Why Theonomy?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I suggested nothing of the sort.

Turbo, when I give you the Hebrew meaning and you reject that meaning based on one possible English translation, that is precisely what you are suggesting.

I was giving an example of how sometimes the definitions of each individual word in a sentence are insufficient to understand the meaning of the idea being expressed. It's called a figure of speech.

Turbo, Hebrew idiom and English idiom do not translate directly.

First and foremost, do you have any training or study in Hebrew? If not, then we need to set this part of the conversation to the side--to be blunt, I'm not going to argue Hebrew with someone who does not know enough to know when they're making an error. If you do have some training in Hebrew, then we can continue.

Why is it that in the case where the betrothed virgin is raped, God used words like "forced" and "cried out", but those terms are absent in the case of the unbetrothed virgin?

Why is it that God didn't write the passage in English?

Is that what you think I was asking?

The question is satirical, but meant to illustrate a point: questions such as "why didn't X do Y" are useless in historical debate. Turbo, the authors of Deuteronomy wrote the text as they did--it is not your job, or my job, to twist the text to our preferred meaning, but to understand what the text actually means.

I'm not at all concerned with whether or not you agree with it, Turbo. The Mosaic Law was not made for our twenty-first century sensibilities.

Nor was it made to punish the innocent and reward the guilty.

There's a problem with that, Turbo--your understanding of "innocent" and "guilty" are not the same as the authors of the text.
* If you have any Hebrew, look at the Talmud (start with the Tractate Kethuboth), then at Maimonides.
* If you don't have any Hebrew, start with a reputable Bible commentary: Matthew Henry, or Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown are good places to start.

Do your own research, Turbo, but don't pull an idle explanation out of your ear.

Not so. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 can be applied to unbetrothed virgins as well.

Turbo, if you honestly believe that, then I am forced to one of two conclusions:
1: that you do not know Hebrew, and do not know anything Jewish culture of the time, OR;
2: that you are aware that the passage applies to rape of an unbethrothed woman, but are playing devil's advocate and making sure I can argue my point.

Have you checked any of the sources I mentioned in previous posts? Have you checked with a Rabbi? For crying out loud, have you gone to your local Bible college to talk to one of the professors there? Moody and Hiles-Anderson aren't that far away (depending on where in Michigan you are), and both are available by e-mail if telephone calls are a problem.

Turbo, I'm not asking you to take my word for the assertion: all I'm asking is that you do the research yourself into what the Bible really says, rather than vain imaginations about what you want it to say.

 

[Jefferson]

Justin, you wrote:

Hmmm. It's a bit of an iffy argument, but as this is a specific argument of Christian doctrine (one that not all Christians agree on), I'm going to take a pass on this.

Are you sure you want to do this? You would be conceding to one of my main points.

I stated that the “one” who uses the law in First Timothy 1:8 is a believer. But verse 9 says he is not supposed to use the law for himself (“the law is not made for a righteous person”). So who is the Christian commanded to use the law for? It’s obvious by the context that the Christian is commanded to use the law for the unbeliever.

After clarifying the side issue of my doctrine of Christians and “sin” in their lives you are responding to this central issue of mine with “I’m going to take a pass on this.” Are you sure you want to pass on one of my central arguments?

Not at all, nor is that my claim. If you choose to vote for candidates who agree with your views on morality, that’s your preference.

But what about Christian congressmen? What standard should they use when deciding what laws are moral and what laws are immoral, someone else’s standard other than their own Bible-based standard?

Splendid, but completely off-topic. I never argued that your claim was a priori--I was refuting your claim that my rejection of the Bible was "a blind leap of faith."

You may be able to provide evidence that you believe is compelling to you but that is a far thing from proof. Without proof you ultimately have to take a blind leap of faith. It may be faith based on evidence but it is still faith nevertheless. It’s the same with my faith. It’s faith based on evidence.

So you assert--yet offer no proof. I have offered proof that the phrase is not central to the meaning of the passage.

How do you reconcile the contradictory statements that the law was rendered idle but yet God will use this supposedly idle law to judge people? If it’s rendered idle then how can God use it on Judgement Day?

What, since you can't prove your point with Schiavo, you switch the basis of your argument?

My point is there is a huge percentage of the American public who think the murder of Terri Schaivo was a moral act. So much for the “We don’t need the Bible because everyone knows murder is wrong” argument.

There was never a historical period where the Mosaic Law was enforced

The Queen of Sheba was impressed by Solomon’s application of God’s law in First Kings 10:9 – “Blessed be the Lord your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness."

They may agree with the Bible--so did the laws of Hammurabi and pagan Rome. Now, unless you'd like to argue that these laws were "Biblical," you can see that your argument falls on it's face.

