Did Jesus really say we'd go to hell for calling someone a fool?

[unworthyservant]

I'm curious what others think of the instance in Matthew 5:22 where Jesus says "whosoever shall say "thou fool" shall be in danger of hell fire. For years I've heard people who believe that you can call folks all kinds of things but calling them the word "fool" is at least worse than the others and in the extreme can doom one's soul to hell. I believe this is a classic example of taking a phrase or word spoken by Jesus out of context and that's how many misnomers begin. Now, before looking at the entire discourse and putting this phrase in context, allow me to divulge on the idea that there is a word (fool) that is at the heart of the matter. First, Jesus never said the word fool. It didn't even exist in his day. it is a word that was in use in 17th century England and first appears in the Bible when the writers of the KJV of the bible used it as a translation from the Greek moros, from the earliest know transcripts. Now Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we don't actually know the exact word that the Greeks translated moros but the point is, does anyone think that God entrusted the writers of the King James Bible to translate a word that's use would damn one soul? What if they had decided to translate the word as "idiot"? Then, by that reasoning it would be OK to call someone a fool but not an idiot? And while we're on words what about Raca? I've never heard anyone call someone raca. Actually, while raca is actually the word used in the original Greek and was left untranslated in the KJV. It is actually not a Greek word but believed to be a Greek spelling of the Aramaic word reka which literally meant "empty one" but was probably a slang for empty headed or or in other words foolish. So why would they choose to translate moros to foolish and leave raca, which is a Greek word with very similar meaning untranslated. Now to look at the context, I'll not reprint the entire chapter here but will quote from Verse 17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the council. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell." (The underlining has nothing to do with anything other that when I copied and pasted the verses from the Study Bible online, that is how it came out). So looking verse by verse we first see that in verse 17, Christ states that He did not come to abolish the law (another subject in itself) but to fulfill it. Then in verse 18 He goes on to state that " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."(KJV, sorry about the use of multiple translations but it seemed appropriate given the subject) This should put to rest the question as to whether we should obey the "law". Christ came to fulfill the law but Himself stated that He did not come to abolish it. But to the point at hand, it's simply context. He goes on the state that "whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven and whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven". So, Jesus is admonishing us that we must do our best to obey the Old Testament commandments. In verse 20 He says (as he often did) that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice He doesn't say if we have more faith but unless we are more righteous. (Again, another discussion for another day). Now comes the question at hand. Christ begins with quoting the law about murder and then says, "I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to punishment. Again, anyone who says to his brother raca, will be subject to the council, but anyone who says "you fool" will be subject to the fire of Hell." Some translations use the word and instead of but in the last line.  Since the earliest existing Greek manuscript only says δ, which isn't really an and or a but as we know them but what's called by scholars a  conjunctive discourse marker and is in itself neither adversative (but) nor continuative (and). Most scholars agree that it should be considered to be continuative as usually in the Greek the adversative  would appear as the conjunctive αλλά. That said, all Jesus is doing here is clarifying the underlying meaning of the law. He begins with the Law concerning murder and then goes on to explain that not only is murder a sin but the anger and it's manifestations, such as the calling of names is also sin. Just as when He taught us that not only is fornication and adultery sin but so is the underlying lust that leads to them. So, it's not a comparative about words or punishment either for that matter but simply Christ further explaining sin. And to think that all this controversy is due to a little word that had it's beginnings in the KJV, BUT.

---

[dhchristian]

Just now, unworthyservant said:

