What is the deal with the story in the Bible about Jesus cursing a fig tree so that it may no longer bear fruit? What is the meaning of that story? For what purpose does it serve? And why would Jesus curse the tree? The tree is not a sentient creature and is not responsible for its actions. why Jesus, why?
Get out of here, fig lover.
Jesus doesn't like Fig Newtons.
Apologists would probably read into it a metaphor about how one's "spiritual life" must always bear fruit, even when it's out of season (out of vogue or uncool according to the times and society) or be damned and die. Some really long reach like that.
You can make of texts whatever you like.
It was honestly probably just included to show more of Jesus's amazing Sigfried and Roy magic tricks that're proffered as proof of who he was.
>>8066036
Hah! In so many words, that's exactly this guy's interpretation: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1956
>He cursed the tree because it should have been growing fruit since it had the outward signs of productivity. Jesus’ calculated timing underscored the spiritual truth that barren spiritual trees eventually run out of time. As for personal application, we should all diligently strive to ensure that we are not the barren fig tree.
>>8066036
Doesn't it wrongly portray Jesus Christ as being irrational though? Cursing a tree?
>>8066059
Cursing a tree sounds more up the alley of a wizard than a prophet.
>>8066010
It serves to show the human nature of the Son of God: he, too, could be a petty, irrational asshole like the rest of us.
>>8066059
>Doesn't it wrongly portray Jesus Christ as being irrational though?
Jesus is never portrayed as the rational and saintly meek and mild lamb that people who've never read the Bible think he is:
>Jesus was so filled with anger at the desecration of the holy place that he took some cords and wove them into a small whip. He ran about, knocking over the tables of the money changers, spilling coins on the ground. He drove the exchangers out of the area, along with the men selling pigeons and cattle. He also prevented people from using the court as a shortcut.
Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46; and John 2:13-17.
>>8066010
He meant FAG not FIG. Obviously a translation error.
>>8066095
I dunno, I always liked that scene. There's a lot of businessmen I'd like to beat the shit out of too.
>>8066095
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.
>>8066193
Jesus was a first social revolutionist.
Later his teaching was corrupted by pro-goverment church
>>8066231
Jesus was a pacifist, anon. 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.
>>8066193
>I wasn't religious at the time but
But you are now? Did the jesus indoctrination work?
>>8066231
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?
>>8066095
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.
>>8066247
You know the story is fictional, right?
>>8066248
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
>>8066256
We all believe what we want.
>>8066271
False.
>>8066010
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.
>>8066010
People who realized that they were Israelites would try to bring about prophetic events before it was time.
>>8066024
The Absolute eccentricity of this level of absurd jest is of an unintelligible capricious nature.
>>8066291
That's a great Slayer track.
>>8066255
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
>>8066010
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.
>>8066036
>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.
>>8066360
>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.
>>8066010
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
>>8066317
He was a poor jew who was pissed off by Roman's occupation.
>>8066483
>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.
>>8066231
not this meme again
>>8066252
pic related
>>8066384
That's really not true at all. The historian Josephus who wasn't Christian or a follower of Jesus's documented his existence.
>>8066360
>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.
>>8066059
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
>>8066256
>making this point
>believing this is a relevant point
oh come on
>>8066733
He wrote that almost 100 years after the fact. Isn't it a bit silly to take this as factual documentation?
>>8066753
but saying that Jesus is a made up character is also silly
>>8066753
He was a reputable historian, he more than likely had some primary sources that are now lost.
>>8066733
The passage in Josephus is well known to be a forgery.
>>8066810
You are so full of shit, it's unbelievable. The Testimonium Flavianum is obviously a pious interpolation by a later Christian.
>>8066742
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.
>>8066761
Jesus never existed. The gospels are so obviously Isaiah fan fiction, you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see it.
>>8066848
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.
>>8066843
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.
>>8066010
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.
>>8066753
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.
>>8066862
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.
