defense of 3rd parties in the Christian tradition

[Stand_watie]

Let me start by saying that I don't consider Levitical commandments binding upon Christians, except as they are repeated (and many are) in the Christian "New Testament". That said, I think Levitical commands are Christian in tradition, and instructive in Christian debate - for example if a claim were made that working on the sabbath is a general religious requirement of mankind by the creator, Leviticus would be a "fair use" to counter the point.

Many (perhaps even a majority if you consider the broadest definition of the term worldwide) Christians have at least semi-pacifist (and some outright pacifist) beliefs regarding defense of others.

Twice in the past month I've seen a Leviticus (19:16) reference that appears to have a largely different connotation than I have taken from it as read in English. Both citations from Jewish authors.

Interesting to me that I've missed it right along, because I suspect I'd have gotten the different interpetation if I'd dug around enough, even from English translation/commentators. I've never seen it cited as a moral point (by gun rights community) for defense of third parties.


From a book I was reading recently

"don't stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed"

From an opinion article by Rabbi Asher Meir

"Don't stand idly by the blood of your fellow"

contrasted to

NIV

"..Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life.."

KJV

"..neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour.."

[tyme]

Are you trying to find grounding in the Old and New Testaments for your instinctual moral standards, or are you trying to construct a set of morals based on what's literally contained in those works?

George Bush is a monkey.

Is that sarcasm or an attempt at some literal truth?  Even if you read a work in its original language, with a good understanding of the original language, you cannot focus on individual statements and hope to derive truth from them.

Did someone put something in the water?  The SCOTUS rules against partial birth abortion, and here we are in a thread about religion, and I'm not being prickly!

[The Rabbi]

Let me start by saying that I don't consider Levitical commandments binding upon Christians, except as they are repeated (and many are) in the Christian "New Testament". That said, I think Levitical commands are Christian in tradition, and instructive in Christian debate - for example if a claim were made that working on the sabbath is a general religious requirement of mankind by the creator, Leviticus would be a "fair use" to counter the point.

First off, picking and choosing which commandments are binding and which aren't yields some interesting results.
Second, there is no claim that there is a general injunction to refrain from working on the Sabbath.  Indeed, we find the opposite in Genesis.

[quote author=Stand_watie link=topic=6787.msg108072#msg108072 date=1176965093
Many (perhaps even a majority if you consider the broadest definition of the term worldwide) Christians have at least semi-pacifist (and some outright pacifist) beliefs regarding defense of others.

Twice in the past month I've seen a Leviticus (19:16) reference that appears to have a largely different connotation than I have taken from it as read in English. Both citations from Jewish authors.

Interesting to me that I've missed it right along, because I suspect I'd have gotten the different interpetation if I'd dug around enough, even from English translation/commentators. I've never seen it cited as a moral point (by gun rights community) for defense of third parties.


From a book I was reading recently

"don't stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed"

From an opinion article by Rabbi Asher Meir

"Don't stand idly by the blood of your fellow"

contrasted to

NIV

"..Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life.."

KJV

"..neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour.."


[/quote]

The Hebrew reads "al tamod al dam re'echa" ("Dont stand on the blood of your fellow man") and the first translation you gave is the closest and incorporates the Masora understanding of the verse.

[Firethorn]

Thank you Rabbi.

Despite people who seem to think that the KJV is the 'true' translation, I fully understand that it's a translation, like any other versions I read; seeing as how I don't read Latin or Hebrew.  And even if I DID read those, I'd be reading in a language different from those that wrote and read it originaly.

Being agnostic, I don't explicitly follow the bible, or any other religious text.  They can be a good founding, but are subject to twisting and rules-lawyering.

I'll defend others to the best of my ability.  I shalt not stand by while my neighbor's blood is shed.

[Perd Hapley]

the first translation you gave is the closest and incorporates the Masora understanding of the verse.

Meaning this one? 

"don't stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed"

[The Rabbi]

Yeah.

[MechAg94]

I thought all or most of the New Testament was in forms of Greek, not Latin. 

[Perd Hapley]

I thought all or most of the New Testament was in forms of Greek, not Latin. 

Correct.  None of the New Testament autographs were in Latin.  Mr. Picky.   

[Stand_watie]

Are you trying to find grounding in the Old and New Testaments for your instinctual moral standards, or are you trying to construct a set of morals based on what's literally contained in those works?...

Neither. I'm referencing past/current religious debate within Christian (and other) community.

First off, picking and choosing which commandments are binding and which aren't yields some interesting results.

Second, there is no claim that there is a general injunction to refrain from working on the Sabbath.  Indeed, we find the opposite in Genesis

A) There's no denying that.
B) I didn't think that there was.

