OK, it's a little after 9pm EST. Wasn't this supposed to happen around 6pm?
Not according to the Bible. If anyone ever tells you when the end of the world is or when Christ is coming back, they are picking your pocket. Jesus said, "No one knows the day or the hour."
If anyone tells you that Jesus has returned in secret and is somewhere in the world, run away as fast as you can. Jesus said that He would return the same way He left, ( in the clouds), and that it would be a visible appearing. ( Revelation 1:7) This is speaking of His second coming
Quote: Just curious, how can you guys tell the difference between someone who has studied the Bible all his life and is absolutely correct and the other person who has studied the Bible all his life and is just nuts?
Personally, I can't tell the difference.
A person can study the Bible all their life, and never know what any of it means. The Bible is a spirtual book, and can not be understood by the human mind unless God helps a person understand it . That's why there's so many people that butcher the Bible and make it say things that it doesnt say at all.
1 Corinthians 2:6-8- Yet when I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom, but not the kind of wisdom that belongs to this world or to the rulers of this world, who are soon forgotten. 7 No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God... 8 But the rulers of this world have not understood it; if they had, they would not have crucified our glorious Lord.
1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
Quote: Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man ; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Quote: Just curious, how can you guys tell the difference between someone who has studied the Bible all his life and is absolutely correct and the other person who has studied the Bible all his life and is just nuts?
Personally, I can't tell the difference.
A person can study the Bible all their life, and never know what any of it means. The Bible is a spirtual book, and can not be understood by the human mind unless God helps a person understand it . That's why there's so many people that butcher the Bible and make it say things that it doesnt say at all.
1 Corinthians 2:6-8- Yet when I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom, but not the kind of wisdom that belongs to this world or to the rulers of this world, who are soon forgotten. 7 No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God... 8 But the rulers of this world have not understood it; if they had, they would not have crucified our glorious Lord.
1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
I am not a student per se, but I do know enough to know that your claims should never contradict what is written in the Bible which is exactly what this guy is doing with his end of the world talk.
Also, I can't remember where, but Jesus warns of charlatans who will come before him and deceive many.
As for the Bible itself. I read the King James only---well and the NIV only to get the gist of what is being said. I think just about every other version is written by a church to have the scripture coincide with their doctrine. I have seen passages in some versions that are complete departures from the King James (not to be confused with the New King James)
You should also get Strongs Concordance and get to understand the Hebrew and Greek words. It will take your understanding to another level. But that takes time and patience and an open heart to God.
Quote: Just curious, how can you guys tell the difference between someone who has studied the Bible all his life and is absolutely correct and the other person who has studied the Bible all his life and is just nuts?
Personally, I can't tell the difference.
A person can study the Bible all their life, and never know what any of it means. The Bible is a spirtual book, and can not be understood by the human mind unless God helps a person understand it . That's why there's so many people that butcher the Bible and make it say things that it doesnt say at all.
1 Corinthians 2:6-8- Yet when I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom, but not the kind of wisdom that belongs to this world or to the rulers of this world, who are soon forgotten. 7 No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God... 8 But the rulers of this world have not understood it; if they had, they would not have crucified our glorious Lord.
1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
I am not a student per se, but I do know enough to know that your claims should never contradict what is written in the Bible which is exactly what this guy is doing with his end of the world talk.
Also, I can't remember where, but Jesus warns of charlatans who will come before him and deceive many.
As for the Bible itself. I read the King James only---well and the NIV only to get the gist of what is being said. I think just about every other version is written by a church to have the scripture coincide with their doctrine. I have seen passages in some versions that are complete departures from the King James (not to be confused with the New King James)
You should also get Strongs Concordance and get to understand the Hebrew and Greek words. It will take your understanding to another level. But that takes time and patience and an open heart to God.
