For Chrisitans Only: Matthew 5:38-39

[David Davidovich]

But I am using the Encyclopedia Britannica as my source, so it is them you are accusing.

LOL Yeah, but who's using it and basing decisions on it to the exclusion of even hearing a different side of the story? LOL

 

[Ben Dhyan]

LOL Yeah, but who's using it and basing decisions on it to the exclusion of even hearing a different side of the story? LOL

So I am quoting an unbiased entry from Encyclopedia Britannica, and you are challenging with an anonymous youtuber whose video has a total 103 views, 4 likes since Nov 2020.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thread moved to religious debates by moderator consensus

 

[BilliardsBall]

If I may butt in... And I know that what I'm about to ask is a topic for another thread, but I'm just curious. Why would an infinite God use his power to punish puny humans and extend their lives for eternity in order for them to experience agonizing torture for the rest of eternity? Because something about that just doesn't add up to me.

Where did you get agonizing torture? Have you read Luke 16? I think that passage will answer your questions--I appreciate your questions--but they are indeed well answered there. Start there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Could you elaborate on that a little bit. Or would you be like ben d is and are too frightened to do so? And if so, I can start another thread on that if you'd like me to.

In sum, there are hundreds of plain, obvious Hebrew scriptures that prophesy the Messiah--but because all of them point to Jesus of Nazareth, Jewish brothers and sisters trivialize nearly 100% of the passages to say they are about all kinds of things and people EXCEPT Messiah!

Example: Isaiah 9 says four things about Messiah that Jewish people say are about Hezekiah, yet all four things are demonstrably NOT about good King Hezekiah!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Also Hosea 14:3
Take with you words,and return to the LORD;Say to him, “Forgive all iniquity,and take what is good.Let us offer the fruit of our lips What St Francis refers to is preaching the Gospel through our actions.

Yes, and I think we can include verse 2 of Hosea 14:2-3 which harmonizes nicely with Psalms 69:30-31.
Yes, preach the Gospel (Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8) through our actions by talking with others.
Actions like showing the 'practical love' the good Samaritan showed, and 'spiritual love, spiritual actions' - Luke 4:43

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So why did Jesus ask his followers to turn the other cheek rather than seek some retaliatory eye for eye retribution? Because he was against retaliation, was he not?.........

Outside of Biblical law was: retaliation.
Biblical law as found in the Bible was equal justice - Leviticus 19:18 ( Golden Rule )
Please notice at Matthew 5:38 is the word ' heard ' ( Not 'written' but 'heard' )
This is because Jesus was saying that is what the people ' heard ' ( word of mouth Not Scripture )
When Jesus referred to the Law he prefaced his statements with the words, " It is written...."
Meaning already written down in the OT, and Not ' hearsay ' as the people ' heard '.
Revenge was what the pagan nations taught and that is what the people 'heard' with their ears, Not what was written down.
The Mosaic Law served against intentional harm - Deuteronomy 19:20; 32:35 - disciplined to the proper degree.
( Exodus 21:28-30; Numbers 35:22-25

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Outside of Biblical law was: retaliation.
Biblical law as found in the Bible was equal justice - Leviticus 19:18 ( Golden Rule )
Please notice at Matthew 5:38 is the word ' heard ' ( Not 'written' but 'heard' )
This is because Jesus was saying that is what the people ' heard ' ( word of mouth Not Scripture )
When Jesus referred to the Law he prefaced his statements with the words, " It is written...."
Meaning already written down in the OT, and Not ' hearsay ' as the people ' heard '.
Revenge was what the pagan nations taught and that is what the people 'heard' with their ears, Not what was written down.
The Mosaic Law served against intentional harm - Deuteronomy 19:20; 32:35 - disciplined to the proper degree.
( Exodus 21:28-30; Numbers 35:22-25

URAVIP2ME, you are ignoring the fact that according to the Encyclopedia Britannica,. the 'eye for eye' written law of the Hebrews was retaliatory law.

In ancient Babylonian, biblical, Roman, and Islāmic law, an eye for an eye, in law and custom, was the principle of retaliation for injuries or damages.

eye for an eye | law

 

[URAVIP2ME]

URAVIP2ME, you are ignoring the fact that according to the Encyclopedia Britannica,. the 'eye for eye' written law of the Hebrews was retaliatory law.
In ancient Babylonian, biblical, Roman, and Islāmic law, an eye for an eye, in law and custom, was the principle of retaliation for injuries or damages.
eye for an eye | la

I find that the Encyclopedia Britannica is Not the Holy Bible.
Just because some secular book says retaliation does Not mean that is what the Bible teaches.
So, ingnoring the fact according to the Scriptures do Not make the Encyclopedia Britannica as God's Word.
Eye for eye, life for life is in the Bible as equal justice.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...........So, then, ben d, so does that mean that you and other Christians follow Jesus' words at Matthew 5:40-42 also. But I can save you the trouble in answering my question and just say "NO" for you.

"YES" for me.
Not court, but I have let others keep what belonged to me for the sake of peace. Including some equipment.
I went more than ' two miles ' when I had to handle power of attorney because there was No one else.
The lawyer wanted me to accept a land bid, instead I worked hard for an auction sale.
In the end the lawyer said I did a bowman's job ( the land sold for twice/double what the lawyer thought )
I was not included in that land money, nor did I ask to be included.
I just got a standard pay for doing the job which I would have gotten either way.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I find that the Encyclopedia Britannica is Not the Holy Bible.
Just because some secular book says retaliation does Not mean that is what the Bible teaches.
So, ingnoring the fact according to the Scriptures do Not make the Encyclopedia Britannica as God's Word.
Eye for eye, life for life is in the Bible as equal justice.

