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?

[marco]

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

Yes, his behaviour is bizarre. In their eagerness to stress the phenomenal powers of their preacher, the writers invented yet another miracle but didn't trouble themselves too much about background details. Jesus is hungry so he spitefully curses a tree. Not important: he successfully causes the tree to wither. What power!

This allows us to take water to wine, walking on waves and multiplying loaves - with a pinch of salt. And rising from the dead? Quite.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 1 by alexxcJRO]

1. That in His human form He did not access His divine knowledge is well attested.

2. As you say, any person living in the region would know that it was not the time for the figs so there must have been something special about this tree that gave Him the idea that He would find a fig. When He didn't, He saw the opportunity to show His authority against liars coupled with a teaching about faith.

3. It is only your imagination and your denigrating outlook toward Him that sees Him acting out of anger...when that is not written.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 13. But then it is peculiar to the fig tree that its fruit begins to appear before its leaves. It was, therefore, a natural supposition that on this tree, with its leaves fully developed, there might be found at least some ripened fruit. Our Lord, therefore, approaches the tree in his hunger, with the expectation of finding fruit. But as he draws near to it, and realizes the fact that the tree, though full of leaf, is absolutely fruitless, he forgets his natural hunger in the thought of the spiritual figure which this tree began to present to his mind.

[bjs]

Cursing the fig tree is what we sometimes call an acted parable. An acted parable is visual metaphor that depicts a truth about God as opposed to a verbal story. In this case, instead of telling his disciple about a withered fig tree, Jesus physically cursed the tree and caused its death.

The parable was a condemnation of Israel. Throughout the OT a tree, of specifically a fig tree, was commonly used as a metaphor for the Israelites. Cursing the fig tree was a rebuke of Israel. As people who should have been mature in God, they were not producing Godly fruit. Jesus was warning of a curse against Israel: They would be rejected if they did not produce fruit.

Notice that the passage about the fig tree is connected directly with the Jesus cleansing the Temple, an obvious example of the moral corruption of Israel that Jesus opposed. Cleansing the Temple was a rejection of the materialistic focus of Israel at that time. Jesus extended that condemnation through the acted parable of cursing the fig tree, warning that Israel need to produce godly fruit or face spiritual withering.

The act of cursing the fig treat was neither angry nor spiteful. The way the author pointed out that it was not fig season suggests that Jesus was expecting the tree not to have figs on it. Jesus was not ignorant of the fact that it was not fig season. If the tree did have figs that would have ruined parable.

In the context of the passage, Jesus was depicted intelligent, mature and purposeful in his actions.

[alexxcJRO]

1. That in His human form He did not access His divine knowledge is well attested.

Irrelevant, nonsensical ramblings born out desperation cuz’ of cognitive dissonance in a pathetic attempt to excuse what cannot be excused.

According to the gospels Jesus had divine knowledge->foreknowledge:

Mark 8:31
"And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

Matthew 17:22-23
"And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day." And they were deeply grieved."

Mark 14:18-20
"As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me--one who is eating with Me." They began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, "Surely not I?" And He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl."

Mark 14:30
"And Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, that this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you yourself will deny Me three times." "

“But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.'� (Matthew 26:64)

"Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. "(Matthew 23:36)

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. “Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 24:29-35)

“Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.� (Luke 9:27)

2. As you say, any person living in the region would know that it was not the time for the figs so there must have been something special about this tree that gave Him the idea that He would find a fig. When He didn't, He saw the opportunity to show His authority against liars coupled with a teaching about faith.



Pulpit Commentary
Verse 13. But then it is peculiar to the fig tree that its fruit begins to appear before its leaves. It was, therefore, a natural supposition that on this tree, with its leaves fully developed, there might be found at least some ripened fruit. Our Lord, therefore, approaches the tree in his hunger, with the expectation of finding fruit. But as he draws near to it, and realizes the fact that the tree, though full of leaf, is absolutely fruitless, he forgets his natural hunger in the thought of the spiritual figure which this tree began to present to his mind.

Irrelevant, nonsensical ramblings born out desperation cuz’ of cognitive dissonance in a pathetic attempt to excuse what cannot be excused.

Having leaves on the tree is nothing special or peculiar. We are in spring. Off course the fig had leaves. Daaaaaah.
The fact remains: it was not the season for figs. This was common knowledge.
Having Jesus going to look for food only shows he probably was not very bright even by human standards.

3. It is only your imagination and your denigrating outlook toward Him that sees Him acting out of anger...when that is not written.

Irrelevant, nonsensical ramblings born out desperation cuz’ of cognitive dissonance in a pathetic attempt to excuse what cannot be excused.

Psychology tells us that:

“We all feel hurt or irritated when someone or something obstructs our needs or desires. Anger, though, is not truly an emotion.[2] In its psychologically technical sense, anger refers to the desire to “get even with�—that is, to take revenge on—the cause of the hurt.�
http://www.guidetopsychology.com/anger.htm

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.