I absolutely agree with you! If you read my earlier posts you will see that I have been saying all along that this guy who said Jesus is coming today is way off base. My whole point was two-fold:
1. No one knows the day or the hour... 2. The man of sin must be revealed before the world ends, ( but not necessarily before the Rapture.)
BTW, the things I said about the Bible being spiritually discerned and not understandable to the natural mind was in response to Adam P's question. I was merely stating what Mox said earlier that years of study does not make one an expert on the Bible. The Holy Spirit is needed to understand the Bible, as well as proper study methods.
Of course there are charlatans. Do you think satan would have it any other way?
I did some study in Greek years ago, but I'm really rusty now. I use an Interlinear Bible, the text of the Greek New Testament, Thayers Lexicon, Strong's concordance, etc.
As far as the other translations, I also think that the King James Version is the most reliable, but there are other good translations. I do not like paraphrase Bibles though. I like translations, not paraphases. Paraphrases leave too much open to the paraphrasers bias. I generally like word for word translations.
Wow I haven't listened to that song in ages, talk about a blast from the past.
As for the "supposed" end of the world earlier I believed it as much as I did since the last time I heard the world was going to end. I do wonder somewhat how many people actually bought into this guess?
Quote: Just curious, how can you guys tell the difference between someone who has studied the Bible all his life and is absolutely correct and the other person who has studied the Bible all his life and is just nuts?
Glad you liked it. Here's my favorite song by the same band as well as some other bands I like if you're interested. I like hard rock, Metal ( the older style of metal), Ska, as well as Gospel, and many other types of music. These songs would be metal, hard rock, and I threw some ska in.
http://youtu.be/B24j9fnkxo4- Power metal, progressive. Give this one some time. It starts off a little slowly, but it absolutely rips once it gets going. It builds and builds.
http://youtu.be/ZGxmxJCmZ_Y metal. BTW, when Deliverance uses phrases like "Weapons of our Warfare" they are referring to spiritual warfar, spiritual enemies, and spiritual weapons. The battle is not against flesh and blood...
I was an Iron Maiden, Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer, etc fan in the 80s. I became a believer in 1988. I still like metal, but the metal I like now has a different message.
Quote: Just curious, how can you guys tell the difference between someone who has studied the Bible all his life and is absolutely correct and the other person who has studied the Bible all his life and is just nuts?
Personally, I can't tell the difference.
The one who is correct says the same things Jesus said. The ones who are nuts are the ones who twist and pervert what the Bible says.
Of course the world thinks the teachings of Christ are foolish. I mean who wants to love their enemies, or go the extra mile for someone, or forgive those who have wronged you, or treat other people how you would like to be treated, or be faithful in your marriage, or honor your father and mother, or be honest in your business dealings, or seek something higher than material things...
I'm reasonably certain that the "end of the world" guy, as well as most Atheists, Agnostics, and pretty much just about everybody agrees with the basic concepts put forth. There reasons would all be different.
Just want to give one example I heard a while back of how this book is interpreted.
We all know the "turn the other cheek" story. It is taken as a parable of non-violence. Now, back in ancient times, if you were facing a person, and you were right-handed, like most people, you would strike a slave or lower-caste person with the back of your hand, striking them upon the right cheek. There is a modern term for this "slap" which carries some of the same meaning still today.
What is so dramatically misunderstood today is that for a Roman, for instance, to strike a slave with a closed fist upon the left cheek would be incredibly shameful for the Roman. Status was all-important, to lower yourself to that level just was not done. Somewhat similar to peeing on your grandmother in front of a large crowd. Sorry for the graphic there but IMO it was necessary.
For a slave to offer that left cheek would be claiming an equal status, in effect saying "hit me like a man". There is more. A back-handed lower-caste person was absolutely unable to retaliate in any way, this would mean a very speedy and likely painful death. However, someone struck as an equal, someone hit with a closed fist, on that left cheek, claiming equal status inherently also meant that retaliation was likely to occur.
