|
Author
|
Topic: A question that was first presented by Socrates.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Nighttrain responds to me:
quote:
Well, if you follow Barbara Thiering`s explanation of the pesher technique, the fig tree was the emblem of the Zealots
That raises the problem that if something as concrete as a fig tree is not actually a fig tree but is simply a symbol for something and shouldn't be taken literally, what does that say about Jesus? The problem with saying that everything that is "problematic" in the Bible is really just a symbol is that it results in everything being a symbol, Jesus was just a concept, and the Bible becomes a collection of morality tales. That is useful (after all, Jesus uses the parable in order to make moralistic points), but none of us claim that parables actually happened and are evidence of divine providence.
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by Nighttrain, posted 09-27-2004 4:30 AM | | Nighttrain has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 77 of 314 (145658)
09-29-2004 1:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by Rrhain
09-29-2004 5:22 AM
|
|
The fig tree incident is an excellent visual aid.
"While there were occasional periods of spiritual revival among the Hebrews (as in the days of Josiah, a good king - see 2 Kgs. 22-23), the tragic fact is, the nation was on a gradual, degenerative slide — a path of apostasy that would culminate with the blood-thirsty cry, Crucify him! Crucify him! (Lk. 23:21). The Jewish people, through the influence they exerted upon the Roman authorities (see Mt. 20:19; Acts 2:23), had Jesus killed. They murdered the very Messiah for whom they had waited across the centuries (see Mt. 21:33ff). Though they had enjoyed every conceivable spiritual advantage, they had become, for the most part, an utterly renegade nation. In the symbolism of the Scriptures, a fruitless, withered tree was worthy of nothing more than being cut down (cf. Psa. 90:6; Hos. 9:16). Withering was a symbol of imminent death (Joel 1:12). In the blasting of this fruitless fig tree, the Son of God was suggesting this:
- 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.
- 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).
- The punishment would be complete and final; the tree would be dead from the very roots (Mk. 11:20).*"
Wayne Jackson, Christiancourier.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2004 5:22 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 80 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2004 9:40 AM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 78 of 314 (145660)
09-29-2004 1:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by Rrhain
09-26-2004 8:30 PM
|
|
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes: "Why do you think he made a covenant with Noah after the flood never to flood the earth again? Because he made a mistake. He did something wrong. In fact, the entire reason that god flooded the world was because he realized he made a mistake: Genesis 6:6: And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Why would god repent if he hadn't sinned?" The phrase "it repented the LORD" as used in this context conveys the idea that he regretted making man on the earth. Genesis 6:12 says:
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." You are interpreting man's decisions to be God's mistake?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by Rrhain, posted 09-26-2004 8:30 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2004 9:43 AM | | dpardo has replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 79 of 314 (145667)
09-29-2004 1:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
09-26-2004 12:32 AM
|
|
Rrhain writes: "In fact, if you read the creation stories of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, you can see a shift in the personality of god. In Gen 1, god is perfect, makes no mistakes, and everything is good. But in Gen 2, god is continually backing up and correcting for things that were done incompletely and incorrectly. For the first time, we hear god say, "It is not good" (in reference to man being alone). Why is man alone if it is not good? Wouldn't god always do good? After all, in Gen 1, god had the sense to create male and female together at the same time." I'm not sure if you are of the opinion that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give conflicting accounts of God's creation of Adam and Eve. I sense that from your statement above. If I am wrong, I apologize. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not conflict. Genesis 1 simply states that they were created. Genesis 2 gives the details of their creation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 09-26-2004 12:32 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2004 9:50 AM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 80 of 314 (145951)
09-30-2004 9:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by dpardo
09-29-2004 1:17 PM
|
|
dpardo responds to me:
quote:
The fig tree incident is an excellent visual aid.
That doesn't answer the question, though. If the fig tree is a visual aid, perhaps Jesus is, too. Jesus points out that the seed the sower sows isn't really seed but is a metaphor for faith. But that also means the sower isn't really a sower, either, but is a metaphorical device. So if the fig tree is a metaphorical device, why isn't Jesus? And your response doesn't go to the deeper question that has been raised: Wouldn't the better option have been to make the tree blossom and bear fruit? After all, the tree was alive and healthy. The only "sin" it had performed was having the temerity not to bear fruit out of season. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that the nation "had become a worthless mechanism" because that isn't the right timeline. The fig tree was fine until Jesus came along and withered it. If the political entity became worthless, it is because Jesus made it so.
