I find it funny how depending on the parts you pick, you can assemble almost any ideology. Jesus is amazingly 2 faced. One seconds he’s teaching you the importance of treating people with kindness, even your enemies, that any person can forgive another’s sins and then another second he’s cursing a tree for not bearing fruit out of season or telling his followers kill the people that don’t want Jesus to be their king.
There are four “official” gospels, seven more “unofficial” books, and somewhere north of 50 different written accounts that survive from the period.
It’s helpful to read these as perspectives rather than definitives. Imagine showing up at a funeral and every attendee has his or her own story about the deceased. Just because the stories seem to contradict one another, I would not think that means the individual they’re recounting was duplicitous.
The fig tree was a lesson, as Jesus was very fond of parables and “props” in his teaching. Israel is depicted in scripture as a fig tree, so the lesson was that Israel was not prepared for the arrival of the Messiah (which, as foretold, would have had no season) and would face harsh penalties as a result. The lesson was a rebuke of Israel, that through it’s own self-determined nature, it had failed to do what it had been commanded.
The second one you mention is a single line from a parable (specifically, The Parable of the Minas) that you have taken out of context.
If that’s the intended lesson it fell flat. You’re not ready for me right now? Well fuck you, I, the all mighty and mercifully curse you to never have a future again.
And granted, with the last part I’m working with the assumption that Jesus self-inserts him self in the story. After a bit of looking around online only half the people I saw thought it was a self referential story, so I guess the church you attended interpreted it differently. Honestly that’s the main problem, that this shit is so cryptic nobody can agree what it actually means.
That’s an understandable sentiment, honestly. I constantly remind people that we - westerners living 2000 years in the future surrounded by magical objects and an utterly alien culture - were never the audience for these stories. As a result, almost all context is lost without a background in the history, language, and culture of the time.
Very little in scripture is mysterious… but modern “Christianity” has a vested interest in obfuscating and hiding the context.
The fig tree story was a scathing rebuke that was readily understood by Jesus followers. The Parable of the Minas is about the Resurrection of the Dead (the topic that incited the story was whether the Kingdom of Heaven was coming immediately). That is, at the end of all things, all those who have died will be raised from the dead and judged. The righteous, who did God’s work and reaped dividends for him, will be rewarded… and those who rebel (actively worked against him) will be annihilated… that is, truly, finally, eternally dead.
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but this claim was rejected by Jewish leadership… yet Nicodemus (one of said leaders) visited Jesus under cover of darkness and pressed him further.
Read 16-21 again, remembering who Nicodemus was and that he did not visit openly, but secretly in the darkness, and that his line of questioning was patronizing at best, and bad faith at worst (which Jesus does not let him get away with).
The context here is explicitly It’s about Israelites - but even more specifically Jewish leadership (e.g. the Sanhedrin, of which Nicodemus was a member) rejecting Jesus status and authority as Messiah despite both the evidence and Jesus unambiguous claims.
See also Luke 7, where Nicodemus suggests his peers hear Jesus out, and they essentially reply: “Pfft, nobody from a redneck backwater like Galilee could ever be a prophet.”
Where does he specify that? Because I’ve read it in context and he never specifies that he’s specifically talking about the Sanhedrin, so please don’t try this on me.
I find it funny how depending on the parts you pick, you can assemble almost any ideology. Jesus is amazingly 2 faced. One seconds he’s teaching you the importance of treating people with kindness, even your enemies, that any person can forgive another’s sins and then another second he’s cursing a tree for not bearing fruit out of season or telling his followers kill the people that don’t want Jesus to be their king.
There are four “official” gospels, seven more “unofficial” books, and somewhere north of 50 different written accounts that survive from the period.
It’s helpful to read these as perspectives rather than definitives. Imagine showing up at a funeral and every attendee has his or her own story about the deceased. Just because the stories seem to contradict one another, I would not think that means the individual they’re recounting was duplicitous.
The fig tree was a lesson, as Jesus was very fond of parables and “props” in his teaching. Israel is depicted in scripture as a fig tree, so the lesson was that Israel was not prepared for the arrival of the Messiah (which, as foretold, would have had no season) and would face harsh penalties as a result. The lesson was a rebuke of Israel, that through it’s own self-determined nature, it had failed to do what it had been commanded.
The second one you mention is a single line from a parable (specifically, The Parable of the Minas) that you have taken out of context.
If that’s the intended lesson it fell flat. You’re not ready for me right now? Well fuck you, I, the all mighty and mercifully curse you to never have a future again.
And granted, with the last part I’m working with the assumption that Jesus self-inserts him self in the story. After a bit of looking around online only half the people I saw thought it was a self referential story, so I guess the church you attended interpreted it differently. Honestly that’s the main problem, that this shit is so cryptic nobody can agree what it actually means.
That’s an understandable sentiment, honestly. I constantly remind people that we - westerners living 2000 years in the future surrounded by magical objects and an utterly alien culture - were never the audience for these stories. As a result, almost all context is lost without a background in the history, language, and culture of the time.
Very little in scripture is mysterious… but modern “Christianity” has a vested interest in obfuscating and hiding the context.
The fig tree story was a scathing rebuke that was readily understood by Jesus followers. The Parable of the Minas is about the Resurrection of the Dead (the topic that incited the story was whether the Kingdom of Heaven was coming immediately). That is, at the end of all things, all those who have died will be raised from the dead and judged. The righteous, who did God’s work and reaped dividends for him, will be rewarded… and those who rebel (actively worked against him) will be annihilated… that is, truly, finally, eternally dead.
I’d like to see you excuse John 3:18. It’s pretty overt that all non-Christians are condemned.
You’re not so loving if you condemn everyone who doesn’t worship you.
Excuse? It’s a scathing rebuke to Nicodemus face.
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but this claim was rejected by Jewish leadership… yet Nicodemus (one of said leaders) visited Jesus under cover of darkness and pressed him further.
Read 16-21 again, remembering who Nicodemus was and that he did not visit openly, but secretly in the darkness, and that his line of questioning was patronizing at best, and bad faith at worst (which Jesus does not let him get away with).
And yet he says any non-Christian is condemned. That’s very clear. The all-loving Jesus condemns anyone who doesn’t love him back.
It doesn’t say that at all, though.
The context here is explicitly It’s about Israelites - but even more specifically Jewish leadership (e.g. the Sanhedrin, of which Nicodemus was a member) rejecting Jesus status and authority as Messiah despite both the evidence and Jesus unambiguous claims.
See also Luke 7, where Nicodemus suggests his peers hear Jesus out, and they essentially reply: “Pfft, nobody from a redneck backwater like Galilee could ever be a prophet.”
Where does he specify that? Because I’ve read it in context and he never specifies that he’s specifically talking about the Sanhedrin, so please don’t try this on me.
I don’t know what to tell you. The text hasn’t changed in nearly two millennia. It’s right there right now as it always has been.
Well then I guess John 3:16 was also only addressed to a small number of Jewish leaders, right?
“That whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” only applies to the Sanhedrin, yes?
Because it’s only two verses away and 3:17 isn’t “but the next thing I say only applies to the Sanhedrin.”
So I guess only the Sanhedrin who believe in him will have eternal life.
Correct?