I'm curious what others think of the instance in Matthew 5:22 where Jesus says "whosoever shall say "thou fool" shall be in danger of hell fire. For years I've heard people who believe that you can call folks all kinds of things but calling them the word "fool" is at least worse than the others and in the extreme can doom one's soul to hell. I believe this is a classic example of taking a phrase or word spoken by Jesus out of context and that's how many misnomers begin. Now, before looking at the entire discourse and putting this phrase in context, allow me to divulge on the idea that there is a word (fool) that is at the heart of the matter. First, Jesus never said the word fool. It didn't even exist in his day. it is a word that was in use in 17th century England and first appears in the Bible when the writers of the KJV of the bible used it as a translation from the Greek moros, from the earliest know transcripts. Now Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we don't actually know the exact word that the Greeks translated moros but the point is, does anyone think that God entrusted the writers of the King James Bible to translate a word that's use would damn one soul? What if they had decided to translate the word as "idiot"? Then, by that reasoning it would be OK to call someone a fool but not an idiot? And while we're on words what about Raca? I've never heard anyone call someone raca. Actually, while raca is actually the word used in the original Greek and was left untranslated in the KJV. It is actually not a Greek word but believed to be a Greek spelling of the Aramaic word reka which literally meant "empty one" but was probably a slang for empty headed or or in other words foolish. So why would they choose to translate moros to foolish and leave raca, which is a Greek word with very similar meaning untranslated. Now to look at the context, I'll not reprint the entire chapter here but will quote from Verse 17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the council. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell." (The underlining has nothing to do with anything other that when I copied and pasted the verses from the Study Bible online, that is how it came out). So looking verse by verse we first see that in verse 17, Christ states that He did not come to abolish the law (another subject in itself) but to fulfill it. Then in verse 18 He goes on to state that " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."(KJV, sorry about the use of multiple translations but it seemed appropriate given the subject) This should put to rest the question as to whether we should obey the "law". Christ came to fulfill the law but Himself stated that He did not come to abolish it. But to the point at hand, it's simply context. He goes on the state that "whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven and whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven". So, Jesus is admonishing us that we must do our best to obey the Old Testament commandments. In verse 20 He says (as he often did) that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice He doesn't say if we have more faith but unless we are more righteous. (Again, another discussion for another day). Now comes the question at hand. Christ begins with quoting the law about murder and then says, "I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to punishment. Again, anyone who says to his brother raca, will be subject to the council, but anyone who says "you fool" will be subject to the fire of Hell." Some translations use the word and instead of but in the last line.  Since the earliest existing Greek manuscript only says δ, which isn't really an and or a but as we know them but what's called by scholars a  conjunctive discourse marker and is in itself neither adversative (but) nor continuative (and). Most scholars agree that it should be considered to be continuative as usually in the Greek the adversative  would appear as the conjunctive αλλά. That said, all Jesus is doing here is clarifying the underlying meaning of the law. He begins with the Law concerning murder and then goes on to explain that not only is murder a sin but the anger and it's manifestations, such as the calling of names is also sin. Just as when He taught us that not only is fornication and adultery sin but so is the underlying lust that leads to them. So, it's not a comparative about words or punishment either for that matter but simply Christ further explaining sin. And to think that all this controversy is due to a little word that had it's beginnings in the KJV, BUT.

Unworthyservant,

A suggestion, you may want to hit enter on your posts and put some breaks in your post, It makes it easier to read.

As for the topic at hand, this is the sermon on the mount, where Jesus was addressing Motives of the heart. So for example he speaks of how if you even look upon a Woman lustfully you have committed adultery. His point being that external obedience to ordinances is not what God Judges, but the motives of the heart. The Pharisees whom he later would call whitewashed tombs, were strict legalists and did everything according to the law as an external show, But when the New Covenant comes into effect, which requires the death of the testator, only then could righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees, because of Jesus' righteousness being imputed upon us.

Think of it this way. Adam gave us the Law of sin and Death (Via Moses), Jesus gave us the Law of the Spirit of Life (see Romans 8:1-2) The only way to fulfill the Law of sin and death is to receive Jesus, and the Law of the Spirit of life. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5;12) So here we see one man's sin imputed onto all mankind... and in contrast But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. (Romans 5:15)

Put simply, And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45)

So what Jesus was illustrating in this passage is that though we obey a Law, we are not being righteous by God's standards if our motives are not right. So when Jesus says calling someone a fool is equal to killing someone in God's eyes he is using this as an expression of how even strict obedience to the Law is not good enough in the eyes of a Just and Holy God. Paul wrote: I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal. 2:21) That is to say That righteousness is distinct from external conformity. Think of the old notion of a cheerful giver and an uncheerful giver, to Give you an idea of this distinction, Or what Paul wrote of in his Love chapter 1 Cor 13, of how you can be martyred and do so for the wrong reasons and it is not counted as righteousness. Think also of the Words of Malachi below, and notice how at the time this distinction could not be made, But when Christ came, and empowered us by the Holy Spirit we are able to make this distinction.

Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. (Mal. 3:18)

So despite having the Law, the Israelites could never discern who was serving the LORD in righteousness, and those who were doing so of a Wicked heart, Such as the Pharisees in Jesus time, who were whitewashed tombs. It is Only By the Law of the Spirit of Life that we produce the fruit of the Spirit.

 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. (Gal 5:21-26)

 

[Willa]

It says in DANGER of hellfire.  Yet each of us deserves hellfire for our sin, and our Savior has redeemed us from the pit.   Praise His Name!

