Why curse a perfectly good tree?

[Athetotheist]

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
(Mark 11:12-14)

Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
(Matthew 21:19)

Question 1: If "through him all things were made", why didn't Jesus know that there wouldn't be any fruit on a tree when its fruit was not in season?

Question 2: If there should have been fruit on the tree because the fruit was in season, why did the author of Mark make the false statement that it wasn't in season?

Question 3: How was Jesus's cursing of the tree a righteous act when both versions of the curse [the one in Mark and the one in Matthew] assume that the tree would have produced fruit again [and Mark's version specifically assumes that it would produce fruit again when the fruit was in season]?

[A Freeman]

[Replying to A Freeman in post #17]

The fruit of a tree is what the tree produces.

The fruits of an individual are the actions that individual produce.

The metaphor should be self-explanatory.

The story says that Jesus went looking for figs because he was hungry. Isn't "it was not the season for figs" self-explanatory?

Who said "it was not the season for figs"?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to A Freeman in post #21]

The story says that Jesus went looking for figs because he was hungry. Isn't "it was not the season for figs" self-explanatory?

Who said "it was not the season for figs"?

"The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs."
(Mark 11:12-13)

[Difflugia]

I think it's a parable ...

What in the language indicates to you the writer is presenting a parable (a fictional event ) rather than a literal experience?

Supernatural events, omniscient narrator, the Messianic Secret as a literary device, bumbling disciples as literary foil to Jesus as misunderstood master...

[JehovahsWitness]

I think it's a parable ...

What in the language indicates to you the writer is presenting a parable (a fictional event ) rather than a literal experience?

Supernatural events, omniscient narrator, the Messianic Secret as a literary device, bumbling disciples as literary foil to Jesus as misunderstood master...

I'm not following, how relating a "supernatural event" is an indication that the writer intended the content to be considered a parable? how do the words "omniscient narrator" relate to my question? Who are the "bumbling disciples" and how are they an indication that writer was relating a parable rather than describing ....literal "bumbling disciples"?

[Difflugia]

I'm not following, how relating a "supernatural event" is an indication that the writer intended the content to be considered a parable? how do the words "omniscient narrator" relate to my question? Who are the "bumbling disciples" and how are they an indication that writer was relating a parable rather than describing ....literal "bumbling disciples"?

Your dichotomy was "parable" vs. "literal experience." All of those are signs that it's not a literal experience.

Now that it's unlikely to be a literal experience, what features of the text convince you that it's nevertheless not a parable?

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm not following, how relating a "supernatural event" is an indication that the writer intended the content to be considered a parable? how do the words "omniscient narrator" relate to my question? Who are the "bumbling disciples" and how are they an indication that writer was relating a parable rather than describing ....literal "bumbling disciples"?

Your dichotomy was "parable" vs. "literal experience." All of those are signs that it's not a literal experience.

...

How? How are all " those are signs that it's not a literal experience"? Use your words (at least 1 complete sentence per element would be good ...for example:

- That the writer presented "bumbling disciples" is evidence that it was {to quote you} "not a literal experience"{end quote} because ....--->and here is where it would be good to support your conclusion with something from the text ... For example (and this is just an example ..."because disciples can't "bumble" or ...because disciples is in the plural and there can be only one disciple... anything in the text will do.

Over to you,


JW

[A Freeman]

[Replying to A Freeman in post #21]

The story says that Jesus went looking for figs because he was hungry. Isn't "it was not the season for figs" self-explanatory?

Who said "it was not the season for figs"?

"The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs."
(Mark 11:12-13)

Thank-you.

[Difflugia]

Over to you,

Over to me? You haven't done anything yet.

If you have a claim to make and support, do so.

[JehovahsWitness]

Over to you,

Over to me? You haven't done anything yet. ...

Yes I have, I've challenged you. You claim that the events were presented as a parable and I have asked you to support (and explain in full sentences) what in the text indicates to you that the writer was presenting the events as such. I don't have to present a counterclaim, to make a challenge. I await your evidence (fully explained). I add "fully explained" because you seem to be under the impression that if you say "It's a parable because I think it is a parable" then we should all silently bow in reverence to you mind reading capacities and ask no questions. If on the other hand its not a claim but you are voicing your beliefs, that's fine but if it is a claim... I am challenging it.

This is a debate forum... and that's how debates work.

[Difflugia]

Yes I have, I've challenged you.

"o rly?" isn't a challenge.

You claim that the events were presented as a parable and I have asked you to support (and explain in full sentences) what in the text indicates to you that the writer was presenting the events as such.

Yep. And I explained why I think that within the context of the debate question asked, both before and after your "challenge." Conversations with you, especially when you begin the conversation by just asking questions, tend to only be interesting when I can use your unsupported statements as a foil for learning something new or exploring a new angle on something. I don't see either of those following from your questions.

In fact, I just recently gave you the benefit of the doubt and created a new topic for your questions about the NWT. I thought that maybe you were interested in a good-faith discussion about the topic. It appears that you weren't.

I don't have to present a counterclaim, to make a challenge.

That's right. You don't. The moderators generally moderate tone rather than the conduct of the debate itself, so instead of engaging with the topic, you can try to get me to grind your ax for you and nobody will stop you. I, on the other hand, have no interest in that kind of discussion, so I don't have to explain Mark's middle school literary conventions to you.

This is a debate forum... and that's how debates work.

Nobody that's ever been a part of a forensic debate would agree with you.