Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

Why do people have such a difficult time understanding this?? Serious question it's not that complicated.

p.s. I don't call myself a Trinitarian but I don't think it goes against my beliefs either, just a personal preference.

I do not know if your were agreeing with me or dissagreeing but with the grammer train wreck in my statement I would not fault your dissagreeing. It should have said:

It might be said to be but that would be false. Modalism denies distict individuals. I do not think there is one individual that reveals himself in three ways. I believe (if true) that God is a being composed of three persons. By modes I meant dualistc or trimodal, etc...... I did not suggest researching modes because of Modalism. Man is also said to be trimodal Mind, Body, Spirit but not three individuals.

I have not adopted trinitarianism either because I must do exactly the same thing to be saved either way. I only attempt to clarify the argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

I do not know if your were agreeing with me or dissagreeing but with the grammer train wreck in my statement I would not fault your dissagreeing. It should have said:

It might be said to be but that would be false. Modalism denies distict individuals. I do not think there is one individual that reveals himself in three ways. I believe (if true) that God is a being composed of three persons. By modes I meant dualistc or trimodal, etc...... I did not suggest researching modes because of Modalism. Man is also said to be trimodal Mind, Body, Spirit but not three individuals.

I have not adopted trinitarianism either because I must do exactly the same thing to be saved either way. I only attempt to clarify the argument.

I was agreeing, I understood your post.

 

[1robin]

I was agreeing, I understood your post.

Very well. I am glad.

 

[F0uad]

I do not know if your were agreeing with me or dissagreeing but with the grammer train wreck in my statement I would not fault your dissagreeing. It should have said:

It might be said to be but that would be false. Modalism denies distict individuals. I do not think there is one individual that reveals himself in three ways. I believe (if true) that God is a being composed of three persons. By modes I meant dualistc or trimodal, etc...... I did not suggest researching modes because of Modalism. Man is also said to be trimodal Mind, Body, Spirit but not three individuals.

I have not adopted trinitarianism either because I must do exactly the same thing to be saved either way. I only attempt to clarify the argument.

How do three different minds(beings) compose one or the other way around? .
So these different "minds" conscious is one sandwich in one entity if that is the case then God is not one being but he is three since there are three different beings.

To make this easier three different beings "The Father, The Son and the Spirit" can never be one being or the other way around because they have different personalities and a different conscious. So lets just say its a mystery.

Pay attention to the highlighted area.

 

[Muffled]

Well so do i and i belief also that you and most of the Christians interpret it wrongly however i also belief that your scriptures have been altered in the past and definitely influenced by Pauline teachings instead of the early Jerusalem followers.

I can pick over 50 verses straight out of my head without even opening a bible or to search it up that clearly makes Jesus(pbuh) not god and is a separate being of god. As i said it depends on interpretation, you will interpret it in the way that he had two natures and i don't.


What? This is just basic logic its stupid that i have to repeat this over and over and you still don't get it. If God is not all-powerful and all-knowing he automatically stops being god since that all-powerful and all-knowing makes him god in the first place. Now if there is a being that isn't all-powerful and all-knowing he automatically isn't god. Its like saying that a circle can be a square on the same time it makes no sense and can only be solved by saying its a mystery.


Its important for you and the Christians who belief so but not for the rest of the world since we don't belief that in the first place.

I beliewve you can say that but you can't prove it. Although I will concede that i various ways Christians do make false interpretations but not any more than people of other religions and I believe that I do not make false interpretations most of the time.

I believe evidence shows our scriptures have been altered slightly but not enough to change the Word of God. Paul writes having The Paraclete which means that it is God speaking but it is highly unlikely that he influenced other authors since Paul was on the road most of the time. His letters may have been read and perhaps we see that in the letters of James and Peter.

I have not seen you justify the interpretation of one verse yet.

Jesus is all knowing and all powerful. Repeating false interpretation will not make it true.

That is what the Jews think but I believe they have suffered greatly for disobeying God in Jesus. The same warning is in the Qu'ran for those who ignore God because He speaks in a different book. However I believe there is a lot of misinterpreation of the Qu'ran by Muslims.

