defrauding would be in the manner in which we would have choose to settle the dispute between believers.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: What were they wrong about? What sins had they committed?

HP: They were wrong about the manner in which they sought justice. As far as sin, I do not find that either necessarily were guilty of sin according to the text. Obviously, they were in a newly formed group of believers that was in dire need of instruction and correction. Once they had received light, it may of well been sin for them to act in the same manner.

One can do what in hind sight may be seen as wrong without committing sin the first time in their ignorance. Ac 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

 

[Amy.G]

Here is the verse in the NKJV:

1Cr 6:7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?




Here is the definition of "defraud" in the KJV.

King James Dictionary

DEFRAUD, v.t. L. To cheat.

1. To deprive of right, either by obtaining something by deception or artifice, or by taking something wrongfully without the knowledge or consent of the owner; to cheat; to cozen; followed by of before the thing taken; as, to defraud; a man of his right.


According to this verse, both parties are wrong. One is the offender, who has cheated his brother. The other is wrong for taking him to court before unbelievers.

They are to settle their dispute inside the church and not go outside to the unbelieving world.

If they cannot settle it between themselves, the one who was cheated is to let it go and suffer the wrong done to him.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: If they cannot settle it between themselves, the one who was cheated is to let it go and suffer the wrong done to him.

HP: Could not the very reason of this admonition be due to the clear possibility that the one that feels cheated may in the world to come, seeing things from a different perspective, find out that his judgment in the case was not right or in error? Are we not prone to seeing things from our own perspective at times which may be jaundiced due to our own self interest or lack of sound judgment?

Take our children for instance or our in-laws pitted against our own flesh and blood? Is it not easy to jump to false conclusions or be overly swayed in favor of those closest to us?

Maybe this is a bad example, but how many mothers of criminals find it easy to admit to the wrongdoing of their siblings?

Human nature sometimes blocks or hinders sound judgment. I believe I have witnessed that clearly on this list in the recent past. :tonofbricks:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: If they cannot settle it between themselves, the one who was cheated is to let it go and suffer the wrong done to him.

HP: I am honestly trying to do so Amy. :thumbsup:

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Could not the very reason of this admonition be due to the clear possibility that the one that feels cheated may in the world to come, seeing things from a different perspective, find out that his judgment in the case was not right or in error? Are we not prone to seeing things from our own perspective at times which may be jaundiced due to our own self interest or lack of sound judgment?

Take our children for instance or our in-laws pitted against our own flesh and blood? Is it not easy to jump to false conclusions or be overly swayed in favor of those closest to us?

Maybe this is a bad example, but how many mothers of criminals find it easy to admit to the wrongdoing of their siblings?

Human nature sometimes blocks or hinders sound judgment. I believe I have witnessed that clearly on this list in the recent past. :tonofbricks:

I have no idea what this has to do with Paul's rebuke. It is quite clear. One was cheating the other. The other took him to court. Paul says no, do not do that. Keep it between the brethren. He even explains that these unbelievers, the unrighteous (court/world, verse 1) are headed to hell (verse 9) and it is to their shame that they take their disputes to these outsiders.

Both parties are wrong.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: I am honestly trying to do so Amy. :thumbsup:

Well, just don't take me to court! :laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: It is quite clear. One was cheating the other.

HP: I must have missed proof of that in the text. Would you mind showing us where? The issue in the text did not deal with one or the other in honest reality being right or wrong, but rather was a clear admonishment with precise instructions to follow ‘regardless’ of who is or who is not right in their judgment of the others actions, conduct, or assessment of the facts. In essence it is saying, regardless of whether or not you feel you are the one being defrauded, or that if you feel you are the injured party, don’t go to court to settle a dispute between brethren. Suffer what in your eyes may be an injustice rather than to seek vindication or satisfaction in the eyes and courts of the world.

 

[DHK]

HP: I must have missed proof of that in the text. Would you mind showing us where? The issue in the text did not deal with one or the other in honest reality being right or wrong, but rather was a clear admonishment with precise instructions to follow ‘regardless’ of who is or who is not right in their judgment of the others actions, conduct, or assessment of the facts. In essence it is saying, regardless of whether or not you feel you are the one being defrauded, or that if you feel you are the injured party, don’t go to court to settle a dispute between brethren. Suffer what in your eyes may be an injustice rather than to seek vindication or satisfaction in the eyes and courts of the world.

