Black Sheep/Chris, have you read this?
Black Sheep/Chris, have you read this?
I should be off to bed.
It's half past two in the morning and Tijkmo is singing about insurrection of the dead.
Is it any good?
Yes, it is very good.
Please read it.
is the thread if anyone wants to post on it.
My ISP is being obnoxious because I have overrun my allocation......... again...... and I couldn't get it.
I'll have a look in the morning.
I've read that thread and just about all your posts referring to this incident.
I can see that it bothers you very much.
Just wanted to give you something more to read about it.
Trees in the bible are representations of powerful spirit creatures, sons of God and their family 'tree', religions, and peoples and descendants. Many times spirit creatures/religions/peoples go very close hand in hand.
Some examples of this are the tree of life and tree of knowledge in Eden. You see this very evident in Ezekiel 31:5-9 "That is why it grew higher in its stature than all the [other] trees of the field. “‘And its boughs kept multiplying, and its branches continued getting longer because of much water in its watercourses. 6 On its boughs all the flying creatures of the heavens made their nests, and under its branches all the wild beasts of the field gave birth, and in its shade all the populous nations would dwell. 7 And it came to be pretty in its greatness, in the length of its foliage, for its root system proved to be over many waters. 8 [Other] cedars were no match for it in the garden of God. As for juniper trees, they bore no resemblance as respects its boughs. And plane trees themselves did not prove to be like it in branches. No [other] tree in the garden of God resembled it in its prettiness. 9 Pretty is the way that I made it in the abundance of its foliage, and all the [other] trees of E′den that were in the garden of the [true] God kept envying it.’
Abraham himself was in Genesis 13:18-"So A′bram continued to live in tents. Later on he came and dwelt among the big trees of Mam′re"
Now a fig tree, in the bible it speaks of olive trees produing oil, of the vine in the vineyards, all these things have specific meanings and mean specific people, creatures, etc.
James 3:12 - My brothers, a fig tree cannot produce olives or a vine figs, can it?
In John 1:48 - “Before Philip called you, while you were under the fig tree" - THIS IS HUGE, and quite symbolic......read it in context, just posted the main point, before this person was called, he was 'under the fig tree'. Which would mean either a different god, faith, nation, peoples.
The fig tree represents a god,faith,nation, or peoples who were not producing good fruits (think of the fruitages of the spirit), and so Jesus cursed it, and this tree, this god,faith,nation,or peoples was to wither up and die.
I've read it now Syl.
Once again, the explanation doesn't take into account what Jesus had to say about it, and........
It works on the assumption that it was unusual for the tree to not have fruit, despite the scriptural assertion that it was out of season and without providing any link to any horticultural documentation that would demonstrate that the Bible was in error to say that it was not the season for figs.
Mark 11:13 But, on coming to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season of figs. How difficult is it to understand that?????
In the blasting of this fruitless fig tree, the Son of God was suggesting this:
(1) The nation, as a political entity, had become a worthless mechanism in the sacred scheme of things. It thus was worthy of nothing but destruction.
(2) That destruction would shortly come (within forty years — A.D. 66-70) with the invasion of the land by the Roman armies (cf. Mt. 22:7ff; 24:15ff).
(3) The punishment would be complete and final; the “tree” would be dead from the very “roots” (Mk. 11:20).
The text of these scriptures hints at nothing of the kind. Did he actually read the passages before he made this stuff up???
Chris, I believe the writer's point is that the tree gave the appearance (leaves) of bearing fruit, even though it wasn't yet time.
However, on close inspection, nothing.
I can see clearly why it was cursed.
One day, you will, too.
Cheers back to you.
I like this little bit;
Third, it must be emphasized that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He himself possesses the nature of deity (Jn. 1:1; 10:30; 20:28). As deity, therefore, the earth and its fullness are his (Psa. 24:1). He has the sovereign right to use the elements of creation to accomplish those higher goals which man, limited in his knowledge, may not perceive at a given moment in time. And that includes the destruction of a tree, or even a herd of swine (cf. Mk. 5:13). No man has the right to say of him, “What doest thou?” (Dan. 4:35; cf. Rom. 11:33-36).
First of all, this is all lovely but is fully assumption. But ok, we've established that Jesus "possesses the nature of deity".
(2) In order to put this situation into sharper focus, the student needs to examine the meaning behind this action by Christ. When the Lord first saw the tree, he was yet “afar off.” He could only discern that it had leaves (v. 13).
Obviously, considering what was just said, we are now wondering why this "deity" couldn't use his super-eyesight to discern a little bit more about the tree.
One must conclude that this circumstance reveals that though he was deity, Jesus did not exercise the full range of his divine powers constantly; he did not know the details regarding this tree until he was in close proximity (v. 13b).
Oh, THERE it is! "One must conclude" - this seems to be this particular author's version of the WTS's "evidently". We've now established that this account will only make sense if you read it under Trinitarian assumptions. I think it bears saying, however, that neither Matthew or Mark appear to subscribe to Trinitarian viewpoint - their accounts abound with examples of Jesus being imminently human, and being so limited - it wasn't until John's gospel that Jesus started to transmorph into "deity". John wouldn't include accounts where Jesus did things like curse trees which he didn't possess the power to see from far away.
Perhaps most important is the apologetic's continual insistence that this was some sort of "lesson" for the Jews. Was the Messiah really so inadequate a teacher? His audience at the time of the cursing consisted of a few disciples - of which apparently only Peter got the point. What sort of teacher tries to impart a lesson to an audience that isn't even present? Not only that, but he didn't reference that lesson in any way whatsoever. Instead, when Peter pointed the tree out, Jesus started to ramble on about throwing mountains into the ocean.
Not to mention the fact that in Matthew's account, the sequence goes (Jesus sees tree > Curses Tree > Tree withers > Disciples ask why tree withered so fast > Jesus says if you have faith you can throw mountains into the ocean >>>>>>>Making it appear like this is not a lesson to the Jews, it is a lesson about the power of faith, i.e. with faith you can control the elements like Jesus), but in Mark's account it goes (Sees tree > Curses tree > Goes to Jerusalem and cleanses the temple > leaves Jerusalem the next morning > PETER points the now-withered tree out > Jesus talks about throwing mountains into the ocean >>>>> No direct question is asked, therefore Jesus' message is far more ambiguous)
The apologetics for this account are pure nonsense. Much better to say that we have no idea why Jesus did this, we have no idea why the account was included in either account, unless to say that Jesus was just showing off for the disciples, and be done with it.
All apologetics for this account fall flat.
When the Lord first saw the tree, he was yet “afar off.” He could only discern that it had leaves
It's a bit of a stretch of the imagination to think that an itinerant street preacher, a native of the land, doesn't know when when the local fruit trees are in season. His mummy didn't shop at a supermarket stocked with food that had been cool stored and/or transported from the four corners of the earth.
The whole episode makes me wonder if he was hung over, made a silly mistake, and instead of just walking away, he exacerbated the situation and made a ass of himself.