God accepts me the way I am

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]The "argument" you cite most often that you went to "the original Greek". The problem is that you came up with a translation of "bad fruit" that none of the writers of the eight bibles I found agree with. I have to believe that most if not all of them have a better grasp of Greek than you do. I really don't get what at does a good fruit symbolize? What does a bad one symbolize?

Nemesio

[/b]"You don't have to believe me or them. Just look at the Greek yourself and look at Strong's
concordance for the word 'bad.' Recall that Jesus was using a metaphor; if a fruit is good, then
it's healthy and wholesome, tasty and so forth whereas if a fruit is bad, then it's unhealthy, rotten,
and tastes nasty.

Just because eight people have translated it one way doesn't mean it's the right way."

Well, I suppose that they could all be wrong, though I'd think that it would be a lot more than eight people. Seems unlikely that most wouldn't have a team of writers to check and double check each other.
That said, I think that they took the meaning that they did because they understood the metaphor within the context of the passage the same as I did. I looked at the Greek and what you provided from Strong's and don't agree with your assessment.

"Under your view, you've offered no analogue to the good tree. What's the actual bad tree in
the metaphor? What does a good fruit symbolize? What does a bad one symbolize?"

Actually, I have explained all this. At the risk of being accused again of "incessantly reasserting [my] own position", I'll do it again. "Good fruit" symbolizes action borne from the righteous, i.e. "good trees". "Bad fruit" symbolizes action borne from the unrighteous, i.e. "bad trees". My expectation is that a true prophet would be perfectly righteous. A false prophet would fall short.

What do you think Jesus is saying about recognizing true / false prophets?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I looked at the Greek and what you provided from Strong's and don't agree with your assessment.

Okay. I don't agree with yours. Glad that's settled. And only those who translate the word as
'evil' explicitly disagree with my reading, not those who merely translated it 'bad' since that
can be read either way. I choose 'rotten' over 'bad' because it's not equivocal (i.e., 'rotten'
won't be misconstrued as 'evil'😉.

"Good fruit" symbolizes action borne from the righteous, i.e. "good trees". "Bad fruit" symbolizes action borne from the unrighteous, i.e. "bad trees". My expectation is that a true prophet would be perfectly righteous. A false prophet would fall short.

That's not what Jesus said: a false prophet not only falls short, but he cannot under any circumstances
bear good fruit whatsoever. But (and I admit I was unclear) my question is specifically, what
is a 'good fruit?' What is an example of an action borne from a righteous individual?

What do you think Jesus is saying about recognizing true / false prophets?

Jesus says that we can recognize prophets by their fruit (i.e., good or bad). I take this to mean
that the actions the putative prophets take can be used to evaluate whether or not they are in
fact prophets. But I do not think that true prophets always behave 'goodly' and false prophets
always behave 'badly.' I think Jesus is merely using hyperbole (as He often did) to emphasize
His point.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I looked at the Greek and what you provided from Strong's and don't agree with your assessment.

Okay. I don't agree with yours. Glad that's settled. And only those who translate the word as
'evil' explicitly disagree with my reading, not those who merely translated it 'bad' since that
can be read either hyperbole (as He often did) to emphasize
His point.

Nemesio[/b]

"Okay. I don't agree with yours. Glad that's settled. And only those who translate the word as
'evil' explicitly disagree with my reading, not those who merely translated it 'bad' since that
can be read either way. I choose 'rotten' over 'bad' because it's not equivocal (i.e., 'rotten'
won't be misconstrued as 'evil'😉."

Actually, seven of the eight Bibles translated it as "evil fruit". You can call it "settled" if it makes you feel better. The fact remains that you have failed to give two of the three verses in the passage which descibe this "fruit" any significant meaning.

"That's not what Jesus said: a false prophet not only falls short, but he cannot under any circumstances
bear good fruit whatsoever."

I guess I could play your game here and declare that I'm glad that's settled.

"But (and I admit I was unclear) my question is specifically, what
is a 'good fruit?' What is an example of an action borne from a righteous individual?"

The point isn't about individual actions. It's about the essence of motivations behind the actions in toto. One who is truly righteous will bear actions borne of that righteousness and will do so without fail. A fig tree bear figs. I suspect that this may be a concept that will be difficult for you to understand.


"Jesus says that we can recognize prophets by their fruit (i.e., good or bad). I take this to mean
that the actions the putative prophets take can be used to evaluate whether or not they are in
fact prophets. But I do not think that true prophets always behave 'goodly' and false prophets
always behave 'badly.' I think Jesus is merely using hyperbole (as He often did) to emphasize
His point."

That still leaves the question of how His followers are to recognize a true prophet. Jesus seemed to believe He was telling His followers something of importance.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually, seven of the eight Bibles translated it as "evil fruit". You can call it "settled" if it makes you feel better. The fact remains that you have failed to give two of the three verses in the passage which descibe this "fruit" any significant meaning.