Offering that left cheek was far from an expression of non-violence or altruistic love. It was a form of direct assault, a claim of equality coupled with the threat of a return strike. Regardless of how the speaker actually meant these words, which would be simply guessing, there is no doubt whatsoever how a Roman citizen would have perceived this action.
Quote: I'm reasonably certain that the "end of the world" guy, as well as most Atheists, Agnostics, and pretty much just about everybody agrees with the basic concepts put forth. There reasons would all be different.
Just want to give one example I heard a while back of how this book is interpreted.
We all know the "turn the other cheek" story. It is taken as a parable of non-violence. Now, back in ancient times, if you were facing a person, and you were right-handed, like most people, you would strike a slave or lower-caste person with the back of your hand, striking them upon the right cheek. There is a modern term for this "slap" which carries some of the same meaning still today.
What is so dramatically misunderstood today is that for a Roman, for instance, to strike a slave with a closed fist upon the left cheek would be incredibly shameful for the Roman. Status was all-important, to lower yourself to that level just was not done. Somewhat similar to peeing on your grandmother in front of a large crowd. Sorry for the graphic there but IMO it was necessary.
For a slave to offer that left cheek would be claiming an equal status, in effect saying "hit me like a man". There is more. A back-handed lower-caste person was absolutely unable to retaliate in any way, this would mean a very speedy and likely painful death. However, someone struck as an equal, someone hit with a closed fist, on that left cheek, claiming equal status inherently also meant that retaliation was likely to occur.
Offering that left cheek was far from an expression of non-violence or altruistic love. It was a form of direct assault, a claim of equality coupled with the threat of a return strike. Regardless of how the speaker actually meant these words, which would be simply guessing, there is no doubt whatsoever how a Roman citizen would have perceived this action.
Interesting post. The only thing is that there is nothing in the context of Jesus' teaching that indicated He was describing a situation between a slave and his master. Contextually, Jesus is showing an alternative to "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" precept. Now seeing that "eye for an eye" is from the Old Testament, does this mean that Jesus is contradicting the Old Testament? No, He was demonstrating their misinterpretation of the Old Testament. They were using "eye for an eye" for personal vengeance, when in the Old Testament "eye for an eye" was part of judicial law.
Also, Jesus is showing that the Old Testament was not God's final word, but preparatory. He said, "I did not come to destroy the Law but to fullfill. The Royal Law of Christ is even higher than the Old Testament Law.
If you read Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus says several times, "you have heard that it has been said...but I say unto you...
It has been said Do not murder...but I say to you "dont even hate" It has been said Do not commit adultery, but I say dont even lust after another mans wife. It has been said, "eye for an eye", I say "turn the other cheek"
In these passages, Jesus is not contradicting the Old Testament, but is basically raising the bar that was set by the Old Testament to a higher level. Not that the Old Testament was wrong, but because it was incomplete and preparatory, ( preparing us for Christ). The books of Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, to name a few clearly teach this, for anyone who wants to take the time to read them.
So the "turn the other cheek" exhortation is made in contrast to the "eye for an eye" exhortation.
"Eye for an eye" is for bearing false witness. It is not direct retribution for a wrong. If you bear false witness for a crime and the punishment is loss of an eye, you will lose an eye.
Jews were either slaves or lower-class, almost exclusively,
I nowhere mentioned a slave and his master, but specifically a lower-caste person, as virtually all Jews were, and an upper-class person, as almost anyone else would be. Certainly not every encounter would contain these two elements, however it should be abundantly clear that a significant number, even a majority, WOULD in fact contain such a mixture of people. Even with a confrontation among equals, the same meaning remains.
Specifically the contact to the right side of the face as the initial contact cannot be so blithely ignored. With the vast majority of the population being right-handed, unless the person was standing Behind you, the blow to the right side of the face would be a backhand strike from the right hand. This is very specifically an absolute indicator of the relative social status of the two individuals involved, even if they were equal, a statement is being made. Striking someone this way is stating "you are beneath me." Inviting them to strike the Left cheek is a very clear statement that "I am your equal, and I am free to hit you back".
