woodchuck

Thanks for being so considerate JL, I can't wait to be beaten by the head and neck by you. That'll be fun.

NOGO

Glad to hear from you Woodchuck.
Good response however you failed to answer a few things about Ecc 9. I will repeat them if you don`t mind because I believe that they are important.

Granted. When I made the second statement I remembered Daniel. In particular I remembered this verse.

Daniel 12:13
"But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

Notice that Daniel is told by the angel that he will die and then rise again at the end of the age (ie end of the world) when final judgement will be made.
The question is this where will Daniel be in the mean time? Sheol?


Paul's mystery
1 Corinthians 15- 51:52
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Notice that Paul also says that the dead will be raised at the end of the world. Where were these people till then? Sheol?

Matthew 13
37 And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.
40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.
41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

So nothing happens until the harvest ie the end of the age (end of the world).


Matthew 24:31
"And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.


The conclusion is that everyong goes to Sheol as Ecclesistes says until the end of the world when Jesus will return.

Ecc 9
9 Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun.

Note the words "for this is your reward in life"
While Daniel is told rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age

So the author of Ecc 9 has nothing more to offer his readers than the enjoyment of life here on earth while Daniel is told that there is something other than that at the end of the age.


Job 14
7 "For there is hope for a tree, When it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And its shoots will not fail.
8 "Though its roots grow old in the ground And its stump dies in the dry soil,
9 At the scent of water it will flourish And put forth sprigs like a plant.
10 "But man dies and lies prostrate. Man expires, and where is he?
11 "As water evaporates from the sea,
And a river becomes parched and dried up,
12 So man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no longer,
He will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep.
13 "Oh that You would hide me in Sheol, That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You,
That You would set a limit for me and remember me!
14 "If a man dies, will he live again? All the days of my struggle I will wait Until my change comes.

Note the words "for there is hope for a tree"
"and its stump dies"
"At the scent of water it will flourish ..."

It dies and then flourishes (ie lives again)

So there is hope for a tree ... as opposed to a man.

Verse 12 "So man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no longer"
"He will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep"

The author of Job is comparing two thing - a contrast.
On one hand is a tree and on the other is a man.
There is hope for a tree but there is no hope for a man.
A tree dies and lives again while a man dies and never rises.

You can't get any clearer than that.


I gave three examples of punishment here on earth.
Ok one is not very good.
The other is debatable.
But you did not answer the third.

Ecc 5:6
Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands?

I conclude that you do not question this one.
Let's say that I gave you one example from the book of Ecclesiastes.
I am waiting for an example of punishment after life from the same book.

Job 19:25
I don't think this is a very clear statement of what you claim. Who know what the author meant. You may be reading into this.
I will however look into further.

Psalm 16:10
10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.
11 You will make known to me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.

You are definitely reading into this one. All the author is saying is that he does not wishes to die. He asks God to not let him die, to show him the path of life.

Psalm 49:15
But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, For He will receive me. Selah.

Compare thhis verse with the ones below

Pslam 56:13
For You havedelivered my soul from death,
Indeed my feet from stumbling,
So that I may walk before God
In the light of the living.

Hosea 13:14
Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from death?
O Death, where are your thorns?
O Sheol, where is your sting?
Compassion will be hidden from My sight.

Redeem my sould from the power of Sheol means not to let the guy die.

By the time we get to Daniel and the New Testament the concept of afterlife is in full swing. But back in Job and Ecclasiates people believed that death was final.

The evidence is as follows
Ecc 9:10 for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.
Ecc 9:5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything

Job 14 A tree will live again but man does not rise again.

Ecc 9 One fate awaits all, good and bad, they all go to Sheol.

Please explain the above if these authors believed in an afterlife.

PLease give an example. The ones that I was able to find don't imply any afterlife.
For example
2 Kings 22
19 because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you," declares the LORD.
20 "Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place."'" So they brought back word to the king.


It would be nice if you give references. The idea of life after death is explicitly stated in the NT so we don't have to argue over that.

Under the sun means on earth. We have no disagreement here.
But you are implying something which is not stated and that is that man has a life in heaven after his earthly life. That is why you seem to think that "under the sun" is so significant to your cause. The author of Ecclesiastes is saying enjoy your life on earth because the only other thing for you is Sheol where you will know nothing feel nothing.

Now if I repeat that but this time using the expression "under the sun"

The author of Ecclesiastes is saying enjoy your life "under the sun" because the only other thing for you is Sheol where you will know nothing feel nothing.

