Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

1Robin:
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?

I am sure cognative dissonance exists on both sides but I was talking about a specific anti-trinitarian. I evaluate people one at a time.

 

[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

I stopped reading when I realised you thought I meant that "simply" was in the verse. It isn't. That was my wording. In fact there is no verse in that claim at all. It was a praphrase. Can you re-calibrate now that this is cleared up and post again please. Someone said that Jesus admitted he did not know it was fig season. My response was that that was false. As I later learned it was fig season but not harvest season. Since I did not keep reading I do not know what it is you are contending so I will wait on the re-post.

 

[look3467]

I stopped reading when I realized you thought I meant that "simply" was in the verse. It isn't. That was my wording. In fact there is no verse in that claim at all. It was a paraphrase. Can you re-calibrate now that this is cleared up and post again please. Someone said that Jesus admitted he did not know it was fig season. My response was that that was false. As I later learned it was fig season but not harvest season. Since I did not keep reading I do not know what it is you are contending so I will wait on the re-post.

What I meant by the word "simply" was in how we interpret a verse, as defining in simple human understanding terms.
For example the word beast can be defined in human terms as a four legged animal, a monster, and or a supper sized something.

In spiritual terms we see the nature of God's message via natural human understanding terms.

Could you say Jesus was a beast as in the following verse: Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

If Jesus is as a lamb, not a real lamb, but as like unto a lamb of sacrifice, could we also say as a beast? A beast that devours......consumes......... the sins of the world?

You see what I am driving at?

The fig tree is using the things of the world and how we see them to interject spiritual meanings that only through the Spirit of God can we see spiritually to gain understandings of those things used.

Let me introduce a verse to you, perhaps you already know it, that might help: Hos 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

By the prophets: Moses etc.
Multiplied visions:....as the dreams of Pharaoh
and similitudes:....as the story's of the fig tree, Jonah and the whale etc.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Muffled]

Has anyone read all 628 pages of this thread?

I constantly monitor the thread and have read most of them but I am sure I missed a few and I tend to evade long or meaningless posts.

 

[Muffled]

No comment?


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.


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


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.

I believe you can see the advantage of having God explain what the text means.

I have not seen a history text that says this. Do you have a quote and the reference for the quote?

I don't believe any evidence can be found to support this notion.

I believe you are wrong on two points. First the concept of salvation by grace is not a Hellenistic view but a Christian view and the view held by the Judaizers that salvation comes by the law is strictly Jewish, so the call upon the leadership was for it to accept Christian doctrine as opposed to Jewish doctrine.
Second the Church represented by Paul may have had Hellenistic and Jewish cultural influences but it was Christian in theology.

I believe I don't have notions but provide proof.

I believe the text does not state this.

I beleive that is as reasonable as a God who sends people to Hell.

I believe that is exactly what He was saying that He could do that and more so the answer is that God doesn't always do what He can but does what He wishes.

Jesus is God in a body. The body gets hungry. The Spirit of God within is not made weak by a weak body.

 

[F0uad]

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.

You mean all those individuals who are Christians are simply trying to hide Jesus(pbuh)'s limitations like the newer gospels tried am i correct? The context is not on your side at all just read it yourself without a biased mind. You just quoted several interpretations i can also quote interpretations and in the end there are so many interpretations such as the one the reformers or the Supersessionism interpretations that you don't have any solid ground to stand on. Again if you read the Chapter it fits the story, why only take that verse symbolic and not the whole chapter? What is so symbolic about Jesus(pbuh) being hungry?

Moreover if he was trying to point out how corrupt or "bad" the Jewish people why did he do it outside of the city? There is no mentioning of meeting other people outside of Jerusalem in that incident so that whole theory has no basis for it. Also he sees the "Fig tree" again when he leaves Jerusalem and again no mentioning of people or your interpretation.

If Jesus(pbuh) is making such symbolic statement he would be clear and open about it as he did before. Try to be unbiased when you read the story.

BTW way most parables are agriculturally related.

If that is the case we can forget what you wrote here:

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:

The only thing you do is copy text it remembers me of the first time having a discussion with you, please try to bring forth hes arguments with your own words.

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.

Ok so you finally agree that Jesus(pbuh) was not all-knowing?
I can give more examples such as Jesus(pbuh) not knowing who he healed, in Luke 2:52 its mentioned that Jesus(pbuh) increased in knowledge, In Hebrews 5:8 we read that Jesus learned obedience. Lets go back to the fig tree argument if he was all knowing and knew that the tree (or people) had good fruits why does the verse say: he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves if he was all-knowing he would know that it had no fruit.

