Jesus behaving like a mere mortal: the Fig Tree incident!

[alexxcJRO]

“12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.13 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. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.� And his disciples heard him say it.
…
20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!� �(Mark 11:12-14, 20-21)
“18 Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 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.
20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?� they asked.� (Matthew 21:18-20)

It is hard to act all wise, intelligently and mature all the time even for the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.
It is hard to act all wise, intelligently and mature on an empty stomach even for the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.

Firstly,
For someone who claims to be the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God; one who can see the future, read minds, heal on the spot, change matter into other matter surely should have known there would not be any figs on the tree even without the knowledge that it was not the season for figs.
Even if Jesus was just a mere mortal, he should have known there would not be any figs on the tree for it was not the season for figs.
For someone who claims to be the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God he does not seem very bright.
He does not seem very bright even for human standards.

Secondly,
For someone who claims to be the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God he acted quite unwisely, immaturely. He let his anger get the best of him. He cursed and killed this non-sentient living thing that has no will, no fault.
For someone who preached about love, tolerance, light, love thy enemy, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek he surely chose the path of destruction instead of creation. He could have just made the tree make fruits on the spot and therefore quench his hunger.

C: The event portrait in the gospels have Jesus clearly showing signs of mere mortality, immaturity and low IQ somehow in contradiction with him supposedly being the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.


Q: How can anyone with his rational faculties intact consider this weak, immature moron called Jesus the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God?

[Mithrae]

1. There is no question about Gandhi's hunger strike.

Sure, once you understand the historical context, the symbolic nature of Gandhi's actions are easy to discern. The same is true of Diogenes and Jesus. That's the point.

On the other hand Jesus wanting to teach something about the fig in connection with the temple is just a non-sequitur of religious people who have the presuposition of Jesus being the son of God.

Scholars of all types have long recognized that this passage is meant to be understood as a symbolic act. That conclusion is born out of the observation that (a) Jesus often engaged in symbolic acts, (b) this appears to be a dramatization of what was otherwise a parable, (c) the fig tree was historically seen as a symbol for Israel, and (d) Mark's positioning of the account in relation to Jesus' symbolic actions with the Temple.

None of that hinges on a belief that Jesus was the son of God, so your objection here seems wholly unfounded.

I should have mentioned that this kind of physical symbolism or acted parable/prophecy is particularly well-attested in earlier Jewish culture itself, with examples such as Jeremiah going around with a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27), Ezekiel making a model of Jerusalem and acting out its seige by lying on his side and cooking food with dung for over a year (Ez. 4), and Hosea going so far as to marry a prostitute, bearing her unfaithfulness to him and giving crazy names to their children (Hos. 1)!

I didn't mention it because A) a towering intellect such as Alexx's would dismiss other biblical examples as those people being "morons" even more easily than non-biblical examples have been ignored and B) it didn't occur to me until later

[alexxcJRO]

In all three cases, the person is engaging in symbolic actions.
Sure, once you understand the historical context, the symbolic nature of Gandhi's actions are easy to discern. The same is true of Diogenes and Jesus. That's the point.
The point of an analogy is to compare two things that share a trait in common but otherwise have traits that are different. Pointing out, then, that Jesus and Gandhi had other traits that are different is simply noting this is an analogy.

Not really.

I am disputing your premise that Jesus is acting symbolic(therefore no common things); that this is a dramatization, an acted parable, visual metaphor or whatever.

Your argument makes sense if one ignores key elements in the account:
-Jesus was hungry.
-Jesus went to the tree to cheek for fruits.
-The tree was not barren, had leaves. The tree was doing what was suppose to do: Not bear fruits when was not season.

You ignoring things, being selective is just a text example of confirmation bias.

I can’t ignore key elements in the story for I don’t have any presuppositions.

My argument goes like this:

1. Jesus was hungry and went to a tree to cheek for fruit and quench his hunger.
2. Jesus upon checking the tree found out there were no fruits.
3. Jesus cursed the tree.
4. It was common knowledge it was not the season for figs for it was spring time(April). The gospel writer points this out too.
5. Humans get cranky when hungry because as more time passes from your last meal the amount of the nutrients(glucose, amino acids and free fatty acids) circulating in your bloodstream starts to drop and it become more difficult behaving within socially acceptable norms, such as not snapping at people/objects.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-me ... me-people-...
6. Humans feel hurt/irritated when something obstructs their needs/desires. Anger refers to the desire to “get even with�-that is, to take revenge on-the cause of hurt. When humans get angry, sometimes take that anger out on things, objects that can’t fight back by kicking them, smashing, or cursing them.
http://www.guidetopsychology.com/anger.htm

C1: Jesus was hungry, got pissed off and lashed out on the tree(cursed it) when he saw there were no figs.
C2: Jesus does not seem to be very bright.