From this point forward, I will respond with scripture only.
Leviticus 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done , so shall it be done to him; 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
All those stoning deaths and the offenses that led to them weren't wrong?
Question 1. Galatians 3:19 Well then, why was the law given? It was given to show people how guilty they are. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of the child to whom God's promise was made. And there is this further difference. God gave his laws to angels to give to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people. 20 Now a mediator is needed if two people enter into an agreement, but God acted on his own when he made his promise to Abraham. 21 Well then, is there a conflict between God's law and God's promises? Absolutely not! If the law could have given us new life, we could have been made right with God by obeying it. 22 But the Scriptures have declared that we are all prisoners of sin, so the only way to receive God's promise is to believe in Jesus Christ. 23 Until faith in Christ was shown to us as the way of becoming right with God, we were guarded by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until we could put our faith in the coming Savior. 24 Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian and teacher to lead us until Christ came. So now, through faith in Christ, we are made right with God. 25 But now that faith in Christ has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian
Question 2. Romans 3:23-For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ezekiel 18: For all people are mine to judge -- both parents and children alike. And this is my rule: The person who sins will be the one who dies.
Romans 5:8 But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.
Jews were either slaves or lower-class, almost exclusively,
I nowhere mentioned a slave and his master, but specifically a lower-caste person, as virtually all Jews were, and an upper-class person, as almost anyone else would be. Certainly not every encounter would contain these two elements, however it should be abundantly clear that a significant number, even a majority, WOULD in fact contain such a mixture of people. Even with a confrontation among equals, the same meaning remains.
Specifically the contact to the right side of the face as the initial contact cannot be so blithely ignored. With the vast majority of the population being right-handed, unless the person was standing Behind you, the blow to the right side of the face would be a backhand strike from the right hand. This is very specifically an absolute indicator of the relative social status of the two individuals involved, even if they were equal, a statement is being made. Striking someone this way is stating "you are beneath me." Inviting them to strike the Left cheek is a very clear statement that "I am your equal, and I am free to hit you back".
There you go, time to tap-dance a little faster.
I know I said that I would only answer with scripture, but I must make an exception here, because you need to explain your position. Please back up the following statements with either a Biblical or historical source, then I will be glad to tap dance with you further.
"Jews were either slaves or lower-class, almost exclusively",
"a lower-caste person, as virtually all Jews were, and an upper-class person, as almost anyone else would be".
In what way were Jews lower class and a lower caste then almost everyone else?
Please provide reliable sources to demonstrate your point.
I could do that and open up other avenues of wiggle room for you, but I'm not going to. It is not relevant.
The statement in the book is clear, the physics are inescapable. To strike a person facing you upon the right cheek is a back-handed blow. To offer the left is a direct challenge to social status.
The main point here is that the interpretation most often placed upon this passage ignores social standards of the time. This is based upon people seeing that which they want to see. Such as how you don't mention the complete gibberish which accompanies almost every quote you give.
The book is almost 2,000 years old, language changes so much in that period of time that to take a literal translation of anything that old and say with confidence "this is what it means" is just silly. General ideas, sure, but specifics, hell no.
The "turn the other cheek" story is just one example, but one of my favorites. Once you give some thought to the status and caste system in place in those days, it is not possible to ignore the specifics of the statement. Now it is possible that in 2,000 years the meaning of the words for "right" and "left" has reversed. However, if that has happened, then every single word in every single translation needs to be re-examined, with the knowledge that absolute factual information is just not available. So, you are left with somebody's best guess, which is a heck of a thing to base a life philosophy on.
No offense to you but I just don't believe the whole "Turn the other Cheek" story you told. You mean to tell me a slave/low class person when confronted by a Roman just needed to turn his cheek and he would get one over on the Roman??? Sorry, but the Roman would have pulled a sword and stabbed the man for trying to insult him.
History being a hobby of mine and the Romans a great interest as well I've never heard of Romans always backhanding a slave and only using their right hand, and if they punched a slave he would mark him as his equal. I can promise you many slaves were punched and punched often and none of them were granted any raise in class status.
Jews were either slaves or lower-class, almost exclusively,
I nowhere mentioned a slave and his master, but specifically a lower-caste person, as virtually all Jews were, and an upper-class person, as almost anyone else would be. Certainly not every encounter would contain these two elements, however it should be abundantly clear that a significant number, even a majority, WOULD in fact contain such a mixture of people. Even with a confrontation among equals, the same meaning remains.
Specifically the contact to the right side of the face as the initial contact cannot be so blithely ignored. With the vast majority of the population being right-handed, unless the person was standing Behind you, the blow to the right side of the face would be a backhand strike from the right hand. This is very specifically an absolute indicator of the relative social status of the two individuals involved, even if they were equal, a statement is being made. Striking someone this way is stating "you are beneath me." Inviting them to strike the Left cheek is a very clear statement that "I am your equal, and I am free to hit you back".
There you go, time to tap-dance a little faster.
I did not dodge the issue, I provided the context of the verse that you tried to expound. Basically what you have done is remove the verse from its immediete context and the context of the book of Matthew, set it off by itself, and arrived at a novel interpretation. You should read the passage in context before you interpret it.
This is why people come up with so many wrong interpretations of the Bible, they take it out of context! The problem is not that the Bible is hard to understand or nonsensical, it's because people take it out of context.
When Jesus said to turn the other cheek it was during one of His sermons, one of the greatest sermons ever preached. The immediete context of the phrase in question is Matthew 5:17-48. I will not post the whole passage, you can look it up yourself, and I summarized it earlier, but here is the beginning and the end of that passage. I believe the beginning shows its subject matter and the end shows its application. Please pay specific attention to the last line in the first section, and the last three lines of the second section.
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. Matthew 5:43-48- 43
What Jesus is saying is that just as God loves those who hate Him, patiently endures those who mock His name and ridicule Him, blesses those who reject Him (with rain and harvest), and goes the extra mile for us, we as followers of God, should love those that hate us, be patient with those who mistreat us, and give to those in need even though they make themselves our enemies.
How many times was Jesus slapped and turned the other cheek on the way to the cross?
Quote: No offense to you but I just don't believe the whole "Turn the other Cheek" story you told. You mean to tell me a slave/low class person when confronted by a Roman just needed to turn his cheek and he would get one over on the Roman??? Sorry, but the Roman would have pulled a sword and stabbed the man for trying to insult him.
History being a hobby of mine and the Romans a great interest as well I've never heard of Romans always backhanding a slave and only using their right hand, and if they punched a slave he would mark him as his equal. I can promise you many slaves were punched and punched often and none of them were granted any raise in class status.
Excellent post. I also think he misunderstands or misrepresents the social status of the Jews in Jesus day. The apostle Paul for one was a priviledged Roman citizen, as were many other Jews. Many were wealthy landowners and respected leaders. To say they were mostly or all slaves is ludicrous.
It is accurate to say that they were citizens of an occupied country who were often mistreated by their occupiers, but it wasnt like they were slaves as in Egypt during the days of Moses.
Firstly, you are missing the concept that no, the slave simply would not do that, turn the other cheek, as to "get one over" on a Roman would mean almost certain death.
That the Roman would take this as a tremendous insult was EXACTLY my point.
Did not say they always used their right hand, please read more carefully. I said that most people are right-handed. To use the right hand and land a blow on the right cheek of a person facing you requires a back-hand blow. The meaning of such a blow is still clear today.
Sure there are left-handed people, and also midgets who would hit you in the knee. We are dealing with some generalities, here.