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.

If you think so but even this statement makes no sense first you say Jesus(pbuh) is the father or the same as the father and then you acknowledge that he doesn't know the hour yet the father does..

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.

Well my argument had nothing to do with Jesus's(pbuh) power its well known that Angels, Messengers and Prophets could do miracles therefore its no argument remember the quotations: "the will of my father", "with the power of my father", "i can do nothing of my own accord" , “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner” and many more..

Just imagine a human-being flying around like super-man and he says he is god will you also belief him? Because your logic and reasoning says yes. Not to forget that he himself never said such thing..

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.

I am pretty sure there are many more Scholars, Commentary and Context that disagrees with your premises.

 

[1robin]

What I meant by the word "simply" was in how we interpret a verse, as defining in simple human understanding terms.
For example the word beast can be defined in human terms as a four legged animal, a monster, and or a supper sized something.

In spiritual terms we see the nature of God's message via natural human understanding terms.

Could you say Jesus was a beast as in the following verse: Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

If Jesus is as a lamb, not a real lamb, but as like unto a lamb of sacrifice, could we also say as a beast? A beast that devours......consumes......... the sins of the world?

You see what I am driving at?

The fig tree is using the things of the world and how we see them to interject spiritual meanings that only through the Spirit of God can we see spiritually to gain understandings of those things used.

Let me introduce a verse to you, perhaps you already know it, that might help: Hos 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

By the prophets: Moses etc.
Multiplied visions:....as the dreams of Pharaoh
and similitudes:....as the story's of the fig tree, Jonah and the whale etc.

Blessings, AJ

It seems as though you agree that the story of the fig tree is symbolic and literal. It was a literal tree but the event was symbolic of Israel's fruitlessness. God loves agricultural parables because they were relatable to an agricultural community. If I have judged correctly in this what is it that you are contending with my original statement? Shalom

 

[look3467]

That,s the way I see it.

 

[1robin]

You mean all those individuals who are Christians are simply trying to hide Jesus(pbuh)'s limitations like the newer gospels tried am I correct?

What? Neither the Biblical Christians nor the billions in between them and the modern ones attempt to hide anything. What profit would there be in my making up a salvation concept that does not work? They as well as millions of others have suffered and died for that message without gaining any worldly compensation worth mentioning.

i can also quote interpretations and in the end there are so many interpretations

It is the only common ground there is. When a Christian and Muslim disagree about one of our scriptures and both look at the context and draw two opposite conclusions in what way can the issue be settled? If we disagreed about how to build a bridge we would defer to bridge building experts. In Biblical issues we must defer to Biblical experts every bit as well trained and competent as any bridge builder. Every one of the ten most respected commentators say exactly the same thing. If you wish to bury your head in the sand based on you Islamic presuppositions and declare them all wrong then the issue cannot be resolved and that is certainly a shame. Especially when coupled with the fact that agricultural narratives are a favorite of God and the fig tree in particular is used to represent Israel in the Bible. The issue can't be resolved and it is to your detriment Im afraid but it is only my job to offer. Here is proof in the form of a known parable about the exact same thing:
Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
Luke 13:6-9; NIV - Then he told this parable:
It is used in the exact context I gave for the other one.

There is no mentioning of meeting other people outside of Jerusalem in that incident so that whole theory has no basis for it. Also he sees the "Fig tree" again when he leaves Jerusalem and again no mentioning of people or your interpretation.

Strange question. Maybe because he knew that these statements would appear in the most studied and read book in human history and the Jew's story is true with every cultural group that is theologically orientated. He also knew that Israel's temple and much of its coherence would be destroyed 70 plus years from then and he wished to leave the explanation for it for all future generations to hopefully avoid them committing the same mistakes. Are you suggesting unless he repeats the exact same actions every time he sees a fig tree that his initial actions have no meaning? Wow.

If Jesus(pbuh) is making such symbolic statement he would be clear and open about it as he did before. Try to be unbiased when you read the story.

There are many parables that are still not entirely certain in their interpretation even today. He did at times explain some of them in detail but that was the exception not the rule. Since I have the weight of scholarship and precedent on my side i am more validated in claims of bias but I regard it as a waste of time and normally avoid making them. It sounds too much like a cop out to me. "If you disagree with me you are obviously biased" sounds like a mantra taught to people to escape any inconvenient issue. To tell you the truth I had no opinion about that story at all. I had read it but never thought about it. I simply looked up what the scholarly consensus was and saw it was very logical and consistent with the Bible as a whole. Is there actually even a respected Islamic scholar that supports your unusual take on this story?