>>8066857
>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.
>>8066913
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.
>>8066887
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.
>>8066896
What the fuck are you even talking about?
>>8066922
>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.
>>8066931
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
>>8066940
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.
>>8066962
>Jesus was a transsexual Chinaman decrying Samaritan ostrich racing
I never get tried of secular interpretation.
>>8066968
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.
>>8066971
Can you rebut my argument here: http://pastebin.com/9XxNnSU6
?
>>8066731
Thank you for posting this.
It'll be widely ignored, but none the less.
>>8066384
Oh my, you're one of the worse types around.
Kys softly
>>8066975
>http://pastebin.com/9XxNnSU6
Have some time on your hands Constance?
>>8066948
>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.
>>8066753
Tacticus mada a reference to Christus, and of the Christians who followed him in the annuals.
>>8066074
I'd love it if this was true.
>>8066971
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».
>>8067447
>Christian love and understanding
>>8067568
I'm not a Christian because of very good reasons involving cultic ideology but I have issues with fedoras. Unless they're nice.
>>8067581
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.
>>8067598
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?
>>8067619
Lol
>>8067427
^ delusional christcuck detected.
>>8067619
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.
>>8067581
99.99% of fedoras are Christian.
>>8067641
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.
>>8067619
>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
>>8067273
God damn this guy is cancer
>>8067672
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 4chan thinks one of the links is spam, fuck moot)
http://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 http://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 https://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).
http://qps.ru/1G63m
>>8067649
This, the edgy shit Christians believe is astounding.
>>8067637
I just have issues with atheists who are atheists it for bad reasons. I'm not saying you're one of them though.
>>8067692
>>8067692
>"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.
>>8067294
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?
>>8067711
>on /lit/
>can't read
>>8067712
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.
>>8067637
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
>>8067705
>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.
>>8067704
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.
>>8067692
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.
>>8067294
>>8067714
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.
>>8067735
>the core arguments against theism
those doesn't exist
some fedora bearers believe they exist though
*tips fedora*
>>8067735
>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?
>>8067744
The leaves appear before the fruit on every fruit-bearing tree. Kinda need that energy from the leaves to grow fruit, innit?
>>8067743
I posted that Tacticus made a reference to Christus and Christians following him in one of his books.
>>8067760
Misread it. Calm thy titties.
>>8067754
A lot of Calvinists believe that apostasy is literally impossible and so if you leave the faith you're either fated to come back or were never a true believer in the first place. This is one of those things that highlights how important personal feelings and experience are in the Christian worldview since if you try to explain that you did, in fact, seriously believe and understand the faith you were raised in and continued with into adulthood, even winning converts who are devout to this day, you'll just be told that you didn't feel it right.
>>8067757
He simply relayed the story Christians told him 100 years after the fact. He offers zero evidence of historicity.
>>8067757
I'm not discussing that with you. I already know once you run out of responses you'll start talking about irrelevant shit.
>>8067797
All history is a fiction. More at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)
>>8067797
He's a better source than Josephus at least.
>>8067799
I think you're confusing me with another poster.
>>8067834
>>8067797
Better how? As far as I'm concerned, they are of the same (meagre) value.
If someone today wrote first-hand accounts of the 1900's it would be discounted as derivative and not authentic. It'd be called, generiously, "historical fiction". Why do any of these people who supposedly corroborate the existence of Jesus get a free pass just because they did it 2,000 years ago but still a century after Christ existed?
The entire thing is ridiculous, and the fact that some people lend it so much credence shows how few legs Christianity has to stand on. They cling to it like a balding guy combs the strands over the bare spot.
>>8067861
Tacticus was critical of the Christians.
God hates figs.
>>8067861
*Unironically tips fedora*
>>8067869
That doesn't add nor subtract anything. Whether or not he was critical doesn't mean what he set down into text was any more accurate or not, if he had no first-hand experience on the matter.
