Is The Bible Literally True?

[ReformedApologist]

You are mistaken. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus said "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Nowhere in Matthew 5:22 in relation to calling one 'fool' "Christian", rather it states "anyone who says, 'You fool'.."

You are reading into the text.

Actually no it says and uses plainly the words brothers

ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ adelphos a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

So yes this is referring to those in the faith. Here is the verse:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I notice you left out the word brother in the text and inserted everyone into it. We can even check all translations and see each one clarifies using the word brother to denote that of which it is speaking:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-22.htm

So you have been caught lying and didn't think anyone would check your assertions. Well I did and you been busted.

[Same Hakeem]

Actually no it says and uses plainly the words brothers

ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ adelphos a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

So yes this is referring to those in the faith. Here is the verse:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I notice you left out the word brother in the text and inserted everyone into it. We can even check all translations and see each one clarifies using the word brother to denote that of which it is speaking:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-22.htm

So you have been caught lying and didn't think anyone would check your assertions. Well I did and you been busted.

According to your quotation of Matthew 5:22, "but whosoever shall say, You fool, ...." The term "whosoever" means anyone.

[ReformedApologist]

Wrong the whosoever is not a stand alone word it is qualified by the context of the verse. So again nice try. In addition there is a contrast between righteous and unrighteous anger which is the context of the chapter.

[JonathanL]

According to your quotation of Matthew 5:22, "but whosoever shall say, You fool, ...." The term "whosoever" means anyone.

Whosoever refers to the person saying it, not to the person to whom it is said. And since it speaks about "brothers", that is "brothers in faith" (i.e fellow Christians) then "whosoever" is limited in this context to "any Christian".

Jesus is here saying that any Christian who calls his fellow Christian a "fool" is in danger of hell fire. And "fool" here probably doesn't refer to someone who is dumb or stupid, but to the kind of "fool" described in proverbs, i.e someone who is lazy, hateful, vindictive, someone who exploits others for selfish gains and who desires to have nothing to do with God but would rather live his life putting his own self-interests over a proper relationship with God.

In other words, any Christian who accuses another person of not only being a Christian, but being of the most morally bankrupt character imaginable, is in danger of hell fire.

[JonathanL]

In other words, any Christian who accuses another personChristian of not only not being a Christian, but being of the most morally bankrupt character imaginable, is in danger of hell fire.

Fixed the last sentence.

Writing replies on forums late at night is not to be recommended.

[MaxVel]

Whosoever refers to the person saying it, not to the person to whom it is said. And since it speaks about "brothers", that is "brothers in faith" (i.e fellow Christians) then "whosoever" is limited in this context to "any Christian".

Jesus is here saying that any Christian who calls his fellow Christian a "fool" is in danger of hell fire. And "fool" here probably doesn't refer to someone who is dumb or stupid, but to the kind of "fool" described in proverbs, i.e someone who is lazy, hateful, vindictive, someone who exploits others for selfish gains and who desires to have nothing to do with God but would rather live his life putting his own self-interests over a proper relationship with God.

In other words, any Christian who accuses another person of not only being a Christian, but being of the most morally bankrupt character imaginable, is in danger of hell fire.

Wow... ...thinking of someone who's been posting a lot in Civics recently....

[Sparko]

Why are you guys even bothering with Hakeem? His cherry picking, and over-literalizing verses out of context, is so bad that is is almost funny. He is like a parody of a bad muslim apologist.

[rogue06]

Why are you guys even bothering with Hakeem? His cherry picking, and over-literalizing verses out of context, is so bad that is is almost funny. He is like a parody of a bad muslim apologist.

FIFY, which explains why we respond.

[Teallaura]

Why are you guys even bothering with Hakeem? His cherry picking, and over-literalizing verses out of context, is so bad that is is almost funny. He is like a parody of a bad muslim apologist.

Yeah, but I don't like leaving easy stuff unanswered.


Which is why I stay out of here most of the time....

[Rushing Jaws]

I think you need make up your mind, RJ. It's either to be taken literally, ie as historical fact, or it is not.

the sense here and now intended by the (human) author. It has, in itself, no necessary connection with being historical. If people are talking specifically about the relation of a text to historicality, it merely confuses things if they say one thing, while meaning something else.

Myths are not historical facts, ergo, they are not to be taken literally.

I think I have dealt with that above. Texts are to be taken literally - or graphically (since all texts are written in some kind of graphic mark, whether letter or some other) - no matter whether they relate a myth or a history or anything else.

The resurrection was not meant to be seen as myth, it was meant to be seen as an historic event, but that doesn't mean that it actually was historic. Casting demons out of a human being and into a herd of swine was meant to be seen as real and historic as well, but we don't equate mental illness with demons any longer, same with long dead people walking out of their tombs fully intact, or feeding thousands with 2 fish. You either have to accept all these things as historic or not, you can't pick and choose what you want to believe is actual and what is not actual.

to understand the text, and to find out what the author meant, and why and how: whether it tells of miracles or not, whether it is regarded as history or not, whether the text in question is in the Bible or not. Trying to vindicate the historicality of the events told in a text is at most a secondary concern. Ascertaining the literal sense of a text is fundamental to an understanding of its meaning, whatever that may be: whether the text in question be a cuneiform inscription from Assyria, a passage in the Hebrew Bible or in the Greek NT, a speech in LOTR, or a weather forecast. Whatever the graphic signs used in a text - Egyptian hieroglyphs, Babylonian cuneiform signs, Hebrew letters, Mandarin characters, Mexican glyphs, Norse runes, or whatever - one begins with the various signs and their known values, uses whatever helps are available, and with these various aids seeks to find out what sense the author intended to convey, AKA the literal sense of the text.

[Sparko]

the sense here and now intended by the (human) authorto understand the text, and to find out what the author meant, and why and how: whether it tells of miracles or not, whether it is regarded as history or not, whether the text in question is in the Bible or not. Trying to vindicate the historicality of the events told in a text is at most a secondary concern. Ascertaining the literal sense of a text is fundamental to an understanding of its meaning, whatever that may be: whether the text in question be a cuneiform inscription from Assyria, a passage in the Hebrew Bible or in the Greek NT, a speech in LOTR, or a weather forecast. Whatever the graphic signs used in a text - Egyptian hieroglyphs, Babylonian cuneiform signs, Hebrew letters, Mandarin characters, Mexican glyphs, Norse runes, or whatever - one begins with the various signs and their known values, uses whatever helps are available, and with these various aids seeks to find out what sense the author intended to convey, AKA the literal sense of the text.

Wait. You don't think the resurrection happened in a historical sense (a.k.a. really physically happened?) -- do you believe it was a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one? Seems like the bible goes to great lengths to prove it was a historical physical resurrection: Thomas touching him, Jesus eating, actually saying he is not a ghost, etc.

Basically, if you had a time machine and could go back to the resurrection, would you see Jesus alive physically, be able to touch him, talk to him, etc?

[ReformedApologist]

Wait. You don't think the resurrection happened in a historical sense (a.k.a. really physically happened?) -- do you believe it was a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one? Seems like the bible goes to great lengths to prove it was a historical physical resurrection: Thomas touching him, Jesus eating, actually saying he is not a ghost, etc.

Sounds like a rehash of Rudolf Bultmann's theories.

[Sparko]

Sounds like a rehash of Rudolf Bultmann's theories.

Or Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Christianbookworm]

Rushing Jaws just posted something heretical!? What's the fancy name for the heresy of denying the Resurrection?

[rogue06]