[talk.religion.misc] Jesus and the Fig tree -researched

magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) (09/29/86)

	The story of the Fig tree is an example of 'Harvest' as
Jesus *states* in Luke. The concept of 'Harvest' or 'Judgement'
is a *main* concept in the Bible. After many parables about
'Harvest' 'Judgement' 'Repentance'  & 'Fruit' Jesus outlines this parable:

	Luke 13:5-9 (NIV) " I tell you no! But unless you repent,
		you will all perish."
			"Then he [Jesus] told this parable: 
		A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard,
		and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not
		find any. So he said to the man who took care of the
		vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look 
		for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any.
		Cut it down! Why should it use up soil?' "'Sir,' the
		man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and
		I'll dig around it and fertilize it.  If it bears fruit 
		next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'"

As in a sense Jesus 'cut' down the fig with his statement.
The 'Fruit' of a tree is likened to the 'Fruit' of a man.
And it's death likened to death at the 'Harvest' from an 'unfruitful' life.

	Matthew 7:19-20 (NIV) " Every tree that does not bear good
		fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus
		by their fruit you will recognize them."
	
To back up the idea of 'Harvest'...
	Luke 10:2 (NIV) "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers
		are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send
		out workers into his harvest field."

And *who* is it that during the 'Harvest' Jesus will cut down ?

	Jeremiah 8:20 (NIV) "The harvest is past, the summer has ended
		and we are not saved."

	& Joel 3:13 Swing the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Come,
		trample the grapes, for the winepress is full and
		the vats overflow- so great is their wickedness!"
The wicked....
And *who* is the 'Lord of the Harvest' ?

	See above Luke 10:2.

All these things go hand in hand with what Jesus did to the Fig tree as
in His parable. So what about destroying a the tree to show an idea that
he had outlined over and over? Well...

	Matthew 21:19-20 (NIV) " 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. When the disciples saw this, they were
		amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.

Seems just like the story in Luke 13:5...
So was it 'right' for him to kill the tree rather than heal it (or even
one might ask "Do we have the 'right' question?".

I contend if we look at the Scripture Jesus was showing his Authority over
Nature (which will also be cast into the fire). Scripture also shows that
Man is more important than flowers of the field or the birds of the air.
He says the whole world will be Judged - never mind about just a Fig tree!
Sort of like a potter busting up the pot and starting over (at the day
of Judgement). There are many 'hard' questions in the Bible! But if we
judge ourselves first using the Bible and God's counsel. Perhaps we
can shed light onto whether we should give advice/judgment to the potter....

	For the person who said the destruction of the Fig tree was wanton 
destruction.  Can I ask you does an artist destroy a rock they sculpt into a 
work of art? The Bible says that through him *all* thing were made and have 
their being.  And what of the Resurrection? He said he was the God of the living
not the dead. I think *if* you believe in God, then the Fig tree was just a rock
that Jesus sculpted into a testimony of Authority. Let me ask *if* you believed
what the Bible said don't you think He could bring the tree back if -
He said He could bring *you* back??? It says that He forgets not even the
sparrow.... So if the Bible judges the Bible what does it say?????
And what does the Bible say that he will bring back after all is said and done?

	Thinking about the Bible from a context 'outside' the Bible can
be likened to thinking of Modern atomic theory from theory 100 years
out of date. We just keep on asking the wrong questions because of the
context of our understanding. I contend that if you *look* for the
internal consistency of the Bible you will find it. Just as we today
through knowledge put patterns together from what we see with the
tool of science. For science to work we have to ask *good* questions.
Many theories may explain an outcome but only time will tell. So
please give the Bible some time- Many Christians have with God's
help. If you seek with all your heart God will testify to what you
learn. And *verify* what countless Christians have come to believe....

I have left out much here but I hope this is a start....


# Mike Gore 
# Institute for Computer Research.
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.

marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (09/30/86)

Organization:

In article <2589@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes:
>
[Researched Fig tree explanation deleted]

I thought it a good and plausible explanation.  What troubles me is the
following.

>	Thinking about the Bible from a context 'outside' the Bible can
>be likened to thinking of Modern atomic theory from theory 100 years
>out of date.

Thinking about the Bible using the Bible as the foundation of thought is
what, I would say, Christians do when they are being followers of Christ.
It is like cleasning one's body in the Christian sauna, and it is a good
thing for a Christian to do in order to live a good human life.