 

[Muffled]

In context what does the OT mean when it says ye are gods. He wouldn't deny being god in that context. He may say he does what the father asks but would never say he is the father. He does make a distinction between himself and the father even with the oneness aspect.

I believe you have hit on a point that theologians make that there should not be a confusion of the distinctions. However the distinctions are few. Jesus you can see but the Father you can't see. That is due to the fact that Jesus has two natures: physical and Holy Spirit. The Physical is not God but the Holy Spirit is.

Thee isn't much context but there is a definite dichotomy between God and gods. Jesus is saying that people can be called gods and that He is justified in being called God as follows: John 10:36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

He doesn't deny saying that he is God either.

Jesus is not the Father, He is one with the Father. There is a distinction. Jesus has two natures. The Holy Spirit in Jesus is the same Holy Spirit that is the Father but the flesh is not God.

 

[Muffled]

It might be said to be but that would be false. Modalism denies distict indivisuals. I do not think there is one individual that reveals himself in three ways. I believe (if true) that God is a being composed of three persons. By modes I meant dualistc or trimodal, etc...... I did not suggest researching modes because of Modalism. Man is also said to be trimodal Mind, Body, Spirit.

There is no valid basis for such a belief.

There is no evidence that God is comprised of three persons. When Jesus says that He and the Father are one He is stating that they are one person. The modes are distinct: in the body (Jesus) or out of the body (Father), (in the body of believers in the case of the Paraclete).

However I believe it is not the same. Mind is actually part of the body. God does not have a body so that breaks down. God has only one substance and that is Spirit.

 

[F0uad]

I beliewve you can say that but you can't prove it. Although I will concede that i various ways Christians do make false interpretations but not any more than people of other religions and I believe that I do not make false interpretations most of the time.

The same goes for me, you cant proof that your interpretations are right nor can i, so we both use our bias's to interpret those verses (everyone does).

I believe evidence shows our scriptures have been altered slightly but not enough to change the Word of God. Paul writes having The Paraclete which means that it is God speaking but it is highly unlikely that he influenced other authors since Paul was on the road most of the time. His letters may have been read and perhaps we see that in the letters of James and Peter.

Hmm lets see he was a Roman, a Pharisee, Came from a influenced Hellenistic sect, Was educated, Traveled allot, Had connections, Spoke Greek... Well seems to me that its more likely that he did influence Gentiles and later on Law following Christians. Traveling actually supports my idea that he did influence other regions and therefore the Gospel writers you even agree with a little doubt that he did influence James and Peter so my case stands.

I have not seen you justify the interpretation of one verse yet.

Well my notion starts with that Jesus(pbuh) is a human being and not god yours is not.

Jesus is all knowing and all powerful. Repeating false interpretation will not make it true.

And that's why he cursed the tree, doesn't know the last-hour, dies on a cross, cries out for god and asks why he left him, prays to himself and this goes on and on..

That is what the Jews think but I believe they have suffered greatly for disobeying God in Jesus. The same warning is in the Qu'ran for those who ignore God because He speaks in a different book. However I believe there is a lot of misinterpreation of the Qu'ran by Muslims.

Great changing subjects. The Sunni's use early interpretations that came from the sayings of the prophet(saws) and the companions of him so that's totally different.

You haven't actually refuted anything i said nor did you address the points i made you simply tried to curve around it.

 

[1robin]

There is no valid basis for such a belief.

The fact that multitudes of people who are the best scholars in the history of humanity in theology who hold this view and are quite a bit more educated and competant in the matter than both of us put together seems to refute this. I think both sides have good reasons to believe what they do. The only thing I object to is what you have done here. Rule one out without suffecient justification.

There is no evidence that God is comprised of three persons. When Jesus says that He and the Father are one He is stating that they are one person. The modes are distinct: in the body (Jesus) or out of the body (Father), (in the body of believers in the case of the Paraclete).

Are you in support of somekind of one person three roles God? There are distinctions made between them (like conversations between the distinct persons) that make that unlikely.

