Possession is a type of tense.

There is no but written. Not need there be one since they are two separate statements, one for the damageor, one for the damagee. Even if you did add a but it still wouldn't change that.

should i conclude that your just a troll?

Mathew 5:38-48

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You haveheardthat it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


you pay what is owed and expect nothing in return when it is owed to you, that is what it means to be a christian.


both statements are directed at the christian. one for when the christian has damamged, and the other for when the christian is damaged.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 16 2013 02:51am

Great. So why didn't you just say that? Why did you write it as if it were a quote from the bible? Why waste both our time debating something you said?

Now as for the actual quote, it says nothing about actual damages, only mentioning things like a slap or minor theft (which doesn't fall under eye for an eye. ) that being the case, there are two possibilities. One is that jesus didn't mean to change the damages aspect of eye for an eye.

The second, and more likely explanation is that he didn't know the proper meaning of eye for an eye or for some reason chose to ignore it. Possibly he was speaking to people who were uneducated so he chose to ignore it and go with the simple meaning in order to tell over a nice sounding message that the people would like and accept.

Whatever the case, even if you want to say that he did go against eye for an eye, ad i said in the beginning it's a relatively minor thing. Even if he went against eye for an eye it's just one thing and doesn't mean that he would say to not keep the Sabbath or other commandments.

Exactly. So the christian who did damage should pay. Which is what i have been saying all along. Finally you understand.

so troll then. thank you for the confirmation.

have a nice life.




atleast youve seperate christian from "a person" but you are missing the second part:

you pay what is owed and expect nothing in return when it is owed to you, that is what it means to be a christian.

which contradics the whole eye for an eye.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 16 2013 03:12am

How's that trolling?


Again expecting nothing in return when you are owed DOES NOT negate the fact that you should pay when you did the damage. Which is the essence of eye for an eye. As I said many posts ago eye for an eye is an obligation on the person who did the damage.

there you go, you dont have that right in christianity, in fact you refuse to do such a thing.

in direct contradiction of an eye for an eye.

repaying them is not eye for an eye, repaying them is doing onto others as you would have them do onto you.

just as is not forcing them to abide by your belifes and pay you what you think is owed.

just as forcing people to abide by your belifes and pay you what you think is owed works very well with an eye for an eye.


love your god and your self.

do onto others as you would have them do onto you reguadless of what they have done to you.

forgive all.

thats all there is too it, the entire way of christ summed up in 3 lines, and nothing to do with a right to take people to court, to sue, and to force recompense.


its trolling because you dont seem to be able to aknowledge this and keep repeating the same thing over and over and over. a person should pay back what is owed, a person, a person, a person, a person....then we have not a single citation in my post and here your blaming me because you know so little of the new testament you actually thought it was from the new testament? what a coicidence, i mention apiece of wood and theres an actual quote from the new testament that talks about a pece of wood hur hur hur hur....no, i made that up, and you have no room talkinga bout christianity if you didnt know that.

yeah, thats trollng.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 16 2013 03:36am

According to that, you are trolling as well since you keep just repeating the same thing over and over like a mantra as if it will make it true. And posting things that are not true. I never claimed to be an expert in all areas of christianity. But i welcome anyone to bring any real quote to try refute what i said about jesus not saying not to follow the commandments and i will try to show why it is not true.

Forget for a minute whatever you were taught about eye for an eye and Jews being bloodthirsty savages who are constantly seeking revenge from everyone in a never-ending cycle of violence and revenge. It's simply not true. What i am telling you is the jewish interpretation of eye for an eye, which is what jesus would have known (or should have).

Eye for an eye is twofold. An obligation for the person who did damage to pay for it. And a right for the person who was damaged to collect in court. Again though they do not have /to exercise that right. the main thrust of eye for an eye is that a person should repay if they did damage.

Now, do you or do you not agree that a christian should repay if they did damage?

some one takes out your eye, per eye for an eye how do you react?

you have the right to take them to court to force them to repay you the value of the eye =/= christianity.

you have a promise with god to forgive them even though they took out your eye = chrsitianity.

it is not "they do not have to exercise that right", they do not have that right as they have sacraficed it for god.

there is no eye for an eye, there is do onto others as you would have them do onto you and forgive all.



as you said eye for an eye is two fold, how to act as the one who has done damaged and how to act as the one who has recieved.

there is the obligation to repay as the one who has done damamge, and there is the right to recompense as the one who has been damamged.

for the christian it is still two fold, how to act as a christian and as the one who has done damamge the obligation to do onto others as you would have them do onto you reguardless of what they have done onto you, and how to act as a chrstian and as the one who recieves damamage, to forgive, there is no right to recompense, only the promise to forgive.

though the first half is similar with different reasoning, the second half is in stark contrast.

here you go, this is all there is too it:

an eye for an eye and turn the other cheek in reguards to how the one who is damamged should act, very clearly contradict each other.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 16 2013 04:25am

What is the different reasoning? The idea behind do unto others is a Jewish concept as well, just worded a little differently.

Also, it is not similar it is the same. Someone who did damage should repay.

As i said before the second half is no real contradiction since the jewish interpretation allows for you to choose not to collect. Nothing you have quoted so far shows that jesus said you can't collect only that you shouldn't. now before you go saying that no christian court would allow someone to collect remember that we are debating what jesus actually said not what the modern christian interpretation of that is. Unless you can bring some other quote that says so, jesus only said that you shouldn't collect not that you can't. (Even that he never said explicitly, but I'll grant you that that much is implied from what he said. )