Start with this single concept, someone who is facing you and has struck your right cheek, has almost certainly "b-slapped" you. Today, 2,000 years ago, tomorrow, this is by far the most likely thing to have happened. This is less an attack or act of violence than a mark of disrespect.
An upper-class Roman would not beat a slave as you describe, he would have one of their servants do it. They would not "get their hands dirty", with such a thing. As a general rule.
Slave, lower-class, these differ only slightly, it is a graduated scale. "knowing your place" was a very important concept in those days.
Did not say they were all slaves, please read more carefully, not everything is total mush that you can interpret as you wish.
Citizens of an occupied country, to Roman citizens, were Automatically of lower caste or status.
You have to take into account that these were people who were totally free to have their wives or their own children executed, pretty much just because they felt like it. "Mistreatment" is just a bit misleading.
Just start with the B-slap concept and extrapolate from there. As for the passages you posted, I see little to no connection to the passage in question, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that further illuminates the specific aspects being debated.
AT A MINIMUM - is the scenario I have given a Possibly valid interpretation of what was being said? Can you PROVE that it is wrong? If it IS correct, is it not RADICALLY different from the generally accepted meaning? Is it not possible, even likely, that other such dramatic differences in original meaning and current interpretation exist? Does it say to not Kill, or not Murder? Who exactly constitutes Your Neighbors? If you can answer those, who told you that and how the hell do they know?
BTW, the original interpretation I have given here was not my invention, heard this on radio or TV a few years ago. Don't remember his name or general purpose, I think he wrote a book or something.
Quote: Did not say they were all slaves, please read more carefully, not everything is total mush that you can interpret as you wish.
Citizens of an occupied country, to Roman citizens, were Automatically of lower caste or status.
You have to take into account that these were people who were totally free to have their wives or their own children executed, pretty much just because they felt like it. "Mistreatment" is just a bit misleading.
Just start with the B-slap concept and extrapolate from there. As for the passages you posted, I see little to no connection to the passage in question, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that further illuminates the specific aspects being debated.
AT A MINIMUM - is the scenario I have given a Possibly valid interpretation of what was being said? Can you PROVE that it is wrong? If it IS correct, is it not RADICALLY different from the generally accepted meaning? Is it not possible, even likely, that other such dramatic differences in original meaning and current interpretation exist? Does it say to not Kill, or not Murder? Who exactly constitutes Your Neighbors? If you can answer those, who told you that and how the hell do they know?
BTW, the original interpretation I have given here was not my invention, heard this on radio or TV a few years ago. Don't remember his name or general purpose, I think he wrote a book or something.
Laying aside the slave/lower caste debate momentarily, lets look at the heart of the question.
The verses that you say have no connection to the passage in question are actually its immediete context. You do realize that immediete context means what is said immedietely before and after , dont you? Please refer to the quote and link below, paying special attention to the underlined portion.
To quote out of context is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its meaning. The context in which a passage occurs always contributes to its meaning, and the shorter the passage the larger the contribution . For this reason, the quoter must always be careful to quote enough of the context not to misrepresent the meaning of the quote.
Notice the context, ( or surrounding verses in the Bible's case), always contributes to a passages meaning, and the shorter the passage the larger the contribution. This is Hermeneutics,( Bible interpretation), 101. In fact it is the most elementary principle. Context is also determined by who is speaking, who he is speaking to, when it is taking place, where it is taking place, and events that surround the passage to name a few.
As to the question "is this interpretation valid", I am not saying that what you are stating is an impossibility, merely that it doesnt fit the context of the Sermon on the Mount, in which the passage in question is located. I don't feel the need to disprove your interpretation. If that's the way you interpret the passage, feel free. I just respectfully doubt your conclusion, ( I'm not even disagreeing, I am just skeptical), not because what you are saying is impossible, but because the context of the passage indicates otherwise.
