For Chrisitans Only: Matthew 5:38-39

[David Davidovich]

With the potential exception of the Septuagint, the apostles did not leave a defined set of scriptures; instead the canon of both the Old Testament and the New Testament developed over time. Different denominations recognize different lists of books as canonical, following various church councils and the decisions of leaders of various churches.

For mainstream Pauline Christianity (growing from proto-orthodox Christianity in pre-Nicene times) which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[18] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was set at the Council of Rome (382).[19]

In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible in order to address changes Martin Luther made in his recently completed German translation which was based on the Hebrew language Tanakh in addition to the original Greek of the component texts. The canons of the Church of England and English Presbyterians were decided definitively by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout the Eastern Orthodox Church. -- Biblical canon - Wikipedia

So, do you view these churches and organizations as God's true church? And do you feel that the Holy Spirit (whatever that is) was responsible for the collection of this canon? Because from what I understand, there were a plethora of other Bible books that Christians read, which were thrown out the canon.

 

[David Davidovich]

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)

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.

 

[David Davidovich]

pearl said: ↑
....................If we judge that meaning by today's many missionaries, the literal ends of the earth, takes them into little known and unfriendly places.

Modern technology has made local rapid Bible translation possible into over 1,000 languages so that people even living in remote areas (ends of the earth) can now have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native languages.
- Matthew 19:29: Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30 ( side note: KJV wrongly added the word ' wife ' )
Not all can give a 'hundred fold' (full-time preaching service) but even less counts according to Jesus at Matthew 13:23, so the preaching work (Matthew 24:14) is carried out by more than missionaries but even by local peoples.

I'm curious. Do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses have preached in all the inhabited earth?

 

[David Davidovich]

If someone takes your eye and the Judge says the culprit must lose their eye as a result, law or no law, this is an act of retaliation.. I am not talking law specifically here, nor religion, just the meaning of English words as noted from a contemporary dictionary and common sense. The very concept of equal justice implies some retaliatory action to be taken as a result of illegal action,

But these so-called English words do not represent what the verses in the Torah actually say in Hebrew. A problem that I'm starting to see more and more with English and Chrisitan translations of the Bible. And I would have thought that Jesus would have known better than that.

 

[David Davidovich]

Yes, as a consequence for the action of stealing, a retaliatory action by the legal authority would take place to make the thief replace that stolen.

What do you not understand about the word retaliation, here is a dictionary explanation.

noun

1. The act of retaliating; the return of like for like; the doing of that to another which he has done to us; especially (now usually), requital of evil; reprisal; revenge.
2. SynonymsRetribution, Reprisal, etc. See revenge.
3. The act of retaliating, or of returning like for like; retribution; now, specifically, the return of evil for evil; e.g., an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

The Century Dictionary.
retaliation meaning at DuckDuckGo

Looks like somebody's stuck on the word retaliation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A problem that I'm starting to see more and more with English and Chrisitan translations of the Bible. And I would have thought that Jesus would have known better than that.

Ok, so you do believe in Jesus, that's a start.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Looks like somebody's stuck on the word retaliation.

You seem to be confused, my comment was in the context of a comment from URAVIP2ME?

 

[pearl]

Tell others about the 'good news (gospel) of God's kingdom' in the hands of Christ Jesus

True, but I think the saying, attributed to, whether correct or not, St Francis; preach the Gospel, when necessary, use words.

 

[metis]

So, do you view these churches and organizations as God's true church?

I really don't get into that, especially since it's all too easy for one to misinterpret that and think that all other churches are "false churches".

And do you feel that the Holy Spirit (whatever that is) was responsible for the collection of this canon?

To an unknown degree, possibly.

Because from what I understand, there were a plethora of other Bible books that Christians read, which were thrown out the canon.

Which caused massive problems since some of them taught things that simply weren't even remotely compatible with the others.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

True, but I think the saying, attributed to, whether correct or not, St Francis; preach the Gospel, when necessary, use words.

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

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But these so-called English words do not represent what the verses in the Torah actually say in Hebrew. A problem that I'm starting to see more and more with English and Chrisitan translations of the Bible. And I would have thought that Jesus would have known better than that.

What would you say is better than Jesus' words at Matthew 5:38-42_____________________

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, as a consequence for the action of stealing, a retaliatory action by the legal authority would take place to make the thief replace that stolen.
What do you not understand about the word retaliation, here is a dictionary explanation..................

Under the Law it was Not retaliation. Even today the punishment should fit the crime.
Not go further or add more to the punishment beyond equal justice.
It was Not revenge but avenge. The Avenger of Blood was Not a revenger.

P.S. don't know why the heavy print happened





[/QUOTE]

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I'm curious. Do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses have preached in all the inhabited earth?

- www.jw.org

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Under the Law it was Not retaliation. Even today the punishment should fit the crime.
Not go further or add more to the punishment beyond equal justice.
It was Not revenge but avenge. The Avenger of Blood was Not a revenger.

P.S. don't know why the heavy print happened

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?

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 please, let is now put the suitability of the word retaliation to rest, lest Jesus rebuke us for straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel. Matthew 23:24

 

[David Davidovich]

Ok, so you do believe in Jesus, that's a start.

So, what is that supposed to mean?

 

[David Davidovich]

You seem to be confused, my comment was in the context of a comment from URAVIP2ME?

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.

 

[David Davidovich]

I really don't get into that, especially since it's all too easy for one to misinterpret that and think that all other churches are "false churches".

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

The Church was and is the actual organization that Christ and the Apostles created, which both Acts and the epistles point out. It was not and is not some sort of loosey-goosey amalgamation of "just do your own thing". Jesus "taught with authority", as did the Apostles and as did and does the Church. It is the organization that selected your canon and evangelized throughout the known world. It is not perfect, but just a reminder that it wasn't perfect under Jesus either as the Gospels show.

To an unknown degree, possibly.

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.

Which caused massive problems since some of them taught things that simply weren't even remotely compatible with the others.

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?

 

[David Davidovich]

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.

 

[David Davidovich]

Under the Law it was Not retaliation. Even today the punishment should fit the crime.
Not go further or add more to the punishment beyond equal justice.
It was Not revenge but avenge. The Avenger of Blood was Not a revenger.

P.S. don't know why the heavy print happened

[/QUOTE]

Probably because you were trying to get that through his head.