[alexxcJRO]

Cursing the fig tree is what we sometimes call an acted parable. An acted parable is visual metaphor that depicts a truth about God as opposed to a verbal story. In this case, instead of telling his disciple about a withered fig tree, Jesus physically cursed the tree and caused its death.

The parable was a condemnation of Israel. Throughout the OT a tree, of specifically a fig tree, was commonly used as a metaphor for the Israelites. Cursing the fig tree was a rebuke of Israel. As people who should have been mature in God, they were not producing Godly fruit. Jesus was warning of a curse against Israel: They would be rejected if they did not produce fruit.

Notice that the passage about the fig tree is connected directly with the Jesus cleansing the Temple, an obvious example of the moral corruption of Israel that Jesus opposed. Cleansing the Temple was a rejection of the materialistic focus of Israel at that time. Jesus extended that condemnation through the acted parable of cursing the fig tree, warning that Israel need to produce godly fruit or face spiritual withering.

The act of cursing the fig treat was neither angry nor spiteful. The way the author pointed out that it was not fig season suggests that Jesus was expecting the tree not to have figs on it. Jesus was not ignorant of the fact that it was not fig season. If the tree did have figs that would have ruined parable.

In the context of the passage, Jesus was depicted intelligent, mature and purposeful in his actions.

Irrelevant, nonsensical ramblings born out desperation cuz’ of cognitive dissonance in a pathetic attempt to excuse what cannot be excused.

The text clearly says Jesus was hungry, saw the tree and went to quench his hunger.
It’s clear Jesus had no clue there were no figs for he looked for the figs on the tree:� he went to find out if it had any fruit�.
Plus it was not the season for figs. This was common knowledge.
Having Jesus going to look for food only shows he probably was not very bright even by human standards.

Psychology tells us that:
“We all feel hurt or irritated when someone or something obstructs our needs or desires. Anger, though, is not truly an emotion.[2] In its psychologically technical sense, anger refers to the desire to “get even with�—that is, to take revenge on—the cause of the hurt.�
http://www.guidetopsychology.com/anger.htm

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.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by alexxcJRO]



Let us first look at the literary set up of Mark, and then proceed to the historicity of the event. (I understand that such careful analysis is not popular among some atheists: it is far easier and more fun to rush on to impulsive criticism, and thus the literary bit will tire them. But this practice is not to their credit; read to understand first, then criticize, is one lesson which this poster retained from college.........though I was far from an exemplary student in those days.).

Literary analysis of Mark; Mark (or whoever) is employing his typical sandwich device, wherein he links two events allowing them to interpret each other. Here is an analysis of this sandwich.

Jesus enters the temple; he does nothing more than look around. Just a scan. Then leaves.

Next day, he returns to the temple, but along the way spots a fig tree. Jesus approaches the fig tree for fruit but finds that it is bare. Mark adds that the season for figs is not yet. Yet Jesus curses it. I will treat the inconsistency below. For now, let's move on through the narrative: Jesus then returns to the temple and there creates an incident implying judgment upon it. He returns home.

Next day, as he returns to the temple, his disciples point out the same tree. It is withered.

The motif is obvious: tree = temple = both have failed to produce.

(a common critique is that, according to Mark, figs were not in season. Critics thus say that Jesus was being irrational. This criticism is fascinating to me. The detail for this criticism comes from Mark himself! And Mark himself is clearly in support of Jesus and would never write something intending to denigrate him. So perhaps his comment about 'figs not being in season' has been misunderstood by us moderns (i.e., readers separated by millennia from him)?

Historically: If Jesus had supernatural powers and destroyed a tree for the sake of a lesson, he did no more than chop down a tree: how many plants have you destroyed in your life, and not even for a moral lesson (i.e., a lesson that changed lives)?

[Mithrae]

Cursing the fig tree is what we sometimes call an acted parable. An acted parable is visual metaphor that depicts a truth about God as opposed to a verbal story. In this case, instead of telling his disciple about a withered fig tree, Jesus physically cursed the tree and caused its death.

The parable was a condemnation of Israel. Throughout the OT a tree, of specifically a fig tree, was commonly used as a metaphor for the Israelites. Cursing the fig tree was a rebuke of Israel. As people who should have been mature in God, they were not producing Godly fruit. Jesus was warning of a curse against Israel: They would be rejected if they did not produce fruit.

Notice that the passage about the fig tree is connected directly with the Jesus cleansing the Temple, an obvious example of the moral corruption of Israel that Jesus opposed. Cleansing the Temple was a rejection of the materialistic focus of Israel at that time. Jesus extended that condemnation through the acted parable of cursing the fig tree, warning that Israel need to produce godly fruit or face spiritual withering.