Laws can agree with the Bible and not be "Biblical." Heck, Wiccan Craft Law stands four-square against lying, murder, and adultery, yet I doubt you would consider them "Biblical."

They are biblical. God has given everyone a conscience. The agreement nonchristians have on moral issues with Christians is due to the conscience the Christian God has given them.

Jefferson, one who "rightly divides the word of God" will clearly see that the Law is one piece, and annot be separated into ceremonial and legal compartments. If this were not so, then homosexuality would not be classified with the same word--"abomination"--as eating shellfish.

That’s a logical fallacy. It’s like saying that because envy and murder are both sins and since murder is a crime, that therefore envy should be a crime also. Those 2 things can be separated.

Hogwash! Paul is speaking of how he will treat those who are disobedient in the Church of Corinth.

What disobedience in the church? 2 Cor. 19:4-5 speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?

Finally, consider First Cor. 6:2,3: “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? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?” Verse 2 shows that one day in the future we will judge nonchristians. Verse 3 implies therefore start practicing today.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Are you sure you want to do this? You would be conceding to one of my main points.

Jefferson, this point is that Christians are legally without sin in the eyes of God--that's a clearly stated doctrine. The part that is disputable is whether or not future acts that would have been sin were you not saved are counted as sin, legally speaking, in God's eyes. On the other hand, if you were arguing that Christians are not capable of wrongful acts, I would dispute you. (I know--you're not arguing that).

Under those definitions, whether or not you are considerd a "sinner" ... yes, I'm sure that I do not want to tangle with this issue: and if that requires conceding the point, then I certainly have no problems doing so.

I stated that the “one” who uses the law in First Timothy 1:8 is a believer. But verse 9 says he is not supposed to use the law for himself (“the law is not made for a righteous person”). So who is the Christian commanded to use the law for? It’s obvious by the context that the Christian is commanded to use the law for the unbeliever.

Only in the English. Let us look at 1 Tim 1:8 in the Greek again:

Oidamen de oti kalos 'o nomos ean tis auto nomimos cretai,

"We know that the law is beneficial if a certain one himself lawfully uses it.

It's a technically correct translation ... but it's not really precise enough in one word. The word "auto" means "himself", true enough ... but the case is dative, which means that this word is the recipient of the action of the sentence.

A more accurate translation would be:
"We know that the law is beneficial if a certain one lawfully uses it to or for himself,

After clarifying the side issue of my doctrine of Christians and “sin” in their lives you are responding to this central issue of mine with “I’m going to take a pass on this.” Are you sure you want to pass on one of my central arguments?

Yes, I am, because this issue is based on the 1 Tim translation--which as you see, is reflexive. "The law is beneficial if a man uses it for himself." This is not a command to impose or judge others by the law: this is a command to restrain oneself.

But what about Christian congressmen? What standard should they use when deciding what laws are moral and what laws are immoral, someone else’s standard other than their own Bible-based standard?

In America, a Congressman swears or affirms the following:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Part of "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" is to make and maintain laws within the bounds of the Constitution, and of US law. If a Christian feels that they cannot serve in that capacity and make laws based on the Constitution, then that Christian has taken the Oath of Office under false pretenses.

Splendid, but completely off-topic. I never argued that your claim was a priori--I was refuting your claim that my rejection of the Bible was "a blind leap of faith."

You may be able to provide evidence that you believe is compelling to you but that is a far thing from proof. Without proof you ultimately have to take a blind leap of faith. It may be faith based on evidence but it is still faith nevertheless. It’s the same with my faith. It’s faith based on evidence.

Jefferson, your own scriptures deny this definition of faith (Heb 11:1). Please do not take me for a fool--I've tried that in the past, and found it to be a rather uncomfortable circumstance.

How do you reconcile the contradictory statements that the law was rendered idle but yet God will use this supposedly idle law to judge people? If it’s rendered idle then how can God use it on Judgement Day?

How do I reconcile it? Jefferson, I don't. Remember, I hold that your Bible is the work of men, not of God.

My point is there is a huge percentage of the American public who think the murder of Terri Schaivo was a moral act. So much for the “We don’t need the Bible because everyone knows murder is wrong” argument.

That's because that portion of the population does not believe that Terri Schiavo's death was murder. So much for "We need the Bible because everyone knows that abortion and end of life are murder." You Christians can't even get that straight amongst yourselves, and you want to impose your views on Christian and non-Christian alike?

The Queen of Sheba was impressed by Solomon’s application of God’s law in First Kings 10:9 – “Blessed be the Lord your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness."