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

3 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

I'm curious what others think of the instance in Matthew 5:22 where Jesus says "whosoever shall say "thou fool" shall be in danger of hell fire. For years I've heard people who believe that you can call folks all kinds of things but calling them the word "fool" is at least worse than the others and in the extreme can doom one's soul to hell. I believe this is a classic example of taking a phrase or word spoken by Jesus out of context and that's how many misnomers begin. Now, before looking at the entire discourse and putting this phrase in context, allow me to divulge on the idea that there is a word (fool) that is at the heart of the matter. First, Jesus never said the word fool. It didn't even exist in his day. it is a word that was in use in 17th century England and first appears in the Bible when the writers of the KJV of the bible used it as a translation from the Greek moros, from the earliest know transcripts. Now Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we don't actually know the exact word that the Greeks translated moros but the point is, does anyone think that God entrusted the writers of the King James Bible to translate a word that's use would damn one soul? What if they had decided to translate the word as "idiot"? Then, by that reasoning it would be OK to call someone a fool but not an idiot? And while we're on words what about Raca? I've never heard anyone call someone raca. Actually, while raca is actually the word used in the original Greek and was left untranslated in the KJV. It is actually not a Greek word but believed to be a Greek spelling of the Aramaic word reka which literally meant "empty one" but was probably a slang for empty headed or or in other words foolish. So why would they choose to translate moros to foolish and leave raca, which is a Greek word with very similar meaning untranslated. Now to look at the context, I'll not reprint the entire chapter here but will quote from Verse 17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the council. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell." (The underlining has nothing to do with anything other that when I copied and pasted the verses from the Study Bible online, that is how it came out). So looking verse by verse we first see that in verse 17, Christ states that He did not come to abolish the law (another subject in itself) but to fulfill it. Then in verse 18 He goes on to state that " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."(KJV, sorry about the use of multiple translations but it seemed appropriate given the subject) This should put to rest the question as to whether we should obey the "law". Christ came to fulfill the law but Himself stated that He did not come to abolish it. But to the point at hand, it's simply context. He goes on the state that "whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven and whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven". So, Jesus is admonishing us that we must do our best to obey the Old Testament commandments. In verse 20 He says (as he often did) that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice He doesn't say if we have more faith but unless we are more righteous. (Again, another discussion for another day). Now comes the question at hand. Christ begins with quoting the law about murder and then says, "I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to punishment. Again, anyone who says to his brother raca, will be subject to the council, but anyone who says "you fool" will be subject to the fire of Hell." Some translations use the word and instead of but in the last line.  Since the earliest existing Greek manuscript only says δ, which isn't really an and or a but as we know them but what's called by scholars a  conjunctive discourse marker and is in itself neither adversative (but) nor continuative (and). Most scholars agree that it should be considered to be continuative as usually in the Greek the adversative  would appear as the conjunctive αλλά. That said, all Jesus is doing here is clarifying the underlying meaning of the law. He begins with the Law concerning murder and then goes on to explain that not only is murder a sin but the anger and it's manifestations, such as the calling of names is also sin. Just as when He taught us that not only is fornication and adultery sin but so is the underlying lust that leads to them. So, it's not a comparative about words or punishment either for that matter but simply Christ further explaining sin. And to think that all this controversy is due to a little word that had it's beginnings in the KJV, BUT.

---

 

What? All we have to be guilty of is calling somebody a “ fool” and we might go to Hell? Gulp.....I’ve used descriptive words MUCH worse than that .We also are told that if we have a lustful thought it may as well be adultery.Scary stuff,huh? James said if you break just one law, you have broken them all . We should really ignore all this “ small time” stuff and get to the nitty- gritty.Jesus said later that we have to be “ perfect” to enter into the Kingdom.I don’t know about others, but I am not perfect.I am never going to “ be” perfect.If only God could muster up enough love to provide another way.Something we,as humans could actually “DO”!

How ‘bout we try this? Why don’t we turn to God and just admit we can’t meet His Standard Of Perfection.God Promised to extend mercy to ALL that asks for it.We all know one guy that cried out to God for His Mercy, received it  and went home JUSTIFIED ! Saved! Just like that ! “Justified”to God means He looks at you as if you have never sinned.Remember that “ be perfect” thing?God will impute you with perfection and righteousness ,just like He did Abraham if you will believe in a Promise Of  God like Abraham did.God is still looking for trust—not perfection .There are many Promises from God, which, if believed , will get you saved and you can sleep better at night, knowing that you do not have to actually live a perfect life to get to Heaven....

