Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If a farmer says, "This tree produces good fruit and no bad fruit", I take it to mean that the tree produces exclusively good fruit.
Then the farmer is either an idiot or you misunderstood him. There is no such thing as a fruit
tree that produces exclusively good fruit. Every farmer knows that. Jesus knew it, too.
From 17, there is no reason to believe that Jesus is saying that "good trees" yield exclusively "good fruit." However, Jesus doesn't stop there. From 18, there is every reason to believe that Jesus is saying that "good trees" yield exclusively "good fruit" and that "bad trees" do not yield any "good fruit". Note what Jesus says happens to trees not yielding good fruit.
Restating the same parable with a different though equally poor translation isn't very helpful.
It's not worth tending to a tree that produces overwhelmingly bad fruit, even if there are a few
good pieces. Similarly, there is no reason to toss a tree that produces one bad fruit for every
1000 good pieces. This should be apparent.
It's about definitions: A person who obeys 10000 orders and disobeys one is obedient; a person
who lies once and tells the truth 10000 other times is not 'A Liar.' So, what Jesus is saying
clearly is that a good tree doesn't produce bad fruit, because if it did, it would be called a bad tree.
A tree cannot be 'bad' if it produces only one piece of bad fruit out of a thousand. This should
be illustrated by your answer to the following question:
Is a tree that produces 1000 pieces of good fruit for every one piece of bad fruit a 'good tree' or
a 'bad tree?'
Since no tree produces all good fruit and even diseased trees can produce the occasional good
piece, you can't couch it by saying 'Neither,' because your definitions of 'good tree' and 'bad tree'
don't exist in the real world. So, unless you think that Jesus was an idiot (believing there were
just two types of trees, good and bad), such a restricted interpretation of something that doesn't
exist in nature is probably the wrong one.
Here I see Jesus as saying you cannot be a semi-slave. You are either free of sin or a slave to it. You cannot continue to sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".
A person who commits one sin and 10000 good acts is clearly not a slave to sin. He is neither
free from it. He is a person who, in a moment of weakness, fell from grace.
Across these two passages I see Jesus using the metaphor of death and rebirth. The first life is one of the flesh. It is this life that you must chose to lose. You cannot be semi-dead. You must entirely lose the life of the flesh. Only then can you be reborn of the Spirit. Only then will you have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".
That's true. And while I disagree with the rendering 'born again' for reasons I've stated at least
a half dozen times previously, the basic gist of what you're saying is true. At the moment of
'coming to believe' you are 'born from above,' inspired by a different motivation to live a life of
grace. But because the body still remains, it can unfortunately lead to sin. The sully of sin is
washed away by the grace of forgiveness, a topic discussed many times by Jesus and by those
who wrote after Him. After this cleansing as such, people resume living their lives as from above.
This rendition is both consistent with Scripture and with the Tradition that followed from it as
taught by the Disciples. For example, in the Didache, one of the earliest texts after the NT
period, reiterates the importance of saying the so-called Lord's Prayer, in which one prays for
the forgiveness of one's sins. It is well accepted that this text served as a sort of handbook for
the early Church, and since we can assume that the Disciples were 'born from above,' their
recommendation to pray this prayer three times a day strikes me as convincing extra-Biblical
evidence that they recognized that they sinned.
And since I think that it's more probable that the Disciples understood Jesus better than you,
and since we can trace the notion of the absence of flawlessness in the lives of people of faith in
the period after the NT, including the Disciples and their immediate followers, I tend to disbelieve
your tortured interpretation of what a 'good tree' is.
I'm not sure why you've adopted an interrogation mode with yes/no questions. In my experience, it's a poor method for having a fruitful discussion . I'm happy to continue a discussion, but I'm not interested in being presented with yes/no questions and answering them.
You aren't answering any questions! It's when people avoid questions that I'm generally forced
to simplify things to that point. You're also not addressing the answers given, but simply reiterating
the same point without attention to what is been previously written. It's out of desperation that
someone, after posing the same sort of question different ways and inviting genuine discussion,
that they come out point blank and say, 'Yes or no....' If you actually engaged in dialogue rather
than a series of seemingly unperturbed monologues, then I assure you, I wouldn't use such a
clumsy device.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou speak of "bad translations", but have yet to show me a "good translation". You just keep going on about how the translation has to be "bad" because it doesn't coincide with YOUR standards or what YOU view to be the standards of this world. You know what? Jesus said His kingdom isn't "of this world". Why would HIS standards necessarily be "of this world"? What's more teaches that you should not be "of this world" either:
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]If a farmer says, "This tree produces good fruit and no bad fruit", I take it to mean that the tree produces exclusively good fruit.
