Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe King David on his death bed told his son Solomon to kill his ememies, and " Make it bloody. King David was not converted. He did forgive Saul over and over because Saul was his king ordained by God. David did not forgive the people he hated.
He died carnal to the core. But God will restore him. He will have to come and bow before Jesus.
Legoman asked in the O.P. : “Matt 5:43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
This is an interesting and telling statement. Of course we are learning about Jesus greatest command here: Love God, love your neighbor, and yes, even love your enemy. But why does it say "you have heard that it was said... hate your enemy"? What is this referring to? I believe this is referring to the old testament, and the old testament ideas of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Jesus is saying these ideas are wrong. In effect, is Jesus invalidating some of the teachings from the OT? Or perhaps the OT people were incorrect in their thinking here?“
Kurt Schubert (a specialist in the Dead Sea Scroll literature) was among the first to advance the theory that Jesus was speaking to a group of Dead Sea Scroll Jews when he said "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ” since such a specific command did not exist in the known Jewish tradition or Old Testament literature, but it did exist among the DSS Jews.
Schubert referred to the 1QS documents command “…love everyone whom me (God) has elected, and to hate everyone whom he has rejected…” (1QS 1:4) and “…to hate all sons of darkness, each one according to his sinfulness in the revenge of God (v 10)
Yigael Yadin also agreed with Schuberts opinion. Both of them felt that Jesus was actually speaking to a group of people made up of Dead Sea Jews (or at least a large portion of Jesus’ audience had been taught that theology) Charlesworth also agreed, and described the above points in his book, "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls" in 1992.
W.H. Brownlee, at least in the early 1960s disagree with all three. However, knows what Brownlee's opinion would have been in 1990s having the the better advantage of wonderful additional information they had just 25 years later...(Few had gotten beyond the DSS Jews being the “essenes of Josephus” in the 1960s.)
I believe the historians are correct that if the DSS copper scroll (which is a list and map to treasures Israel hid in the anticipation of the Romans sacking Jerusalem) is genuine, then it places the Dead Sea Jews and their theology in the midst of orthodox Temple Judaism of Jesus’ day. Many scholars DO believe it is quite genuine.
This interesting O.P. question reminds us that since the biblical narrative takes place in a much larger historical milieu, many of the stories and statements in the biblical text cannot make sense without referring to outside historical data and texts that refer to this time and people.
I've wondered : Once the early oral histories began to be written down, who knows how many vast, voluminous, volumes of sacred text have actually accumulated over the years since individuals started writing them down but simply could not be included in the later versions of sacred texts we now have.
A single text was limited to the size of a scroll and it’s size was limited to the technology of the time. The simple expediency of space limited the amount of text that one could carry necessitated the process of editing not only which texts were most important to keep in a “canon” but which parts of which stories to keep and what to leave out. In fact, the Christians could never create a single collection or “canon” of books in a single text until they adopted the codex rather than the scroll as a medium of writing.
Some of what was left out was probably “relatively unimportant” (e.g. 1 Samuel and additions/correction the DSS texts made possible). However, other texts and other stories seem (to me) to have been important and I wish they had kept them inside the O.T. text.
For example, the Song of Solomon has relatively little value compared to texts that describe pre-creation conditions; the origin of Lucifer’s enmity and it’s relationship to the “Fall” of Adam. The circumstances regarding God’s purpose of creating a mortal experience for spirits and the need for a redeemer and how Jesus’ became chosen, etc, etc. I wish they had left out Song of Solomon and included some of these themes instead. Without reference to other historical texts, it is very, very difficult to make correct judgments and come to correct understanding regarding the bits and pieces of stories we have in the text.
For example, without additional information, Moses’ first marriage to “the Ethiopian Woman whom he had married” (num 12:1) Without any other data than this statement, Moses appears to be a hypocrite for marrying outside of Israel (since the Israelites were to avoid marriage to pagans). WITH the additional detail associated with the history of this marriage, Moses becomes an even greater religious character and his life takes on greater depth and honor.
The Story of Joseph and his Brothers when they return to Egypt is another example of a story which changes profoundly in meaning, depth and character with added history of the original story. (Old Testament | Genesis 44:5) The depth of the repentance of the brothers and Josephs various tests of them is lost to the current western version of the biblical texts. WITH the additional information, the story takes on profound undercurrents regarding the wonderful change of heart of the brothers and the depth of their repentance and the new established brotherhood of Joseph and the brothers.
