Knight of Christ Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 109 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/02/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1976 Share Posted October 15, 2007 ya know i only got one thing to add to this. Gee isn't this a suprise????? I mean attacking iran??? lol even stevey wonder could have seen than comming like30 years back lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari21 Posted October 16, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 140 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,846 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/05/1987 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I mean attacking iran??? lol even stevey wonder could have seen than comming like30 years back lol Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 ya know i only got one thing to add to this. Gee isn't this a suprise????? I mean attacking iran??? lol even stevey wonder could have seen than comming like30 years back lol Good one! Thanks, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amor Posted October 20, 2007 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,194 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 34 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/18/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 20, 2007 A relativist interpretation of the teaching of Jesus, I believe that it needs to be taken more seriously than that. The teachings of Jesus are there to guide our lives not to be dismissed as something that was only relevant to a specific first century problem. What makes you think you have the right to "clarify" and modify the teachings of Christ to enable them to sit better with your own worldly political beliefs? It is something called "hermeneutics." Hermeneutics are the rules of literary analysis that allow us to properly assertain the correct meaning of a particular text. Furthermore, in case you missed it, I did claim to orginiate in the meaning of the text, but I appeal to the understanding of both Christian and Jewish commentators who have already exlplained what the meaning of the text is. For example: Commentator John Gill cites this Matt: 5:38 and makes these comments: "This is "lex talionis", the "law of retaliation"; which, whether it is to be understood literally, or not, is a matter of question. The Baithuseans, or Sadducees, among the Jews, took it in a literal sense, and so does Josephus, who says (b), he that shall blind, i.e. put out a man's eyes, shall suffer the like. But the Jewish doctors generally understood it of paying a price equivalent to the damage done, except in case of life. R. Sol. Jarchi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 John Gill, a rather obscure 18th century Calvinist. Why do I need him to tell me that the words of Jesus do not actually mean what they say. Gill was hardly obscure, but then I don't expect you to know much about that stuff. John Gill is highly respected and is works are well known, along with Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Scofield and Whitfield. Because, historically, the original commandment given in Exodus was NEVER understood to mean that tha a person who caused an injury was to be injured in like manner. It was always understood in ancient times to be referring to monetary compensation. The person causing the injury was meant to compensate the injured person all for all monetary costs/losses incurred by the injury. I stand by my line that we need to take these words at face value, not subject them to some tenuous interpretation I realize that. However, face value interpretations ususally never deliver the correct meaning of any given passage. For example, what if we took Jesus words at face value when he said, "If your right hand offends you cut it off?" You fail to undersand that there is some history behind what Jesus says regarding the "eye for an eye" commandment. That history has be taken into account. Furthermore, even if we take Jesus' words at face value, it still does not address nations going to war. For all of your carrying on about "face value," you must abandon a face value to apply that verse to the issue of going to war. Even when applied at face value, it still ONLY applies to personal relationships and there is absolutely NO application made or even intimated in the text with reference to relations between nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts