Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

[Toasty]

So what context does it add then? What did he mean when he said "turn the other cheek?"

She is actually incapable of understanding anything in a historical context, at all.

The Victim should strike the Sinner in return. EYE FOR EYE.

It's very simple: The Messiah did NOT teach against or abolish The Torah. He simply gave everyone the proper understanding of it.

But that's exactly the opposite of turn the other cheek!

 

[A Cardboard Box]

The Victim should strike the Sinner in return. EYE FOR EYE.

It's very simple: The Messiah did NOT teach against or abolish The Torah. He simply gave everyone the proper understanding of it.

So what context does "turn the other cheek add?" Surely that means something. What does it mean?

 

[Karl der Grosse]

You guys don't understand, everyone has been wrong for two thousand years.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

The Victim should strike the Sinner in return. EYE FOR EYE.

It's very simple: The Messiah did NOT teach against or abolish The Torah. He simply gave everyone the proper understanding of it.

I see you getting life in prison for applying this kind of logic within the next couple years

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

So what context does "turn the other cheek add?" Surely that means something. What does it mean?

"On the contrary, if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too"

That's the Hebraic concept of restitution. You give back to your Victim more than you took as the Sinner.

"But Zakkai stood there and said to the Lord, “Here, Lord, I am giving half of all I own to the poor; and if I have cheated anyone, I will pay him back four times as much" (Luke 19:

You guys don't understand, everyone has been wrong for two thousand years.

And the "cell phone" wasn't invented until 1973. What's your point?

But that's exactly the opposite of turn the other cheek!

No it's not. If your Victim strikes you (for EYE FOR EYE), turn the other cheek and let him hit you on the other cheek too.

Not hard to grasp

In The Torah it is the SINNER that loses something, not the Victim

 

[Karl der Grosse]

And the "cell phone" wasn't invented until 1973. What's your point?

I could tell you my point, but only for the super-low price of 1000 dollars.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

No it's not. If your Victim strikes you (for EYE FOR EYE), turn the other cheek and let him hit you on the other cheek too.

Not hard to grasp

In The Torah it is the SINNER that loses something, not the Victim

Prove that's what "turn the other cheek" means then lmao, because no fucking religious text or human being will say that's what that means, "eye for an eye" is the exact opposite of "turn the other cheek"

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

How much money do you spend in a year on your online 'studies', Melinda? Four figures?

I bought my first Concordance in a thrift store for $1, 12 years ago. Still have it.
About $500-750 on books
$175 on a laBtop (intentionally mis-spelled, don't put computers on top of your reproductive organs people!)
About $150-200 on paper and printing and binding/folders over the years

Prove that's what "turn the other cheek" means then lmao, because no fucking religious text or human being will say that's what that means, "eye for an eye" is the exact opposite of "turn the other cheek"

No it's not.

It's the Victim striking the Sinner and the Sinner is required to "turn the other cheek" and allow the Victim to strike him twice

Not hard to grasp

 

[Toasty]

Melinda, you and Marshall are the only people on the planet that think " turning the other cheek" means hitting people.
Thousands of years and hundreds of thousands of biblical scholars throughout those years haven't uncovered this bombshell. With the way many far right groups who like to use the bible and christianity as a cudgel to beat those that they disagree with, in direct contradiction to Jesus's message, you would think one of them would have pulled this out of their ass, back when the "moral majority" bullshit got started.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

No it's not.

It's the Victim striking the Sinner and the Sinner is required to "turn the other cheek" and allow the Victim to strike him twice

Not hard to grasp

Prove that's what it means then, if you clearly know the "true meaning" so well, it shouldn't be hard for you to prove it

 

[A Cardboard Box]

"On the contrary, if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too"

That's the Hebraic concept of restitution. You give back to your Victim more than you took as the Sinner.

"But Zakkai stood there and said to the Lord, “Here, Lord, I am giving half of all I own to the poor; and if I have cheated anyone, I will pay him back four times as much" (Luke 19:






And the "cell phone" wasn't invented until 1973. What's your point?

But he isn't talking about restitution. He never mentions it. He just says if someone hits you, to "turn the other cheek." Now what does that mean?

 

[Chariot Of Mara]

You're right. But fuck fnaarf. If this thread illustrates anythi g, it's the slippery slope that is the perfidy of kikes.

Bruh, calm down. You’re gonna get threadbanned again.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

Melinda, you and Marshall are the only people on the planet that think " turning the other cheek" means hitting people.
Thousands of years and hundreds of thousands of biblical scholars throughout those years haven't uncovered this bombshell. With the way many far right groups who like to use the bible and christianity as a cudgel to beat those that they disagree with, in direct contradiction to Jesus's message, you would think one of them would have pulled this out of their ass, back when the "moral majority" bullshit got started.

Truth is truth regardless of who or how many people believe it.

Do I believe I connected the dots and brought new life to the passage? Yes? Do I believe I'm correct? Of course
Do I think it's awesome that Marshall has eyes to see it to? YES

However, the Christian interpretation of it is why most Jew*ish sects reject The Messiah. They think he is teaching against The Torah in Matthew 5. But he's actually not.

1. if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too! = Lev. 24:20
2. If someone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well! =Exod. 22:13
3. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.= Lev. 19:18b
4. When someone asks you for something, give it to him=Lev. 25:35
5. when someone wants to borrow something from you, lend it to him.=Lev. 25:35

But he isn't talking about restitution. He never mentions it. He just says if someone hits you, to "turn the other cheek." Now what does that mean?

It means the Sinner must turn his/her cheek and let the Victim (of their sin) strike the other side too

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Truth is truth regardless of who or how many people believe it.