But the concept "an eye for an eye" implies retaliatory equal justice, it has nothing to do with being religious or not. Now if JWs want to believe that the written law of the bible pertaining to an eye for an eye is not retaliatory, it is ok with me for you to do that, but please don't expect other religious and non-religious folk to agree with the JW dogma.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But the concept "an eye for an eye" implies retaliatory equal justice, it has nothing to do with being religious or not. Now if JWs want to believe that the written law of the bible pertaining to an eye for an eye is not retaliatory, it is ok with me for you to do that, but please don't expect other religious and non-religious folk to agree with the JW dogma.

Yes, true, Jesus said 'few' would end up following him - www.jw.org
Please notice at Matthew 24:14 & Acts 1:8 is Not about a conversion of nations but an international witness.

 

[Bree]

This thread is for Christians only. What exactly is meant by Matthew 5:38-39?



click here: Matthew 5:38-39 NIV - Eye for Eye - “You have heard that it - Bible Gateway

YOu can understand what it means by Jesus own example of how he acted when being treated badly.

Jesus never retaliated. He never returned 'evil for evil'

Two wrongs dont make a right.

 

[Bree]

But the concept "an eye for an eye" implies retaliatory equal justice, it has nothing to do with being religious or not. Now if JWs want to believe that the written law of the bible pertaining to an eye for an eye is not retaliatory, it is ok with me for you to do that, but please don't expect other religious and non-religious folk to agree with the JW dogma.

We need to ask ourselves if God has given us individual authority to execute justice upon another person. 'Eye for Eye' describes punishment in return for an injury or offense; retributive action.

If you believe you have such authority, then that is between you and God.


But in Gods word, he tells us this

Deut 32:35 Vengeance is mine, and retribution,+ At the appointed time when their foot slips

The Christians were taught that only God can exact vengeance upon the wicked.
Romans 12:17 Return evil for evil to no one.+ Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men.+ 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath;+ for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.”+ 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.”

Chrisitans were to be peacemakers. They were not given any authority to avenge themselves. And let me ask you honestly, do you ever read an account about Jesus avenging himself when someone took aim at him?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, true, Jesus said 'few' would end up following him - www.jw.org
Please notice at Matthew 24:14 & Acts 1:8 is Not about a conversion of nations but an international witness.

JW, as with all human instituted Christian organizations, are in error on some of its dogma, but that is not to throw the baby out with the bath water, the important thing is the purity of heart and soul of the disciple.
URAVIP2ME2!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We need to ask ourselves if God has given us individual authority to execute justice upon another person. 'Eye for Eye' describes punishment in return for an injury or offense; retributive action.

If you believe you have such authority, then that is between you and God.


But in Gods word, he tells us this

Deut 32:35 Vengeance is mine, and retribution,+ At the appointed time when their foot slips

The Christians were taught that only God can exact vengeance upon the wicked.
Romans 12:17 Return evil for evil to no one.+ Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men.+ 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath;+ for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.”+ 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.”

Chrisitans were to be peacemakers. They were not given any authority to avenge themselves. And let me ask you honestly, do you ever read an account about Jesus avenging himself when someone took aim at him?

I agree with what you say, and have said as much.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, true, Jesus said 'few' would end up following him - www.jw.org
Please notice at Matthew 24:14 & Acts 1:8 is Not about a conversion of nations but an international witness.

Bree, as a JW, agrees with me when he says "'Eye for Eye' describes punishment in return for an injury or offense; retributive action.". do you disagree with him?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Bree, as a JW, agrees with me when he says "'Eye for Eye' describes punishment in return for an injury or offence; retributive action.". do you disagree with him?

Under the Law a person was Not to take action by his own hands nor wish calamity on enemies - Proverbs 24:17
Remember: the question needed to be settled as to whether what happened was deliberate or not - Numbers 35:20-25
That was Not by a personal decision but by trial - Numbers 35:12
When a person is sentenced to jail time that is Not considered as retributive action but for the sake of justice.
The Mosaic Law was about 'equal justice' that the punishment should equally fit the crime.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Under the Law a person was Not to take action by his own hands nor wish calamity on enemies - Proverbs 24:17
Remember: the question needed to be settled as to whether what happened was deliberate or not - Numbers 35:20-25
That was Not by a personal decision but by trial - Numbers 35:12
When a person is sentenced to jail time that is Not considered as retributive action but for the sake of justice.
The Mosaic Law was about 'equal justice' that the punishment should equally fit the crime.

You are not addressing the question, it is about whether the 'eye for an eye' biblical law is retaliatory/retributive in nature? Bree, myself, and the scholars responsible for the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the subject all say yes.

You are disagreeing not only with the scholars for the Encyclopedia Britannica, but with a fellow JW, so who has the better understanding of JW dogma on this subject of eye for an eye' written law, Bree or yourself?

It would help if you could provide a link to the JW explanation on the biblical 'eye for an eye' written law that implicitly states that it is non-retributive.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You are not addressing the question, it is about whether the 'eye for an eye' biblical law is retaliatory/retributive in nature? Bree, myself, and the scholars responsible for the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the subject all say yes.
You are disagreeing not only with the scholars for the Encyclopedia Britannica, but with a fellow JW, so who has the better understanding of JW dogma on this subject of eye for an eye' written law, Bree or yourself?
It would help if you could provide a link to the JW explanation on the biblical 'eye for an eye' written law that implicitly states that it is non-retributive.

I find you can find information at www.jw.org
If you like, in the on-line library put ' eye for an eye ' in the search box.
Remember: the Encyclopedia Britannica is Not a religious book but man's book, man's viewpoint.
Also, does retributive have to mean retaliatory as in revenge _______
Even the un-intentional manslayer had protection in one of the cities of refuge from the 'Avenger' (Not revenger of blood)