The only thing you do is copy text it remembers me of the first time having a discussion with you, please try to bring forth he’s arguments with your own words.

That is like saying you think the formula for the fundamental definition of a mathematical limit is wrong, and suggesting that my posting the words of Isaac Newton not worth the effort. I remember from our discussions that your claims are opposite from the Biblical scholars so I do not doubt you do not wish their involvement in the discussion but that does not make posting them the incorrect thing to do. Especially since I have only short opportunities to post in. My personal opinion is that there is no reason to think that Jesus desired his disappointment about figs to be part of the holy word of God if that is all it was. That agricultural parables are God's favorite type and that the fig tree is used as symbolic of Israel many times elsewhere in the Bible. I find that the most respected Biblical scolars agree. What is more even if true that would not by an argument that Jesus was not divine.

Ok so you finally agree that Jesus(pbuh) was not all-knowing?

My personal opinion is that he was restricted in some ways to be an example to us. The doctrine is hard to understand and quantify and some do not agree at all and so I do not quote scholarly consensus because there is none. Regardless the fig tree parable is not an example of this and not meaningful even if it was. As I spent a while showing, figs were in season it was however not the season for harvest so Jesus was not even mistaken, even if limited.

If you think so but even this statement makes no sense first you say Jesus(pbuh) is the father or the same as the father

Being equivalent in essence is not identicle. You know well I am not a firm Trinitarian because I think the issue changes nothing. I need to do the same thing to get to heaven either way however you understanding of the trinity is not what I have understood it to be. Jesus, the Holy spirit, and the Father are one in being but separate in person hood. They are all divine in essence and power but have distinct minds and can act independently and I have no idea if what one knows the others must as well. Maybe. Regardless when Jesus became a man it seems that voluntarily he hid or relinquished some of his attributes or the level of them. This is all a confusing metaphysical mystery to me. The only thing I look for is logical and philosophical consistency. Sitting around declaring what a God could or could not do is like an ant sitting around deciding what bosons or quarks may or may not do and usually I avoid the whole subject.

Well my argument had nothing to do with Jesus's(pbuh) power its well-known that Angels, Messengers and Prophets could do miracles therefore it’s no argument remember the quotations: "the will of my father", "with the power of my father", "I can do nothing of my own accord" ,

Everyone of those former things was done by the power of the father. Jesus at times said he did things of his own authority. "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." Jesus responded, "I will; be thou clean" (8:2-3). These passages show that Jesus had the inherent power to work miracles.
Did Jesus Have Inherent Power
There is a whole paper on his authorty at that site. One of the few that even almost all secular scholars agree on is that Christ came on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. Even in the parable of the fig tree he cursed the tree he did not invoke the father.

Just imagine a human-being flying around like super-man and he says he is god will you also belief him? Because your logic and reasoning says yes. Not to forget that he himself never said such thing..

That is not an equivalent with Christ. However pay attention to this: if I had to choose between two people as to which was God, divine, or divinely inspired it would not be the one that did not resurrect, did not heal the sick, did not live without inflicting harm on countless others, did not give thousands of accurate prophecies, or came without any of the signs and wonders at all that the Bible says are given to people as confirmation of inspiration.

I am pretty sure there are many more Scholars, Commentary and Context that disagrees with your premises.

Would you accept a claim that I am pretty sure Islam is wrong as an argument worth making. This has about run its course but I would be interested to see if there is a respected Islamic commentator that actually said that the fig tree story is not symbolic. BTW in every single Islamic debate I have ever seen the hadith's and scholars are constantly used to argue this or that claim by Muslims. Why are you balking at my doing, when I do not balk at their doing so? Heck you have even done it with me for certain issues.

 

[1robin]

That,s the way I see it.

Very well. FOuad does not seem to concur with this simple, obvious, and consistent understanding unfortunately.

 

[F0uad]

Very well. FOuad does not seem to concur with this simple, obvious, and consistent understanding unfortunately.

No your arguments just fail i have re-read them and we keep going on circles your not even addressing my points. You simply copy some and leave the rest out so i don't see any consistent or sincere approach to it by your side.