Please follow the Scripture:

1 Corinthians 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
--There were two parties (or two brothers) each having something against the author. It was serious enough for them to go to civil court and either: one sue the other, or each sue each other. Either way there were actual lawsuits involved.

1 Corinthians 6:6 But brother prosecutes his suit with brother, and that before unbelievers. (Darby)
He is prosecuting his brother. Sound serious enough? And he is doing it before unbelievers instead of keeping it in the church.

1 Corinthians 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
--They were going to law, to the civil courts, one "against" the other.
Paul rebukes them for this.
It was wrong, first of all because it brought shame to the cause of Christ. For believers ought to be able to settle their own disputes, not the pagans.
It was wrong, second, because believers ought to be willing to suffer loss even if they are defrauded.
It was wrong, third, because the act of defrauding is wrong.
Defrauding could be cheating, or stealing one's property, or a wide variety of such offences. It was obvious that they had a feud against each other, and were taking each other to court. One cannot assume that it was a simple property line dispute.

1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
Paul is blunt.
You do wrong!
You defraud.

There could be a number of sins involved here: coveting, stealing, lying, cheating, anger, etc. If one really looks carefully into the passage it is likely that one might find perhaps nine of the Ten commandments broken, though it cannot be absolutely proven.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: I must have missed proof of that in the text. Would you mind showing us where? The issue in the text did not deal with one or the other in honest reality being right or wrong, but rather was a clear admonishment with precise instructions to follow ‘regardless’ of who is or who is not right in their judgment of the others actions, conduct, or assessment of the facts. In essence it is saying, regardless of whether or not you feel you are the one being defrauded, or that if you feel you are the injured party, don’t go to court to settle a dispute between brethren. Suffer what in your eyes may be an injustice rather than to seek vindication or satisfaction in the eyes and courts of the world.

Please show me where one brother or another "feels" wronged?

Here is the entire context.

1Cr 6:1 DARE any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?
1Cr 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Cr 6:3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?
1Cr 6:4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?
1Cr 6:5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?
1Cr 6:6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
1Cr 6:7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?
1Cr 6:8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!

This is about real wrongs done to another brother, not perceived wrongs.

They are not to allow themselves to be judged by unrighteous unbelievers, but to be judged by the brethren.


What is your point exactly anyway?



Edit: Sorry DHK. I think we were posting at the same time. I didn't intend to repeat what you just said.

 

[DHK]

Edit: Sorry DHK. I think we were posting at the same time. I didn't intend to repeat what you just said.

No problem. Good post Amy. :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

WOW!

This is the height of denial!

Paul concludes; 1Cr 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

BBob concludes; No defrauding going on. Both Christians think they are right.

HP concludes; No sin going on. If they are wrong they are ignorant of it and excused.

Amazing indeed.

Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

Amazing! We can do wrong and it is not called sin.Paul says ye defraud and BBob says ye don't defraud!

HP: I must have missed proof of that in the text. Would you mind showing us where? The issue in the text did not deal with one or the other in honest reality being right or wrong,

2Cr 7:12Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, [I did it] not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you.


Two individuals; his that done the wrong and his that suffered the wrong.

I gotta tell you, this thread probably ranks near the top of post I have seen on this board since I joined that a Christian would go to such great lengths, fanciful imaginations, as to make a bluntly clear text that negates their views go away.

I am truly astonished! It is sad.

....but rather was a clear admonishment with precise instructions to follow ‘regardless’ of who is or who is not right in their judgment of the others actions, conduct, or assessment of the facts. In essence it is saying, regardless of whether or not you feel you are the one being defrauded, or that if you feel you are the injured party, don’t go to court to settle a dispute between brethren. Suffer what in your eyes may be an injustice rather than to seek vindication or satisfaction in the eyes and courts of the world.

Good twist, but Paul said...Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.......Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, [I did it] not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong,

One did the wrong and one suffered the wrong. Neither should have taken the matter before the Gentile courts. This is the clear facts of this passage and you two are just making yourselves look bad by trying to make it into anything else. It looks like you two are committing the sin of "pride".

:jesus: