Lesser know miracle of Christ.

Whit · 03-06-2003, 02:14 AM

     I know that religion isn't a big topic around here but I saw a biblical pasage referenced and had to look it up. I'm a little thrown by it.

Quote:

From the Book of Matthew
21:18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
21:20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

     Is it my imagination or did Jesus kick a fig trees ass and then talk smack about a mountain? Kind throws a curve on what most of would expect as an answer to all those annoying WWJD stickers doesn't it?
     On a related topic, I understand that Jesus also at some point pulled money from a fish, but I am having trouble finding this. Any suggestions? Man, screw healing the sick and maimed, that's the kinda miracle I'm talkin' about.

Whit · 03-06-2003, 02:23 AM

     Oh, here it is.

Quote:

From Matthew
17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

     Cool.

Nothing But Net · 03-06-2003, 02:43 AM

It's almost springtime.

The nursery is delivering my money tree tomorrow.

Bitman · 03-11-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord and Savior Whit
if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

He's talking about California. Note he didn't say when it would be done.

NBN, you may want to read Hitchhiker's Guide, it covers the topic of using leaves as currency.

katfiche · 03-30-2003, 01:39 AM

Is it my imagination or did Jesus kick a fig trees ass and then talk smack about a mountain? Kind throws a curve on what most of would expect as an answer to all those annoying WWJD stickers doesn't it?

Throughout the scriptures the fig tree was representative of Israel. His curse was upon Israel for their unbelief. I've always felt the WWJD movement to be a bit flawed since Jesus was one who's actions carried a bit more weight than your average church-goer. I doubt the WWJD argument would work in a court of law if you were to walk into a church raffle and started overturning tables, yet that is similar to what Jesus did when he walked into the temple and busted up the place for turning it into a marketplace.

Whit · 03-30-2003, 04:06 PM

     Wait, you're saying that Jesus is suggesting kicking Israel's, or perhaps any nonbelievers ass? Heh, that's a little different that common teaching. Hmm, of course that would mean those Salem types back in the day and the Spanish Inquisition weren't far off.
     As far as Jesus' actions carrying more weight, he was often said that he was as all the 'faithful' should be. Even in the passage above he says anyone with faith 'shall' do the tree and mountain stuff. I realize he's the son of God and all but hey, he's the one saying the faithful can do it.
     Oh, and to any that didn't catch it, this thread got started before the philosophy forum. Hey Kat, maybe you should respond there? Just let us know here if you do.

smoothmoniker · 03-30-2003, 04:32 PM

Whit -

Jesus' anger and vitrolic language was reserved for two classes of people. The first are those who claimed to be religious teachers, and yet perverted the nature of their teaching in order to gain prestige, money, glory for themselves. These were the Pharisees and Sadduccees that keep making cameos in the biblical texts.

The second class of people are those who know the truth, or who ought to know it based on experience and learning, and yet act contrary to it. This would be the category that Israel falls into - they knew the faithfulness of God to carry out his covenant promises, yet they acted as if his words were not true. In these cases, the anger and frustration of Jesus is coupled with a sense of mourning.

kat - the temple thing actually has a bit more backstory than just the "no money in the temple" angle. The authority over the 2nd temple (The one in existence in Jesus time) had set up these tables, animal stalls, money changers, etc. in the outer court, where non-jews of all nationalities were supposed to come and worship Yahweh. The reference that Jesus makes in clearing out the temple is the the Old Covenant command that God's house should be a house of prayer for all people, of all nations. With the stalls and moneychangers crammed into the outer court, there was no place for this to happen. It was a statement against corrupting the worship at the temple, but it was also a statement against the Jews keeping the gentiles out of the place that was properly their's for the worship of Yahweh.

