“The Son is equal to his Father”

[YoursTrue]

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.

Many crimes and violent behavior are attributed to those with mental illness, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

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....

Here is something you may want to consider in explanation of that action:
The account of Jesus and the barren fig tree is one of the more puzzling passages in the Bible According to Mark 11:12-14 and 20-24, when Jesus saw that fig tree with leaves but no fruit, he cursed it and, as a result, the tree withered. Yet, as Mark says, it wasn’t the season for figs. So why did Jesus curse this fig tree?
Not only do the facts justify Jesus’ actions, but they also reveal that Jesus was teaching a twofold lesson on faith. Perhaps we can see why.
While figs don’t usually mature until June, fruit buds usually appear on the branches of fig trees as early as February. It appears that buds occur two months before leaves appear on the branches in late April or early May. Therefore by the time a fig tree has its leaves, it should surely have figs. This helps us to appreciate that when Jesus saw this tree in late March, while it wasn’t the season for fig trees to have mature figs, it also wasn’t the season for fig trees to have leaves.
Of course there was a reason behind Jesus' actions, but I don't like to make long posts, therefore I may continue in further posts. Thank you.

 

[Ajax]

Well, let's see -- according to evolution theory, everything dies anyway, doesn't it?

Everything dies according to evolution theory only?
Do you know of any living creature that hasn't died? Gods don't count...

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?

According to me, one of the insignificant many trillion people who lived on earth, yes that's it...because they are accidents.
But for an eternal omnipotent, omniscient, loving God who directly killed or ordered to be killed millions in the Old Testament, should not be. He should know better because he had other less painful ways to choose. In fact not He, but the goat-herders who wrote the Bible and thought they knew Him.

But when a bomb drops or people are killed in war, that's ok by you??

No, it is not OK by me.

 

[Ajax]

Here is something you may want to consider in explanation of that action:
The account of Jesus and the barren fig tree is one of the more puzzling passages in the Bible According to Mark 11:12-14 and 20-24, when Jesus saw that fig tree with leaves but no fruit, he cursed it and, as a result, the tree withered. Yet, as Mark says, it wasn’t the season for figs. So why did Jesus curse this fig tree?
Not only do the facts justify Jesus’ actions, but they also reveal that Jesus was teaching a twofold lesson on faith. Perhaps we can see why.
While figs don’t usually mature until June, fruit buds usually appear on the branches of fig trees as early as February. It appears that buds occur two months before leaves appear on the branches in late April or early May. Therefore by the time a fig tree has its leaves, it should surely have figs. This helps us to appreciate that when Jesus saw this tree in late March, while it wasn’t the season for fig trees to have mature figs, it also wasn’t the season for fig trees to have leaves.
Of course there was a reason behind Jesus' actions, but I don't like to make long posts, therefore I may continue in further posts. Thank you.

I'm sorry but you have shown no facts justifying Jesus. Let's start with some real facts...

1) Fig trees take 4-6 years to produce fruits, so it could be a 4-5 year old tree.
2) Most fig trees produce a main crop of fruit in the summer to early fall. The exact timing can vary by region and climate but often falls between June and September in many parts of the world (Scientific References: Goldschmidt, E. E. (2019). Fig. In Handbook of Fruit Set and Development (pp. 375-394). CRC Press.).
3) It could be what is called a "male" fig tree which bears no fruits but is useful for reproduction.
4) Small inedible fig buds may appear in late April/May. If you eat them you will end up in hospital.
5) Jesus was looking for figs to eat and he found none. Nowhere it is written whether there were small inedible figs. Jesus was only looking for edible, ripe figs to eat in March, which is at least weird for the "creator" of fig trees.
Now, will you tell me what is the purpose of mosquitos that God created which keep biting me?
Thank you too.

P.S. Opposite my summer house I have a "male" fig tree.. I cut it down and poured strong chemicals on it countless times but every year it's "born again". I'm not perfect either.

