Jesus' teachings. Profound?

[McCulloch]

Perhaps, but for me the miracle things are secondary, in comparison to what Jesus taught. The teachings of Jesus are for me the greatest thing, not the miracles.

In what way are Jesus' teachings extraordinary? Can it be demonstrated that Jesus had great insight? What profound wisdom is there in Jesus' teachings?

[JP Cusick]

Scripture doesn't differentiate between defence and retaliation, it just says - 'if someone slaps you turn the other cheek', 'if someone takes your jacket give him your sweater'. It's not about violence in general, it's about violence for self-defence.

What civil disobedience? Disobedience to what? We are talking about situation where you're being assaulted. Say you walk the street, a guy comes up to you and says 'hey I know this guy you can just hit him' and so he smacks you around. Then he says 'that's a nice jacket you got on' - so he takes your jacket. So tell me oh powerful one - what you're going to do about it if violence is out of the question?

I see it as unsuitable that you who does not believe the doctrine and yet you are saying that it has to be interpreted in the way that you claim.

If I viewed that message the way that you describe it then I too would reject it as absurd.

The message does not apply as you demand.

The text is here in Matthew 5:38-48, and it is talking about confronting violence.

The old doctrine of "an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth" was intended as a restriction, as in ONLY an eye for an eye and ONLY a tooth for a tooth. Modern people (and particularly Jewish people) see that doctrine as in some one knocks out their eye or tooth then they can retaliate by destroying the person and their home and kill all of their relations too. ~ The correct way was ONLY an eye for an eye and ONLY a tooth for a tooth.

Then in the sermon on the mount Jesus said not to resist the violence at all.

Do not resist evil - is in that context as = Do not resist violence.

If you ever actually did the turning of thy cheek, then it is very proactive as it is pressing the violent person to do more violence and it does not ever mean to run away or to ignore the violence, and in every case it is civil disobedience because the violent person who slaps is thereby making a demand and we are to defy their violence.

To turn the other cheek is a very aggressive act of defiance.

When some one takes thy coat though the law (as the message says) then to give them thy cloak is also an act of defiance when it is done correctly, and when one is told to walk one (1) mile and they walk two (2) miles then that too is defiance, because going 2 miles screws up the 1 mile.

In example Jesus did not have to carry the cross, as they were going to kill Him any way - so it was an act of defiance to carry His own cross.

A big part of the misunderstanding is that people think that they can live sinful and then in their time of need they "turn the other cheek" and it does not work for them, and this tactic is for the strong who follow the commandments, and it is not a last resort for sinners trying to escape what they are due.

[McCulloch]

To turn the other cheek does NOT mean to be defenseless nor to be a doormat.

It means to resist evil without using violence in retaliation.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 57 by JewishVolcano]

Should is a recommendation not a rule.

You should brush your teeth vs you have to brush your teeth.

[JP Cusick]

To turn the other cheek does NOT mean to be defenseless nor to be a doormat.

It means to resist evil without using violence in retaliation.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

I take your point - that I am not preaching the mainstream Christian nonsense - and that is correct.

I am saying that Jesus and the Bible teaches a strong message to sincere people, while the majority of Christianity teaches a fake and worthless message.

The KJV - Mathew 5:39
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

If we look at the newer revised translations then they change the wording to "evil person" but we can see the words in context that Jesus is talking about the evil action of being slapped.

And for those who really can not distinguish the sin from the sinner, then it could be interpreted as = do not resist the evil person by using their method of violence.

See also Luke 6:29 = "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;"
This is resisting the person but not resisting the violent slap.

I also learned from "Biblical Criticism" that the Gospel gives an example of "turning the other cheek: in the Gospel of John 18:19-24, link HERE.

In that example Jesus gets slapped in His face and then Jesus responded to the slap just by speaking more offensive words, and thereby Jesus was offering to get slapped again, but He did not resist by any violent response.

This is one of the most dynamic of doctrines, which is probably why mainstream Christianity missed it completely.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

To turn the other cheek does NOT mean to be defenseless nor to be a doormat.

It means to resist evil without using violence in retaliation.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

I take your point - that I am not preaching the mainstream Christian nonsense - and that is correct.

I am saying that Jesus and the Bible teaches a strong message to sincere people, while the majority of Christianity teaches a fake and worthless message.

The KJV - Mathew 5:39
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

If we look at the newer revised translations then they change the wording to "evil person" but we can see the words in context that Jesus is talking about the evil action of being slapped.

And for those who really can not distinguish the sin from the sinner, then it could be interpreted as = do not resist the evil person by using their method of violence.

See also Luke 6:29 = "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;"
This is resisting the person but not resisting the violent slap.

I also learned from "Biblical Criticism" that the Gospel gives an example of "turning the other cheek: in the Gospel of John 18:19-24, link HERE.

In that example Jesus gets slapped in His face and then Jesus responded to the slap just by speaking more offensive words, and thereby Jesus was offering to get slapped again, but He did not resist by any violent response.

This is one of the most dynamic of doctrines, which is probably why mainstream Christianity missed it completely.

Is there anything in these teachings you ascribe to Jesus that couldn't be advanced just as well by practicing the golden rule, and promoting the use of the golden rule to others?

[JP Cusick]

Is there anything in these teachings you ascribe to Jesus that couldn't be advanced just as well by practicing the golden rule, and promoting the use of the golden rule to others?

Turning the other cheek is a very aggressive and proactive doctrine.

I would not view it as fitting under the golden rule.

I like the metaphor of separating the sheep from the goats, so the golden rule is fine for sheep, while turning the other cheek is a doctrine for us goats.

The golden rule has big flaws in it, because it is using our self as the standard for treating others, and that is not a sound doctrine.

I certainly do not want other people to treat me in the ways that they treat their self.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Is there anything in these teachings you ascribe to Jesus that couldn't be advanced just as well by practicing the golden rule, and promoting the use of the golden rule to others?

Turning the other cheek is a very aggressive and proactive doctrine.

I would not view it as fitting under the golden rule.

I like the metaphor of separating the sheep from the goats, so the golden rule is fine for sheep, while turning the other cheek is a doctrine for us goats.

The golden rule has big flaws in it, because it is using our self as the standard for treating others, and that is not a sound doctrine.

I certainly do not want other people to treat me in the ways that they treat their self.

Do you subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" dictate each and every time without fail yourself?

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 61 by JP Cusick]

I see it as unsuitable that you who does not believe the doctrine and yet you are saying that it has to be interpreted in the way that you claim.

If I viewed that message the way that you describe it then I too would reject it as absurd.

The message does not apply as you demand.

Then in the sermon on the mount Jesus said not to resist the violence at all.

Do not resist evil - is in that context as = Do not resist violence.

I don't abide by the doctrine and I don't believe in it's divine origins, but it doesn't mean I don't understand what this doctrine demands. And you're offering no alternative interpretation either.

You say yourself that Jesus have said not to resist violence. So you just affirm my interpretation. You can personally view you not resisting violence as a superagressive act of defiance but this still leaves you with the fact that you're not resisting it. You allow yourself to be smacked around and robbed. Which is a very definition of doormat.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 63 by DanieltheDragon]

There's a video of a couple of black hebrew israelites, young and old, getting into a conflict with some youths and the young israelite says to them 'this motherfucker should be bowing to him'. He meant one of the youths should be bowing to the old israelite. Sure as hell wasn't recommending anything.

There's nothing in the simile of the saw to suggest that it's all but a recommendation and monks are to make up their own minds as to how they wish to proceed.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 63 by DanieltheDragon]

There's a video of a couple of black hebrew israelites, young and old, getting into a conflict with some youths and the young israelite says to them 'this motherfucker should be bowing to him'. He meant one of the youths should be bowing to the old israelite. Sure as hell wasn't recommending anything.

There's nothing in the simile of the saw to suggest that it's all but a recommendation and monks are to make up their own minds as to how they wish to proceed.

should
VERB

1Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
‘he should have been careful’
‘I think we should trust our people more’
‘you shouldn't have gone’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 Indicating a desirable or expected state.
‘by now pupils should be able to read with a large degree of independence’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.2 Used to give or ask advice or suggestions.
‘you should go back to bed’
‘what should I wear?’
More example sentences
1.3I should Used to give advice.
‘I should hold out if I were you’

Should has multiple meanings but none of them indicate rule or command. In your example the older Isrealites is expressing a desired state and/or criticizing the correctness of the youth. He of course can't make the youth do anything this is just his expression of what he wants.