Featured Enigmas and inconsistencies

I'm not sure what you mean by the scriptures are "looser". Explain what you are getting at.

Concerning the passage Matthew, I remember the word "raca" in the passage was a pejorative with a similar meaning to "fool". Maybe one of our Greek experts could shed some light on if there are connections.

 

It doesn't matter if you are writing a research paper, common courtesy and ethics, not to mention BB rules, requires that you give sources. And so far, you've posted nothing at all that is difficult for a so-called "literalist."

No, you don't have it at all. Do you always set up straw men when someone proves you wrong? Deal with your own point. If I am wrong about the passage, say so. If you are wrong, be adult enough to admit it.

I very deliberately and carefully chose my words to give you the opportunity to deny it if you are not really looking for errors in Scripture. You have not yet denied it.

I see no problem there. It's a hypothetical. What is the problem with that? Again, someone who doesn't believe in the resurrection is a fool and an enemy of Christ, not a brother. Is that so hard to digest?

The OT is very clear that anyone who opposes God is a fool. Jesus and Paul knew that.

Ps. 14:1--"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Pr. 1:7--"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. "
Pr. 10:21--"The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom."
Pr. 14:9--"Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour."
Etc., etc.

 

"Raca" is usually thought to be an Aramaic loan word, an insult meaning "empty."

 

Jesus was saying to us that we who are in the family of God need to be aware of our relationship now to each other, but that those like the Pharisees are indeed foolish, as they see jesus and call Him Devil incarnate, not God incarnate!

 

Thanks. Was it a common insult in that day that Jesus was admonishing them not to use?

 

I don't think we have enough linguistic data on that--at least not that I know of.

 

I think I heard a sermon once that made that connection, but can't remember when or where.

The point was that "raca" was a common insult that was somewhat of a more vulgar expression for "fool". Jesus was condemning the vulgar expression as well as the relatively more accepted expression.

That made sense to me in the context of the passage, where Jesus makes several similar statements on other issues.

Thanks again.

 

Ok, I've got it figured out, at least for my understanding.

The context of the "fool" statement is found in 5:20. Jesus said your righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees if you want to make it into His kingdom.

He then says that scripture says not to murder, but He says don't be angry at your brother. The 2nd idea surpasses the first.

He then talks about "raca" and "fool". This is where that old sermon I heard comes in.

The Pharisees would condemn people for using the term "raca". It was considered vulgar and unworthy of a Jewish person, especially a religious person, to use and could even land you before the sanhedren for judgment.

The Pharisees saw no problem with referring to these same people as "fools" in their self-righteous anger of all thing not pharisee.

So, Jesus is saying don't follow the example of the Pharisees who display self-righteous anger toward others by calling them "fools" while condemning those who use the similar term "raca". They Pharisees couldn't see there was no difference; couldn't see the hypocrisy.

The difference between Paul's use and the Pharisees use is the motivation. Paul wanted to help people see their error and restore their relationship with God. Paul's righteousness exceeded that of the Pharisees.

The Pharisees only wanted to puff themselves up as more righteous than others.

 

I like this explanation. I'm going to research raca more when I get the chance.

 

Actually, I challenge people about sources--translation or not--quite often here on the BB. I'm a college professor. It's what I do for a ministry and a living. And I feel very deeply about proper citation. A Wisconsin candidate for governor, Tony Evers (an educator, ironically), has been caught with multiple plagiarism issues and is passing it off as of little import. But it's not. It's stealing someone else's work. (And that is what not citing sources is: plagiarism, or stealing.)

I think I've dealt successfully with your points. At any rate, you've not refuted me.

And once again you are not answering my points. Your statement here is irrelevant until you answer my point that Paul was using a hypothetical situation.

 

I think Jesus was speaking to what was behind the use of the terminology, as the Pharisees used that to make a blanket slam against anyone who did not rise up to their "rightiousness" in their own eyes, why the believer is to treat another fellow believer as co hier of salvation!

 

Right. I also find interesting the idea of "surpassing the righteousness of the pharisees" in this passage. The idea that "don't murder" is surpassed by "don't be angry."

The idea that saying "raca" makes you guilty before the supreme court (sanhedren?) is surpassed by the idea that saying "fool" puts you in danger of fiery hell.

The use of those terms is associated with anger toward your brother.

 

Well, that is often what "hypothetical" means. But sometimes it is simply a polite way to avoid attacking someone directly while still addressing their position.

That Paul was being hypothetical in 1 Cor. 15 is very plain from v. 35, "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" (KJV--For your sake I'll say what version this is, but since it is in the public domain, there is usually no need to cite that it is the KJV.)

Paul was being gracious by using a hypothetical. There were very plainly people at Corinth who were saying there was no resurrection. So he used a hypothetical ("If some man" or "If someone..."), allowing him to point out the foolishness of the position without attacking anyone personally.

"Some man" in v. 35 is singular--no one in particular. "Thou fool" in v. 36 is also singular in the Greek, meaning that Paul is calling the hypothetical person a fool, allowing him to rebuke the group in the church at Corinth without mentioning names--very gracious!

In a similar rebuke in Gal. 1, Paul is not so gracious, since he uses the plural and directly addresses the people who were letting in the false Gospel.

So, is Paul in danger of eternal Hell in 1 Cor. because he called some hypothetical person a fool? Absolutely not.

 

Say what you will, Paul did not name anyone personally as a fool. And that disproves your idea that Paul was contradicting Jesus.

Yes, you are correct!

Oooh, I hope not for your sake.

 

Jesus was able to call the Pharisees literal sons of Satan, is that not worse than saying they were fools?