 

[Ajax]

Many crimes and violent behavior are attributed to those with mental illness, right?

Not exactly but let's suppose yes somehow...and not only for crimes and violent behavior. All the so called demonized and in need of exorcism have mental illnesses..

 

[Ebionite]

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 ?

Bollocks. The documentary hypothesis isn't a credible explanation for the origin of the Pentateuch.

 

[Kenny]

OK… good points and clarity of understanding may help here.

What also has to be understood, is just what is the point you are making

@Kenny

1) Ajax wrote:
1 Cor 15:28 "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, so that God may be everything to every one."
Kenny replied:
I suppose that if we mine scriptures without context, you can make it say whatever you want to

28 (1) UBS 4th ed. places καί after τότε (before the Son himself) in square brackets. It is omitted by B, D*, F, G, 33, and the Vulgate, but included by א, A, D2, and Tertullian. This is finely balanced, and Westcott-Hort also place καί in brackets. If it is included, it may mean either then even the Son himself or then … the Son himself also (i.e., along with everything else). (2) Tertullian and Ambrosiaster omit ὁ υἱός and leave αὐτός as the subject of the verb, which is clearly secondary and probably theologically motivated.


The “little apocalyptic drama” of vv. 23–28 now reaches is its grand climax as Paul discloses the ultimate purpose of the salvific and eschatological “ordered” process. Christ the firstfruits of the harvest (v. 20) receives unlimited dominion, thereby fulfilling the destiny promised for humankind in Ps 8:6–7 (cf. also Ps 110:1). Nevertheless, not only does “unlimited” exclude God himself (v. 27b); this verse also forms “the frame” with v. 24 by linking when he hands over the rule to the One who is God and Father … (v. 24) with that God may be all in all. We have earlier discussed the relative emphasis which Paul places in this epistle on Christ and God who is Father (see above, e.g., on 3:23; 11:3; and 15:24). Hays observes, “It is impossible to avoid the impression that Paul is operating with what would later come to be called a subordinationist christology.”

Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text (pp. 1236–1237). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

So “subject” in the first case unto Christ is about taking dominion… in the second application it is about handing over all thing back unto God the Father

2) Ajax wrote:
What is the context in... when all things are subjected to God, then the Son himself will also be subjected to God?
Kenny replied:
The context is when The Word (Which was God) John 1 - emptied Himself of God attributes (Phil 2) - became man (john 1) to legally enter into this world (Gen 1) - to defeat death, hell and the grave and give authority back to man (Matt 28) - and in his human state - to receive back the glory that He once had as God (John 17:5) - and thus would be subject to the Father - as He is now the High Priest.

Answer would be correct for putting all things under his feet.

3) Ajax wrote:
So since Jesus fulfilled all these things and received back his glory, I suppose he is now subjected to God, right?
3) Kenny replied:
Subject? As if they aren’t one?

Sooooo

The application are two different application and the point stands if the context is “putting all things under the feet vs handing over the dominion back - if I understand what you are trying to say.

Do you have any problem understanding what I wrote?
Do you understand what Paul means by the Son being subjected to God?

Or you pretend that you don't understand?

Did that help?

You also quoted Mat 28 regarding authority... Jesus says..."“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." OK?

To which he then said “Go…"

But "John", 25 years after Matthew's gospel writes "“Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out.” (John 12:31) " He will be...meaning Satan still is ruler.. so who had authority when the John(s) wrote their gospel?

To you understand the timeline?

And Paul some 15-20 years after Jesus death acknowledges that "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe the Gospel.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Yes he is… every time man gives him authority, he is still the god of this world

Do you see any slight contradiction there? I suppose no, right?

Correct

Who cares who is the ruler and who has authority...

To some, apparently… not in the least.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm sorry but you have shown no facts justifying Jesus. Let's start with some real facts...