-sm

katfiche · 03-30-2003, 06:49 PM

SM, I am familiar with the context of the event but abbreviated my reply because it was just an aside I had added off of the main point. Though, I do feel that the whole WWJD movement is a bit left of center. I have no right to publicly condemn a minister for having a faulty soteriology. Jesus spoke as "one with authority", my being in the right doesn't give me that same authority. There is recourse in such an instance laid out in the new testament but public rebuke isn't one of them. Christ quite plainly spoke against the Pharisaical doctrine of works. That being said, the singular flaw to the WWJD movement, as I see it, is that it exhorts one to "emulate" Christ under ones own power, relying on acts of the individual will to attain a state of holiness rather than "being conformed to His image" by the Spirit. If it were possible for the individual will to maintain a state of holiness then the prior covenant would have been sufficient and Christ would not have had to die. History has proven what God knew all along, that the determination of the individual alone has never been enough. A more profitable message would be to look to Christ towards the submission of the self to the power of the Holy Spirit. To attain an actual state of holiness induced by the Spirit would be a much more worthwhile strategy to present.

smoothmoniker · 03-31-2003, 01:05 AM

kat - somebody's been hitting their copy of Grudem's Systematic Theology pretty hard ;-)

I agree with your assessment of the WWJD thing. What I find pretty funny, in a cycnical sort of way, about the Church in America is their willingness to climb onto any trend that gathers up enough steam to garner secular attention (Prayer of Jabez, WWJD, Left Behind series, etc.) without paying much mind to the theology or doctrine behind the trend. The desire to be culturally relevant causes many, I think, to set such considerations on a lower level.

BTW, sorry for attempting to play professor on the Temple thing. I get sensitive toward any perceived attempt to "socialize" the revolutionary intent of Jesus, to make it a money thing, a class warfare thing, an egalitarian thing, instead of a messianic headship, Kingdom of God, new covenant thing. [stepping away from soapbox, gently laying down megaphone]

-sm

Uryoces · 03-31-2003, 01:45 AM

Pride is deadly thing. The thing I try to keep in mind, which some would argue with me on, is that I try to imagine that my salvation is bought every day, not just once.

Whit · 03-31-2003, 02:16 AM

     Pride is a deadly thing... Hmm, I guess I can accept that. Myabe because I'd probably die before setting aside my pride. Pride is good stuff, keep you going well past most anything else. Incuding faith. I think faith is only really effective when coupled with pride. At least that's my outsiders view on it.

Uryoces · 03-31-2003, 02:28 AM

Yeah, I suppose I should elaborate on that. It's not lack of will or resolve, or not feeling good about one's self. It is possible to have excellent self-esteem and not be prideful.

Kind of on a tangent, maybe, but one of my favorite movies is Contact. Faith and science aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, that great things require a lot of both.

Then at the end of the movie just before the credits roll, the words "For Carl" appear on the screen, and I always get just a bit misty.

katfiche · 03-31-2003, 02:35 AM

SM, I'm not familiar with Grudem but then I'm not familar with many works beyond the early 20th century. I'm currently working very hard at arriving at my own conclusions, proving and disproving things along the way. but mostly I find myself proving two differing sides of the same coin. One-sided logic is pervasive in theological circles.

I think the fact a movement garners secular attention shows that it is rooted in the self-empowering. Whether its a matter of giving to get, praying to get, or the "puffing up" of ones pride through the discovery of hidden or secret knowledge, it all comes down to the self. Sir Isaac Newton wrote that prophecy was written to point out the milestones along the journey and not to increase the pride of individuals who would intellectually deduce their hidden meanings. Yet, look how many sects are based upon their eschatological views. Its hardly worth dividing up the Body of Christ arguing about end time events when regardless of what you believe we'll all not be late to the party.

I think you can easily substitute "successful" or "profitable" for your use of the phrase "culturally relevant".

And no need to apologize for defending the Gospel. The lack of any response to the question led me to believe there was probably little interest in things theological here. So my answer was short and without much substance.

