REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Katie of the Golden Wood
I know, but I can't agree with that. In NO way am I trying to be disrespectful, but thats just what I love about Jesus. He was the ideal life of a human being on Earth, but he had weak moments. In the Garden before his crucifiction he almost gave up, and the fig tree story was already cited. But that gives us humans hope, because no matter how hard we try, we are going to make mistakes, to almost give in. Jesus is the ultimate role model. None of us can reach the perfection of God because at one point or another we all give into temptation. But with Jesus we see that he has moments of weakness too, so we are more inclined to try because we see it closer to within our reach.

Katie

yes but those are qualities that he exhibits...he never sins...he is tempted to not die for us but in the end He does. one can be tempted without sinning. I don't know about other Christian faiths but the Catholic church teaches that temptation and being tempted are different than sinning.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Y'know, Brownie, that's one thing I love about Jesus! He was indeed fully human, as well as fully God. He got angry (but His anger was not sinful, it was righteous, like your anger about injustices); He was funny, He was sad, etc. I love the passage in Hebrews where it says "We do not have a high priest [Jesus] that cannot sympathize with us" (rough memory quote). IOW, He knows and understands us.


That said, I'll add to my questions for GrayMouser - since he has often called me on the carpet for being intellectually lazy, I'll call him on the same thing! GM - what can you tell me about:

• 1. the context of the situation;
  2. where He was coming from and going to;
  3. what happened right after that situation;
  4. what was the season of the year as far as Jewish festivals, etc.,
  5. what are some things about fig tree leafing/fruiting patterns that would have been common knowledge to the people of that time;
  6. what are some other areas in both the OT and the NT where fruit/lack of fruit analogies are used and how are they significant/similar to this story.

If you insist on bringing up this example to (apparently) show the irrationality of Jesus, then I will politely ask you these questions and ask you to withdraw your objection if you can't answer them

Life is complex; a book that purports to deal with life should rationally be expected to be complex, at least in some places; don't you agree?

Rian, I have never called you intellectually lazy- wrong , yes, but lazy, never!

1)He is going into Jerusalem; He looks around, but it's late so he leaves.
2) Ditto
3)He overturned the tables of the money-changers
4)approaching Passover
5)it was not the season for figs
6)Don't know; how do these bear on the issue? asking politely

Yeah, a book that bears on someone claiming to be God is complex- agree totally.

[GrayMouser]

As for the veracity of the Gospels, and their agreement with prophecy:

Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king [1] comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey

John 13:

"Blessed is the King of Israel!" 14Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15"Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey's colt."[5]

Matthew 21:
1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."
4This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "[1]
6The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. 8

Matthew, having misread the lines from Zechariah - he as working from a Greek text, after all- thinks the meaning is that Jesus will ride into Jerusalem on TWO animals; and therefore rewrites what happens to fill the prophecy - can you even picture how, throwing a cloak over thm, Jesus could ride two animals?

[Mercutio]

GrayMouser--

“And Jesus sat on them� refers to him sitting on the cloaks, not the two animals. We know from Mark 11:2 and Luke 19:30 that he rode the colt. Typically, a mother donkey followed her offspring closely. Matthew is the only Gospel that mentions two animals, the others mention only one.

As for the fig tree story, this is borrowed from “The New Bible Commentary: Revised�, edited by D. Guthrie:
“In Mark, this story is in two parts…The miracle has aroused criticism from modern scholars on two grounds: first, the unreasonableness of our Lord’s action in looking for figs at Passover time; secondly, that such an action associated with His own hunger is both unlikely and unworthy of Him. The usual explanation is to say that a parable like that of the fig tree in Lk. 13:6-9 has reappeared in factual form. As to the first of the two objections, the probable explanation is that the fig tree in Palestine bears an early crop of immature fruit, like green knobs, which appears before the leaves. Their absence was clear indication of the barrenness of the tree. As to the second objection, we may note that this was Christ’s only miracle of judgment, performed ‘in mercy to man, on an inanimate object, to teach a moral lesson’. The fig tree was a symbol of the Jewish nation, which abounded in the leaves of religious profession but was barren of the fruits of righteousness. Its cursing was prophetic of the fate of the Jewish authorities who were now about to reject their Messiah.�

Any questions?

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Rian, I have never called you intellectually lazy- wrong , yes, but lazy, never!