1) Fig trees take 4-6 years to produce fruits, so it could be a 4-5 year old tree.
2) Most fig trees produce a main crop of fruit in the summer to early fall. The exact timing can vary by region and climate but often falls between June and September in many parts of the world (Scientific References: Goldschmidt, E. E. (2019). Fig. In Handbook of Fruit Set and Development (pp. 375-394). CRC Press.).
3) It could be what is called a "male" fig tree which bears no fruits but is useful for reproduction.
4) Small inedible fig buds may appear in late April/May. If you eat them you will end up in hospital.
5) Jesus was looking for figs to eat and he found none. Nowhere it is written whether there were small inedible figs. Jesus was only looking for edible, ripe figs to eat in March, which is at least weird for the "creator" of fig trees.
Now, will you tell me what is the purpose of mosquitos that God created which keep biting me?
Thank you too.

P.S. Opposite my summer house I have a "male" fig tree.. I cut it down and poured strong chemicals on it countless times but every year it's "born again". I'm not perfect either.

What Jesus did was not cruel insofar as I see cruelty. You think it was, but anyway, let's go over some facts about fig trees.
Figs can ripen at various times during a warm season. And so when Jesus did not find figs on the branches, he used it as an illustration. I believe all plants wither and die eventually anyway. I can't tell you the purpose of mosquitos and if there is no good purpose, they will eventually be gone, thanks to God. There's a lot to learn.
Back to fig trees and Jesus cursing that one. Mark 11 goes on in part about this:

"As they were walking back in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from its roots. 21Peter remembered it and said, “Look, Rabbi! The fig tree You cursed has withered.” 22“Have faith in God,” Jesus said to them. 23“Truly I tell you that if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and has no doubt in his heart but believes that it will happen, it will be done for him. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand to pray, if you hold anything against another, forgive it, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your trespasses as well.”

How do you feel about that?

 

[Sargonski]

Bollocks. The documentary hypothesis isn't a credible explanation for the origin of the Pentateuch.

no one said it was .. but it is a credible explanation for why YHWH was substituted for the word God when the text was created. What is not "Credible" .. in serious circles .. is that Moses wrote the firsts 5 books .. expecially Genesis ..parts of which were written .. myths and folklore that was in existence thousands of years prior to Moses putting pen to paper - or sorry .. what every you call the stylists used for making cunieniform impressions.

Regardless - none of the above navel gazing has anything to do with your inability to support your claim .. and provide us with what you think is the proper translation for the passage -

Here is the passage you claim is mistranslated and contains a 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.

Tell us what is Bollocks now ? where is your translation of this passage which contains a rhetorical question .. and where YHWH was known to the Patriarchs by his name YHWH.

What part of .. Abraham did not worship the God named YHWH .. do you not understand ? .. and in terms of credible scholarship .. of the non Bullocks variety .. what part of --- It is now generally recognized that EL was the God of Abraham --- are you not understanding ? Theology is beyond that .. and into reconciliation with Doctrine - Understanding God -- "The God" of the Bible as being a fusion of the traits of "The Supreme One" and YHWH .. and a variety of other complicated scenarios.. none of which matters to the fact that The Bible - Biblical Archaeology - History - Religious History .. tell us that EL was the "Most High" God. There was no YHWH -as the Most High God .. to Abe or any of the peoples around Abe that we have ever encountered.. and this is not about an argument from ignorance .. because we know what God's they did believe in .. thousands of them .. on the lower elevation but at the top of the Food Chain .. Everyone believed at the Time of Abe that EL - or some derivation of EL -- Enlil over in Babylon .. Ellil in other places ..

El was the Chief God on Earth -- This the story Abe was Brought up with .. and the story he believed. .. What Abe dispensed with was the worship of other Gods.. meaning God's other than the "Most High" El Elyon - "The Supreme One" EL Oliun - High God/Mountain God - EL Shaddai .. EL was known as the God who lived top of a mountain in a Tent .. EL Shaddai according to Canaanite religious belief .. and well .. Abe came into the land of Canaan.. the Most High El Shaddai having proceeded him .. having already set up a Priesthood in Jersusalem .. Salem - City of Peace.