 

[F0uad]

Strange question. Maybe because he knew that these statements would appear in the most studied and read book in human history and the Jew's story is true with every cultural group that is theologically orientated. He also knew that Israel's temple and much of its coherence would be destroyed 70 plus years from then and he wished to leave the explanation for it for all future generations to hopefully avoid them committing the same mistakes. Are you suggesting unless he repeats the exact same actions every time he sees a fig tree that his initial actions have no meaning? Wow.

It was not even a question i am not sure what i have said could be considered a question but ok...
No the problem lies in how are we to know when something is symbolic or not when we have no early interpretation of the apostles who lived along with him? The verse itself doesn't mention any "Parable", "People" and it states that Jesus(pbuh) was hungry..

There are many parables that are still not entirely certain in their interpretation even today. He did at times explain some of them in detail but that was the exception not the rule. Since I have the weight of scholarship and precedent on my side i am more validated in claims of bias but I regard it as a waste of time and normally avoid making them. It sounds too much like a cop out to me. "If you disagree with me you are obviously biased" sounds like a mantra taught to people to escape any inconvenient issue. To tell you the truth I had no opinion about that story at all. I had read it but never thought about it. I simply looked up what the scholarly consensus was and saw it was very logical and consistent with the Bible as a whole. Is there actually even a respected Islamic scholar that supports your unusual take on this story?

I was not even talking about Parables, your interpretation says that he condemned the people in Israel or let me rephrase it he "Cursed" them now if we read the Gospels its not the first time he did this. Each time when we hear Jesus(pbuh) speaking negatively about certain people he did it in clear words such as calling the Pharisees ignorant, liars, sons of devils and not in parables.

That is like saying you think the formula for the fundamental definition of a mathematical limit is wrong, and suggesting that my posting the words of Isaac Newton not worth the effort. I remember from our discussions that your claims are opposite from the Biblical scholars so I do not doubt you do not wish their involvement in the discussion but that does not make posting them the incorrect thing to do. Especially since I have only short opportunities to post in. My personal opinion is that there is no reason to think that Jesus desired his disappointment about figs to be part of the holy word of God if that is all it was. That agricultural parables are God's favorite type and that the fig tree is used as symbolic of Israel many times elsewhere in the Bible. I find that the most respected Biblical scolars agree. What is more even if true that would not by an argument that Jesus was not divine.

I am not sure why you are playing with words i am just asking to bring forth your own arguments on the table. You can use Scholars and there interpretations but do it in your own words. Do you want me to quote several websites and tell you to take a look on them why are you making me work for it? Why don't you just copy there argument and bring them on the table..

My personal opinion is that he was restricted in some ways to be an example to us. The doctrine is hard to understand and quantify and some do not agree at all and so I do not quote scholarly consensus because there is none. Regardless the fig tree parable is not an example of this and not meaningful even if it was. As I spent a while showing, figs were in season it was however not the season for harvest so Jesus was not even mistaken, even if limited.

Hmm if this is the case your saying that Jesus(pbuh) cursed people to death and he wanted to curse them very badly because he was hungry for it? You did not even address those parts as i mentioned before.

Being equivalent in essence is not identicle. You know well I am not a firm Trinitarian because I think the issue changes nothing. I need to do the same thing to get to heaven either way however you understanding of the trinity is not what I have understood it to be. Jesus, the Holy spirit, and the Father are one in being but separate in person hood. They are all divine in essence and power but have distinct minds and can act independently and I have no idea if what one knows the others must as well. Maybe. Regardless when Jesus became a man it seems that voluntarily he hid or relinquished some of his attributes or the level of them. This is all a confusing metaphysical mystery to me. The only thing I look for is logical and philosophical consistency. Sitting around declaring what a God could or could not do is like an ant sitting around deciding what bosons or quarks may or may not do and usually I avoid the whole subject.

Again not quoting everything that i said regarding it...

Everyone of those former things was done by the power of the father. Jesus at times said he did things of his own authority. "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." Jesus responded, "I will; be thou clean" (8:2-3). These passages show that Jesus had the inherent power to work miracles.

First you say he didn't do them on there own accord (as scripture say) and then you quote John to proof he did them on hes own accord. What are you trying to say please make some sense?

Did Jesus Have Inherent Power
There is a whole paper on his authorty at that site. One of the few that even almost all secular scholars agree on is that Christ came on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. Even in the parable of the fig tree he cursed the tree he did not invoke the father.