[historia]

You ignoring things, being selective is just a text example of confirmation bias.

I can’t ignore key elements in the story for I don’t have any presuppositions.

This strikes me as a rather weak objection.

First, as I mentioned previously, scholars of all stripes have concluded that this passage should be understood symbolically.

That includes conservative scholars such as N.T. Wright, as well as liberal scholars who don't believe Jesus was divine, such as John Dominic Crossan, and even a highly skeptical atheist scholar like Richard Carrier, just to name a few. (See, e.g., Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pg. 434; Crossan, The Historical Jesus, pg. 334; Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pg. 357.)

When scholars of such diverse perspectives all reach the same conclusion, it's very difficult to maintain that they do so simply out of bias or presuppositions. Moreover, I don't know of any scholarly treatment of this passage that doesn't hold to this symbolic interpretation.

Googling around, it appears that the handful of people suggesting something like your interpretation are atheist advocates and Islamic apologists who lack both the necessary scholarly credentials to be taken seriously and have overt anti-Christian agendas. Talk about bias!

Second, before looking at any of the story's details, you need to make an even more basic, fundamental assessment of the nature of the source you are interpreting.

Mark's gospel isn't a simple travel log of Jesus' ministry. It's a highly literary, theological work. The idea, then, that Mark is recounting this story about the fig tree simply to remind his readers of that odd time Jesus got hangry and cursed a plant is, at best, naive.

The fact that, in the story, Jesus is hungry doesn't preclude his subsequent actions being symbolic any more than (alert: analogy ahead) the fact that Ganghi needed salt precludes the Salt March from carrying symbolic significance.

[Wootah]

Q: How can anyone with his rational faculties intact consider this weak, immature moron called Jesus the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God?

Moderator Warning

Please do not question peoples rational faculties or call others a moron.

How can someone know the rules of the forum and yet make your post?
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[alexxcJRO]

First, as I mentioned previously, scholars of all stripes have concluded that this passage should be understood symbolically.
That includes conservative scholars such as N.T. Wright, as well as liberal scholars who don't believe Jesus was divine, such as John Dominic Crossan, and even a highly skeptical atheist scholar like Richard Carrier, just to name a few. (See, e.g., Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pg. 434; Crossan, The Historical Jesus, pg. 334; Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pg. 357.)
Googling around, it appears that the handful of people suggesting something like your interpretation are atheist advocates and Islamic apologists who lack both the necessary scholarly credentials to be taken seriously and have overt anti-Christian agendas.

So making an argument from authority. The atheists and Islam apologists are wrong for they lack necessary scholarly credentials and John Dominic Crossan and Carrier are right for they have the necessary scholarly credentials.

Q: Do believe anything John Dominic Crossan and Richard Carrier say or only the things the suit your preconceived ideas?

Carrier argues for Jesus being a myth.

Q: Do you agree?(YES/NO question)

Please answer this question. It is important:
Q: Why did Jesus went to cheek for figs if he just wanted to curse the tree in an attempt to teach something via the visual metaphor method?

Mark's gospel isn't a simple travel log of Jesus' ministry. It's a highly literary, theological work. The idea, then, that Mark is recounting this story about the fig tree simply to remind his readers of that odd time Jesus got hangry and cursed a plant is, at best, naive.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I said nothing of the reasons that made Mark put the story in the Gospel.
I would say he put the story there for the supposed miracle/supernatural event: Jesus making the tree wither.

[historia]

So making an argument from authority.

I'm afraid you missed the point. I cited the authors above to show that scholars with widely differing presuppositions and perspectives all conclude that Mark intended this passage to be understood symbolically.

This refutes your objection that such a reading of the passage is born simply out of bias, presupposition, or belief that Jesus is the Son of God. That is clearly not the case.

The atheists and Islam apologists are wrong for they lack necessary scholarly credentials and John Dominic Crossan and Carrier are right for they have the necessary scholarly credentials.

No, the handful of people advocating this simplistic reading of the passage are wrong because they haven't undertaken a proper literary analysis of the text. The scholars are right because they have.

This is no coincidence, of course. The scholars have the necessary training and expertise to engage in a proper historical analysis of this passage, while amateur critics do not.

Q: Do believe anything John Dominic Crossan and Richard Carrier say or only the things the suit your preconceived ideas?

This is, of course, a false dichotomy. There are various conclusions that Wright, Crossan, and Carrier reach that I disagree with based on my own critical analysis of the evidence.

Carrier argues for Jesus being a myth.

Q: Do you agree?(YES/NO question)

No, the hypothesis that Jesus was a myth does not account for the historical evidence nearly as well as the hypothesis that Jesus existed. Carrier's arguments in this regard are not compelling.

Q: Why did Jesus went to cheek for figs if he just wanted to curse the tree in an attempt to teach something via the visual metaphor method?

