Ogner Posted May 31, 2016 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 562 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 268 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/27/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2016 In Matthew 5:20 Jesus say, "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." In Matthew 5:21,22 Juses tightens the commandment "‘You shall not murder" In Matthew 5:21,22 Juses tightens the requirements on gift In Matthew 5:27,28 and 31,32 Juses tightens the commandment "‘You shall not commit adultery.’ In Matthew 5:33-37 Jesus tightens the requirements on oath. Attention! Follow the logic.In my opinion in this verses 38-41 Jesus tightens the principle ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." Now "Two eyes for eye, and two teeth for tooth and coat for shirt.". For example: Exodus 21:18,19, “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist[d] and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed. And Exodus 21:22,23, “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." this principles call for the victim's right to reparation encompassed adequate, effective and prompt reparation proportional to the gravity of the violation and the harm suffered. But now "Two eyes for eye, and two teeth for tooth and coat for shirt." this principles call for the victim's right to reparation encompassed adequate, effective and prompt reparation disproportionate (in favour of a plaintiff) to the gravity of the violation and the harm suffered. What do you think? I hope you agree with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted May 31, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,990 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,688 Content Per Day: 11.83 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2016 I will go with this: Question: "What does the Bible mean by 'an eye for an eye'?" Answer: The concept of “an eye for eye,” sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23–25). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided. We have no indication that the law of “an eye for an eye” was followed literally; there is never a biblical account of an Israelite being maimed as a result of this law. Also, before this particular law was given, God had already established a judicial system to hear cases and determine penalties (Exodus 18:13–26)—a system that would be unnecessary if God had intended a literal “eye for an eye” penalty. Although capital crimes were repaid with execution in ancient Israel, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), most other crimes were repaid with payment in goods—if you injured a man’s hand so that he could not work, you compensated that man for his lost wages. Besides Exodus 21, the law of “an eye for an eye” is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. “An eye for an eye” was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally. In the New Testament, it seems the Pharisees and scribes had taken the “eye for an eye” principle and applied it to everyday personal relationships. They taught that seeking personal revenge was acceptable. If someone punched you, you could punch him back; if someone insulted you, he was fair game for your insults. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day ignored the judicial basis of the giving of that law. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus counters the common teaching of personal retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you . . .” (Matthew 5:38–39). Jesus then proceeds to reveal God’s heart concerning interpersonal relationships: “Do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:39–42). In giving this “new” command, Jesus is not nullifying the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17). Rather, He is separating the responsibility of the government (to punish evildoers justly) from the responsibility we all have on a personal level before God to love our enemies. We should not seek retribution for personal slights. We are to ignore personal insults (the meaning of “turn the other cheek”). Christians are to be willing to give more of their material goods, time, and labor than required, even if the demands upon us are unjust. We should loan to those who want to borrow, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (verses 43–48). Enforcing “an eye for an eye” is the magistrate’s job; forgiving our enemies is ours. We see this played out today every time a victim stands up in court to publicly forgive a convicted criminal—the forgiveness is personal and real, but the judge still justly demands that the sentence be carried out. Jesus’ limiting of the “eye for an eye” principle in no way prohibits self-defense or the forceful protection of the innocent from harm. The actions of duly appointed agents of the government, such as police officers and the military, to protect citizens and preserve the peace are not in question. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek applies to personal relationships, not judicial policy. The principle of “an eye for an eye” is meant as a judicial policy, not as a rule for interpersonal relationships. The believer in Christ is guided by Jesus’ words to forgive. The Christian is radically different from those who follow the natural inclination to respond in kind. http://www.gotquestions.org/eye-for-an-eye.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogner Posted May 31, 2016 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 562 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 268 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/27/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 36 minutes ago, bopeep1909 said: We are to ignore personal insults (the meaning of “turn the other cheek”). Should Christians Sue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted May 31, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,990 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,688 Content Per Day: 11.83 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2016 17 minutes ago, Ogner said: Should Christians Sue? Christians should not sue one another. Should a Christian sue an unbeliver.No... if it can be avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogner Posted May 31, 2016 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 562 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 268 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/27/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 20 minutes ago, bopeep1909 said: Christians should not sue one another. Should a Christian sue an unbeliver.No... if it can be avoided. What makes you think that? What about 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 ? If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted May 31, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,990 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,688 Content Per Day: 11.83 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2016 25 minutes ago, Ogner said: What makes you think that? What about 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 ? If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers! Paul further declares, “Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” (1 Corinthians 6:7). The thing Paul is concerned with here is the testimony of the believer. It would be far better for us to be taken advantage of, or even abused, than it would be for us to push a person even further away from Christ by taking him/her to court. Which is more important—a legal battle or the battle for a person’s eternal soul? http://www.gotquestions.org/lawsuits-suing.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogner Posted May 31, 2016 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 562 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 268 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/27/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, bopeep1909 said: Paul further declares, “Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” (1 Corinthians 6:7). The thing Paul is concerned with here is the testimony of the believer. It would be far better for us to be taken advantage of, or even abused, than it would be for us to push a person even further away from Christ by taking him/her to court. Which is more important—a legal battle or the battle for a person’s eternal soul? http://www.gotquestions.org/lawsuits-suing.html Paul further declares, " But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren. " (1 Corinthians 6:8). Apparently, some brothers was impertinent enough to steal and that even theirs own brethren. And in next verse Paul say where they was drinking up everything they stole. "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." This all speaks to the fact that this brothers drinking up everything they stole in pagan brothels and baths. What do Paul suggests we do about it? We must always be wronged? The first proposal (1 Corinthians 6:1-6) addresses the right to a fair trial is completely right and understandable. The second proposal (1 Corinthians 6:7) is utopia. Every man has a right to fair trial and opportunity. Edited May 31, 2016 by Ogner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogner Posted May 31, 2016 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 562 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 268 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/27/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 Justice, when it is done, reflects well on us, don't you reckon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17(NIV) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogner Posted May 31, 2016 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 562 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 268 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/27/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 16 minutes ago, Rick_Parker said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17(NIV) For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5:18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts