We are not to hurt anyone for any reason.

[Calminian]

Why are you concerned about the one verse? These other verses explain in more detail that we are not to cause harm to anyone.(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

This is actually a concept derived from the O.T.

Prov. 24:17 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; 18 Lest the LORD see it, and it displease Him, And He turn away His wrath from him.

Prov. 25:21 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; 22 For so you will heap coals of fire on his head, And the LORD will reward you.

Even the Torah communicates such principles.

Ex. 23:4 “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again.

The problem is, all of these must also be compatible with O.T. legislation regarding self defense, capitalism and war. So you can hardly use these these to support your case that there is now a change in the Law.

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

Jesus is simply referring his audience back to the principles articulated in the whole of scripture. "Wicked man" is a very familiar phrase in the proverbs often regarding neighbors, not foreign enemies, or murderers.

Prov. 9:7 “He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself.

All N.T. verses used to promote pacifism are derived from the O.T. which totally refutes pacifism.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Yes it is. In fact you just quoted a definition that says it is?

Did you read the definition? Or what I wrote? The definition clearly says that it means to smite with a rod or staff and then in number 2 indates a slap or to box the ear. So while it can mean slap to say that the word is slap is not correct as slap can never mean to hit one with a rod or staff but this word can mean that. Understand?

Which is often an archaic translation and the cause of much confusion. The KJV is the favorite translation of every skeptic out there.

Argeed the words are tricky sometimes and there are errors as well yet it is also the most widely accepted version and the one I often use to quote from, though I use YLT and others as well.

It can indicate the use of a rod, which is also not injurious, but if it did, context would indicate it. If the text was taking about talking a dangerous weapon to the cheek, offering the other would be impossible as you'd be unconscious. That interpretation doesn't make any sense in this context.

I disagree a rod or staff could easily give you a fairly serious injury that would leave you conscious or even a fairly minor one depends on the force used and the exact location and angle of the blow. It could of course also render you unconscious or even dead under the right conditions.

It's the only other time the word is used in the N.T. and by the same author in the same book. What context would you use to justify the use of a dangerous injurious weapon?

True.. and I did not dig deep enough to see that so that is on me. Still I do not think it was meant to be taken that literally in the sermon on the mount especially when it is combined with the rest of the sermon for context.

I think you should take him literally.

Should we also chop off our hands then, pluck out our eyes and such? I certianly do not see this as something that is meant to be taken literally and apparently neither do you as you interpret it to mean don't sweat the little stuff which covers more than a literal read but less than my understanding of it. I can't say for sure that you are wrong in that understanding, but I do think it means a little more than that.

Wow, that's a whole lot to read into that passage. I think he actually just meant what he said.

Perhaps yes, especially if it were just that one passage but it is not just one passage, Jesus preaches that message over and over and over again many different ways, many examples, many words all saying basically the same thing, We see the same message woven throughout the OT as well as in other cultures and from other teachers.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Why are you concerned about the one verse? These other verses explain in more detail that we are not to cause harm to anyone.(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

I'm not concerned about just that one verse, I was simply pointing something out related to the understanding given of that one verse. Why do you pick out just one verse rather than the entire sermon?

Even a literal read of the verse you keep quoting does not say that we are to do no harm to anyone. In fact a literal read doesn;t say anything about not harming our friends, though we know this is covered as well.

You seem to miss the point that sometimes there may be a need to protect others and sometimes it may require someone to be harmed at our hand, it is in error to think that Jesus would want us to allow others to suffer in order that we could avoid doing harm to someone. In effect if and when we do this we are placing ourselves above those would be victims and that is not a good thing.

In general yes we should do no harm but if/when required to then we must do so, failure to do so would make us guilty. We must be wise enough to know when to take action and what action to take, Nothing is ever so black and white as I see in the topic of this thread.

Remember God gave us brains for a reason.

 

[Calminian]

Should we also chop off our hands then, pluck out our eyes and such?

If they cause you to sin, yes! The key word to take literally is "if." But of course when you understand the nature of sin, and read on, it is revealed that those members actually can't cause you to sin. Sin comes from within, and cutting out your eye or hand wouldn't be of any benefit.

