Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Attonitus · 04-11-2004, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joedad

This really isn't a discussion about intolerance, it's a discussion about Literalism. The christianity we have today is Literalist christianity, and that hasn't changed or been contested since the fourth century.

Yes and in fact this is an exegetical problem. The Christian exegetes interpret the texts into a literal or figured way as it suits to their interests, although don't exist any reliable approach for it. When it suits, they use the metaphorical interpretation, and we are before a metaphor; when not, we are before an indubitable historical fact that doesn't admit any metaphorical interpretation.

Johann_Kaspar · 04-11-2004, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attonitus

when not, we are before an indubitable historical fact that doesn't admit any metaphorical interpretation.

Yep, like the healings! :banghead:

GakuseiDon · 04-11-2004, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Javaman

I believe you are confusing the fig tree parable with the actual fig tree incident (although you mention the parable nontheless). The incident is very obviously not a story. Although Matthew 21:17-21 is ambiguous as regards the season, Mark 11 is most assuredly not:
Mark 11
12 And on the morrow, they having come forth from Bethany, he hungered,
13 and having seen a fig-tree afar off having leaves, he came, if perhaps he shall find anything in it, and having come to it, he found nothing except leaves, for it was not a time of figs,
14 and Jesus answering said to it, `No more from thee -- to the age -- may any eat fruit;' and his disciples were hearing.
------------------ snip --------------------
20 And in the morning, passing by, they saw the fig-tree having been dried up from the roots,
21 and Peter having remembered saith to him, `Rabbi, lo, the fig-tree that thou didst curse is dried up.'
22 And Jesus answering saith to them, `Have faith of God;
23 for verily I say to you, that whoever may say to this mount, Be taken up, and be cast into the sea, and may not doubt in his heart, but may believe that the things that he saith do come to pass, it shall be to him whatever he may say.

No, I haven't confused the parable with the incident, just using the information to show consistancy with the incident. From
here:

Quote:

Jesus expects the tree to have buds; this is a reasonable expectation, since the tree is in leaf and it is not the season for figs. But the tree does not have buds; alright, may it never have fruit either.Familiarity with the botany of Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, along with a careful examination of the grammar and syntax of verse 13, corrects the mistaken notion that Jesus unreasonably curses the fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it is not the season for figs. A reader of Greek who is familiar with fig trees—as anyone living in the Mediterranean during the time of Jesus would be—would not make such a mistake

The season for figs was approaching. Note that the tree had leaves, so it should have had buds as well. Reread my quotes from Luke again.

GakuseiDon · 04-11-2004, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Nope. Or otherwise give me evidence of it. Do you think that a king is using cheeks to gain his power instead of swords? Especially when facing an imperium romanorum? Now show us in all the Roman history the case of one character real or fictitious who was crucified by the Romans without holding a sword or without rebelling against them... Please... :boohoo:

Jesus WAS charged that He was rebelling against the authority of Caesar, by declaring Himself "King of the Jews". The question isn't whether Jesus and His followers were armed, but whether it was thought that Jesus was bucking the local authority. In that case, wouldn't they assume that Jesus was armed?

Al Kafirun · 04-11-2004, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

And how does one figure that out?

I gotta go with the apologists on that one. In context it seems fairly symbolic. Crazy, but symbolic. He's heading into Jerusalem, he's God, he demands nature to bend to his will, faithless is does not, so he curses it to death. Seems very typical of his regarding Judaism.

Kilgore Trout · 04-11-2004, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Jesus expects the tree to have buds; this is a reasonable expectation, since the tree is in leaf and it is not the season for figs. But the tree does not have buds; alright, may it never have fruit either.Familiarity with the botany of Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, along with a careful examination of the grammar and syntax of verse 13, corrects the mistaken notion that Jesus unreasonably curses the fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it is not the season for figs. A reader of Greek who is familiar with fig trees—as anyone living in the Mediterranean during the time of Jesus would be—would not make such a mistake

I am not familiar with the botany of Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. So I don't know whether the tree is supposed to have buds or not. However, I do know that in both the Mark and Matthew version of the story, jesus is hungry and goes to look at the tree to see if it has something to eat. Since he is hungry and goes to look at the tree, he is not going to look for buds. So the business about the buds is just another red herring that some apologist made up because he knew jesus looked crazy cursing an out-of-season fig tree.

Also, in the Luke parable of the fig tree the man checked for figs for three years, then told his gardener to cut it down. The gardener told him he wait one more year so he could fertilze it. In Mark and Matthew howver, jesus destroys the tree the first time he sees that it has no fruit. A great example of how jesus doesn't even follow his parables. Doesn't he believe in giving things a chance, like he seems to be saying in the parable?

Steven Carr · 04-11-2004, 11:04 PM

Revelation 2
22So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Of course, 'children' here is metaphorical but the bile and hatred of Jesus are not.

Al Kafirun · 04-11-2004, 11:10 PM

Poor little fig tree.

It was never such a bad little tree, really. All it needed was a little love.

Argh! I killed it!

GakuseiDon · 04-12-2004, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

I am not familiar with the botany of Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. So I don't know whether the tree is supposed to have buds or not. However, I do know that in both the Mark and Matthew version of the story, jesus is hungry and goes to look at the tree to see if it has something to eat. Since he is hungry and goes to look at the tree, he is not going to look for buds. So the business about the buds is just another red herring that some apologist made up because he knew jesus looked crazy cursing an out-of-season fig tree.

Depends on the weather. Brebas mature early in spring if there is enough sunshine, and there would have been other immature figs left over from the wood of the previous season, that would begin to ripen in the early spring. Figs mature at different rates, so it isn't unreasonable to expect a few might have been edible. Jesus would have been after the most mature of the lot.

From what I've checked on the net, there is nothing to say that it is unreasonable to expect there to have been a few edible figs at that time, which was the start of spring. It would be interesting to check this with someone more knowledge in this area than you or I.

joedad · 04-12-2004, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Depends on the weather. Brebas mature early in spring if there is enough sunshine, and there would have been other immature figs left over from the wood of the previous season, that would begin to ripen in the early spring. Figs mature at different rates, so it isn't unreasonable to expect a few might have been edible. Jesus would have been after the most mature of the lot.

From what I've checked on the net, there is nothing to say that it is unreasonable to expect there to have been a few edible figs at that time, which was the start of spring. It would be interesting to check this with someone more knowledge in this area than you or I.

This explanation, combined with your stating that you are not a literalist, presents a rather immiscible amalgam, does it not?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2004, 11:04 PM	#27
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Revelation 2 22So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. Of course, 'children' here is metaphorical but the bile and hatred of Jesus are not.

04-11-2004, 11:10 PM	#28
Al Kafirun Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: USA Posts: 323	Poor little fig tree. It was never such a bad little tree, really. All it needed was a little love. Argh! I killed it!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.