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?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 60 by JerryMyers]


"The fig tree could be a symbolic reference for some prophecy but that does not mean every encounter you have with a fig tree mean your encounter is a symbolic interpretation of that prophecy."

Most of the Bible has been written by correspondences, symbols, representations, parables all very well known to Jesus.

From correspondences fig tree signifies the natural good of man in conjunction with his spiritual good therefore produces fruit.
In the opposite sense the natural good of man separated from his spiritual good, in fact is not good.
Jesus cursed dead fig tree which did not produce fruit.
His constant message for his followers is to produce good fruit.

[marco]

[Replying to post 50 by marco]

Mentioning one animal does not contradict the mention of two animals. If there were two animals, then there was certainly one.

It does if we take the wording of the 2 animal gospel as having Jesus riding on both animals like a circus performer, which wouldn't be possible in the 1 animal gospel.

Who cares if there were two donkeys? This is trivia compared to raising a corpse to life. If Jesus could walk on water, he could sit on two donkeys simultaneously.

I think the defenders of the gospels would argue that the colt was tied to its mother, and Jesus therefore used both animals.

"Okay, Jack and Jill, how many animals did Henry bring with him? - Officer Smith
"One" - Jack
"Two" - Jill

Yes, but that is not a reflection of the gospel reports. I said that when one writer talks of one donkey he is NOT saying ONLY one. In your cross examination two does deny one. If Christ said: "You'll find a donkey tethered. Bring it." And they bring donkey and colt, is this a contradiction? And are we seriously thinking we have Christ's verbatim words?

If someone knows Henry has more than the one animal with him, why would they say he has only the one? Saying one would be incorrect if Henry did in fact have two. But we don't know, do we?

Where did you get "only one" from? It makes little difference to me, since I don't believe much of the stories in any case, but we should argue fairly and precisely. Stating there was a donkey does not contradict the statement that a colt was there as well.

If someone is going to argue that the gospel writers are trivially wrong here and then accept Christ used some hitherto unknown chemical formula for changing water to wine, dead matter to living substance and three cod into a thousand then one must, in sympathy, help the poor evangelists.

Happy to dispute the issue with you, riku. Go well.

[historia]

I apologize for butting into your interesting exchange with @alexxcJRO

No apology necessary.

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.

From my point of view, the question here is not whether this passage narrates an actual event or not. Rather, the pertinent issue is whether Mark intended for us to understand Jesus' actions as symbolic.

As Liam and Mithrae noted above, in this passage, Mark employs a common literary technique called intercalation, where an author splits a story into two parts and sandwich an account in between.

The intention of this technique is to have the intervening account illuminate the meaning of the surrounding story. Mark uses this technique several times in his gospel.

We are therefore compelled by the structure of the story itself to conclude that Mark's intention here is for us to interpret this episode with the fig tree in the light of Jesus' actions in the temple, which is the intervening story.

In the temple incident, Jesus pronounces judgement on the temple and halts its functions. In the same way, he curses the fig tree and halts the tree's fruit production. The parallels there are quite apparent.

Couple that with the fact that the fig tree was often used as a symbol for Israel and the metaphor of not bearing fruit often a metaphor for unfaithfulness, and we have a very strong argument that Mark intended this passage to be understood as a symbolic action.

To date, no one has offered a meaningful objection to this analysis.

[historia]

Why should any of us 'first look at the literary set up of..." when we read this story about Jesus? Why does Jesus get this special treatment and not Greg?

Because this account about Jesus has come down to us via a literary text, whereas your account about Greg has not. In order to interpret any literary passage, you have to first subject it to a literary analysis. That this particular text happens to be about Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevant to that point.

[historia]

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.

You would think so. However, 100 top scientists opposed Einstein's work. Asked if he was worried that the consensus of opinion was against him, Einstein said: "If I'm wrong, one will suffice."

. . .

the consensus of experts is not always right.

No one said the consensus of experts is always right. Rather, I said that the consensus of experts is more likely to be right.