[De Selby]

Interesting topic.  I'll try to find the specific reference, but offhand I remember reading words by St. Augustine to the effect that defending a third party is actually significantly better, morally speaking, than self-defense.  This is because self-defense could always have a selfish, non-holy motive...ie, if you were fighting a war to keep your nice marble floors or because you make lots of money from the system you're protecting. 

Defending third parties in whose fate you don't have a financial stake, however, reduces the risk that you'll have ulterior motives.  You're also much more likely to be able to love the enemy in that situation, since it won't be personal between you and him.

I think the biblical foundation for the argument was "love thy enemy".  It ends up meaning that you can't fight an enemy for your own good; you have to fight him for his own good.

[Perd Hapley]

I remember reading words by St. Augustine to the effect that defending a third party is actually significantly better, morally speaking, than self-defense.

Well, yeah. 

I think the biblical foundation for the argument was "love thy enemy".  It ends up meaning that you can't fight an enemy for your own good; you have to fight him for his own good.

More or less agree.  In the same way, criminals need justice to be done to them just as much as society needs to see justice done.  Even if the punishment is death, it is for the criminal's good to be punished. Sorta like junior needs to be spanked for his own good. 

[Firethorn]

I thought all or most of the New Testament was in forms of Greek, not Latin. 

Correct.  None of the New Testament autographs were in Latin.  Mr. Picky.   

Opps....  Boy my face is red.

[Stand_watie]

I thought all or most of the New Testament was in forms of Greek, not Latin. 

Correct.  None of the New Testament autographs were in Latin.  Mr. Picky.   

Opps....  Boy my face is red.

Not a surprising mistake. From around 600 until around 1520 (Wycliffe and Luther) Latin was THE translation in Roman Christendom by church dictat. And translation discussions like we are having here were officially discouraged.

[MechAg94]

No big deal.  Greek was then like English is today.  It was the language of trade and most commonly understood. Also, many of Paul's letters were addressed to Greeks. 

I was trying to think of what languages were used in the Old Testament also.  I know of Aramaic(sp) and/or Hebrew.  I think Chaldean was in there as well, maybe others.  I am also not sure that applies to the Torah or not. 

[The Rabbi]

The only languages attested in the "Old Testament" are Hebrew and Aramaic (once to my knowledge in Genesis and in parts of Daniel).

[Art Eatman]

I've never worried about what anybody said, anywhere, anytime.  Aside from growing up with the western novels of Max Brand and Eugene Cunninham for the ideas of protecting the innocent, my opinion was set in stone when I first read of Kitty Genovese.

That ain't gonna happen around me.  End of hunt.

Art

[Firethorn]

Not a surprising mistake. From around 600 until around 1520 (Wycliffe and Luther) Latin was THE translation in Roman Christendom by church dictat. And translation discussions like we are having here were officially discouraged.

Yeah, I remembered all the priests learning latin in order to read the bible, and that the Romans made themselves a pain in the butt during that period, so I figured it was the original language for the NT.  For the old testement I knew it was in Hebrew, but now I learn that it was partially in Aramaic?

*shakes head*

And I remember the *shalt not kill*/*shalt not commit murder* translation debate...

[Eleven Mike]

but now I learn that it was partially in Aramaic?

Very partially.  Aramaic was (or at some point became) the lingua franca of the region.  Aram is modern-day Syria, BTW.  IIRC, the Jews began speaking Aramaic (rather than Hebrew) during their captivity in...Babylon?  Assyria? 

[The Rabbi]

Post First Temple period, which was in Babylon (Iraq) under the Persians.  There isn't a lot of Aramaic in the "OT" but it is attested.

[Eleven Mike]

Might you explain what you mean by attested?  I'm not familiar with that term in that context. 

[The Rabbi]

Might you explain what you mean by attested?  I'm not familiar with that term in that context. 

Sorry, the jargon-filled ex-grad student coming out in me.
Attested means that there is evidence for something.  So Aramaic is attested in the Pentateuch in the passage where Lavan catches up to Yaakov and they declare a truce and make an agreement.  The verse says they did this on a hill and Lavan called it "Sahadusa" but Yaakov called it Galed.  Sahadusa means "hill of testimony" in Aramaic (Sahad means something like witness, compare to Arabic shaheed).  Galed would mean the same in Hebrew.

[Tallpine]

There you have it - a biblical argument for bilingualism

[Matthew Carberry]

There you have it - a biblical argument for bilingualism

But only for the Jews.  Christians can remain monolingual under the New Covenant. 

[Eleven Mike]

There you have it - a biblical argument for bilingualism

Oh, so you're Pentacostal. 

[Tallpine]

Oh, so you're Pentacostal.

Chan eil.  Tha mi Paganach