-Cf

Whit · 03-31-2003, 02:56 AM

     What question had a lack of response?
     Just a thought, most people don't discuss theology online for the same reason it's not often disucssed in person except between people of similar views, it often starts meaningless arguements. Generaly both sides go in with their own viewpoints which are unchangeable, so the talk is a waste of time. Please, don't assume level of response to anything is indicitive of interest level. It may be and it may not be.

xoxoxoBruce · 04-05-2003, 11:18 AM

Hey, hey, hey. Don't be casting no aspersions on JC.
He might have smited or slew but no ass kickin'.

03-30-2003, 04:06 PM	#6
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	Wait, you're saying that Jesus is suggesting kicking Israel's, or perhaps any nonbelievers ass? Heh, that's a little different that common teaching. Hmm, of course that would mean those Salem types back in the day and the Spanish Inquisition weren't far off.      As far as Jesus' actions carrying more weight, he was often said that he was as all the 'faithful' should be. Even in the passage above he says anyone with faith 'shall' do the tree and mountain stuff. I realize he's the son of God and all but hey, he's the one saying the faithful can do it.      Oh, and to any that didn't catch it, this thread got started before the philosophy forum. Hey Kat, maybe you should respond there? Just let us know here if you do. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

03-31-2003, 01:45 AM	#10
Uryoces 2nd Covenant, yo Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Pugetropolis Posts: 583	Pride is deadly thing. The thing I try to keep in mind, which some would argue with me on, is that I try to imagine that my salvation is bought every day, not just once. __________________ The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out.

03-31-2003, 02:16 AM	#11
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	Pride is a deadly thing... Hmm, I guess I can accept that. Myabe because I'd probably die before setting aside my pride. Pride is good stuff, keep you going well past most anything else. Incuding faith. I think faith is only really effective when coupled with pride. At least that's my outsiders view on it. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

03-31-2003, 02:28 AM	#12
Uryoces 2nd Covenant, yo Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Pugetropolis Posts: 583	Yeah, I suppose I should elaborate on that. It's not lack of will or resolve, or not feeling good about one's self. It is possible to have excellent self-esteem and not be prideful. Kind of on a tangent, maybe, but one of my favorite movies is Contact. Faith and science aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, that great things require a lot of both. Then at the end of the movie just before the credits roll, the words "For Carl" appear on the screen, and I always get just a bit misty. __________________ The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out.

03-31-2003, 02:56 AM	#14
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	What question had a lack of response?      Just a thought, most people don't discuss theology online for the same reason it's not often disucssed in person except between people of similar views, it often starts meaningless arguements. Generaly both sides go in with their own viewpoints which are unchangeable, so the talk is a waste of time. Please, don't assume level of response to anything is indicitive of interest level. It may be and it may not be. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

03-06-2003, 02:43 AM	#3
Nothing But Net Professor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Spring, Texas Posts: 1,481	It's almost springtime. The nursery is delivering my money tree tomorrow.

03-30-2003, 01:39 AM	#5
katfiche like a fiche outta water Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tejas Posts: 19	Is it my imagination or did Jesus kick a fig trees ass and then talk smack about a mountain? Kind throws a curve on what most of would expect as an answer to all those annoying WWJD stickers doesn't it? Throughout the scriptures the fig tree was representative of Israel. His curse was upon Israel for their unbelief. I've always felt the WWJD movement to be a bit flawed since Jesus was one who's actions carried a bit more weight than your average church-goer. I doubt the WWJD argument would work in a court of law if you were to walk into a church raffle and started overturning tables, yet that is similar to what Jesus did when he walked into the temple and busted up the place for turning it into a marketplace.

