What is the deal with the story in the Bible about Jesus cursing a fig tree so that it may no longer bear fruit...

I dunno, I always liked that scene. There's a lot of businessmen I'd like to beat the shit out of too.

I remember studying this in high school (tfw Jesuit education) and our religious studies teacher trying to bring home the concept of Jesus as a human to the class. I wasn't religious at the time but it was honestly pretty interesting.

Jesus was a first social revolutionist.
Later his teaching was corrupted by pro-goverment church

Jesus was a pacifist, user. Keep in mind that in the scene where he drives the moneychangers out of the Temple it's never mentioned that he touches or hurts anyone.

>I wasn't religious at the time but
But you are now? Did the jesus indoctrination work?

I actually totally agree with you here
How does the church reconcile it's excessive wealth with the whole camel going through the eye of the needle thing?

On top of this, Jesus frequently tells people that sin is REAL SHIT and they'd better fucking get their acts together:

>“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Jesus is peaceful and kind and gentle, but he is not always nice, because sometimes you have to be not-nice.

You know the story is fictional, right?

Naa they gave up trying to indoctrinate us by late high school but that's when I discovered Kierk and Dostoy and yeah one thing lead to another
I basically went in the other direction to all of my classmates

We all believe what we want.

False.

The fig tree was non-sentient and therefore not responsible for its actions, but also unfeeling and therefore not the victim of any crime. So if Jesus cursed the tree to make a point, or even just to show off, it doesn't matter. No one suffered.

People who realized that they were Israelites would try to bring about prophetic events before it was time.

Also, when he gets betrayed in the garden and Peter cuts off another man's ear, he heals the ear and then says "those who live by the sword die by the sword"

The Absolute eccentricity of this level of absurd jest is of an unintelligible capricious nature.

That's a great Slayer track.

Jesus Christ and the apostles were hard as rock fanatics who set out to save the world. They would all be locked up today. The meek, submissive and nice Jesus is a modern day abomination.
>mfw I realized the average salafi is more Christ-like than Chesterton catholics

You have to read what he says to his apostles after. He wasn't punishing a tree for no reason was a metaphor for them to learn from.

>Apologists
There are some silly things that people really do grasp at straws to explain but I dont think this is one of them. If you actually read it I'd say its pretty clear that its a metaphor.

>pretty clear that its a metaphor

Not only that, the whole story is allegorical fan fiction inspired by the Septuagint. There never was a Jesus, except as a fictional character in a fable.

Tree's in ancient mythology are used to represent women(Source:Hermetic Tradition, Evola), and the tree not bearing fruit is the woman not able to bear children.
>Why?
IDK, probably just some woman punishment that was common in those days

He was a poor jew who was pissed off by Roman's occupation.

>Tree's [sic] in ancient mythology are used to represent women(Source:Hermetic Tradition, Evola)

Even if this were true, this doesn't mean every time a tree is featured in an ancient text means it represents a woman. This isn't paint-by-numbers.

not this meme again

pic related

That's really not true at all. The historian Josephus who wasn't Christian or a follower of Jesus's documented his existence.

>If you actually read it I'd say its pretty clear that its a metaphor.

Aren't you being disingenuous? The apostles ask about the tree the next day, and he gives them a bunch of "lofty, inspirational bullshit" about how if you pray for it, you get it.

To say this is "clear" and obviously a metaphor is dubious, at best. If you see a clear metaphor in Jesus's words, I'd like you to embellish upon that. Otherwise, there is no metaphor and the point of the story (following Jesus's words the day after) is that if you want a tree to die, you can make it so by praying for it.

There is nothing in his words about "spiritual lives" bearing fruit—in fact, it implies that if you have a rich, spiritual life you can destroy shit on a whim.

I always thought that he did it as an out of the way kind of thing like "damn this tree has no fruits. You know what, I hope this tree never bears fruit again!" and then when they came back the tree was dried up/ maybe it wasn't his intention and it happened anyway because he was the son of God

>making this point
>believing this is a relevant point
oh come on

He wrote that almost 100 years after the fact. Isn't it a bit silly to take this as factual documentation?

but saying that Jesus is a made up character is also silly

He was a reputable historian, he more than likely had some primary sources that are now lost.

The passage in Josephus is well known to be a forgery.

You are so full of shit, it's unbelievable. The Testimonium Flavianum is obviously a pious interpolation by a later Christian.

Yes he said a bunch of stuff about the power of prayer and faith. I don't think hardly anything he said is meant to be taken literally the guy spoke primarily in metaphors/illustrations.

He was teaching them a lesson about prayer/faith, at other times he used trees as metaphors for people and their fruits as metaphors for their deeds, he was all about metaphors.

I'm not saying you have to agree with the lesson but it was obviously a lesson.