The act of cursing the fig treat was neither angry nor spiteful. The way the author pointed out that it was not fig season suggests that Jesus was expecting the tree not to have figs on it. Jesus was not ignorant of the fact that it was not fig season. If the tree did have figs that would have ruined parable.

In the context of the passage, Jesus was depicted intelligent, mature and purposeful in his actions.

Irrelevant, nonsensical ramblings born out desperation cuz’ of cognitive dissonance in a pathetic attempt to excuse what cannot be excused.

You must be right if you can hurl insults so fluently and repeat them so often! No doubt you also think that Diogenes was an imbecile for carrying a lantern around in daytime, and anyone who thinks there is more to the story is suffering from desperate dissonance

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 1 by alexxcJRO]



Let us first look at the literary set up of Mark, and then proceed to the historicity of the event. (I understand that such careful analysis is not popular among some atheists: it is far easier and more fun to rush on to impulsive criticism, and thus the literary bit will tire them. But this practice is not to their credit; read to understand first, then criticize, is one lesson which this poster retained from college.........though I was far from an exemplary student in those days.).

Literary analysis of Mark; Mark (or whoever) is employing his typical sandwich device, wherein he links two events allowing them to interpret each other. Here is an analysis of this sandwich.

Jesus enters the temple; he does nothing more than look around. Just a scan. Then leaves.

Next day, he returns to the temple, but along the way spots a fig tree. Jesus approaches the fig tree for fruit but finds that it is bare. Mark adds that the season for figs is not yet. Yet Jesus curses it. I will treat the inconsistency below. For now, let's move on through the narrative: Jesus then returns to the temple and there creates an incident implying judgment upon it. He returns home.

Next day, as he returns to the temple, his disciples point out the same tree. It is withered.

The motif is obvious: tree = temple = both have failed to produce.

(a common critique is that, according to Mark, figs were not in season. Critics thus say that Jesus was being irrational. This criticism is fascinating to me. The detail for this criticism comes from Mark himself! And Mark himself is clearly in support of Jesus and would never write something intending to denigrate him. So perhaps his comment about 'figs not being in season' has been misunderstood by us moderns (i.e., readers separated by millennia from him)?

Historically: If Jesus had supernatural powers and destroyed a tree for the sake of a lesson, he did no more than chop down a tree: how many plants have you destroyed in your life, and not even for a moral lesson (i.e., a lesson that changed lives)?

Let’s not look only to the gospel of Mark shall we?

The writer of Mark’s gospel says the tree withered in a day and writer of Mathew’s gospel says immediately.
The writer of Mark’s gospel mentions the part about not being the fig season, writer of Mathew’s gospel does not.
The gospel writers felt comfortable playing around with details and timetables of the stories they passed off as true.

Probably the writer of Matthew’s gospel was willing to help Jesus out by censoring material which made him look foolish and petty(the part about not being the fig season).

The fact remains the writer of Mark’s gospel clearly says: “he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves�.
Therefore according to the gospel of Mark Jesus was clueless about the fact that there were no figs for he went to check.

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.

[alexxcJRO]

Cursing the fig tree is what we sometimes call an acted parable. An acted parable is visual metaphor that depicts a truth about God as opposed to a verbal story. In this case, instead of telling his disciple about a withered fig tree, Jesus physically cursed the tree and caused its death.

The parable was a condemnation of Israel. Throughout the OT a tree, of specifically a fig tree, was commonly used as a metaphor for the Israelites. Cursing the fig tree was a rebuke of Israel. As people who should have been mature in God, they were not producing Godly fruit. Jesus was warning of a curse against Israel: They would be rejected if they did not produce fruit.

Notice that the passage about the fig tree is connected directly with the Jesus cleansing the Temple, an obvious example of the moral corruption of Israel that Jesus opposed. Cleansing the Temple was a rejection of the materialistic focus of Israel at that time. Jesus extended that condemnation through the acted parable of cursing the fig tree, warning that Israel need to produce godly fruit or face spiritual withering.

The act of cursing the fig treat was neither angry nor spiteful. The way the author pointed out that it was not fig season suggests that Jesus was expecting the tree not to have figs on it. Jesus was not ignorant of the fact that it was not fig season. If the tree did have figs that would have ruined parable.

In the context of the passage, Jesus was depicted intelligent, mature and purposeful in his actions.

Irrelevant, nonsensical ramblings born out desperation cuz’ of cognitive dissonance in a pathetic attempt to excuse what cannot be excused.

You must be right if you can hurl insults so fluently and repeat them so often! No doubt you also think that Diogenes was an imbecile for carrying a lantern around in daytime, and anyone who thinks there is more to the story is suffering from desperate dissonance

Irrelevant, nonsensical ramblings.

Please address the arguments or refrain from posting if you have nothing relevant to say.