What excuse do Protestants have for not turning the other cheek?

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag	open flag menu
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder	Show voice recorder (the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

What excuse do Protestants have for not turning the other cheek? † 09/26/20 (Sat) 18:42:57 6ddefd No.846500

The jews are right that Christians don't turn the other cheek. However, in Catholicism it's not even a command because Sirach says to not turn the other cheek, making a physical interpretation of the sermon on the mount in contradiction with other parts of the Catholic Bible. Therefore, the sermon on the mount is only spiritual in Catholicism. So what about Protestants? They don't have Sirach yet they also don't turn the other cheek. What justification do they have. I'm not attacking Protestants. I'm just curious what their justification is.

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/26/20 (Sat) 19:20:37 6ad54a No.846501

We do turn the other cheek and it is not only means physically. Christians are to tolerate unjust suffering for the sake of the gospel.

If that's what sirach teaches I would only say that this is evidence that it is not inspired since it is at odds with the sermon on the mount.

Here's protestant commentaries on it

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/5-39.htm

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/26/20 (Sat) 21:37:43 8aea70 No.846505

>>846501

Sirach does not go against Christ, you do. Christ says not to throw pearls to swine, this is what Sirach also says. Bread and pearls is the faith, which gives us sustenance.

Turning the other cheek means to endure things for the spreading the message, not giving pearls for pigs or bread/faith to the ungodly means not to allowing them to waste it, according to Christ, and to waste your goodwill, according to Sirach.

Of course that we would love to give out grace with a royal hand, but God alone can give without counting or skimping. We can only ask for mercy.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/26/20 (Sat) 21:47:34 6ad54a No.846506

>>846505

I would like to understand your criticism of me but I'm finding this post incomprehensible

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/26/20 (Sat) 21:48:12 6ad54a No.846507

>>846501

>is not only means

Does not only mean

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/26/20 (Sat) 23:03:55 8aea70 No.846510

>>846506

You'd need to read Sirach in its fullness, to understand that Christ does not go against it. Taking off does not go against the gospel, as it is said one should go away from an uncharitable city and dust off one's feet.

My criticism is that neither OP nor you are right, Sirach does not go against the sermon of the mount. It's a classic case of a local man quoting a phrase out of the bible and ignoring the rest of it to justify an already held view.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/26/20 (Sat) 23:24:07 6ad54a No.846514

>>846510

I started by sentence with "if that's what sirach teaches"

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/27/20 (Sun) 00:46:47 b9bf5c No.846518

>>846505

>nonsensical ortho gibberish

<“Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him, lest he overmaster thee thereby: for [else] thou shalt receive twice as much evil for all the good thou shalt have done unto him. For the most High hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance unto the ungodly, and keepeth them against the mighty day of their punishment. Give unto the good, and help not the sinner.”

‭‭Sirach‬ ‭12:5-7‬ ‭

<“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 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. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:38-42‬ ‭

They clearly contradict unless one is spiritual. Since the latter is the one that just doesn't work in the real world that's obviously the spiritual one.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/27/20 (Sun) 01:39:26 fad396 No.846522

>>846514

>by sentence

My sentence

Lol

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/27/20 (Sun) 03:47:11 8aea70 No.846530

>>846518

I assumed you had read the gospels, but your lack of understanding makes me doubtful.

Christ says the same that is written in Sirach in Matthew 10:14.

>And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.

Even before about the damning of the impious to close off the sermon of the mount in Matthew 7:21-23.

>“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

I do not know exactly what you believe to be contradictory, I also don't understand how you associate spiritual with 'to be ignored'.

The gospels say to not be in communion with the sinner's ways, so does Sirach. Is not being in communion with the devil against the sermon of the mount? Lmao.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/27/20 (Sun) 04:24:37 6ddefd No.846531

>>846530

Honestly, that just makes the sermon on the mount even more blatantly spiritual since physical advice in the same Gospel contradicts it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/28/20 (Mon) 00:53:11 8aea70 No.846557

>>846531

Why do you use the word spiritual in such a way? What does that even mean? It's nonsensical.

It doesn't matter if you flower it with euphemisms like your use of 'spiritual', if you have a wrong conception of the sermon of the mount, then it is you who is wrong - not Christ.

The sermon of the mount and not wasting one's efforts for the faith are parallel teachings.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/28/20 (Mon) 02:47:06 383676 No.846563

>>846557

I don't call it spiritual as a synonym for nonsensical. I call it spiritual because it only holds true in the spiritual world.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/28/20 (Mon) 02:59:32 fad396 No.846567

>>846563

As in, not literal, is that what you mean?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/28/20 (Mon) 03:13:26 383676 No.846568

>>846567

No, it's literal, just spiritually literal.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 09/28/20 (Mon) 03:25:23 fad396 No.846569

>>846568

I see

I'm having a hard time with your reading because it seems to imply two different moral codes based on spiritual versus material/physical

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.