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.
Look, this isn’t very hard. Who is Jesus talking to? What is the circumstance for this discussion? What are they talking about and why?
Jesus is the Messiah to the Israelites… the ethnically Jewish people… God’s chosen people. To inherit eternal life, they needed only to accept him as such, which also means accepting his authority and obeying his teaching. This is exactly in line with the much older religious Law regarding righteousness (e.g. going back to Noachide Law). It was only after the resurrection that he commanded his apostles to spread this to the rest of the world.
Now because this section of scripture you want to scrutinize is little more than a restatement of concepts that span most of scripture, I feel like I need to clear up an assumption you may have (and a completely understandable one, at that) about the “afterlife”.
In Jesus time there was an ongoing debate about the Resurrection of the Dead, an even in which everyone who ever lived is raised and judged. The Righteous will be granted eternal life in a new creation/reality… those judged otherwise will be destroyed; dead forever. The Pharisaic tradition, of which Jesus was an advocate, taught this. The Sadducees (the priest caste) disavowed this dogma, arguing that you had one life and dead was dead.
The Pharisaic tradition had also slightly adapted the rules for gentiles, which were more lax given they weren’t raised under the Law.
Modern Judaism (mostly) teaches the Sadducee interpretation: you have one life and dead is dead.
But modern Christianity teaches something else entirely: neo-Hellenism. That is, when you die, your “soul” (which is not a scriptural concept) is judged immediately and then sent to either heaven or hell (hades). As such, modern Christianity teaches that you that you either “love Jesus” or you will be tormented for all eternity. None of that is scriptural. None of it occurs in scripture at all.
Scripturally, Heaven (specifically “Third Heaven”) is the dwelling place of God and it is not a place for humans (Jesus even mentions this in the very section of John we are discussing). The idea of an immediate “afterlife” is entirely of Hellenist origin… hades, hell, the concept of some kind of ongoing consciousness after death… all of it pagan and completely at odds with scripture and Jesus own teaching.
But then, I ask you, how often does a modern “Christian” let Jesus’ teaching get in the way of their political agenda? It’s almost like they reject Jesus teaching and behave like the scribes and Pharisees instead…
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?
Look, this isn’t very hard. Who is Jesus talking to? What is the circumstance for this discussion? What are they talking about and why?
Jesus is the Messiah to the Israelites… the ethnically Jewish people… God’s chosen people. To inherit eternal life, they needed only to accept him as such, which also means accepting his authority and obeying his teaching. This is exactly in line with the much older religious Law regarding righteousness (e.g. going back to Noachide Law). It was only after the resurrection that he commanded his apostles to spread this to the rest of the world.
Now because this section of scripture you want to scrutinize is little more than a restatement of concepts that span most of scripture, I feel like I need to clear up an assumption you may have (and a completely understandable one, at that) about the “afterlife”.
In Jesus time there was an ongoing debate about the Resurrection of the Dead, an even in which everyone who ever lived is raised and judged. The Righteous will be granted eternal life in a new creation/reality… those judged otherwise will be destroyed; dead forever. The Pharisaic tradition, of which Jesus was an advocate, taught this. The Sadducees (the priest caste) disavowed this dogma, arguing that you had one life and dead was dead.
The Pharisaic tradition had also slightly adapted the rules for gentiles, which were more lax given they weren’t raised under the Law.
Modern Judaism (mostly) teaches the Sadducee interpretation: you have one life and dead is dead.
But modern Christianity teaches something else entirely: neo-Hellenism. That is, when you die, your “soul” (which is not a scriptural concept) is judged immediately and then sent to either heaven or hell (hades). As such, modern Christianity teaches that you that you either “love Jesus” or you will be tormented for all eternity. None of that is scriptural. None of it occurs in scripture at all.
Scripturally, Heaven (specifically “Third Heaven”) is the dwelling place of God and it is not a place for humans (Jesus even mentions this in the very section of John we are discussing). The idea of an immediate “afterlife” is entirely of Hellenist origin… hades, hell, the concept of some kind of ongoing consciousness after death… all of it pagan and completely at odds with scripture and Jesus own teaching.
But then, I ask you, how often does a modern “Christian” let Jesus’ teaching get in the way of their political agenda? It’s almost like they reject Jesus teaching and behave like the scribes and Pharisees instead…