My favorite part of the Bible: Mark 11

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

The thing is CS, and I happen to have many many years of experience with the bible and the study of it, is that it has to be read with an open mind, yes, but also in its context and we really don't know much about that except for the commentaries we read.
It is very much cultural as is Hunduism and Buddhism and we can only look at it as an outsider so to speak in many areas. Not all though. Parables for example speak to those who have ears to hear. At least that was my experience.


So in some cases you have to reread it in its context with a new open mind.

Of course you do, but we have to take the commentaries of others with a grain of salt, for they may well have a philosophical axe to grind. Too many Christians I've encountered over they years insist on Biblical literalism when it suits them (as in the age of the planet when debating creationism), but him and haw and shuffle their feet when confronted with difficult passages like Mark 11.

I freely admit, I'm the pot calling the kettle black to an extent here. I too have an axe to grind; I believe with all my heart that Yeshua was no more divine than I am. I also believe he was no less divine than I am as well. There are a great many passages in the Bible that refute my belief, so of course I am picking and choosing my Scriptures. The difference between me and literalists is that I don't claim that any source is authoritative and infallible, not even my current truths. I'm willing to change my truths based upon new experience and new data. Biblical literalists are not.

CS

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by innerlight

It is interesting how many Catholics/Christians can turn almost anything into a fight between good and evil, or have it be the Devils work. It's hard to really know if there was a time of famine going on during that passage, and if that tree was a barren, or infected tree, or if it was just Spring and that tree had not born any fruit yet.

That is what I was saying earlier. It has to be read in its context and that is near impossible because with that is a culture that we know little about at that time.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by CuriousSnowflake

Of course you do, but we have to take the commentaries of others with a grain of salt, for they may well have a philosophical axe to grind. Too many Christians I've encountered over they years insist on Biblical literalism when it suits them (as in the age of the planet when debating creationism), but him and haw and shuffle their feet when confronted with difficult passages like Mark 11.

I freely admit, I'm the pot calling the kettle black to an extent here. I too have an axe to grind; I believe with all my heart that Yeshua was no more divine than I am. I also believe he was no less divine than I am as well. There are a great many passages in the Bible that refute my belief, so of course I am picking and choosing my Scriptures. The difference between me and literalists is that I don't claim that any source is authoritative and infallible, not even my current truths. I'm willing to change my truths based upon new experience and new data. Biblical literalists are not.

CS

Ha! I take it all with a grain of salt........but I will value forever what I did 'personally' get out of the bible and the teachings of Jesus. It is part of who I am.

[Mathew James]

Fig tree represents Judea (first church). They did not/could not forgive their brethern and God cut them off as a nation. The fig tree dried up (no water) sybolizes that they did not receive the new water of life (gosbel from Jesus). The new water is poured into new wine vessels, the christians (second church).

Originally Posted by innerlight

It is interesting how many Catholics/Christians can turn almost anything into a fight between good and evil, or have it be the Devils work. It's hard to really know if there was a time of famine going on during that passage, and if that tree was a barren, or infected tree, or if it was just Spring and that tree had not born any fruit yet.

It was the latter...

Originally Posted by Mark 11

13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

Also, it had to be Spring, since it was Passover, and Passover is keyed to the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.

CS

[BlueSky]

I freely admit, I'm the pot calling the kettle black to an extent here. I too have an axe to grind; I believe with all my heart that Yeshua was no more divine than I am. I also believe he was no less divine than I am as well. There are a great many passages in the Bible that refute my belief, so of course I am picking and choosing my Scriptures. The difference between me and literalists is that I don't claim that any source is authoritative and infallible, not even my current truths. I'm willing to change my truths based upon new experience and new data. Biblical literalists are not.CS

As I re-read this, a peace came over me because I naturally see divinity in everything and in a way that makes me feel small not equal. I honor it.
Of course I see everything as divine, including me, but its a humble thing not a power thing or equal thing.
Hard to explain................ James

Originally Posted by Mathew James

Fig tree represents Judea (first church). They did not/could not forgive their brethern and God cut them off as a nation. The fig tree dried up (no water) sybolizes that they did not receive the new water of life (gosbel from Jesus). The new water is poured into new wine vessels, the christians (second church).

As I said in an earlier reply, if Yeshua meant it as a symbolic gesture, why didn't he spell it out for all his disciples, as he did repeatedly with his parables? He was well aware that the Apostles, while great guys, could be a little thick sometimes.

CS

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

As I re-read this, a peace came over me because I naturally see divinity in everything and in a way that makes me feel small not equal. I honor it.
Of course I see everything as divine, including me, but its a humble thing not a power thing or equal thing.
Hard to explain................ James

Oh, I grok you in fullness, my friend!

CS

[innerlight]

Originally Posted by CuriousSnowflake

Of course you do, but we have to take the commentaries of others with a grain of salt, for they may well have a philosophical axe to grind. Too many Christians I've encountered over they years insist on Biblical literalism when it suits them (as in the age of the planet when debating creationism), but him and haw and shuffle their feet when confronted with difficult passages like Mark 11.

I freely admit, I'm the pot calling the kettle black to an extent here. I too have an axe to grind; I believe with all my heart that Yeshua was no more divine than I am. I also believe he was no less divine than I am as well. There are a great many passages in the Bible that refute my belief, so of course I am picking and choosing my Scriptures. The difference between me and literalists is that I don't claim that any source is authoritative and infallible, not even my current truths. I'm willing to change my truths based upon new experience and new data. Biblical literalists are not.

CS

One would have to decide what the book was. If it was symbolic then the whole thing would be symbolic. Not just parts that fit when they want it to be. If it is symbolic it would then be that Jesus was not a literal "son" of God, but a symbolic son of God, or a state that a soul could achieve. The devil wouldn't be a literal individual but a person that follows the path of "self" instead of the path to God.. etc..

[Mathew James]

Originally Posted by innerlight

One would have to decide what the book was.

If it was symbolic then the whole thing would be symbolic.

Why does a person need to decide what the book is, can deciding what the book is, be a continuing goal or a curiousity, which is never answered?

Why if one part is symbolic, does the whole thing need to be symbolic?