2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesiolol. You're such a child.
We could go in a straight line if you want. Just answer the question. Or are you unable to have
a rational discussion about faith?
I can answer the same question. The answer is 'yes.' This is also Jesus' answer.
What's your answer?
Nemesio
I see no point in catering to your little tantrum.
Jesus begs to differ.
Luke 6:43
"For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit."
Matthew 7:18
"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioEvidently you are only interested in playing games.
So much for your claim about desiring a rational discussion about Christianity.
Nemesio
If you really believed in your interpretation you'd plainly state what each verse in the passage means and it's relationship to the other verses in the passage instead of resorting to phantom "rhetorical questions" and the like.
You can't do it, so resort to playing this silly game.
As you've shown, you are incapable of having a rational discussion about "Christianity". From what I can tell, it's because "Christianity" is irrational. The teachings of Jesus however are quite rational. You have eyes but cannot see.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI have multiple times. I've defended them with the original Greek. You've essentially ignored
Evidently you are only interested in playing games.
If you really believed in your interpretation you'd plainly state what each verse in the passage means and it's relationship to the other verses in the passage instead of resorting to phantom "rhetorical questions" and the like.
You can't do it, so resort to playing this silly game.
my posts by restating a vague position. In order for me to address your vague claims, I need you
to state them clearly. So, if you genuinely want this discussion to proceed, then all you have to
do is answer the simple question that I asked and also answered.
Yes or no: According to your interpretation of Jesus' view, can bad trees produce good fruit?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOn the contrary, he and I think alike. I said that the answer to your oft-repeated question is "No"....and to stop throwing a tantrum. But, you seem very dense! Jesus made a very clear statement. An apple tree produces apples....he mentioned figs but I like apples better. A thistle bush produces thistles. What is so hard to understand about that? The apples (figs) are good. Thistles cannot be eaten unless you're a goat.
I'm guessing this insult is evidence of your bad-fruit producing tree.
Enjoy burning in hell on ThinkOfOne's view!
Nemesio
Originally posted by ale1552Look, there are two ways you can understand general claims of the sort at issue here. You can understand them as expressing exceptionless laws or as expressing empirical generalizations. The claim "Good trees do not produce bad fruit" can be understood as claiming that under no circumstances is it possible that any good tree could produce even one bad fruit. Or, it could be understood as claiming that generally speaking, under normal circumstances, good trees do not produce bad fruit. These two interpretations are different, but both are coherent readings of the general claim at issue. And this is perfectly consistent with our general discourse. If I claim that good teachers produce good students, you would not interpret me a saying that it is a law of logic or of nature that a good teacher may have a bad student. You would interpret me as saying that good teachers, because they are good, tend to make their students good as well. What is so damn difficult to understand about this? Talk about dense!
On the contrary, he and I think alike. I said that the answer to your oft-repeated question is "No"....and to stop throwing a tantrum. But, you seem very dense! Jesus made a very clear statement. An apple tree produces apples....he mentioned figs but I like apples better. A thistle bush produces thistles. What is so hard to understand about that? The apples (figs) are good. Thistles cannot be eaten unless you're a goat.
Originally posted by bbarrI am sorry if I seem dense in understanding the reasoning here, but I am just trying to stick to what Jesus was saying. In the context of this statement he was only referring to the false prophets. He was telling people to observe what kind of results they produced.
Look, there are two ways you can understand general claims of the sort at issue here. You can understand them as expressing exceptionless laws or as expressing empirical generalizations. The claim "Good trees do not produce bad fruit" can be understood as claiming that under no circumstances is it possible that any good tree could produce even one bad fruit. ...[text shortened]... udents good as well. What is so damn difficult to understand about this? Talk about dense!
6 edits
Originally posted by bbarrTake a closer look:
Look, there are two ways you can understand general claims of the sort at issue here. You can understand them as expressing exceptionless laws or as expressing empirical generalizations. The claim "Good trees do not produce bad fruit" can be understood as claiming that under no circumstances is it possible that any good tree could produce even one bad fruit. ...[text shortened]... udents good as well. What is so damn difficult to understand about this? Talk about dense!
Matthew 7:15-18
15 Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Jesus warns his followers to beware of false prophets. That they may appear as sheep but really be wolves. If they appear as sheep, how can one recognize them?
16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
You will recognize them by their fruits. Figs are gathered from fig trees. Makes sense. Presumably figs are good fruit and would be an indicator of a true prophet.
17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
Therefore Good trees bear good fruit, i.e., fig trees bear figs. Jesus affirms the presumption.
18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Here Jesus goes a step further. Not only do good trees bear good fruit, but can only bear good fruit, i.e., fig trees can only bear figs.
Jesus is telling us that true prophets will exclusively produce "good" and false prophets will not.
If Jesus stopped at 7:17, your example of "good teachers" would apply. However Jesus goes a step further to explicitly state that "a good tree CANNOT produce bad fruit."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe teachings of Jesus however are quite rational. You have eyes but cannot see. -------ToO-----------------------
Evidently you are only interested in playing games.
