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?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Okay, I think I understand... indeed if the only way to effectively "resist" someone - as with a for example a psychopath intent on taking one's life - were to kill (ie murder*) him then that would for one of Jehovah Witesses be unacceptable.

The point of my earlier posts was to explain that Jesus instructions not to "resist" were not to be taken in the absolute sence of complete compliance (ie, passive co-operation) with all aggression since said aggression (attacks) also constitute a violation of divine law (fornication as in the case of rape, abuse (violent attack) or murder).

So yes, "do not resist an evil person' is also a principle to die for" meaning, resistence is permissible but if the only way to effectively "resist" evil is for a Christian to himself murder, this is not an option. Self defence (or the defence of a loved one) does not legitimize the deliberate taking of another's life, even if that one were himself breaking divine law.



* MURDER Bibilcally "murder" is the taking of life outside of divine law. Divine law for the Israelites was the Mosaic law. When this law was abolished, Christian law became the expression of divine law for all humans. What was lawful for an Israelite is not necessarily lawful for a Christian. For example Christian law prohibits the taking of life in warfare which was not the case for the Israelites.

Killing someone who's trying to kill you is not considered a murder - then there was no reason for you to even mention it

Deliberate killing in self defence is not considered murder under secular law; it however it is considered "murder" under Divine law (see above) which, for a Christian takes priority. This is why I mentioned this detail. In the same way killing on the battlefield is also not considered murder by most secular authorities but it is still considered as such by Christians (Jehovah's Witnesses) because Jesus commanded his followers to love even their enemies. Thus there may be a conflict between secular and religious law and when this is the case for Jehovah's Witnesses divine law will always be obeyed first.

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?

No. See above.






JW


Turning the other cheek: What did Jesus mean?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 055#863055

Further reading
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102010324#h=9

COMMENTARIES

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
- resist not evil] i. e. do not seek to retaliate evil.
- turn to him the other also] To be understood with the limitation imposed on the words by our Lord’s personal example, John 18:22-23.

Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 5:39. Μὴ ἀντιστῆναι, not to resist) [...] To resist evil is to return injury for injury

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Resist not evil.— [...] The principle in this matter is clearly and simply this, that the disciple of Christ, when he has suffered wrong, is to eliminate altogether from his motives the natural desire to retaliate or accuse.

[JehovahsWitness]

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?

I do not agree with your very literal interpretation of Jesus' instructions. As I explained, to "turn the other cheek" means to NOT retaliate in kind. We do not interpret it to mean to actively invite more abuse.

Well if someone slapped me, or spat in my face, I would not literally turn and invite him or her to do it again. Obviously someone that slaps you or spits in your face cannot be reasoned with, at least at that moment. Like Jesus I would simply take my leave.

I'm not adverse to running if the situation required it.

Jehovah's Witness father and son are confronted with a Mod - Quebec, Canada 1945

source: Proclaimers p. 667


Below is a very real example of what I am explaining. It refers to the treatment of Jehovah's Witesses in 1950's America when we were subject to much verbal and physical abuse from mob action and others due to much anti-witness sentiment at the time. Rocky Webb was a boxer and one of Jehovah's Witnesses, still alive in his 90s he relates how he turned away from using his fists.

Rocky Webb: All of Us Will Be Tested
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#e ... 04_5_VIDEO

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 91 by JehovahsWitness]

So yes, "do not resist an evil person' is also a principle to die for" meaning, resistence is permissible but if the only way to effectively "resist" evil is for a Christian to himself murder, this is not an option. Self defence (or the defence of a loved one) does not legitimize the deliberate taking of another's life, even if that one were himself breaking divine law.

How can 'do not resist' mean 'resistance is permissible'? It means exactly the opposite.

Now 'thou shall not kill' can mean that resistance is permissible except for when it involves killing the attacker.

The point of my earlier posts was to explain that Jesus instructions not to "resist" were not to be taken in the absolute sence of complete compliance (ie, passive co-operation) with all aggression since said aggression (attacks) also constitute a violation of divine law (fornication as in the case of rape, abuse (violent attack) or murder).

So in other words you believe that 'do not resist evil person' have some major exceptions to it - like when you're being abused, killed or raped. In such cases it's ok to use defensive violence. Because such actions themselves constitute violation of divine law (from OT) you not doing anything to stop it means you're co-operating and thus violating the divine law yourself.