Jefferson, I've already stated that the Bible is not historically accurate. It's ... difficult in the extreme to expect a debate opponent to accept an inaccurate source as "historical proof."

They are biblical. God has given everyone a conscience. The agreement nonchristians have on moral issues with Christians is due to the conscience the Christian God has given them.

OK, so in that instance, every law that agrees with the Bible--no matter if it came first,m or came from a culture that has never read a Bible--is a Biblical law? But what of those cultures whose laws do not agree? Oh, I forgot--those are cultures where "God has given them over to their sinful desires."

Jefferson, that's not evidence of anything but a false dilemma in your doctrine. "Mans laws agree with Gods laws because God wrote those laws on their conscience. And when those laws don't agree, man's laws are because of their sinful desires."

Jefferson, one who "rightly divides the word of God" will clearly see that the Law is one piece, and annot be separated into ceremonial and legal compartments. If this were not so, then homosexuality would not be classified with the same word--"abomination"--as eating shellfish.

That’s a logical fallacy. It’s like saying that because envy and murder are both sins and since murder is a crime, that therefore envy should be a crime also. Those 2 things can be separated.

Oh, they certainly can be separated--indeed, one could choose to separate the "not" from the phrase "thou shalt not." But such separations are modern doctrines--they are not provenanced in scripture.

What disobedience in the church? 2 Cor. 19:4-5 speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?

First and foremost, be careful of the typos--that's the second time you've cited that passage as "2 Cor 19." (Yeah, I know, the keys are too close together ... I do it to. )

Secondly, Paul is speaking of coming into the church at Corinth like a man attacking the city. He will come into the church and demolish the strongholds of their false doctrine and the arguments and pretentions of their false prde, and establish their obedience as a conqueror puts down rebellion. Having done so, he will then punish those who set up the false doctrines, as the conqueror--now in control of the rebelling city--punished those who rebelled against him.

READ THE PASSAGE, Jefferson--it's all right there in black and white. This is Paul's warning to the church at Corinth: "Please straighten up your behavior before I get there, because I would rather be meek with you when I come. But if I have to be bold when I arrive, I will wipe away every defense that you have."

Finally, consider First Cor. 6:2,3: “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? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?” Verse 2 shows that one day in the future we will judge nonchristians. Verse 3 implies therefore start practicing today.

Jefferson, that has got to be the single most dishonest attempt at "exegesis" I've seen on this forum. Read the context: Paul is trying to get the Corinthians to stop dragging matters between brethren to the city courts. Verse 4 clearly states that the matters Christians are judging are matters between Christians.

Jefferson, in that last quoted passage, you've shifted from questionable logic to outright dishonesty. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: kindly do not make the mistake of taking me for a fool.

 

[Irenaeus]

Proportional reciprocity

Proportional reciprocity

OK, let's open this up to everyone.

What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?

Justin

My take on this question is that the law is force, and thus justice is law applied to arrest unlawful force.

If my freedom to swing my fist ends just before it contacts your nose, then when my fist exceeds my freedom and contacts your nose, you're entitled to justice. In other words, I've unleashed unlawful force which must be arrested by lawful force, i.e. the law prohibiting assault and battery. Otherwise the force I've set in motion remains in motion, unarrested, and justice is not served.

Without citing the verses, I can assure you that the Bible spells this formula out time and again. And not surprisingly, this formula remains the foundation of modern law in most nations. The Bible provides the design specifications for much of what transpires in this life. You'd be surprised.

 

[Granite]

My take on this question is that the law is force, and thus justice is law applied to arrest unlawful force.

If my freedom to swing my fist ends just before it contacts your nose, then when my fist exceeds my freedom and contacts your nose, you're entitled to justice. In other words, I've unleashed unlawful force which must be arrested by lawful force, i.e. the law prohibiting assault and battery. Otherwise the force I've set in motion remains in motion, unarrested, and justice is not served.

Without citing the verses, I can assure you that the Bible spells this formula out time and again. And not surprisingly, this formula remains the foundation of modern law in most nations. The Bible provides the design specifications for much of what transpires in this life. You'd be surprised.

Theocratic government isn't necessary to provide justice and prevent misuse of force.

 

[Jefferson]

Justin:

Regarding First Tim. 1:8 you wrote:

A more accurate translation would be:
"We know that the law is beneficial if a certain one lawfully uses it to or for himself

There is a reason why no translation agrees with you on this verse. The verse would be self-contradictory if it read according to your wording. It would read, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully to himself; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly”

The verse would be saying that a Christian is only supposed to use the law upon himself because the law is not made for Christians but for nonchristians. Huh? Is it possible for a single sentence to be more self-contradictory?