As I understand it, fig trees begin producing fruit at the same time their leaves come in. A tree that gives the outward appearance of having fruit (leaves) but doesn't actually have fruit seems as good an opportunity as any to make a symbolic point, especially when the fig tree was often used as a symbol of Israel, and fruitlessness symbolized unfaithfulness (see, e.g., Jeremiah 29:15-19; Hosea 9:10, 16; Micah 7:1-4).

[alexxcJRO]

No, the handful of people advocating this simplistic reading of the passage are wrong because they haven't undertaken a proper literary analysis of the text. The scholars are right because they have.

This is no coincidence, of course. The scholars have the necessary training and expertise to engage in a proper historical analysis of this passage, while amateur critics do not.

This is, of course, a false dichotomy. There are various conclusions that Wright, Crossan, and Carrier reach that I disagree with based on my own critical analysis of the evidence.
No, the hypothesis that Jesus was a myth does not account for the historical evidence nearly as well as the hypothesis that Jesus existed. Carrier's arguments in this regard are not compelling.

[/

Nonsensical, illogical rambling cuz’ of confirmation bias.

On one hand you say let’s go with what historians, scholars say because they have the necessary training and expertise to engage in a proper historical analysis of this passage while amateur critics such as myself do not.

On the other hand you say you yourself an amateur critic can disagree based on your own critical analysis with historians, scholars say even though they have the necessary training and expertise to engage in a proper historical analysis of other passages and you don’t.

I myself an amateur critic cannot disagree based on my own critical analysis with historians, scholars but you can.

You are not logically consistent.

You agree with historians, scholars when it’s suits with your preconceived ideas and disagree with them when it goes against your preconceived ideas.

The bias is obvious.

As I understand it, fig trees begin producing fruit at the same time their leaves come in. A tree that gives the outward appearance of having fruit (leaves) but doesn't actually have fruit seems as good an opportunity as any to make a symbolic point, especially when the fig tree was often used as a symbol of Israel, and fruitlessness symbolized unfaithfulness (see, e.g., Jeremiah 29:15-19; Hosea 9:10, 16; Micah 7:1-4).
[/

You are missing my point and have not actually answer the question.

Jesus went and cheeked for fruits on the tree but found nothing but leaves.
But this was unnecessary if he just wanted to curse the tree and teach something via the visual metaphor.

Q: Why does the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent God one who can see the future, read minds, heal on the spot, change matter into other matter need to cheek?

Plus it was common knowledge it was not season for figs.

[historia]

[Replying to alexxcJRO]

You seem confused about how people engage with scholarship. Allow me to correct that for you.

On one hand you say let’s go with what historians, scholars say because they have the necessary training and expertise to engage in a proper historical analysis of this passage while amateur critics such as myself do not.

That's right. In history, as in any other discipline, we should look to the conclusions of experts when forming our own opinions.

In particular, we should follow the consensus of scholarship. While individual scholars in a field will invariably hold conflicting opinions, the consensus is more likely to be correct.

On the other hand you say you yourself an amateur critic can disagree based on your own critical analysis with historians, scholars say even though they have the necessary training and expertise to engage in a proper historical analysis of other passages and you don’t.

Anyone who reads the literature of a field will necessarily have to disagree with individual scholars on various occasions, since not all scholars agree with each other.

There isn't a scholarly consensus on every issue. In those cases, we are left with a variety of competing theories and interpretations.

In forming your own opinion on these non-consensus issues, you will need to assess the various competing arguments and the historical evidence itself in order to reach your own conclusion. In doing so, you will necessarily end up agreeing with some scholars over against others.

I myself an amateur critic cannot disagree based on my own critical analysis with historians, scholars but you can.

I'm afraid you're conflating two different issues here.

In forming your own personal opinions, you can disagree with scholars all your like. You are free to believe any non-experts and bad arguments that strike your fancy.

But the rest of us have no good reason to accept your opinions, since you are not an expert. So, when you come on a debate board and try to convince other people that your opinions are correct, you need to cite evidence and scholarship.

You are not logically consistent.

What I've outlined above is perfectly consistent, I think.

Again, in my opinion, we should follow the scholarly consensus whenever possible. It is the consensus of scholars that Jesus was an historical person and that Mark intended this fig tree passage to be interpreted symbolically. I am following the consensus in both cases.

In doing so, we will necessarily end up disagreeing with individual scholars. Carrier's views on the historicity of Jesus, for example, run contrary to the consensus. On non-consensus issues I might agree with Crossan against Wright, or vice versa. This is to be expected.

You agree with historians, scholars when it’s suits with your preconceived ideas and disagree with them when it goes against your preconceived ideas.

This is a baseless assertion. I've changed my mind after reading various scholars plenty of times.

