Jesus is not the messiah...

[Guest]

Thank you for your response. One point I want to make and that is the camparison of Mormonisn. I do think, not only is this not a worthy comparison, although I can understand such an attempt on your part, but a deceptive one. I don't imagine any furthur discussion will result in an agreement, but I do wish you the very best and thank you for entertaining my inquiries. I will leave you with a post from another forum about the claims of Mormonisn. A document of proof that ceases to exist against Christianity.


"Scientific Evidence Against the Book of Mormon

In an attempt to validate and justify the claims of the Book of Mormon, the highest authority in Mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, related an event which, if true, would add significant weight to some of the Mormon claims for their sacred book. Fortunately, it is a fact on which a good deal of evidence can be brought to bear. Smith put forth his claim in the book Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith-History, 1:62-64, 1982 edition), and it is worthwhile to examine it:
I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them. Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows: "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters that had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."
According to Joseph Smith, then, Martin Harris, his colleague, obtained from the learned Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University a validation of Smith's translation of the reformed Egyptian hieroglyphic characters found on the plates that Moroni made available to him. The difficulty with Smith's statement is that Professor Anthon never said any such thing, and fortunately he went on record in a lengthy letter to Mr. E. D. Howe, a contemporary of Joseph Smith who did one of the most thorough jobs of research on the Mormon prophet and the origins of Mormonism extant. Upon learning of Smith's claim concerning Professor Anthon, Mr. Howe wrote him at Columbia. Professor Anthon's letter reproduced here from Howe's own collection is a classic piece of evidence the Mormons would like very much to see forgotten.
New York, N.Y.
Feb. 17, 1834
Mr. E. D. Howe
Painsville, Ohio

Dear Sir:

I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain and apparently simplehearted farmer called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decipher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. Mitchell confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax.

When I asked the person who brought it how he obtained the writing he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, [he gave] the following account: A "gold book," consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of "gold spectacles"! These spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned toward one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at the time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession.

This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, deciphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been deciphered "by the gift of God." Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money toward the publication of the "golden book," the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as a part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues.

He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and nourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained anything else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics."

Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the "curse of God" upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of the rogues. He then left me.

I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.

Yours respectfully,

Charles Anthon, LL.D.
Columbia University
Professor Anthon's letter is both revealing and devastating where Smith's and Harris' veracity are concerned. We might also raise the question as to how Professor Anthon could say that the characters shown to him by Martin Harris and authorized by Joseph Smith as part of the material copied from the revelation of the Book of Mormon were "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic" when the Book of Mormon itself declares that the characters were "reformed Egyptian," the language of the Nephites. Since the language of the Book of Mormon was known to "none other people," how would it be conceivably possible for Professor Anthon to have testified as to the accuracy of Smith's translation? To this date, no one has ever been able to find even the slightest trace of the language known as "reformed Egyptian"; and all reputable linguists who have examined the evidence put forth by the Mormons have rejected them as mythical.



Exerpt from Kingdom of the Cults-Walter Martin"

[Guest]

Hello, Chris,

Thank you for your response, and for the interesting excerpt.

For what it is worth, I did make the statement "in vague terms." Nothing can be proven by analogy, anyhow -- only illustrated.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet,

I sent a PM.

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for clarifying things for me .

In your two posts you wrote the comments I have pasted below:

Yes i only see one temple cleansing during the Passion week and one fig tree cursing described by two different authors have two different writing styles. Matthew has a style in which he writes by topics and Mark tends to write chronologically.
And i don't think that Matthew is the only author to not always write chronologically, for example i believe Jeremiah did'nt always.

I think there is a difference between Jeremiah and Matthew. Jeremiah is an anthology of materials related to the prophet; as such, sequential chronology is not an essential part of its structure. Matthew, on the other hand, is telling the life story of Jesus, and plainly presents a sequential narrative. If the chronology has been distorted, then this is potentially misleading to the audience. It is also potentially misleading about the significance of events, because it dislocates them from their actual context.

