Ryan2065 said:
The story that I am describing here is in both Matthew 21:18-19;20-22 and Mark 11:12-14;20-25. This is where Jesus is hungry and he sees a fig tree off in the distance. He thinks, oh, maybe the fig tree has some figs on it. So he goes up to the fig tree and sees that it is bare and has no figs on it. Jesus knows that it is not the time for the fig tree to bear any fruit, because that was god's plan. God made everything so he made fig trees, and he decided that fig trees would bear fruit at certain times. This was NOT one of those times this fig tree was supposed to bear fruit. What did Jesus do? He cursed the fig tree. When he and his disciples left the city they were visiting, they passed the fig tree again. It was dead. Thats right, Jesus killed it.
The reason I bring this passage up is because I think this is obvious proof (to me at least) that Jesus was not god. I just wanted to debate this because this is pretty much the straw that broke the camels back. I heard this story and this is what made me 100% sure I did not want to be catholic anymore. So now that I am finally able to discuss this with others, I want to see other people's ideas of this story.
I think it's obvious proof that the fact Jesus got hungry proves he wasn't God but give him a break...because in a way he is the living Word of God. Also you have your story mixed up on the fig trees. In those days the fig tree was known as a "people's tree", meaning that any person was permitted to eat from any fig tree. These trees were public property. During the late spring, the fig tree normally blossoms with
both leaves and sweet, edible buds. These
buds are what Jesus intended to eat. Later these
buds developed into
figs.
Mark 11:12, 13 "And on the morrow, when they were away from Bethany, he was hungry: And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves
, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not".
You see, there were leaves, but no buds. That is why it says "he found nothing but leaves." "The time of figs was not yet" means that it was still spring, the time of buds before the time of the mature fruit. Since there was no buds, Jesus would of had to know there would be no fruit later. The tree to Jesus appeared from a distance to be flourishing, that is why he approached the tree, in hope to find buds which would have been a sign that mature fruit would follow, but the tree in reality was unfruitful. The wise people signify this "fig tree" as symbolized Israel. Israel was not budding, no fruit would follow. Israel looked good from a distance but upclose it was barren. And the moment in time of this story God was being forced to cut off His special blessing to Israel, the fig tree. From that point forward, no fruit would come out of Israel because they had rejected God's greatest gift to her. Note that this event is taking place when
"And on the morrow, when they were away from Bethany" as stated in Mark 11:12. But you had posted that Matthew 21:18 to be describing the same event in which I must disagree. The event in Mark suggest that the fig tree number one grew by the way leading from Bethany to Jerusalem compared to the event in Matthew whose fig tree number two grew
within Jerusalem. The tree in Mark, number one, had been cursed outside the city, and was found withered as they returned to Jerusalem. But this tree in Matthew, tree number two, was inside the city and cursed there. Also another great difference between the two events is in Matthew 21:19: ...and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And
presently(immediately) the fig tree withered away. This second tree withered immediately while the previous had died over night. So Jesus might be guilty of killing two fig trees. But it's not like he cut the trees down with an axe. He only spoke words to the trees so it could prove difficult to prove his guilt.