In fact, this example demonstrates that point. The methods and processes used to reach a consensus tend to filter out bad arguments. When someone comes along with a good argument, however, the consensus changes, as was true with Einstein.

[alwayson]

Composed AFTER the letters of Paul, Mark and Matthew were INTENDED as symbolic fiction, being written in a symbolic chiastic structure like this:

A B C D D C B A

Watch this video:

Only with Luke-Acts did Christians start to view the four Gospels literally.

The sayings of Jesus in the Gospels are things Paul originally said. See Nikolaus Walter's ‘Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition’.

The events in Mark and Matthew are based on the Old Testament, directly borrowing its language:

The Donkey(s) - Jesus riding on a donkey is from Zechariah 9.

Mark has Jesus sit on a young donkey that he had his disciples fetch for him (Mark 11.1-10).

Matthew changes the story so the disciples instead fetch TWO donkeys, not only the young donkey of Mark but also his mother. Jesus rides into Jerusalem on both donkeys at the same time (Matthew 21.1-9). Matthew wanted the story to better match the literal reading of Zechariah 9.9. Matthew even actually quotes part of Zech. 9.9.

The Sermon on the Mount - The Sermon of the Mount relies extensively on the Greek text of Deuteronomy and Leviticus especially, and in key places on other texts. For example, the section on turning the other cheek and other aspects of legal pacifism (Mt. 5.38-42) has been redacted from the Greek text of Isa. 50.6-9.

The clearing of the temple - The cleansing of the temple as a fictional scene has its primary inspiration from an ancient faulty translation of Zech. 14.21 which changed 'Canaanites' to 'traders'.

When Jesus clears the temple he quotes Jer. 7.11 (in Mk 11.17). Jeremiah and Jesus both enter the temple (Jer. 7.1-2; Mk 11.15), make the same accusation against the corruption of the temple cult (Jeremiah quoting a revelation from the Lord, Jesus quoting Jeremiah), and predict the destruction of the temple (Jer. 7.12-14; Mk 14.57-58; 15.29).

The Resurrection - Jesus was known as the ‘firstfruits’ of the resurrection that would occur to all believers (1 Cor. 15.20-23). The Torah commands that the Day of Firstfruits take place the day after the first Sabbath following the Passover (Lev. 23.5, 10-11). In other words, on a Sunday. Mark has Jesus rise on Sunday, the firstftuits of the resurrected, symbolically on the very Day of Firstfruits itself.

Barabbas - This is the Yom Kippur ceremony of Leviticus 16 and Mishnah tractate Yoma: two ‘identical’ goats were chosen each year, and one was released into the wild containing the sins of Israel (which was eventually killed by being pushed over a cliff), while the other’s blood was shed to atone for those sins. Barabbas means ‘Son of the Father’ in Aramaic, and we know Jesus was deliberately styled the ‘Son of the Father’ himself. So we have two sons of the father; one is released into the wild mob containing the sins of Israel (murder and rebellion), while the other is sacrificed so his blood may atone for the sins of Israel—the one who is released bears those sins literally; the other, figuratively. Adding weight to this conclusion is manuscript evidence that the story originally had the name ‘Jesus Barabbas’. Thus we really had two men called ‘Jesus Son of the Father’.

[historia]

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

These are different answers to different questions. That reflects neither a change in my argument, nor a moving of the goalposts.

Recall, the original point I am making here is that the diversity of perspectives among scholars holding the symbolic interpretation refutes your objection that such a reading of the text is born simply out of bias, presupposition, or belief that Jesus is the Son of God.

You haven't addressed that point directly. Instead, you made the erroneous assertion that this argument is fallacious, which has caused us to engage in a tangential discussion about the nature of scholarship.

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?

First, nobody is saying that this passage should be interpreted symbolically simply because some historian or a consensus of historians said so.

Every person responding to your argument in this thread, myself included, has pointed to literary evidence in support of the symbolic interpretation. I briefly summarized those points in post #30.