Do I believe I connected the dots and brought new life to the passage? Yes? Do I believe I'm correct? Of course
Do I think it's awesome that Marshall has eyes to see it to? YES

However, the Christian interpretation of it is why most Jew*ish sects reject The Messiah. They think he is teaching against The Torah in Matthew 5. But he's actually not.

1. if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too! = Lev. 24:20
2. If someone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well! =Exod. 22:13
3. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.= Lev. 19:18b
4. When someone asks you for something, give it to him=Lev. 25:35
5. when someone wants to borrow something from you, lend it to him.=Lev. 25:35

It means the Sinner must turn his/her cheek and let the Victim (of their sin) strike the other side too

He doesn't say that though. What he says is if someone strikes you, to turn the other cheek.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

Truth is truth regardless of who or how many people believe it.

Do I believe I connected the dots and brought new life to the passage? Yes? Do I believe I'm correct? Of course
Do I think it's awesome that Marshall has eyes to see it to? YES

However, the Christian interpretation of it is why most Jew*ish sects reject The Messiah. They think he is teaching against The Torah in Matthew 5. But he's actually not.

1. if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too! = Lev. 24:20
2. If someone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well! =Exod. 22:13
3. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.= Lev. 19:18b
4. When someone asks you for something, give it to him=Lev. 25:35
5. when someone wants to borrow something from you, lend it to him.=Lev. 25:35

It means the Sinner must turn his/her cheek and let the Victim (of their sin) strike the other side too

Is this how you justified it when Marshall slapped the shit out of you?

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

He doesn't say that though. What he says is if someone strikes you, to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-39 cannot mean a Victim must allow an attacker to strike him twice because it is written in The Torah:

“‘A curse on anyone who conceals attacking a fellow member of the community.’ All the people are to say, ‘Amen!’

Attacking results in a curse.

On the other hand The Torah COMMANDS "eye for eye". It is the moral obligation of a Victim to fight back.

"If someone injures his neighbor, what he did is to be done to him — break for break, eye for eye, tooth for tooth — whatever injury he has caused the other person is to be rendered to him in return." (Lev 24:20)

Pacifism is not acceptable in The Torah.

Is this how you justified it when Marshall slapped the shit out of you?

No, because I don't sin against Marshall, so I don't get in this situation. I am TAMIYM, consistently.

I might offend him from time to time. But according to The Torah, you can't strike someone physically just for offending you.

 

[Toasty]

Truth is truth regardless of who or how many people believe it.

Do I believe I connected the dots and brought new life to the passage? Yes? Do I believe I'm correct? Of course
Do I think it's awesome that Marshall has eyes to see it to? YES

However, the Christian interpretation of it is why most Jew*ish sects reject The Messiah. They think he is teaching against The Torah in Matthew 5. But he's actually not.

1. if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too! = Lev. 24:20
2. If someone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well! =Exod. 22:13
3. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.= Lev. 19:18b
4. When someone asks you for something, give it to him=Lev. 25:35
5. when someone wants to borrow something from you, lend it to him.=Lev. 25:35

It means the Sinner must turn his/her cheek and let the Victim (of their sin) strike the other side too

The passage or indeed the entire sermon wasn't about restitution. It was about not getting tangled up with evil people and embroiled in their drama, and how to lead a righteous life.
Literally immediately before saying it, he said "do not resist the one who is evil."
So clearly he's not speaking to 'the one who is evil'. He would have said, evil doers, who hit people, let them hit you back twice, only in greek, if that's what he meant. But clearly he didn't.
You have no proof of your off the wall, turning your own Messiah's words on his head other than that it's what you WANT it to say.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Matthew 5:38-39 cannot mean a Victim must allow an attacker to strike him twice because it is written in The Torah:

“‘A curse on anyone who conceals attacking a fellow member of the community.’ All the people are to say, ‘Amen!’

Attacking results in a curse.

On the other hand The Torah COMMANDS "eye for eye". It is the moral obligation of a Victim to fight back.

"If someone injures his neighbor, what he did is to be done to him — break for break, eye for eye, tooth for tooth — whatever injury he has caused the other person is to be rendered to him in return." (Lev 24:20)

Pacifism is not acceptable in The Torah.







No, because I don't sin against Marshall, so I don't get in this situation. I am TAMIYM, consistently.

I might offend him from time to time. But according to The Torah, you can't strike someone physically just for offending you.

Okay but what about what Jesus said? You haven't addressed that. What does Jesus mean when he says "turn the other cheek?" I'm not asking about other Bible passages.

Moreover why does he say "but?"

He says "I know you've been told... but." What does the "but" mean?

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

No, because I don't sin against Marshall, so I don't get in this situation. I am TAMIYM, consistently.

I might offend him from time to time. But according to The Torah, you can't strike someone physically just for offending you.

If TAMIYM means degenerate, then yes, you're consistently TAMIYM.

 

[Toasty]

Matthew 5:38-39 cannot mean a Victim must allow an attacker to strike him twice because it is written in The Torah:

“‘A curse on anyone who conceals attacking a fellow member of the community.’ All the people are to say, ‘Amen!’

Attacking results in a curse.

On the other hand The Torah COMMANDS "eye for eye". It is the moral obligation of a Victim to fight back.

"If someone injures his neighbor, what he did is to be done to him — break for break, eye for eye, tooth for tooth — whatever injury he has caused the other person is to be rendered to him in return." (Lev 24:20)

Pacifism is not acceptable in The Torah.







No, because I don't sin against Marshall, so I don't get in this situation. I am TAMIYM, consistently.

I might offend him from time to time. But according to The Torah, you can't strike someone physically just for offending you.

Didn't you justify his physical abuse of his first wife for just that reason? She said mean words at him and he got offended?