“The Son is equal to his Father”

[Soapy]

They are right, actually. Jesus sinned twice. He killed with wrath a plant for no reason except because it didn't have fruits to eat, when it was not in season. Why didn't he make a miracle?

Matthew 21:18-19 "In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once."

Mark 11:13 says "When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs."

That goes to show that not only he was not omniscient, but he appeared ignorant of the fact the fig trees do not have fruits in spring. It also shows that the Bible is not the word of God. No God would have inspired people to write these things.

It’s allegorical in its presentation:

1. Could be that this fig tree represented those of humanity who do not produce ‘fruit’ of Godliness when called upon to do so
2. Could be Jesus was ‘playing God’ and the fig tree should have produced fruit ‘instantly’ as ‘God’ passed by………..!!!

But, yeah, I wouldn’t claim that against Jesus as it sounds to me like a Trinity inserted claim to make out that Jesus WAS GOD (2). But note that the verse says ‘MAY NO FRUIT come from you…!’ which is a DESIRE rather than a COMMAND… just as the Angel Gabriel i, disputing with Satan over the body of Moses, said to Satan: ‘MAY GOD curse you…!’

Good going with you against the upholding of the trinity fallacy, though (Condemn the Act, not the person. They are held, hopefully UNWILLINGLY, under the spell of devilry!!)

 

[Ajax]

It’s allegorical in its presentation:

Whether it's allegorical or not, the fact remains that he killed a plant out of anger/wrath, for no reason whatsoever.

And what about the 2000 pigs he drowned in the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39)?

Nobody talks about these killings.

 

[Trailblazer]

Whether it's allegorical or not, the fact remains that he killed a plant out of anger/wrath, for no reason whatsoever.

And what about the 2000 pigs he drowned in the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39)?

Nobody talks about these killings.

But if it is allegorical that means it is not a fact, it is an allegory.

 

[Ajax]

But if it is allegorical that means it is not a fact, it is an allegory.

No, the story is supposed to be true; theologians claim though it was done as an allegory for the disciples to understand that people who do not follow God are useless. That's even worse.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, the story is supposed to be true;

How do you know the story is supposed to be true?
Even if it was 'supposed to be true', that does not mean it is true.

theologians claim though it was done as an allegory for the disciples to understand that people who do not follow God are useless. That's even worse.

If that's the case then it is a bad allegory.
People who do not follow God are not useless because a measure of a good person is not whether they follow God or not.

 

[Ajax]

How do you know the story is supposed to be true?
Even if it was 'supposed to be true', that does not mean it is true.

Well the story is not a parable. It describes how Jesus and the disciples were returning to the city, so it's not allegory. I said "supposed" because I'm cautious about what is written in the gospels.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well the story is not a parable. It describes how Jesus and the disciples were returning to the city, so it's not allegory. I said "supposed" because I'm cautious about what is written in the gospels.

I did not know that. Obviously you are more familiar with the Bible than I am. I was never a Christian so I never read the Bible cover to cover.

I never had any interest in the Bible. I only know certain chapters and verses that I have looked up while conversing with Christians on forums.

 

[Soapy]

But if it is allegorical that means it is not a fact, it is an allegory.

I was just going to say the same thing to Ajax.

 

[Soapy]

No, the story is supposed to be true; theologians claim though it was done as an allegory for the disciples to understand that people who do not follow God are useless. That's even worse.

The pigs were contaminated by evil spirits
so it’s better that they therefore were destroyed. It wasn’t cruel. The pigs had gone rampaging mad.

 

[YoursTrue]

Whether it's allegorical or not, the fact remains that he killed a plant out of anger/wrath, for no reason whatsoever.

And what about the 2000 pigs he drowned in the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39)?

Nobody talks about these killings.

Thank you for bringing this up. Do you feel that when a plant is destroyed because perhaps of fire set by humans as one example, or animals killed because of circumstances such as fire, flooding, or meat packers, would you say that is a bad thing?

 

[Ebionite]

and where the name YHWH was in fact known to Abram.

ויאמר אברם אדני יהוה מה תתן לי ואנכי הולך ערירי ובן משק ביתי הוא דמשק אליעזר

And Abram said, Lord YHWH, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house [is] this Eliezer of Damascus?
Genesis 15:2

 

[Ajax]

I was just going to say the same thing to Ajax.

An allegory is an extended metaphor where objects, persons, and actions in a narrative are equated with meanings outside of the narrative.
The narrative can be true or fictional. The gospel writers used many stories as allegories and claimed they are true.

 

[Ajax]

The pigs were contaminated by evil spirits
so it’s better that they therefore were destroyed. It wasn’t cruel. The pigs had gone rampaging mad.

No, it was Jesus who made the evil spirits come out of the man and enter the pigs. Couldn't he destroy the evil spirits or send them back to hell without killing 2000 pigs?

 

[Ajax]

Thank you for bringing this up. Do you feel that when a plant is destroyed because perhaps of fire set by humans as one example, or animals killed because of circumstances such as fire, flooding, or meat packers, would you say that is a bad thing?

Completely different circumstances. What you describe is accidents. As for meat packers is done for a reason which is food, although many people are against slaughtering animals even for food. On the other hand Jesus sent the evils spirits to pigs without any reason.
I don't believe in evil spirits and for me the story is ridiculous, but goes to show how people were thinking in the old times. They found the story very normal that the Creator killed 2000 of his creations just because he didn't bother to think of another way to evict or destroy the evils spirits. An eternal "God" though, should not and would not think like that..

 

[Soapy]

No, it was Jesus who made the evil spirits come out of the man and enter the pigs. Couldn't he destroy the evil spirits or send them back to hell without killing 2000 pigs?

No!