It's not an identical description but the essence is the same ,the point of the story is the same, Jesus cursed a fig tree and it withered and the disciples were astonished. Should i dismiss it because it's not verbatim the same.
IMO Matthew organized his gospel topically and decided to put the topic of the fig tree after the cleansing of the temple.

There may be more to the story than you have described.

Mark's version is structured so that the fig tree episode bookends around the cleansing of the temple. This structure is a literary form called chiasmus, and it was a very significant and popular form in ancient literature. Chiasmus consists of reflective parallels, sometimes around a central pivot: the themes for a three-part example could be diagrammed as ABCBA, where theme A both starts and begins a piece, theme B takes intermediary position, and theme C is at the heart of the construct. Because C is at the structural center, it may highlight the most important piece of the whole.

Mark's version is set in a chiastic structure which we can diagram as ABCBA, where the crowd's opinion and Jesus' role of authority are theme A, the fig tree is theme B, and the temple cleansing is theme C. Although it may not be apparent to some modern readers (because chiasmus is not a popular form in our literature), this structure suggests that the whole discussion may be interrelated. Given the shape of this passage, it seems quite safe to say that the fig tree is a metaphor related to the central event -- the cleansing of the temple.

For Mark, the metaphor is a pointed allusion to Hosea 9, where the fig tree is an image for the nation, and where there is reference to not bearing fruit and having a withered root (q.v., Hosea 9:10, 16). Hosea 9, in turn, refers to corruption in worship: at Baal-peor (q.v., Numbers 25, especially v. 2); and at Gilgal (Hosea 4:12-19, cf. 12:11, Amos 4:4). As such, the thrust of Mark's allusion is that corruption of the sanctuary is relatable to the eventual withering and dispersal of the nation (q.v., Hosea 9:16-17). The image is sharpened in light of the moneychangers by the contextual pairing of improper wealth with the sanctuary of Gilgal at Hosea 12:7-11 and Amos 3:13-4:5 (the material wealth but spiritual poverty in the Northern Kingdom was a major theme).

Turning to Matthew, the structural construct is comparatively muddied. The sharp chiasm has been dismantled, suggesting that Matthew may want to de-emphasize or requalify Mark's implications. There are three possibilitities. First, an ABBA format, where the temple cleansing and the fig tree are still parallel and related as theme B; this would remove the cleansing from the bulls-eye of the chiasm, but would only be a gentle softening. Second, an ABCBA format, where the cleansing and the tree are theme B, but the healing and validation of the weak constitute theme C; this would give a new center to the narrative, one less doom-oriented and more hopeful. Third, the deconstruction of Mark's chiasm may mean to separate the metaphor from the cleansing entirely.

In any case, Matthew's portrayal appears softened in another sense. To begin with, Matthew does not state explicitly that Jesus has "cursed" the tree, like Mark does; Matthew also lacks a reference to the withered root, which lessens the allusion to Hosea 9 and removes the suggestion that the object of the metaphor will lose its life-source in its root [cf. note below]. Beyond this, the appearance of the children in 21:15-16 raises a number of possibilties. On the one hand, their presence may be intended as a hopeful counterpoint to Hosea 9, where the nation's children were doomed. It is also possible that they are an offset to the sense that the nation has no viable fruit or hope. Altogether, Matthew may be discounting an allusion to Hosea 9 -- articulating instead a general metaphor for fruitfulness and destruction, aimed perhaps at the chief priests and the scribes (cf. v. 15).


[It is also interesting that Matthew has the curse as "May fruit no longer grow upon you, for ever," while Mark has "May no one eat fruit from you any longer, for ever." Matthew may be trying to render a more cautious version, with the sense that the old fruit from the tree is not cursed from eating, but the tree will bear no new fruit. This would be in keeping with Matthew's trend to conserve both the old and the new (cf. Matthew 9:17 ~ Mark 2:22; Matthew 13:52). Differences in articulation in the gospels very often appear to have a theological agenda; this casts some doubt on their mutual authenticity -- it seems likely that someone or another has been embroidering the data.]

I really don't see harmonizing these accounts as herculean feats but rather simply acknowleging that although these writers were inspired to write their accounts IMO they themselves are human beings with different writing styles and vantage points.