Are you kidding me R0bin? Serious? See highlighted area.. "Secular scholars and divine authority"

That is not an equivalent with Christ. However pay attention to this: if I had to choose between two people as to which was God, divine, or divinely inspired it would not be the one that did not resurrect, did not heal the sick, did not live without inflicting harm on countless others, did not give thousands of accurate prophecies, or came without any of the signs and wonders at all that the Bible says are given to people as confirmation of inspiration.

What about the other one? Both aren't god since God is unique and resembles nothing on earth, in the seas or in heaven. You can't be a unlimited god and be limited on the same time but you know that by now.

Again my question remains if a guy approaches you and says that he is god and he flies around in the air why not consider him as God? Just give me a good reason why not to accept him and remember this guy doesn't even say it but people after him say it about him..

Would you accept a claim that I am pretty sure Islam is wrong as an argument worth making. This has about run its course but I would be interested to see if there is a respected Islamic commentator that actually said that the fig tree story is not symbolic. BTW in every single Islamic debate I have ever seen the hadith's and scholars are constantly used to argue this or that claim by Muslims. Why are you balking at my doing, when I do not balk at their doing so? Heck you have even done it with me for certain issues.

Nice way trying to change the subject, so whatever i say has to be backed up by other Muslims? The Fallacy Appeal to Authority doesn't work with me sorry.

Your the one making the statement that most of the scholars out of there (not even mentioning if they are Christians or not) agree with your interpretation so please show us some refutation. Again you have not addressed anything that i said, you just came up with a theory that certain "Christians" belief in. Please refute the whole interpretation that i brought forth with some logical reasoning so we can finally have a proper discussion.

 

[1robin]

No your arguments just fail i have re-read them and we keep going on circles your not even addressing my points. You simply copy some and leave the rest out so i don't see any consistent or sincere approach to it by your side.

How in the world is copying the consistent consensus of the most accepted scholars insincere. I think you classify all disagreement whether it be debate or a source as biased and insincere. I edited the post for length not content. You are right that we are going in circles. As far as consistent, my views are consistent with all the most respected commentators, most scholars, most theologians, apparently the single Christian that commented agreed, there are not only many agricultural parables, there are even fig tree parables that concern Israel in the exact same way this one does. Not to mention that the fig tree is symbolic of Israel in many places. I do not know of anything besides your claim that I am inconsistent with. I even agree that Christ's deity is a legitimate issue but this is not a legitimate argument against it. I will leave you be, your currently as touchy as a land mine.

 

[F0uad]

How in the world is copying the consistent consensus of the most accepted scholars insincere. I think you classify all disagreement whether it be debate or a source as biased and insincere. I edited the post for length not content. You are right that we are going in circles. As far as consistent, my views are consistent with all the most respected commentators, most scholars, most theologians, apparently the single Christian that commented agreed, there are not only many agricultural parables, there are even fig tree parables that concern Israel in the exact same way this one does. Not to mention that the fig tree is symbolic of Israel in many places. I do not know of anything besides your claim that I am inconsistent with. I even agree that Christ's deity is a legitimate issue but this is not a legitimate argument against it. I will leave you be, your currently as touchy as a land mine.

Ok maybe your consistent with bringing forth the same argument over and over but that's were it stops.

 

[1robin]

Ok maybe your consistent with bringing forth the same argument over and over but that's were it stops.

Until the argument fails there is no need of another. Again what is it that you claim I am inconsistent with? The only thing I can think of is the bizarre Islamic view of these verses, and that is almost a compliment given my position. It is not so much that I expect you to agree as it is that if we dissagree I know of no other way the issue can be settled other than scholarly concensus. If your Islamic faith means you can not concede the views I have illustrated, that is fine and almost understandable but claims the arguement is invalid are not accurate. It is valid, you just do not concur. I am happy to leave it there. That avatar is killing me. I am going to have to put a "post it" over it.

 

[F0uad]

Until the argument fails there is no need of another. Again what is it that you claim I am inconsistent with? The only thing I can think of is the bizarre Islamic view of these verses, and that is almost a compliment given my position. It is not so much that I expect you to agree as it is that if we dissagree I know of no other way the issue can be settled other than scholarly concensus. If your Islamic faith means you can not concede the views I have illustrated, that is fine and almost understandable but claims the arguement is invalid are not accurate. It is valid, you just do not concur. I am happy to leave it there. That avatar is killing me. I am going to have to put a "post it" over it.

I already said your consistent by using the same argument over and over just drop the consistent thingy already. Its not a Islamic view its my view what i originally got from one of Shabir's debates i have to admit, there is no hadith or verse that says go to Mark chapter x verse x and use it against the Christians .

