On Biblical inerrancy

[Danhalen]

18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing 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.
20When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.

21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."In what context shall I take this verse? Is it an allegory or literal truth? To me, this story depicts a spiteful man who would deny others the right to eat from the tree when it comes into season. An "if I can't have it, no one can" attitude. Still, others have told me this is an allegory of the nation of Israel rejecting their god and becoming withered in spirituality. There is nothing in this passage to suggest an allegory. It seems to be a depiction of a literal walk back to the city. How would an inerrant belief in the Bible justify this petty depiction of Jesus?

[kmortis]

What it means is that Jesus doesn't like trees. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1330600#post1330600)

[Danhalen]

What it means is that Jesus doesn't like trees.I had to delete the URL to respond with a quote, but that was friggin' hilarious.:D

[kmortis]

Thank you, thank you...enjoy the veal, tip your waitress, I'm here all week.

[BeProf]

This passage is seen as both a miracle and an object-lesson. Most commentators see it as a warning against hypocrisy in general and the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious authorities of the day in particular.

[Danhalen]

This passage is seen as both a miracle and an object-lesson. Most commentators see it as a warning against hypocrisy in general and the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious authorities of the day in particular.If it is a literal miracle/object-lesson, then why did Jesus act in such a petty manner? Was Jesus petty?

[BeProf]

If it is a literal miracle/object-lesson, then why did Jesus act in such a petty manner? Was Jesus petty?

Who says He was being petty?

[cyborg]

I believe it was Danhalen who said your Jesus character was being petty.

[BeProf]

And why is that opinion any more valid than anyone elses? Where one person sees petty vindictiveness, another one sees God-incarnate trying to make a point. Po-tay-to. Po-tah-to.

I mean... if Christians are right and Jesus is God, the fig tree is His. He can do whatever He likes with it whenever He likes. He doesn't have to answer to anybody.

[That_guy]

I mean... if Christians are right and Jesus is God, the fig tree is His. He can do whatever He likes with it whenever He likes. He doesn't have to answer to anybody.

If Christians are right and Jesus is God, why did he beg himself not to make him go through with the crucifixion?

[cyborg]

And why is that opinion any more valid than anyone elses?

Yes, why is yours?

Where one person sees petty vindictiveness, another one sees God-incarnate trying to make a point.

Another sees a billion other ways of an omnipotent being making his point but as you say:

He doesn't have to answer to anybody.

So why are you adverse to saying your god is a dick?
What does it matter to Christians if he's loving or not? It should be suffice to say:

"God can do whatever, I just try to avoid being his object of eternal torment - that's what being a Christian is all about."

So if he says Jesus is being petty your correct response should be:

"Yeah he's petty: you wanna argue with him about it?"

[cyborg]

If Christians are right and Jesus is God, why did he beg himself not to make him go through with the crucifixion?

Well there are other Christians that see that triune is ludicrous and so wouldn't share BeProfs assertion that Jesus requires grammatically redundant capatalised pronouns for refering to him.

[BeProf]

"Yeah he's petty: you wanna argue with him about it?"

Yeah... pretty much.

[kmortis]

This passage is seen as both a miracle and an object-lesson. Most commentators see it as a warning against hypocrisy in general and the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious authorities of the day in particular.
I'm confuzzled...HOW is it supposed to teach this? I mean the poor tree was just sitting there, minding it's own business, when here come this Jesus guy, expecting figs, and withers the gamned tree when he doens't get them.

Was it in season to get figs?
Was the tree picked out?
Maybe it was an immature tree (do figs have a maturity issue?)...
or
Jesus was acting peevishly.
or
The story is complete fiction.

[bjb]

22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

I thought this thread was going to be about the fact that people quite often do not recieve what they ask for in prayer, not why Jesus liked to kill trees.

[kmortis]

22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

I thought this thread was going to be about the fact that people quite often do not recieve what they ask for in prayer, not why Jesus liked to kill trees.
naw...there's enough of those threads here. We've moved on to Jesus's arborcidal tendencies.

[cyborg]

Yeah... pretty much.

Then there's no point in your pretending to have any pretence of reason in the Bible as the basis of your faith.

Metaphor, literal: irrelevent. Just waving hands so you feel like you can make non-believers look stupid.