You seem to think that the author is talking about an afterlife with God above. You cannot conclude anything from the expression "under the sun" except that it means "on earth". The rest is in you mind and not in the text.

If we are to believe the NT then there is no afterlife untill the end of the world.
The authors of Job and Ecclesiastes don't mention the end of the world and therefore they cannot be talking about afterlife.

I have never said that life is meaningless. That's your angle.
Where does the author of Ecclesiastes says that life is meaningless without God.
Please elaborate. I simply do not see that in this book. I perhaps missed it.
I may be wrong but I think that you are reading into this from a Christian bias.
So quote verses and explain this to me in detail.

I believe that he says that many things are meaningless and that the best that you can do is obey God's commandsments and enjoy what ever life is given you because that is what your reward is.

Obviously you see something more. Prove it. I don't see it but perhaps I am wrong.

"Surely this implies that he needs a savior". What in Ecclesiastes tells you this.
Nothing.

And that is the BIG problem. Don't you think that if God inspire this book he should have told the author that there is hope. That this condition was brought about by man's downfall and that God promised a saviour.

You are saying that this is implied by the rest of the Bible (ie the NT)
But what about the people who read this before the NT?
How do you think that they read this and what did it tell them?

Notice that no OT author, prophet etc. speaks about the fall of mankind and a need for a saviour which was promised by God.

Notice that Jesus did not say that his mission was to salvage humanity from the fall of mankind in Genesis and that he was the answer to God's promise.

This is what Jesus had to say about his mission.

Matthew 15:24
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Isn`t bizarre that God`s plan for humanity which is suppose to be the central theme of the Bible is so confused.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

Hi JL,

Maybe I can take a break and write about where morality comes from. I am sure that Woodchuck would love to know where morality comes from.
At least my view on it.

You can let yourself loose on him as you wish.

If we can`t get him with good arguements at least we will be able to wear him out with quantity.


NOGO

woodchuck

The woodchuck and the Fig Tree Part 2: the sequel

My fairest Nog. Ok, you want to keep the fig tree bit going and I won’t argue since I deviously twisted the scripture and didn’t expose Jesus for what a truly horrid person he was for killing an empty tree.

First off, the things I said about fig trees are a fact about fig trees. Just because the author didn’t explain every detail about the tree doesn’t mean squat. Fig trees were popped up all over Jesus’ ghetto like 40’s in the LBC. You don’t hear Snoop Dogg writing raps that intricately describe 40’s because he assumes the all his homies listening know about 40s. The Israelites were rollin' down the street kickin' back figs all day long, so Mark only busted minimal rhymes on the subject of the fig tree.

Anyway, even IF the ghetto tree would later bear fruit it doesn’t mean diddly spit. Once again you avoid the point and take details out of context. Almost every single thing that Christ did in the recorded gospels was to teach a lesson or to prove a point. Why should this be exempt? Christ was a man of great depth- (out of this world depth!) to this day His words still teach new things to millions. Obviously the fig tree was a type used for an example. Not only the previously mentioned parable, but also the clearing of the temple as mentioned in other posts, and the words he speaks when they walk past the tree again the next day.

Your trying to make it seem as if Jesus was either just walking along and threw a fit and cursed a poor innocent fig tree (and I guess to the evolutionist, the tree is equal to humans, and humans are equal to a fart, so I can see why your so broken up about the fig tree’s demise, here, have a tissue). Or you’re implying that Jesus was saying that he’ll destroy people even if they will later bear fruit because he’s really deep down a ruthless jerk. This does not line up with Jesus’ character, nor any of his teachings. The gospels depict a very loving, but very serious, passionate and honest man.

Jesus’ teachings were taught to rescue men from death. Is not the disposing of one fig tree not worth the saving of billions of lives? Does he not have the right to make an example of an inanimate object? Fig trees don’t have feelings nog. You’re just taking the fig tree’s side because you’re anti-Jesus. I’m sure all the Israely environmentalists were tyin’ them selves to the fig tree trying to stop the horrid crime. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Immediately after Jesus cursed the tree he cleared the temple. In the same way he cursed the tree for having no fruit, he cleared the temple for having no spiritual fruit. You know the story. The Israelites had commercialized the church and were using it to get money out of people. He made the church leaders so furious they wanted to kill him, because he exposed their evil hearts and people were amazed! Read it:

Mark 11:18
“The chief priests and teachers of the law heard this and began to look for a way to kill him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.”