Would you prefer that Jesus ‘destroyed’ the man? The demons BEGGED Jesus to ALLOW THEM AT LEAST to enter the pigs. PIGS are ‘dirty’ animals in the eyes of Jewish people (Recall the lowest point in the life of the Prodigal Son!) so there was nothing wrong with Jesus complying with the request.

No one - even demon Angels - are DESTROYED until they have been judged AT THE END OF TIME AT THE JUDGEMENT SEAT.

 

[Soapy]

An allegory is an extended metaphor where objects, persons, and actions in a narrative are equated with meanings outside of the narrative.
The narrative can be true or fictional. The gospel writers used many stories as allegories and claimed they are true.

So why are you arguing with what’s been said to you in simplicity:

• ‘Those who do not produce fruit and good fruit, at that… will be cut down and destroyed’
• A football player who consistently participates badly in the game will be removed from the team and may never play again (Career DESTROYED!)
• Every vine that does not produce fruit will be torn down and burnt on the fire (Destroyed)

I don’t understand what your argument is?

 

[Sargonski]

ויאמר אברם אדני יהוה מה תתן לי ואנכי הולך ערירי ובן משק ביתי הוא דמשק אליעזר

And Abram said, Lord YHWH, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house [is] this Eliezer of Damascus?
Genesis 15:2

No Mate .. Abram didn't say that .. Later writers and textual editors after 500 BC put Lord YHWH in for the word God by convention. Surely you are familiar with the documentary hypothesis ?

What part of “I am YHWH [e] 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as[f] El Shaddai,[g] but by my name YHWH[h] I was not known to them". did you not understand ?

Here is the passage you claim is mistranslated -- there is no rhetorical question .. Exodus 6:2

“I am YHWH [e] 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as[f] El Shaddai,[g] but by my name YHWH[h] I was not known to them.

Clearly the confusion is yours Ebionite ? If the above New English Translation is a mistranslation .. please give us the correct translation .. the one with the rhetorical question ? and where the name YHWH was in fact known to Abram.

Where is the mistranslation and what is the correct translation - and where is the rhetorical question ? put up or withdraw your claim and concede that the Patriarchs did not know the name YHWH. That is what the Bible tells us - and that is the concencus of Academic Biblical scholars and Thologians who will tell you that the God of Abraham was "EL Shaddai" an epiphet for the Canaanite most high God El Elyon, known as God of the Patriarchs - Creator - God Who lives in a tent on the mountain - El Oliun "The Supreme one" and the name of the Cannanite High God .. who had all these epiphets is EL -- Everyone in the land of Canaan at the time knows this .. the Israelites knew this .. and everyone else .. this was Religion 101 in the ancient world.

So .. despite your inability to understand this very clear statement from YHWH "By my name YHWH I was not known to them" - Thats how Theologians and modern Biblical Scholars understand this easy to understands passage. Contrary to your imagination YHWH is not asking a question .. never-mind a rhetorical one .. YHWH is making a statement .. telling us that Abe and the rest of the Patriarchs did not know their God by the name YHWH .. meaning they knew God by a different name.. and this my young apprentice is your quest .. to figure out the name of Abraham's God is .. Hint .. read previous

Now tell me about MelChi-Zedek . and the Patron God of Jerusalem when Abe and This Canaanite Priest King had their ritual celebration with bread and wine. and .. if Jesus is a Priest forever in the Order of Melchi-Zedek .. then who would be the God of Jesus ? Hint .. another of El's Epiphets is "Father" !

 

[Ajax]

Would you prefer that Jesus ‘destroyed’ the man? The demons BEGGED Jesus to ALLOW THEM AT LEAST to enter the pigs. PIGS are ‘dirty’ animals in the eyes of Jewish people (Recall the lowest point in the life of the Prodigal Son!) so there was nothing wrong with Jesus complying with the request.

No one - even demon Angels - are DESTROYED until they have been judged AT THE END OF TIME AT THE JUDGEMENT SEAT.

I beg to differ. Exorcism (from Ancient Greek εξορκισμός (exorkismós) in Christianity, is the religious or spiritual practice of evicting demons, or other malevolent spiritual entities from a person, or an area, that is believed to be possessed. Not to have them taken from one person and be moved to other creatures. This is absurd.

 

[Ajax]

So why are you arguing with what’s been said to you in simplicity:

• ‘Those who do not produce fruit and good fruit, at that… will be cut down and destroyed’
• A football player who consistently participates badly in the game will be removed from the team and may never play again (Career DESTROYED!)
• Every vine that does not produce fruit will be torn down and burnt on the fire (Destroyed)

I don’t understand what your argument is?

Try to read Mark 11:13...
My argument is that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the fig tree. The gospel of Mark writes that the fig tree did not have figs because simply it was not in season!!!! It was spring at the time, just before the Passover. Also there are "male" fig trees which do not produce fruits., but are needed.
The two gospels make Jesus look completely ignorant and kill a tree for no reason whatsoever. Don't you think Jesus should have known better? After all he was supposed to be the fig tree creator....

 

[YoursTrue]

Completely different circumstances. What you describe is accidents. As for meat packers is done for a reason which is food, although many people are against slaughtering animals even for food. On the other hand Jesus sent the evils spirits to pigs without any reason.
I don't believe in evil spirits and for me the story is ridiculous, but goes to show how people were thinking in the old times. They found the story very normal that the Creator killed 2000 of his creations just because he didn't bother to think of another way to evict or destroy the evils spirits. An eternal "God" though, should not and would not think like that..

Well, let's see -- according to evolution theory, everything dies anyway, doesn't it? That's your problem, isn't it--that you think Jesus should not have used the tree as an example? And that all those pigs were prompted by wicked spirits, I suppose you think that when a vicious dog kills a child or adult, that's just the way things are? But when a bomb drops or people are killed in war, that's ok by you??