• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus and the Fig Tree

true blood

Active Member
blueman said:
I am not sure how you derive that Jesus wasn't God in the flesh and I must underscore flesh, because He got hungry? He came down here as flesh, with the same bodily features, emotions and senses as any other man. The one differentiator was tat He was sinless. No other man or woman can make that claim while in a fleshly body with a mind, will and emotion that sometimes has the propensity to sin, usually daily in some shape or form. :)
It's hard to explain but I think Jesus was the Word in flesh. The Bible contains the Word in symbols. And the words the prophets speak is the Word in sound. God the Almighty is an invisible spirit and used the Word (story) to communicate who He is. So in a sense Jesus is and isn't God. Jesus, The written word and the spoken word are like the medium God uses to let himself be known.
 

true blood

Active Member
greatcalgarian said:
Catholic has a simple way out. Just put everything into faith, and not to spend too much time scrutinizing the bible.
It's questionable considering that the very bible itself says that the only way to reach the faith is by the hearing of the Word.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
greatcalgarian said:
Catholic has a simple way out. Just put everything into faith, and not to spend too much time scrutinizing the bible. Accept that bible is inspired by God, but contain human introduced error. Do not take bible to be inerrant, then there is no more problem. Good for you. No wonder my catholic sister refused to discuss religion with me :D
I am sorry, but while that may be your perspective, it is not mine; if you argue in the manner in which you do on the forum, I can understand your sister's point of view.....................:eek:
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
greatcalgarian said:
Catholic has a simple way out. Just put everything into faith, and not to spend too much time scrutinizing the bible. Accept that bible is inspired by God, but contain human introduced error. Do not take bible to be inerrant, then there is no more problem. Good for you. No wonder my catholic sister refused to discuss religion with me :D
Weeeeeak. I discuss religion here every day... just because I don't have a faith that's easy for you and other atheists to chop up and dismiss, I'm taking the "simple way out"... oh well... I thought you were better than crap like this.
 

john313

warrior-poet
greatcalgarian said:
This perhaps is the best answer in this thread. Put it in another way, the gospel started with oral tradition. There is no way that in the development over the first hundred years or so, there will be different people remembering the story in a different way. It appears that what is claimed by John in one of the gnostic gospel appeared to have better parabol teaching then all others, which are trying to add additional explanation into the fig tree currently recorded in the two gospel accepted by Christian in the 400 AC. John, do you know which gnostic gospel? It cannot be Thomas right?
Peace,
it was the Gospel of the Holy Twelve
1. NOW on the morrow as they were coming from Bethany, Peter was hungry, and perceiving a fig tree afar off having leaves thereon, he came if happily he might find fruit thereon, and when he came he found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet.
2. And Peter was angry and said unto it, Accursed tree, no man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And some of the disciples heard of it.
3. And the next day as Jesus and his disciples passed by, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, behold, the fig tree which I cursed is green and flourishing, wherefore did not my word prevail?
4. Iesus said unto Peter, Thou knowest not what spirit thou art of. Wherefore didst thou curse that which God hath not cursed? And Peter said, Behold Lord I was a hungered, and finding leaves and no fruit, I was angry, and I cursed the tree.
5. And Jesus said, Son of Jonas knewest thou not that the time of figs was not yet? Behold the corn which is in the field which groweth according to its nature first the green shoot, then the stalk, then the ear—would thou be angry if thou camest at the time of the tender shoot or the stalk, and didst not find the corn in the ear? And wouldst thou curse the tree which, full of buds and blossoms, had not yet ripe fruit?
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Wow, haven't been to the boards in 2 days and look at how many posts... Oh so many to respond to...
Ok, first off this was the straw that broke the camels back, by no means did I decided to leave the faith based on this passage alone. I left the church many years ago, and have always listed myself as agnostic on this site.
Scott1 said:
Yeah... but you have a reason.. I believed that our pal Ryan had a different agenda.... I've been around the block a few times, my friend... I'm pretty good at sniffing out true intentions.
The reason I had asked for proof of what you said is because I had been in the Roman Catholic church until I was 17. I have actually asked priests about this passage and not one of them told me it was a Parable. I asked you for proof that the Roman Catholics teach this because I did not thing there was any, because of my experience with trying to find the meaning of this passage.