Look at it like this. You’re flippin’ through the channels and you see king and queen God on TBN sportin' their diamonds and pimped out thrones, talking bible talk but in between advertising insanely stupid crap like a golden door knocker with the TBN logo on it for insanely hi prices, they sit there and use scripture so that queen God can buy a new Porsche, and they start passin' around the offering plate and king God starts prayin' “Oh, sweet, sweet Jesus! Bless our offering plate tonight Lord! Bless it mightily! I don’t want to hear the jinglin’ of change Lord; I want to hear the rustling of bills!!!!!!” (based on true story), suddenly JC pops in and starts going buck. He’s pickin’ up there crap and throwing it through windows, flushing their stupid door knocker down the toilet, and rippin’ king and queen god’s jewelry off and throwing it on the floor, grabbin’ there big ol’ golden cross and giving King God a bare butt spanking. And then he grabs the microphone and starts bustin’ out the scripture: “Is it not written?! ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations?’- But you have made it a den of robbers!”

The people go silent. You barely hear a man cough. Why? Because he’s RIGHT. King and Queen God are all the while planning their next sermon entitled “Don’t listen to that guy we prayed and god told us it was the Devil” but they remain silent, because the crowd is in amazement, and is listening intently to Jesus’ teachings.

It’s strange that this “den of robbers” thing got Jesus so furious, yet when he was being crucified he prayed “father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Jesus could fully love a man who had brutally torn him to pieces, mocked him, and was killing him, without reprimanding him once- but when someone claimed to be righteous yet remained fruitless, that got his goat. He could take an insult directed at him, but you just don’t mess with Sky Daddy’s kingdom.

I know you’ll disagree with most of this, even though it’s pretty clear to me that, barren or not, the tree was an example Christ was using to teach a very important point he was incredibly passionate about. If Jesus wanted to he could of pulled a new fig tree out of his butt with fruit popping out all over, take a wiz and turn it to wine and had leftovers for the walk home. Jesus just used the example of his hunger to illustrate his longing to have a real relationship with his church, and the tree as an example of a church with no spirit, and the utter pointlessness, meaninglessness, and foundationless heap of dung a fruitless church is.

Well, that’s two down, two to go- catch you on the flip side nog-daddy.
-EEF the woodchuck who wouldn’t mind clearin’ TBN’s temple with his big buck teeth any day.

PS-Your right about quantity, fer cryin out loud! how's a woodchuck keep up? I can feel your cross hairs on the center of my forehead.

JL

Thanks for the invite NOGO. I really didn't have any awe inspiring arguments up my sleeve for morality waiting. Just thought I'd poke and probe at woody a bit to see if he squirms or pokes back. Anyways it might be more effective to implant a few tiny seeds of doubt and let them grow than force someones focused outright, reasoned rejection.

Naaa... I'd just feel dirty afterwards

NOGO

I have no doubt that what you said about the fig tree is true. My point is that it is irrelavant to the story because there are two very clear statements that show that the situation is not what you say it is.

What you are saying is that since other stories have some lesson to be learned then this story must as well. I say that it doesn't for the reasons that I gave. In fact the story is told in order to show how powerful Jesus was and nothing else. This story is just that a story. It never actually took place. (my belief, which you do need to share). As for the clearing of the temple ... notice that the author does not try to justify the vendors but he does justify the tree for not having any fruits.
What is happening here Woodchuck is that you are trying to take this story and make it like the others, ie Jesus trying to teach us something. This story simply does not fit the pattern.

What details did I take out of context?
Please do not make accusations without backing them up. It is simple. If you give examples then I can defend my point of view. Otherwise it sounds like a judgement without possibility of appeal.

I am not trying to defend the tree. That is absurd Woodchuck. What I am trying to tell you is that not all stories of Jesus are as Godly as you may think. There are others. I think that I pointed another to you about whether children are responsible for what their fathers have done. There are others as well. Believers tend to idealize Jesus and therefore anything he said must be good and that is why you can't see this story for what it is.

Logic requires that you establish the facts from evidence first and then draw the conclusions. When you say "barren or not, the tree was an example Christ was using to teach a very important point he was incredibly passionate about" You are starting with the conclusion.

Fact A: The author says that the tree had no fruit because it was not the season. He thus exonorates the tree from any fault.