Jesus never existed. The gospels are so obviously Isaiah fan fiction, you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see it.

I don't see how the idea of some guy named Jesus existing and preaching a socially/spiritually radical message around that time and developing a following is unreasonable.

Maybe he didn't literally say/do everything written about him but I don't think he's entirely made up.

Your reading is shoddy at best. The issue isn't whether I "agree with the lesson". The issue is whether or not we can actually read the interpretation into the story, and there is little evidence to support it, except that "he was all about metaphors", whatever that means to the story at hand.

It was asserted before that Josephus wasn't a Christian nor a follower of Jesus's, but the excerpt in question explicitly says that Jesus was "the Messiah" or "the Christ", so someone hasn't done their homework and everyone's talking past each other.

Maby the tree is a symbolise the tree of knoladge?

"Jesus never existed" is a discredited meme

Josephus mentions Jesus in more places than the Testimonium Flavianum and historians think these are probably authentic, there's also Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Papius, Quadratus, and several others.

Comparable now to 1916, that's past ww1 period we're talking about.

If he was lying then he'd have whole Judea province against him. Jews, Romans, Greeks... Nah, he existed all right.

If the account just said he killed a tree and that's all I'd agree with you but it doesn't. Its clear it was a lesson about prayer/faith. We can debate about whether that's a good lesson but there was a lesson.

>I don't see how the idea of some guy named Jesus existing and preaching a socially/spiritually radical message around that time and developing a following is unreasonable.

No one is claiming that it is "unreasonable" for that to be the case. The point is that "Jesus of Nazareth" - who supposedly inspired the Christian religion -- didn't actually exist. He was a fictional creation of the first evangelist.

In the same way, it is "perfectly reasonable" to suppose that Ned Ludd existed. He just happened not to.

I'm saying I think its probably more appropriate to say he's an embellishment than a total fabrication. I think he's based on a real person.

You are misinformed. Josephus doesn't mention Jesus outside the forged passages, and the only other mention with historical significance is by Tacitus, who was just passing along the story told to him by Christians 100 years later.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

>I think he's based on a real person.

Your belief is based on ignorance, however. The evidence we have suggests that Jesus was indeed a complete fabrication.

K

I know I am asking for negative proof, but proof?

Christ is more of a symbol now, the Bible is a corrupted collection of parables and wisdom that most definitely derives from people who were enlightened and had divine experiences that they wanted to communicate to the world for the salvation of other souls; however, this has been garbled by 2,000 years of translation. Same with all other religions and religious figures. Christ was most definitely enlightened, however, the worship of him as God is a completely nonsensical misunderstanding of divine wisdom; man should never be worshiped as God, although man can be godlike and have godlike qualities, being made in the image of God. His microcosmos reflects the macrocosmos.

The fig tree is niggardly, its punishment is done as a demonstration, not for itself.

See Matthew 25:42

In a nutshell: the earliest Christian writers - Paul et al - spoke of "Christ" as an archangel - a mythical being sacrificed in the sublunar realm. They had no concept of "Jesus of Nazareth" as a flesh-and-blood preacher or wise man, wandering around Judea and dispensing quotable wisdom. That story was only written in the 2nd Century as allegory and midrash.

>Jesus was a transsexual Chinaman decrying Samaritan ostrich racing
I never get tried of secular interpretation.

Jesus never existed in the first place.

That was the whole reason that tree existed, to provide an example of the power of Jesus' faith.

Can you rebut my argument here: pastebin.com/9XxNnSU6

?

Thank you for posting this.

It'll be widely ignored, but none the less.

Oh my, you're one of the worse types around.

Kys softly

>pastebin.com/9XxNnSU6

Have some time on your hands Constance?

>grabled by 2,000 years of translation

This meme's pretty bad. We have manuscripts that date from very early on and have a very good idea of the original content of the New Testament.

Tacticus mada a reference to Christus, and of the Christians who followed him in the annuals.

I'd love it if this was true.

But you're wrong. Objectively, factually, and historically wrong.

That's really none of my business though. If you want to live a life of willful ignorance and denial, go ahead.

The fedoras in this thread must be stinking of sweat by this point. Fucking cancer.

The fig is supposed to be a representation of Israel. They saw this fig on the way to Jerusalem. Once there, Jesus «purified» the temple (that is, he threw away all the merchants), and then on the way back they saw that the fig was dead.

It's supposed to mean that Israel became corrupted and was no longer «the people of god».

>Christian love and understanding

I'm not a Christian because of very good reasons involving cultic ideology but I have issues with fedoras. Unless they're nice.

No, you just think you're better than people with strong opinions because "muh reasonable middle ground." You'll never speak a word against something that is clearly false and manipulative because you're afraid of harsh words.

