Dan56

Didn't know you were from Queens.. Same as Jonathan.. Seems like a very diverse place with Rabbi's, Agnostic's, and Cyndi Lauper

Since what is right to one person could be considered wrong to another person, I doubt that doing only that which is right is an achievable objective. But even though we all inevitably screw-up more than we succeed, trying to do the right thing is an honorable goal. To Christians, there is but one who did everything right.

Just to say that I'm still alive too... 67 now, older but not wiser .. Been trying to turn over a new leaf though!

Well, show me a verse in the bible that condones witchcraft and I'll agree with you.

To me, the following verses are the answer (Mark 9:2-9). Jesus took 3 of them and they saw Jesus transfigured, were shown Elias with Moses, and heard the Father. That was heavenly beings coming to earth, so they did see a powerful portion of heaven.

In retrospect, perhaps none of us 'find' morals, but rather have morality instilled in us.. I believe His Holy Spirit permeates the earth, and everyone has an unction from the Holy Spirit, which provides a sense of right from wrong. That is not to say that His Spirit dwells with everyone, but that morals are transcendent, leaving us all without excuse. If you never cracked open a bible or your parents never taught you that murder, theft, adultery, or lying was wrong, I still believe that we would all inherently know that these things were wrong. Morals aren't taught or learned as much as the knowledge of good and evil is automatic. Refusing to adhere to basic morals leaves many with a seared conscience, but it doesn't detract from the fact that they aren't ignorant of good from evil.

I reckon that's true. Never knew that until now.

Yes, but neither Paul or Jesus abolished the commandments. Jesus fulfilled many of the ceremonial and sacrificial ordinances and statutes put in place to govern the Israelites making them obsolete , but said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17). What changed was that the penalty for breaking the law was "nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14), we are now justified through grace by faith, that's the essence of the new covenant. Paul taught that "all have sinned" and that "the wages of sin is death", but even though Christ paid for our debts on Calvary, he never denounced the 10 commandments, i.e; Its still not okay to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31). So I respectfully disagree with you and Coolhand, because I believe the commandments are still relevant. The curse (penalty) of the law was blotted-out for believers, but the commandments remain intact. To me, the new age thinking that green lights sin is a dangerous proposition, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (John 14:21).

I don't believe Jesus 'abolished' the 10 commandments. He kinda summarized the first 4 with the greatest commandment, to love the Lord with all your heart. And the second greatest commandment covered the rest with "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-40). What Jesus did do is remove the curse of the law, blotting out the transgressions of the repentant. But its as wrong today as it was thousands of years ago to break the commandments.

I personally don't think Jesus was speaking of scientific achievements that would advance mankind. I suspect he was referring to the collective works of the apostles and future believers. Not 'greater' in substance, but cumulatively, the number of miracles and the amount of believers would be increased. Jesus preached to Israel, but now we've seen the 'greater works' worldwide.. Greater in quantity, not quality.. jmo

I ain't mad, nor do I want anything from you. Most Christians agree on the meaning of that parable, its nothing complicated. There's no spin, in Matthew 21 Jesus simply told his disciples to learn the Parable of the Fig Tree, but a reader must go to Luke 13: 6-9 to find the parable in order to learn it. You can't understand the prophecy without knowing what the parable represented. It had nothing to do with actual trees or fruit, but the spiritual implications of the Pharisees and Jews who bore no fruit. The condemnation was not the tree, but directed towards the people who persecuted, rejected, and killed their Messiah. You've often quoted Matthew 7: 19-20, which is more less emphasizing the same thing, "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them". Jesus got to know the naysayers and hypocrites, who all withered away just like that symbolic fig tree, along with the temple. city, and nation... Just put it on a shelf if you don't get it, I just thought I'd try to explain it.

In retrospect, I'm confident that my preceding post will go right over your head. Your intent has never been towards advancing biblical understanding, but to simply ridicule and condemn what you've rejected from the onset. You don't get it because the message was spiritual, the fig tree didn't bear fruit because it was "out of season", so it (Israel) would be a nation (mountain) cast into the sea (sea representing the gentile people of the world). And it would remain so until the end times, which would be marked by the fig tree (Israel) being re-established. The narrative wasn't the fig tree itself, it was used metaphorically. When Jesus figuratively condemned the tree he was literally condemning Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple. The parable was preceded by his words: "Except ye repent ye shall likewise perish". The owner of the vineyard is the God of Israel (Isa 5:7). The dresser is the Messiah (3 years). Cursing the fig tree was simply demonstrating the parable, but the reality of the lesson wasn't cutting down a fruitless tree, but cutting loose a nation that didn't bear spiritual fruit.