You keep using authority but as i mentioned there are so many different interpretations among the Christian "authority" themselves regarding the verse. I have supported my view with bringing forth certain aspects of the verse you have not. Its easy to dismiss my interpretation by saying some scholars say different things regarding it that's why i accused you of using the authority fallacy in the first place.
Lets just make it simpler and lets say i agree with your interpretation now please explain to me what "hungry" means and did Jesus(pbuh) "Curse" those people to death?

O and that symbol in your avatar has done much more harm then mine

 

[1robin]

I already said your consistent by using the same argument over and over just drop the consistent thingy already.

That is inconsistent. Just kidding. Dropped.

It’s not a Islamic view it’s my view what i originally got from one of Shabir's debates i have to admit, there is no hadith or verse that says go to Mark chapter x verse x and use it against the Christians .

Well if Shabir used it can't be all bad. I did not mean it was an official Islamic doctrine. I meant that a common Islamic argument is to attack Jesus' divinity and this is an argument consistent with that effort. I don't have a problem with the effort but this is not a good argument for it. Actually after writing this I found it actually is a typical argument from Muslims. The common Islamic argument and the same exact explanation I gave is found here:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_jesus_figtree_curse.htm
Even if you hate the site, I do not think claiming they made up an argument that Muslim's use can be put down to bias. I am not saying that is where you got it but it apparently is a common Islamic contention.

You keep using authority but as I mentioned there are so many different interpretations among the Christian "authority" themselves regarding the verse.

I have never seen a different one. Regardless all the major authorities agree. This is exactly the same type of claim that Muslims use concerning Hadith... etc.

I have supported my view with bringing forth certain aspects of the verse you have not. It’s easy to dismiss my interpretation by saying some scholars say different things regarding it that's why i accused you of using the authority fallacy in the first place.

Fallacies are very hard things to apply in faith based discussions. That is why I almost never do so. I am using the same tactic (and the right one) in the attempt to resolve the issue as Muslims do. We stand or fall together in this context. I do not remember any aspects of the verses you mentioned that I did not. I think I even posted the verses. The best way to resolve a disagreement is to provide a consensus view of the most accepted scholars if available. If that is not good enough for you that is fine, but there is no argument with the concept. How else can this be resolved?

Here is my and the scholars contention.

1. This is a literal event but its importance is as a parable.
a. The fig tree is used as a symbol for Israel many times.
b. There is no other reason to waste time recording this event.
c. There are other parables exactly like this in the Bible.
2. Jesus was not ignorant of when figs are in season.
a. He made food out of nothing. I do not think figs are a challenge.
b. It was the season for figs but not the season for harvesting.
c. Jesus even if an idiot would have known the season for figs in this area.
3. The context of this chapter is an indictment of Israel (mostly Jerusalem).
a. He came to the fig tree straight from Jerusalem.
b. He went straight from the tree to Jerusalem and confronted it's leaders.
4. This has nothing to do with his being less than divine.
a. He literally killed the tree with a word.

(I am not saying it is proof he is divine just not an argument for the opposite)
I could add more but this should be enough. What is it that you think is unreasonable about these scholarly and common sense conclusions?

Let’s just make it simpler and let’s say I agree with your interpretation now please explain to me what "hungry" means and did Jesus(pbuh) "Curse" those people to death?

I do not understand the question. What people? He cursed the tree as symbolic of Israel's being cut off from God. Parables are almost never 1 to 1. If they were they would by literals.

O and that symbol in your avatar has done much more harm than mine

I know it is said Muhammad could not stand a cross anywhere near him, maybe it is true of others. Is that a true story by the way? His breaking of crosses, it is just something I heard.

 

[F0uad]

Well if Shabir used it can't be all bad. I did not mean it was an official Islamic doctrine. I meant that a common Islamic argument is to attack Jesus' divinity and this is an argument consistent with that effort. I don't have a problem with the effort but this is not a good argument for it. Actually after writing this I found it actually is a typical argument from Muslims. The common Islamic argument and the same exact explanation I gave is found here:
[URL="http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_jesus_figtree_curse.htm"[/URL]

Yes the argument can be used by Muslims or any other person so i am not sure what it has to do with Muslims or Islam and its defiantly not "invented" by Muslims as i tried to point out earlier. The only thing i see on that link are quotes from several biblical scholars, to point something out he quoted F.F. Bruce yet he many of the work written by Bruce can be used against Sam Shamoun's beliefs (what is irrelevant off-course).