I know what is truly false and manipulative in my personal experience by being in a extremist "Christian" sex cult. I speak out against that truly. I'm not afraid of getting harsh words back for that. What kind of experiences do you have with that anyway? Are they comparable to mine?

Lol

^ delusional christcuck detected.

Why do I need to have been in something just as fucked up to criticize something that is also false and more common? I grew up with a Christianity that was more a tool of politicians and mean-minded people than anything like it claimed to be, and now I see that in most faiths. I'm sorry you had an even worse experience, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to shut up unless they've been raped by a priest.

99.99% of fedoras are Christian.

Holy shit, this. If anyone doubts it, they need to go talk to a 17 year old who thinks he's holding the line against demonic atheists by posting on facebook about how beating kids is what real men do and how women who get abortions should be punished in a public square. They aren't all that rare if you sniff around religious schools and boy scout troops.

>If you weren't fucked by Christians as hard as I have you're no longer allowed to call Christians out on their false claims

God damn this guy is cancer

When I post here about my past people tell me that that's not true christianity in that sense and I realise this. It's a perverted form. But that doesn't make it any worse than it is. And anyway, the Bible, belief in Jesus was involved.

i read that it might be a symbolic act to show that judaism is like that fig tree which promises but doesn't bear the fruits

"And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves" matthew 21:19
fig trees produce early figs even before they grow leaves, a fig which didn't have those will not have the real figs later that year

check this link (sorry had to use an url shortener since Veeky Forums thinks one of the links is spam, fuck moot)
qps.ru/1yQSB

oh disregard that it's 'answering islam', it mostly has quotes to the christian and jew sources and is the first link that i found, i originally read similar stuff in russian and i believe you wouldn't like to google translate that article

also from another link qps.ru/mhF19
>The fig-tree not only bears fruit without visible blossoms, but begins to form its first crop of figs before the leaves appear.

and yet another link from torah to show that figs are connected with jews (the first 'islam answers' link already has a few), it's likely written ~200 years after the death of christ (if you google R. Chiya bar Aba you get en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiyya_bar_Abba ca. 180–230 CE) but its connection to the fig part of the gospel of matthew is pretty clear, either intentionally as a kind of dispute, or because it uses some older jewish parable which jesus criticized, or possibly it was just the common imagery back then:

>(c) (R. Chiya bar Aba) Question: What do we learn from "Notzer Te'enah Yochal Piryah"?
>(d) Answer: Divrei Torah are compared to a fig tree. (The figs ripen at different times.) Whenever one feels around, he finds figs;
>1. Likewise, whenever one ponders Divrei Torah, he finds Ta'am (taste, i.e. understanding).

qps.ru/1G63m

This, the edgy shit Christians believe is astounding.

I just have issues with atheists who are atheists it for bad reasons. I'm not saying you're one of them though.

...

>"that's not true christianity"
Wait, where have I heard that before?
>"that's not true islam"
oh yeah. I don't think there's any point in you even trying to tell these people something.

But do we have the oral messages that may not have been written down? How could you ever find out that the story of Christ's body and bread being ingested by his followers could've actually been literal unless Gurdjieff told you that, literally, Christ's followers ingested bits of his flesh and blood to maintain psychic contact with him after his death, and this secret has only been passed down to the present day in certain obscure, out of the way monasteries in the mountains? How?

>on Veeky Forums
>can't read

Hey cmon not all Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is a female. Or that follow me and I'll make you fishers of men means that you can cuck yourself for christ. Or that being Jesus's friend means having a sexual relationship with him.

it's not a rape if it was voluntarily even if the fucked person came to think that they made a mistake when they agreed to have sex

>atheists for bad reasons
I think not believing that there's a God is all the reason you need. That's kind of the crux of the whole thing.

My favorite is how a lot of them try to head off the core arguments against theism by saying some shit about how it's impossible to really be atheist because "you have to worship something," and using that to ignore anything else you say about it. Like, I don't tell you that you can't actually believe what you believe.

It doesn't fucking matter, dude.
The other guy was arguing whether Jesus is real or not. Whatever real Christianity is, or whatever you've been through does not refute the point he's arguing. Jesus Christ.

Moreover, there is all the intricacies only someone back then could have understood. For example, in fig trees in Palestine, the fruits appear before the leaves; if there are leaves, there must be fruits. It is obvious that the appearance of a fruitless yet leafed fig tree was a very specific and startling symbol that only someone right there and right then could have understood.

>the core arguments against theism
those doesn't exist

some fedora bearers believe they exist though

*tips fedora*

>a lot of them try to head off the core arguments against theism by saying some shit about how it's impossible to really be atheist because "you have to worship something,"
I've never met these people. Are they young? Any more examples?