You're right - you've never called me lazy before (I've managed to delude you there - bwahaha! ) - I guess I should have worded it a little differently. What I meant was that when I have been intellectually lazy (i.e., posting a thought from someone else that I hadn't thoroughly thought through) (now there's an interesting 3 words in a row - "thoroughly thought through"!) you've typically brought up a very valid objection or pointed out an error in logic. Which of course made me think things thru more (a very good thing to do), and then explain things better.

(6)Don't know; how do these bear on the issue? asking politely

If you are with your child and he sees a man carrying a big bag putting letters in little boxes up and down the street, and he asks you, "Dad, why's that guy doing that?", how would you answer? You would give his identification, purpose (to deliver mail) and motivation (to earn money to eat) - "He's a mail carrier, and his job is to deliver the mail to people. He doesn't do it for fun - we all need jobs of some sort to earn money for food and clothing and housing and things like that, and that's his job."

If I see you drop off your child to a big building with other kids and some adults that call them into line and take them into rooms and sit them down at desks and talk to them, and I ask you why you drop off your kid there, you would say: "RÃ*an, that's called a school, and those adults are called teachers, and their job is to educate children. I love my child and I want him to have good education so he can know about the world and expand his horizons and learn good information and analytical skills." (and then I hope you'd say "wanna go get a cup of tea?" ) You'd explain your actions with identification, purpose (to educate your child) and motivation (because you love your child and want the best for them).

And that's what I intend to do with this action of Jesus. Do you see now why I asked #6?

(ps - thanks for the "asking politely" note )

Yeah, a book that bears on someone claiming to be God is complex- agree totally.

Well, I said "at least in some places" - a lot of the Bible is EXTREMELY simple and straightforward - usually the more convicting parts that we don't like to hear about ... but at least you're not in the "everything should be simple" camp - a rather silly expectation, IMO.

[Rían]

Good info, Mercutio! I'd like to add onto it when I get a bit more time, because I think there's a lot more behind it than the facts, altho the facts are critically important.

Unless, that is, you're satisfied with Mercutio's answer, GrayMouser. Shall I expand on it, or is Mercutio's answer enough for you?

[Rían]

ps - GM, I don't see any problem with your donkey example I think one writer mentioned just the one donkey (the colt) that Jesus rode on, and two others mentioned the fact that it was a mother with her colt, and Jesus rode on the colt. The passage in Zech. I see as the common style of Hebrew poetry - the restatement in slightly different words for emphasis - that you see ALL OVER the Psalms and Proverbs and the Prophets, and interestingly, is a form of poetry that is COMPLETELY translatable into ALL languages! IOW, the animal was a colt, and also a donkey. Read thru Psalms and Proverbs, where that style is the rule and not the exception, and you'll see what I mean.

The passages in the NT also illustrate the simple motives that the writers of the Gospels had - to tell what happened. Some put in more details than others - big deal. As Luke says,

from Luke 1
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out foryou in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

End of passage, end of motive.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Good info, Mercutio! I'd like to add onto it when I get a bit more time, because I think there's a lot more behind it than the facts, altho the facts are critically important.

Unless, that is, you're satisfied with Mercutio's answer, GrayMouser. Shall I expand on it, or is Mercutio's answer enough for you?

It's a wonderful bit of hermeneutics

[Rían]

by GrayMouser
It's a wonderful bit of hermeneutics

Hmmmmmm ...

Was your original question in the spirit of the question of the chief priests and scribes and elders at the end of that very same chapter (Mark 11), or did you really ask the question because you didn't understand it and wanted to learn something if there was indeed a good answer?

Here's what I'm talking about:

from Mark 11
And they came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders came to Him, and began saying to Him, "By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?"

And Jesus said to them, "I will ask you one question, and you answer Me, and then I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men? Answer Me."

And they began reasoning with one another, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say, 'Then why did you not believe him?' But shall we say, 'From men'?" - they were afraid of the multitude, for all considered John to have been a prophet indeed.

And answering Jesus, they said, "We do not know." And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."

The priests et al. were NOT motivated by a desire to learn, as evidenced by their little side-conversation among themselves; were you? I find it sad (and a pointer to your motives, but I hope I'm wrong) that you don't ask for more information when it's offered. When I say there was "a lot more behind it than the facts", I'm not talking hermeneutics - I'm talking more facts that bear on the case, such as stated motives, similar recorded cases, etc. But if you're not interested, I prob. won't get into it ...