The reason in general that I have a problem accepting this passage as a parable is because the writer of the bible wrote down "Jesus did this" We will just have to disagree on the point of it being a parable or not (I'll say that the Roman Catholic church does view this as a parable)
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Ryan2065 said:
We will just have to disagree on the point of it being a parable or not (I'll say that the Roman Catholic church does view this as a parable)
Okey dokey... bless you on your journey.
 

may

Well-Known Member
well ,JW take on the figtree is that Jesus was teaching a twofold lesson on faith

the horticultural facts justify Jesus’ actions in cursing the fig tree, but the context reveals that Jesus was thereby teaching a twofold lesson on faith. While the absence of faith can make us fruitless and will only lead to our rejection by God,(matthew 21;43)our possessing an active faith will enable us to ‘move mountains,’ as Jehovah will surely answer our prayers.—Matthew 17:20.

 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Jesus and the fig Tree​
Matthew 21:20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

Matthew 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
(The Palestinian fig tree normally produces both leaves and small figs in early March, so this tree should have borne figs along with its leaves. The heavy foliage of fig leaves, covering the nakedness of a barren fig tree)

Matthew 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

(At these words, the disciples were bound to think of the fig tree, which they had seen wither away just the day before, and they knew that Christ was showing them what would happen to Israel. But now He was suggesting it would grow again, though still only with leaves, and that this also would be a sign that His coming was near. The return of Israel to her land, still in unbelief, is one of the amazing phenomena of these latter days.)
:)
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
michel said:
I am sorry, but while that may be your perspective, it is not mine; if you argue in the manner in which you do on the forum, I can understand your sister's point of view.....................:eek:
Please elaborate "the manner I argued" so that I can learn and improve my presentation :D
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
greatcalgarian said:
It appears that what is claimed by John in one of the gnostic gospel appeared to have better parabol teaching then all others,
Really? Mark and Luke both talk about "Jesus" and the fig tree....not Peter. Why would you decide that the gnostic gospel is a better parable teaching?

Perhaps you didn't read the link I gave? I thought it was an excellent explanation and they didn't need to change Jesus to Peter in order to make the parable make sense.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Melody said:
Really? Mark and Luke both talk about "Jesus" and the fig tree....not Peter. Why would you decide that the gnostic gospel is a better parable teaching?

Perhaps you didn't read the link I gave? I thought it was an excellent explanation and they didn't need to change Jesus to Peter in order to make the parable make sense.
One of the special moments in the ministry of Jesus took place when he
pronounced the curse upon the fig tree, yet most people today seem to
miss the real meaning of the text. In this study we are going to carefully examine
the scriptures and determine which of the following is correct.
Either:
1. The story is simply a historical account of one of the many events in Jesus' life
which portrays the miraculous events during his ministry...
OR....
2. The story is TRUE historically, but has a much more important meaning than
just the surface literal account. It (like all the events in the life of Jesus) portrays
a spiritual picture which is intended by God to teach His true children about
spiritual principles.
Whenever some one proceed to argue from either a or b, it is just like the famous arguement of "WAS JESUS MAD, BAD, OR GOD?…"
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~howardd/mbgfp5web.pdf
I shall read in more detail your link, but I shall not reply to that.

I said that Gnostic version is more acceptable because it does not need further interpretation, whereas the other two Gospel version is simply leaving too many unanswered questions, allowing only those who spend enough time going through the entire bible to be able to find passages here and there to explain the meaning.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
As a fan of the Bishops, I have followed his words and interviews over the years. I know he has studied comparative religion and knows that perhaps Jesus did not exist but was given the best attributes of many of the saviors over the ages. I've heard him discuss the "parable of the fig tree" and like most scholars he believes it refers to Mithraism, a religion that thrived at the same time as Christianity. The fig tree was the symbol of Mithras. As a child, he hid in the fig tree and it fed and clothed him. When Jesus asked the fig tree to bear fruit out of season and then killed it when it couldn't, it was the church fathers heralding Christianity as superior to Mithraism. But wisely the Bishop doesn't bring this into his arguments. He stays focused. His ministry is to his fellow Christians and they probably still need to hold on to Jesus.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1999/3/993fig.htmBishop Spong, Christian 'Humanist'
Even though he does not believe in any of the supernatural events depicted in the Bible, John Shelby Spong will not let them label him as an atheist. He is a Christian through and through and especially an Episcopalian
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
greatcalgarian said:
I said that Gnostic version is more acceptable because it does not need further interpretation, whereas the other two Gospel version is simply leaving too many unanswered questions, allowing only those who spend enough time going through the entire bible to be able to find passages here and there to explain the meaning.
That's because they conveniently made Peter the one who cursed the tree and simplified the meaning.

