2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneGotcha. And, yes, under that interpretation my question is irrelevant.
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.
But that interpretation is not supported by the text.
Verse 16b reads:
Meti sullegousin apo akanthen staphulas e apo tribolon suka
Are not gathered from thorns grapes or from thistles figs?
Verse 17:
Outos pan dendron agathon karpous kalous poiei, to de sapron dendron karpous ponerous poiei.
So every good tree good fruits produces, but the rotten tree bad fruit produces.
The 'So' in verse 17 is rendered variously as 'Thus...' or 'In the same way....' This verse is the
beginning of the concluding statement from this parable. It is tying together the basic theme
of Jesus' teaching. Grapes don't grow on trees, and thorns and thistles are not 'bad fruits,' so
this verse doesn't relate directly with the last one, just continues the basic idea. Further, I'd ask
you to note the dichotomy: It's not between a desirable tree and undesirable tree and their
corresponding fruits, as between a grape/fig and thorn/thistle. It's between a healthy and
diseased tree and their corresponding healthy and diseased fruits. The connotation of sapron
as 'rotten' is also rendered as 'diseased,' not as 'undesirable' or 'lousy.'
Another thing that you are missing from this is that St Matthew records this a second time, but
even more clearly:
St Matthew 12:33
E poiesate to dendron kalon kai ton karpon autou kalon,
Either make the tree good and the fruit of it will be good,
e poiesate to dendron sapron kai ton karpon autou sapron.
or make the tree rotten and the fruit of it will be rotten.
Ek gar tou karpou to dendron ginosketai.
For by the fruit of the tree is known.
First, notice that Jesus is commanding His followers to 'make the tree good' (and thus its fruit).
There is a discipline involved. Through the faithful's love for Jesus, they will follow His commands.
That love, because it is imperfect and flawed, will fail from time to time (as we see in the story
with St Peter and Jesus ['Do you love me?]). It is only at death are the faithful made perfect
(as in whole), and consequently are able to love without flaw, and thus produce only good fruit.
To justify that stance, consider two verses later:
St Matthew 12:35
O agathos anthropos ek tou agathou thesaorou ekballei agatho,
The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good,
kai o poneros anthropos ek tou ponerou thesaurou ekballei ponero.
and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil.
And so, what is a good man? One who only does good? Such a man does not exist, just as
such a tree that only produces good fruit.
Similarly, Jesus Himself said that there is no such thing as a man who does only evil -- recall
that He observes that evil men do not hand their own child a snake when they ask for a fish --
so we must ask what is an evil man?
You see, the interpretation I applied to the verses in chapter 7 (when Jesus was giving His 'Sermon
on the Mount'😉 is clarified (and confirmed) here in chapter 12 when chatting with Pharisees and
Disciples. Within a man is a 'treasure' or 'fund' (thesaorou) from which good and/or evil can
spring. It is your stance that a man would only have one store from which to draw, a good one
or an evil one. That makes no sense.
We must look at the bounty of what a man produces, just as we look at the bounty of what a
tree produces. 'Your own words will vindicate you, and your own words will condemn you.' All
the faithful acknowledge that they say both words of charity and words of hate. Those are the
good and bad fruits which makes up them, the fruit trees that they are. Those who 'fertilize'
themselves with the Spirit (to stay within the metaphor) as such, will produce good fruit(s) by
and large. Those who have no connection with that Spirit will produce bad fruit(s) by and large.
And, consequently, they will be vindicated (dikaiothese, or justified if you prefer) or condemned
(katadeikasthese).
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b][/i]From what I can tell, you've ignored Matthew 7:18 in drawing your conclusions. Where does it fit in what you've posted?
Gotcha. And, yes, under that interpretation my question is irrelevant.
But that interpretation is not supported by the text.
Verse 16b reads:
Meti sullegousin apo akanthen staphulas e apo tribolon suka
Are not gathered from thorns grapes or from thistles figs?
Verse 17:
Outos pan [b]dendron agathon karpous kalous poiei, to de prefer) or condemned
([i]katadeikasthese).
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
For many Christians, their core beliefs require them to hold contradictory beliefs. From discussions I've had with many of them, it is apparent that they don't see a problem with this. This sets the bar exceedingly low when it comes to logic and reason. For them, a "belief" is true even though reason dictates otherwise. Does this ultimately make it imposs ...[text shortened]... word of God despite that fact that the Bible is filled with contradictions.
etc.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnehey where in the bible does it say that sin is apart from God? i think some people base their beliefs on what sounds good.huh? if this is correct then their is no contractions.
For many Christians, their core beliefs require them to hold contradictory beliefs. From discussions I've had with many of them, it is apparent that they don't see a problem with this. This sets the bar exceedingly low when it comes to logic and reason. For them, a "belief" is true even though reason dictates otherwise. Does this ultimately make it imposs ...[text shortened]... word of God despite that fact that the Bible is filled with contradictions.
etc.
