Yes but his point was to do it while letting go of the anger and resentment. Something I do agree is very hard for someone to actually do but it is worth it imo.
The main point is not that you let yourself get walked over it's that you won't put yourself into the same situation again.

actually he did say that you should not follow an eye for an eye.

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 have heard that 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.

only god can deem what you are or arnt entitled to, so as long as you or any other human being plays judge for god, it will allways be a never ending circle of violence and revenge.

perhaps you should look into how eye for an eye is going for the Palestinians and Israelites if you dont think its an endless circle, though i guess there is an end, genocide.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 14 2013 06:50am

i thought youre a big maven in bible? dont you know?

leviticus 19:18 - You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your fellow as yourself - I am God.




as i said, the jewish interpretation allows for you to forgo pursuing the matter if you choose. it merely provides the means to recoup losses for those who are unable to let go.



wait, what? we're not talking (necesarily) about something you have control over, like lets say you agree to let someone shoot an apple of your head and they miss and take out your eye. so now you know not to let them do that anymore. we're talking about a case where you were going about your business as you normally would and someoen did something that casued you to lose an eye. this isnt something where you can say "ok, well, lesson learned, i wont do that again."




again, he is not disputing the basic fact of the law, he is saying you should go beyond the letter of the law to show love for your fellow and make peace with them. i dont disagree that thats a nice message, but i disagree about the practicality of it. most people are not on that level. to recap:

judaism:
damageor - should repay damage on his own
damagee - MAY (but doesnt have to) go to court to force damageor to repay if he doesnt on his own.

jesus: (based on the last bit you said in post #70, quoted below for convenience.)
damageor - should repay damage on his own
damagee - SHOULD NOT go to court to force damageor to repay if he doesnt on his own. (but he doesnt say that you cant.)



so jesus doesnt disagree with the basic law that the person who did the damage should pay recompense. so there is no disagreement about the law itself, merely in how one should go about it in practice. this is not a proof that jesus went againt the law of the OT, only that he had a different interpretation of practicing it.



this is not an eye for an eye, it is non-religious politicians being politicians.

he amends the law.

eye for an eye is the issue, when you have a god given expectation for fair recompense, you harbor hate anger and feelings of vengeance when you do not feel there is just action. where as when you have a promise with god not to expect anything from any one, ever, there is only forgiveness.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 14 2013 07:59am

...which is not a commandment and clear evidence you are not familiar with the 3 types of Old Testament law . I might also add that as someone who pretends to be an observant Jew you should not be spelling out the word God .

uhhh not from Exodus or Deuteronomy, did not read.

but thats not situation. jesus said that the person who damaged SHOULD pay, so you do have expectations. then, if they dont, you will harbor resentment that "hey, how come they get to be 'bad' get away with not paying something they should and i have to be good let it drop?"

also, its not an ammendment, since as i keep saying jewish interpretations allows for you to decide not to pursue the matter. it doesnt say that "if someone damages you, you MUST sue them in court" it says "if someone damages you you MAY sue them in court." jesus is just saying that you shouldnt excercise the right to sue, even though you have it.



thats funny, because leviticus has greater weight than deuteronomy.




firstly, when did i make the claim to be an observant jew? maybe im a reform or even totally non affiliated jew. for all you know i could be an atheist who knows about both judaism and christianity and thinks christianity is totally ridiculous in the context of judaism. granted, in this case you happen to be correct, but it was still quite the assumption to make.

as for writing out God instead of G-d, not everyone agrees that its necessary on the computer, only on something like a written piece of paper where its not going to disappear anyway. while we're on the subject, many wouldnt write out christianity or jesus either, even online.

now, that being said, i find it laughable that you, thinking im an observant jew, would presume to tell me about what kind of commandments there are in the OT. there are two types of commandments - positive commandments and negative commandments. this falls into the latter category. clearly, it is YOU who knows nothing of jewish theology or biblical exegesis. one of the points the rabbi makes in the video is that christians have lost the proper context in which to interpret both the OT and the christian bible. both were written by jews and for jews (initially anyway, int he case of the NT) and must be understood with a jewish mindset, since that is what they were intended for. christians lost that mindset of how to properly interpret things long ago, getting drawn into their own twisted interpretations of things. you are a clear example of that, not knowing that this is one of the commandments.

This post was edited by ReturnFormer on Oct 14 2013 11:07am

citations?



and jesus says you dont persue it, ever.

Didache - Roberts - Donaldson translation:

If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able. Give to every one who asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts). Happy is he who gives according to the commandment, for he is guiltless. Woe to him who receives; for if one receives who has need, he is guiltless; but he who receives not having need shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what. And coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape from there until he pays back the last penny.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 14 2013 11:07am

again though, thats not a contradiction since the law allows for that.

thats a citation that says as a christian you should do onto others as you would have them do onto you: repay them as you would wish to be repaid

and as a christian "if some one is to strike your eye with a block of wood, forgive them"

Not: the person who damaged SHOULD pay

so, citation please?

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 14 2013 11:15am