Then the farmer is either an idiot or you misunderstood him. There is no such thing as a fruit
tree that produces exclusively good fruit. Every farmer knows that. Jesus knew evice.
Nemesio[/b]
"He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." John 12:25-26
I don't have time to address your whole post but following are translations I found for of Matthew 7:18. Are any of them, "good translations"? If you have a "good translation" then post it instead of just reiterating you standards or asking questions which speak to your standards.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
King James Bible
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
American King James Version
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
American Standard Version
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Douay-Rheims Bible
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
Darby Bible Translation
A good tree cannot produce bad fruits, nor a worthless tree produce good fruits.
English Revised Version
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Webster's Bible Translation
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
World English Bible
A good tree can't produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit.
Young's Literal Translation
A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits.
Strong's
A good tree cannot __ bring forth evil fruit neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's not the words that are bad, ThinkofOne, it's the meaning you (and as far as I've heard, only
You speak of "bad translations", but have yet to show me a "good translation". You just keep going on about how the translation has to be "bad" because it doesn't coincide with YOUR standards or what YOU view to be the standards of this world. You know what? Jesus said His kingdom isn't "of this world". Why would HIS standards necessarily be "of this worl ...[text shortened]... ng forth evil fruit neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit
you) derive from it. I don't have an objection to the parsing, because I and everyone who made
comment on this since the 1st century seems to agree but you on what 'good tree' means. To wit:
Is a tree that produces 1000 pieces of good fruit for every one piece of bad fruit a 'good tree' or
a 'bad tree?'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI understand that you think this question important, but it's irrelevant. I'll try again to explain why. I was thinking we could discuss it somewhat abstractly, but maybe I need to be more concrete.
It's not the words that are bad, ThinkofOne, it's the meaning you (and as far as I've heard, only
you) derive from it. I don't have an objection to the parsing, because I and everyone who made
comment on this since the 1st century seems to agree but you on what 'good tree' means. To wit:
Is a tree that produces 1000 pieces of good fruit for every one piece of bad fruit a 'good tree' or
a 'bad tree?'
Nemesio
Let's look at the text:
"A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits."
Jesus is DEFINING what HE means by "good tree" in HIS metaphor. As such, what is relevant here is HIS definition. It's a metaphor. He can define it however He wants, so long as He states the definition which He does here. Stating your definition and asking for my definition is not relevant. What is relevant here is the text after "good fruit", i.e, "cannot bring forth evil fruit" / "is not able to yield evil fruits". What do "cannot bring forth" and "is not able to" mean? Jesus does not say "is sometimes able to". Jesus says "is not able to". If Jesus meant "is sometimes able to", why did he not say so?
To get even more concrete, look at 7:16: "From their fruits ye shall know them; do men gather from thorns grapes? or from thistles figs?". Here Jesus is equating "figs" and "grapes" with "good fruit" and "fruits" of "thorns" and "thistles" with "evil fruit". A "fig tree" will only yield "figs". A "fig tree" "cannot bring forth" / "is not able to yield" the "fruit" of "thistles".
In the world of the metaphor of Jesus, you are either a "fig tree" or a "thistle". You cannot be a mixture of the two.
Asking "Is a tree that produces 1000 pieces of good fruit for every one piece of bad fruit a 'good tree' or a 'bad tree?'" is completely irrelevant.
I hope this is clearer.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBriefly (I'll write more later): there is no such thing as the trees that
I understand that you think this question important, but it's irrelevant. I'll try again to explain why. I was thinking we could discuss it somewhat abstractly, but maybe I need to be more concrete.
Let's look at the text:
"[b]A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits."
Jesus is DEFINING what HE means by ...[text shortened]... vant.
I hope this is clearer.[/b]
Jesus is describing. Since we all know that such 'good' and 'bad' trees
don't exist, we need to figure out whether Jesus was just clueless about
trees. Since it is unlikely that He was clueless about trees, then we have
to discern what precisely a seemingly absurd statement about non-existent
trees might mean.
This is why my question is relevant: the answer to that question (yes,
it's a good tree) makes sense of an absurd statement.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis is so abstract . Why don't both of you relate it to something real like for example real human experiences? Afterall , it's all irrelevant unless it has some bearing on real people and real situations.
I understand that you think this question important, but it's irrelevant. I'll try again to explain why. I was thinking we could discuss it somewhat abstractly, but maybe I need to be more concrete.
Let's look at the text:
"[b]A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits."
Jesus is DEFINING what HE means by ...[text shortened]... vant.
I hope this is clearer.[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioSpeaking of absurd concepts, what's this "evil fruit" he speaks of? I'm getting a vision of some unsuspecting passerby getting pelted by an overhead tree.