It's a very good attempt to lawyer your way out of this mess. I like it. And it may pass as far as murder or rape go but I don't see how it can pass with abuse. Gospel flat out states that you're supposed to turn the other cheek. Even if OT have rules prohibiting violent abuse (and I'm not sure there are any) then you will have a direct contradiction on your hands between OT and NT.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 92 by JehovahsWitness]

I do not agree with your very literal interpretation of Jesus' instructions. As I explained, to "turn the other cheek" means to NOT retaliate in kind. We do not interpret it to mean to actively invite more abuse.

Well if someone slapped me, or spat in my face, I would not literally turn and invite him or her to do it again. Obviously someone that slaps you or spits in your face cannot be reasoned with, at least at that moment. Like Jesus I would simply take my leave.

I'm not adverse to running if the situation required it.

I see. Jesus said 'if someone slaps you on your cheek, turn the other cheek'. So when someone slaps you personally on your cheek - you're not going to turn the other cheek. Because you think Jesus meant 'when someone slaps you on your cheek, don't slap him back'. That would be a proper, non-literal interpretation.

[JehovahsWitness]

How can 'do not resist' mean 'resistance is permissible'? It means exactly the opposite.

Only if one (wrongfully) takes the words to be in the absolute sense. I have fully explained why taking the words as abolute is incorrect.

Full post HERE
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 55#p863055
and HERE
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28#p863428

I have presented the context, applicatiton and biblical examples why this is not the case. If you want to present some kind of counterargument as to why the words must be understood in an absolute case rather than relative sense, that doesn't amount to axiom, then feel free.

So in other words you believe that 'do not resist evil person' have some major exceptions to it

No I believe what I said and explained; that the words are relative and are not to be understood (if they are to be understood correctly) that passive compliance to aggression under any and all circumstances is a Christian necessity.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 94 by JewishVolcano]

Yes, you have correctly understood the difference bewteen literal and non-literal. Well done! It will I believe be very useful in any of your future attempts at hermeneutics.

No need to thank me,

JW

[JewishVolcano]

How can 'do not resist' mean 'resistance is permissible'? It means exactly the opposite.

Only if one (wrongfully) takes the words to be in the absolute sense. I have fully explained why taking the words as abolute is incorrect.

Full post HERE
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 055#863055

and HERE
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 428#863428


I have presented the context, applicatiton and biblical examples why this is not the case. If you want to present some kind of counterargument as to why the words must be understood in an absolute case rather than relative sense, that doesn't amount to axiom, then feel free.



JW

I get it now. True sense is a relative sense. I was under wrong impression that 'do not resist' means 'resistance is NOT permissible'. But that would be dreaded absolute sense. In it's true relative sense 'do not resist' means 'resistance IS permissible'.

So in the same spirit 'thou shall not kill' means 'killing is permissible'.
'Thou shall not steal' means 'stealing is permissable'.

That would be a proper understanding. I like it. I'm going to do some groceries right now and let's just say I'm not paying. If I get caught I'll just direct them to read the Bible with a proper realative understanding.

[JehovahsWitness]

I get it now. True sense is a relative sense.

No, relative sense is relative sense. Absolute sense is absolute sense. context, general knowledge and common sense dictates what is "true" or let us say an accurate understanding for any given text or situation. Those that are incapable judging the difference may well finding themselves spending some time in jail sooner or later.

Enjoy your shop,

JW

[JP Cusick]

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.

To turn the other cheek is a principle to the wise, but it is not a commandment for fools.

The problem is to give such a principle and then apply it to Caesar, as if the US government or the local Police are to follow the commandments of Jesus.

We live in an evil society with evil laws and violent government - so no - the principle can not be applied to a barbarian or to secular government.

The USA has started violent hostilities all around the world (including injustice in the USA) and now that some people are striking back against us then it is a bit late to apply the "turn the other cheek" principle. We (the West) are not on the innocent side.

Jesus was giving instruction to people who first followed the 10 commandments and who were sincerely seeking to act righteously in this evil world - so all the doctrines and principles first and foremost apply to disciples (a disciplined person) and not to wilful sinners.

First repent of thy sins and then the doctrine of "turning thy cheek" becomes a realistic and powerful weapon for doing right.

To this thread topic = This doctrine of turning the other cheek is profound indeed, and yet it does not apply to the profane but in opposition to the profane.

[Zzyzx]

.

We live in an evil society with evil laws and violent government - so no - the principle can not be applied to a barbarian or to secular government.

Is this to say 'Turn the other cheek IF (and only IF) an aggressor keeps the commandments?'

Surely you jest.