Is Jesus in Danger of Hellfire?

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:43 pm

Is it ok to call people "fools?"

Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." [Jesus speaking]

vs.

Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." [Jesus speaking]
Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Post by **_Perry** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:36 pm

SoaringEagle,

Are you going somewhere with this series of questions? Just curious.

Perry

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:21 am

I appreciate these questions, Eagle. I think they can bring us out of our presumption that we have worked everything out, put it in a box, presented it to the world, and can defend it against all attack.

Post by **_mattrose** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:09 pm

Let me type out Norman Geisler's response to this question:

There are good reasons why there is a strong difference b/w the two uses of the term 'fool.' First, this is another example of the principle that the same word can be used with different meanings in different contexts. For instance, the word 'dog' can be used of a canine animal or a detested person.

Second, in Matthew 5, it is used in the context of someone who is 'angry' with his brother, indicating a hatred. Neither Jesus nor Paul harbored hatred toward those to whom they applied the term. Thus, their use of the term 'fool' does not violate Jesus' prohibition against calling others a fool.

Third, technically speaking, Jesus only commanded that a 'brother' (matt 5:22) not be called a 'fool,' not an unbeliever. In fact, the scriptural description of a fool is one who 'has said in his heart there is no God' (Ps 14:1). In view of this, one can see the seriousness of calling a brother a fool; it is tantamount to calling him an unbeliever. Hence, when He who 'knew what was in man,' (john 2:25) called unbelievers 'fools,' it was a most appropriate description of what they really were.

Post by **_Perry** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:11 pm

Just to clarify, I don't mind the questions. It seems to me a forum named "Christian Evidences/Challenges" is the perfect place for them, as they are challenging.

I'm just curious if Soaring Eagle has something more in mind, since he's throwing out the questions, but not interacting with the answers.

Perry

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:40 pm

Norman Geisler quote:

Third, technically speaking, Jesus only commanded that a 'brother' (matt 5:22) not be called a 'fool,' not an unbeliever. In fact, the scriptural description of a fool is one who 'has said in his heart there is no God' (Ps 14:1). In view of this, one can see the seriousness of calling a brother a fool; it is tantamount to calling him an unbeliever. Hence, when He who 'knew what was in man,' (john 2:25) called unbelievers 'fools,' it was a most appropriate description of what they really were.

I respect Norman Geisler. He is a man of great wisdom and intellect. Indeed, I subscribe to his hierarchal view of morality rather than either the absolutist or the relative view)

However, in the quote above, Geisler seems to think Christ's use of "brother" refers to a Christian brother. That would be highly unlikely. It was customary for Jews to refer to each other as "brother". In Acts 2, the Jews who were "cut to the heart" at Peter's words asked, "Men and brethren what shall be do". But they themselves were not Christian brethren until they repented and were baptized.

Indeed, Peter himself, in his speech, when addressing the "men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem", called them "brothers".

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:39 pm

I don't mean any harm. I am more of a skeptical Christian, meaning, I believe in the Historical Christ, the death, and physical resurrection of this person. I believe there will be a judgment, and the Kingdom of God will one day triumph over all evil.

However, I am skeptical as to how reliable the bible we have today actually is. With this in mind, I familiarize myself with atheist and skeptical websites that question the bible in this aspect. I find things like the serious of topics I have posted, and start discussions. In this way, we together can answer objections, learn different views, and grow in our knowledge that can be a tool to reach skeptics and atheists. My lack of engagement just means I either dont know enough to touch on the subject, or I don't have time. Hopefully, this doesn't disturb anyone.

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:54 pm

I suspected that you had gone to atheist sites, Eagle. I have done so, too, and recognized some of the arguments about there being contradictions in the Bible.

Some of these are not genuine contradictions, and can be explained readily. Others seem to be genuine contradictions.

Even if there are genuine contradictions, such a fact would not bother me in the least. My authority is the Lord Jesus and His teachings. This Lordly authority is supported by the teaching of the apostles and OT prophets, and by the second century Christian writers [Please don't assume from this that I am putting all of these on the same level]

I put Jesus and His teachings first.

The teachings of the apostles second.

OT prophets, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah third.

Other first and second century writings fourth.

I don't hold to the view that the Bible is inerrant and exclusively inspired. That fact doesn't imply that I claim that some parts are in fact, in error.

I do hold the view that the writings the Bible contains are reliable. I think other early Christian writings are also reliable and fallible. I don't think inspiration is limited to Biblical writings. It doesn't make sense. For example, why would Paul's letter to the Colossians be inspired and inerrant, while his letter to the Laodiceans which he mentioned in Colossians is not? Is that the case just because it didn't make the "canon"? If so, then those who defined the canon in the fourth century must have been inspired to make an infallible choice of NT writings to incluee. Thus there would still have be extra-biblical inspiration in order that an infallible choice of writings to include in the canon could be made.

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:36 pm

Good points Paidion. Thanks for your response.

Post by **__id_1887** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:23 am

Paidon wrote:

I put Jesus and His teachings first.

The teachings of the apostles second.

OT prophets, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah third.

Other first and second century writings fourth.

Are we ever instructed to "rank" God's word (and then add extra-biblical writings to the ranking)?

Proverbs 30:5
5 Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Psalm 12:6
6 The words of the LORD are pure words,
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.

Psalm 119:89
89 Forever, O LORD, your word
is firmly fixed in the heavens.

Psalm 1:1-2

1:1 Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

In Christ,

Haas