Also, just because someone said it on the radio, doesnt make it so. People say all kinds of things on the radio, take Harold Camping for instance, ( remember him?) He made a lot of claims that could not be documented. If I were you I would look for documentation. Even if you find it, it still doesnt change the meaning of Jesus" words, just how Romans would interpret them.By the way, was Jesus speaking to Jews or Romans? Did His listeners interpret His words literally or figuratively? For example, when Jesus said, If your right hand offends you, cut it off. Should we take that literally? The context of a passage also tells us when it should be interpreted literally or figuratively.
I hold that what Jesus meant by turn the other cheek was if someone mistreats you or insults you, do not retaliate. That explaination fits perfectly within the context of the passage.
I am not belittling your interpretation and I do appreciate the information you shared. In fact, I will be doing a little research to see if the phrase "turn the other cheek" carried that nuance of meaning. I am just sharing my view with you. There's no need for us to argue, we are just exchanging ideas. I just wanted to say that to let you know I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm just sharing another perspective.
As far as meanings of the word murder or kill, you can refer to the original Hebrew Text and see what Hebrew word was used. The word is "ratsach" and it means murder. Also, you can interpret this word in light of its larger context, ( the books of Moses, Genesis-Deuteronomy ) As for what does "neighbor" mean, Jesus answered that for us in the parable of the good Samaritan.
Lastly, please explain this statement...
"Such as how you don't mention the complete gibberish which accompanies almost every quote you give."
I am familiar with context, although I would contend that it is not ALWAYS necessary. In terms of what you quoted as the context for the statement, I completely and totally fail to see one's connection to the other.
Much of Bible verse is, to me, Gibberish, babble, non-sensical. When "explanations" are offered such as the meaning of "neighbor" is given several hundred years AFTER the commandments are delivered, this makes no sense to me. "Neighbor", at the time given for the writing, meant something very different long, long ago, for one thing a neighbor was almost certainly family, thinking in terms of clans a neighbor was by definition "family". The word does not mean that today.
"Kill" and "murder" are two completely different things, yet they are used nearly interchangeably in the commandments. Who is it that decides which word should be used? How certain can we be on the meaning of a word used 2,000 years ago? At that time, the meanings could very well be substantially different than what we understand them to be today.
For example, how many women have you "known"? Did Jesus know Mary Magdalene? Speaking today, yes, he did, but speaking 2,000 years ago, well, he may or may not.
Which reminds me of something completely different from another source, about Jesus being married, which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. This author stated that it is nowhere mentioned that he had a third eye in the center of his forehead, either, but we can assume that he did not because if he did, this would be so unusual that it would be commented upon. He used the same case to argue that a Rabbi who was NOT married would be so unusual that someone would have said something about it.
IMO some unknown dude on the radio who wrote a book for some reason is just as much an absolute authority on the words, actions, and meanings of God as anyone else.
When you speak of "interpreting" meaning, in context, what this says to me is that you are Guessing. We can call it an Educated Guess, but it is still Guessing. Interpretations of various passages have changed over the years. You all can't agree on what, exactly, the "rapture" is, how it happens, and how long after that the earth is destroyed.
For a Rulebook on how life is to be lived, the Bible is awfully vague.
You believe the Bible is impossible to understand with certainty, I believe that the Bible can be understood by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. I also believe that God is able to superintend His Word, so that people in all generations will understand it.
Obviously you don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God. If I may ask, are you an atheist, an agnostic, a non-Biblical theist, or a liberal Christian. Whichever you may be, it will effect how you understand the Bible, ( or hold to the Bible's incomprehensibility). If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, we may end up agreeing on minor points, but for the most part we will never agree on what the Bible is, means, says or teaches.
My faith is based on the Bible. You think the Bible is gibberish. That is only to be expected, because the Bible is impossible to understand without the illumination of the heart by the Holy Spirit.
