+5
There are two kinds of saints
Uploaded by MPHJ Oct 16, 2021 at 12:03PM EDT
john the baptist fulton sheen bishop fulton sheen st. john the baptist st john the baptist saint john the baptist catholic catholicism christian joanfenny @joanfenny
Origin Entry: Christianity
File type: jpg
Resolution: (1024px x 768px)
File size: 85.2 KB
![File nide): 1452109491897 jpg (506.77 KB, 1377x1545, 459:515. Bloch-SermonOnTheMount ina) (- Anonymous 01/06/16 (Wed) 20:44:51 ID: 1b41cb No.240352 >240359 >240410 [Watch Thread] >But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. What did He mean by this? Anonymous 01/06/16 (Wed) 21:04:01 ID: 4c7187 No.240359 >240309 >240408 >240631 >>240352 (OP) I've posted before about this but it's better translated as "do not diametrically oppose an evildoer" and the reason you were supposed to turn the other cheek is because >1. In antiquity, you only hit someone with your right hand (the clean one) >2. Backhands were to insult, a frontal slap showed equality and challenge. >3. By turning your cheek the aggressor was forced to stop hitting you or acknowledge you as an equal; that was quite a statement to a Roman by a conquered Jew. So, Jesus was telling us to fight back smartly, using public shame as a weapon, not just attack head on like a moron Anonymous 01/07/16 (Thu) 08:30:46 ID: 994133 No.240519 >>240031 >240034 >>240408 Matthew 5:39 έγ δε λέγω ύμίν μή άντιστήναι το ποιηρ άλλ δστις σε βαπίσει έπί τν δεξιάν σου σιαγόνα στρέψον αύτ και τήν άλλην First off, what you are translating as "do not resist" is "ávrioTĪva." ČVIOTĪvai has more to it than resist, Strong's Concordance at 436 notes "to take a -complete- stand against" and it derived from a -military- term to diametrically oppose one's foes. Thayer's notes "to set oneself against" "Resist" here is passive, but the term ávrIOTTjvai clearly denotes an aggressive posture. Better might be "but I say unto you, do not square off against an evil doer Especially in the context of the examples all being examples of how to engage in intelligent resistance - "Turn the other cheek" I already explained. "Give him your cloak too" is Christ referencing Exodus 22:26 to shame your opponent. Exodus 22:26 compels creditors to return the cloak at night so that the poor can sleep in it. By giving up your cloak you shame the creditor who is willing to sue for your tunic - and God will hear the cries of the debtor, Exodus promises this. As for walking the extra mile, that's a reference to the Roman law of impressment which allowed a Roman soldier to compel a person of a conquered state to carry his pack for one mile but no further. By carrying it the 2nd mile, the soldier would be forced to comically beg you to put it dor his commanding officer see and he get in trouble. lest So, it clearly does not mean to not fight back - it means to fight back smartly. This is what happens when people try to read scripture with no reference for the history or culture it was written in, not to mention reading a bad rendering of the Greek in order to keep the poor in their place. Remember Christians, Christ taught us to fight smartly, not to not fight. Of course a Christian fights against evil How could we not?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/179/584/b5f.png "Turn the Other Cheek (Original)")
![File nide): 1452109491897 jpg (500.77 KB, 1377x1545, 459:515, Bloch-SermononTheMount ipa) - Anonymous 01/06/16 (Wed) 20:44:51 ID: 1641cb No.240352 >240359 22240410 [Watch Thread] >But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. What did He mean by this? Anonymous 01/06/16 (Wed) 21:04:01 ID: 4c7187 No.240359 >2403e9 >240403 22240031 >>240352 (OP) I've posted before about this but it's better translated as "do not diametrically oppose an evildoer" and the reason you were supposed to turn the other cheek is because >1. In antiquity, you only hit someone with your right hand (the clean one) >2. Backhands were insult, a frontal slap showed equality and challenge. >3. By turning your cheek the aggressor was forced to stop hitting you or acknowledge you as an equal; that was quite a statement to a Roman by a conquered Jew. So, Jesus was telling us to fight back smartly, using public shame as a weapon, not just attack head on like a moron Anonymous 01/07/16 (Thu) 08:30:46 ID: 994133 No.240519 >240031 >240034 >>240408 Matthew 5:39 έγ δέ λέγω ύμν μή άντιστήναι τ ποηρ άλλ ' δστις σε ραπίσει έπί τήν δεξιάν σου σιαγόνα στρέψον αύτ και την άλλην First off, what you are translating as "do not resist" is "ávrIoTivai." ávToTĪvai has more to it than resist, Strong's Concordance at 436 notes to take a -complete- stand against" and it derived from a -military- term to diametrically oppose one's foes. Thayer's notes to set oneself against" "Resist" here is passive, but the term ávrIotĪvai clearly denotes an aggressive posture. Better might be "but I say unto