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?

[Danmark]

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?

Well... there's that. I love the image you paint; an angry Jesus stomping his foot and yelling at a tree. Then he curses it for not bearing fruit when it isn't supposed to. Why not scream at an apple tree for not bearing plums?
I live across from a church. Every Sunday morn, if I happen to look over, I see a full parking lot. I shake my head. How CAN there be so many people who believe this rubbish? Maybe I'll go over there and find an adult Bible class to attend. I wonder how long I could go before I said something like,
"You mean you really BELIEVE this?"

[alexxcJRO]

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.

My argument in post 39 was about the ad populum, consensus fallacy in connection with the fact the one can go against an expert(you) but i cannot go against multiple experts.

“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

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.

It may be but the fact remains:

We have the gospels portraying the supposedly perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God-Jesus as not having respect for all living things, him destroying a healthy living thing that has no will, no fault in order to teach to other living things that if they don’t measure up to his subjective moral standard he will mess them up.

This has already been answered several times above.

No sir you did not.
You only explained why Jesus cursed the tree.

Please answer the question:

Q: Why did Jesus look for fruits out of season? Did he not know this? Was he a moron?

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.

Avoiding answering questions. Predictable.
So the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God reads people minds, knows the future, heals on the spot, withers a tree on command but was clueless that it was not the season for figs.
And you want me to find that believable.

"Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me." "

“10Jesus told him, “Whoever has already bathed needs only to wash his feet, and he will be completely clean. And you are clean, though not all of you.� 11For He knew who would betray Him. That is why He said, “Not all of you are clean.� �

“2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.� 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.� 4 But Jesus, knowing[a]their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?�

“Jesus Changes Water Into Wine
2 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.�
4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?� Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.�
5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.�
6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water�; so they filled them to the brim.
8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.�
They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.�
11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.�

“Jesus Heals a Sick Man
8 When Jesus came down from the hill, great crowds followed him. 2 Then a man with a skin disease came to Jesus. The man bowed down before him and said, “Lord, you can heal me if you will.�
3 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man and said, “I will. Be healed!� And immediately the man was healed from his disease. 4 Then Jesus said to him, “Don’t tell anyone about this. But go and show yourself to the priest[a] and offer the gift Moses commanded for people who are made well. This will show the people what I have done.� “

[historia]

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

No, that's exactly what I said. Here is the relevant portion of my post, which you yourself quoted in your original reply (emphasis added):

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.

Seems pretty clear.

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.

The field of biblical studies includes historians and scholars with a wide diversity of perspectives. As an aside: It's funny to me that atheist on this forum often complain the field is too religious, while conservative Christians complain it is too secular.

At any rate, in the case of the fig tree pericope, we have virtually all experts -- including conservative, liberal, and non-Christian scholars -- agreeing that Mark intended for us to understand Jesus' actions as symbolic. There is no good reason to reject this conclusion.

[historia]

... [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.

Was he upset that the fig tree did not do his bidding?

Then he curses it for not bearing fruit when it isn't supposed to. Why not scream at an apple tree for not bearing plums?

This argument seems a little confused, Danmark.

On the one hand, you say you agree with my explanations, including, presumably, the fact that this passage was intended to be understood symbolically. But then, on the other hand, you're complaining that, if we interpret the passage in a naive and woodenly literal way, it doesn't make sense.

[Danmark]

This argument seems a little confused, Danmark.

On the one hand, you say you agree with my explanations, including, presumably, the fact that this passage was intended to be understood symbolically. But then, on the other hand, you're complaining that, if we interpret the passage in a naive and woodenly literal way, it doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry to say it, but you seem to have missed my point. Let me help. I agree with your methodology, or perhaps perspective is a better word; that one should look for symbolism and idioms of the time and culture in which these ancient passages were published. Yet, even if we do so; even if we give this particular passage every poetic benefit of the doubt, it still fails.

This really should not surprise anyone, unless the reader has a predisposition to believe that all scripture is infallible, from God, or for other reasons perfect. Some 'scripture,' like this passage, is just plain stupid, confused, or poorly written. Even Shakespeare, Hemingway, and other great writers have their bad days. The Bible is not immune to these human failures and frailties. Why... I suppose that even I have once made an error.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 69 by Danmark]

The fig tree incident is sandwiched into Jesus' visit to the temple, the temple which he condemned. The gospel writers were not mere historians (no historian is); they arranged the tradition available to make theological points. Mark wished to draw an analogy between the fig tree and the Jewish aristocracy; hence the juxtaposition of both. It is not much different than the way Mark Twain juxtaposed the River with the fresh and liberated exchanges between Huck and the ex-slave Jim. The fig tree was an enacted parable. Whether or not the incident really happened is irrelevant to the point being made.

There is, granted, one confusing point: "that it was not the season for figs" and "there were only leaves".

However, prior to developing leaves, a typical fig tree developed what are called knops (In Hebrew: paggim). These are edible. It may be that this fig tree was slightly deceptive. It was green in foliage but had neither figs nor even the promise of figs (i.e., the paggim that should have preceded the leaves). It 'looked good'.