[BeProf]

I'm confuzzled...HOW is it supposed to teach this?

The point isn't why it didn't have fruit, it's that the tree was all leaves and no figs (to paraphrase Matthew Henry). Like the Pharisees who loved to make a big show of tithing every tenth leaf of an herb they found growing outside their front door but would walk right on by a dying man without batting an eye, or for that matter, Christians who gather in big comfortable buildings to whine and moan about Supreme Court justices and the legality of abortion but don't actually do anything to help support an unwed mother so she doesn't have to get an abortion.

[Tricky]

I had to delete the URL to respond with a quote, but that was friggin' hilarious.:D
Well, it did win him a language award nomination. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50138)

[BeProf]

Then there's no point in your pretending to have any pretence of reason in the Bible as the basis of your faith.

How is that not reasonable?

[kmortis]

The point isn't why it didn't have fruit, it's that the tree was all leaves and no figs (to paraphrase Matthew Henry). Like the Pharisees who loved to make a big show of tithing every tenth leaf of an herb they found growing outside their front door but would walk right on by a dying man without batting an eye, or for that matter, Christians who gather in big comfortable buildings to whine and moan about Supreme Court justices and the legality of abortion but don't actually do anything to help support an unwed mother so she doesn't have to get an abortion.
It still appears to me like Jesus is being intentionally nasty. This isn't some story that he told about a figless tree, he allegedly DID this.

The story presented to us is:
1) JC gets pekish
2) Goes looking for munchies

Ok, at this point I'm with him. I've been like this, I can understand.

3) He finds a fig tree

Ok, I'm not the biggest fan of figs, but this was a long time ago, and Willy Wonka was still 2000 years in the future.

4) The tree is bare.

Again, I can sympathize. I've gone looking for a lil' snaky-poo and found the larder empty. It's disappointing. I'm luckier than he was, I can run down to the local Stop-n-Rob and get something.

5) He kills the tree

....WHAT THE FRELL?? Ok, that's not something that I can understand. He kills a frelling tree because it didn't serve his whim. Doesn't sound like a lesson, sounds psychotic. I think all that parable stuff is ad hoc reasoning.

Or the story is fake.

[kmortis]

Well, it did win him a language award nomination. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50138)
And, I'm in the middle of the pack as far as votes go. (shameless plug to the unvoted)

[Spidey13]

Why didn't he just miracle up some figs? It seems to me that it would be easier than some other miracles he performed.

[BeProf]

It still appears to me like Jesus is being intentionally nasty. This isn't some story that he told about a figless tree, he allegedly DID this.

The story presented to us is:
1) JC gets pekish
2) Goes looking for munchies

Ok, at this point I'm with him. I've been like this, I can understand.

3) He finds a fig tree

Ok, I'm not the biggest fan of figs, but this was a long time ago, and Willy Wonka was still 2000 years in the future.

4) The tree is bare.

Again, I can sympathize. I've gone looking for a lil' snaky-poo and found the larder empty. It's disappointing. I'm luckier than he was, I can run down to the local Stop-n-Rob and get something.

5) He kills the tree

....WHAT THE FRELL?? Ok, that's not something that I can understand. He kills a frelling tree because it didn't serve his whim. Doesn't sound like a lesson, sounds psychotic. I think all that parable stuff is ad hoc reasoning.

Or the story is fake.

Why does something that offends your moral sensibilities necessarily negate the truthfulness of the story?

[kmortis]

Why does something that offends your moral sensibilities necessarily negate the truthfulness of the story?
I didn't say that it insulted my moral sensabilities at all. I'm just not buying the story at all. My question is, why include it? It really doesn't show JC in a good light. Petty, peevish and particualrly precocious. (ok, maybe not precocious, but I needed it to make the alliteration work ;))

If he wanted to teach about hypocracy, there's many better ways to do it. Also, I'm just not getting that lesson from the story. So, I'm asking you, the guy who indicated that he did get it, to esplain it, Lucy.


ETA: or the story's fake.