you, do not square off against an evil doer" Especially in the context of the examples all being examples of how to engage in intelligent resistance - "Turn the other cheek" I already explained. "Give him your cloak too" is Christ referencing Exodus 22:26 to shame your opponent. Exodus 22:26 compels creditors to return the cloak at night so that the poor can sleep in it. By giving up your cloak you shame the creditor who is willing to sue for your tunic - and God will hear the cries of the debtor, Exodus promises this. As for walking the extra mile, that's a reference to the Roman law of impressment which allowed a Roman soldier to compel a person of a conquered state to carry his pack for one mile but no further. By carrying it the 2nd mile, the soldier would be forced to comically beg you to put it down lest his commanding officer see and he get in trouble. So, it clearly does not mean to not fight back - it means to fight back smartly. This is what happens when people try to read scripture with no reference for the history or culture it was written in, not to mention reading a bad rendering of the Greek in order to keep the poor in their place. Remember Christians, Christ taught us to fight smartly, not to not fight. Of course a Christian fights against evill How could we not? Anonymous (ID: GqK+D9hz) - 03/22/18(Thu)21:26:37 No.165006658 ► File: 1487039009734.jpg (159 KB, 472x640) Some have complained that there is no citation for the backhanded slap but that it is just a theory. The reason why scholars do not readily provide a citation is it comes from the Talmud. There are a number of references to various to traditions in the Talmud that are found in the gospels, because of Jesus' debates with Pharisees and St. Paul who was one himself. This is what scholars have when they do have a citation. I add this to anon's (thank you anon) original work as request from some atheists. Anonymous (ID: GqK+D9hz) - 03/22/18(Thu)21:26:57 No.165006695 ► File: 1506716547285.jpg (363 KB, 1344x1344) Originally to use a backhand slap against a superior was a serious offense since was meant for the slave class, or those goyim that did not bathe, since the back of the hand was used so to touch an unclean person as little as possible while still striking them. Touching something unclean with the palm of the hand made that hand generally unusable. So the Jews Jesus is speaking to would see this not just as dishonorable but also a baseless insult. To turn the other cheek would force the ones backhanding them to recognize that Jews indeed bathe just as the civilized Romans and Greeks did by slapping them with front. So if a goy were to turn his cheek to a Jew that is backhanding him, then the goy would be forcing the Jew to recognize that he is clean as he is. In a personal argument, to force a Jew to recognize that he is your equal is more effective than just punching him. If he does not recognize his equality with you, then observers would have been redpilled on kikery. Anonymous (ID: GqK+D9hz ) 4 03/22/18(Thu)21:27:15 No.165006738 ► File: 1518390022960.jpg (109 KB, 432x600) >Since the famous edition of the New Testament by Johann Jakob Wettstein at least, New testament scholars have been avware that in some rabbinic texts a backhanded slap was considered particularly blameworthy. (1) The commentary on the New Testament by Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck advanced Wettstein's research. (2) The key text is m. B. Qam. 8.6: “If one cuff his fellow, he must pay him a sela." R. Yehuda in the name of R. Jose the Galilean says, "A maneh . If he slapped him, he must pay him two hundred zuz; [if he hit him] with the back of his hand [IT' nnx] he must pay him four hundred zuz". (3) Samuel Greengus has shown that the offense in a number of different Babylonian laws including the Laws of Hammurapi. In the Laws of Hammurapi (§ § 202-205) a social inferior who struck the side of a superior's face was flogged, and a slave who did the same to a free person who lost an ear. (4) He thinks that talion is naturally associated with the slapping of a face, since m. B. Qam. 8.6 and the Hammurapi Laws (§ § 202-205) are in sections dealing with “serious bodily injuries". If talion was the "ancient literary and legal setting for a discussion of dignitory torts", then the similarity between the Mishnaic passage and Matthew is explained. (5) Anonymous (ID: GqK+D9hz ) 03/22/18(Thu)21:28:24 No.165006871 File: 1493440161082.jpg (113 KB, 450x618) >R. Yehuda ha Nasi (fourth generation Tannaitic teacher who died 217 AD and who redacted the Mishnah) took his view from R. Jose the Galilean (2nd generation Tannaitic teacher) concerning the fine for slapping one's friend. (6) One can assume that the Mishnaic teaching may well have it's origins in the 1st century AD or before. The commentator Yom-Tove Lippman Heller (17th century AD) calls such a strike "extreme humiliation" (7) .