Alf

The other day when posting with Dukey he recited the biblical verse stating that "THe fool says in his heart, there is no god" etc. I dug up old Matt 5:22 in response where Jesus supposedly say that if you call someone fool you are destined for hell.

Now, we also know that Jesus himself supposedly called people "fool" later on as well.

Are these contradictions? I thought they were but I am not so sure any more and if they aren't I probably owe Dukey an apology.

What made me doubt is that the english translation (I don't know greek) appears to indicate that Matt 5:22 does NOT say that if you call someone a fool you go to hell, what it does say is that if you call a "brother", i.e. a fellow believer, i.e. a christian, if you call a christian person "fool" you are destined for hell.

Appearantly, for christians it is OK to call non-christians for fools any time they please and indeed atheists are appearantly fools if you are to interpret other bible verses. Calling such people "fools" does not make you destined for hell.

It shows that christian religion is inherently bigotted and so those who are bigots are just simply good christians while those goody-two-shoes liberal and tolerant christians who aren't racists and bigots aren't really good christians. Jesus did - according to the bible - show that every good christian should be an intolerant racist bigot. He called the caananite woman for "dog". So every good christian should call all non-jews - and that would include themselves if they are not themselves jews - for "dogs" and they should be bigots. Bigotry, Misoginy, intolerance and racism are simply good christian traits.

So yeah, if Jesus really existed and the bible is true he was what we today would call a jerk.

Is this correct interpretation of Matt 5:22?

What does the greek version say or not say?

Should we remove those verses from the list of contradictions in the bible?

Alf

Samwise

If only Christians could be as understanding and tolerant of atheists as atheists are of Christians, the world would be a better place.

post tenebras lux

Well here's Young's literal translation of the verse:'Empty fellow' is often left as just 'Raca' (rho-alpha-kappa-alpha in the greek), and of which Strong's says 'of Chaldee origin; O empty one, i.e. thou worthless (as a term of utter vilification):--Raca', whilst 'Rebel' is usually translated as 'Fool', Strong's says 'moros: probably from the base of musthrion - musterion 3466; dull or stupid (as if shut up), i.e. heedless, (morally) blockhead, (apparently) absurd:--fool(-ish, X -ishness)'.

Alf

Very good point Lux.

It seems that their translations are somewhat misguided. If I were a theist I would suspect that they were guided by Satan instead of God. Perhaps we should refer to the bible as "Satan's word" instead of "God's word"?

Anyway. Thinking about Bigotry and other such traits as good christian traits also solves another riddle.

I have always wondered why the roman empire would prosecute christians. The roman empire was for its time remarkably tolerant towards deviant religious views. Within its borders you found all sorts of people believing all sorts of things. Why is it that christians were sort of singled out for public ridicule, for prosecution etc. Why was it that most people who were not christians generally considered christians to be the lowest, most despiseful of all people? Well, if it is good christian traits to be bigotted self-rightous jerks then that goes a long way to solve that riddle.

True, officially, the reason for their prosecution was that they did not acknowledge the roman emperor and the roman empire. They believed in "God's kingdom" and denounced the ruler of the country they were in. This is oddly opposite of what a good christian was supposed to do later in the middle ages when the pope and the christian kings was rulers - then it was "you shall love and honor thy father's land" or some such that was the rule of the day - but that was because the ruler was christian and it was the christian church that represented the ruling system. Back in the early days of the christians in the pagan roman empire they appearantly denounced the roman law and proclaimed the christian law and kingdom of christ as their kingdom. Treason in other words. Now, this may be one reason and it may be the official reason. However, I find it hard to believe it is the only reason. If a small minor group of people just said "We live in the US but we don't want to follow US law, we follow our religious laws instead" as long as they didn't actually break any US law, nobody in the US would probably mind them - especially if they were a minority. I would think the same thing of the roman empire concerning christians, as long as they didn't actually break any laws, and they were a small minority, who cares?

Yet, christians were loved to be hated among the general public. If they wanted to have something to laugh at, they made a show of ridiculing christians and everyone laughed - except the christians. Why was that? Could it be this bigotted self-rightous holier-than-thou attitude that christians has often been so full of? Not only that but it appears that it is in good line with the christian's holy book to have these traits and attitude. I am speculating here, but I wonder if I am not close to the mark.