However I believe it is not the same. Mind is actually part of the body. God does not have a body so that breaks down. God has only one substance and that is Spirit.

God is defined by philospohy and theology as dissembodied mind so I agree with the premise but not the conclusion.

 

[1robin]

The same goes for me, you cant proof that your interpretations are right nor can i, so we both use our bias's to interpret those verses (everyone does).

You have put up with me enough lately so I will only make one reply.

And that's why he cursed the tree, doesn't know the last-hour, dies on a cross, cries out for god and asks why he left him, prays to himself and this goes on and on..

This would only make any sense if you ruled out the trinity before you began. He cursed the tree as a symbolic gesture concerning Israel. I have no idea what it has to do with the trinity. He did not know the last hour because he was in many ways voluntarily limited while on earth so as to be an example to all of us. Besides him not knowing is not even an argument that he was not divine at any other point. It is only an argument that he is not the father. He prays to the father, again as an example of what we are to do and as a result of his voluntary and complete dependence on the father while on earth. Yes, unfortunately these arguments do go on and on. I will trouble you no further at this time.

 

[F0uad]

You have put up with me enough lately so I will only make one reply.

I am always open for a discussion if the opposition is sincere and honest.

This would only make any sense if you ruled out the trinity before you began. He cursed the tree as a symbolic gesture concerning Israel.

This theory can be dismissed easily that was created by Christian missionaries to dismiss the human traits that are resembled in Mark. If you approach this with a sincere and honest conscious read it yourself and tell me what part is symbolic it clearly says that he was hungry. Ill ask anyone to read these verses:

11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.
13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,
16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’[c]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers. (and the story continues).

Pay clear attention to the highlighted areas

I have no idea what it has to do with the trinity. He did not know the last hour because he was in many ways voluntarily limited while on earth so as to be an example to all of us.

I wasn't debating the trinity Muffled was saying that Jesus(pbuh) was all knowing and all powerful.

Besides him not knowing is not even an argument that he was not divine at any other point. It is only an argument that he is not the father.

This wasn't my point... Please re-read the things i said and on what subject i replied. Muffled made the argument that Jesus(pbuh) was all knowing i simply corrected him.

He prays to the father, again as an example of what we are to do and as a result of his voluntary and complete dependence on the father while on earth.

Again this shows lack of authority.

Yes, unfortunately these arguments do go on and on. I will trouble you no further at this time.

Its no problem but i don't think you fully understood my arguments. Muffled was saying that Jesus(pbuh) was all knowing and all powerful i simply corrected him and it had nothing to do with the trinitarian doctrine.

 

[1robin]

I am always open for a discussion if the opposition is sincere and honest.

Of course it is. I sincerely do not like or think Islam is from God. I know it is offensive to you but it is my sincere belief. I may at times make an incorrect claim but if I am aware of it I admit it however most are not. What more can anyone ask?

This theory can be dismissed easily that was created by Christian missionaries to dismiss the human traits that are resembled in Mark. If you approach this with a sincere and honest conscious read it yourself and tell me what part is symbolic it clearly says that he was hungry. Ill ask anyone to read these verses:
11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.
13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,
16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’[c]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers. (and the story continues).
Pay clear attention to the highlighted areas

I did not intend to imply the event never happened literally. It was a literal event that had a symbolic meaning.

Here is the most accepted commentary on Earth:

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
11:19-26 The disciples could not think why that fig-tree should so soon wither away; but all wither who reject Christ; it represented the state of the Jewish church. We should rest in no religion that does not make us fruitful in good works.

