• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For Chrisitans Only: Matthew 5:38-39

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
URAVIP2ME said:
The old Mosaic Law showed the Jews in their imperfect or sinful state they needed Messiah to fulfill that old Law.
I would say the Jews' version of the Kingdom of God is found at Daniel 2:44-45.
God's Kingdom government will be the last one standing after all the other political powers are brought down.
Brought down by that figurative ' stone ' (Daniel 2:35,45)
David Davidovich said:
Well, thank you for your answer, however, I find it interesting that practicing Jews who exist today don't view the Torah law (as they call it) that way. Also, I don't even think that there's a verse in the Hebrew scriptures that actually says that.
Well it does seem that it is beyond man to redeem another - Psalms 49:7
A Super human would be needed - Psalms 49:15; Psalms 49:20

But where in the Torah law does it show that Jews in their imperfect or sinful state needed Messiah to fulfill that old Law? Because as far as I know, that's a Christian concept and not a Jewish concept that can be found in the Hebrew scriptures. Also, you can ask the Jewish poster named @Ehav4Ever about that because he would be able to give you a more accurate answer than I could.

Also, all Psalms 49:7 and Psalms 49:15 are stating are negatives, and neither one of those negatives states what you are claiming that the Hebrew scriptures are saying. You are only making a supposition based on scriptural eisegesis instead of a careful scriptural exegesis.
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
So why did Jesus ask his followers to turn the other cheek rather than seek some retaliatory eye for eye retribution?

Dude, that was the whole point in my starting this thread.

Because he was against retaliation, was he not?

Here is what Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say about the biblical 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

So, why don't you ask a Jew what that law means instead of getting it from the Encyclopedia Britannica?

See my post in this link at post #258 and the video that's in that post.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
No, I know exactly what your comment is about. Because for the last several days, you can't seem to be able to separate the idea of justice from retaliation. :rolleyes:
If you mean the eye for eye justice, of course, if you don't take it up with Encyclopedia Britannica. eye for an eye | law


And while your at it, check out this article is about the principle of retributive justice from Wikipedia....

"An eye for an eye" (Biblical Hebrew: עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, Ain takhat ain) is a commandment found in the Book of Exodus 21:23–27 expressing the principle of reciprocal justice measure for measure. In Roman civilization, the law of retaliation (Latin: lex talionis) bears the same principle that a person who has injured another person is to be penalized to a similar degree by the injured party.
Eye for an eye - Wikipedia

:rolleyes:
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
If you mean the eye for eye justice, of course, if you don't take it up with Encyclopedia Britannica. eye for an eye | law


And while your at it, check out this article is about the principle of retributive justice from Wikipedia....

"An eye for an eye" (Biblical Hebrew: עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, Ain takhat ain) is a commandment found in the Book of Exodus 21:23–27 expressing the principle of reciprocal justice measure for measure. In Roman civilization, the law of retaliation (Latin: lex talionis) bears the same principle that a person who has injured another person is to be penalized to a similar degree by the injured party.
Eye for an eye - Wikipedia

:rolleyes:

So, you're saying that Jesus and Christians don't believe in that?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Yes, use the 'fruit of the lips......' - Hebrews 13:15 (words)

Also Hos 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.
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
ben d said:
Do you confirm you believe in the Jesus that lived in those times?
I'm sorry, is English your second language? Let me try this. Dear David, do you believe that Jesus was born in and lived in Israel around 2000 years ago

Hmmm. Well, I'm starting to think that English is your secondary language. Because for us native English speakers, there is colloquialism for the phrase "believe in," which in a religious or faith context can mean:

Verb Phrases
believe in,
  1. to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
  2. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.

click here: Believe Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

However, since you changed your question to say: "do you believe that Jesus was born in and lived in Israel around 2000 years ago," I'll take that as meaning that you were only talking about Jesus' literal existence. So, yes, I do believe that Jesus was born in and lived in Israel around 2000 years ago.

I hope all that helps. ;)
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
No, they did! But Jesus wanted his followers to forgive the culprit rather that see a retaliation,.

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

URAVIP2ME said:
What would you say is better than Jesus' words at Matthew 5:38-42_____________________
Well, first of all, I don't see why as a Jew, he included the words an ‘eye for eye, and tooth for tooth' from the Torah because from the way that I understand the Jewish meaning of those laws, they have nothing to do with retaliation, but only compensatory justice. Also, I know that Jehovah's Witnesses have been sued in court plenty of times, however, they always fight like hell not to lose their cases. Plus, real people in real life would not deliberately lose a lawsuit and then on top of that, give their plaintiff more resources that what they were suing for... I mean, would you do that if you found yourself in court being sued by someone because you saw where Jesus told you to do so in Matthew 5? No, you wouldn't. Therefore, I don't see why those words were even stated in Matthew 5.