Anyone else have opinions on this?

Alf

post tenebras lux

Hi Alf! Sorry, sorry, sorry. I clicked on the wrong word in Strong's. The correct greek word is 'moros' (moron, anyone) so fool or blockhead would be right. Now the question is why does Young's use 'rebel'? :huh:

As for your second point: where - please - is the evidence that the Romans did persecute the early Christians?

Alf

Well I guess Justin Martyr wouldn't be forever remembered in the word "martyrdom" if they weren't at all persecuted.

I they were to some degree persecuted. They were unquestionably ridiculed by the educated elite. We have several texts from those days where various people put christians along with other groups which basically had the same connotation as "hooligans" have today. People who are annoying and you want to avoid and you certainly don't want to associate yourself with.

I guess we can agree that they were to some extent persecuted. To what extent they were is a completely different question.

Another question is how justified were the rulers in persecuting them.

However, it does indeed seem like a riddle since we know for a fact that the roman empire had a high degree of religious tolerance in their society.

One clue is that they didn't accept the roman law as their law. They believed in the "Kingdom of Christ" as they called it. However, even that in itself wouldn't be enough reason I think if they didn't break roman law or encouraged other people to break it.

So I think that partially it was that they DID break laws and partially it wasn't official persecution per se but it was that their self-righous holier-than-thou bigotted attitude that pissed people off so ridiculing them was a socially acceptable thing to do in much the same way that ridiculing atheists and other heathens is a socially acceptable thing to do among christians. If you in a church meeting today say that an atheist is a fool or you otherwise try to make fun of atheists, nobody will say "That wasn't nice", they will laugh with you and laugh at the silly atheist. It is a socially acceptable thing for christians to ridicule atheists.

Back in those days it was very likely socially acceptable among them to ridicule other non-christians and so other people ridiculed them.

However, that was not persecution. The persecution was when people were thrown to the lions and other punishments. To the extent that they were punished this way as a result of beliefs or actions that they did as a group, you can call it persecution. If it was because of actions they did - breaking the law - it would be justified persecution however. Just because modern society persecute criminals, we consider it OK because it is justified persecution.

Question then is, were christians persecuted? To answer that, one would verify that people who were christians were persecuted BECAUSE they were christians. Not of what they did or didn't do, but because they belonged to the group labeled "christians". I think that is hard to prove and as such it might be difficult. There are some indications that christians as a group were not persecuted. For example when one of the guys was captured and arrested and taken to rome to feed the lions there, he were allowed along the way from his place of arrest to rome to pop into and visit many fellow christians and say good bye to them. Why didn't they arrest those as they came along if it was because of his faith? Most likely he was arrested for something beyond just being christian and so most likely you can say christians were NOT persecuted because of their religion.

However, if christians as a group DID break the law or defied the law, then those among them who did it - and it was possibly a large percent - would be persecuted. This was, most likely, justified persecution however.

So yeah, I do believe that some extent of persecution did take place. Wether it was justified or wether it was because of their religion or because of crimes they comitted as they ignored the roman law is another matter.

Alf

post tenebras lux

Lunch is calling, so I can't do a proper reply at the moment, but you do realise that the word 'martyr' comes, via church latin, from the greek for 'witness'.

Don't you think that there are getting to be too many coincidences with people's names and their functions in the bible? Jesus gets speared by a guy called 'long spear' and then someone with a surname meaning 'witness' comes along ..., etc?

Afghan

The early Christians were lawbreakers. They were also useful scapegoats. So their persecution was possibly slightly excessive and willful in relation to their crimes.

The main crime, incidentally, was refusing to recognise the gods of the City, including a few emperors. That is certainly the impression you get from Pliny's letter. In other words, they were persecuted for their atheism.

post tenebras lux

I just don't find the 'evidence' presented that credible. Take the example Afghan offered - the letter of Pliny the Younger. Does the following really sound like him to you, cos it jars with me: :huh:

mirage

I don't know if it was Pliny, but it sounds like a very reasonable man.

I agree that someone who doesn't have the sense to change their story under stressful interrogation deserves to be punished.