What is settled is that we disagree. I think that those 'evil fruit' translations are backwards
formations to tie something in a literary way to the Genesis story with Adam and Eve. I find
such artistic license to be obfuscating.

I can't compel you to agree with me. That's what settled. But I maintain my reading is more
sensible because there is no such thing as an evil fruit.

I guess I could play your game here and declare that I'm glad that's settled.

Are you actually denying that Jesus said that bad trees can only produce bad fruit?

The point isn't about individual actions. It's about the essence of motivations behind the actions in toto. One who is truly righteous will bear actions borne of that righteousness and will do so without fail. A fig tree bear figs. I suspect that this may be a concept that will be difficult for you to understand.

Ad hominem. But you didn't answer my question. What's a specific example of a bad fruit and
a good fruit?

That still leaves the question of how His followers are to recognize a true prophet. Jesus seemed to believe He was telling His followers something of importance.

I answered this: by their fruit. If you don't answer my question about what you take the fruit
to literally signify, I can't really elaborate.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Actually, seven of the eight Bibles translated it as "evil fruit". You can call it "settled" if it makes you feel better. The fact remains that you have failed to give two of the three verses in the passage which descibe this "fruit" any significant meaning.

What is settled is that we disagree. I think that you take the fruit
to literally signify, I can't really elaborate.

Nemesio[/b]

"I can't compel you to agree with me. That's what settled. But I maintain my reading is more sensible because there is no such thing as an evil fruit."

Only if effectively rendering two of the verses meaningless is "sensible". I suppose if you had something meaningful to say about those two verses, you would. Thus far, nothing.

"Are you actually denying that Jesus said that bad trees can only produce bad fruit?"

Why would you assume that? Jesus plainly states that good trees can only produce good fruit and that bad trees can only produce bad fruit. It is you who has been denying this fact.

"Ad hominem. But you didn't answer my question. What's a specific example of a bad fruit and a good fruit?"

Try reading my response again. You'll see that your questions have no meaning within that paradigm. It's not about specific actions. Maybe a bad chess analogy will help. Jesus has given you a lesson in advanced strategy and you're asking for specific tactics. They're the wrong questions.

"I answered this: by their fruit. If you don't answer my question about what you take the fruit to literally signify, I can't really elaborate."

Quite frankly I can't see where someone using your interpretation is any better off in being able to recognize a true prophet. From what I can tell, they won't look much if at all different from a false prophet. I'm thinking this is a problem.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"Okay. I don't agree with yours. Glad that's settled. And only those who translate the word as
'evil' explicitly disagree with my reading, not those who merely translated it 'bad' since that
can be read either way. I choose 'rotten' over 'bad' because it's not equivocal (i.e., 'rotten'
won't be misconstrued as 'evil'😉."

Actually, seven of ...[text shortened]... e He was telling His followers something of importance.[/b]

One who is truly righteous will bear actions borne of that righteousness and will do so without fail.--------------------------------------------------------ToO-----------------------------------------

This is where it breaks down I'm afraid. Even a very righteous person has occasional charactor flaws and makes mistakes that they need to correct or apologise for. I know some people who are very compassionate and very righteous , leading good lives and showing love to their fellow men. I cannot say , however , that they do this "without fail" , and I don't think there's anyone in the Bible who had no flaws or failings either. Good people sometimes act in ways that are flawed and whilst they might not commit evil acts their actions can be counterproductive.

Infact , unless you are able to cite a single example of any individual in history who who was always completely righteous "without fail" (maybe ToO) then your above statement is completely abstract and without any relevance at all to the real world.

Are you talking about something of which you have personal experience? If not you might as well argue with Neme about how many angels one can get on a pinhead.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Only if effectively rendering two of the verses meaningless is "sensible". I suppose if you had something meaningful to say about those two verses, you would. Thus far, nothing.

I'm not sure which verses you say are not sensible, but my reading is totally coherent. Maybe
I need to explain it to you again. Tell me where to start.

Why would you assume that? Jesus plainly states that good trees can only produce good fruit and that bad trees can only produce bad fruit. It is you who has been denying this fact.

Under your view, what exactly is an example of a good and bad fruit? The answer to this question
is central to the flaw in your view. Not answering it simply dodges that fact.

Quite frankly I can't see where someone using your interpretation is any better off in being able to recognize a true prophet. From what I can tell, they won't look much if at all different from a false prophet. I'm thinking this is a problem.

If you can't give an example of a good and bad fruit, then your interpretation is no better off.
I don't think, under Scriptural interpretation, anyone can recognize definitively a good prophet
or bad prophet because it would entail knowing what's in that individual's heart.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Only if effectively rendering two of the verses meaningless is "sensible". I suppose if you had something meaningful to say about those two verses, you would. Thus far, nothing.

