Is this for real?

He is right though

It is real, Christanity was corrupted by hippies

It's wrong. Clever but wrong.

Explain

It's about taming your angry impulses and not listening to your baser instincts to hate people who act meanly to you.

He is 100% correct on his analysis, but whether these are the actual words of Jesus is a different story. I took a few ancient Greek and Theology courses in college. We specifically were taught what this user is saying: Jesus wasn't some pussy who'd let the Roman Empire roll over him, but at the same time he knew that he'd be killed with outright antagonism, therefore, nonviolent action against the powers that be was the way to go.
I can't speak for the validity of the specific translation of 'μη αντιστηναι', but his parsing is correct. It's not uncommon for such words in Greek and Latin to have certain contextual meanings that get lost in translation. The interpretations of the other sayings (extra mile, give up your cloak) is what would be taught in a standard Catholic theology course.
Now, I do have a few caveats: the gospel was written by Matthew more than a full generation after Jesus died (70AD-110AD). Jesus did not write anything down; he was illiterate. So it's also important when reading scripture to consider who the gospel author was writing for, and what his thrust was. Matthew was a male Jew (at the time, Christian and Jewish communities had not yet diverged; Christianity was a sub-sect of Judaism). Both Matthew and Luke drew from the 'Q' source, and the Gospel of Mark. While some sayings in the Sermon on the Mount occur in Luke in other forms, the lecture itself is solely in Matthew.
Now, there are several criterion for determining if an action or phrase was actually said by Jesus in addition to what I have listed above:
1. Embarrassment (e.g. crucifixion) (-): This sermon fails this test, as it is not 'embarrassing' for Jesus. By itself, it is not a litmus test, however.
2. Dissimilarity (+): If it violated the beliefs of the Jewish community. It did, they awaited a militant Messiah
3. Originality: (+). There is no old-testament prophecy being fulfilled in this sermon.
4. Multiple attestation: (?)I don't know if the sermon exists in any independent works. Probably not.
So there you have it. It's hard to divine the original meaning of whatever Jesus said, but he definitely was an anarchist of sorts who nonviolently opposed both the Sanhedrin and the Roman Empire, in favor of his own Kingdom of God.

>he was illiterate
How do you know that?

There's also the fact that Jesus didn't speak Greek. Why not keep his original Aramaic? If he's so holy why not make a good effort to preserve his speech?

he isn't though.

He was a carpenter by trade, and spoke Aramaic (and maybe a bit of Koine Greek). The apostles wrote in Greek in order to proliferate his teachings; it was the lingua franca of the Roman empire. It is unlikely he needed to be literate, and there is no proof of him directly writing anything down. Literacy was more necessary for the upper-class Sadducees than any other Jews.

he doesn't. Luke 21:37

>And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is calledthe mountof Olives

They wouldn't have let him teach if he couldn't read.

Luke 4:17-20
>And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
>The Spirit of the Lordisupon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised
>To preach the acceptable year of the Lord
>And he closed the book, and he gaveitagain to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

He read in the temple.

Ok, now explain why he told Peter not to attack those who were about to arrest him. And "love thy neighbour". And give any example when Jesus did anything even remotely aggresive against someone.

>no no guys, see, romans used their hands this way so Jesus actually told you to be a cunning boss, totally not a religion for slaves

Find me a non-synoptic piece of evidence and I'll agree with you. Of course Luke the Physician would want Jesus to be literate.

No, he's completely making shit up knowing full well most people can't know that.

>The bible doesn't count
>It only counts if it came from John
Yet you accept the story and theory of him teaching nonviolent rebellion against the Roman Empire, like in the OP, even though it comes from Matthew?

There are other implicit examples of Jesus advocating for rebellion. The only one I can name right now is his constant advocating for the coming Kingdom of God.
I accept that the Sermon on the Mount was actually said by Jesus because it can be verified to a reasonable degree using the historical-critical method.
That said, all of these gospel writers inserted some level of falsehood into their writing because they weren't writing for historical propriety, but to convert their audience.
In this discussion, whether Jesus was literate or not is moot, because we don't have any surviving writings from him in the first place.

>There are other implicit examples of Jesus advocating for rebellion. The only one I can name right now is his constant advocating for the coming Kingdom of God.
Except the Kingdom of God/heaven was spiritual, not earthly. This is what the Jews and his followers didn't understand. He did not come to overthrow the Roman Empire. He made this very clear in ALL the gospels, when he mentioned how he came to die, not to build an empire.