Even if you hate the site, I do not think claiming they made up an argument that Muslim's use can be put down to bias. I am not saying that is where you got it but it apparently is a common Islamic contention.

This is were you are wrong its not a Islamic contention these things are just on the web and your bible. Any secular, jew or reasonable person can use it as a argument against the divinity of Jesus(pbuh).

I have never seen a different one. Regardless all the major authorities agree. This is exactly the same type of claim that Muslims use concerning Hadith... etc.

This is were you are wrong, Hadiths themselves are interpretations they are not debated if you are talking about which one authentic or not that's a whole different subject. That's like me using a Catholic-Protestant argument while the Hadiths are not considered to be revealed by God in the first place.

Fallacies are very hard things to apply in faith based discussions. That is why I almost never do so. I am using the same tactic (and the right one) in the attempt to resolve the issue as Muslims do. We stand or fall together in this context. I do not remember any aspects of the verses you mentioned that I did not. I think I even posted the verses. The best way to resolve a disagreement is to provide a consensus view of the most accepted scholars if available. If that is not good enough for you that is fine, but there is no argument with the concept. How else can this be resolved?

Well i already said lets say for the sake of argument those scholars are right now please tell me in what way is "Hunger" or "Because it was not time for figs" symbolic just these two statements.

Here is my and the scholars contention.
1. This is a literal event but its importance is as a parable.
a. The fig tree is used as a symbol for Israel many times.
b. There is no other reason to waste time recording this event.
c. There are other parables exactly like this in the Bible.
2. Jesus was not ignorant of when figs are in season.
a. He made food out of nothing. I do not think figs are a challenge.
b. It was the season for figs but not the season for harvesting.
c. Jesus even if an idiot would have known the season for figs in this area.
3. The context of this chapter is an indictment of Israel (mostly Jerusalem).
a. He came to the fig tree straight from Jerusalem.
b. He went straight from the tree to Jerusalem and confronted it's leaders.
4. This has nothing to do with his being less than divine.
a. He literally killed the tree with a word.

1. The verse doesn't say Parable or mentions any people therefore no need to belief its one.
a. Jesus(pbuh) condemned people with a clear tongue so why use a parable suddenly?
b. Yet they did.
c. They all mention that they are parables and there is no early interpretation that is preserved to see it that way. Its like saying one verse says something about a King therefore all verses about Kings are connected to that one.

2. Nobody said that he was ignorant he could have forgotten it, he could have not known (there is no evidence to suggest otherwise)
a. With the power of god
b. your contradicting scripture it says it was not the time for figs (nothing about harvesting whatsoever)
c. Show me evidence that he HAD to know it at the exact time also provide evidence that he could not have forgotten it or he didn't pay attention to it.

3. He was cursing the tree outside of Jerusalem yet we know that most of the people lived inside Jerusalem so why not do it there?
a. Nope he was going towards Jerusalem not coming from it (please read the chapter before suggesting something incorrectly).
b. Irrelevant and even if you think its relevant he only went in to temple to drive out the money changers.

4. Ok and since when were we talking about Jesus(pbuh)'s divinity? We were talking about him being all-knowing or not and you agreed he wasn't.
a. And Moses(pbuh) turned hes staff into a snake your point?
Like i said if a guy flies around like superman you would be the first one to point out that he is god at-least this is the impression your giving me.

(I am not saying it is proof he is divine just not an argument for the opposite)]I could add more but this should be enough. What is it that you think is unreasonable about these scholarly and common sense conclusions?

Like i said i don't have to belief anything someone tells me, i do my own homework ill ask this for the third time what is symbolic about the "Hungry" part and how do these "great scholars" interpret that statement?

I do not understand the question. What people? He cursed the tree as symbolic of Israel's being cut off from God. Parables are almost never 1 to 1. If they were they would by literals.

What do you mean by saying cut off from god?
The verse says that Jesus(pbuh) was hungry and therefore he went to the tree.

Lets make this clear are you suggesting that:

1. Jesus(pbuh) was hungry in cutting off Israel to god?

2. That a fig-tree symbolizes the whole nation of Israel if so how could he condemn the whole of Israel based on a tree if i get this right?

3. If Israel is cut of god in what sense and why doesn't the parable mention any "Bad-fruits" or whatsoever?

I know it is said Muhammad could not stand a cross anywhere near him, maybe it is true of others. Is that a true story by the way? His breaking of crosses, it is just something I heard.