In America, a Congressman swears or affirms the following:

Quote:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Part of "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" is to make and maintain laws within the bounds of the Constitution, and of US law. If a Christian feels that they cannot serve in that capacity and make laws based on the Constitution, then that Christian has taken the Oath of Office under false pretenses.

“Within the bounds of the Constitution” the U.S. used to punish adultery and homosexuality as crimes. So how would it suddenly be outside the bounds of the Constitution for a Christian congressman to propose the recriminalization of those sins today?

Quote:
How do you reconcile the contradictory statements that the law was rendered idle but yet God will use this supposedly idle law to judge people? If it’s rendered idle then how can God use it on Judgement Day?


How do I reconcile it? Jefferson, I don't. Remember, I hold that your Bible is the work of men, not of God.

The fact that you hold the Bible to be the work of men is irrelevent to the subject of this thread. In your very first post you asked, “What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?” So when someone directly answers your question by showing you the Biblical justification your response is, “So what? I hold the Bible to be the work of men.” Why ask the question, Justin, if you’re going to ignore the answer?

Quote:
The Queen of Sheba was impressed by Solomon’s application of God’s law in First Kings 10:9 – “Blessed be the Lord your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness."


Jefferson, I've already stated that the Bible is not historically accurate. It's ... difficult in the extreme to expect a debate opponent to accept an inaccurate source as "historical proof."

Here we go again: The fact that you believe the Bible to be historically inaccurate is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. In your very first post you asked, “What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?” So when someone directly answers your question by showing you the Biblical justification your response is, “So what? I hold the Bible to be historically innacurate.” Why ask the question, Justin, if you’re going to ignore the answer?

OK, so in that instance, every law that agrees with the Bible--no matter if it came first,m or came from a culture that has never read a Bible--is a Biblical law? But what of those cultures whose laws do not agree? Oh, I forgot--those are cultures where "God has given them over to their sinful desires."

Jefferson, that's not evidence of anything but a false dilemma in your doctrine. "Mans laws agree with Gods laws because God wrote those laws on their conscience. And when those laws don't agree, man's laws are because of their sinful desires."

Yes. That is exactly what Romans 2:14-15 says - “for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them”

Quote:
What disobedience in the church? 2 Cor. 10:4-5 [thanks for the typo correction] speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?


Paul is speaking of coming into the church at Corinth like a man attacking the city. He will come into the church and demolish the strongholds of their false doctrine and the arguments and pretentions of their false prde, and establish their obedience as a conqueror puts down rebellion. Having done so, he will then punish those who set up the false doctrines, as the conqueror--now in control of the rebelling city--punished those who rebelled against him.

READ THE PASSAGE, Jefferson--it's all right there in black and white. This is Paul's warning to the church at Corinth: "Please straighten up your behavior before I get there, because I would rather be meek with you when I come. But if I have to be bold when I arrive, I will wipe away every defense that you have."

Read BOTH Corinthian letters, Justin – it’s all right there in black and white. Paul’s attitude that you summarized was from FIRST Corinthians. But the passage we are discussing is in SECOND Corinthians. And Paul summarized his new attitude towards the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 7:9-11 - “Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter.”

Therefore, my question still stands: “WHAT disobedience in the Church? 2 Cor. 10:4-5 speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?

Quote:
Finally, consider First Cor. 6:2,3: “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? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?” Verse 2 shows that one day in the future we will judge nonchristians. Verse 3 implies therefore start practicing today.


Jefferson, that has got to be the single most dishonest attempt at "exegesis" I've seen on this forum. Read the context: Paul is trying to get the Corinthians to stop dragging matters between brethren to the city courts. Verse 4 clearly states that the matters Christians are judging are matters between Christians.

Read the context Justin. Verse 2 and 3 go together. And in verse 2 Paul discusses Christians judging “the world” in the future. “The world” is code for “nonchristians.” Then in the very next verse he asks how much more should we be judging in this present life? Judging what in this present life? Judging “the world.” How else could the flow of the paragraph be interpreted?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Justin:

There is a reason why no translation agrees with you on this verse. The verse would be self-contradictory if it read according to your wording. It would read, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully to himself; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly”

Jefferson, are you a "righteous person" in and of yourself? No--according to your scriptures, you are not. Any righteousness you have is a gift of God ... and by your scriptures, the law was made for you.

“Within the bounds of the Constitution” the U.S. used to punish adultery and homosexuality as crimes. So how would it suddenly be outside the bounds of the Constitution for a Christian congressman to propose the recriminalization of those sins today?

Because it was within the bounds of the US Constitution that sodomy laws were declared illegal. As far as adultery ... heck, Jefferson, if you've got a problem with adultery, clean up the Church before you start wanting to clean up the nation!