Briefly (I'll write more later): there is no such thing as the trees that
Jesus is describing. Since we all know that such 'good' and 'bad' trees
don't exist, we need to figure out whether Jesus was just clueless about
trees. Since it is unlikely that He was clueless about trees, then we have
to discern what precisely a seemingly absurd statement about ...[text shortened]... to that question (yes,
it's a good tree) makes sense of an absurd statement.
Nemesio
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt's a bizarre translation. I don't have my Greek text with me at present,
Speaking of absurd concepts, what's this "evil fruit" he speaks of? I'm getting a vision of some unsuspecting passerby getting pelted by an overhead tree.
but the word Jesus uses is best rendered 'diseased.' If memory serves,
the word is akin to 'bad' but, like in English, that word has many legitimate
translations depending on context. I suspect that 'evil' is used instead
of a more logical translation because there is a midrashic analogue with
the Tree with the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio"there is no such thing as the trees that Jesus is describing. Since we all know that such 'good' and 'bad' trees don't exist, we need to figure out whether Jesus was just clueless about trees. "
Briefly (I'll write more later): there is no such thing as the trees that
Jesus is describing. Since we all know that such 'good' and 'bad' trees
don't exist, we need to figure out whether Jesus was just clueless about
trees. Since it is unlikely that He was clueless about trees, then we have
to discern what precisely a seemingly absurd statement about ...[text shortened]... to that question (yes,
it's a good tree) makes sense of an absurd statement.
Nemesio
Are there not fig, grape, thorn and thistle that bear only their respective fruits? For that matter, don't they all?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes. I know that peach trees don't produce apples. So?
Are there not fig, grape, thorn and thistle that bear only their respective fruits? For that matter, don't they all?
The issue is the idea that there exists some fruit tree that only produces good
fruit. Such a tree does not exist. Jesus and His colleagues knew that. So
does everyone else.
Given that it is unlikely that Jesus was talking about a tree that doesn't exist,
we have to figure out what tree he was talking about.
Hence, my question that you've, as yet, have not answered. Refer to my
posts above if you've forgotten it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't think you understood the following:
Yes. I know that peach trees don't produce apples. So?
The issue is the idea that there exists some fruit tree that only produces good
fruit. Such a tree does not exist. Jesus and His colleagues knew that. So
does everyone else.
Given that it is unlikely that Jesus was talking about a tree that doesn't exist,
we have to figure out what tree he ...[text shortened]... 've, as yet, have not answered. Refer to my
posts above if you've forgotten it.
Nemesio
"Here Jesus is equating "figs" and "grapes" with "good fruit" and "fruits" of "thorns" and "thistles" with "evil fruit". A "fig tree" will only yield "figs". A "fig tree" "cannot bring forth" / "is not able to yield" the "fruit" of "thistles".
In the world of the metaphor of Jesus, you are either a "fig tree" or a "thistle". You cannot be a mixture of the two.
So I'll be more concrete. Jesus is defining "good fruit" by type. So all "figs" are "good fruit" and all "grapes" are "good fruit". Similarly for "bad fruit".
Therefore, if you are a "fig tree", you can only yield "good fruit" and "cannot bring forth bad fruit" since you can only yield "figs".
I hope this is clearer.
Once again, asking "Is a tree that produces 1000 pieces of good fruit for every one piece of bad fruit a 'good tree' or a 'bad tree?'" is completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSince there are no actual fig trees that produce grapes [right?!], this interpretation of the metaphor is just as strange as the last one you gave.
I don't think you understood the following:
[b]"Here Jesus is equating "figs" and "grapes" with "good fruit" and "fruits" of "thorns" and "thistles" with "evil fruit". A "fig tree" will only yield "figs". A "fig tree" "cannot bring forth" / "is not able to yield" the "fruit" of "thistles".
In the world of the metaphor of Jesus, you are either a "fig t d tree?'" is completely irrelevant.[/b]
Originally posted by SwissGambitNot really. Fig trees produce all figs which are all good fruit. Grape vines produce all grapes which are also all good fruit.
Since there are no actual fig trees that produce grapes [right?!], this interpretation of the metaphor is just as strange as the last one you gave.
Maybe it'd help if you logically merged the bold and the non-bold sections.
BTW, it's the same interpretation and has been. I just had to go into more detail.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAre there any grape vines that grow figs?
Not really. Fig trees produce all figs which are all good fruit. Grape vines produce all grapes which are also all good fruit.
Maybe it'd help if you logically merged the bold and the non-bold sections.
BTW, it's the same interpretation and has been. I just had to go into more detail.