Hell fire for calling someone a fool?

[Gerr]

 

ESV | ‎Mt 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 

 

3474. μωρός mōrós; fem. mōrá, neut. mōrón, adj. Silly, stupid, foolish, from which the Eng. word “moron” is derived. Used of persons meaning morally worthless (Matt. 5:22). It is a more serious reproach than raká (4469), raca, which scorns a man by calling him stupid, whereas mōrós scorns him concerning his heart and character. Used of things (2 Tim. 2:23 “foolish and ignorant questionings” [a.t.]; Titus 3:9). In Matt. 5:13 and Luke 14:34, it refers to salt that has lost its flavor, become tasteless (mōraínō [3471]).
Deriv.: mōraínō (3471), to make dull; mōría (3472), foolishness as a personal quality; mōraínō (3471) in the causal sense, to make foolish, in the pass. sense, to become foolish.
Syn.: áphrōn (878), foolish, a fool; anóētos (453), senseless, one lacking understanding; asúnetos (801), without discernment; ásophos (781), unwise.
Ant.: sṓphrōn (4998), of sound mind; sunetós (4908), sagacious, understanding; phrónimos (5429), thoughtful, prudent; sophós (4680), wise.

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

 

Well?

[Gustave]

Jesus called those closest to Him "fools" for NOT believing 100% that Jesus would in fact raise from the dead. According to the Biblical account Jesus' victory was foretold in the Old Testament . i.e. that God Himself would come & would absolutely save. After witnessing Jesus being crucified even His Disciples evidently opined that perhaps it wasn't a 100% sure thing that Jesus would have victory - in fact they expressed shock when they realized it was indeed Jesus. That's why Jesus called them "fools". Certainly Jesus will not be going to hell after the General Resurrection for that comment.

 

 

[Gerr]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Jesus called those closest to Him "fools" for NOT believing 100% that Jesus would in fact raise from the dead. According to the Biblical account Jesus' victory was foretold in the Old Testament . i.e. that God Himself would come & would absolutely save. After witnessing Jesus being crucified even His Disciples evidently opined that perhaps it wasn't a 100% sure thing that Jesus would have victory - in fact they expressed shock when they realized it was indeed Jesus. That's why Jesus called them "fools". Certainly Jesus will not be going to hell after the General Resurrection for that comment.

 

 

God, Jesus, and probably prophets could call certain people fools because they have divine knowledge upon which to base their judgment.   I don't, and I suspect neither do you.  My purpose in this thread is to point out that God holds human beings who are created in His image in such high regard that He does not look kindly to those who insult and disrespect the dignity of His children.

[hch]

If an individual is deemed to be a fool, has he been written off as "unsaveable"?

Maybe the self-righteous attitude of the accuser of the brethren is the real problem?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

people can be *foolish,* yet not be fools...

 

[hch]

11 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

people can be *foolish,* yet not be fools...

 

They sure fool me

[joeb]

On 4/16/2016 at 3:11 PM, Gerry Cabalo said:

 

ESV | ‎Mt 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 

 

3474. μωρός mōrós; fem. mōrá, neut. mōrón, adj. Silly, stupid, foolish, from which the Eng. word “moron” is derived. Used of persons meaning morally worthless (Matt. 5:22). It is a more serious reproach than raká (4469), raca, which scorns a man by calling him stupid, whereas mōrós scorns him concerning his heart and character. Used of things (2 Tim. 2:23 “foolish and ignorant questionings” [a.t.]; Titus 3:9). In Matt. 5:13 and Luke 14:34, it refers to salt that has lost its flavor, become tasteless (mōraínō [3471]).
Deriv.: mōraínō (3471), to make dull; mōría (3472), foolishness as a personal quality; mōraínō (3471) in the causal sense, to make foolish, in the pass. sense, to become foolish.
Syn.: áphrōn (878), foolish, a fool; anóētos (453), senseless, one lacking understanding; asúnetos (801), without discernment; ásophos (781), unwise.
Ant.: sṓphrōn (4998), of sound mind; sunetós (4908), sagacious, understanding; phrónimos (5429), thoughtful, prudent; sophós (4680), wise.