Of course no modern reader, or at least no modern reader from the West, would pick up on this. But skeptics need to remember that, no matter how ignorant the authors of the gospels were about a great many things, they lived in that place and at that time and therefore know more than we do about things of that time and in that place. Asinine arrogance is far to frequent among moderns when evaluating the ancients on the antiquity. Should we trust them on everything? Of course not. But some humble caution is advisable.

[marco]

No, that's exactly what I said. Here is the relevant portion of my post, which you yourself quoted in your original reply (emphasis added):

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.


Seems pretty clear.

It seems pretty clear that you wrote a sentence "In particular, we should follow the consensus of scholarship." You did not modify your verb with a cautious adverb, such as usually. Your next sentence is not a modification but an explanation of why we should follow the consensus. As I said, you intended to modify - you didn't.
But that is a smaller matter than expecting figs to appear on a tree out of season.

At any rate, in the case of the fig tree pericope, we have virtually all experts -- including conservative, liberal, and non-Christian scholars -- agreeing that Mark intended for us to understand Jesus' actions as symbolic. There is no good reason to reject this conclusion.

That a lesson can be extracted from the tale is not in doubt. One such lesson is that Jesus was illustrating how powerful he is, literally. I know there have been many attempts at making sense of the senseless. One learned Scots minister worked out what time of year Jesus passed the fig tree and made some horticultural conclusions that redeem the story. Experts aside, Jesus sees a tree and curses it because God ordained that it bear fruit later in the year. If wisdom is to be built on a story, why not take a sensible story - a real Apple Tree in Autumn, bearing no fruit. We have daft Peter "remembering" and we have clever Jesus suggesting mountains can be transported by the same method he used with the fig tree. Helpful.

It is amusing to summon the weighty consensus of experts to adjudicate here. The ingredients of expert submission would simply be "I think.... therefore it is." Faith may move mountains; experts don't make nonsense bear fruit.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 69 by Danmark]

The fig tree incident is sandwiched into Jesus' visit to the temple, the temple which he condemned. The gospel writers were not mere historians (no historian is); they arranged the tradition available to make theological points. Mark wished to draw an analogy between the fig tree and the Jewish aristocracy; hence the juxtaposition of both.

Excellent explanation! And I agree. It certainly makes sense to make an analogy between the fig tree that bears no fruit and a corrupt religious institution that only has the appearance of serving God and his children. And so, wouldn't the passage be more effective if it WERE the season for figs, and they bore no fruit?
Thusly:
And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it since it was the season for figs. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves. And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.�

Wouldn't this better make the point, that the religious leaders had the mere appearance of serving God, as was their duty (season) but on close inspection they had abandoned their duty and bore not fruit, but corruption (or nothing of value).

[alexxcJRO]

There is, granted, one confusing point: "that it was not the season for figs" and "there were only leaves".

However, prior to developing leaves, a typical fig tree developed what are called knops (In Hebrew: paggim). These are edible. It may be that this fig tree was slightly deceptive. It was green in foliage but had neither figs nor even the promise of figs (i.e., the paggim that should have preceded the leaves). It 'looked good'.

Of course no modern reader, or at least no modern reader from the West, would pick up on this. But skeptics need to remember that, no matter how ignorant the authors of the gospels were about a great many things, they lived in that place and at that time and therefore know more than we do about things of that time and in that place. Asinine arrogance is far to frequent among moderns when evaluating the ancients on the antiquity. Should we trust them on everything? Of course not. But some humble caution is advisable.

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

There are two seasons for fresh figs for the common, typical fig— the first is called the "breba" crop, when fruit develops in the spring on old shoots or wood from the previous year, and is harvested in the early summer(end of June). The main fig crop develops on the current year's shoot growth and ripens in the late summer or fall(August through October).

The event occurred according to the Bible in the Passover season, about April.

Therefore there were no edible, ripen figs on the tree because the time for early or late crop was not yet as the author of the gospel mentions himself. Therefore this "paggim" you are talking about would be hard , green, not ripe and not edible.

Observation: Not all figs are deciduous. We have figs that are evergreen meaning having green foliage all year including winter.
https://www.thedailymeal.com/season-figs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_fig

[historia]

I agree with your methodology, or perhaps perspective is a better word; that one should look for symbolism and idioms of the time and culture in which these ancient passages were published. Yet, even if we do so; even if we give this particular passage every poetic benefit of the doubt, it still fails.

I understand this is the overarching point you are trying to make. But, in your first two posts in the thread, you didn't tell us why it fails as a symbolic action, instead focusing your criticism entirely on why a naively literal reading of the text fails.

It seems to me your subsequent exchange with Liam reveals a more nuanced position: Mark could have made the point more explicit had he changed the story. But that hardly means it "fails," especially when every Christian in this thread, the three scholars cited above, and, indeed, every scholar of Mark I've had an opportunity to read, all readily grasp the intended symbolism.