Said by who? Never heard of this, there is a hadith that says Jesus(pbuh) the messiah will return and break the cross are you are referring to that?..
There are actually hadiths that say Christians went to the Mosque of Mohammed(saws) to speak and debate with him wearing there crosses inside the mosque and even praying in the mosque.


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.

Please pay close attention to the "Because" and "Hungry" part they refute the "scholarly" interpretation as Shabir mentioned a couple of times in hes debates with some of these scholars also a couple of times with James white.

 

[Searching For Truth]

Well i already said lets say for the sake of argument those scholars are right now please tell me in what way is "Hunger" or "Because it was not time for figs" symbolic just these two statements.

I have spoke with a few people on this issue and I was given an understanding by an excellent bible translator. Let me say that I am not arguing the divinity of Jesus. It is not my position that Jesus is God.

This is not a parable. It was an actual real event. Jesus was headed into Jerusalem, and he was hungry and seeing a fig tree a far off he approached it hoping to find figs thereon. Now Jesus was a perfect man, Perfect spiritually. When God gave dominion of the earth to man as we read in Genesis.

Genesis 1:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


This included plant life. In the perfect world that was supposed to be, the tree would bare fruit all year long. If the spiritual nature in Jerusalem amongst the high priests and the people in the temple would have been perfected as they where supposed to be, then when the perfect man approached the tree there would have been figs thereon. Basically the tree didn't do what it was supposed to do.The will of perfect son of man wanted figs and being given dominion over the earth the tree should be able to bear figs at any time it's approached by the perfect son of man. By there not being any figs thereon this was a sign to Jesus that the spiritual nature had not been perfected. When Jesus cursed the fig tree he pulled some of the negative spirits from Jerusalem and into the tree and the tree withered and died. The negative spirit must die in order to be recycled back into the new and given another chance to perfect itself. In everything we read we must find love in the action. We read it as Jesus cursed the tree and it withered and died; but what we fail to understand is that this is the nature of what must occur in order to reach perfection. The non perfect nature must die and be reborn and given a chance to perfect itself. Jesus was helping this process along and showing the disciples even though they didn't understand it at the moment, how things must work.

Out with the old, in with the new.

This is how this scripture was explained to me by a good friend and in my opinion someone with one of the greatest understandings of the bible I personally know.

If you can believe that Jesus was able to cast out a legion of spirits into pigs surely you can see how he could curse this tree by allow the evil nature to go in and wither and die. In my opinion.

 

[F0uad]

I have spoke with a few people on this issue and I was given an understanding by an excellent bible translator. Let me say that I am not arguing the divinity of Jesus. It is not my position that Jesus is God.

This is not a parable. It was an actual real event. Jesus was headed into Jerusalem, and he was hungry and seeing a fig tree a far off he approached it hoping to find figs thereon. Now Jesus was a perfect man, Perfect spiritually. When God gave dominion of the earth to man as we read in Genesis.

Genesis 1:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


This included plant life. In the perfect world that was supposed to be, the tree would bare fruit all year long. If the spiritual nature in Jerusalem amongst the high priests and the people in the temple would have been perfected as they where supposed to be, then when the perfect man approached the tree there would have been figs thereon. Basically the tree didn't do what it was supposed to do.The will of perfect son of man wanted figs and being given dominion over the earth the tree should be able to bear figs at any time it's approached by the perfect son of man. By there not being any figs thereon this was a sign to Jesus that the spiritual nature had not been perfected. When Jesus cursed the fig tree he pulled some of the negative spirits from Jerusalem and into the tree and the tree withered and died. The negative spirit must die in order to be recycled back into the new and given another chance to perfect itself. In everything we read we must find love in the action. We read it as Jesus cursed the tree and it withered and died; but what we fail to understand is that this is the nature of what must occur in order to reach perfection. The non perfect nature must die and be reborn and given a chance to perfect itself. Jesus was helping this process along and showing the disciples even though they didn't understand it at the moment, how things must work.

Out with the old, in with the new.

This is how this scripture was explained to me by a good friend and in my opinion someone with one of the greatest understandings of the bible I personally know.

If you can believe that Jesus was able to cast out a legion of spirits into pigs surely you can see how he could curse this tree by allow the evil nature to go in and wither and die. In my opinion.

With all respect i was discussing if this was a example on how Jesus(pbuh) was not all-knowing with R0bin. I think you made a good point however the verse does gives us a reason on why there were no fruits it says "Because it was not the season for figs'' but i appreciate your reply nevertheless.