I'm not sure which verses you say are not sensible, but my reading is totally coherent. Maybe
I need to explain it to you again. prophet because it would entail knowing what's in that individual's heart.

Nemesio[/b]

"I'm not sure which verses you say are not sensible, but my reading is totally coherent. Maybe
I need to explain it to you again. Tell me where to start."

Please explain what you believe Jesus was conveying with each of the following statements as well as how these verses work together to convey how His followers are to recognize true / false prophets.
"Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?"
"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit."
" A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."

"Under your view, what exactly is an example of a good and bad fruit? The answer to this question
is central to the flaw in your view. Not answering it simply dodges that fact."

I have answered this. "Good fruit" is borne of the truly righteous. "Bad fruit" is borne of the not truly righteous. It's about the essence in toto of the motivations behind the actions. What is "good" is dependent on the essential motivation of the individual. I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand.

"If you can't give an example of a good and bad fruit, then your interpretation is no better off.
I don't think, under Scriptural interpretation, anyone can recognize definitively a good prophet
or bad prophet because it would entail knowing what's in that individual's heart.

Jesus is saying that a true prophet IS righteous. So his actions, the motivations for his actions, the motivations behind his motivations, etc. a will bear up under the closest scrutiny over any length of time. Jesus is saying that a true prophet is one with God as Jesus is one with God.

John 17:20-23
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I have answered this. "Good fruit" is borne of the truly righteous. "Bad fruit" is borne of the not truly righteous. It's about the essence in toto of the motivations behind the actions. What is "good" is dependent on the essential motivation of the individual. I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand.

You've stopped playing ball. We were having a nice quid pro quo for a few exchanges, but
now you're stonewalling.

You have answered 'where does good fruit come from,' not what it is. This is, of course, already
answered in the Scriptures: Good fruit comes from (only) good trees and bad fruit comes from
(only) bad trees.

If you can't say what it is, then you can't identify when it comes along, which means Jesus' teachings
are not very helpful. Furthermore, if you can't tell a good fruit independent of the internal motivations
which drive the acts, then there's not distinguishing between good fruit and bad fruit to begin
with.

You say that the true prophet is righteous. But righteousness hasn't been defined and, until
it does, we can't discern if false prophets can ever be righteous, even for one action in one
moment in time.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You've stopped playing ball. We were having a nice quid pro quo for a few exchanges, but
now you're stonewalling.

You have answered 'where does good fruit come from,' not what it is. This is, of course, already
answered in the Scriptures: Good fruit comes from (only) good trees and bad fruit comes from
(only) bad trees.

If you can't say w phets can ever be righteous, even for one action in one
moment in time.

Nemesio

Do I really have to explain to you in detail that any superficially "good" act may not be truly good depending on the essential motivation for that act? For example, a man helps an old lady home with her packages. If he does so to help himself blend in with the crowd in an attempt to avoid the police, is this a "good" act? I really don't know of what use it is to list a number of acts and define them as "good" when it is wholly dependent on if the individual is truly righteous. Maybe if you'd give me a clue as to what your struggling with here, we'll be able to work throught this. You seemed to understand John 17:20-23 in another thread. It's the same concept. Why is it so difficult for you to see it here?


Stonewalling? If anyone has been stonewalling it is you. I must have asked you to explain what you believe to be the meaning of each of those verses in detail as well as on the whole well over a half-dozen times over a couple of threads. You always find a reason not to do so. How about some "quid pro quo" from you?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do I really have to explain to you in detail that any superficially "good" act may not be truly good depending on the essential motivation for that act? For example, a man helps an old lady home with her packages. If he does so to help himself blend in with the crowd in an attempt to avoid the police, is this a "good" act? I really don't know of what use ...[text shortened]... eads. You always find a reason not to do so. How about some "quid pro quo" from you?

If anyone has been stonewalling it is you. I must have asked you to explain what you believe to be the meaning of each of those verses in detail as well as on the whole well over a half-dozen times over a couple of threads. You always find a reason not to do so.------------------------------------ToO-------------------------------------------------

Now you know how it feels........

What is god?

Originally posted by YIAMSOMEBODY
What is god?

Dog spelled backwards.

Next!

Originally posted by Badwater
Dog spelled backwards.

Next!

There is a joke about that ... what does an agnostic insomniac do at night.

Stay up wondering if there is a Dog.

Originally posted by YIAMSOMEBODY
What is god?

The Ultimate truth. The Creator. The Savior of mankind and his entire environment. The Law Giver and the Redeemer.

The Person for whom there is no one greater. The uncreated personality which had no beginning and never will end. The eternal divine being.

And most importantly the man Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit who can come and indwell the deepest part of a man's spiritual being.

The giver of eternal life. The righteous Being who is totally righteous in all His ways and always just. The final Judge of all human beings and their Advocate and Savior also.

You'll find out all about God by reading the Bible.