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

[unworthyservant]

As opposed to trying to answer all the replies individually, I'm going to make one general reply. It is this. I see where many still missed (or because of it's length and monotony didn't read to the end where I made the point) so I'm going to restate the point without all of the reasoning. The point is simple. It has NOTHING at all to do with calling someone a fool. That was simply the example I chose to illustrate how people tend to take things out of context and more to the point how sometimes the translation of a word or two can lead some to these misconceptions. I did go quite into depth to make the point so maybe some of the confusion is my own fault. The entire post was purposely long and rambling to show that unless we are grounded in the teachings of the law and those of Christ we can become distracted by dilemmas that if we would just dig a little deeper aren't really the dilemmas we thought but when taken in their full context aren't really what they seem if we just read the words. I wasn't about Grace vs. the law or old vs new covenant. It wasn't even about calling someone a fool. It's all about how we get hung up on different interpretations of something when all that is necessary is to put them in their correct context and trust that God will show us the truth if we seek it. As to the person who made the snide remark about arguing with a fool, I don't believe that is the sort of conversation that we as Christians should engage in. As for arguing with fools, I personally believe that the "fools" are the nonbelievers that we should not argue with but show by our lives the example of God's love and Christs teaching. I hope this clarifies most of the questions.  I will pray that God will help me to be more succinct in the future. 

[The_Patriot21]

8 hours ago, Blood Bought 1953 said:

 

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

 

Wasn't necessarily calling anyone a fool...it's a quote. An adaptation of a quote actually, from a famous movie

[unworthyservant]

6 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’22 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.  Matt 5:21-22 NIV

22 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ· Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ· Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.  Matt 5:22 SBLGNT

Raka is basically a run of the mill daily insult.  It seemed to be an insult of one's intelligence.  I.e., Perhaps something like the old "Hey blockhead" or the more modern "Hey dumb-<expletive>".   In contrast, More, seems to have an implication about one's morals or value as a human and some uses of it and related words pertain to the ungodly.  It is perhaps more related to our more theologically based insults telling someone where to go or referencing their status with regard to spiritual condemnation.  As far as I can tell, Raka is an insult and More is potentially a curse depending on the tone and intention of the speaker.

There seem to be two general approaches to this passage by different comentators.  The first is that Jesus is giving three escalating things which are all subject to judgement to death.  Being angry, being angry enough to insult (Raka), and being angry enough to call down judgement on someone (More), are all capital offenses spiritually speaking. The second is that Jesus is pointing out that anger itself can bring similar consequences to murder.  Merely insult someone and you'll face legal consequences.  However, call down judgement from heaven on them and you'll face that yourself.

I tend to fit within the 2nd group.   My best guess at the general meaning is this.  It contrasts annoyance with deep intentional anger.   Calling someone a blockhead or the like can set you up for a lawsuit for slander in the eyes of man.  Intentionally telling someone to go to <theological term deleted in this context> puts you in danger of it yourself in the eyes of God.  I think the comparison Jesus is setting up is being angry enough to murder with being angry enough to  curse someone.  It's one thing to be annoyed with someone.  It's by far another to be so angry that we see someone as subhuman, worthless, and worthy of God's judgement.

Anyway, that's a short and quick set of thoughts.  There's potentially more to be considered by the context of the surrounding passages and the potential use of the same word "brother" in this passage as is used later in the NT for believers.

 

 

Unique look at the situation and may have validity. As for my definitions of the Aramaic and Greek, I tried to use literal definitions but you are correct that just as today these words were used as slang insults with different meaning that the ;literal translation of the words and that's my point if we get too hung up on certain words we might miss the point or "not see the forest for the trees". And yes the word that was translated brother actually was gender neutral in the Greek. God bless you

[unworthyservant]

14 hours 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.

