Fwd: Re: cursed trees etc.
Brian Dean bridean@hotmail.com
Sat, 07 Feb 1998 20:31:21 PST (00886933881, 19980208043122.23259.qmail@hotmail.com)
RONCRISS
I haven't been on for days. We have been busy, trying to arrange to
buy a new house and sell this one. Also for 2 days previous to this
Hotmail would not load on my computer or was REALLY slow. Were you
having trouble too?
Anyway, to respond to your friend Till's doubts concerning the
understanding of the fig tree representing Israel or Jerusalem see
Jeremiah 8:13 (notice that this too is a prediction of coming
destruction) and 24:1-10 as simply two of the most obvious examples. In
regards to the "clearing of the Temple" see Jeremiah 7:1-11. I must say
though, I find it a bit ironic to be arguing the INTERPRETATION of
Scripture with atheists!
Pax, Ron
>TILL
>I'm just going to have to spend my allotted time at the keyboard >today
responding to this. As one who spent 30 years teaching
>American literature on the college level, I think I know a little bit
>about literary interpretation principles, and a very basic principle
>is that figurative interpretations must be justified by something
>that is within the text that is being so interpreted. One just
>cannot arbitrarily declare that a given literary text means thus and
>so without justifying that interpretation by specific information
>within the text. So I challenge Roncriss to cite specific language
>within the text of this story that makes it undeniably clear that the
>fig tree was "symbolic of Jerusalem or Israel in what Christians
>refer to as the O.T."
>
>This is another simple matter of it is easy to assert but not so easy
>to prove. To make Roncriss's task as easy as possible, I will even
>quote the text of this story below.
>>
>Mark 11:11 Then he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple; and
>when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he
>went out to Bethany with the twelve.
>12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was
>hungry.
>13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see
>whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he
>found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.
>14 He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And
>his disciples heard it.
>15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began
>to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the
>temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the
>seats of those who sold doves;
>16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the
>temple.
>
>So here is the text for Roncriss. Now it is his responsibility to
>point to the specific language within this text that gives any
>literary reason at all to justify the claim that the fig tree
>symbolized Jerusalem or Israel. (In the first place, how could it
>symbolize both?) He said that we should "see the book of Joel for a
>significant example," but that's very imprecise. Being laid up as I
>am, I have a lot of time to lie in bed and read. I have read the
>entire book of Joel, but I saw nothing to indicate to me a
>"significant example" of what Roncriss is saying. Certainly, I saw
>nothing to give me any reason to suspect that a fig tree in a piece
>of literature written centuries later would symbolize Jerusalem (or
>Israel).
>
>In the first, place we have repeatedly pointed out on this list that
>one cannot claim that what one writer said in a certain
>text should in any way be understood as clarification of what an
>entirely different writer said unless it is possible to show that a
>connection between the two literary pieces was intended by one of the
>writers.
>
>I'm afraid RC will have to be a bit more precise and give us some
>specific information here to justify his wild assertions. There are,
>of course, some references to fig trees in Joel, but I defy RC to try
>to use these references to justify the spin that he is trying to give
>to the NT fig-tree story. I'd be very happy to show that Joel
>obviously (to use RC's favorite word) was referring to a contemporary
>situation and not to something that was centuries away in the future.
>
>He further said that "any Jew familiar with the Scriptures would have
>gotten the message: Jerusalem will be destroyed for not accepting the
>Messiah." But this too is just an unsupported assertion. Roncriss
>needs to explain specifically why "any Jew familiar with the
>Scriptures" would have understood that Jesus was proclaiming in this
>act that Jerusalem would be "destroyed for not accepting the
>messiah."
>
> Ah, but I noticed that he also said that this is so obvious that
>"there is no need to argue further in its defense." So what we
>really have is just another Christian making wild assertions for
>which no supporting evidence at all can be given and then arbitrarily
>declaring victory. I predict that RC will make no effort at all to
>supply the missing information that I have asked for. We'll wait and
>see.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com