>>8067875
>I'm not equipped to handle real debate so I will mention a hat
Thanks for stopping by, child. Maybe someday you'll get to a more advanced level of discourse, but I don't think so.
>>8067888
You would think he would taint his account if he loved the Christians.
>>8067888
Not related to the current debate but I'm just curious what your opinion is. Do you feel the Bible is just a book of lies that has no value or do you appreciate it as a literary work?
>>8067861
your post is a pile of bullshit
if somebody today writes a nonfiction book about 1900 (tacticus and others didn't write history novels, so your mention of 'historical fiction' is retarded), it will be a legit source of the knowledge of history; not that good as the original accounts from 1900 but if you can't get those it will be a good enough source itself
by the way, you learned history in the school by the textbooks written like 10 years ago about events which were 1000 and more years ago and it didn't bother you
>>8067899
No, I'd consider it the same. Because, in this instance (100 years after the fact) it is the same: a second-hand account.
>>8067912
The Bible's one of my favorite works, and I read it quite often. I actually think Jesus did exist, but I think all the rhetoric surrounding both the Bible and Jesus is incredibly weak and people need to acknowledge and concede to that fact.
>>8067920
>if somebody today writes a nonfiction book about 1900 (tacticus and others didn't write history novels, so your mention of 'historical fiction' is retarded), it will be a legit source of the knowledge of history;
Not so fast. If it was nonfiction, people would demand sources to be cited and they would check those sources rigorously.
Or, do you not know how non-fiction works?
>>8067938
so? it wasn't a custom 2000 years ago, neither it's a universal custom today to quote your sources in the text past purely scientific literature (non-fiction doesn't mean scientific btw, it can be purely educational etc)
The people who wrote the Bible had no idea it would be held in such high regard by so many. Whoever wrote that passage probably did so with their own ends in mind.
>>8067966
In order for it to be a source that leading authorities will take seriously, it must either be a first-hand account or cite a source that is. If it is neither, there's no reason to take it seriously—despite custom, whether then or now.
Non-fiction must have some factual basis, and it doesn't rely on a a "purely educational" criteria to get a pass. You must know this, at least.
>>8067966
>it wasn't a custom 2000 years ago
Plenty of historians from that time made a point of telling where they heard something. Obviously they didn't do it in APA format but the more specific you are with your sources the more credible you are. This matter of credibility doesn't change by what the customs are.
>neither it's a universal custom today to quote your sources in the text past purely scientific literature
This isn't true at all though.
>>8067979
>God didn't know what he was doing when he inspired the Bible
Enjoy hell, heretic.
>>8066070
how would you know?
GOD HATES FIGS
>>8067938
You are so utterly clueless, it's painful to watch.
"Historians" in 100 AD were not held to the same standards of rigor as academic historians in the post-WWII West. Much of what Tacitus wrote was based on folklore, gossip and hearsay.
>>8067996
Clearly not, or it would be internally consistent.
>>8068027
>>8068035
kys
>>8068011
Clueless? The historians of old are held to high standards today. Many people question and pore over Herodotus's writing, negating much of it as hearsay.
I don't think you quite know how antiquity is treated nowadays. Much of it is thoroughly questioned and certainly not taken as fact.
>>8066733
Josephus is lie.
>>8068040
I'm sorry that you don't feel you deserve the love of an all-powerful God.
>>8066231
Acts 2:44 happened after Jesus died. Property was still owned by the Christians, not everything was shared. This verse doesn't mean that everyone shared to those who had need as well.
>>8066962
read gospel of thomas, come back
>>8068045
>>8067861
Our entire history is based on such assumptions.
>>8068061
The Gospel of Thomas only reinforces the point.
>>8066317
Maybe if you only focus on literally one aspect of Salafism and Jesus
>>8067988
factual basis doesn't suppose mandatory quotations inside the text
>>8067989
i wonder if you even bothered to read tacitus' account?