If the simple details of the narrative cannot be reconciled, then technically they cannot be harmonized -- they stand in contradiction. One can argue that the contradictions are of no significant concern, but I suspect that there may be more to divergences in the gospels than mere style or vantage.

Thanks again for your postings.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

In any case, Matthew's portrayal appears softened in another sense. To begin with, Matthew does not state explicitly that Jesus has "cursed" the tree, like Mark does; Matthew also lacks a reference to the withered root, which lessens the allusion to Hosea 9 and removes the suggestion that the object of the metaphor will lose its life-source in its root [cf. note below]. Beyond this, the appearance of the children in 21:15-16 raises a number of possibilties. On the one hand, their presence may be intended as a hopeful counterpoint to Hosea 9, where the nation's children were doomed. It is also possible that they are an offset to the sense that the nation has no viable fruit or hope. Altogether, Matthew may be discounting an allusion to Hosea 9 -- articulating instead a general metaphor for fruitfulness and destruction, aimed perhaps at the chief priests and the scribes (cf. v. 15).


Hi again Emmet, I'm glad you brought up the children because i think they are important but first back to our fig tree contradiction. In both gospels the fig tree withered the morning after the cleansing of the temple. Mark only mentions that the previous morning Jesus cursed the tree and Matthew omits this but in both gospels the tree withered the next morning after the temple cleansing. Yes the accounts are a little different ,"Rabbi,look! the fig tree which you cursed has withered away." Mark 11.21 verse Matt 21.19 "Let no fruit grow on you ever again" Immediately the fig tree withered away."
The only difference is the word immediately which can be inferred in Mark by Peter's surprise. I don't see any significant difference.

Re the children, this is quite interesting because Jesus is paraphrasing Psalm 8.2 but in his paraphrasing he does something which is his style which is to bring forth the real meaning behind the Psalm. In Matt 21.16 "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise." This term "perfected praise" is substituted for "You have ordained strength because of your enemies that you may silence the enemy and the avenger." Psalm 8.2
How do we obtain strength and silence the enemy whether spiritual or physical, by perfecting our praise to God by having hearts like babes.
In addition by paraphrasing Psalm 8 , Jesus is tacitly accepting worship IMO.
Re your observation that because of minor style differences someone may be embroidering the data i don't think so since the clear message is that the fig tree is Israel and this is another prophecy that it would fall "in this generation." Matt 24. It could be interpreted that Jesus continued with his prophecy in Matt 21.21 "but also if you say to this mountain ,be removed and be cast into the sea, it will be done" Since this is said right after the fig tree the mountain c/b Mt Zion (Israel) and the sea is symbolic for the gentiles ,therefore this also could be a prophecy of the jews being cast out in 70AD into the gentile world.
Good Shabbat

[Guest]

I should also point out that critical skepticism plays, at most, a partial role in my withholding credence from the New Testament. I withhold credence in large part because the New Testament claims continuity with the Israelite/Jewish faith, but actually involves profound discontinuity

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the many spiritual fulfillments that the NT writers claim with the OT prophecies . A good starting point if you're interested is here under Eschatolgy / A regathering of Isreal based on Isaiah 11.11-12. IMO Christianity is a spiritual fulfillment of many things in Judaism which appear to be a "profound discontinuity" but may not be what it appears to be.

[Guest]

Hello, Micah,

Thanks once again for your posting. I apologize for my tardiness in replying. Your comments required some research and thought - which is great !

Isn’t the whole purpose of the sacrifice to be a substitutionary atonement?

I disagree. I believe that sacrifice is a ritual – a piece of kinetic poetry meant to be experientially cathartic and didactic. This experience can strengthen faithful relationship (perhaps more so in ancient Near Eastern culture). This is not substitutionary (at least, in a classic sense).

But I would be interested in your understanding of how substitutionary atonement works: how does it actually accomplish the reconciliation of God and human? How does substitutionary atonement solve the problem of sin and increase justice in the world?

