REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Valandil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
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

Matthew was one of the twelve. Luke and Mark were the two gospel writers who were not. Mark was likely a 'John-Mark' who was possibly a relative of one of the early apostles (I'm thinking Peter - but I forget). Mark's account is the shortest and generally considered the first to be written. Matthew and Luke likely referred to it while writing their gospels. Luke was a physician, a traveling companion of Paul (a later convert to Christianity) and is generally considered the most thorough researcher of the gospel writers. (EDIT: Mark was also likely a traveling companion of Paul - if only briefly - and later of Barnabus - another early church leader and co-traveler with Paul)

Matthew was the tax collector who left his tax table to follow Jesus - as he recounts in his own gospel, IIRC.

John's gospel, btw - is totally different from the rest. But that's a tangent. Just wanted to let you know that Matthew the gospel writer was one of the 12.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

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.

If you have any complaints about the botanical FACTS, take them up with the author of Mark- he's the one who said that there were NO figs on the tree BECAUSE it was out of season.
I have no particular opinion on whether the writer of Mark was an authority on the life-cycle of fig-trees in Palestine - I'll just stand by what it says in Scripture.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
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-.)

Matthew was most likely written by the disciple, Matthew, so he would have been there. Not sure about Mark.

And note Matthew and Mark disagree over the details of the story

I honestly don't understand where the "disagreement" is - one included an extra fact, and that's not disagreement.

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

Again, I honestly don't understand this objection. The season is a general time that the vast, vast majority of trees bear fruit, but it's not a law like the law of gravity. There are trees at the beginning, middle and end of the season. The vast majority of trees fall into this category. There are some oddball trees that for various reasons fall outside of this category. But for ALL (repeat, ALL) fig trees, the pattern is fruit first, then leaves. And so it is entirely reasonable to see a fig tree with leaves, even tho it's out of season, and assume since it HAS leaves, there will be fruit. Now this one was obviously a sick tree, because there were leaves, but no fruit, in addition to it having leaves out of season.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
... I'll just stand by what it says in Scripture.

I wish you'd say this about the more important parts of scripture *pensive smiley* ... I'm willing to discuss anything with you, if you're interested.

And one doesn't have to have a degree in "botanical facts" to know leaf/fruit patterns of local trees - I imagine any 9-year-old boy that lived in the area (a MAJOR fig tree area) would have seen that tree from afar and thought "that's odd, there's leaves on that tree already - hey, let's run over and see if there's fruit!"

[Finrod Felagund]

Matthew was written by Matthew the Tax Collector, Jesus disciple.

Mark was written by John Mark, who is mentioned in Acts and some of Pauls letters. He could very well have been present for much of what he has written. Jesus was followed by more than just the 12, and often had large crowds following him. Mark's mother Mary was an fairly wealthy and influential follower of Jesus who often allowed Jesus, and later the early church, to use her house.

John was a disciple. Therefore eyewitness.

Luke was a doctor who likely gfathered facts from eyewitnesses, judging from the birth account, he spoke with Mary as well.

[Rían]

(I'll be gone for a few days - keep up the chant, guys - "Fruit before leaves! Fruit before leaves!" )

[Nurvingiel]

Fruit before leaves? What stage of the life cycle are we talking about here?

I don't know anything about fig trees specifically, but all the deciduous trees I can think of produce leaves first and then fruit.

[Mercutio]

Fig, Fig-tree

Indigenous to Asia Minor and Syria, the fig-tree can grow to about 35 feet and can flourish even in stony soil. Its fruit often appears before the leaves, but the flowers are never conspicious. Fertilization is effectd by small hymenopterous insects.
There is some difference in terminology about the number of fig crops in the year. W.Corsant (title, pg numbers) suggests that for the understanding of certain biblical passages we should regard the fig-tree as bearing successively three kinds of figs: a. the late or autumn figs which furnish the main crop from August till winter; b. green or winter figs, which, having no time to ripen, spend the winter on the branches and grow ruddy at the first touch of spring, yet remain small and are easily blown off by the wind. The remainder stay on the tree and ripen in summer from June onwards. These latter are c. the first-ripe figs, much sought after for their freshness and delicious flavour. This would mean that a healthy tree bore fruit for about ten months, and Jesus apparently expected to find green figs on the tree he cursed (Mt. 21:18-22; Mk. 11:12-14, 20-24).

Does that clear it up?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i know this has no relevance to the current debate,
but i thhink it has relevance to life in general:

by His Holiness, The Dalai Lama Religion is a food for the mind, and as we all have different tastes, we must take that which is most suitable for us

and also:

by His Holiness, The Dalai Lama No one religion is appropriate for all types of people. Just as Buddhism is not best for everyone, Christianity is not appropriate for all types of disposition.

[Mercutio]

I believe that there is only one, true religion (Christianity). How can one say they have the truth, but everybody else with different views/ideas/personalities does too?

(Loosely remembered)

I [Jesus] am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can get to the Father except through me.

Do you, as a Buddhist, believe that you aren't the only reliously correct people out there? Or that not everyone is "suited" to Buddhism, the one true religion?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Fig, Fig-tree

This would mean that a healthy tree bore fruit for about ten months, and Jesus apparently expected to find green figs on the tree he cursed (Mt. 21:18-22; Mk. 11:12-14, 20-24).

Does that clear it up?