Jerusalem was a very small city at this point .. way way up in the hills ... more of a fortified Holy Place .. a Holy city of the Canaanites who's Patron God was Zedek .. a twin God befitting the city of Peace .. these twins the Gods of Justice and Righteousness.

These twin Gods would have a seats at the Table of the Divine Council .. adjunct EL -- head of the divine council .. that we find in Psalm 82 - and in every other Nation's religion. This structure believed by every nation at the time .. not unique to the for-fathers of the Israelits .. EL was also known as "God of the Patriarchs" "Father" - "Creator" ... it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to Recognize EL in his Son YHWH. Told us in Psalm 82 - Deuteronomy 3:8 (proper translation = something older than MT - Masoretic Text - the Other divinities Removed Edition)

Psalm 82 you can read as is in good modern Translation with footnotes .. New English Translation for example Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 82 - New English Translation

YHWH stands in[b] the assembly of El;[c] in the midst of the gods[d] he renders judgment.

YHWH is standing in the midst of the Divine Council of EL - and in the midst of the Gods.

Hello .. Ebionite .. Hello .. ? Let us not cherry pick this part of the post out .. the part where you explain what YHWH and EL are doing together in the same room .. and who all these other Gods are.

Oh .. but wait .. we have a footnote to help you Ebionite -- The psalmist pictures God standing in the “assembly of El” where he accuses the “gods” of failing to promote justice on earth.

EL .. was the Most High God of the Patriarchs .. Now the Priest-Kings of the day would name themselves after the Patron God of the City .. or some related Most High God of the City .. and things were no different in Jerusalem .. Holy City of Peace .. where God Most High had gone long before Abraham and set up a Priestly Order .. an order that later was recognized as the Order of Melchi-Zedek

This Priestly order is still around in Jerusalem 800 years later when David takes over .. the King at the time named Adoni-Zedek "my God is Zedek". The Jebusite High priest of the time .. was kept on by David .. becoming the High Priest over all Israel .. the Priest who annoints the head of the Great King Solomon

Thus when Abe and Melchi-Zedek give praises to "El Oliun" - EL Supreme - the name of the God they are worshiping is EL -- Enlil from way back in UR .. Same Semetic Most High God .. Chief God over the Earth at the time.

We see this same epithet "EL Oliun" = EL Supreme -- God Supreme .. in Psalm 82 .. when YHWH refers to these other Gods he is battling as "Sons of the Supreme one" Sons of El Oliun"

The Big problem here friend --- is that if you say that YHWH is EL .. then this means that the "Sons of the Supreme one" are then Son's of YHWH . and that completely doesn't work .. a discussion you can read at the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures .. in case the Bullocks is not working out for you ! El as the Speaking Voice in Psalm 82:6-8

 

[Ajax]

28 (1) UBS 4th ed. places καί after τότε (before the Son himself) in square brackets. It is omitted by B, D*, F, G, 33, and the Vulgate, but included by א, A, D2, and Tertullian. This is finely balanced, and Westcott-Hort also place καί in brackets. If it is included, it may mean either then even the Son himself or then … the Son himself also (i.e., along with everything else). (2) Tertullian and Ambrosiaster omit ὁ υἱός and leave αὐτός as the subject of the verb, which is clearly secondary and probably theologically motivated.

Let's start from the beginning...I quoted you this verse to show that Paul writes that Jesus is inferior to God the Father.
I actually read and write Greek, so I use no translation for the NT, which was written in Greek.
The verse reads in Greek as follows...
"28 ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, ἵνα ᾖ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν."
The verb used is "υποτάσσομαι" (ypotassomai) meaning literally "submit" and the translation of the verse in English is "When all things are subjected (submitted) to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected (submitted) to him who put all things under him, so that God may be everything to every one." This is what this verse clearly says.

