yes, im talking about more than just the ten commandments. im referring to the commandments of the whole bible, such as keeping kosher, wearing fringes on the corners of your garments, sacrifices as a means of atonement, etc, etc. sacrifices in particular is a major point, as it is a basic tenet of christianity that jesus's death atoned for man's sins, negating the need for sacrifices, especially sin offerings. yet, as i posted above, you see from acts 21:17-26 that even long after jesus's death, the jewish followers of jesus in jerusalem challenge paul that he has been teaching the jews among the gentiles to not keep the commandments and to join in on the sin offering of a nazarite to prove his loyalty to the law. clearly they didnt think that jesus's death negated the need for sin offerings, otherwise they wouldnt be asking him to do that.



these are philisophical and have nothing to do with the commandments.



this backs up what i said, that he would agree that you should repay someone if you damage them, as i interpreted eye for an eye to mean.




in the case of collecting grain, jesus rationalizes it saying that it was ok because it was a matter of life and death, in which case it would be acceptable. he doesnt dispute the fact that it would otherwise be forbidden. in the case of eating, its debatable what he meant by "[doesnt] defile a person" and whether he intended that to mean that you can now eat whatever you want. christianity has decided that it did mean you could eat whatever you want, but thats not necessarily the case.

jesus's message wasnt that the pharisees were misinterpreting the law, rather that they were only keeping it for hypocritical reasons of showing off rather than true belief and intent. his message (part of it anyway) was that they should be following them for more altruistic reasons.

as for gentiles keeping the law, see the beginning of acts 15 (council at jerusalem) where it is decided that the gentile followers of jesus dont need to convert, but should observe a few things ("20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ") which amount to noahide laws, which is the laws that jews believe non-jews should follow. also, note that this only applied to the GENTILE followers of jesus, the jewish ones would still have to follow full Law. whereas modern christianity believes that whether jewish or not, you dont need to follow ANY laws, even the noahide ones, to get into heaven, you just have to believe (citing john 3:16).




this is mistaken thinking, and contrary to what jesus preached and his early followers did. (see what ive quoted in varous posts.)

so if some one is to damage your eye, you would allow yourself to be enslaved by revenge.

clearly not what jesus taught.

you really have no idea what jesus taught do you?

you can follow what ever you want and claim what ever you want, the proof is in the pudding.

hopefully when your time comes, your belifes have not led you down a road of regret, resentment, and revenge, traped in a never ending circile of violence.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 13 2013 10:52pm

You're clearly not reading what i said. Ive said a few times now that eye for an eye doesn't have to do with revenge or violence. It means that the person who did the damage must repay the damagee for the harm they caused to them. That is exactly what you said jesus said to do.

In point of fact, one of the commandments is specifically not to take revenge so your whole premise falls flat on its face.

lets take this step by step.

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

First step is see a doctor.

After that, if you choose to do so, you have the right to take them to court to force them to repay you the value of the eye, if theyhave not already done so of their own accord, which they should. This is not'revenge', it is getting fair recompense for damage done to you.

The slight difference in what jesus taught is the he said not to pursue the matter in court if the person doesn't repay you of their own accord. (Although he would agree that they should. ) He didn't say you don't have the right to, but rather that you should forgo that right in order to pursue peace. Note that jesus didn't invent the idea of pursuing peace, it is prevalent in the OT. Aaron (Moses' s brother, the high priest) is praised many times for this for example. The difference is in how far too take that pursuit of peace.

(Revenge would be to go and take out the other person's eye and that is strictly forbidden. )

This post was edited by ReturnFormer on Oct 14 2013 04:37am

correct, you would seek recompense for your injury, you would seek revenge and justify it with an eye for an eye.

and as such you will forever be enslaved by vengence, allways seeking your just recompense from some one.

free your self from this archaic way, free yourself from thiis circle of violence, this enslavement, and turn the other cheek.


"This is not'revenge', it is getting fair recompense for damage done to you."

it dosnt matter how you justify it, in the eyes of jesus this is revenge, and not of the things he taught.


Clearly christianity =/= judaism

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 14 2013 04:46am

Again, that is not revenge, nor does it create an endless cycle of violence and revenge. After being repaid, the matter is closed and neither party can pursue any further action, either through the court or outside it.

If this recompense were considered revenge, you would not be able to collect it since revenge is forbidden.

Also, per what you said, jesus agrees that the person who did the damage should repay the damage person. if it were revenge then it would come out that jesus says that the person is entitled to revenge just that they shouldn't pursue it.

The repayment is a responsibility of the person who did the damage. As such it can't be revenge. Revenge is bsomething that the person who was damaged would do. While you could look at them pursuing the matter as revenge that doesn't make sense. It is them forcing the other person to do what is right, what they should have done on their own.

thats the issue, jesus taught this as revenge, not fair recompense, something excusable as such only because of your eye for an eye.

thus the difference between judaism and christianity.

there is no eye for an eye, there is no fair recompense, only revenge.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 14 2013 04:53am

As I've said before, I never made the claim that christianity is or should be exactly the same as Judaism, just that in certain areas it was supposed to be. Ie in following the commandments. jesus didn't say that you shouldn't followan eye for an eye, just that you should go beyond the letter of the law and not pursue the matter. That is no contradiction. As i said, Jewish law permits you to not pursue the matter if you choose.

As for which is the better or more archaic way, that is debatable. It is not an endless cycle of vengeance to pursue something you are entitled to. Should you forgo your wages for working because collecting them is an endless cycle of vengeance? While it is a nice idea, jesus shows a lack of understanding of human nature here. For most people, if they forgo collecting recompense that they are entitled to because someone damaged them, they will harbor anger and resentment. That is not the way to pursue peace amongst people. The best way is to satisfy all as best as possible. This means repayment of damages.

...which one would that be ?