If I am right about your motive, then I would like to caution you that not seeking the truth is a dangerous thing ... And I'm not even saying that Christianity is the truth (altho I think it is) - I mean that it just seems like you asked the question more to try to throw out a stumbling block than to get an answer ... I don't know, I guess it's just that if I truly wondered about something and got a partial explanation and someone said they had more info, I think I would ask for it.

[Rían]

Also:

Me : "5. what are some things about fig tree leafing/fruiting patterns that would have been common knowledge to the people of that time; "

You : "5)it was not the season for figs"

Your answer was partially correct - it was not the season for figs (as the writer notes), but when fig trees are in leaf, like THIS ONE was, then there SHOULD be fruit, and that would be common knowledge. The early fruit was very starchy and used for food by the poor, acc'd to one ref. I have. (and the leaves could be seen from far off, which is why it was REASONABLE for Jesus to expect fruit, altho not the mature fruit.)

[Rían]

GrayMouser - this has been bugging me all day - I'm very sorry if I misinterpreted your sentence - I'm rather used to being on the defensive, and maybe I misunderstood you - but the way you worded it ("a wonderful bit of hermeneutics" as opposed to "oh, that makes sense now!"), and the way you quoted MY post and not Mer's (why?) made me think it was sarcastic ... was it? I'd be glad to be completely wrong in my assessment of your response.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Mercutio
GrayMouser--

“And Jesus sat on them� refers to him sitting on the cloaks, not the two animals. We know from Mark 11:2 and Luke 19:30 that he rode the colt. Typically, a mother donkey followed her offspring closely. Matthew is the only Gospel that mentions two animals, the others mention only one.

Uh, yeah, that was sort of the point that I was making- and apropos of Rian's comments on parallelism in Hebrew- Matthew misinterpreted the parallelism.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Uh, yeah, that was sort of the point that I was making- and apropos of Rian's comments on parallelism in Hebrew- Matthew misinterpreted the parallelism.

Personally, I don't see the big deal still - none of the gospels recorded the clothes of the bystanders around the donkey, yet I image they were wearing clothes. Since the other accounts didn't say "a donkey with NO young colt following her", I just don't see the big deal It seems a natural thing for a colt to follow its mother, I think for a year or so in the case of donkeys.

It looks like you're not only "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel", but manufacturing a camel to swallow Can you really get hung up over the non-recording of a detail that is NOT contradictory in any way, and yet, as Jesus said, ignore the weightier details, which are heart issues?

There is NO contradiction here, there is an omission which is rather incomprehensible to me that anyone could get stuck on.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Mercutio
GrayMouser--

As for the fig tree story, this is borrowed from “The New Bible Commentary: Revised�, edited by D. Guthrie:
“In Mark, this story is in two parts…The miracle has aroused criticism from modern scholars on two grounds: first, the unreasonableness of our Lord’s action in looking for figs at Passover time; secondly, that such an action associated with His own hunger is both unlikely and unworthy of Him. The usual explanation is to say that a parable like that of the fig tree in Lk. 13:6-9 has reappeared in factual form. As to the first of the two objections, the probable explanation is that the fig tree in Palestine bears an early crop of immature fruit, like green knobs, which appears before the leaves. Their absence was clear indication of the barrenness of the tree. As to the second objection, we may note that this was Christ’s only miracle of judgment, performed ‘in mercy to man, on an inanimate object, to teach a moral lesson’. The fig tree was a symbol of the Jewish nation, which abounded in the leaves of religious profession but was barren of the fruits of righteousness. Its cursing was prophetic of the fate of the Jewish authorities who were now about to reject their Messiah.�

Any questions?

I don't see why the barrenness of the tree should matter, as it clearly says Jesus approached the tree because he was hungry-not because he was concerned about its eventual fruitfulness.

And it says, again very clearly, that there were no figs on it, not because it was barren, not because Jesus was expecting immature fruit, but "it was not the season for figs".

This is what I mean by it being an example of hermeneutics.
The people who are explaining this text are doing so based on their prior assumptions as to what Jesus is like- the point then becomes how to find an explanation that fits those assumptions, rather than relying - as claimed- on the Gospels for the evidence.

[Rían]

And I'll say again that Jesus EXPECTED there to be fruit on the tree BECAUSE of the VISUAL EVIDENCE of the leaves on the tree - which means that there SHOULD have been fruit on it, as any rational person living in that area would know.