(11' j177) t. B. Qam. 9.31 requires the same payment for a similar transgression: "If one has struck another with one's backhand [IT' Da], with a paper, with a pinaz, with untanned hides, or with a role of documents that are in one's hands, then one pays 400 zuz. Not because it is a blow of pain, but because it is a blow of [public] shame (8) ".(j!'|2) Greengus interprets this to mean that the fine is not so high because of the pain, but because of the public dishonor. (9) The Mishnaic text on the “backhanded slap" appears in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds. (10) Anonymous (ID: GqK+D9hz ) 03/22/18(Thu)21:29:08 No.165006937 ► File: Gates of Paradise.jpg (287 KB, 728x1013) >Good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or to make others act in this way. Otherwise John, when the soldiers who came to be baptized asked, What shall we do? Would have replied, Throw away your arms; give up the service; never strike, or wound, or disable any one. But knowing that such actions in battle were not murderous but authorized by law, and that the soldiers did not thus avenge themselves, but defend the public safety, he replied, "Do not extort (shake 'em up/õiaoeiw/CONCVTERE), accuse no man falsely, and be content with your wages." Luke 3:14 But as the Manichæans are in the habit of speaking evil of John, let them hear the Lord Jesus Christ Himself ordering this money to be given to Cæsar, which John tells the soldiers to be content with. "Give," He says, "to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's." Matthew 22:21 For tribute-money is given on purpose to pay the soldiers for war. Again, in the case of the centurion who said, "I am a man under authority, and have soldiers under me: and I say to one, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it," Christ gave due praise to his faith; Matthew 8:9-10 He did not tell him to leave the service. But there is no need here to enter on the long discussion of just and unjust ways. [Unlike the woman caught in adultery who he told to "go and sin no more" John 8:11] St. Augustine Against Faustas 22.74 His quotation of Luke 3:14 is as follows "Neminem concusseritis" The Vulgata reads "Neminem concutiatis" Anonymous (ID: GqK+D9hz) - 03/22/18(Thu)21:29:51 No.165007022 ► File: 1489904433546.jpg (155 KB, 465x600) This entire passage (Matthew 5:38-42) is not about bloodshed but personal retaliation. The "Eye for an Eye" was wrongly taught to extend beyond court ruling (what Torah puts) and into personal private quarrels by Pharisees. To sum it all up Jesus' words are: When one is in a dispute with a neighbor it is better to strike a man by revealing his own nature and thereby condemning him publicly, than to strike him back with a slap to dishonor him and the matter escalates into violence and that you are condemned with him. Anonymous (ID: GqK+D9hz) = 03/22/18(Thu)21:30:08 No.165007049 ► File: 1492652408816.jpg (86 KB, 762x1000) 1. J. J. Wettstein (ed.), Novum Testamentum Graecum c-- variis lectionibus et commentario duobus tomis (2 vols.; Amsterdam: Dommer, 1751-52), I, p.309 2. Str-B, I, p. 342. 3. P. Blackman (ed), Mishnayoth (trans. P. Blackman; 7 vols.; New York: Judaica, 1963), IV, p. 66. According to Blackman, p.67 apparatus, a maneh = 100 zuz = 25 selah. 4. S. Greengus, 'Filling Gaps: Laws Found in Babylonia and in the Mishna but Absent in the Hebrew Bible', Maarav 7 (1991), pp. 149-71 (152-55). Cf. Laws of Eshnunna §42. 5. Greengus, 'Filling Gaps', pp. 154-44. 6. Scholars take this as a reference to the generations of the Tannaim from H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 73, 76. 7. C. Albeck (ed.), Shisha Sedre Mishnah (Hebrew) (3. vols.; Jerusalem: Eshkol, 1955), II, p. 20 (m. B. Qam.). 8. t. B. Qam. 9.31 (see Liberman [ed.], Tosefta [5 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955-73], IV, p. 49 [Nezikin]). Cf. Sifra Emor 14 to Lev 24.19-20 for a similar tradition. Cf. The texts in P. Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt: Rabbinische Texte zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt, ins ihren Ursprachen dargeboten und mit Erläuterungen und Lesarten versehen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1924), Teil I, pp. 95-96 (German), Teil II, pp 44-45 (Hebrew). 9. Greengus, 'Filling Gaps', p.155. 10. b. B. Qam. 90a, y. B. Qam. 7, 7a (Venice ed.). Cf. P. Schäfer and H.-J. Becker (eds.), Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi. IV. Ordnung Nezikin Ordnung Toharot: Nidda (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), p. 48. J. Weismann believes the tradition in b. B. Qam. 90a goes back to the time of Jesus ('Zur Erklärung einer Stelle der Bergpredigt', ZNW 14 [1913], pp. 175-76).](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/179/583/087.png "Turn the Other Cheek (Extended)")
