ArchivedWhat are your opinions? :: Re: Truth Seeker-JoshuaRe: Truth Seeker-Joshua
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:While you definition of Matthew 7:1-3 was detailed, it missed to point totally.
The meaning Jesus gave with verses 1-3, was that the Lord doesn't want sinners judging other sinnners.
We are all sinners; you, me, and everyone else. If you say you are not, then you are lying also. The Lord wants us judge our own sins first, then repent them, before we judge another's sins.
Here you are simply making declarations, not actually analyzing the text of Matthew 7:1-3. Specifically, you are ignoring the significance of the plank and sawdust analogy.
Matthew 7 [NIV]
3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
In verse 5, Christ says that the person with the plank in their eye needs to remove it before trying to remove the sawdust in the other person's eye. In other words, one must fix the unaddressed flaw in them before judging the addressed flaw in others.
This violates your interpretation of Matthew 7:1-5, which requires Christ to say that nobody is worthy of removing the flaws from others' eyes. Further, this fits right into my analysis of Matthew 7:1-3:
LuckyStrike wrote:Notice that in verses 1-2, it is talking about proportional or repercussion judgment. In verse 1, Christ says to stop judging or you will be judged. In verse 2, he says that one will be judged proportionally to how they are judging the other person.
But the key is verse 3, where Christ assumes that the person making the judgment has greater flaws that the person being judged. Notice that he says that the person judging has a "plank" in their eye, while the other person has "sawdust" in theirs. A "plank" and "sawdust" represent different stages of woodworking, as in how far certain piece(s) of wood have been processed. A "plank" is a standardized piece of wood produced from sawing pieces of raw timber or logs. "Sawdust" is fine particles of wood left over from sawing, which are usually discarded. In short, the former is one of the first forms of processed wood while the latter is one of the final forms of processed wood.
Now let us put the meaning of verse 3 together. Christ is saying that the person who has a plank in their eye has a relatively unaddressed flaw within themself, while the person with the sawdust in their eye has a flaw they have thoroughly addressed. Thus, verse 3 speaks of unrighteous judgment, where the person making the judgment deserves to be judged. Hence, we see why verses 1 and 2 are speaking of proportional or repercussion judgment.
Now instead of simply declaring that I am wrong, prove that my interpretation of Matthew 7:1-5 is wrong.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:[...]the Lord doesn't want sinners judging other sinnners.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:The Lord wants us judge our own sins first, then repent them, before we judge another's sins.
You are contradicting yourself here. Which is it?
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Or do you mean distort it by your comprehension of the verse?
All you are doing here is engaging in an ad hominem attack, which proves nothing and reflects badly on you.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:The teachings of Jesus are the same in this verse, as the above verses of Matthew. There are those in the world that arrogantly believe that they are righteous, and have the right to impose judgement on the sinful according to the law.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Wrong. It actually refers to the self proclaimed righteous followers and imposers of the law, passing and imposing judgements upon those who do not follow the law. It comes down to the same thing: Sinners judging sinners.
Here you are simply making declarations, not actually analyzing the text of John 8:1-11.
John 8 [NIV]
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
Verses 3 through 6 clearly show that the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees were trying to use Mosaic Law to trap Jesus. In return, Jesus had to argue Mosaic Law to refute them and nullify the trap.
This affirms my interpretation of John 8:1-11:
LuckyStrikes wrote:In John 8:1-11, the Pharisees brought Christ a woman who had committed adultery and asked him if she should be stoned to death as Mosaic Law required. This question was intended to get Christ to say something that would get him in trouble. If Christ answered in the affirmative, the Pharisees would have reported Christ to the Roman authorities because the Romans would not allow the Jews to execute people themselves (John 18:31). But if Christ answered in the negative, the Pharisees would have accused Christ of violating Mosaic Law (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22).
Christ responded by pointing out that both parties had violated Mosaic Law (John 8:7). The woman had violated it because she had committed adultery, while the Pharisees had violated it by only wanting to stone the woman when Mosaic Law required both the woman and the man she committed adultery with to be stoned. The Pharisees left after realizing what Christ had said, thus the woman was not condemned because she no longer had any accusers.
Therefore, John 8:7 does not refer to a generalistic command to not judge anybody, but instead an issue related to the workings of Mosaic Law.
Now instead of simply declaring that I am wrong, prove that my interpretation of John 8:1-11 is wrong.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:NIV Luke 15:7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
NIV Luke 18:9-14 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' 13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' 14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Yet, as I said before; the Lord gives no right for the sinful to judge the sinful. We are all sinners.
You are putting your own assumptions into these verses. Show me were these verses say that nobody is to judge another.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:The "superficial line" has only been created in your distorted view.
You are contradicting yourself. You said:
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Now there is a difference between judging your fellow man and judging false prophets.
We you say "difference," you draw a line between both items.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Excuse me. You listed srtong's definition of Judge. No where in the definition are the word's "compare" or "test". If you shall get technical with definitions, then do so completely; not contradictave.
You are trying to dodge my point with semantical gameplay. According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, "judge" (verb) is defined as:
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary wrote:1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
2 : to sit in judgment on : TRY
3 : to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
4 : GOVERN, RULE -- used of a Hebrew tribal leader
5 : to form an estimate or evaluation of; especially : to form a negative opinion about <shouldn't judge him because of his accent>
6 : to hold as an opinion : GUESS, THINK <I judge she knew what she was doing>
Judging refers to the careful weighing of evidence, or examination, and the testing of premises, or testing.
All of this is done by certain standards. Without standards, meaningful examination and testing is impossible. This involves comparing and contrasting, both within examining evidence itself and making conclusions about evidence.
And the process of judging is done so that one may evaluate and form an opinion about certain things.
Therefore, the concept of "judging" cannot be separated from the concepts of "testing" and "comparing." Regardless of which way you view the relationship between these concepts, each concept inevitably leads to the others.
Thus, my comments involving 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 John 4:1, and 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 stand.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Again, I dont see "watched" in you strongs definition of "Judge".
The process of judging does not always occur within a courtroom setting, where all cases or issues and the evidence surrounding them are automatically presented to you. Many times one must notice problems or issues that require making judgments before engaging in the process of judging.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:John 5:22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 violates your interpretation of John 5:22.
1 Corinthians 5 [NIV]
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |