Matthew 10:34

Post #10,906 by JayMehaffey 9/29/01 11:33:11 AM Reply	Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but war. Jay
Post #11,019 by tseliot 9/30/01 5:40:45 PM Reply	"Machairan" definitely means sword, not war. Let's not be caught misquoting just for fun. And read the verses just before and after it: "Therefore all who will speak up for me before men, I will speak up for him before my Father who is in the heavens; and whoever denies me before men, I also will deny him before my Father who is in the heavens. Do not suppose that I came to bring peace upon the earth; I did not come to bring peace but rather a sword. For I came to make a man hostile against his father and a daughter hostile against her mother and a bride hostile against her mother-in-law, and his enemies [shall be] his own household." Nothing in there about states going to war--just family members against themselves. Context, context, context. Shantih, shantih, shantih. :) That's her, officer! That's the woman that programmed me for evil!
Post #11,081 by JayMehaffey 10/1/01 10:24:51 AM Reply	Odd That quote was pulled from Young's Literal Translation, which is normally as literal as it's title suggests. But everybody else translates this as sword. As for context, that was part of my point. The bible can be made to say just about anything if you just pull single lines without context. Brett pulls Matthew 5:9, but doesn't mention Matthew 5:38 - 5:42. Those verses recommend a course of action in the face of evil that very few would support in this situation. Jay
Post #11,843 by brettj 10/4/01 10:07:43 PM Reply	Forgive instead of retailate? I'm not sure what you are getting at. Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. Isn't that similar to "blessed are the peacemakers"? You lost me. Jesus did say he was not here to condemn the world but rather to save it. P.S. I don't know enough versus in the Bible to know if I am neglecting something. I'm just trying to understand, like lots of other people I suppose. Peace.
Post #11,903 by JayMehaffey 10/5/01 9:21:03 AM Reply	Re: Forgive instead of retailate? Jesus's lesson here is that you shouldn't fight with evil people, and the way to do that is to give the evil people what they want. I can see very few people, Christian or not, that would recomment or follow that course of action. Everybody quotes the first bit about turning the other cheek, but nobody mentions the next bit that says if somebody wants to takes your coat give him your cloak also. In the case of the middle east problems right now I would say it's a particularly bad peice of advice anyway, since it will just cause them to demand more and more. Jay
Post #11,905 by brettj 10/5/01 9:59:51 AM Reply	I don't see it that way. "If anyone wants your tunic (undergarment), let him have your cloak (outer garment) also." IMO,this is merely to set an example on being kind to your enemies by finding a way to give them assistance, since they are obviously in need. This is not to say you bend completely to their will but find a way to appease them instead of strict retaliation (as taught in the OT). Read down a few lines to 5:44 "Love your enemies, bless those that curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those that spitefully use you and persecute you ..." The first sentence could also be construed to mean that your enemies may want to attack your spirit but you should give them some of your wealth as well as sharing your spirit with them. What are the coalition members now attempting to do? They seem to be sharing spirit, food and wealth with poor Muslem countries that supposedly hate the west. Coincidence? Not from my viewpoint. Maybe it depends on how you want to view the scripture?
Post #11,918 by Another Scott 10/5/01 11:34:09 AM Reply	Context. Disclaimer - I'm not a Bible scholar. However... In Luke 6, where the turn the other cheek, etc., is discussed, Jesus is giving instructions and a pep-talk to the disciples. It's not a speech to the multitudes (though a crowd is in attendance). e.g. 20. Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Although his words can be taken as universal, and I think most people take them that way, the passage in Luke can be read as explicit instructions to those who will work with and follow him. Theirs is a hard lot because they have to be purer than most to spread the news the way Jesus wants it spread. Remember that Jesus whipped the moneychangers in the temple, as discussed earlier. Exclusive turning of the other cheek wouldn't have permitted that, would it? And consider Luke 10 (similar to Luke 9, but with a bit more emphasis), where he's giving instructions on what his disciples should do on travelling to a new town: 10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 `Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. Doesn't seem very peaceful, does it? The town must actively welcome strangers or be destroyed? It's very difficult to find passages in the Bible without passages which contradict them under (sometimes) different circumstances. Best of luck with your search. Cheers, Scott.
Post #11,943 by tseliot 10/5/01 1:23:33 PM Reply	nail.head.hit() It's very difficult to find passages in the Bible without passages which contradict them under (sometimes) different circumstances. You said it. Not only do we have a difference between "our culture" and "their culture", but "their culture" is really many. Classic example is the shift of emphasis for acceptable marriage partners: from an endogamous strategy (ie -- marrying your niece is best) to an aggressive, exogamous strategy (ie -- take the women of other clans and deny them ours), where women become a political and economic commodity. Then after the exile, a more defensive posture and a focus on producing offspring. Not understanding this shift has produced some odd commentary over the millenia. That's her, officer! That's the woman that programmed me for evil!