[Kopji]

In what context shall I take this verse? Is it an allegory or literal truth? To me, this story depicts a spiteful man who would deny others the right to eat from the tree when it comes into season. An "if I can't have it, no one can" attitude. Still, others have told me this is an allegory of the nation of Israel rejecting their god and becoming withered in spirituality. There is nothing in this passage to suggest an allegory. It seems to be a depiction of a literal walk back to the city. How would an inerrant belief in the Bible justify this petty depiction of Jesus?

Kopji devil's advocate hat = on

The bible.org site below usually has better than average material on 'what conservative Christian's teach', but I think their analysis misses the mark in this case:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2245

...He found only leaves. Appearance of life but no fruit. It says it was not the season for figs, so why did he curse it? Cf. Hendriksen in his Matthew commentary. Budding precedes leafing. Small figs precedes the leaves, which precede the regular figs. He sees nothing but leaves. It is the small figs which guarantee the normal figs. If there are no early small figs, there will be no big figs. So he curses it.

Cf. Hos 9:10 - Israel as an image of the fig tree. Fruit in the first season?

Nah 3:12 - Israel as symbol of figs.

Zech 3:10 - Symbol of the blessing of the Kingdom when Israel will invite others to find shade under her fig tree.

The scripture references are good but their understading of fig trees is wrong, so they go on to make a wrong conclusion about the story.

Fig trees have two crops, the spring 'breba' crop is inferior but can completely die out and still have a late crop. Lack of a spring crop does not say much about the fall crop. "Maybe there was a freeze". Anyway, bible.org's argument seems weak, and worse, over complex.

From the tree folks:

Fruits:
The common fig bears a first crop, called the breba crop, in the spring on last season's growth. The second crop is borne in the fall on the new growth and is known as the main crop. In cold climates the breba crop is often destroyed by spring frosts. The matured "fruit" has a tough peel (pure green, green suffused with brown, brown or purple), often cracking upon ripeness, and exposing the pulp beneath. The interior is a white inner rind containing a seed mass bound with jelly-like flesh...

Fig plants killed to the ground will often resprout from the roots

http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/fig.html

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/fig.html


Although the story sounds nasty, it is probably just a story that got turned into a real event. A simpler message would be that Jesus would have been happy with even an inferior 'crop': Some sign of spiritual life in Israel. More importantly, the wilting of of the tree does not even mean it would not grow back 'from the roots'. This seems like a more likely basis for the story: a prediction that Judaism would be replaced by Christianity.

Any Christian worth their salt could view this as a prophecy that a new religion would need to arise, etc etc.

That probably dates the story long after the event, with Christianity already established. Oops, sorry, hey this is a real prophecy.

devil's advocate hat = off

[BeProf]

I didn't say that it insulted my moral sensabilities at all. I'm just not buying the story at all. My question is, why include it? It really doesn't show JC in a good light. Petty, peevish and particualrly precocious. (ok, maybe not precocious, but I needed it to make the alliteration work ;))

If he wanted to teach about hypocracy, there's many better ways to do it. Also, I'm just not getting that lesson from the story. So, I'm asking you, the guy who indicated that he did get it, to esplain it, Lucy.


ETA: or the story's fake.

What I'm asking you is on what basis are you saying "good light" and "better"?

[Dr Adequate]

I dare say that as a carpenter, Jesus' hands must have been green with the sap of countless innocent trees.

But do we care? Or are you one of those "vegetable rights" nuts who eats only meat, refuses to wear cotton, and goes about "freeing" trees from arboretums?

Every day thousands of trees are killed to make a point, usually a bad one: the process is called journalism. It doesn't really keep me awake at night.

It's just a tree, dammit. There are characters in the Bible more deserving of our sympathy. Have you read Job?

[Tricky]

Why didn't he just miracle up some figs? It seems to me that it would be easier than some other miracles he performed.
Wait. It gets worse (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=11&version=31&context=chapter)
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.
13Seeing 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. (emphasis mine)

Not only was Jesus a sadistic bastard for killing the barren tree, but he is a stupid bastard for expecting a fig tree to bear fruit out of season.

And then he has the nerve to tell his disciples:
24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
Well why didn't that lying sack pray for some plucking figs?

[kmortis]

Wait. It gets worse (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=11&version=31&context=chapter)
(emphasis mine)

Not only was Jesus a sadistic bastard for killing the barren tree, but he is a stupid bastard for expecting a fig tree to bear fruit out of season.