If you really believed in your interpretation you'd plainly state what each verse in the passage means and it's relationship to the other verses in the passage instead of resorting to phantom "rhetorical questions" and the like.
You can't do it, so resort to playing this silly game.
As you've s ...[text shortened]... nal. The teachings of Jesus however are quite rational. You have eyes but cannot see.
.....and those teachngs include loving God at their centre. Do you believe God exists? If so declare it.
It sounds to me that you believe in the teachings of Jesus , so you surely must also believe in his active Father also (since this was central to his teachings) , so why do you not openly declare this?
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneGiven that no such tree exists should be sufficient for us to find this conclusion
However Jesus goes a step further to explicitly state that "a good tree CANNOT produce bad fruit."
dubious.
Furthermore, you're breaking the metaphor by using the word 'bad' in a
moral sense instead of a literal sense. Diseased tree/diseased fruits is a
faithful translation, as Strong's Concordance affirms.
But, again trying to play along with your tortured interpretation, Jesus also
says that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
Given that sinners are bad trees, that under your interpretation, one must
believe that no good fruit comes of them. But Jesus didn't believe that:
If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even
sinners do the same. St Luke 6:33
Given that I hope you have empirical evidence that bad people occasionally
produce good fruit, I'd think that you reject your own position. But the fact
that Jesus Himself says that, one who takes Jesus' words seriously ought
to strive to find a harmonious interpretation.
Nemesio
4 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio"Given that no such tree exists should be sufficient for us to find this conclusion
Given that no such tree exists should be sufficient for us to find this conclusion
dubious.
Furthermore, you're breaking the metaphor by using the word 'bad' in a
moral sense instead of a literal sense. Diseased tree/diseased fruits is a
faithful translation, as Strong's Concordance affirms.
But, again trying to play along with your tortured interp s Jesus' words seriously ought
to strive to find a harmonious interpretation.
Nemesio
dubious.
Furthermore, you're breaking the metaphor by using the word 'bad' in a
moral sense instead of a literal sense. Diseased tree/diseased fruits is a
faithful translation, as Strong's Concordance affirms.
Actually fig trees that only produce figs do exist.
There are several problems with your conclusion including:
1) As I showed earlier, I found 8 translations of which 7 used "evil fruit", 1 used "bad fruit" and none used "diseased fruit". How you can hang on to "diseased fruit" is beyond me.
2) From what I was able to piece together, it seems that you've effectively discarded 7:16b ("Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" ). It doesn't seem to fit your "healthy / diseased" fruit interpretation at all. You'd have to believe that Jesus spoke of fruit by type in 7:16b and then switched to "healthy / diseased" in 7:17.
3) From what I was able to piece together, it seems that you've effectively discarded 7:18 ("A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." ). It doesn't seem to fit your "healthy / diseased" fruit interpretation at all, so you came up with some bizarre idea that 7:18 was a phantom "rhetorical question".
The result is that of the three statements Jesus made about the fruits that you can recognize true / false prophets by, you've discarded two of them.
I also have no idea what you contend that Jesus is saying about recognizing true / false prophets. It seems that with your conclusion, Jesus may as well have said nothing.
With my conclusion, all three statements work together and reinforce each other and make it apparent how to recognize true / false prophets.
"Given that sinners are bad trees, that under your interpretation, one must
believe that no good fruit comes of them. But Jesus didn't believe that:
If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even
sinners do the same. St Luke 6:33"
You might want to ask yourself why Jesus asks, "What credit is that to you?". You might also want to ask yourself the larger question of "What is truly 'good'?".
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneReady to declare openly that Jesus's Father exists yet? My guess is that he would think all this figs and trees stuff would be pretty irelevant unless God actually exists eh?
[b]"Given that no such tree exists should be sufficient for us to find this conclusion
dubious.
Furthermore, you're breaking the metaphor by using the word 'bad' in a
moral sense instead of a literal sense. Diseased tree/diseased fruits is a
faithful translation, as Strong's Concordance affirms.
Actually fig trees that only produce figs d ...[text shortened]... yourself the larger question of "What is truly 'good'?".[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioIn the analogy of a tree producing diseased or non diseased fruit, I would agree that there would be exceptions to the rule, though with some diseases once a tree is infected the vast majority of its fruit are infected, and an uninfected tree may remain totally disease free.
Given that no such tree exists should be sufficient for us to find this conclusion
dubious.
Furthermore, you're breaking the metaphor by using the word 'bad' in a
moral sense instead of a literal sense. Diseased tree/diseased fruits is a
faithful translation, as Strong's Concordance affirms.
With the other analogy of trees bearing figs or thistles, clearly there are no exceptions.
What do you and ThinkOfOne think about the question of whether everyone is either a bad tree or a good tree, or are there in betweens? Can people change, and can they change multiple times?