And then, what's the bit about someone wanting to force you to go a mile and then you're suppose to be forced to go 2 miles? Also, how often do you give beggars on the street money? Even though, you don't know if you're supporting a drug habit or if you're being conned. Therefore, I don't see why those words are even if there. Especially, since Christians in general don't even abide by those words.

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.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Hmmm. Well, I'm starting to think that English is your secondary language. Because for us native English speakers, there is colloquialism for the phrase "believe in," which in a religious or faith context can mean:



click here: Believe Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

However, since you changed your question to say: "do you believe that Jesus was born in and lived in Israel around 2000 years ago," I'll take that as meaning that you were only talking about Jesus' literal existence. So, yes, I do believe that Jesus was born in and lived in Israel around 2000 years ago.

I hope all that helps. ;)
Good, thank you David. I take it though you believe he was not a Divine being, a Godly being?
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
Because Encyclopedia Britannica can be trusted, they don't have a dog in the fight!

What fight? What fight are you talking about? However, from what I think that you're trying to say, the Encyclopedia Britannica is far from having religious bias and religious hostility:

The anti-Catholic bias of the Encyclopaedia Britannica has been noticeably decreasing in the last twenty years. As late as the eleventh edition, Conybeare's article on the Eucharist was an attempted refutation of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. “To the modern mind,” he concluded, “it is absurd that an image or symbol should be taken for that which is imaged or symbolized.” [1] By 1946, however, not a syllable of the original polemic is retained. In fact, the new contributor is almost Catholic in his reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, taking sides against the Calvinian symbolist theory of the Eucharist and declaring, correctly, that before Luther's break with the Church, “the doctrine of transubstantiation was all but universally accepted” in the Christian world. [2] Again in 1936, when a new edition of the Encyclopaedia was presented by the publishers to Cardinal Pacelli, on his visit to the United States, volume 13 of the set contained the notorious article on the Society of Jesus. Shortly afterwards another volume 13 was sent to the Cardinal, but this time containing a revised article on the Jesuits, written by Francis Talbot, the editor of America.

It is unfortunate, therefore, that these editors did not go far enough in clearing their publication of all prejudice against the Church, especially when so many Catholic institutions use the Britannica as a standard reference work but always have to warn their people against the articles on religion, which are frequently tainted with heresy and sometimes are openly hostile to Catholic thought.

A real contribution to the cause of Christ in England and America would be a critical analysis, from the Catholic viewpoint, of all the articles on religion and Church History which appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica. . .

click here: Fr. Hardon Archives - Religion in the Encyclopedia Britannica (therealpresence.org)

Therefore, if the Encyclopedia Britannica has shown bias against the Catholic Church and other denominations and sects of Christianity, then how much more so can they show bias against the Jews?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Davidovich

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

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.

Dude, the verses are an extension of Matthew 5:38-39 and only 4 little verses afterwards. However, if you are scared to answer my questions about those verses, which are relevant to the topic, then that's perfectly understandable. :rolleyes:
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
What fight? What fight are you talking about? However, from what I think that you're trying to say, the Encyclopedia Britannica is far from having religious bias and religious hostility:

Therefore, if the Encyclopedia Britannica has shown bias against the Catholic Church and other denominations and sects of Christianity, then how much more so can they show bias against the Jews?
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.

Haha, 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.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Dude, the verses are an extension of Matthew 5:38-39 and only 4 little verses afterwards. However, if you are scared to answer my questions about those verses, which are relevant to the topic, then that's perfectly understandable. :rolleyes:
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'.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Revelation 11:18 B says God will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth. The righteous do Not bring ruin to Earth.
One Jewish professor said at Psalms 145:20-21 when it says 'forever and ever' that underscores how permanent.
? Any thoughts about Exodus 23:7 _________________
So, it is those who prove to remain UN-righteous and wicked (Not the righteous) that are destroyed forever (Psalms 92:7)
Un-righteous ones who suppress the truth - Romans 1:18.
For it is un-thinkable on God's part that the outcome should be the same for the righteous and wicked - Genesis 18:25 A
The humble meek are around once the wicked are gone - Psalms 37:10-11- the meek inherit the Earth - Matt.5:5
The righteous see the downfall of the wicked - Proverbs 29:16.
Angels will separate the wicked from the righteous - Matthew 13:9.
2 Peter 2:9 lets us know the godly are delivered, but not the un-righteous.
So, at the soon coming Time of Separation on Earth it is the righteous who are saved - Matthew 25:46 B.

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.
 
Top