And then he has the nerve to tell his disciples:

Well why didn't that lying sack pray for some plucking figs?
'Cause he hates trees. And trees hate him. C'mon, I thought we covered this.

[kmortis]

What I'm asking you is on what basis are you saying "good light" and "better"?
Well, from a PR point of view, this is a baaaad story to tell about the old JC, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

Look, if he'd told a story about a tree that dies cause it wouldn't bear fruit, then I could accept the "parable" interpretation. But it's not, it's Jesus cursing a tree for not bearing fruit, when it's not even fig bearing season. :jaw-dropp Christians like to go on about a "loving god", and I can accept the "parents punish their kids" argument for some of the stuff that God does in the name of his "love", but withering a tree for not doing something that, presumably, God told it not to do....seems, capricious and cruel.

[BeProf]

I understand what you're saying and it does seem capricious and cruel, but where does the Bible say that God loves trees or that God is at all interested in "good PR"?

[kmortis]

I understand what you're saying and it does seem capricious and cruel, but where does the Bible say that God loves trees or that God is at all interested in "good PR"?

WEll, the loving of trees is impled in the caring for all life. WTF is th point of making them, if He's not gonna care about them. Not the qualities of a all-loving God, eh?

The good PR? Well, if He doesn't care about good PR, why bother with evangelization in the first place?

[I'll_buy_that]

I understand what you're saying and it does seem capricious and cruel, but where does the Bible say that God loves trees or that God is at all interested in "good PR"?


I don't think it matters whether he cared about trees or not, or whether the life of a tree means anything. What is stated in this parable is that Jesus has tempertantrums when he's hungry.

you wouldn't like him when he's angry

[stamenflicker]

I'm confuzzled...HOW is it supposed to teach this? I mean the poor tree was just sitting there, minding it's own business, when here come this Jesus guy, expecting figs, and withers the gamned tree when he doens't get them.

The fig tree was a methapor for the nation of Israel. It's kind of like if Jesus were here today, he'd probably curse a steeple or a stained glass window, or maybe make his point by boiling some holy water when he's thirsty. Or maybe after trying on Pat Robertson's suit he'd curse it with tranparent trousers.

Flick

[kmortis]

The fig tree was a methapor for the nation of Israel. It's kind of like if Jesus were here today, he'd probably curse a steeple or a stained glass window, or maybe make his point by boiling some holy water when he's thirsty. Or maybe after trying on Pat Robertson's suit he'd curse it with tranparent trousers.

Flick
Um...ok. I'm still not getting how a poor, innocent fig tree that wasn't producing figs WHEN IT WASN'T FIG PRODUCING TIME was somehow wrong. Do farmers go around cursing their crops in the winter time? How does this act as a slap on the wrist to Isreal, when the point is so obtuse?

I maintain that if he'd ment it as an object lesson, he'd have done better to tell us a little story, rather than pick on a tree that wasn't doning anything wrong. As it is, it makes him look like a frellin nutter. Cursing trees for no good reason, that's not right.

[cyborg]

You're just too stupid to see why that was absolutely the best way of getting the message across in a completely unambigious way.

Their god is just too damn mysterious for you because you lack the holy spook. If you had the holy spook you'd see just how brilliant the story really is - or at least you'd accept you're too stupid to see how brilliant it is.

Much like people who say "You Got Served" was a crap film. You just lack the spirit of hip-hop that will show you the true greatness of the film.

[bruto]

I'm inclined to think it's just a story, and not to be taken literally, but I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. I mean, if by some chance Jesus really was the boss, and really did it, it's not a bad way to dramatize your message. It doesn't matter if it wasn't the season for figs. He probably knew that, but he wanted to make a point. So, blast a tree. What's the big deal? It's just a tree. We can't be sure even if he killed it. It withered. I like trees too, but I'm not such a treehugger that I don't also burn them in my stove. Killing a tree witihout touching it is a very neat trick, which achieves considerable shock value without actually doing much damage. If I were a wandering savior trying to score points, I'd consider tricks like that a pretty useful tool.

I'm all in favor of doubt, denial and blasphemy, but picking this little verse seems kind of petty in its own right. If you believe the bible, you'll always find a way to make this thing work, through allegory or fig bud research or whatever. If you don't believe, then cherry picking is a wasted effort.

