You are completely and clearly if sincerely wrong, and ignore the reasons why, and base your objection on a false and liberal idea of what love can be manifested as.
"Fool" is just one invective, and it is clear that not only was the Lord not claiming an exception for Himself in uttering such, but His disciples also called the same people some of the same things and type of things that He did.
Again, to be consistent then you must also insist the Lord prohibits any killing, and ever being angry at someone, all of which, as with the use of invectives, are sanctioned within a certain context.
And while one can be angry with his brother for something the needs correction, as Paul obviously was in rebuking Peter in Gal. 2, a pastor is not be "soon angry," (Titus 1:7) as there is a holy anger, out of principle, driven by love for Truth and virtue.
Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: (Ephesians 4:26)
But the context of the censure against calling his brother a fool in Mt. 5:22 was that of doing so in a wrong anger, an anger that is forbidden, out of which one speaks rashly with his mouth.
But if you want to dismiss context, immediate and that of the whole of Scripture, and hold to the absurd idea that the Lord was teaching not to do as He did, then keep away from engaging in Bible exegesis.
Finally, J.P Holding notes,
Skeptics may of course go on to object that this is offensive anyway, even without the contradiction, but the polemic registered here is no more than within the range of stock accusations made among various parties in Judaism, which were perfectly acceptable in this time period. Skeptics may not impose their modern values upon peoples of the past for whom such exchanges of rhetoric were stock-in-trade -- it is no more offensive in this context than modern men "playing the dozens." http://www.tektonics.org/lp/namecallfool.php -JPH
And read here on Rhetoric in the NT World
I’m not ignoring the context. I’m saying that the context does not reverse Jesus’ injunction.
Here it is again.
‘whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be [e]guilty enough to go into the [f]fiery hell.’
I will not argue that what Jesus is saying is that it’s fine to say to others, ‘you fool.’ In fact, He is saying the opposite. I accept His prohibition. It applies to us, but not to Him; please see my prior comments.
‘But the context of the censure against calling his brother a fool in Mt. 5:22 was that of doing so in a wrong anger, an anger that is forbidden, out of which one speaks rashly with his mouth.
But if you want to dismiss context, immediate and that of the whole of Scripture, and hold to the absurd idea that the Lord was teaching not to do as He did, then keep away from engaging in Bible exegesis.’
There is no such immediate context such as you have been stating. I.e.: the words “without a cause” appear in no Greek ms. I have known all along that they did not appear in any of the oldest, best, most complete and definitive mss. I finally decided to check exactly what ms they do appear in. Turns out, none.
So the supposed qualifier does not exist. There is nothing in the passage whatsoever about it being wrong to say ‘you fool’ to a brother in unjustified anger, but okay to do so in justified anger. There is simply the bald statement, that to say to a brother ‘you fool’ is to incur sufficient guilt to go into fiery hell.
[& btw, please, please stop claiming I say Jesus is guilty of ***anything***. I have explained half a dozen times at least that He is not and why He is not. (I.e.: I have explained, in great detail & multiple times, why certain restrictions that apply to us do ***not*** apply to God. The prohibition in this passage falls squarely into that category.) For you to keep on insisting I believe something I don’t believe is not productive. Please cease doing so; thank you.]