The fact that you hold the Bible to be the work of men is irrelevent to the subject of this thread. In your very first post you asked, “What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?” So when someone directly answers your question by showing you the Biblical justification your response is, “So what? I hold the Bible to be the work of men.” Why ask the question, Justin, if you’re going to ignore the answer?

Because you asked me "how do you reconcile the statement." I'm not "ignoring" your answer--but at the same time, I'm not justifying your extra-biblical doctrines, nor am I going to do the legwork to justify the gyrations you're putting the Bible through.

Therefore, my question still stands: “WHAT disobedience in the Church? 2 Cor. 10:4-5 speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?

Look at verses 1-2

1 Now I, Paul, myself am pleading with you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ--who in presence am lowly among you, but being absent am bold toward you. 2 But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.​

This passage is directed to those who do not accept Paul's authority. Read the rest of 2 Cor 10--there are still people within the Corinthian church who are attempting to reject Paul's teachincs, "For his letters," they say, "are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." (v 10)

Read the context Justin. Verse 2 and 3 go together. And in verse 2 Paul discusses Christians judging “the world” in the future. “The world” is code for “nonchristians.” Then in the very next verse he asks how much more should we be judging in this present life? Judging what in this present life? Judging “the world.” How else could the flow of the paragraph be interpreted?

By looking back at verse 1.

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?​

The entire passage here is about judging issues between the brethren.

You speak of Christians "judging the world," and boast of your own involvement as the "Event Staff" on that day, yet you also try to speak of a modern, temporal judgement, using the same passage to justify both teachings?

Enough! Jefferson, your reading are dishonest, yet you are so persuaded in your mind that they are "correct" that even the evidence of Scripture itself does not persuade you. I can--and have--explained these and other passages to you, yet you continue in your intransigence.

I'm really not interested in hearing any more of your excuses and logical gyrations, Jefferson.

Edited to add: If you have anything substantive to add to the conversation, then I await your contributions. But kindly do not trouble this thread with any more half-wit eisegesis. Indeed, I would take it as a great favor of you would not bother with a response intil you do the following:
1: Verify my OT translation with a reputable Hebrew professor,
2: Verify my NT translations with a reputable Greek professor.

And lest you ask, I have already done so.

 

[Jefferson]

Justin, you wrote:

Jefferson, are you a "righteous person" in and of yourself? No--according to your scriptures, you are not. Any righteousness you have is a gift of God ... and by your scriptures, the law was made for you.

So you're saying that when the verse says, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly...” - you're saying that "the righteous man" and the lawless, disobedient and ungodly are one and the same person? That is absolutely absurd. The passage is clearly contrasting 2 distinct classes of people in the eyes of God.

...it was within the bounds of the US Constitution that sodomy laws were declared illegal.

And it would also be within the bounds of the US Constitution if sodomy laws become enforced once again like they used to be.

As far as adultery ... heck, Jefferson, if you've got a problem with adultery, clean up the Church before you start wanting to clean up the nation!

I'm in favor of doing both simultaneously.

I'm not "ignoring" your answer--but at the same time, I'm not justifying your extra-biblical doctrines, nor am I going to do the legwork to justify the gyrations you're putting the Bible through.

Then how 'bout just simply answering a simple question? If God's Law is rendered idle then how can God use it on Judgement Day? Justin, you can either answer a simple question or you can be an intellectual coward. The choice is yours.

This passage [2 Cor. 10] is directed to those who do not accept Paul's authority.

Debatable, especially in light of the fact that since the readers of Paul's epistle had already repented (2 Cor. 7:11) then who's obedience is Paul waiting for to become complete? Those who were rejecting Paul's authority? Fine. Then the verse says that once the people who were rejecting Paul's authority had their obedience "become complete" Paul would then be ready to "judge all unrighteousness" ... upon whom? The only group left is unbelievers.

You speak of Christians "judging the world," and boast of your own involvement as the "Event Staff" on that day, yet you also try to speak of a modern, temporal judgement, using the same passage to justify both teachings?

Yes, because the passage itself talks about both judgements. Verse 2 mentions the future when Christians will "judge the world" and verse 3 says, "How much MORE [not "less" Justin], things that pertain to this life."

I would take it as a great favor of you would not bother with a response intil you do the following:
1: Verify my OT translation with a reputable Hebrew professor,
2: Verify my NT translations with a reputable Greek professor.

You mean a liberal, God-hating professor? No thanks. I checked your translations with translator Jay P. Green. See http://www.chrlitworld.com/bookSGP/literal.htm Your translations didn't hold water.