By the way Seasoned By Grace. I just want to add that I agree with most of what you say and that the only reason I didn't go on and quote or discuss the rest of the Chapter is that, in case you didn't notice, I already had a mini novella on my hands with just the portion I did discuss. Also, since the point was simply to remember and not concentrate on a certain word or phrase but look at the meaning of what Christ was teaching, I felt that the few verses that I included should make the point and hopefully prompt someone somewhere to go and read the entire Chapter (or better yet book) to see the whole picture. As I mentioned to someone else it's something like not seeing the forest for the trees. Thanks again

[Seasoned by Grace]

1 hour ago, unworthyservant said:

By the way Seasoned By Grace. I just want to add that I agree with most of what you say and that the only reason I didn't go on and quote or discuss the rest of the Chapter is that, in case you didn't notice, I already had a mini novella on my hands with just the portion I did discuss. Also, since the point was simply to remember and not concentrate on a certain word or phrase but look at the meaning of what Christ was teaching, I felt that the few verses that I included should make the point and hopefully prompt someone somewhere to go and read the entire Chapter (or better yet book) to see the whole picture. As I mentioned to someone else it's something like not seeing the forest for the trees. Thanks again

I get all that - Thanks so much

[R. Hartono]

God fight the arrogant people who call other a fool.

[appy]

14 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

As opposed to trying to answer all the replies individually, I'm going to make one general reply. It is this. I see where many still missed (or because of it's length and monotony didn't read to the end where I made the point) so I'm going to restate the point without all of the reasoning. The point is simple. It has NOTHING at all to do with calling someone a fool. That was simply the example I chose to illustrate how people tend to take things out of context and more to the point how sometimes the translation of a word or two can lead some to these misconceptions. I did go quite into depth to make the point so maybe some of the confusion is my own fault. The entire post was purposely long and rambling to show that unless we are grounded in the teachings of the law and those of Christ we can become distracted by dilemmas that if we would just dig a little deeper aren't really the dilemmas we thought but when taken in their full context aren't really what they seem if we just read the words. I wasn't about Grace vs. the law or old vs new covenant. It wasn't even about calling someone a fool. It's all about how we get hung up on different interpretations of something when all that is necessary is to put them in their correct context and trust that God will show us the truth if we seek it. As to the person who made the snide remark about arguing with a fool, I don't believe that is the sort of conversation that we as Christians should engage in. As for arguing with fools, I personally believe that the "fools" are the nonbelievers that we should not argue with but show by our lives the example of God's love and Christs teaching. I hope this clarifies most of the questions.  I will pray that God will help me to be more succinct in the future. 

 

Anyone posting on a message board can not control how others are going to interpret a post or what they can or can not say in a post; that is the nature of message boards in general. It is also pretty much the nature of message boards for people to read between the lines, even though the author never intended for those reading to read between the lines. One can not keep threads from going down a different path than the original poster planned either.

 

 

14 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

I see where many still missed (or because of it's length and monotony didn't read to the end where I made the point)

 

14 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

The entire post was purposely long and rambling to show that unless we are grounded in the teachings of the law and those of Christ

 

In regards to “ranbling post”. We can't know that your intention was to teach others how to read and interpret scripture. People make long and rambling posts all the time just asking a question or several questions in one long and enormous post. And it isn't always immediately known what was on the original poster's mind and heart, till several posts later. My opinion on this is that I think after creating a misleading post to make a point, it is unfair to then denounce other peoples posts for missing your point.

 

[unworthyservant]

8 hours ago, appy said:

 

Anyone posting on a message board can not control how others are going to interpret a post or what they can or can not say in a post; that is the nature of message boards in general. It is also pretty much the nature of message boards for people to read between the lines, even though the author never intended for those reading to read between the lines. One can not keep threads from going down a different path than the original poster planned either.

 

 

 

 

In regards to “ranbling post”. We can't know that your intention was to teach others how to read and interpret scripture. People make long and rambling posts all the time just asking a question or several questions in one long and enormous post. And it isn't always immediately known what was on the original poster's mind and heart, till several posts later. My opinion on this is that I think after creating a misleading post to make a point, it is unfair to then denounce other peoples posts for missing your point.

 

I didn't mean to be misleading and I don't think I made it long and involved without actual points being made. It's just that I wanted to show how we can get so hung up on a word or certain phrase and not put it in context so I just made as many points about context as I could think of and then made the point. As for rambling, that's just my style anyway so the longer a post gets the more I'm prone to ramble anyway.