Yes- it clears up that the author of Mark didn't know any more than me about figs

It still doesn't clear up the image of someone who kills trees he passes by because they don't have fruit when he happens to be hungry.

As for the (minor) discrepancy

Matthew21 : 18 Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry.
19 Seeing a lone (2) fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you." And at once the fig tree withered.
20 Seeing this, the disciples were amazed and asked, "How did the fig tree wither all at once?"
21 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, (3) if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.
22 "And (4) all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

Mark 11: 12 On the next day, when they had left Bethany, He became hungry.
13 Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.
14 He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" And His disciples were listening.

(the next day)
20 (16) As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up.
21 Being reminded, Peter said to Him, "(17) Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered."
22 And Jesus answered saying to them, "(18) Have faith in God.
23 "(19) Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.

When did the disciples notice the withered fig tree, and when did Jesus give his teaching?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Finrod Felagund
Matthew was written by Matthew the Tax Collector, Jesus disciple.

Mark was written by John Mark, who is mentioned in Acts and some of Pauls letters. He could very well have been present for much of what he has written. Jesus was followed by more than just the 12, and often had large crowds following him. Mark's mother Mary was an fairly wealthy and influential follower of Jesus who often allowed Jesus, and later the early church, to use her house.

John was a disciple. Therefore eyewitness.

Luke was a doctor who likely gfathered facts from eyewitnesses, judging from the birth account, he spoke with Mary as well.

Those are the traditionally given authors; most modern scholars adhere to the 'Mark plus Q' theory.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I wish you'd say this about the more important parts of scripture *pensive smiley* ... I'm willing to discuss anything with you, if you're interested.

Maybe one of these days...

Really, I'm not particularly interested in these minor details- I gave up on that kind of criticism when I was about fifteen.

The donkey/colt thing was in response to the claim of Jesus's fulfilling so many OT prophecies as proof of his being the foretold Messiah, and just mentioned in passing.

There are some more important ones- like a timeline of Jesus's birth and early years that fits both Luke and Matthew- but again, these are of importance only if you insist on Biblical inerrancy.

My rejection of the truth-claims of Christianity are much broader

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I believe that there is only one, true religion (Christianity). How can one say they have the truth, but everybody else with different views/ideas/personalities does too?

(Loosely remembered)

I [Jesus] am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can get to the Father except through me.

Do you, as a Buddhist, believe that you aren't the only reliously correct people out there? Or that not everyone is "suited" to Buddhism, the one true religion?

if you had read my post correctly,
you would have realised that i was
not suggesting Buddhism was the
ONE TRUE RELIGION ,
but that if someone has religion, and they believe
it is true, then that is the religion for them.

BTW as buddhists do not have any form of god,
your passage makes no sense as a valid
arguement, sorry

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been a bit hypocritical throughout history. They denounced gambling (the story of Jesus throwing out the merchants in the temple) but they sold indulgences. Also, due to persecution they've also been prone to being defensive and could consider anyone who doesn't believe in God unable to perform/see miracles. Just an idea though, I'm not very informed on the subject.

The Catholic Church has never, to the best of my knowledge, denied that miracles were possible outside of Christianity; if you mean by atheists ("don't believe in God"), I don't know about that either; but as the great majority of atheists (to the best of my knowledge) are materialists, it's easy to think that.

Originally posted by Mercutio
Secondly, the church did sell indulgences during at least part of the 1500s. The reformation, begun by Martin Luther, was to try to not break away from but fix the problems in the Catholic Church. The pope refused to cooperate, continually excommunicating Luther. Eventually he and some other of the reformers, such as John Calvin, broke away from the church because they (the church) refused to change. One of the problems they had found with the Catholic church was the selling of indulgences (you would pay money for salvation/to get your relative out of purgery). HOWEVER-- The Catholic church did realize it was wrong on this point and stopped the practice. We are all human and no matter what our religion we can make mistakes and botch it up a little. The important thing is that they don't do it anymore.

Correction: Indulgences have/had nothing to do with salvation, only with purgatory.

Last Child: That actually is not correct, I think; some Buddhists have no form of God, but I believe that some Buddhists do.

Signing out,
Gwai

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Last Child: That actually is not correct, I think; some Buddhists have no form of God, but I believe that some Buddhists do.

i, as a buddhits, have no god.
the buddhist religion does not state there is a god.
i did not say every buddhist is atheist,
i was making a quick generalisation, based on my part,
in order to show why mercutio's arguement has no
power to me.
sorry if i didn't make that clearer

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Okie-doke.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
if you had read my post correctly,
you would have realised that i was
not suggesting Buddhism was the
ONE TRUE RELIGION ,
but that if someone has religion, and they believe
it is true, then that is the religion for them.

BTW as buddhists do not have any form of god,
your passage makes no sense as a valid
arguement, sorry

Sorry. My mistake.

My passage was just showing how, as a Christian, I believe there is only one true way, and therefore this "correct" (in my opinion) religion should "suit" everyone.

Do you think there is only one true religion, or not? I can't really tell.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
It still doesn't clear up the image of someone who kills trees he passes by because they don't have fruit when he happens to be hungry.

I repeat:

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 (We've gone through that argument--fruit before 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.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

no, there is no such thing as
One True Religion
as we are all different, and i
believe that people will determine
for themselves what the right
religion for them is.

to quote someone (can't remember who):

There is infinite possibility in infinite diversity. It is this diversity that makes the Human Race unique amongst our fellow inhabitants of this planet.