[Iacchus]

In what context shall I take this verse? Is it an allegory or literal truth?Both, perhaps.

To me, this story depicts a spiteful man who would deny others the right to eat from the tree when it comes into season. An "if I can't have it, no one can" attitude.If Jesus was who he said he was, the fig tree was not aligned with his purpose, and this served to illustrate that.

Still, others have told me this is an allegory of the nation of Israel rejecting their god and becoming withered in spirituality. There is nothing in this passage to suggest an allegory.Except for the fact that this is what happened.

It seems to be a depiction of a literal walk back to the city. How would an inerrant belief in the Bible justify this petty depiction of Jesus?And with Jesus, everything is at the very least symbolic, and designed to convey a greater meaning in life.

[Beerina]

I remember hitting my head on a table once, and punching the table in anger to teach it a lesson. The table won round 2, too.


I guess I just didn't believe hard enough. Of course, then this would have happened.

(Goes under table to get a toy there. Getting up, smashes head on bottom of it.)

Owwwww!

Stupid table! (Believes real, real hard, and table shakes and shudders, then crunches up into a small ball of kindling and sawdust, like any number of "collapsing black hole/Jupiter-is-igniting/Doctor Octopus' matter-eating ball" type scenes in a movie.)

(Hears door slam. Mother walks in.)

What happened to my table?!?!?

Ummmm, well, I hit my head, and I used the power of God to punish it for daring to do not be in accordance with my plan.

You're getting a spanking. (Believes real, real hard, pants go down on the child, sounds of swatting are heard as an unseen hand makes swats, with accompanying flesh rippling waves and rapid reddening of the area...)

[bruto]

WEll, the loving of trees is impled in the caring for all life. WTF is th point of making them, if He's not gonna care about them. ?

Well, the kid grew up in a carpentry shop. Maybe he saw trees in more than one context.

I'm a little surprised by the righteous indignation over the killing of that poor innocent little tree from people who, I suspect, would try their best to knock the P*** out of any PETA advocate.

And God set a poor innocent little bush on fire just to get Saul's attention too. It seems to run in the family.

[Withnail]

I think this passage is evidence that Charles Portis wrote the bible. I think we are to take this passage as droll humor. Jesus was just clowning it up with his travel buddies. He had a very odd sense of humor that was increasingly fueled by his friends feeling the need to laugh at all his jokes, no matter how un-funny they were.


"Curse a fig tree, you crack me up lord."

[Beleth]

Why does something that offends your moral sensibilities necessarily negate the truthfulness of the story?
What a good question! I'll have to remember it the next time I run into an anti-evolutionist.

[Beleth]

I understand what you're saying and it does seem capricious and cruel, but where does the Bible say that God loves trees...?
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;

Mat 6:28 Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.


God loves trees and plants just fine.
It's just that one poor out-of-season fig tree He seems to have a problem with.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;

Mat 6:28 Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.


God loves trees and plants just fine.
It's just that one poor out-of-season fig tree He seems to have a problem with.

I hate to be a nitpicker (actually I love to nitpick, one of the many services I have to offer) but none of those verses say that god loves trees (although it could certainly be argued that it is implied).

LLH

[DigitalHoser]

Oh brother. To answer all the questions about Jesus' arborcidal tendencies, the truth is he was a carpenter! He killed trees to do his job! Maybe he needed the wood to make a table or something. I'll never know. I hate figs anyway. :)

[Ducky]

Oh brother. To answer all the questions about Jesus' arborcidal tendencies, the truth is he was a carpenter! He killed trees to do his job! Maybe he needed the wood to make a table or something. I'll never know. I hate figs anyway. :)




heh heh. Jesus got wood.

[Beleth]

I hate to be a nitpicker (actually I love to nitpick, one of the many services I have to offer) but none of those verses say that god loves trees (although it could certainly be argued that it is implied).
In Gen 1 God calls fruit-bearing trees "good". That's about as close to an admission of love as God gets.

Gen 2 is at least saying that He doesn't hate trees.

Mat 6, paraphrased, is "Look how much God loves everything else in the world, and takes care of them... well, guess what, He loves you more." Implicit in that is that God loves everything else in the world, including trees.