The “little apocalyptic drama” of vv. 23–28 now reaches is its grand climax as Paul discloses the ultimate purpose of the salvific and eschatological “ordered” process. Christ the firstfruits of the harvest (v. 20) receives unlimited dominion, thereby fulfilling the destiny promised for humankind in Ps 8:6–7 (cf. also Ps 110:1). Nevertheless, not only does “unlimited” exclude God himself (v. 27b); this verse also forms “the frame” with v. 24 by linking when he hands over the rule to the One who is God and Father … (v. 24) with that God may be all in all. We have earlier discussed the relative emphasis which Paul places in this epistle on Christ and God who is Father (see above, e.g., on 3:23; 11:3; and 15:24). Hays observes, “It is impossible to avoid the impression that Paul is operating with what would later come to be called a subordinationist christology.”

Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text (pp. 1236–1237). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

So “subject” in the first case unto Christ is about taking dominion… in the second application it is about handing over all thing back unto God the Father

Personally, I'm not interested in what Thiselton writes. Paul was writing to his followers at a time when most people were illiterate. A biblical text is to be deciphered according to the plain meaning expressed by its linguistic construction and historical context. The whole meaning of the verses 24-28 is that Jesus, yes, he will return back the authority given to him by God the Father (when the specified conditions are met) and then he will submit to Him. Jesus has an authority with an expiry date according to Paul, therefore he is inferior to God the Father in any case.

Yes he is… every time man gives him (Satan) authority, he is still the god of this world

Not a clever answer.. Do you try to avoid it?
Every time man gives him authority? Really?
Did Job give him authority, or did Satan ask authority from God to test/punish Job?
Did Simon give him authority, or did Satan ask authority from Jesus to sift Simon like wheat?

To which he then said “Go…"....To you understand the timeline?

???
I will make it clearer...Jesus said that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.". This claim means that from that particular moment Jesus declares that he is the ruler of the world.
Two authors of the Bible though wrote well after Jesus' death and resurrection, that ruler of the world is Satan. Who is right? Jesus or the authors?
Did Jesus loose his authority after his death? You can not have two rulers of the world.

 

[Ajax]

What Jesus did was not cruel insofar as I see cruelty. You think it was, but anyway, let's go over some facts about fig trees.
Figs can ripen at various times during a warm season. And so when Jesus did not find figs on the branches, he used it as an illustration. I believe all plants wither and die eventually anyway. I can't tell you the purpose of mosquitos and if there is no good purpose, they will eventually be gone, thanks to God. There's a lot to learn.
Back to fig trees and Jesus cursing that one. Mark 11 goes on in part about this:

"As they were walking back in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from its roots. 21Peter remembered it and said, “Look, Rabbi! The fig tree You cursed has withered.” 22“Have faith in God,” Jesus said to them. 23“Truly I tell you that if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and has no doubt in his heart but believes that it will happen, it will be done for him. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand to pray, if you hold anything against another, forgive it, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your trespasses as well.”

How do you feel about that?

I beg to differ...
Generally speaking, ready to eat figs in no way appear in March. I have read all these apologetic excuses. Just ask yourself one simple question.
How could Mark know that March is not the season for figs in Israel? The answer is obviously that he had never seen edible figs in spring. And how is it possible that the all-knowing Jesus didn't know? I will give them the benefit of the doubt and conclude that this story never really happened. Thank you.

 

[Ebionite]

no one said it was

If it's not credible then bringing it up as an explanation is pointless.

 

[YoursTrue]

I beg to differ...
Generally speaking, ready to eat figs in no way appear in March. I have read all these apologetic excuses. Just ask yourself one simple question.
How could Mark know that March is not the season for figs in Israel? The answer is obviously that he had never seen edible figs in spring. And how is it possible that the all-knowing Jesus didn't know? I will give them the benefit of the doubt and conclude that this story never really happened. Thank you.