What happened in Matthew 21 was not the parable itself, but an illustration of the parable that Jesus instructed them to learn. The parable itself is found in Luke 13:6-9; "He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down'. The symbology of the parable is that the fig tree is representative of Israel, and Christ represented the vineyard owner who found no fruit in Israel for 3 years of his ministry. When Jesus cursed the fig tree, he was teaching that the parable would be brought to fruition. He was encouraging his disciples to connect the dots. "This mountain" is referencing the Mount of Olives, on which they were standing, and Moriah of which the temple stood. "Be thou removed" was fulfilled when the temple was destroyed. Mountain and sea are hyperbole, Mountains can represent nations and "sea" represents multitudes of people. The inhabitants of Israel (mountain) were thrown in the sea, in the sense that they were scattered among the multitudes in many nations. “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children" (Luke 23:28)

I never meant to imply that you weren't capable of exercising good morals. Of course commonsense (logic) can dictate good morals. Slaves were generally prisoners of war, enemies who sought to kill/murder Israelis. Today we imprison enemies of the state forever, but they didn't waste money building prisons back then, they enslave them forever instead. Different times, different solutions. But indentured servitude was a time restricted contract, not forever.

“And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.” (Matthew 21:19). “Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:” (Matthew 21:32). This is alluding to the nation, which would wither away. But Israel would be reunited (1948) Jerusalem (1967). The fig tree representing that rebirth, which would signify the end times, "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors" (Verse 33). It was the old testament prophecy that Jesus was expounding upon, which describes the scattering of Israel (evil figs) “And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.” ( Jeremiah 24:9). But towards the end times, “For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up.” (Jeremiah 24:6)

I'm aware of that, but if you think that passage was describing an erratic episode of Jesus losing his temper over a fig tree not yielding fruit, your not reading with any degree of understanding. You have a habit of mocking what you don't comprehend. No contradiction, everyone has morals to some degree, but believers have a foundation outside of themselves.. Is the death penalty wrong? Is homosexuality right? My answers would be rooted in what I believe, and not necessarily in what I personally think or my own moral standards. You no doubt would agree that murder is wrong, but that morality emanates from within your own judgement or what the government tells you. An atheist morals are not based on any foundation of truth outside of themselves.

Correct, I never meant to imply that morals were exclusive to a person with beliefs, only that atheist don't have a foundation of which they base their morals on. That was no flaw, but a prophecy. The fig tree is symbolic of Jerusalem. The time had come for God’s people to yield fruit that would bless the world (Isa. 27:6). Several times the prophets describe God as inspecting Israel for “early figs,” as a sign of spiritual fruitfulness (Mic. 7:1; Jer. 8:13; Hos. 9:10–17), but he finds “no first-ripe fig that my soul desires.” So in two exiles (Assyrian and Babylonian), God pours out the curse of barrenness (Hos. 9:16), and Israel becomes a rotten fig (Jer. 29:17). After rejecting and killing Messiah, Israel became a withered nation that disappeared. But another prophecy states that after the time of the fulfillment of the gentiles, Israel would be reoccupied at the end times.

So, what does an atheist base their morals on? That was my point, and not that I know what their morals may or may not be. I believe Christ was the Truth, because he said so.. An atheist rejects the Truth (Christ). Christianity has been going strong for 2000 years, it will never die-out. "Heaven (sky) and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away" Luke 21:33).

And good riddance to 2021

Nice to have you Jenn.. I moved back to Illinois from Florida a few years ago. Nice to be home, but this time of year I have regrets. You may have second thoughts come January when its sub zero in Pennsylvania?

Your belief is your belief, no one can invalidate that. I'm not Catholic or a witch, but its fine with me if it works for you and its your choice to mesh the two. My only point was that the 2 are contrary to each other, and I think if your consult a Catholic Priest, he would confirm it. Better yet, point me to a verse in the bible that condones witchcraft? "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee" (Deuteronomy 18: 10-12). This is why I doubt you'll find a Priest who will baptize a witch.. But good luck.

"I'm a Christian witch".... No such thing? You can be one or the other, but not both... Its not likely that you'll find a Christian who will baptize a self-professed witch.

Good question .... I think there's confusion over what being Jewish is? If a Jew is a Christian, are they still a Jew? To me a Jew is a Jew, no matter what they believe, e.g; Jonathan is Jewish.. Doesn't being a Jew just mean that your of Jewish ancestry? Like being a Benjamite just means that your from a different tribe? Judaism was the common Hebrew Abrahamic religion among the 12 tribes, so a person can't be Jewish if they haven't descended from Judah. A Jew can be a Christian and remain Jewish, but a gentile converting to Judaism doesn't make them a Jew. Actually, I believe Jonathan once wrote that he descended from the tribe of Levi, which would make him a Levite and not a Jew? Now-a-days its all the same, a common belief shared by the 12 sons of Jacob (Israel).