Second, citing experts in support of a position is not a fallacious argument.

For an appeal to authority to be fallacious it must either (a) cite someone who is not an expert in the relevant field, or (b) be used in a deductive argument (Experts say X is true, therefore X is true).

But citing acknowledged experts as part of an inductive argument (Experts say X is true, therefore X is more likely to be true) is not fallacious. This is, of course, what I said above.

The atheist website RationalWiki, among many others, rightly notes this distinction, which you have apparently overlooked.

It's not just my opinion.

I provided evidence to back up my argument

The problem, though, is that this argument implicitly rests on your opinion that a narrow, superficial reading of the text is all that is required to properly understand it.

What is missing from your analysis is any consideration of the context of the passage or the literary techniques used by the author in developing the story. You have additionally cited no scholarship to support your interpretation.

This makes for a very weak argument.

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

This has already been answered several times above.

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?

The question is not germane to the point I'm making here.

Based on your comments in the thread, it appears you are unaware of the fact that orthodox Christians believe that Jesus had limited knowledge in the Incarnation.

To that end, it seems the OP demonstrates little more than the fact that a superficial reading of this passage conflicts with a simplistic understanding of Christian theology. That is, of course, not terribly surprising.

[marco]

No one said the consensus of experts is always right. Rather, I said that the consensus of experts is more likely to be right.

You may have intended to say this but what you did say was what I commented on, namely:

" we should follow the consensus of scholarship". To which we say: Not always.

Obviously I agree that scholars united are often right. However, in biblical matters where miracles cost $45 for three, consensus depends on the type of experts involved.
A gaggle of Christian experts or Islamic experts prodding some Holy Book does not guarantee truth, however divine the consensus. If it's a simple matter of grammar then yes, experts can be experts. In matters of science I agree that expert consensus is formidable, but can still be wrong.

[Danmark]

... [T]his account about Jesus has come down to us via a literary text, whereas your account about Greg has not. In order to interpret any literary passage, you have to first subject it to a literary analysis. That this particular text happens to be about Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevant to that point.

I agree with this and your other explanations. Still, this passage has never made sense to me:
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.

It fails when taken literally of course. As symbolic it also fails. It makes no sense for Jesus (or the Jesus character) to get angry about a natural phenomenon. Yes, there may be some idiom, legend, or tradition we don't know about. But this seems to fail as a literary device as well. The Christian tradition varies on whether the Jesus figure knew he was divine, or when he became divine or if he was divine at all. There are conflicting passages and theologies in conflict.

Was he upset that the fig tree did not do his bidding? After all, he supposedly could have moved mountains from here to there. It seems to me this passage is simply poor or confusing literature. What is interesting is that it somehow got thru the editors of the Canon. My guess, bolstered by "And his disciples heard him say it," is that this story was so well known it could not be ignored. They were stuck with it and tried [but failed] to make some sense of it.

There is both good and bad, wise and absurd, helpful and unfortunate literature in this anthology we call 'The Bible.' There may even be some truth to it, but as in all human literature, it is flawed. The only problem is the expectation that it be perfect.

[marco]

There is both good and bad, wise and absurd, helpful and unfortunate literature in this anthology we call 'The Bible.' There may even be some truth to it, but as in all human literature, it is flawed. The only problem is the expectation that it be perfect.

If that were the only problem with holy books we could sleep peacefully. When the angry God of the OT howls that witches should be murdered and young girls who sin should be dragged to be stoned, you have devout servants doing just that. Can anyone really believe that the God who entertained himself by blowing stars and planets into being would advocate taking up bits of rock and aiming them at a human head. For those devotees who believe this rubbish, stones have not to be so big that they kill the victim too fast. How long - how long will we wait for everyone to abandon this stuff?

To make sense of Jesus screaming at a tree we've to pretend there is high metaphor as well as silly drama. We have plenty of clever people, alive and dead, from whom to learn lessons. Do we need to consult this text and squeeze sense from it?