Here's a reference from "The Greatest Spiritual Secret of the Century", by Thom Hartmann, pages 161, 162, 163 and 164. It probably refers to Judas Khrestus, not Rabbi Jesu.

Joshua raised his left hand. "Two thousand years ago, before toilet paper was invented, people used their left hands to clean themselves. They'd then dip their fingers into a bowl of water to clean them, but their left hands were never really clean and they knew it. You know that?"

"I never thought about it", Paul said, dizzied by the sudden change of topic.

"It's true", Joshua said, putting his hand back on the arm of his chair. "In fact, it's still that way in most of the Third World. Today, this is how about four billion people live, without toilet paper. And in those lands today, as back then in Israel, the most terrible and vicious way you could insult a person would be to touch him with your left hand. Even gesturing with the left hand was banned in most societies. Among the Jewish Essenes, gesturing with the left hand would earn you a week's banishment from the community. And if you wanted to really insult somebody, to totally humiliate him, particularly in public, you would slap him with your left hand. You understand?"

"Yes", Paul said. "Like giving somebody the [certain hand gesture] today."

"More like giving them the finger and spitting in their face", Joshua said. "Or throwing [word removed by Swandancer so as not to appear offensive] on them. Remember where that hand was. You'd only do that to a person you knew couldn't retaliate, right? Unless you wanted your [word removed again] kicked."

"Right. So slapping somebody with your left hand, in ancient Roman society, was both the ultimate insult,and also something that was only done to the most powerless people. The Jews whose land was occupied by the Romans, for example. There was no recourse for them, unless it was to punch that person, which would mean they'd get the death penalty for hitting a Roman citizen. You understand?" "Yes", Paul said.

"Unless they could get that Roman to hit them with his right hand, which meant that a fight was engaged. Then they'd be justified to fight back. But the Romans didn't hit slaves with their right hands, they insulted them by slapping them with their left hands and then laughed at the humiliated slave who couldn't slap back."

"Got it."

"So", Joshua said, "which cheek would I strike you on if I wanted to humiliate you by slapping your face with my unclean left hand?"

Paul looked at Joshua's left hand, and then visualised it moving through the air, imagining where Joshua's left palm would fall. "You'd hit my right cheek if you swung your left hand."

"The ultimate vicious and humiliating insult, hitting your right cheek with my left hand."

"Yes."

"And if you then challenged me to hit you with my right hand, that would be a challenge to my authority if I was a slave holder or a powerful person in your society, right?"

"Absolutely. You'd be saying, 'If you have any courage, you'll start a legal fight with me where I can fight back. You'll hit me with your right hand. I dare you. And yet it would not be hitting back, it would be merely exposing the evil of the left-handed slap for what it was."

"I understand", Paul said.

Joshua said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That resist not evil with evil: but whosoever shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn and offer him the other also."

Very interesting post Swan.

However, I haven't rad a translation which says, "...turn the left cheek," so there is no real way to ascertain this is what Jesus meant.

Ok people, lets keep the discussion on the topic at hand. No insulting or flaimng other members.... as this is not tolerated.

KJV: Matthew 5:39 "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."

Wouldn't 'the other also' be the left cheek then?

Thank you, Subtemperate. I just don't appreciate being called a liar, as I don't like those who actually are.

Actually, turn the other cheek, was part of the book of Matthew's account of the sermon on the mount, delivered by jesus.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV) Also, in Luke and the Sermon on the Plain.

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version)

However, one explanation for this was that jesus , as we've read in other threads, did not come to establish a religion but to destroy religion. He was, for all intents and purpose, a revolutionary. And what these passages were advocating was pacifism, and non-violent resistance to Roman tyranny.

(Source)One interpretation of this phrase is that Jesus was making a veiled political statement to the Israelites.

In his culture, apparently the right hand was used for all dealings with others, and the left hand for wiping one's ass and other manipulations of a personal nature.

If you smacked someone across the face with the back of your hand, it meant that you considered that person to be sub-equal.

However, if you slapped someone with the palm of your hand, it meant that the two of you were considered to be on the same social plane.

The Israelites were used to being treated as less than equal by the Romans.

To turn the other cheek meant that if they were hit again, it would be with the flat of the hand. Thus they would be making a silent statement of insubordination to second-class status if they did so. (end)


However, it is my experience that if someone has the nerve to strike you in the face the first time, turning the cheek for the next assault will hardly dissuade another attack. That's why I adore Anton LaVey's take on this passage. Instead of turning the other cheek, smash that one that struck you in the face. Destroy them completely, so that when they think of striking you again, they think of what happened the first time and thus think better of it. Or, if they're resilient and fond of pain, smash them again. It's better to be feared by your enemies, than held in contempt for being a passive victim to their assault. Because victimizers do not respect their target, they abuse them because they have no respect for anyone that allows them to do so, and they show it by beating their targets down.

This is all very interesting, GoddessWhispers, and thank you for sharing it.

I was coming from the position of Tony Bushby's book "The Bible Fraud" which explains how the Vatican combined two men into their new God. They voted and decided it would be a combination of the peaceful, loving Rabbi Jesu, and the insurrectionist and violent Judas Khrestus, whose followers were apparently called "Khrestians". So is it any wonder we are confused at the obvious discrepancies of a loving messiah who would also be angry and violent at times? Just like the difference in the two Gods between the Old and New Testaments.

I do not think Rabbi Jesu would have taught them how to start having a legal battle with another. But it would probably be just exactly what Judas Khrestus would have done, which is why I prefaced the article with what I did: "this probably refers to Judas Khrestus and not Rabbi Jesu".


What if you're a person who doesn't have the physical strength to do so? Did they slap women, too? Could we women strike back and win?

I understand. I'll have to look for that book at the local library. It's been discussed a few times in these forums, about the vast difference in personalities between the god of the OT and that of the new. I think it's Catch 22 and/or Draconic Chronicler, that even posted the specifics, as to the history behind just that very thing. Maybe we'll see them revise what was said in other threads, in this one.

oops, just saw your edit;

Well, speaking personally I have the physical strength to fight back and have. Nothing sends a message like putting an Ahole in ICU! There are all sorts of ways to fight back, even if you don't have the physical strength. One way is to find a womens self defense class near you. If you're older, there are a great number of opportunities to learn personal defense. If you Yahoo search your State and keywords, womens self defense, or seniors self defense, you may find something that you can work with.


Here are just a few links for any age group:

SENIORPOWER for Older Adults

Seniors and Canes, as self defense

Womens Self Defense Google Links