I wish I had time to answer the other two points - I have to leave to take the kids to school now. I have answers - are you interested in hearing them, or do you prefer to not hear them?

and what I mean about the "weightier details" is that the Christian worldview has an intellectual answer to things like pain; atheism does NOT. There are MANY weightier issues like this - atheism does NOT have satisfactory intellectual answers. I wish you could be on more often, because I'd like to take you up on these points.

And as far as "prior assumptions" - no, it's not unbased assumptions, it's recorded statements about "what Jesus is like" - which IS relying on evidence. But apparently you're not interested in hearing these things - that was the point of several of my 6 points - the recorded evidence of character issues and prior history that weigh on the whole story. NOT a "let's make Jesus be like this so we can explain a story" thing.

So do you think the bystanders were naked, or can you get over the colt issue now? It is NOT contradictory at ALL, except to a heart that wants it to be so. It is a simple case of one gospel writer, who knew the OT well (as is evidenced by how often he used it), recording an ADDITIONAL detail - I'm sure he thought it was pretty cool.

[Rían]

and if you're going to throw out Christianity on a detail like this, where you can't even prove that there WASN'T a colt following along (which is a natural and reasonable thing) ...

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
GrayMouser - this has been bugging me all day - I'm very sorry if I misinterpreted your sentence - I'm rather used to being on the defensive, and maybe I misunderstood you - but the way you worded it ("a wonderful bit of hermeneutics" as opposed to "oh, that makes sense now!"), and the way you quoted MY post and not Mer's (why?) made me think it was sarcastic ... was it? I'd be glad to be completely wrong in my assessment of your response.

I replied to your post because it was the latest one on the issue; and I said "it was a wonderful bit of hermeneutics" and not "oh, that makes sense now" because it IS a wonderful bit of hermeneutics and it doesn't make sense- it's a post facto rationalisation by people trying to make it fit into their particular narrative.

When I say there was "a lot more behind it than the facts", I'm not talking hermeneutics - I'm talking more facts that bear on the case, such as stated motives, similar recorded cases, etc. But if you're not interested, I prob. won't get into it ...

Well, as much as we can talk about the facts of a supernatural event that supposedly happened 2000 years ago, that was based on one source and recorded many years later by someone who was not an eyewitness- the facts are as they are stated in the passage.

Everything else- the hypothetical unripened figs, stated motives (the only motive stated is that Jesus was hungry), similar recorded cases, ponderings on related parables- is speculation, extrapolation and interpretation i.e. hermeneutics.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Well, as much as we can talk about the facts of a supernatural event that supposedly happened 2000 years ago, that was based on one source and recorded many years later by someone who was not an eyewitness- the facts are as they are stated in the passage.

"not an eyewitness"? No, the disciples were there.

Everything else- the hypothetical unripened figs, stated motives (the only motive stated is that Jesus was hungry), similar recorded cases, ponderings on related parables- is speculation, extrapolation and interpretation i.e. hermeneutics.

And AGAIN - when fig trees have leaves, there should by all reasonable expectations be fruit - so are you now going to stop using this story as an example of irrationality anymore? (which I think was your original motive of bringing it up, IIRC) Or do you insist that there should be a general treatise on fig trees also recorded in the incident, or else you will not consider that fact?

And if someone wrote down a story of your life, and in one incident, it says you take your kids to school, must the reader assume that your only motive is to take them to school and that you have NO underlying reason for it? Or is it reasonable to take your statements at other times that are related to the issue ("I would like for my kids to be educated because I love them and I think it's good for them") and say that even though in THAT particular story you didn't say your motive, that since you said it elsewhere, that we now have your motive? Sorry that wasn't written well, I hope you understood it.

[Rían]

ps - I think that hermeneutics can definitely go too far - and my favorite commentary says what Mercutio says, but then adds a caution that one can go too far in this area, and notes that the only thing Jesus spoke about when questioned on that incident was the issue of faith.

pps - and again, the recorded FACTS are that the tree had leaves, and the botanical FACTS are that this means there should have been fruit.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
"not an eyewitness"? No, the disciples were there.[/B]

Yes, the disciples were there, but neither of the people who wrote Mark or Matthew were ( so for Mark, it's at least second-hand, and for Matthew at least third-.)
And note Matthew and Mark disagree over the details of the story

And AGAIN - when fig trees have leaves, there should by all reasonable expectations be fruit

Not when they're OUT OF SEASON- as specifically stated in Mark.