Post #12,026 by brettj 10/5/01 9:20:48 PM Reply	Good answer. Is context the same as "history"? My point being that the context is probably the most important point to understanding many of the verses but isn't it also helpful to understand the history surrounding the scriptures? What was happening in Moses' time? How did that affect what he was inspired to write? How different was that from Jeremiah's time, Daniel's time, Jesus' time? Am I making any sense or just confusing myself further?
Post #12,030 by Ashton 10/5/01 10:13:24 PM Reply	Not only re Christianity - all metaphysical enquiry Not only do people come from different backgrounds, experience - intelligence? imagination? but language itself depends upon common referents. What to do - when you need a new referent? in order to try to pass on [something]. Hence, the (concentric) 'circles' in all such enterprises: exoteric outsiders or newbies. mesoteric somewhat initiated, transitional. esoteric inner-circle, local 'leaders' by whatever name. Believe that a failure to comprehend this rather necessary org. plus (for some? many?) an inability to discern a simile from a report, a metaphor from a 'documentary' -- and an allegory from a lengthy tale: For the various levels being all-intermixed, within all holybooks.. it's no wonder what the record is for Popular religious orgs. - perpetual misunderstanding of what is meant ergo perpetual internal / external wars. op. cit. 'history'. Confusing a 'teaching parable' with an actual historical event, a creation myth for a calendar of events... well, we see what happens, and how many will kill to be Right. Ignorance Kills. So re your query, Brett I know no way around the necessary experience of life and of the varieties of human ego / human use of language as a means for men to disguise their thoughts from each other - and the discernment to tell which is which: when what you think you want to know is, simply Everything. (And if one also imagines it can all be set out in a book, or a library - like a Unix manual... well) Luck indeed but: I wish you also - a considerable amount of drudgery, discarding of previous mental clutter, and enough will to pursue (quietly thus with no 'need' to share 'discoveries'!) over decades.. Too tough? Then - forget it and just mouth the words, for comfort. 'Earnestness' means: willingness to 'work'. Cheers, A.
Post #12,036 by JayMehaffey 10/5/01 10:35:45 PM Reply	Makes perfect sense What your saying about reading the bible in context makes perfect sense for most books. But it brings up some problems for Christians. If you start picking which parts apply to you and which don't, you can pretty much read anything you want out of the bible. Worse yet, it greatly weakens the impact and power of the bible because it now depends on highly falible human judgement to mean anything. In any case it's very hard to read the sermon on the mound as only having been given to the inner circle disciples. The end of the speech makes it clear that it was given to a large crowd. In most bibles it's not clear from the first few sentences who it's being addresed to. Young's Literal is the only one I saw that addressed it to the masses, the one you quote below is the only one I've seen that aims it at the disciples specifically. The rest just address it to 'them' without being clear who they are. Of course, that we can even have this argument show another huge flaw in using the bible as a source of Gods word. Jay
Post #12,248 by tseliot 10/8/01 12:43:50 PM Reply	That's inevitable. If you start picking which parts apply to you and which don't, you can pretty much read anything you want out of the bible. There is no way around "picking which parts apply to you"--it's called hermeneutics. Choosing to apply ALL parts to you or NO parts are simply extremes. There is a big difference between an individual reading anything they want to (less likely) and the possibility of anyone reading anything (more likely). Like any system, a hermeneutic may be big-C Consistent and Complete and yet allow only a small subset of all possible expressions. For example, arithmetic could have expressions like a+/()2^ but it does not. Likewise, one's Biblical hermeneutic is generally rule-based (if informal): many (but not all) statements are possible, fewer of those are extant, fewer of those are useful, and even fewer of those are normative. So for any one person's hermeneutic, there are strong constraints on what can be "read out of" the bible. For a group of people, the variance between hermeneutics grows in proportion, but don't forget that we are then talking about many mutually interacting systems, which tend to find their own internal equilibria (or at least local attractors), and begin to be modeled more appropriately as a cohesive group. I'll grant you the position that most people's Biblical hermeneutic is less than rigorous. But that does not deny that everyone must rely upon their "fallible human judgment" at some point in the process of interpretation. That's her, officer! That's the woman that programmed me for evil!
Post #11,105 by boxley 10/1/01 12:42:00 PM Reply	"The End" by Jim Morrison "Weird scenes inside the goldmine" just a little more poetic than Mathew. thanx, bll why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them? Randy Wayne White

Welcome to IWETHEY!