Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Sept 11, 2018 15:24:08 GMT
Matthew 21:18-22
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Sept 11, 2018 15:34:47 GMT
Maybe Catman should try that with the damned rhubarb in his backyard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 11, 2018 16:47:14 GMT
As with most things in The Bible.... The point of the story is probably considered to be more important than the details.  And as far as the details go... you should at least get them right and/or not embellish them when retelling the story: Anywhere in there did it actually say that Jesus did what he did out of anger or that he was mad at the tree? |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Sept 11, 2018 19:00:41 GMT
Anywhere in there did it actually say that Jesus did what he did out of anger or that he was mad at the tree? That's a pretty easy assumption to make. Why else would the passage mention that Jesus was hungry? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 11, 2018 19:07:30 GMT
Anywhere in there did it actually say that Jesus did what he did out of anger or that he was mad at the tree?
Uh... Because he was hungry? ...but, it's an assumption, non-the-less.... and not actually part of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Sept 11, 2018 19:17:40 GMT
Why else would the passage mention that Jesus was hungry?
Uh... Because he was hungry? ...but, it's an assumption, non-the-less.... and not actually part of the story. Ok, fine, instead of That time when Jesus got pissed off at a tree & cursed it we can title this thread That time when Jesus was hungry and for one reason or other cursed a tree. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 11, 2018 19:22:38 GMT
Ok, fine, instead of That time when Jesus got pissed off at a tree & cursed it we can title this thread That time when Jesus was hungry and for one reason or other cursed a tree. Sure... Although you don't really need a "one reason or other"..... The symbolism of the act is pretty self-explanatory... and, therefore, the purpose/meaning for the act has a specific reason. edit: It's the need to see it as an act of anger/temper-tantrum that I find questionable... and probably says more about the teller of the story than the actual inflated story. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2018 19:27:50 GMT
I think it’s always interesting that godless people who can
see symbolism in every other thing can not see the symbolism in that passage.
That’s not to say it’s easy to see but it should be if you grasp Dante or even Stephen King.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 11, 2018 19:31:46 GMT
I think it’s always interesting that godless people who can see symbolism in every other thing can not see the symbolism in that passage. That’s not to say it’s easy to see but it should be if you grasp Dante or even Stephen King. It seems to me that it should be easy to see... It's obviously a metaphor for the plight of Scandinavian people during the rise of French Neoclassism... Right?  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2018 19:38:15 GMT
I think it’s always interesting that godless people who can see symbolism in every other thing can not see the symbolism in that passage. That’s not to say it’s easy to see but it should be if you grasp Dante or even Stephen King. It seems to me that it should be easy to see... It's obviously a metaphor for the plight of Scandinavian people during the rise of French Neoclassism... Right? you were thisclose |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Sept 11, 2018 19:53:02 GMT
Ok, fine, instead of That time when Jesus got pissed off at a tree & cursed it we can title this thread That time when Jesus was hungry and for one reason or other cursed a tree. Sure... Although you don't really need a "one reason or other"..... The symbolism of the act is pretty self-explanatory... and, therefore, the purpose/meaning for the act has a specific reason. edit: It's the need to see it as an act of anger/temper-tantrum that I find questionable... and probably says more about the teller of the story than the actual inflated story. Agreed that the symbolism is self-explanatory - I just find it odd that the introductory parable, if it can be called that, shows Jesus out of character and deliberately damaging a living thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 11, 2018 19:56:52 GMT
Agreed that the symbolism is self-explanatory - I just find it odd that the introductory parable, if it can be called that, shows Jesus out of character and deliberately damaging a living thing.Well... THAT is an understandable sentiment. I never said that it was a good story. Although, the severity of the act would depend on the reader's and/or author's view of what constitutes "a living thing". |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 11, 2018 19:59:06 GMT
That's why this is a much better story:  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2018 20:00:32 GMT
Sure... Although you don't really need a "one reason or other"..... The symbolism of the act is pretty self-explanatory... and, therefore, the purpose/meaning for the act has a specific reason. edit: It's the need to see it as an act of anger/temper-tantrum that I find questionable... and probably says more about the teller of the story than the actual inflated story. Agreed that the symbolism is self-explanatory - I just find it odd that the introductory parable, if it can be called that, shows Jesus out of character and deliberately damaging a living thing. It's a tree. There's no telling how many trees Jesus killed as a carpenter and this was for a more important purpose and especially since the tree was literally not producing any fruit. It was worthless and hence the reason for its fitting symbolism. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Sept 11, 2018 20:08:10 GMT
Agreed that the symbolism is self-explanatory - I just find it odd that the introductory parable, if it can be called that, shows Jesus out of character and deliberately damaging a living thing. It's a tree. There's no telling how many trees Jesus killed as a carpenter and this was for a more important purpose and especially since the tree was literally not producing any fruit. It was worthless and hence the reason for its fitting symbolism. Why couldn't he have cured the tree so that it would produce fruit? It's much easier to further damage a damaged living thing than cure or enhance it from its current condition. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 11, 2018 20:09:52 GMT
Agreed that the symbolism is self-explanatory - I just find it odd that the introductory parable, if it can be called that, shows Jesus out of character and deliberately damaging a living thing. It's a tree. There's no telling how many trees Jesus killed as a carpenter and this was for a more important purpose and especially since the tree was literally not producing any fruit. It was worthless and hence the reason for its fitting symbolism. The Greek word used for “carpenter” (tekton) could also be translated more broadly as “artisan,” “contractor,” or “handyman.” Was Jesus Really a Carpenter? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 11, 2018 20:10:10 GMT
That's why this is a much better story: |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Sept 11, 2018 20:10:53 GMT
As with most things in The Bible.... The point of the story is probably considered to be more important than the details. And as far as the details go... you should at least get them right and/or not embellish them when retelling the story: Anywhere in there did it actually say that Jesus did what he did out of anger or that he was mad at the tree? I did not "retell" the story. I quoted it verbatim. Feel free to re-embellish it however you please. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2018 20:15:33 GMT
It's a tree. There's no telling how many trees Jesus killed as a carpenter and this was for a more important purpose and especially since the tree was literally not producing any fruit. It was worthless and hence the reason for its fitting symbolism. Why couldn't he have cured the tree so that it would produce fruit? It's much easier to further damage a damaged living thing than cure or enhance it from its current condition. Because then the symbolism would not fit with what he was teaching his disciples. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 11, 2018 20:19:05 GMT
As with most things in The Bible.... The point of the story is probably considered to be more important than the details. And as far as the details go... you should at least get them right and/or not embellish them when retelling the story: Anywhere in there did it actually say that Jesus did what he did out of anger or that he was mad at the tree? I did not "retell" the story. I quoted it verbatim. Feel free to re-embellish it however you please. Well... Your Headline isn't verbatim... and it does kinda sorta retell the story.  |
|