It sounds as if you're saying you prefer the gnostic version because it's all wrapped up neat and tidy whereas the Bible is not quite so neat and tidy, but with a little work and research you can get not only an explanation but one that is backed up by other places in the Bible...both Old and New Testament.

I would think that would make the latter explanation more valid.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Misc views on fig trees
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Jesus_Curses_Fig_Tree.htm
http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/cursedFigTreeQuestion.htm
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/fig_tree.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/figtree.htm
http://www.bibleman.net/The_Fig_Tree.htm
http://www.sundayschoollessons.com/lent3les.htm

There are many many more explanations. So if you tried to read all to understand the fig parable, you will get more confused, just because the tow Gospel writers did not write clearly. Again reading the Gnostic bible version is more straight forward, and easier to understand.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
greatcalgarian said:
Again reading the Gnostic bible version is more straight forward, and easier to understand.
I have a bunch of over the counter books on aromatherapy and essential oils. They're straight forward and easy to understand. They contain half truths and outright myths and they have nothing to back up their claims...but they're easy to understand and they even look pretty impressive.

Then I have a bunch of trade books on the chemistry of essential oils and medical journals with the limited research done on essential oils. More difficult to understand and the answers aren't really found in any one book. I often have to go back and forth between several to compile the answer....but when I get an answer it's validated by the information in the other books. Not as straight forward, but the information is more reliable.
 
Melody--

Um, I beg your pardon, but is your analogy supposed to demonstrate anything of significance? Surely you aren't suggesting that simplicity implies unreliability in all cases, simply because you were able to come up with one example of simple, unreliable literature and one example of complex, reliable literature..... :sarcastic:
 

john313

warrior-poet
Melody said:
Really? Mark and Luke both talk about "Jesus" and the fig tree....not Peter. Why would you decide that the gnostic gospel is a better parable teaching?

Perhaps you didn't read the link I gave? I thought it was an excellent explanation and they didn't need to change Jesus to Peter in order to make the parable make sense.
Why are mark and luke more reliable than anything else? why do you assume that jesus was changed to peter and not the other way around. Just because you read the story with jesus first does not mean it was written first.
i feel we need to keep an open mind when reading material like this. there is something to be learned from both stories. it is easier to understand the simple meaning of the story when peter curses the tree, but there can be a deeper meaning extracted from both if one ponders on it. Rather than worry about which one is true and which one is "a lie" we should look for the truth in both and learn from both.
as far as we know they are both true. maybe Peter cursed a tree and Jesus taught him a lesson, then Jesus later cursed a tree to teach a deeper meaning.:sarcastic
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Mr_Spinkles said:
Melody--

Um, I beg your pardon, but is your analogy supposed to demonstrate anything of significance? Surely you aren't suggesting that simplicity implies unreliability in all cases, simply because you were able to come up with one example of simple, unreliable literature and one example of complex, reliable literature..... :sarcastic:
Thank you, Spinkles. :)

I was trying to figure out how to relate the Gnostic bible to the aromatherapy and essential oils, and the other two Gospels to trade books on the chemistry of essential oils and medical journals, but no matter how hard I tried to establish the correlation, I could not see any.

I think this is the arguement from some fallacy of assigning bad things to one and good things to the other when there is no justification in the assignment.

Perhaps Melody need to read more on Gnostic:D
http://www.gnosis.org/welcome.html
Gnostic Writings and Related Texts

Look at the richness in the collections.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
john313 said:
Why are mark and luke more reliable than anything else? why do you assume that jesus was changed to peter and not the other way around. Just because you read the story with jesus first does not mean it was written first.
i feel we need to keep an open mind when reading material like this. there is something to be learned from both stories. it is easier to understand the simple meaning of the story when peter curses the tree, but there can be a deeper meaning extracted from both if one ponders on it. Rather than worry about which one is true and which one is "a lie" we should look for the truth in both and learn from both.
as far as we know they are both true. maybe Peter cursed a tree and Jesus taught him a lesson, then Jesus later cursed a tree to teach a deeper meaning.:sarcastic
I think we are reading more and more into it. In another time in future, another Nag Hammadi or similar ancient gospels (or another version of Luke and Mark, which I doubt we can find it as earlier Christians have ensured only the accepted version is left intact:D ) may be uncovered which were written earlier than Luke and Mark, and then we have to provide new interpretation.
 
Top