Question about Acts 2:38: What about the martyrs?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by houston

You have completely lost it. Do you know how to exegete? Do you know what context is? Jesus wasn't saying not to judge. He follows up with "judge righteous judgment."

Wow talk about taking out of context.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

There is no way these two passages should be stitched together to give credence for one to judge one another.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Wow talk about taking out of context.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

There is no way these two passages should be stitched together to give credence for one to judge one another.

Houston is correct.

If we are to judge righteous judgment, then that means we are to judge. Just righteously, and not unrighetously.

[shazeep]

well, be prepared to be "righteously judged," then...think I'll stick with this one, thanks.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Wow talk about taking out of context.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

There is no way these two passages should be stitched together to give credence for one to judge one another.

nice outfit, btw, Mike--you were at a funeral, i take it...

"8Let your garments be always white..."

see that it is natural to want to be in the position of "judge," and your interpretation is self serving. Righteous judgement is judging for yourself, not others.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, be prepared to be "righteously judged," then...think I'll stick with this one, thanks.
nice outfit, btw, Mike--you were at a funeral, i take it...

"8Let your garments be always white..."

see that it is natural to want to be in the position of "judge," and your interpretation is self serving. Righteous judgement is judging for yourself, not others.

S, you've proved you lie, and you've shown contempt at the thought of the cross saving us alone, and your words here just strengthen your rep.

[shazeep]

if you say so. ok now, just imagine how the Muslims you deem "lost" feel when you tacitly approve tearing their country apart.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

if you say so. ok now, just imagine how the Muslims you deem "lost" feel when you tacitly approve tearing their country apart.

See? You lie. I never said anything about approving of tearing their country up.

Typical.

[shazeep]

hence the "tacitly," Mike.

so, you might not see how the one leads to the other, but that does not mean it does not.
All one need do is put the two side-by-side:

"Could a generalized belief by a nation, that those of another nation are 'lost,' be granting tacit approval of aggression by the first nation against the second?"

duh

[mfblume]

Those who don't believe Jesus bid us to judge anyone, please explain what He meant when he said, "judge righteous judgment." Can people even read any more?

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

[Esaias]

The guy judging us as lost because we judge someone as lost... ha too funny.

Shaz, still repeating his vapid claims as if merely repeating something proves it true. Never mind I utterly demolished his position with a simple syllogism. So yeah, Shaz, I actually did PROVE all Muslims are lost.

Just because you aren't convinced of reality doesn't mean reality is anything other than what is.

It's amazing how people are able to tie their shoes in the morning let alone get online and play Pontifex Rex on the intardnets.

Hey Shaz, do tell, what other motes are in our eyes that you can pluck out so we can see better?

lol

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

hence the "tacitly," Mike.

so, you might not see how the one leads to the other, but that does not mean it does not.
All one need do is put the two side-by-side:

"Could a generalized belief by a nation, that those of another nation are 'lost,' be granting tacit approval of aggression by the first nation against the second?"

duh

Duh is right. (yawn) This, my dear little child, is called a "non sequitur". It means "I don't know a thing but I sho nuff do think myself king of the hill." We only use these little weapons of mass intellectual destruction when we think folks might not actually be buyin what we be sellin.

Thus endeth the lesson.