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneConsider this answer an addendum to my above one, because it merely compliments it. If you
From what I can tell, you've ignored Matthew 7:18 in drawing your conclusions. Where does it fit in what you've posted?
would, just insert it before the citation of the chapter 12 material.
The text reads:
Ou dunatai dendron agathon karpous ponerous poiein
Is not able a good tree bad fruit to produce
oude dendron sapron karpous kalous poiein.
nor[is] a rotten tree [able] good fruit to produce.
Again, this doesn't support your pairing of desirable trees' producing desirable fruits, but that
healthy trees produce healthy fruit.
As to the answer to His statement: Actually, healthy trees occasionally produce a diseased fruit,
and rotten trees occasionally produce healthy fruit. Jesus said so Himself when He was saying
that even sinners show compassion to their friends and family. He answered His own rhetorical
question with an emphatic 'no' and demonstrates with His own teaching that the black-and-
white trees which only produce one kind of fruit (healthy or diseased) don't exist.
So, we can turn back to chapter 12 and you can read my interpretation of that.
Now, we'll see if you ignore what I wrote. I'd ask that you address my specific points if you are
genuinely interested in discussion.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioLet's see if we can finish this before moving on to chapter 12.
Consider this answer an addendum to my above one, because it merely compliments it. If you
would, just insert it before the citation of the chapter 12 material.
The text reads:
Ou dunatai dendron agathon karpous ponerous poiein
Is not able a good tree bad fruit to produce
oude dendron sapron karpous kalous poiein.
nor[is] a rotten t you address my specific points if you are
genuinely interested in discussion.
Nemesio
"The 'So' in verse 17 is rendered variously as 'Thus...' or 'In the same way....' This verse is the
beginning of the concluding statement from this parable. It is tying together the basic theme
of Jesus' teaching. Grapes don't grow on trees, and thorns and thistles are not 'bad fruits,' so
this verse doesn't relate directly with the last one, just continues the basic idea."
The verses are very much related. You left out 16a which reads, "You will know them by their fruits." The passage is about "fruits", where we can find them, and what can be said about the source of them.
Perhaps it'll be easier for you to see this if you look once again where we started:
Luke 6:43-44
"For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. 44 For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush."
This is the basically the same metaphor told in a different sequence. There is a logical progression here. There isn't a "good tree" that yields "bad fruit". There isn' a "bad tree" that yields "good fruit". This is because EACH TREE is known by its OWN FRUIT. Jesus then gives the concrete examples of "EACH TREE / OWN FRUIT" with "figs" don't come from thorn trees and "grapes" don't come from briar bushes. Like I said earlier, Jesus is defining "good fruit" by the type of fruit which comes from a specific type of tree. I don't understand how you fail to see this.
"Further, I'd ask
you to note the dichotomy: It's not between a desirable tree and undesirable tree and their
corresponding fruits, as between a grape/fig and thorn/thistle. It's between a healthy and
diseased tree and their corresponding healthy and diseased fruits. The connotation of sapron
as 'rotten' is also rendered as 'diseased,' not as 'undesirable' or 'lousy.'"
Strong's shows the meaning as "rotten, i.e. worthless (literally or morally) -- bad, corrupt." As clearly shown above, the dichotomy is by type of "tree" / "fruit". It makes little sense to speak in terms of "healthy" and "diseased".
"As to the answer to His statement: Actually, healthy trees occasionally produce a diseased fruit,
and rotten trees occasionally produce healthy fruit. Jesus said so Himself when He was saying
that even sinners show compassion to their friends and family. He answered His own rhetorical
question with an emphatic 'no' and demonstrates with His own teaching that the black-and-
white trees which only produce one kind of fruit (healthy or diseased) don't exist."
I don't understand what you mean by "answer to His statement" and "His own rhetorical question". Are you trying to assert that the statement, "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit" was meant as a question? That's nonsense. Look once again at the passage from Luke. Jesus starts off with a similar statement with the same meaning and then elucidates.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see if we can finish this before moving on to chapter 12.
You've responded to nothing I've said. You're just monloguing parallel
to my posts.
You left out 16a which reads, "You will know them by their fruits." The passage is about "fruits", where we can find them, and what can be said about the source of them.
This comes back to my initial question. If a tree produces 10000 good
fruits and 1 bad fruit, is it a good tree or a bad one?
Perhaps it'll be easier for you to see this if you look once again where we started:
St Luke's Gospel isn't where we started. Revisit the thread.