Now there are several scriptures in both Exodus and Ezekiel that mention a sacrifice has to be without blemish. This is the reason why human sacrifice cannot be accepted because we all inherit the sinful nature (the blemish) through Adam’s seed. Jesus, according to the gospels and Isaiah 7, was not born of man’s seed and therefore did not inherit the sinful nature. This allowed him to be the perfect sacrifice because he was without blemish. [quotation from Hebrews follows]

A cluster of responses on various points:

(1) The animal sacrifices need to be without blemish, yes. This is a mark of respect (cf. Malachi 1:8 ), and a matter of personal cost from one’s material wealth. At such a level, human sacrifice could still be viable in a slave economy like that of the ancient Near East; one could (and perhaps did) find unblemished specimens suitable for sacrifice. But human sacrifice is not sanctioned, because it is murder.

(2) Where do you find the transmission of sinful nature through Adam’s seed? It is my thought that sinful nature is a product of: (a) childhood/youthful ignorance and the formation of habit; and (b) our reckless pursuit of drives that are, in moderation, necessary for our health.

(3) Isaiah 7, as is well-known and admitted amongst even Christian scholars, does not prophesy a virginal conception. This passage is but one in a constellation of prophecies from the Hebrew bible that have been wrested irresponsibly from their context and applied to the life of Jesus. The Hebrew text does not mention a virgin, and the context in the chapter reveals that the prophecy does not concern a Messiah some 700 years hence, but rather the impending doom of Aram and the Northern Kingdom.

(4) As you might expect, the Hebrews quotation is no more compelling to a Jewish person than a Quranic sura would be to a Christian.

If atonement is achieved through your own righteousness than how do you know you've obtained enough righteousness to accomplish atonement?

You don’t – at least in an absolute sense. But Christians don’t “know” they have been atoned for, either; they believe.

Righteousness consists of having a heart that is fundamentally and preeminently committed to faithfulness to God. Beyond this, incidental imperfections do not rupture relationship with God, and thus do not require atonement; this is because God can deal with error easily enough, if one’s heart is in the right place.

Regarding the psychological issue of assurance, one must tend their heart in faithfulness, hope in God’s lovingkindness, and seek the comfort of his presence in prayer.

Also, can you show me in scripture where the sacrifice is only a ritual? I was under the impression that it was demanded by God for atonement.

Sacrifice is an integral part of the Torah construct. However, I am unaware of a passage that describes it as absolutely necessary for atonement.

Instead, there are passages in the Hebrew bible that indicate sacrifice is inadequate without righteousness (see Isaiah 1:11ff.; Jeremiah 6:19-20). Indeed, heedfulness and righteousness are described as preferential over sacrifice (I Samuel 15:22; Proverbs 21:3; cf. Mark 12:33), and the most extreme statement goes so far as to state that God delights in an attitude of the heart, and not sacrifice in itself (Hosea 6:6).

We may infer from these things that the heart/righteousness is a more essential factor, and sacrifice is an incidental factor; thus, sacrifice is not utterly necessary (although it should be fulfilled whenever possible). [A parallel to this in a Christian context: baptism should be performed whenever possible, but a person who is converted shortly before they die without water in the desert will not be damned for the mere lack of the ritual. Similarly, a person killed by bandits while journeying to sacrifice at the sanctuary will not be damned because they merely lack the ritual.] Accordingly, atonement pivots upon repentance, i.e., the turning of one’s self to righteousness (cf. Ezekiel 18 ). When man turns truly unto God, then God truly turns unto him.

Leviticus 17:11

11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'

In this verse it specifically states that atonement comes through the blood. Did this ever get rescinded? Or do you interpret this verse to mean something else?

This verse is highly sophisticated in the Hebrew text, and challenging to exegete. The verb rendered “make atonement” (kaphar) alone requires careful research and explanation.

But in any case, the text does not claim that blood is the only means by which to kaphar; rather, the text is addressing a particular circumstance, i.e., sacrifice on the altar. [To construct a parallel: God could say that he has given us food upon our tables to sustain our bodies, for it is food by means of calories and nutrition that sustains us. Such would not mean that only food could sustain our bodies - God can provide for our needs by other means.]

