Al Kafirun

The worst example is his treatment of the Samaritan woman. At least the fig tree can be written off as symbolic.

French Prometheus

I know. But many of your fellow liberal Christians apparently don’t.


The world is not just in black and white, there’s many shades of gray. Failure to recognize the complexity of the world (whether past or present) speaks volume about the so-called divinity of Jesus.

In this chapter, the text says “they (i.e. Jesus’ audience) thought that the kingdom of God was about to be established�. But indeed in other passages Jesus clearly states that (t)his kingdom will soon come. It’s just another failed prophecy.


How do you define evil? I’ve yet to find a definition that would be consensual among Christians. Is abortion evil? What about homosexuality? Or the violation of the 4th commandment done by the vast majority of Christians (remember that Jesus said the commandments are still binding (e.g. Mat 5:17) and nowhere is it written in the NT that the date of Sabbath was changed from the last day of the week (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday)).
Are women teaching to men evil (1 Tim 2:12)? Or those wearing pants (Deut 22:5)?


No. Rather something like “rebel against my god-given authority and I’ll kill you�.


Gee. This is the first time I’ve heard the you-quote-out-of-context argument


Either you consider that Jesus identifies with the nobleman. In this case, the interpretation is that if you reject him, you should be killed. Let me rephrase that : those who reject Jesus as their personal savior are evil (from what you said above) and the true followers of Jesus should kill them (“like animals� I should add to fully render the meaning of “katasphaxate�).

Or you consider that Jesus doesn’t identify with him. In that case the nobleman is just a figure of authority. And he is said to be very strict (“austere� in the KJV) and hated by his people. So Jesus implies that whatever the circumstances you should never rebel against authority (this is similar to Romans 13). I guess I needn’t cite historical examples to prove the absurdity of this moral.


As I said in my previous post, this is at variance with “turn the other cheek, love thy enemy,...�.


You mean, for instance, if my mother wore a pair of jeans, would I disown her? No.

More seriously, here Jesus says that if you’re a Christian and some of your relatives aren’t, then you should at best stop seeing them or at worst kill them (see Luke 19:27 above). This passage too proves Jesus’ intolerance.


History showed that the “sword� wielded by the followers of Christ against his/their enemies was pretty real.


You’re right. I read to much into the text. He was hungry (Mat 21:18) and came across a figless fig tree. He made it wither. The text doesn’t say anything about his mood. Maybe he was cheerful when he killed that tree.


I don’t know about first century Galilee but here in France figs only appear in September and certainly not in the late Spring.


Where is it written that this particular tree could no longer produce fruit???
In Luke 13:7, the owner of the tree says “behold, these three years that I come seeking fruit on this fig tee, and find none�.

Anyway, Jesus could have made the tree bear fruit. He chose to destroy it instead.


And again the moral is “reject Jesus and we’ll kill you�.


How come you Christians can't agree on their true meaning then?


This is gratuitous ad hominem.

GakuseiDon

In a sense, I agree, in that the parables are certainly presented as black and white. If this means that Jesus wasn't divine, then fair enough.

IMO the nobleman is identified with God. There is no doubt that Jesus is saying that those who reject God would be killed. But IMO the parable is focused more on the point of doing good with what you have. If you seriously think that Jesus is telling his followers to kill people that reject Him, then fair enough.

Javaman

I believe you are confusing the fig tree parable with the actual fig tree incident (although you mention the parable nontheless). The incident is very obviously not a story. Although Matthew 21:17-21 is ambiguous as regards the season, Mark 11 is most assuredly not:
Mark 11
12 And on the morrow, they having come forth from Bethany, he hungered,
13 and having seen a fig-tree afar off having leaves, he came, if perhaps he shall find anything in it, and having come to it, he found nothing except leaves, for it was not a time of figs,
14 and Jesus answering said to it, `No more from thee -- to the age -- may any eat fruit;' and his disciples were hearing.
------------------ snip --------------------
20 And in the morning, passing by, they saw the fig-tree having been dried up from the roots,
21 and Peter having remembered saith to him, `Rabbi, lo, the fig-tree that thou didst curse is dried up.'
22 And Jesus answering saith to them, `Have faith of God;
23 for verily I say to you, that whoever may say to this mount, Be taken up, and be cast into the sea, and may not doubt in his heart, but may believe that the things that he saith do come to pass, it shall be to him whatever he may say.

French Prometheus

Good point Javaman. I should have quoted Mark 11 instead of Matthew 21 in my opening statement. It's more detailed.

Attonitus

Ergo if Jesus is not the nobleman then Jesus is not God.
Ergo if Jesus it orders to kill people then Jesus is not a good man

lpetrich

So he's entitled to be vengeful and close-minded?

(Jesus Christ coming to break up everybody's families...)
If he meant that, he could have said that. Instead of something roundabout and easy to misinterpret.

And how does one figure that out?

Johann_Kaspar

Most likely the "nobleman" is dog.

Johann_Kaspar

Nope. Or otherwise give me evidence of it. Do you think that a king is using cheeks to gain his power instead of swords? Especially when facing an imperium romanorum? Now show us in all the Roman history the case of one character real or fictitious who was crucified by the Romans without holding a sword or without rebelling against them... Please... :boohoo:

joedad

This really isn't a discussion about intolerance, it's a discussion about Literalism. The christianity we have today is Literalist christianity, and that hasn't changed or been contested since the fourth century.