Jesus went and cheeked for fruits on the tree but found nothing but leaves.
But this was unnecessary if he just wanted to curse the tree and teach something via the visual metaphor.

I'm not sure I understand your concern here. As Mark has framed the account, Jesus came across this tree looking for food and uses that occasion to performs this symbolic action.

Was it "necessary" that he should use this particular occasion to make that point and not some other tree on a different occasion? No, but so what? This seems neither here nor there in the argument.

Why does the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent God one who can see the future, read minds, heal on the spot, change matter into other matter need to cheek?

As was already mentioned above, orthodox Christians have historically believed that Jesus was fully human, and, during the Incarnation, had limited knowledge. Is that news to you?

[alexxcJRO]

That's right. In history, as in any other discipline, we should look to the conclusions of experts when forming our own opinions.

In particular, we should follow the consensus of scholarship. While individual scholars in a field will invariably hold conflicting opinions, the consensus is more likely to be correct.
Anyone who reads the literature of a field will necessarily have to disagree with individual scholars on various occasions, since not all scholars agree with each other.

There isn't a scholarly consensus on every issue. In those cases, we are left with a variety of competing theories and interpretations.

In forming your own opinion on these non-consensus issues, you will need to assess the various competing arguments and the historical evidence itself in order to reach your own conclusion. In doing so, you will necessarily end up agreeing with some scholars over against others.
Again, in my opinion, we should follow the scholarly consensus whenever possible. It is the consensus of scholars that Jesus was an historical person and that Mark intended this fig tree passage to be interpreted symbolically. I am following the consensus in both cases.

In doing so, we will necessarily end up disagreeing with individual scholars. Carrier's views on the historicity of Jesus, for example, run contrary to the consensus. On non-consensus issues I might agree with Crossan against Wright, or vice versa. This is to be expected.

Moving the goalpost. Argument ad populum.

Now it’s about consensus not just about having the necessary training and expertise to engage in a proper historical analysis of the passages.
You keep changing like the weather.

“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, social justice, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Q: Do you ever see me or other atheist here when arguing for evolution, age of Earth, and so one using fallacious arguments such as: Evolution is true because some scientist said so, because of the scientific consensus regarding such matters?

"But the rest of us have no good reason to accept your opinions, since you are not an expert. So, when you come on a debate board and try to convince other people that your opinions are correct, you need to cite evidence and scholarship. "

It's not just my opinion.

I provided evidence to back up my argument:

1. Humans get cranky when hungry because as more time passes from your last meal the amount of the nutrients(glucose, amino acids and free fatty acids) circulating in your bloodstream starts to drop and it become more difficult behaving within socially acceptable norms, such as not snapping at people/objects.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-me ... me-people-...
2. Humans feel hurt/irritated when something obstructs their needs/desires. Anger refers to the desire to “get even with�-that is, to take revenge on-the cause of hurt. When humans get angry, sometimes take that anger out on things, objects that can’t fight back by kicking them, smashing, or cursing them.
http://www.guidetopsychology.com/anger.htm


Jesus was hungry and went to look for figs on the tree but there were none.
Jesus cursed the tree.
Facts from 1 and 2.

C: Jesus got irritated that something obstructed his need: he wanted to eat for he was hungry but there was no figs on the fig tree. So he like any mere mortal had the desire to: get even with�-that is, take revenge on-the cause of the hurt: the fig tree. So instead of controlling his anger he followed his impulses and took his revenge on this non-sentient living thing.

Jesus came across this tree looking for food.

Q: Why did he go look for food? Did he not knew that it was not the season for figs? Was he a moron?

As was already mentioned above, orthodox Christians have historically believed that Jesus was fully human, and, during the Incarnation, had limited knowledge. Is that news to you?

Q: So you think the parts about him being able to see the future(according to the text he knew Judas will betray him, Peter will deny him tree times), read minds, heal on the spot, change matter into other matter, making the tree wither are just fiction, embellishments?

[JerryMyers]

This strikes me as a rather weak objection.

First, as I mentioned previously, scholars of all stripes have concluded that this passage should be understood symbolically.

I apologize for butting into your interesting exchange with @alexxcJRO.. BUT, how is it that this passage (the fig tree incident) should be understood symbolically when Jesus saying “On the third day I will be raised� is not ?? I am not looking from the views of ‘scholars of all stripes’ BUT I am looking from the Biblical point of view.

There was nothing in the whole passage of this story (Mark 11:12-26) to imply that it was a symbolic reference or Jesus speaking in parables or metaphorically but it was narrated as of how it happened.

The fig tree incident clearly tells us Jesus, though a great man and a prophet of God, is still a mortal being with the need to eat when he’s hungry and like any other mortal beings, can be forgetful as we are told that the time was not the season of figs.