This is the basically the same metaphor told in a different sequence. There is a logical progression here. There isn't a "good tree" that yields "bad fruit". There isn' a "bad tree" that yields "good fruit". This is because EACH TREE is known by its OWN FRUIT. Jesus then gives the concrete examples of "EACH TREE / OWN FRUIT" with "figs" don't come from thorn trees and "grapes" don't come from briar bushes. Like I said earlier, Jesus is defining "good fruit" by the type of fruit which comes from a specific type of tree. I don't understand how you fail to see this.
I fail to 'see this' because that's NOT what the Greek says. It says
'good' and 'rotten.' A thistle is not a 'rotten fruit' no matter what you say.
Strong's shows the meaning as "rotten, i.e. worthless (literally or morally) -- bad, corrupt." As clearly shown above, the dichotomy is by type of "tree" / "fruit". It makes little sense to speak in terms of "healthy" and "diseased".
According to Strong's which you claim to cite, but basically misrepresented:
1) full of labours, annoyances, hardships
..a) pressed and harassed by labours
..b) bringing toils, annoyances, perils; of a time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness; causing pain and trouble
2) bad, of a bad nature or condition
..a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind
..b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad
Since fruits cannot full of labors, annoyances, or hardships, it's not definition
1. Since fruits cannot be evil or wicked, it's not definition 2b. Since fruits
cannot be blind, then it must be definition 2a: diseased.
You've just basically resorted to lying to support your bizarre interpretation.
I don't understand what you mean by "answer to His statement" and "His own rhetorical question". Are you trying to assert that the statement, "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit" was meant as a question? That's nonsense. Look once again at the passage from Luke. Jesus starts off with a similar statement with the same meaning and then elucidates.
If it your contention that Jesus believed that trees can only produce
one kind of fruit, then how do you explain how Jesus acknolwedges that
even evil people treat their own family with love? This is a consummate
example of Jesus' understanding that even very bad trees can produce
good fruit, which contradicts your tortured interpretation.
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]"You've responded to nothing I've said. You're just monloguing parallel to my posts."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Let's see if we can finish this before moving on to chapter 12.
You've responded to nothing I've said. You're just monloguing parallel
to my posts.
You left out 16a which reads, "You will know them by their fruits." The passage is about "fruits", where we can find them, and what can be said about the ured interpretation.
Nemesio
That's the way discussions often work. The first person makes an assertion. The second explains where he differs from the first and often gives a counter assertion. You've done little different with this discussion.
"This comes back to my initial question. If a tree produces 10000 good fruits and 1 bad fruit, is it a good tree or a bad one?"
This question is still irrelevant. See below.
"St Luke's Gospel isn't where we started. Revisit the thread."
You should revisit the thread. Look at page 14 where all this discussion about "fruit" started.
"I fail to 'see this' because that's NOT what the Greek says. It says
'good' and 'rotten.' A thistle is not a 'rotten fruit' no matter what you say."
Fruit noun: the ripened reproductive body of a seed plant.
The fruit of a thistle is "bad" as it's not edible.
These are the translations that I found. I suppose they are all "wrong" and you are right.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
King James Bible
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
American King James Version
Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.
American Standard Version
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Darby Bible Translation
So every good tree produces good fruits, but the worthless tree produces bad fruits.
English Revised Version
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Webster's Bible Translation
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
World English Bible
Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit.
"According to Strong's which you claim to cite, but basically misrepresented:
1) full of labours, annoyances, hardships
..a) pressed and harassed by labours
..b) bringing toils, annoyances, perils; of a time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness; causing pain and trouble
2) bad, of a bad nature or condition
..a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind
..b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad
Since fruits cannot full of labors, annoyances, or hardships, it's not definition
1. Since fruits cannot be evil or wicked, it's not definition 2b. Since fruits
cannot be blind, then it must be definition 2a: diseased.
You've just basically resorted to lying to support your bizarre interpretation."
You're pretty quick on the trigger with the "lying" accusation. You might want to ask a few questions before coming to that assumption
I took the definition from the following site which cites "Strong's Dictionary" and showed what they showed in its entirety.
http://scripturetext.com/matthew/7-17.htm
I had no reason to believe it incomplete.
"Since fruits cannot full of labors, annoyances, or hardships, it's not definition
1. Since fruits cannot be evil or wicked, it's not definition 2b. Since fruits
cannot be blind, then it must be definition 2a: diseased."
It's illogical to think that that can be the only definition that can apply. You seem to have real trouble understanding the concept of metaphor.
Jesus isn't really speaking about "fruit" and "trees". He's speaking of "people" and their "actions".
Look at the following which introduces this passage:
Matthew 7:15-16
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits."
Jesus is speaking of "false prophets" and how by their "fruits" you will know them. I don't really think you're asserting that pneumonia or the flu would be indicators of "false prophets". So "bad" and "evil" are just as valid. I have seen no other translation using "diseased" other than yours.