>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
considering that he was 7-8 y.o. when the great fire happened, the mention of jesus wasn't the only thing which he would be supposed to quote by the modern standards :3 "to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt [citation needed] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures [citation needed ] on a class hated for their abominations [citation needed]" etc
but generally his sources can be assumed as what he was told about the event when he grew up and since he became later an important official, what was the official position about it, and possibly the legal records of the time of the great fire
>>8068073
Not exactly. References are checked and cross-checked. Even battles like Thermopylae and alleged cities like Troy, most historians want supplemental archeological proof of such things.
You can only go so far with allegations. Our world is one that requires factual basis, and an account written a century after the fact is suspect, at best.
>>8068073
The existence of uneducated and uncritical people doesn't mean that everybody is that way or that your uncritical opinions are as valid as any other.
>>8068075
No it does not.
There is no mention of "Christ as an archangel or mythical being sacrificed in the sublunar realm", as you said.
In fact, it actually does present the "concept of Jesus of Nazareth as a flesh-and-blood preacher or wise man, wandering around Judea and dispensing quotable wisdom".
Just by reading it you would be aware that it is a collection of wise sayings from a man of Judea that tries to convey absolute monism through parables, since silence cannot be said.
Instead, you dribble fecal greymatter from your thoughts to your fingertips, sadly leaving an imprint in all of the minds that read your shitty posts.
It would be preferable to have read, and then commute with other fellow readers in /lit/.
Instead, what we have here are 90% lonely ignorant idiots like yourself that have been rejected from every place in the world save the anonymous privacy of internet forums, in which, due to their all-inclusiveness, cannot deter the inflow of idiocy the other 10% of the posters in this forum have to withstand while we try to identify like-minded and well-read people who actually have valuable things to say.
There has been no intelligent discussion in this thread at all, aside from the pertinent historical remarks of Josephus' passage invalidation.
Since, however, I count over ten people in this thread, there just might be another able minded human being around, consitituing with myself the aforementioned 10%.
To you I say, disregarding christian dogma and churches policies ¿who do you think Jesus was?
Upon the wit and honesty of the answer falls the weight of my return.
>>8066962
*tips fedora*
THE BIBLE says otherwise.
>>8067861
*tips fedora*
The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.
"Upon the wit and honesty of the answer falls the weight of my return."
>>8068121
>uncritical
But it's you who uncritically accepted official history. Even today history is fabricated and being rewritten ny politics. Needless to say how it was common centuries ago. I believe most of the history is pure fiction
>>8068160
>But it's you who uncritically accepted official history
I haven't mentioned what I accept. I've only said that I don't accept a particular account.
>>8068132
>There is no mention of "Christ as an archangel or mythical being sacrificed in the sublunar realm", as you said.
It was written in the 2nd Century, along with the other gospels. Do your homework before spouting off again, son.
>>8068176
The two phrases have no connection.
And the Gospel of Thomas has been dated between 30-110 A.D.
I don't see what that has to do with anything - I was ascertaining the fact that the Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings by a Judaean wanderer.
Try to engage me intellectually, if you can.
btw i didn't get why you dismiss josephus when it's universaly acknowledged that at least one of his passages about jesus is authentic and the others had an authentic core
>>8068209
Are you fucking retarded? The Gospel of Thomas was written in the 2nd Century. Did I stutter? And all you can say is that it is a collection of sayings. Your speculation that it was written "by Judaean wanderer" is groundless, and irrelevant in any case. What exactly is the point you are trying to make, because it escapes me.
>>8068221
Are you a christcuck? It sure sounds like it. The Josephus passages are obvious Christian forgeries.
>>8068221
>the others had an authentic core
What does this even mean? No bullshit, please. I'm already critical.