Neither does the text indicate whether the blood is an inherent means to kaphar, or an incidental means – which is to say: does the blood kaphar because of itself, or does the blood kaphar because it creates opportunity for what actually kaphars to take place? [To give a sorry parallel: does jewelry make a woman embrace you because the jewelry itself prompts her to give embraces, or because it expresses what is in your heart, which prompts her to embrace you? The actual answer reveals a lot about the depth of the woman, and our answer to what prompts God’s response to sacrifice – that reveals a lot about our understanding of the depth of God.]

[Responding to:"Jesus does not fulfill the requirement either, because he too is a person. His righteousness is his own, and the sins of others are their own."]

However, he is not just an ordinary person according to scripture….

The extraordinary nature of his person would not make any difference. Each person is what they themselves are, in truth. Jesus’ righteousness cannot eclipse the true righteousness or unrighteousness of another person. God knows their heart, and knows what they choose to be, and he will neither be fooled nor live in denial.

I am sure there is evidence to substantiate prophecy fulfillment of Jesus based on harder evidence. Such as where and when he was born, etc. Things that might make you think there is too much coincidence.

I would be more than happy to engage each of the alleged prophecies of Jesus. It might be nice to start another thread for those, though.

How does one determine what is accurate or not? Also, if one part is inaccurate than how can we determine if any of the rest is true? Why would God, when trying to communicate with us, allow any of the narrative to be inaccurate? Wouldn’t that mislead people to think or do something they shouldn’t?

Also, something to note here is that at certain times God goes to great lengths to try and make sure his word gets told correctly. Such as with Moses and the rock, God specifically commands Moses to speak to the rock. The consequences for Moses not following God’s commands were great. There are even other examples of this and it just appears to me that God wouldn’t allow inaccuracies into scripture.

I affirm that God is concerned about attentiveness to his word. But a huge quantity of the bible makes no claim to be God’s word; even the gospels make no such claim. It seems to me that if God is not being quoted in a passage, then it is not necessarily God’s word, although his inspiration may [or may not!] be behind what is being said to some greater or lesser extent. If a passage is not God's own word, then we need not ascribe his own perfection to it. Yet many people assume the entire text of their bible is the word of God, without clear grounds for doing so.

Regarding "allow"ance: Different churches have bibles with different contents. For example, Catholics have books that Protestants don't have. Thus, it would appear that God has already allowed a certain measure of human interference with the bible, whether through adding or omitting. Beyond this, God has allowed many dozens of translations of the bible into different languages, many of which diverge from each other. Beyond this, God has allowed the bible to be written in languages that virtually nobody speaks any more, at least not in their ancient forms; everything from biblical texts has to be translated out of languages that even the best linguists today lack full fluency in. God has allowed a great deal when it comes to the bible.

Regarding accuracy: that can be assessed to some extent by comparison with other evidence. The easiest passages are those which have parallels in other texts, e.g., the gospels and Kings/Chronicles. But it is illogical and dangerous to take an all-or-nothing approach. If there is an error in Esther, should we give no heed to Isaiah? These books had an independent history before folks started lumping them together.

Thank you, Micah, for your ongoing dialogue.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you, as ever, for your postings.

In both gospels the fig tree withered the morning after the cleansing of the temple. Mark only mentions that the previous morning Jesus cursed the tree and Matthew omits this but in both gospels the tree withered the next morning after the temple cleansing. Yes the accounts are a little different ,"Rabbi,look! the fig tree which you cursed has withered away." Mark 11.21 verse Matt 21.19 "Let no fruit grow on you ever again" Immediately the fig tree withered away."
The only difference is the word immediately which can be inferred in Mark by Peter's surprise. I don't see any significant difference.

For there to have been no disharmony, then Jesus would have had to have cursed the tree twice – once before cleansing the temple, and once after. He would also have had to have cursed the tree in two different ways: on the first occasion, cursing it "May fruit no longer grow upon you, for ever"; and on the latter occasion, "May no one eat fruit from you any longer, for ever." But such repetition of behavior would not have been impossible, I suppose.