Fact B: Jesus himself says that he cursed the tree so that no one else would eat from its fruit. This shows again that there was nothing wrong with the tree.

Fact C: In the case of the temple vendors the author does not exonorate the vendors. So the situation is different.

Fact D: Hunger is a personal need. There was no personal needs with regard to the temple vendors.

Logic: IF A AND B AND C AND D then we are not dealing with a teaching from Jesus.
There is something wrong with the vendors.
There is nothing wrong with the tree.

It is simple logic here Woodchuck it is not anti-christ or anti anything. LOGIC and nothing but. If you wish to demolish my arguement you must attack the logic, personal attacks wont do. If logic makes me anti-christ then any logical person must be necessarily anti-christ and any pro-christ must be necessarily illogical. Clearly that cannot be. If I am being illogical then you or some else will point it out to me.

The story reads as follows:

Hungry.
Tree, no figs, not season.
revenge, destroy tree.
If I cannot have your figs then no one will.

Your defence is that this is so unlike Jesus.
But which Jesus are you talking about?
The one which your preachers or parents have glorified for you since you were a baby
or the one which you can get from simply reading the NT.

Jesus also said this
Matthew 15
24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!"
26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

So all people except the children of the house of Israel are dogs according to Jesus.

Very unlike the Jesus that you have been tought. Right?

I am sorry about this. I was only kidding about wearing you out. I was actually suggesting that I pause for a while and work on "where morality comes from" while JL has a bout or two with you.

Cheers.

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Bree

There wasn't a church in Jesus' time. I thought Jesus came to create the new covenant, or new church. Could it be that Jesus could foresee all the problems in the CURRENT church and is commenting about them at that present time?

If Jesus was longing for a real relationship with his church (i.e. Judaism, since Christianity didn't exist at the time) then why was he sent to change Judaism forever by creating a new religion called Christianity? Or wasn't that Jesus' true purpose? Was he just supposed to come down and set a good example (and the founding of a new world religion just happened to be an afterthought)?

Koiyotnik

Wow, this post is really overdue, and I apologise for jumping in late, but I couldn't pass this one up:

So, are you saying that with all the theistic "evidence" for Jesus, that makes him empirical, and thus an idol?

Again, sorry about my butting in.

NOGO

The reason this explanation does not fit the facts is that the gospel author exonorates the tree of any fault by saying that it was not the season. Jesus also implies that the tree was normal.

Here you give the example of a church without spirit. BUT what in the story allows you conclude that. Can all trees without fruits when not in season be compared to spiritless churches?

Trees don`t have fruits all year. THIS IS NORMAL.
You cannot therefore compare it to something abnormal and justify the destruction of the tree.

If you work 6 days and rest on the seventh, then I cannot come around on day 7 while you are resting and claim that you are lazy and curse you.

This story cannot be magically twisted into a moral lesson in order to whitewash the obvious conclusion.

Compare with Matthew`s version

Matthew 21
18 Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry.
19 Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you." And at once the fig tree withered.
20 Seeing this, the disciples were amazed and asked, "How did the fig tree wither all at once?"
21 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.
22 "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

Note that Jesus is not imputing any fault on the tree. No more than he imputs fault on the mountain. He is saying that faith is all powerful.
So if you have faith you will have the power to go around and vent your frustration and destroy trees without fruit when not in season. What an example?

He Jesus was not hungry as stated in verse 18 then we can say that he destroyed the tree just to show the disciples. But with the hunger it is obvious that it (the hunger) triggered the whole episode. So my statements all stand.

Jesus could have made the tree blossom with fruits in an instant. That way he would not only have made the point about the power of faith but also he would have had his fig and satisfied his hunger. Instead he chose to kill the tree out of frustration.

Since I haven`t seen any all power Christians I must conclude that none have the faith required.
Thank God for that.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

NASB Matthew 6
9 "Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
10 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
YLT Mt 6
9 thus therefore pray ye: `Our Father who [art] in the heavens! hallowed be Thy name.
10 `Thy reign come: Thy will come to pass, as in heaven also on the earth.

The implication here is that the Kingdom of God will be here on earth and not in heaven as some people claim. So the dead will be brought back to life for an earthly kingdom.

So strictly speaking there has been no life after death yet. We only have a promise to be fulfilled at the end of the world.

Now if you have the patience I will show you that Jesus prophecied and early Christians believed that the end of the world would come soon after AD 70. And it did not happen.