>I accept that the Sermon on the Mount was actually said by Jesus because it can be verified to a reasonable degree using the historical-critical method.
Then maybe you shouldn't discuss this from a point of view from the Bible if you aren't going to accept that the majority of the non-miracles recorded actually happened.

>That said, all of these gospel writers inserted some level of falsehood into their writing because they weren't writing for historical propriety, but to convert their audience.
And you know this....how?

>In this discussion, whether Jesus was literate or not is moot, because we don't have any surviving writings from him in the first place.
Oh so now it's moot, even though you just said with such absolute authority.

>Except the Kingdom of God/heaven was spiritual, not earthly. This is what the Jews and his followers didn't understand. He did not come to overthrow the Roman Empire. He made this very clear in ALL the gospels, when he mentioned how he came to die, not to build an empire.
This is a completely different can of worms that I'd rather not get into. I agree that he did not try to overthrow the Roman Empire. As I recall, there is a notable difference between 'Kingdom of God' and 'Kingdom of Heaven,' which can either refer to Jesus's vision being recognized on earth, or judgement day.
>Then maybe you shouldn't discuss this from a point of view from the Bible if you aren't going to accept that the majority of the non-miracles recorded actually happened.
Can you clarify?
>Oh so now it's moot, even though you just said with such absolute authority.
Take it easy. Are you looking for an argument or a discussion? This thread is about the sermon on the mount, and I mentioned Jesus' literacy to reinforce the necessity for historical criticism because Jesus personally did not write the bible. I concede that it is entirely possible that he could have been literate, but it was just not likely for someone of his social status. If it just appears in Luke, it might have been his own personal thrust.
>And you know this....how?
Of course the gospels were written with a theological intent rather than as historical accounts. The evangelists lived 1-2 generations after Jesus died, and wrote their gospels on oral tradition and the writings of others. The gospels are filled with impossible acts, like Jesus performing exorcisms, walking on water, conjuring bread and fish, and rising from the dead. If you believe in all of these miracles (and I don't know if you do or not), then our differences are a matter of faith vs. historical criticism. Furthermore, a significant portion of events in the gospels are fulfillment of old testament prophecies. A lot of what the gospels said is veritably false, as seen by the many conflicts between the gospels. Take a look at the infancy narratives if you need an example.

there's evidence that Jesus was able to read (Luke 4:17-21). It seems strange he would know how to read but not how to write.

Isn't "Kingdom of Heaven" mostly used in Matthew, and isn't that mostly because he was writing for a Jewish audience to whom "Kingdom of God" would have been offensive?

I made the claim that Luke made up Jesus's ability to read and write for theological purposes, not because he had hard evidence. Here are some articles on certain historical-literary critical methods. Luke's claim of Jesus's literacy fails embarrassment and attestation, and dissimilarity doesn't apply
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_multiple_attestation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_dissimilarity
I can't remember my man. But the writers definitely tailored their works to their audiences, be it gentiles or Jews.

Didn't he like trash some trading stalls in a temple or something?

Matthew 13:54 tells pretty much the same story without so much detail, so multiple attestation isn't an issue. As for criterion of embarrassment, I find it hard to take seriously a criterion that requires a historical event be embarrassing in order to be considered valid

Duplicity is important in early Christianity. Be as innocent as doves and as sly as serpents, don't let your left hand know what the right is doing, and so on. Christianity is a religion that only makes sense for a persecuted people.

You're right in that embarrassment can't disprove whether an event happened, but can help prove it instead. Jesus being crucified definitely happened, because his followers have no reason to make that cruel, shameful death up.
Matthew and Luke both drew from the same sources: Q and Mark. That's why the infancy narratives are only in Matthew and Luke.

>And "love thy neighbour".

I'm sure you can rustle up some post or article somewhere that pedantically overexplains it until it means the opposite

Remember
You're not supposed to be weak
Don't be weak, never
Breed strength, suffer for strength and feel realized.

Boxing is more Veeky Forums than any pile you can go through. Doesn't matter how much you jerk off over your IQ, while growling fat and old into your chair, surrounded by books.

>only makes sense for a persecuted people
Very well put.

i thought the bible was written in Latin

why are translating from greek

tfw no qt blonde Slavic literary gf

ayo dis nigga retarded!