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

 

Well?

I normally really like the ESV, and I use it in my Bible study quite frequently, but in this case it leaves out some important information.  The KJV is much more accurate for it includes the "without a cause" phrase immediately following "angry with his brother" .  This without a cause phrase is found in the Greek and it makes sense with what I know of God.  The Bible shows Jesus Himself was angry with people several times while He lived here on earth, but every time He was there was a valid reason for His anger, so I cannot see Jesus, or His Father, simply condemning someone for being angry.  That would be completely hypocritical on their parts.  

The Greek, #1500 in Strong's, contains the idea of being angry "idly, i.e without reason".  This makes perfect sense to me, for there can be valid reasons to be angry with a brother, and then there are brothers who are angry with their siblings for no good reason. 

[Robert]

Don't forget Paul's statement in Romans 1:22 "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...."

 

[joeb]

I did some more study into this and from what I've found Jesus and Paul used the word fool to describe people fairly often.  By fool I mean they used the same Greek word.  Jesus used it in the parable of the 10 virgins to describe the foolish virgins.  The way I see the word described in Strong's it means to be a moral blockhead.  What is a blockhead according to the dictionary? 

Quote

Blockhead Block"head`, n. [Block + head.]
 A stupid fellow; a dolt; a person deficient in understanding.
 [1913 Webster]

 The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read,
 With loads of learned lumber in his head. --Pope.
 [1913 Webster]

What does that mean within the context of morality?  I see it as stating that another person is not worthwhile for God to save.  It means questioning whether or not they are "savable" material, and that is something that is just flat out wrong on our part. 

Now why do I use the morality part of the description of the word?  When looking at how moros is used in the Bible it seems to me as if it is always used in terms of morality and moral understanding.  Now, I can disagree with people over all kinds of things and say they don't understand this or that, but when I get into the realm of telling someone they are not morally worth saving I am entering some very dangerous territory.  Why?  Well, I was born morally deformed myself.  We all were.  Who am I to judge whether or not another person is worth saving?  I'm not capable of doing that, and it's not something I would care to indulge in. 

To me this is the issue at stake here.  Am I in danger of being lost if I am judging my fellow man like this?  I believe so.  I also believe that I would be limiting the power of God to do this for I would be saying that God isn't capable of saving that person.  Again, this is very dangerous territory.

As to the word raca, this is the only place in the Bible this word is used and I'm not sure I fully understand what Christ means here. 

[Gerr]

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 6:29 PM, joeb said:

I normally really like the ESV, and I use it in my Bible study quite frequently, but in this case it leaves out some important information.  The KJV is much more accurate for it includes the "without a cause" phrase immediately following "angry with his brother" .  This without a cause phrase is found in the Greek and it makes sense with what I know of God.  The Bible shows Jesus Himself was angry with people several times while He lived here on earth, but every time He was there was a valid reason for His anger, so I cannot see Jesus, or His Father, simply condemning someone for being angry.  That would be completely hypocritical on their parts.  

The Greek, #1500 in Strong's, contains the idea of being angry "idly, i.e without reason".  This makes perfect sense to me, for there can be valid reasons to be angry with a brother, and then there are brothers who are angry with their siblings for no good reason. 

Most scholars, I  believe, think that the phrase "without cause" was supplied and not found in the most ancient manuscripts.  Most modern translation omit it.

[joeb]

9 hours ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

Most scholars, I  believe, think that the phrase "without cause" was supplied and not found in the most ancient manuscripts.  Most modern translation omit it.

The Bible often says God was/is angry about something.  So, how is the wording of the text not portraying God as hypocritical if it leaves out the "without cause" phrase?  I simply must reject any wording that makes God hypocritical by saying we are at fault for ever being angry while He is not.  Is not anger a normal human emotion that comes from us being created in God's image? 

You are welcome to accept anything you want, but I reject anything that smears God's character, His righteousness, and His justice.  I xonsider all such as having originated from the devil's sophistry.