For Chrisitans Only: Matthew 5:38-39

[BilliardsBall]

See my new thread: For Former Jews Only: Why Did You Leave the Faith?. Also, from arguments that I heard from Jews, the Christian interpretation of messiah doesn't really match with what the Jewish text says.

Mazel tov! I am JEWISH, so I do not use a "Christian interpretation of the Jewish Messiah" but a JEWISH interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[metis]

So, why then in your post #278, did you said?...





Well, with the history of all the sacred books that Christians used to read and which got thrown out, I guess that makes sense that you would say that.



So, it was up to these 'church' fathers centuries later to figure out what to keep and what to throw out, even though, they may or may not have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Also, didn't at one time they started to throw out the book of Revelation?

Let me just say that you have me pegged wrong as I'm personally hardly orthodox. The rest has been explained, so...

 

[David Davidovich]

It is a figure of speech, someone betting on a dog fight wants to see their favored dog win. Encyclopedia Britannica has no intended bias in the 'eye for an eye' entry, they are not a religious institution.

So, who or what is your favored dog that you want to win in this figure of speech 'fight'?

IHaha, David, an article from an individual who claims the Encyclopaedia Britannica has shown bias against the Catholic Church in some articles is not proof that they a biased against Jews, and if there was bias proven, Encyclopaedia Britannica would correct it. This would be true for all entries, that's how it works. So if you think the Encyclopaedia Britannica's 'eye for an eye' entry is biased against Jews, just approach them and have it corrected if it is proven.

So, in other words, you're saying that the Jewish interpretation in post #258 can't be trusted, right? And if so, why?

 

[David Davidovich]

Dear David, this not a debate forum, you asked a question in the OP, I answered it, and because my answer was presumably not to your liking, you add more questions on a different bible quote as if you are looking for some gotcha moment. Forgive me please if I do not 'go the extra mile'.

Ha, ha. No actually, URAVIP2ME is the one who brought up Matthew 5:38-42 in his post #131, and which were relevant to the topic. Also, how long have you been posting at Religious Forums? Because anyone who has posted here for even a little while, realizes that most threads don't stick exactly to the original topic and tend to steer off. Therefore, you're either very new to Religious Forums and don't know that... or you are just scared to answer my question.

Also, where did I say that I didn't like your answer?

 

[David Davidovich]

Good, thank you David. I take it though you believe he was not a Divine being, a Godly being?

How can anyone know for sure?

 

[David Davidovich]

David Davidovich said: ↑
So, as I responded to URAVIP2ME in my post#139, I'll respond to you with my same post:



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.

This is not the bible quote and question asked in the OP, so let's not go off topic.

Well, actually, ben d, it's my thread, therefore, you have my permission to slightly veer off from the original verses and answer my question on the few verses that come after it. But the thing that I'm wondering about is: Why are you so scared??? Do you want me to start an entirely new thread on verses 40-42 which are a continuation of verses 38-39? Or are you not able to see that?

The OP is about the meaning of Matthew 5:38-39. My answer is that it means Jesus would like his followers to forgive those that sin against them, ie., not to retaliate as in traditional eye for an eye justice.

Do I always forgive others whom I deem have sinned against me? I try and sometimes succeed. As time goes on in religious practice, the ability to forgive becomes greater, thanks to God.

Yawn! Yeah, I know. You already said that.

 

[David Davidovich]

I agree with all those verses, however, my point was that the righteous live eternally as do the wicked--in Hell--per the Bible, because the SAME Greek word is used to describe the eternity of both the wicked and the righteous in the NT--another place where the JW translation is different than hundreds of other translations.

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.

 

[David Davidovich]

Mazel tov! I am JEWISH, so I do not use a "Christian interpretation of the Jewish Messiah" but a JEWISH interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.

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.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, who or what is your favored dog that you want to win in this figure of speech 'fight'?

So, in other words, you're saying that the Jewish interpretation in post #258 can't be trusted, right? And if so, why?

It was a figure of speech to explain that Encyclopedia Britannica's 'eye for an eye' entry is not biased, they, like me, do not have a dog in the fight.

I didn't watch the video as my reliance on the integrity of a known and proven reputable source is obviously going to trump some unknown who presumably has a dog in the fight.

 

[David Davidovich]

It was a figure of speech to explain that Encyclopedia Britannica's 'eye for an eye' entry is not biased, they, like me, do not have a dog in the fight.

I didn't watch the video as my reliance on the integrity of a known and proven reputable source is obviously going to trump some unknown who presumably has a dog in the fight.

LOL Talk about an argument from ignorance. And religious bias. LOL

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ha, ha. No actually, URAVIP2ME is the one who brought up Matthew 5:38-42 in his post #131, and which were relevant to the topic. Also, how long have you been posting at Religious Forums? Because anyone who has posted here for even a little while, realizes that most threads don't stick exactly to the original topic and tend to steer off. Therefore, you're either very new to Religious Forums and don't know that... or you are just scared to answer my question.

Also, where did I say that I didn't like your answer?

The OP is yours'.
Going off topic is not kosher on any forum.
Since 2007.
Scared of what?
You don't have to say, it is obvious to every man and his dog.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

LOL Talk about an argument from ignorance. And religious bias. LOL

Enclyclopedia Britannica has no religious affiliation that I am aware of, and has an impeccable reputation, how can it be called religiously biased and ignorant?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How can anyone know for sure?

I don't usually waste time watching videos members post, besides my understanding of the reality represented by the concept of God is sufficient to practice religion in a way that is consistent with enduring beyond death of the body.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, actually, ben d, it's my thread, therefore, you have my permission to slightly veer off from the original verses and answer my question on the few verses that come after it. But the thing that I'm wondering about is: Why are you so scared??? Do you want me to start an entirely new thread on verses 40-42 which are a continuation of verses 38-39? Or are you not able to see that?

Yawn! Yeah, I know. You already said that.

I have answered this question earlier on in the thread when we had an exchange about the fact that a novice Christian aspirant can't of themselves live up to the teachings of Jesus, but as they realize their Godly source, only then can their life be pure. I said... "Jesus was not ignorant, he knows that a human being can't just change their present state of being to a higher state through mere mental conceptualization, it requires a spiritual transformation that is an inner process." #58

The summation of the teachings of Jesus is John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again”

That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit, unless you are born of the spirit, you will not see the kingdom of God.

 

[David Davidovich]

I have answered this question earlier on in the thread when we had an exchange about the fact that a novice Christian aspirant can't of themselves live up to the teachings of Jesus, but as they realize their Godly source, only then can their life be pure. I said... "Jesus was not ignorant, he knows that a human being can't just change their present state of being to a higher state through mere mental conceptualization, it requires a spiritual transformation that is an inner process." #58

The summation of the teachings of Jesus is John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again”

That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit, unless you are born of the spirit, you will not see the kingdom of God.

Very good, ben d.

 

[David Davidovich]

The OP is yours'.
Going off topic is not kosher on any forum.
Since 2007.
Scared of what?
You don't have to say, it is obvious to every man and his dog.

Yawn!

 

[David Davidovich]

Enclyclopedia Britannica has no religious affiliation that I am aware of, and has an impeccable reputation, how can it be called religiously biased and ignorant?

Actually, I was talking about you, not the Enclyclopedia Britannica.

 

[David Davidovich]

I don't usually waste time watching videos members post, besides my understanding of the reality represented by the concept of God is sufficient to practice religion in a way that is consistent with enduring beyond death of the body.

I was just answering the question that you asked me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, I was talking about you, not the Enclyclopedia Britannica.

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

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I was just answering the question that you asked me.

Fine.