Beyond this, Mark’s account does not actually say that the tree withered on the latter occasion. Instead, it says that they saw the tree, it having been withered from the roots; the Greek tense indicates a completed action, not a present one per se. Peter’s exclamation confirms this: “The fig tree which you cursed has been withered away” – the tense once again indicating a completed action. The natural narrative flow within Mark suggests that this withering took place in the interim between the curse before the cleansing of the temple and the re-acquaintance with the tree afterward. This narrative flow is significant, as it contributes toward linking the withering of the tree to the temple cleansing.

Peter's surprise by no means needs to be an indicator of immediacy. On the contrary, within Mark's narrative the curse referred to by Peter is clearly the curse of the earlier day. For it to have been fulfilled in such an obvious manner would have been sufficient cause for Peter's comment. Altogether, there is no indication to be found in Mark that the withering of the tree took place in an immediate fashion before the disciples' eyes, like Matthew's version. The plain implication of the narrative is quite otherwise.

The notable thing is that Mark's variation of the passage yields didactic results, sharpening the relation of the tree to the temple cleansing and providing a strong allusion to Hosea 9. Matthew's variation also yields didactic results, softening the relation of the tree and the allusion to Hosea 9. Didactic results suggest that there are reasons behind the variance, beyond mere coincidence. At the best, then, the variant accounts appear tendentious, and this raises questions about full or sufficient accuracy - especially for documents like the gospels, where every infinitesimal factor is a springboard for preaching and theology.

Re the children, this is quite interesting because Jesus is paraphrasing Psalm 8.2 but in his paraphrasing he does something which is his style which is to bring forth the real meaning behind the Psalm. In Matt 21.16 "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise." This term "perfected praise" is substituted for "You have ordained strength because of your enemies that you may silence the enemy and the avenger." Psalm 8.2
How do we obtain strength and silence the enemy whether spiritual or physical, by perfecting our praise to God by having hearts like babes.
In addition by paraphrasing Psalm 8 , Jesus is tacitly accepting worship IMO.

What is quite interesting here is that Jesus is not paraphrasing, but actually quoting the text-form found in the Septuagint (and not that found in the Hebrew bible). At the more skeptical end, this may indicate that the comment attributed to Jesus at this point in the gospel is a fabrication added by a later, Greek-speaking source. However, it may be admitted that the Hebrew text of Psalms may have carried several different forms at Jesus’ time, so perhaps he may have been quoting an alternate Hebrew form instead. Or, perhaps Jesus considered the Greek version to be an adequate reference for making his point. The whole issue raises questions about how the Septuagint was regarded amongst Palestinian Jews in the first century. For what it is worth, the Septuagint also includes the “because of your enemies…” material (though slightly differently from the Hebrew bible).

Jesus’ citation from the psalm in Matthew does not necessarily imply that he is accepting worship. The citation may simply establish an unimpeachable precedent for the laudation of children as valid. It is important to refer back to what the children are actually saying: “Hosanna to the son of David” is not divine worship – the phrase is, at least literally, an analogue to “God save the king” (lit. "save, please, the son of David").

Re your observation that because of minor style differences someone may be embroidering the data i don't think so since the clear message is that the fig tree is Israel and this is another prophecy that it would fall "in this generation." Matt 24. It could be interpreted that Jesus continued with his prophecy in Matt 21.21 "but also if you say to this mountain ,be removed and be cast into the sea, it will be done" Since this is said right after the fig tree the mountain c/b Mt Zion (Israel) and the sea is symbolic for the gentiles ,therefore this also could be a prophecy of the jews being cast out in 70AD into the gentile world.

I appreciate your elucidation of the symbology. However, the primary thrust of the narrative at that point does not seem to be prophecy of doom, but the power of prayer. This would not deny the subtext you have identified, but it might give sufficient reason for Matthew not to have removed it.