It is pointless to debate, because we have no common ground whatsoever. If I want to, I can do research and see if what you say is valid about the turn the other cheek passage, ( I probably will, I'm always ready to learn something new), and if you want you can do some research on why Christians hold the Bible to be reliable, understandable, and relevant for life. There is plenty of materiel on both sides of the debate.
Regarding the rapture, all believers agree on what it is. It is the snatching up of believers from the earth to meet with their Lord in the air to be forever with the Lord.. It is explained in unmistakable terms in 1 Thessalonians 4. Read that, and tell me how many possible ways there are to interpret it. How it happens is simple, it is the power of God, just like the parting of the Red Sea, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the ascension of Jesus, which is very similar to the way believers will ascend to Heaven. Regarding the time of the end or destruction of the world, there are differences of opinions, because the Bible doesnt answer that question. That's why Harold Camping was in error. The numberiology that he used had no Biblical base. Why don't you call him and ask him how he came up with those numbers. He has a radio show.
We Christians can't answer for every charlatan or "off base" person that tries to interpret the Bible. Our faith is not in men. The authority that frames our belief does not rest on man. Our faith and our authority rests in One, namely Jesus Christ the righteous and true. Herein I stand, I can do no other.
Here is an outline of the passage that contains the "turn the other cheek" quote. See if you can see the progression.
1. Jesus said that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ( experts of the OT Law)
2. Jesus raises the bar set by the Law to a higher level, with several contrasts.
a. The Law said do not murder... Jesus says do not demean your brother. b. The Law said do not commit adultery... Jesus said do not lust for another mans wife. c. The Law said if you divorce, give your wife a certificate of divorce... Jesus said do not divorce at all, except in cases of infidelity. d. The Law said keep your oaths, Jesus said be so honest that you don't have to take an oath for people to believe you. e. The Law says eye for an eye... Jesus said do not retaliate, turn the other cheek. f. It was said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy. ( This must be tradition, because nowhere does the Law say hate your enemy). Jesus said Love your enemy.
In conclusion- Be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect. ( perfect- Greek telios, completeness)
Jesus is saying that the Law of Moses was good, but not complete. Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. The Law came by Moses but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.
By this outline you can see that the "turn the other cheek" was part of a series of illustrations Jesus used in His sermon. The illustrations are showing the supremecy of Christ's Law, and deal with loving as God loves, and reflecting His integrity and faithfullness
Nelson, I just wanted to qualify the following statement, because the way I phrased it may seem insulting. The statement I want to qualify is...
... You think the Bible is gibberish. That is only to be expected, because the Bible is impossible to understand without the illumination of the heart by the Holy Spirit.
I just want you to understand that I am not saying that you are incapable of understanding the Bible through the Holy Spirit, just that you are not understanding it because you are trying to understand it through human reasoning. That is why it is gibberish to you. It is a spiritual book, and you are trying to understand it with a natural mind.
1 Corinthians 2:-.11 No one can know what anyone else is really thinking except that person alone, and no one can know God's thoughts except God's own Spirit. 12 And God has actually given us his Spirit (not the world's spirit) so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us. 13 When we tell you this, we do not use words of human wisdom. We speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths. 14 But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means
If you were to ask God to show you what it means, and then read it with an open and sincere heart, I believe that God will reveal it to you, but if you approach it with your mind already made up that its false, it will remain shrouded and veiled.
Luke 11:11 "You fathers -- if your children ask for a fish, do you give them a snake instead? 12 Or if they ask for an egg, do you give them a scorpion? Of course not! 13 If you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him
I'm not asking you to take a blind leap of faith, I'm just saying read the Bible with an open heart, and try asking God to help you understand it.
When I read the Bible I do two things. First I lay aside all presuppositions and prejudices, and secondly, I ask God to help me understand it. That is what I meant when I said the Bible can only be understood by one whose heart is illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
If you read my earlier posts you will see that I have been saying all along that this guy who said Jesus is coming today is way off base. My whole point was two-fold:
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)