Or another:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And Jesus answered and said unto it,.... The fig tree; a Jewish way of speaking, often used when nothing before is said; the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, leave out the word "answered", as they do also the word "Jesus"; and which is likewise omitted by the Vulgate Latin, though the other is retained:
no man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever; which is all one, as if he had said, as the other evangelist does, let no fruit grow on thee; for where no fruit is, none can be had, or eaten of. This tree may not only be an emblem of the Jewish people, who made a great show of religion, and enjoyed a great many privileges; and from whom, speaking after the manner of men, the fruits of good works, righteousness, and holiness, might have been hoped and looked for; when instead thereof, there was nothing but talk about them, and an observance of some insignificant rites and traditions of the "elders"; on which account, utter ruin and destruction ensued; but also of any outward professor of religion, who enjoying the means of grace, and making great pretensions to devotion and piety, it might be expected that he should do good works, well pleasing to God, and bring forth fruit to the glory of his name: whereas he only talks of good works, but does none; at least, no fruits of grace and righteousness are to be found on him; and at the last day, he will be cast as dry wood, as a withered branch, into everlasting burnings, being fit fuel for them.

Now look at that verse and read the precise language of the curse: “No man eat fruit from you henceforth for ever.” Christ simply doomed the fig tree to perpetual fruitlessness, i.e., death. Why did our Lord do that? Because the fig tree was a symbol of the fruitless Jewish nation, and this was a visual aid lesson which prophesied the coming fate of national Israel. Jesus was not implicated in any wrongful activity.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/730-mark-11-20-jesus-curses-a-fig-tree

I wasn't debating the trinity Muffled was saying that Jesus(pbuh) was all knowing and all powerful.

Before I read this I was searching around and saw this contention. I thought who in the world would use this strange argument. I guess you would. I kid of course. Anyway, the obvious fact that this did happen but was meant as an object lesson hopefully clears this up. Of course Jesus knew figs were not in season every Hebrew kne that. He did not care because it was not about the tree. Why would the Gospel writers who had very limited writing space have concerned themselves with only a story about a tree without any further implications. It is also associated with Temple practice.

This wasn't my point... Please re-read the things I said and on what subject I replied. Muffled made the argument that Jesus(pbuh) was all knowing I simply corrected him.

I realize that now, but the argument does not work anyway because it was not about a tree, it was an object lesson. Every human in that area wknows when figs are in season.

Again this shows lack of authority.

What? Jesus chose to be dependent on the father for the blink of time he was on the Earth specifically as an example to us. If he did not voluntarily adopt this dependence we could easily say he was not a true example for our conduct. In the very story above he wipes out a fig tree with a word. I think he displayed authority enough to justify his nature.

Its no problem but i don't think you fully understood my arguments. Muffled was saying that Jesus(pbuh) was all knowing and all powerful i simply corrected him and it had nothing to do with the Trinitarian doctrine.

You are correct, I did not understand your claim however my response just by chance (or maybe not) counters this other claim just as well. But you are right I did not understand what you were saying.

 

[F0uad]

I did not intend to imply the event never happened literally. It was a literal event that had a symbolic meaning.

There is no proof of a symbolic meaning and certainly not if you read the whole chapter its one story that fits in with the rest..
I think the symbolic idea is simply used to hide away Jesus's(pbuh) limitations as is done in the 'Newer' gospels.

Before I read this I was searching around and saw this contention. I thought who in the world would use this strange argument. I guess you would. I kid of course. Anyway, the obvious fact that this did happen but was meant as an object lesson hopefully clears this up. Of course Jesus knew figs were not in season every Hebrew kne that. He did not care because it was not about the tree. Why would the Gospel writers who had very limited writing space have concerned themselves with only a story about a tree without any further implications. It is also associated with Temple practice.

So your saying that Jesus(pbuh) did know the time yet the scripture is says otherwise . Why would they write other not important stuff in the gospels that argument just makes no sense Robin. Its not something they simply point out its a whole story and the figs of tree is just what occurred in the story while he was traveling.

I realize that now, but the argument does not work anyway because it was not about a tree, it was an object lesson. Every human in that area wknows when figs are in season.

Jesus(pbuh) wasn't even from that area he was traveling moreover he could have simply forgot it. I used more examples such as that Jesus(pbuh) doesn't know the last hour.. Are you trying to imply that Jesus(pbuh) was all knowing like muffled did?