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by dpardo, posted 09-29-2004 1:17 PM | | dpardo has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 220 by riVeRraT, posted 10-25-2004 10:51 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 81 of 314 (145952)
09-30-2004 9:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by dpardo
09-29-2004 1:31 PM
|
|
dpardo responds to me:
quote:
The phrase "it repented the LORD" as used in this context conveys the idea that he regretted making man on the earth.
Indeed. You can't have regrets unless you made a mistake. That's my point: God makes mistakes. He directly admits it.
quote:
You are interpreting man's decisions to be God's mistake?
No, I am interpreting god's mistake to be god's mistake. God made man and could easily have made man to be better.
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by dpardo, posted 09-29-2004 1:31 PM | | dpardo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 10:55 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 82 of 314 (145956)
09-30-2004 9:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by dpardo
09-29-2004 1:39 PM
|
|
dpardo responds to me:
quote:
I'm not sure if you are of the opinion that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give conflicting accounts of God's creation of Adam and Eve.
Of course they do. The timeline is wrong. In Gen 1, the timeline is plants, animals, humans (male and female together at the same time). In Gen 2, the timeline is male human, plants, animals, female human. Since the timelines are different, it is obvious to all but the most casual observer that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not describing the same event. But since the creation of humans can only happen once, one of those timelines must be false. Ergo, Gen 1 and Gen 2 contradict each other.
quote:
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not conflict. Genesis 1 simply states that they were created. Genesis 2 gives the details of their creation.
Incorrect. Gen 1 gives the details of their creation, too: Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. But this is done after the plants were created on the third day and after the animals were created on the fifth and sixth days. The specific detail is that male humans show up after plants and animals. Gen 2, however, places the creation of the male human before plants and animals: Genesis 2:5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 2:6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. [...] Genesis 2:18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. So which is it? Do male humans come after the animals as Gen 1 specifically details or before as Gen 2 claims?
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by dpardo, posted 09-29-2004 1:39 PM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 83 of 314 (145978)
09-30-2004 10:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by Rrhain
09-30-2004 9:43 AM
|
|
Rrhain writes: "God made man and could easily have made man to be better." How so?
"So which is it? Do male humans come after the animals as Gen 1 specifically details or before as Gen 2 claims?" Genesis 1 gives the chronology of events. Genesis 2 gives the other details. The fact that Genesis 2 restates that things were created doesn't mean they are being created again.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2004 9:43 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 84 by jar, posted 09-30-2004 11:16 AM | | dpardo has not replied | | | Message 97 by Rrhain, posted 10-02-2004 6:35 AM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 84 of 314 (145985)
09-30-2004 11:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by dpardo
09-30-2004 10:55 AM
|
|
Genesis 1 gives the chronology of events. Genesis 2 gives the other details. The fact that Genesis 2 restates that things were created doesn't mean they are being created again. There are definitely two different tales told in Genesis 1&2. Not only are the orders different, the methods are different. It is not a case of things being created again, it is that the two descriptions are mutually exclusive. In one, everything is created from non-living matter, dirt. In the other, woman is cloned from an existing living critter, man. In one, male and female are created at one time and the number of each is unspecified. In the other, there is only one man and one woman and they are created at different times. In one, man and woman are created before the animals. In the other, man is created first, then all the animals, and finally the woman.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 10:55 AM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 85 of 314 (145986)
09-30-2004 11:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
09-30-2004 11:16 AM
|
|
Genesis is not the topic here.
Please get back on topic!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by jar, posted 09-30-2004 11:16 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 86 by jar, posted 09-30-2004 11:30 AM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 86 of 314 (145997)
09-30-2004 11:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by AdminNosy
09-30-2004 11:18 AM
|
|
Re: Genesis is not the topic here.
Okay Boss.  Mea Culpa.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by AdminNosy, posted 09-30-2004 11:18 AM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god commands it because it is good? Neither - it is a false dichotomy. God and goodness are not seperate things - God is the supreme good. He commands morals not because he is higher than goodness or goodness is higher than him, but because he does not contradict his own nature.
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Would you say, then, that if god commands someone to commit genocide that genocide is, then, good?
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November! Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
Would you say, then, that if god commands someone to commit genocide that genocide is, then, good? Yes.
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 90 by Amlodhi, posted 10-01-2004 11:40 AM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
Amlodhi
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Nazort Yes.
And if God commanded someone to kill your children, would you happily cooperate and consider it good? Or would it then become a matter of you deciding that God never really spoke to this person; based upon your own concepts of what is right or wrong. Amlodhi
|
™ Version 4.2