Sometimes there is nothing of the early stories in our modern, western text, at other times there is only a word or two, which, as often as not, seems to add confusion rather than illumination to the current texts. For example, when Josephs servants come upon the brothers in Genesis 44:5 and, on Josephs orders, pretend to “find” Joseph’s silver cup, they say “ Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth?” The Christian reader is left to wonder why a patriarch is engaging in "divining" in the first place, and what it means that Joseph uses a silver cup to “divine” rather than revelation from God (which is the typical procedure in religion). This simple statement leaves out an entire story of Joseph pretending to use this cup to “divine” where the brothers are to sit according to their birth mother, and it absence obscures the deep motive as to why Joseph claimed the brothers would be most interested in this cup to use "in divining". The story is simply missing and the reader is left to make unusual assumptions based on a scrap of a reference.
When Potter’s wife, Zelicah, wishes to seduce Joseph, the current text tells us nothing of multiple prior attempts; nothing of the story of how Joseph is saved from execution since the early versions reveal how it was made clear that Zelicah was lying.
Even Abraham has been maligned due to lack of reference. For example, the current O.T. version of him “lying to the Egyptian guards” to “save himself” often has him branded as a coward in this single incident in Genesis ch 12. Once, on a forum, a Christian poster lamented that Abraham “pimped Sarah, his wife” and used the story of Genesis ch 12 as a reference to support her theory.
Early textual traditions give us the needed information to prevent us from making such profound errors in assumptions. For example, the various versions of the “Palm and the Cedar” stories, make clear that Abraham is instructed in a dream/revelation as to what he is to do. He was not a coward. The various renditions of Abraham crying outside the walls of Pharoah's home, praying for the safety and the release of Sarah tell us he was no “pimp”.
The point is, that just as the Old Testament contains references that cannot BE understood in their correct context without reference to other versions of the story, the New Testament is similarly difficult to understand without reference to other historical references.
Please forgive the brief interruption within this thread, but the moderators just wanted to let everyone know that there is a new Sticky at the top of the forum, which we are requesting that all members please take the time to read. Thanks, and please to resume posting in response to the OP, which is an excellent topic of debate!
OP
I think you may have possibly overlooked the Context of the times.....this statement was made during the Roman occupation. It was common during the time to love Caesar (the ruler) or Hate him...and those who hated him, wanted to kill him. and many times they did just that.
The idea of Loving one's enemy dates back some 475 years before Jesus said it to the teachings of the Buddhists, who wanted to offer acceptance/love to everyone. This is an issue that some of us perhaps many of us have a problem overcoming today.
But using the Buddha as an example, the enlightened Mind will hold no hatred towards enemies because he/she understands that on a greater scale, hate is just a waste of energy and effort. This correlates with the "Christ Consciousness" model as described here, which is not limited to any religion or select group of followers what is Christ Consciousness?
So the Phrase "You have heard it...... said hate your enemies..." probably reflected a common disdain for both Caesar and the occupying Romans. It extended likely to Herod, who would later be accused of atrocities written much later in the gospel of Matthew. It probably included tax collectors, Jewish tithe collectors, anyone who had any position off autthority which could be abused was an enemy, and thus HATED!!!!
Hate is a powerful driving emotion. Hate, Fear, Jealousy, all drive from primitive evolved animalistic survival tactics from deep within our brains. When we as humans allow these drives to control our lives, the resulting human flaws...greed, addictions, fear, the flight or fight syndrome is the result. A person who loves his enemy, will endeavor to work with and for that person, while those who hate, seek to destroy. Case in point, look at the imprisoned or institutionalized population. While many there will claim one religion or another, the actions of these people rise from a conflict, from fear and hatred, the result is the sociopathic disorders common in criminal types and the mentally ill. I would suggest that someone had a good idea, because we find really no sociopathic disorders in those who lack hatred, or anger.
And yes, the two are related. And it has nothing to do with one's religion. It has all to do with an inner acceptance of the self and the situations with which one cannot change but by being a great example, like Buddda or Jesus.
What do you think ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