What? Jesus chose to be dependent on the father for the blink of time he was on the Earth specifically as an example to us. If he did not voluntarily adopt this dependence we could easily say he was not a true example for our conduct. In the very story above he wipes out a fig tree with a word. I think he displayed authority enough to justify his nature.

Stop playing with words and make some sense, its clear that he wasn't a authority on that moment. If someone prays to a other person does that mean who ever prays is an authority? Just a simple no or yes will do.

You are correct, I did not understand your claim however my response just by chance (or maybe not) counters this other claim just as well. But you are right I did not understand what you were saying.

Then there is no point in discussing this further.

 

[Muffled]

The same goes for me, you cant proof that your interpretations are right nor can i, so we both use our bias's to interpret those verses (everyone does).


Hmm lets see he was a Roman, a Pharisee, Came from a influenced Hellenistic sect, Was educated, Traveled allot, Had connections, Spoke Greek... Well seems to me that its more likely that he did influence Gentiles and later on Law following Christians. Traveling actually supports my idea that he did influence other regions and therefore the Gospel writers you even agree with a little doubt that he did influence James and Peter so my case stands.

Well my notion starts with that Jesus(pbuh) is a human being and not god yours is not.


And that's why he cursed the tree, doesn't know the last-hour, dies on a cross, cries out for god and asks why he left him, prays to himself and this goes on and on..


Great changing subjects. The Sunni's use early interpretations that came from the sayings of the prophet(saws) and the companions of him so that's totally different.

You haven't actually refuted anything i said nor did you address the points i made you simply tried to curve around it.

I don't believe this to be true. I believe I interpet scripture by The spirit of God.

I don't believe you have been able to show that Paul was in the presence of Gospel writers or that Paul's views show up in those writings. I believe you are standing on quicksand. And I believe it doesn't matter even if Paul did influence other writers since Paul is expressing the Word of God through the Holy Spirit.

I believe that is the problem because a notion is just fantasy unless there is justification for it.

I believe He cursed the tree because He is all powerful. He doesn't have to exist long enough to experience the complete annihilation of the earth (since in this case know means experience). He cried out because He was quoting scriptue to reveal that the event was prophesied. Praying to himself makes sense to me. You can go on if you wish but I believe will not succeed in proving anything.

 

[Muffled]

[/color]The fact that multitudes of people who are the best scholars in the history of humanity in theology who hold this view and are quite a bit more educated and competant in the matter than both of us put together seems to refute this. I think both sides have good reasons to believe what they do. The only thing I object to is what you have done here. Rule one out without suffecient justification.

Are you in support of somekind of one person three roles God? There are distinctions made between them (like conversations between the distinct persons) that make that unlikely.


God is defined by philospohy and theology as dissembodied mind so I agree with the premise but not the conclusion.

I believe you can marshall up your multitudes an scholars all you wish but it is still incumbent upon you to prove your point.

Not exactly but similar in some respects.

I don't see how it makes it unlikely so feel free to enlighten me.

I don't believe there is Biblical evidence to support that definition. BTW what is disembodied mind since the mind is part of the body?

 

[F0uad]

I don't believe this to be true. I believe I interpet scripture by The spirit of God.

No comment?

I don't believe you have been able to show that Paul was in the presence of Gospel writers or that Paul's views show up in those writings. I believe you are standing on quicksand. And I believe it doesn't matter even if Paul did influence other writers since Paul is expressing the Word of God through the Holy Spirit.

What has influences to do with showing up in the scripture that are written after him? If you actually opened a history book that pre-dates the Church you would know that there were many "sects" and that Paul belonged to the hellenized one that inserted a Greek/Roman/Gentile theme to it. Moreover this development of hellenization is clearly shown in the scripture, Mark being the first and John as the last.

I think your the one standing on quicksand since its logical to assume that a Roman/Jewish parish that had connections did influence people to further proof this point is the example of the Council of Jerusalem who changed there creeds to that of Paul when they actually opposed him.

I believe that is the problem because a notion is just fantasy unless there is justification for it.