There are varying opinions about fig trees and their produce. I've looked at this before and realize there is a far greater meaning than simply cursing a fig tree.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Ajax Remember Jesus' reply to Peter:
"Have faith in God,” Jesus said to them. 23Truly I tell you that if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and has no doubt in his heart but believes that it will happen, it will be done for him. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand to pray, if you hold anything against another, forgive it, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your trespasses as well.”

Obviously we cannot literally move mountains, so that miracle Jesus caused the fig tree by its withering was indicative of further truth and faith. And a very important one about forgiving others even though it seems unlikely.

 

[Ajax]

There are varying opinions about fig trees and their produce. I've looked at this before and realize there is a far greater meaning than simply cursing a fig tree.

I should rephrase my first sentence...Generally speaking, ready to eat figs in no way appear in March ...in northern hemisphere.
It doesn't matter what you or me have read about fig trees and if they blossom earlier or later in various places. They are irrelevant because here we have the "local" guy who knows obviously from experience, that fig trees are not in season in March in Israel. And despite wanting to present Jesus as Son of God teaching God's word and performing miracles, he tells the truth, thus presenting Jesus unwillingly, as ignorant.
Have a nice day!

 

[Bthoth]

What commandments ?

There is the initial 10 (exodus, duet)

Then per jesus mark 10: 17-19, Luke 18.

There is a difference, but few notice the purpose.

The Constitution of the Mosaic Law for ancient Israel ended with Christ - Romans 10:4 ; 7:6

Letters between churches (romans) are not gospel, nor applicable.

Jesus fulfilled the old law - Matt. 5:17; Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14

OK.. And jesus confirmed that keeping the commandments is the best choice.

Jesus gave us a replacing NEW commandment found at John 13:34-35; 15:12

NEw? Everyone has a NEW. Personal responsibility, is about universal!

We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.

Great, It's hard to even live in a civil society without keeping the basic rules (commandments)

Jesus loved others MORE than the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18

Golden rule, has existed in many cultures. Glad to see that you like it.

So, we are now to love neighbor MORE than self, more than the Golden Rule.

Not sure how to observe that.

Either way, the person must maintain personal responsibility.

This is why Jesus instructed to do as he did and tell others about God's Kingdom - Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8

OK........ Follow the rules!

Basic common sense, for any civil person.

 

[Ajax]

Obviously we cannot literally move mountains, so that miracle Jesus caused the fig tree by its withering was indicative of further truth and faith. And a very important one about forgiving others even though it seems unlikely.

Yes, I know what the message supposedly is. Mark has Jesus use the image of the fig tree to make plain that, since Jerusalem did not produce the fruits needed by God, will fall and the Jewish nation be brought to an end before their generation passes away. And everybody thought that Jesus was prophesying the future.
That is why I wrote to you that this story (fig tree) probably never happened.
You see Mark and Matthew were writing history, they did not present a prophecy by Jesus. Both their gospels were written, AFTER the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. So most likely Mark invented the story of the fig tree and we all know that Matthew partly based his gospel on Mark's. Have a nice day!

P.S. There is no mentioning of forgiving others in the fig tree story.

 

[Sargonski]

If it's not credible then bringing it up as an explanation is pointless.

Why would you bring up a non -credible pointless explanation - that has nothing to do with anything I said ?

Deflection Tactic ?

 

[Ebionite]

Why would you bring up a non -credible pointless explanation - that has nothing to do with anything I said ?

Deflection Tactic ?

You brought up the documentary hypothesis, not me.

You're on ignore.

 

[Sargonski]

You brought up the documentary hypothesis, not me.

You're on ignore.

You were on ignore mode for many post now friend ... information conflicting with deeply held belief causesmind to go into "thought stopping" mode in attempt to avoid the "bad thoughts" - in this case the fact that Abe and the Patriarchs did not worship a God named YHWH.. but worshiped the high god of the Canaanite Pantheon according to modern Theological scholarship.