One Of the most recent Promises, and probably the best Promise can be found in 1Cor15:1-4.......Jesus gave this Promise and Paul revealed it.....If you simply believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead and don't add to it with your dead works, simply rest in the Truth Of this Gospel, you got a lock on Salvation. “Ease your mind about “ Raca”, calling someone a “ fool” or lusting in you heart.God’s got it covered .His Grace and your faith makes the “ impossible” possible.All that scary stuff He talked about in the Sermon on the Mount That is impossible for anybody to do.....He KNEW it was impossible.....it was meant to scare people....Scare them into “ turning to God”. That is Repentance.” With Faith in Jesus.That is Salvation.

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Blood Bought 1953

[Seasoned by Grace]

Hi there unworthyservant .

I did read your entire post, and if you don't mind, I'd like to give you a bit of a different understanding on all these verses from Jesus from Matthew 5:17 - 44. All in context together.

Matthew 5:22 is actually taken out of context in your commentary, because it's the first of 6 times that Jesus said, "You have heard it said, but I say", all 6 verses Jesus was using to validate Matthew 5:17 "I did not come to abolish the law or the Prophets, I did not come to abolish, but to FULFILL", which in Greek, the word FULFILL is translated PLEERO,PLEROSO, PLEROSIS, and PLEROO. All these can be found in a biblical Greek thesaurus, and are all  from the same synonymous root word meaning To AMPLIFY, TO EXHALT, TO MAKE GREATER, AND TO MAGNIFY, TO INCREASE IN IMPORTANC, not just bring to completion or an end as many teach.

To me this is one of Jesus most important dialogues because His purpose here was to take what the Jewish leaders had redefined as the meaning of the 10 commandments, and violated God's original intent of honoring all 10 FROM THE HEART, and turned them into legalistic letters of the law instead of from living by the Spirit of the 10 commandment from the heart.

Actually, this all started back in Isaiah 42:21 where is was prophesied that Jesus would come to set all this straight.

Isaiah 42:21 says, "The LORD was pleased for HIS (JESUS) righteousness sake, to make the law GREAT and GLORIOUS or HONORABLE in some translations.

In the Hebrew language the word Great is GADAL and the word glorious or honorable is the Hebrew word ADAR which both mean TO AMPLIFY, TO EXHALT, TO MAKE GREATER, and to MAGNIFY, TO INCREASE IN IMPORTANCE. Sound familiar??

Anyway, what is it that I'm trying to make a point about?

The 10 commandments had become a list of rules and regulations, do's and don'ts, just like a lot of churches do today, because they still don't get it - they have no heart or love. In the New testament the Jewish people who were trying to pass that on to the gentile Christians, so besides the other reasons we know about for Jesus coming, He was here to REDEFINE the 10 commandments as commands that we are to live from the heart, in a greater way than was originally given.

YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, 6 YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY. 6 TIMES...He as trying His very best to make a GIGANTIC point here !!!!!

Jesus made the 10 commandments GREATER in purpose and action, that's why He said if you love me you will obey my commands. This was the NEW LAW.

Without the understanding from Jesus, we would have all been liable to eternal damnation without understanding  the concept of GODLY LOVE and how to obey all His laws in LOVE from our hearts

Love your God, Love your enemies, love those who hate you, love those who persecute you, love your neighbors, love your brothers and sisters. We are known by the love we (Christians) have for one another. Well, we used to be .

It actually wasn't a new teaching at all, but it was new to this latest generation of Jews who were handed down a lie from their predacessors and new to the gentiles who had never heard this teaching before, even though it had been taught in the Old testament, but only to the Jews of ages past.

All you have to do is pray for the truth, and the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth.

I give God all the glory for all these words except the one's I misspelled .. My bad.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Seasoned by Grace

[Blood Bought 1953]

1 hour ago, Seasoned by Grace said:

Hi there unworthyservant .

I did read your entire post, and if you don't mind, I'd like to give you a bit of a different understanding on all these verses from Jesus from Matthew 5:17 - 44. All in context together.

Matthew 5:22 is actually taken out of context in your commentary, because it's the first of 6 times that Jesus said, "You have heard it said, but I say", all 6 verses Jesus was using to validate Matthew 5:17 "I did not come to abolish the law or the Prophets, I did not come to abolish, but to FULFILL", which in Greek, the word FULFILL is translated PLEERO,PLEROSO, PLEROSIS, and PLEROO. All these can be found in a biblical Greek thesaurus, and are all  from the same synonymous root word meaning To AMPLIFY, TO EXHALT, TO MAKE GREATER, AND TO MAGNIFY, TO INCREASE IN IMPORTANC, not just bring to completion or an end as many teach.