03-30-2003, 04:32 PM	#7
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	Whit - Jesus' anger and vitrolic language was reserved for two classes of people. The first are those who claimed to be religious teachers, and yet perverted the nature of their teaching in order to gain prestige, money, glory for themselves. These were the Pharisees and Sadduccees that keep making cameos in the biblical texts. The second class of people are those who know the truth, or who ought to know it based on experience and learning, and yet act contrary to it. This would be the category that Israel falls into - they knew the faithfulness of God to carry out his covenant promises, yet they acted as if his words were not true. In these cases, the anger and frustration of Jesus is coupled with a sense of mourning. kat - the temple thing actually has a bit more backstory than just the "no money in the temple" angle. The authority over the 2nd temple (The one in existence in Jesus time) had set up these tables, animal stalls, money changers, etc. in the outer court, where non-jews of all nationalities were supposed to come and worship Yahweh. The reference that Jesus makes in clearing out the temple is the the Old Covenant command that God's house should be a house of prayer for all people, of all nations. With the stalls and moneychangers crammed into the outer court, there was no place for this to happen. It was a statement against corrupting the worship at the temple, but it was also a statement against the Jews keeping the gentiles out of the place that was properly their's for the worship of Yahweh. -sm

03-30-2003, 06:49 PM	#8
katfiche like a fiche outta water Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tejas Posts: 19	SM, I am familiar with the context of the event but abbreviated my reply because it was just an aside I had added off of the main point. Though, I do feel that the whole WWJD movement is a bit left of center. I have no right to publicly condemn a minister for having a faulty soteriology. Jesus spoke as "one with authority", my being in the right doesn't give me that same authority. There is recourse in such an instance laid out in the new testament but public rebuke isn't one of them. Christ quite plainly spoke against the Pharisaical doctrine of works. That being said, the singular flaw to the WWJD movement, as I see it, is that it exhorts one to "emulate" Christ under ones own power, relying on acts of the individual will to attain a state of holiness rather than "being conformed to His image" by the Spirit. If it were possible for the individual will to maintain a state of holiness then the prior covenant would have been sufficient and Christ would not have had to die. History has proven what God knew all along, that the determination of the individual alone has never been enough. A more profitable message would be to look to Christ towards the submission of the self to the power of the Holy Spirit. To attain an actual state of holiness induced by the Spirit would be a much more worthwhile strategy to present.

03-31-2003, 01:05 AM	#9
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	kat - somebody's been hitting their copy of Grudem's Systematic Theology pretty hard ;-) I agree with your assessment of the WWJD thing. What I find pretty funny, in a cycnical sort of way, about the Church in America is their willingness to climb onto any trend that gathers up enough steam to garner secular attention (Prayer of Jabez, WWJD, Left Behind series, etc.) without paying much mind to the theology or doctrine behind the trend. The desire to be culturally relevant causes many, I think, to set such considerations on a lower level. BTW, sorry for attempting to play professor on the Temple thing. I get sensitive toward any perceived attempt to "socialize" the revolutionary intent of Jesus, to make it a money thing, a class warfare thing, an egalitarian thing, instead of a messianic headship, Kingdom of God, new covenant thing. [stepping away from soapbox, gently laying down megaphone] -sm

03-31-2003, 02:35 AM	#13
katfiche like a fiche outta water Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tejas Posts: 19	SM, I'm not familiar with Grudem but then I'm not familar with many works beyond the early 20th century. I'm currently working very hard at arriving at my own conclusions, proving and disproving things along the way. but mostly I find myself proving two differing sides of the same coin. One-sided logic is pervasive in theological circles. I think the fact a movement garners secular attention shows that it is rooted in the self-empowering. Whether its a matter of giving to get, praying to get, or the "puffing up" of ones pride through the discovery of hidden or secret knowledge, it all comes down to the self. Sir Isaac Newton wrote that prophecy was written to point out the milestones along the journey and not to increase the pride of individuals who would intellectually deduce their hidden meanings. Yet, look how many sects are based upon their eschatological views. Its hardly worth dividing up the Body of Christ arguing about end time events when regardless of what you believe we'll all not be late to the party. I think you can easily substitute "successful" or "profitable" for your use of the phrase "culturally relevant". And no need to apologize for defending the Gospel. The lack of any response to the question led me to believe there was probably little interest in things theological here. So my answer was short and without much substance. -Cf

04-05-2003, 11:18 AM	#15
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Hey, hey, hey. Don't be casting no aspersions on JC. He might have smited or slew but no ass kickin'. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)