But in this context, nothing can be said about the truth or falsity of the
Bible.  All such truths are self-proving.  To study the truth or falsity of
the Bible requires examination from a greater context, a context in which
the Christian comes out of his safe haven and doubts everything.  I claim
that a Christian who cannot do this, or who is unwilling to accept what he
finds by this process, has no faith and is probably not a Christian at all.

>We just keep on asking the wrong questions because of the
>context of our understanding. I contend that if you *look* for the
>internal consistency of the Bible you will find it.

If we look for internal consistency under the assumption that what we are
examining is internally consistent, we will almost certainly explain away
incorrectly any inconsistency we find.

>Just as we today
>through knowledge put patterns together from what we see with the
>tool of science. For science to work we have to ask *good* questions.
>Many theories may explain an outcome but only time will tell. So
>please give the Bible some time- Many Christians have with God's
>help.

The Bible has had thousands of years and is no more internally consistent
now than it was when it was written.  It has undergone many translations;
the meanings of words have changed; much of its meaning has been lost.  When
in science we ask a question that our theories cannot answer, we can look
further, develop new theories, and discard old ones.  If Christianity has
faults, one of them must be that it has not allowed inconsistencies in the
Bible to be eliminated in this way.

>If you seek with all your heart God will testify to what you
>learn. And *verify* what countless Christians have come to believe....

Then why can't I use what I learn to correct the Bible's inconsistencies?

>I have left out much here but I hope this is a start....

You have left out much indeed.
					Marty Smith

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/07/86)

In article <2589@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes:
> 	The story of the Fig tree is an example of 'Harvest' as
> Jesus *states* in Luke. The concept of 'Harvest' or 'Judgement'
> is a *main* concept in the Bible. After many parables about
> 'Harvest' 'Judgement' 'Repentance'  & 'Fruit' Jesus outlines this parable:

There are numerous problems with this sort of approach to the Bible.
The first is the assumption of uniform analogy: central facets of societies
(such as harvest) tend to become richly burdened with multiple meanings
and metaphors.  On other words, one usage of "harvest" isn't necessarily
the same as another.

The second problem is the assumption that JC's teachings (as related in the
Bible) were sequenced in some sort of progression, rather than produced as
required to fit the circumstances JC encountered.

Thus, stringing together portions of the Bible that seem related by
modern ideas of a theme may produce false patterns.

> All these things go hand in hand with what Jesus did to the Fig tree as
> in His parable. So what about destroying a the tree to show an idea that
> he had outlined over and over? Well...
> 
> 	Matthew 21:19-20 (NIV) " 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. When the disciples saw this, they were
> 		amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.
> 
> Seems just like the story in Luke 13:5...

It's questionable whether Luke and Matthew are telling about different
incidents or whether one of them has it wrong.

> So was it 'right' for him to kill the tree rather than heal it (or even
> one might ask "Do we have the 'right' question?".
> 
> I contend if we look at the Scripture Jesus was showing his Authority over
> Nature (which will also be cast into the fire). Scripture also shows that

JC could have just as easily shown his authority over nature by causing the
tree to bear fruit.

It's also interesting to note that JC told the apostles that if they had faith,
they could also kill trees, and even move mountains.  To me, this doesn't sound
much different from Satan tempting Jesus.

> 	For the person who said the destruction of the Fig tree was wanton 
> destruction.  Can I ask you does an artist destroy a rock they sculpt into a 
> work of art?

Bad analogy.  JC could just as well created a new, bearing tree from nothing.

> I contend that if you *look* for the
> internal consistency of the Bible you will find it.

If you look for anything hard enough, you will find it: if only through
self-delusion.  I'm sure that thousands of people have found internal
consistancy in the Bible: only how many of them agree with each other?
So what is their perceived "internal consistency"?  Likely nothing more
than their own consistency of interpretation.  Their delusion is thinking
that their consistency is the Bible's.  That's why there are thousands of
Christian sects out there which can't agree on much at all.
--

"Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters?  Then search yourself for why
you believe the things you do.  Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion
gives you the high it does.  Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important
enough for me to give up my religion if that is required?  Until you answer
yes to this you are not being honest with yourself."  Dave Trissel
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh