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?

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 74 by JehovahsWitness]

The measures a Christian might take would be individual to the situation and it would be arbitary to say "You can shove but not punch, you can kick but not pinch" The principle is not to resort to violence when it can be avoided and to understand that , as has been proved by many a case with Jehovah's Witnesses, a peaceful manner a good reputation, and a non-violent approach has often proved the best defense before all but the most manic and murderous attack and this is thankfully extremely rare. Faces with a psycopathic murderer intent on taking ones life, a Christian will understand that "thou shalt not kill" remains a principle to live and if necessary, die for.

So why 'thou shall not kill' from OT is a principle to die for while Jesus's 'do not resist an evil person' seem to not deserve such a honor in your eyes? I mean if 'the most manic and murderous attack' suspends 'do not resist an evil person' then why won't it suspend 'thou shall not kill'?

And let me ask you this though. Forget murderous attacks. Lets say a guy comes up to you and just slaps you around for fun, spits in your face etc. In such a situation as a practicing christian I understand you will simply take the abuse, turn the other cheek as many times as necessary, wipe the spit of your face and go home. Correct?

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 81 by JewishVolcano]


Since the 4 Gospels were written after Paul's letters, early Christians wouldn't have accepted 'turning the other cheek'.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 82 by alwayson]

Are you sure there's nothing like that in early christian sources? Still however gospels came about - they are now prominent.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 83 by JewishVolcano]

I don't know.

Do Paul's letters, which are earlier than the Gospels, talk about it?

[JP Cusick]

Not supposed to fight back and defend yourself.

There are other ways to defend one-self without using violent tactics.

There are non violent ways of self defense.

To fight back is to give evil for evil - it is giving an eye for and eye.

The message in Matthew 5:38-48 tells us not to strike back with violence.

I'm not going to watch any videos. What Gandhi? We are talking about scripture.

In that SHORT VIDEO Gandhi explains the concept of turning the other cheek.

If you did watch that video then you would see a different interpretation then the misguided interpretation of your own.

Gospel doesn't say anything about 'spiritual evil' as opposed to 'physical person'. What do you even mean? It flat out states 'do not resist an evil person' and then proceeds to give specific examples of a quite physical 'non-resistance'.

The entire Bible repeatedly talks about the spiritual warfare instead of the physical.

See a couple examples below:

Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." KJV

Psalm 32:1 "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." KJV

Resist the sin yes - but do not physically attack or retaliate against the sinner.

[marco]

Resist the sin yes - but do not physically attack or retaliate against the sinner.

This is fine guidance in some cases and absurd in others. We have instances today of violence being done ( often in God's name) to innocent people and it would be ludicrous not to retaliate physically and possibly kill the attacker. There may not be much rejoicing among the angels, but I think those in danger would certainly appreciate the departure from Christ's advice. The only possible reason for valuing the generalisation is that the words come from the Son of God. The more astute will deduce that God's children can make errors, with the best of intentions.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 85 by JP Cusick]

There are other ways to defend one-self without using violent tactics.

There are non violent ways of self defense.

What are they? Shame your attacker into stopping?

[JehovahsWitness]

So why 'thou shall not kill' from OT is a principle to die for while Jesus's 'do not resist an evil person' seem to not deserve such a honor in your eyes?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question with reference to Jesus, I would say however that the "Old Testament" 6th commandment "thou shalt not kill" actually referred to "murder" or unlawful killing. Murder is a just as serious a sin for Christians as is was for the Israelites.

JW

[JewishVolcano]

So why 'thou shall not kill' from OT is a principle to die for while Jesus's 'do not resist an evil person' seem to not deserve such a honor in your eyes?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question with reference to Jesus, I would say however that the "Old Testament" 6th commandment "thou shalt not kill" actually referred to "murder" or unlawful killing. Murder is a just as serious a sin for Christians as is was for the Israelites.

JW

My question is simple. You said that in the face of 'psychopathic murderer' intent on taking one's life, Christian must understand that 'thou shall not kill' is a principle to die for. Please clarify what you meant but I took it as if you meant Christians are not to kill their attacker even if it means they will have to pay with their life. They will give their life to uphold 'thou shall not kill'. So my question was - why are you not saying that 'do not resist an evil person' is also a principle to die for? After all this principle comes from NT and as such should have more weight for Christians than anything contained in OT.

Still now you're saying that 'thou shall not kill' means 'thou shall not murder'. Since killing someone who's trying to kill you is not considered a murder - then there was no reason for you to even mention it. Christians then are to understand that they are perfectly within their right to kill those trying to kill them and 'thou shall not kill' doesn't apply here. Or does it?

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 83 by JewishVolcano]

I don't know.

Do Paul's letters, which are earlier than the Gospels, talk about it?

No clue. Never studied these texts.