Wait so my notion that Jesus(pbuh) is a human is fantasy and yours that Jesus(pbuh) is god is reality? :help:

I believe He cursed the tree because He is all powerful. He doesn't have to exist long enough to experience the complete annihilation of the earth (since in this case know means experience). He cried out because He was quoting scriptue to reveal that the event was prophesied. Praying to himself makes sense to me. You can go on if you wish but I believe will not succeed in proving anything

Well the scripture clearly says he didn't know the time of figs and was hungry
Point:
1. He is not all-knowing since he didn't knew the time of figs?
2. Can you imagine god cursing trees or people?
3. If he was all-powerful he could simply make it the time for figs instead of cursing it.
4. How can all-powerful entity be hungry? Being hungry is a weakness therefore also making him not all-powerful

Again you have not shown any logical statement that proves that Jesus(pbuh) was all-knowing or all-powerful because scripture say otherwise. If you are suggesting that Jesus(pbuh) did know the last hour and an all-powerful being can die then i advice you to speak to some of your Christian brothers who have a door open for logic and reasoning.

 

[1robin]

There is no proof of a symbolic meaning and certainly not if you read the whole chapter its one story that fits in with the rest..

I think the symbolic idea is simply used to hide away Jesus's(pbuh) limitations as is done in the 'Newer' gospels.

Of course that is what you think, you are encouraged to think that. However that says nothing about it being so. You are correct in saying that just about all claims like this are not provable. If you are in a debate then I assume you wish to resolve issues. If we disagree then what is left to settle the issue. Commentators, context, and theological scholars in this case. You do the same with Hadith...etc. I have provided at least two of the 10 most accepted commentators but all ten agree. I even supplied a theologian's opinion. The context of that section of text is not agriculture it is the fruitlessness of Israel's outward acts of faith done without conviction. So I have the commentary, context and theological opinion on my side and you have what you think. I can't suggest you have no right to think that way but in a debate the weight of whatever evidence can be found is supposed to settle the issue and it is on my side.

So your saying that Jesus(pbuh) did know the time yet the scripture is says otherwise . Why would they write other not important stuff in the gospels that argument just makes no sense Robin. Its not something they simply point out its a whole story and the figs of tree is just what occurred in the story while he was traveling.

BTW way most parables are agriculturally related.
Here is the verse:
New International Version (©1984)
Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.

It does not say Jesus did not know what season it was it says it simply states that it was not the season. Why in the world do you think these men who had very limited writing materials and there for space would be interested in a random agricultural event. It has no value to faith unless it signifies a much larger issue addressed in the same section of text. What’s more not in season does not mean what you think. Let's waste our time with another respected theologian and commentator:

When our Lord saw this fig tree by the way-side, apparently flourishing, he went to it to gather some of the figs: being on the way-side, it was not private, but public property; and any traveler had an equal right to its fruit. As it was not as yet the time for gathering in the fruits, and yet about the time when they were ready to be gathered, our Lord with propriety expected to find some. But as this happened about five days before that Passover on which Christ suffered, and the Passover that year fell on the beginning of April, it has been asked, "How could our Lord expect to find ripe figs in the end of March?" Answer, because figs were ripe in Judea as early as the Passover. Besides, the fig tree puts forth its fruit first and afterwards its leaves. Indeed, this tree, in the climate which is proper for it, has fruit on it all the year round, as I have often seen. All the difficulty in the text may be easily removed by considering that the climate of Judea is widely different from that of Great Britain. The summer begins there in March, and the harvest at the Passover, as all travelers into those countries testify; therefore, as our Lord met with this tree five days before the Passover, it is evident, - 1st. That it was the time of ripe figs: and, 2ndly. That it was not the time of gathering them, because this did not begin till the Passover, and the transaction here mentioned took place five days before.
For farther satisfaction on this point, let us suppose: -
I. That this tree was intended to point out the state of the Jewish people.
1. They made a profession of the true religion.
2. They considered themselves the peculiar people of God, and despised and reprobated all others.
3. They were only hypocrites, having nothing of religion but the profession - leaves, and no fruit.
II. That our Lord's conduct towards this tree is to be considered as emblematical of the treatment and final perdition which was to come upon this hypocritical and ungodly nation.
1. It was a proper time for them to have borne fruit: Jesus had been preaching the doctrine of repentance and salvation among them for more than three years; the choicest influences of Heaven had descended upon them; and everything was done in this vineyard that ought to be done, in order to make it fruitful.
2. The time was now at hand in which God would require fruit, good fruit; and, if it did not produce such, the tree should be hewn down by the Roman axe.
Therefore,
1. The tree is properly the Jewish nation.
2. Christ's curse the sentence of destruction which had now gone out against it; and,
http://bible.cc/matthew/21-19.htm