It is interesting, in light of Matthew 24, that chapter 21 still provided a softened version of this material. Perhaps Matthew had an aversion to the full parallel of Hosea 9. Despite the calamity of 70 CE, Judaism and the Jewish people remained fruitful and continued to draw upon their root in a way that the Northern Kingdom failed to.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the many spiritual fulfillments that the NT writers claim with the OT prophecies . A good starting point if you're interested is here under Eschatolgy / A regathering of Isreal based on Isaiah 11.11-12. IMO Christianity is a spiritual fulfillment of many things in Judaism which appear to be a "profound discontinuity" but may not be what it appears to be.

I’m sure that you can appreciate that “spiritual fulfillment” of scripture provides a great opportunity for mythic weaseling and outright fiction. Just look at a boatload of cults over time.

It is important to remember that the prophecies are messages from God to people in their own time. It betrays the dignity and integrity of their divine-human relationship to apply those prophecies in a way that replaces their plain significance to their actual audience.

Furthermore, it is highly questionable to attribute “spiritual fulfillment” to anything. The actual fulfillment of a prophecy can only be fairly understood as the accomplishment of its actual terms. The best that can be claimed for other “spiritual” things is that they draw upon similar values to the original prophecy. Technically speaking, such would not be a fulfillment of said prophecy; both the prophecy and the “spiritual” things would be fulfillments of their shared values.

Thank you, Steve, for your postings.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Beyond this, Mark’s account does not actually say that the tree withered on the latter occasion. Instead, it says that they saw the tree, it having been withered from the roots; the Greek tense indicates a completed action, not a present one per se. Peter’s exclamation confirms this: “The fig tree which you cursed has been withered away” – the tense once again indicating a completed action. The natural narrative flow within Mark suggests that this withering took place in the interim between the curse before the cleansing of the temple and the re-acquaintance with the tree afterward. This narrative flow is significant, as it contributes toward linking the withering of the tree to the temple cleansing.

Peter's surprise by no means needs to be an indicator of immediacy. On the contrary, within Mark's narrative the curse referred to by Peter is clearly the curse of the earlier day. For it to have been fulfilled in such an obvious manner would have been sufficient cause for Peter's comment. Altogether, there is no indication to be found in Mark that the withering of the tree took place in an immediate fashion before the disciples' eyes, like Matthew's version. The plain implication of the narrative is quite otherwise.


We're at the point of just speculating exactly at what moment the fig tree withered and we are each bringing up points to justify how we want to see it. I could speculate that the disciples were trudging up being Jesus and Matthew saw the actual withering and Peter taging behind a little arrived a few minutes later and exclaimed surprise to see the tree withered.
The fact that the accounts are not identical is another confirmation that the writers relayed the incident honestly as they saw it. It just never ceases to amaze me that sometimes the gospel writers are accused of copying from each other yet if accounts are'nt identical then they are accused of inaccuracy. I respect your opinion and i understand you're criticism but i think on this we are at an impasse and it's time to agree to disagree and move on.
Re Jesus using the Septuagint for Psalm 8.2 this translation is a thought for thought translation similar to the NIV today and was usually used by the NT writers and at that time was perfectly acceptable to the Rabbis back then. It was'nt until later on that the Rabbis rejected it because it was to supportive of Christianity particularly Isaiah 7.14. Jesus stopped His quote at "perfected praise" and the children were directing this at him but in Psalm 8 it was directed at God yet he seemed to equate the two together but i grant that this is a debatable point.
Anyway i'll be back again to respond to your other points, take care.

[Guest]

Hi, Steve,

Thank you for your posting.

I'm willing to let the point rest in our dialogue. Remind me if I forget and bring it up again .

Re Jesus using the Septuagint for Psalm 8.2 this translation is a thought for thought translation similar to the NIV today and was usually used by the NT writers and at that time was perfectly acceptable to the Rabbis back then. It was'nt until later on that the Rabbis rejected it because it was to supportive of Christianity particularly Isaiah 7.14.

I might prefer "reasonably acceptable" over "perfectly acceptable." I could accept that Jesus might have seen it as an adequate source for making an off-the-cuff illustration. But just as the NIV is not a fully adequate source for determining what the Hebrew or Aramaic text actually says, the Septuagint should not be considered as equivalent to the original-language text, either in meaning or in significance.

Thanks again,
Emmet