Matt. 15:19 “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

Blind and handless men sin all the time. The principle then becomes clear. Whatever is in your life and mind that is making you sin, cut it out. For some people, this is actually a lot harder than simply slicing off their hand!

Perhaps yes, especially if it were just that one passage but it is not just one passage, Jesus preaches that message over and over and over again many different ways, many examples, many words all saying basically the same thing, We see the same message woven throughout the OT as well as in other cultures and from other teachers.

Right and that message has nothing to do with allowing your enemy to permanently injure or kill you. If someone is trying to beat you to death, fight back and kill them if you have to. You won't be violating any of Christ's literal principles by doing so.

 

[Soul Searcher]

If they cause you to sin, yes! The key word to take literally is "if." But of course when you understand the nature of sin, and read on, it is revealed that those members actually can't cause you to sin. Sin comes from within, and cutting out your eye or hand wouldn't be of any benefit.

Matt. 15:19 “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

Blind and handless men sin all the time. The principle then becomes clear. Whatever is in your life and mind that is making you sin, cut it out. For some people, this is actually a lot harder than simply slicing off their hand!

Yes all sin comes from the heart,

Right and that message has nothing to do with allowing your enemy to permanently injure or kill you. If someone is trying to beat you to death, fight back and kill them if you have to. You won't be violating any of Christ's literal principles by doing so.

I don't think I indicated that it did. Sometimes we do need to defend ourselves, sometimes we need to defend others, but a single blow even if severe once stricken does not nessecarily require retaliation. If our lives are in danger yes, if we are likely to be beaten senseless then yes but all I was pointing out is that this covers more than just letting an insult slide or a slap in the face. Yet it doesn't mean that we can not defend ourselves nor does it mean that we can not defend others. It does mean that we should not seek to get even no matter what has done to us though.

 

[Calminian]

I don't think I indicated that it did. Sometimes we do need to defend ourselves, sometimes we need to defend others, but a single blow even if severe once stricken does not nessecarily require retaliation. If our lives are in danger yes, if we are likely to be beaten senseless then yes but all I was pointing out is that this covers more than just letting an insult slide or a slap in the face. Yet it doesn't mean that we can not defend ourselves nor does it mean that we can not defend others. It does mean that we should not seek to get even no matter what has done to us though.

We're almost in agreement SS. But if someone beats you but you don't die, you should seek justice through the law. You should press charges. You do not offer the other cheek. I would advise you to really examine the context of this term. It's very clear we're talking about an insulting slap which was very serious in that day. This is why the major modern translation translate it that way. The passage is speaking about applying eye for eye legislation to insults such as this. It was not in harmony with the old testament and neither with the new.

 

[GenemZ]

That's easy. If you have a man with a sword on guard duty, the cutthroats and thieves will leave you alone because they assume an armed camp.

Jesus clearly told his followers that those who live by the sword will die by the sword and he physically stopped one from using a sword.

One cannot help but conclude that Jesus was ok with having swords around when it was helpful but was against actually using them.

Jesus told Peter to keep the sword he had misused. He told him to put it back in its sheath.
He did not tell Peter to get rid of it.

He simply told Peter not to live by the sword. Peter was not acting in self defense. No more that if the police came to arrest someone and you opened fire on them. That is a criminal act. That, is living by the sword.. not the Law.

Living by the sword, and protecting oneself with a weapon, are not the same things. Some here can not see the difference.




.

 

[VCViking]

I must admit, since I view the Bible as a great book of stories with some excellent guidelines for behavior, but certainly NOT to be taken at all literally.......I really don't have to worry about it.

.

That's exactly what my friends who are not saved say.

 

[VCViking]

Jesus explained what he meant to me when he told me we were not to hurt anyone for any reason.

You should see that a Christian isn’t part of the world, and should never be in the world’s army or police force.

So you would stand by and watch someone rape and murder another? You would do nothing to intervene?
And don't give me "I would call the police." By the time the police would arrive, the damage would be done.

As long as they were unsaved police, right?

 

[VCViking]

Many who start false teachings are protected by the very demons who introduced them. This way, it enforces the false teaching with those watching in.

I believe this sums it up.