Jesus(pbuh) wasn't even from that area he was traveling moreover he could have simply forgot it. I used more examples such as that Jesus(pbuh) doesn't know the last hour.. Are you trying to imply that Jesus(pbuh) was all knowing like muffled did?

He was certainly not out of the same climatic zone. Fruit is determined by climate not by states or tribal boundaries. I believe Jesus was all knowing with the exception of his time on Earth. I would not argue that he knew the last day because I have no reason to. I do argue against your fig tree because the meaning of this event is very well understood and is a virtual universal consensus. On earth Jesus was more than man but less than omniscient, in heaven he is everything the father is. I am not attempting to prove Jesus is God I am trying to point out faults in the arguments on either side. I am quite certain your fig issue is incorrect but you last hour is.

Stop playing with words and make some sense, it’s clear that he wasn't an authority on that moment. If someone prays to another person does that mean who ever prays is an authority? Just a simple no or yes will do.

No it will not. Not an authority. He drove demons out and they trembled before him. He calmed storms, raised the dead, fed thousands, turned water into wine, said he could call on legions of angels if he wished etc… What are you talking about? I would argue that Jesus displayed far more power than any mortal man has ever had but he was less than omnipotent and omniscient while on Earth. I believe your fig idea is wrong but other claims you made right. My official position is that both trinity camps have good arguments but your fig tree is not one of them. I personally lean towards Jesus being God but that is more a faith issue than a doctrinal one.

Then there is no point in discussing this further.

I can't take both that odd looking avatar and hostility. Please clam down or bring back the cool avatar you used to have. Just kidding. I agree with your statement of futility. You are so committed to the idea that Jesus was not God that no amount of scholars, commentary, or context would help but I try and gamble on optimism anyway.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Has anyone read all 628 pages of this thread?

 

[Shermana]

1Robin:

You are so committed to the idea that Jesus was not God that no amount of scholars, commentary, or context would help but I try and gamble on optimism anyway.

And do you suppose that Trinitarians/Modalists are so committed that they wouldn't consider what scholars, commentary, and context won't matter to them if it says otherwise?

 

[look3467]

It does not say Jesus did not know what season it was it says it simply states that it was not the season.>>>1robin

The word "Simply" is the stumbling block in many verses in the bible.
Simply gives birth to humanizing the scriptures, giving them mans understandings and not spiritual ones.

The dying of the fig tree or the plenty-ness of the fig tree having noting to do with spiritual matters as does the physical seasons.

LUK 13:7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

Note the words "three years"? How long was the Lords ministry? What kind of fruit was Jesus looking for? Spiritual faith amongst the people? And found "None".

Of all humanity in the flesh, who amongst all was there found one who would hold to the Fathers will, only to have it cut down?

Was that verse a symbolic picture of Jesus and His work?

LUK 13:8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:

The dresser of his vineyard answered: ..."till I shall dig about it..."meaning spiritually, wrestle with it as did the Jews accepting Jesus' message.

If the spiritual application is of the house of God, meaning the nation of Israel, and they reject Jesus, their house is as the dead fig tree and as dung.

Read: EZR 6:11 Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this.

You see the spiritual significance in all of it rather than physical characteristics of the tree?

It is all about Jesus and His mission.

As God, He had full authority on the cross to deliver mankind from the curse by becoming the curse Himself.

Thought to interject a different view.

Blessings, AJ