My Lord Jesus says:

Originally posted by blindfaith101
It is not a free license to judge. Christians are given the teachings of JESUS CHRIST on judgement. If we go outside those teachings we are in sin, and will face the same judgement, as those that unbelieve.

Okay, seriously. I also don't look at the verse a free license to judge. As bbarr has pointed out, the verse, on its own, is ambiguous in meaning.

Originally posted by bbarr
Is this the Christian version of Tourette's syndrome? In response to Darvlay's skepticism regarding your interpretation, you merely cite some scripture that has nothing to do with the imperative at issue. How strange! Let us try to stay ...[text shortened]... us'? Your readers are anxious to comment, but we need your help.

NRS John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

Me krinete kai opsin
Not judge, determine, etc. with, by outward appearances

alla ten dikaian krisin krinete.
but the right, just judgment, justice judge, determine, etc.

Since they are both accusative, I believe that the adjective dikaian modifies krisin.

Now this took me about 30 minutes, and probably exhausts my research capabilities for the day!

EDIT: Sorry, I can't get the word-for-word spacing when this posts.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You absolutely amaze me. You try to take an ambiguous, at best, verse and replace a clear command. Luke 6:37

37 And judge not, and ye shall not be judged: and condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: release, and ye shall be released:

Does anybody find ANY ambiguity in those words???

EDIT: I meant to Reply and Quote ...[text shortened]... diculous post where you outrageously assert that Jesus gave Christians to right to judge others.

The teachings of righteousness are the judge. Unrighteous is judged by righteous.There are judgements that CHRIST taught that we should avooid. That being that we are intructed to follow the teachings that CHRIST has given us. Anything out side those teachings is not of CHRIST. But of satan.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You try reading the Gospels, Darfius. The text is actually pretty clear but by taking it out of context you butchered the meaning. Jesus was being criticized for healing on the Sabbath and said this:

22 Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man.

23 If ...[text shortened]... s made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath."

Now do you understand the passage, Darfius?

What is your point, no1? It was a command to Christians, regardless of the context.

Originally posted by Darfius
I will not help you apply English language rules to a translation from Greek or Aramaic. It wouldn't make sense. If you want syntax, read the Bible.

O.K. I guess we can just make stuff up then about ambiguous imperatives in the bible:

I think the imperative you cite above expresses the proposition 'only judge those judgements that are themselves righteous'. Since judging in this manner would be consistent with the imperative, and since judging in accord with biblical imperatives is sufficient for judging righteously, it follows that in judging righteous judgement one thereby judges righteously, and hence is committed to judging one's own righteous judgment. By iteration, this leads to an infinite regress. Hence, this imperative is impossible to follow.

Cheers!

Originally posted by blindfaith101
The teachings of righteousness are the judge. Unrighteous is judged by righteous.There are judgements that CHRIST taught that we should avooid. That being that we are intructed to follow the teachings that CHRIST has given us. Anything out side those teachings is not of CHRIST. But of satan.

Precisely. It's not a matter of looking down one's nose, I don't think I'm better than any of you. It's about giving advice on what the teachings of Christ have to say on the matter.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You try reading the Gospels, Darfius. The text is actually pretty clear but by taking it out of context you butchered the meaning. Jesus was being criticized for healing on the Sabbath and said this:

22 Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man.

23 If ...[text shortened]... s made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath."

Now do you understand the passage, Darfius?

He may not, but I do now. Thank you, no1marauder. Kind messenger of Christ.

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K. I guess we can just make stuff up then about ambiguous imperatives in the bible:

I think the imperative you cite above expresses the proposition 'only judge those judgements that are themselves righteous'. Since judging in this manner would be consistent with the imperative, and since judging in accord with biblical imperatives is sufficient for jud ...[text shortened]... this leads to an infinite regress. Hence, this imperative is impossible to follow.

Cheers!

Why am I not surprised? Nice job knocking your own strawman down.

Originally posted by darvlay
He may not, but I do now. Thank you, no1marauder. Kind messenger of Christ.

You do realize that since no1 denies Jesus that he has no discernment from the Holy Spirit, correct? His opinions and interpretations are no more valid than an illiterate.

I kindaOriginally posted by Darfius
I find no ambiguity, but since you take snippets from the Bible to suit your fancy, you can not make a judgement (pardon the pun) call on what He means. As I showed quite well with the MLK snippet.

He is telling people to be war ...[text shortened]... ence) know that Paul was guided by God when he wrote that.

more of Pauls contradiction of Christ's own words..
was this "holy" book written before or after Christ lit up Pauls ass on the road to Jerusalem for trying to destroy Christianity?

Originally posted by Darfius
What is your point, no1? It was a command to Christians, regardless of the context.

You've never actually read the Gospels have you, Darfius? All you've read are cribnotes from a Fundamentalist cult. NOTHING in that passage can be construed the way you stated and Luke 6:37 SPECIFICALLY rejects your assertion that Christians are free to judge and condemn non-Christians. You again seek to deliberately ignore Jesus' direct teachings in order to act in a way He would find shameful. You are no Christian, Darfius.

Originally posted by vistesd
NRS John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

Me krinete kai opsin
Not judge, determine, etc. with, by outward appearances

alla ten dikaian krisin krinete.
but the right, just judgment, justice judge, determine, etc.
...[text shortened]... Now this took me about 30 minutes, and probably exhausts my research capabilities for the day!

Excellent, that is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks, vistesd. This makes the imperative both unambiguous and consistent with the passages No1. cites above.

See how easy that was Darfius? You could learn a thing or two from vistesd.

Originally posted by frogstomp
more of Pauls contradiction of Christ's own words..
was this "holy" book written before or after Christ lit up Pauls ass on the road to Jerusalem for trying to destroy Christianity?

He was on the road to Damascus.

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K. I guess we can just make stuff up then about ambiguous imperatives in the bible:

I think the imperative you cite above expresses the proposition 'only judge those judgements that are themselves righteous'. Since judging in this man ...[text shortened]... ess. Hence, this imperative is impossible to follow.

Cheers!

Sorry it took so long.

Originally posted by Darfius
You do realize that since no1 denies Jesus that he has no discernment from the Holy Spirit, correct? His opinions and interpretations are no more valid than an illiterate.

Right. So only those 'annointed' by the Holy Ghost may interpret the bible correctly? Well then, what's the point of me reading it if I'm only going to be receiving an unsolvable code of strange alphabetic characters? 🙄