 

[VCViking]

oops.

 

[Soul Searcher]

We're almost in agreement SS. But if someone beats you but you don't die, you should seek justice through the law. You should press charges. You do not offer the other cheek.

As in all things I think it depends on the circumstances, such as why did they beat me are they likely to do it again, did I do something to bring it on, and so on. Depending on all these factors perhaps I would press charges and perhaps not. Jesus does tell us to forgive and if feasiable this is what I would try to do.

I would advise you to really examine the context of this term. It's very clear we're talking about an insulting slap which was very serious in that day. This is why the major modern translation translate it that way. The passage is speaking about applying eye for eye legislation to insults such as this. It was not in harmony with the old testament and neither with the new.

I have heard the arguement of it meaning insult before and perhaps that is correct, I've even heard that it was demeaning to slap on the right side but if they slapped you on the left side it was as an equal, in a sense it would be a form of rebellion rather than pacifism I don't know about that but one must also keep in mind that this is not an isolated passage. It is pretty clear in the overall picture that Jesus would have us err on the side of mercy and forgiveness rather than the alternative when possible.

 

[Soul Searcher]

That's exactly what my friends who are not saved say.

I hope you are not saying that you know who is and is not saved. Surely this is beyond your knowledge.

 

[GenemZ]

Yeah, that seems to be a waste of a perfectly good Glock.

He could always have a little flag that pops out ...BANG!"

 

[Giver]

This is actually a concept derived from the O.T.

Prov. 24:17 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; 18 Lest the LORD see it, and it displease Him, And He turn away His wrath from him.

Prov. 25:21 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; 22 For so you will heap coals of fire on his head, And the LORD will reward you.

Even the Torah communicates such principles.

Ex. 23:4 “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again.

The problem is, all of these must also be compatible with O.T. legislation regarding self defense, capitalism and war. So you can hardly use these these to support your case that there is now a change in the Law.



Jesus is simply referring his audience back to the principles articulated in the whole of scripture. "Wicked man" is a very familiar phrase in the proverbs often regarding neighbors, not foreign enemies, or murderers.

Prov. 9:7 “He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself.

All N.T. verses used to promote pacifism are derived from the O.T. which totally refutes pacifism.

Wow! I have seen people go to extremes to water down what Jesus said, but what you just did not only watered it down but also deluded it to nothing.

 

[Zecryphon]

He could always have a little flag that pops out ...BANG!"

Yeah, then maybe the intruder or crimminal would die of laughter, rather than a bullet wound and he might be able to have a clean conscience.

 

[VCViking]

I hope you are not saying that you know who is and is not saved. Surely this is beyond your knowledge.

Only God knows a persons heart.

However...



Matthew 7:16-20

16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.

19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

 

[GenemZ]

Yeah, then maybe the intruder or crimminal would die of laughter, rather than a bullet wound and he might be able to have a clean conscience.

Killing and enemy in the name of 'self defense' is not a sin. Matter of fact... If you are commanded in the army to kill a known enemy, and you refuse? Its a sin.

Numbers 32:20-23 (New International Version)​

Then Moses said to them, "If you will do this—if you will arm yourselves before the LORD for battle, and if all of you will go armed over the Jordan before the LORD until he has driven his enemies out before him- then when the land is subdued before the LORD, you may return and be free from your obligation to the LORD and to Israel. And this land will be your possession before the LORD. ​

"But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the LORD; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out."​

​

Many a preacher has used that verse to hit drunkards and adulterers over the head... But, in context, the sin being mentioned is the one of failing to kill the enemy in warfare. And, interestingly enough. This battle was to be a pre-emptive strike against an enemy, if not killed off, will come back to destroy you later. Al Qaeda is what comes to mind.



Might as well learn something about what the Bible says while this thread goes on, even though some are here will never agree.



Grace and peace (through strength), GeneZ



.

 

[LJSGM]

nope, we're not to use the weapons of this world or fight in the world's battles.

It is only by God's will that you live or die. What are christians so afraid of?

 

[2theBone]

nope, we're not to use the weapons of this world or fight in the world's battles.

It is only by God's will that you live or die. What are christians so afraid of?

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.