"If it your contention that Jesus believed that trees can only produce
one kind of fruit, then how do you explain how Jesus acknolwedges that
even evil people treat their own family with love? This is a consummate
example of Jesus' understanding that even very bad trees can produce
good fruit, which contradicts your tortured interpretation.
C'mon. No translation I know of presents that statement as a question. It's ridiculous to assert that it's a question just because you believe it contradicts something else Jesus said. How about citing the verse? Why couldn't this verse be the 'statement' and the verse you are thinking of be the 'question'. Actually, if it's the verse I vaguely recall, it is a question. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI didn't say the verse constituted a question. The verse is, 'A good tree
C'mon. No translation I know of presents that statement as a question. It's ridiculous to assert that it's a question just because you believe it contradicts something else Jesus said. How about citing the verse? Why couldn't this verse be the 'statement' and the verse you are thinking of be the 'question'. Actually, if it's the verse I vaguely recall, it is a question. 🙂
cannot bear bad (diseased) fruit, and a bad (diseased) tree cannot bear
good fruit.'
The rhetorical question is, 'Can a bad tree produce any good fruit (and
can a good tree ever produce any bad fruit)?
Jesus answers this by observing that even evil people give good gifts
to their children just a few verses earlier. How can they do good if they
are a bad tree?
If you believe entails that believers are good trees, and they can only
produce good fruit, then it necessarily also entails that If non-believers
are bad trees, and they can do nothing but produce bad fruit.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOr in question format:
If you believe entails that believers are good trees, and they can only
produce good fruit, then it necessarily also entails that If non-believers
are bad trees, and they can do nothing but produce bad fruit.
Nemesio
Are all trees either good or bad? Are goodness and badness of trees distinct categories or is it a continuous range?
Originally posted by NemesioIf you believe entails that believers are good trees, and they can only
I didn't say the verse constituted a question. The verse is, 'A good tree
cannot bear bad (diseased) fruit, and a bad (diseased) tree cannot bear
good fruit.'
The rhetorical question is, 'Can a bad tree produce any good fruit (and
can a good tree ever produce any bad fruit)?
Jesus answers this by observing that even evil people give good gifts
t ...[text shortened]... If non-believers
are bad trees, and they can do nothing but produce bad fruit.
Nemesio
produce good fruit, then it necessarily also entails that If non-believers
are bad trees, and they can do nothing but produce bad fruit.
Nemesio
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is all the more ironic because we don't even know if ToO is a believer or not. If he was he could just tell us instead of theorising about it. By his own logic he must be either a good tree or a bad tree himself.
7 edits
Originally posted by NemesioYou've really confused me here.
I didn't say the verse constituted a question. The verse is, 'A good tree
cannot bear bad (diseased) fruit, and a bad (diseased) tree cannot bear
good fruit.'
The rhetorical question is, 'Can a bad tree produce any good fruit (and
can a good tree ever produce any bad fruit)?
Jesus answers this by observing that even evil people give good gifts
t ...[text shortened]... If non-believers
are bad trees, and they can do nothing but produce bad fruit.
Nemesio
First you said this:
"As to the answer to His statement: Actually, healthy trees occasionally produce a diseased fruit,
and rotten trees occasionally produce healthy fruit. Jesus said so Himself when He was saying
that even sinners show compassion to their friends and family. He answered His own rhetorical
question with an emphatic 'no' and demonstrates with His own teaching that the black-and-
white trees which only produce one kind of fruit (healthy or diseased) don't exist."
"As to the answer to His statement"????
"He answered His own rhetorical question"?????
Then you said:
"I didn't say the verse constituted a question...The rhetorical question is, 'Can a bad tree produce any good fruit (and
can a good tree ever produce any bad fruit)?"
Jesus asked no question in Matthew 7:18 rhetorical or otherwise. He explicity states that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Matthew 7:18
"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."
"Jesus answers this by observing that even evil people give good gifts to their children just a few verses earlier."
Are you saying that in your mind the following verse was some sort of pre-emptive "answer" to a phantom "question" what Jesus never asks?
Matthew 7:11
"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"
Why wouldn't Jesus simply answer this phantom "rhetorical question" with His explicit statement in Matthew 7:18?
Why don't you just let the words of Jesus speak for themselves instead of resorting to this kind of twisted thinking?
It's as if you take a pre-conceived idea of what you believe Jesus might mean and twist what He says in order to fit your pre-conception rather than altering your beliefs to fit His words. You did this earlier by effectively changing "commits sin" to "habitually commits sin" and "he who does the will of my Father" to "he who tries to do the will of my Father". But I must say, this whole phantom "rhetorical question" thing is truly mind-blowing.
This really seems to speak to my original post where I asked:
"Does this ultimately make it impossible for them to have a rational discussion about their beliefs?"