To me this is one of Jesus most important dialogues because His purpose here was to take what the Jewish leaders had redefined as the meaning of the 10 commandments, and violated God's original intent of honoring all 10 FROM THE HEART, and turned them into legalistic letters of the law instead of from living by the Spirit of the 10 commandment from the heart.

Actually, this all started back in Isaiah 42:21 where is was prophesied that Jesus would come to set all this straight.

Isaiah 42:21 says, "The LORD was pleased for HIS (JESUS) righteousness sake, to make the law GREAT and GLORIOUS or HONORABLE in some translations.

In the Hebrew language the word Great is GADAL and the word glorious or honorable is the Hebrew word ADAR which both mean TO AMPLIFY, TO EXHALT, TO MAKE GREATER, and to MAGNIFY, TO INCREASE IN IMPORTANCE. Sound familiar??

Anyway, what is it that I'm trying to make a point about?

The 10 commandments had become a list of rules and regulations, do's and don'ts, just like a lot of churches do today, because they still don't get it - they have no heart or love. In the New testament the Jewish people who were trying to pass that on to the gentile Christians, so besides the other reasons we know about for Jesus coming, He was here to REDEFINE the 10 commandments as commands that we are to live from the heart, in a greater way than was originally given.

YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY, 6 YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID, BUT I SAY. 6 TIMES...He as trying His very best to make a GIGANTIC point here !!!!!

Jesus made the 10 commandments GREATER in purpose and action, that's why He said if you love me you will obey my commands. This was the NEW LAW.

Without the understanding from Jesus, we would have all been liable to eternal damnation without understanding  the concept of GODLY LOVE and how to obey all His laws in LOVE from our hearts

Love your God, Love your enemies, love those who hate you, love those who persecute you, love your neighbors, love your brothers and sisters. We are known by the love we (Christians) have for one another. Well, we used to be .

It actually wasn't a new teaching at all, but it was new to this latest generation of Jews who were handed down a lie from their predacessors and new to the gentiles who had never heard this teaching before, even though it had been taught in the Old testament, but only to the Jews of ages past.

All you have to do is pray for the truth, and the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth.

I give God all the glory for all these words except the one's I misspelled .. My bad.

 

The Law Of  Moses was given to show that nobody could keep it.It was given to show you your need for a Savior.Its one thing  not to cheat on your spouse ( Adultery) , it is quite another thing to forbid even lustful thoughts to enter your mind! The Sermon on the Mount was The Law Of Moses on steroids.The impossible demands of Jesus in His Sermon were meant to prick the self- righteous balloons of anybody who thought that they actually “ good enough” and fit to go to Heaven because they had fulfilled everything that Moses Law demanded .They did what legalists “ still” do. They find a way to lower the Standards Of God to a level that they think they can obey . The delusional Pharisee would puff out his chest and say.. “ Look at me! Be like me, be Holy like me.....I ‘ve been married 50 years and NEVER cheated on my wife.” Jesus came to wreck this type of wrong thinking that lead to self-righteousness and Hell  ( Having a lustful thought is tantamount to committing adultery ) They will hear.... “ Depart from me I never knew you”. Abandon Satan’s “ fools Paradise”, that place that tells you that even though you ain’t perfect, you are trying the best that you can and you are “ fit for Heaven” as you are.You ain’t.

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Blood Bought 1953

[Kristin]

No. We are saved by grace. We learn to not call people fools by Grace. He changes us slowly but surely. 

[The_Patriot21]

who is the more foolish, the fool, or he who follows the fool. 

[Blood Bought 1953]

3 minutes ago, Kristin said:

No. We are saved by grace. We learn to not call people fools by Grace. He changes us slowly but surely. 

 

You are preaching to the choir. There is no bigger proponent of Grace on this site than me.Grace was not the subject of my post. I’m writing about Jesus awakening those who never saw the NEED for Grace - the only thing that ever saved anybody! Without God’s Grace you are lost .If you do not see that you are a lost ,hopeless sinner that MUST have Grace— you ain’t gonna get it....Jesus wanted the self- righteous to realize that Truth......The parable about the boasting Pharisee.... “ I thank my God I am not like the rest....” Do you think he saw the need for Grace, much less a Savior? No. The Publican that cried out for mercy—- he did . He went home justified. He turned to God .That is what Repentence is.He knew he needed Grace and forgiveness. The Pharisees did not . They saw no need for Grace.....did not ask for Grace....they did not believe Jesus was who He claimed to be.....No Grace,no repentance, no faith......that’s why they are in Hell today

[Blood Bought 1953]

3 minutes ago, The_Patriot2019 said:

who is the more foolish, the fool, or he who follows the fool. 

 

May I ask...... Who do you think the “ Fool” is ?