>>8068239
except it's not that simple, the wiki has a nice article with a lot of quotes about the matter
>Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[5][6][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[12] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[10]
>Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [13] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[14][1][2][15][16][17] However, New Testament scholar Robert M. Price speculates that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.[18]
>>8068248
>Paul L. Maier, and separately Zvi Baras state that scholars generally fall into three camps over the authenticity of the Testimonium:
>It is entirely authentic
>It is entirely a Christian forgery
>It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus.[5][134]
>Paul Maier states that the first case is generally seen as hopeless, given that a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the >Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the reference in all Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept the third alternative, i.e. partial authenticity.[5]
>>8068031
The Gospels and the words of Christ tell a different story, anon.
>>8068231
And your speculation that the early Christians which recorded the Gospel of Thomas believed he was an archangel or mythical being sacrificed in the sublunar realm is not idiotic in the least, eh.
Writing "did I stutter" confirms that you are retarded, though. Perhaps you can figure out why.
110 A.D. is part of the second century, if you can count; and I take my sources not from wikipedia but from what the archaeologists that performed carbon dating on the dead sea scrolls actually believe.
Please direct your ignorance and anger towards a better suitor.
>>8068261
Stop quoting from Wikipedia, dumbass. You'll find that the people arguing for (partial or full) authenticity of the passage are "NT scholars" -- AKA Christian theologians and apologists -- not actual historians.
>>8068261
There's no use in arguing if Josephus' did or did not write this or that; what is important is to reach the oldest historical factual reference of Jesus Christ, and Tacitus does this.
I don't think arguing about Josephus' plausible beliefs will get us anywhere near the historical Jesus.
>>8068261
What you posted says authenticity is "hopeless" and that "Christian interpolations" (whatever this means) are in "what was Josephus' authentic material", which indicates there was "authentic material" with which "Christian interpolations" were secondary.
Explain this.
>>8066010
It actually is a metaphor about the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Temple circa 70 AD
>>8068261
>the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the reference in all Greek manuscripts
Nonsense. The oldest manuscript we have of Josephus's Antiquities is from circa 1000 AD. That is hundreds of years after the forged passages were inserted (circa 300 AD).
>>8068299
The entire Gospel is this, in fact.
>>8066887
Kill yourself
>>8067714
i, uh, guess thats always a possibility?
>>8068325
no.
>>8068283
i checked some, some of them are scholars in historical theology (no wonder since it's more interesting to them than to other historians, i dunno why you should discredit them basing on it), others are ordinary historians like paul maier, louis feldman or cynthia white
>>8066887
>"Jesus never existed" is a discredited meme
it seems so
>>8068299
why did it take so long for someone to point this out?
/lit/ are fundamentalists when it comes to the bible.
>>8068299
Damn, well done.
>>8068132
>In fact, it actually does present the "concept of Jesus of Nazareth as a flesh-and-blood preacher or wise man, wandering around Judea and dispensing quotable wisdom".
Isnt the parable of the vineyard owner in that Gospel?
That parable says a lot about what Christ claimed himself to be.
>>8068299
Excellent!! You are the genius of the year, there's nothing wrong with your post.
F~L~A~W~L~E~S~S
>>8067649
Can confirm, my first week of college a goofy Christian kid who always wore a fedora and trench coat threatened to shoot up the school and they found guns and material to make bombs in his dorm.
>>8068558
that happened
>>8068344
Exactly; I am going quite far and also perhaps being a little insane right now, but the point is that the Bible is a collection of teachings which we are inevitably reading out of context unless we are scholars of the language and history; and even then we cannot resolve the many incongruities, gaps, flaws, contradictions, paradoxes, and so on, in it. It is a corrupted version of the teachings of esotericists/mystics from long ago which has been mistakenly interpreted as (so to speak and pun intended) gospel. They taught by parable, and the Bible is most definitely not meant to be interpreted as literal in many places.
Also: >>8068299
>>8068589
except we're not that isolated from the new testament, really
we have the epistles, and extra-biblical early christian writings from the church fathers
>>8068605
Okay.
>>8068583
Lmao it seriously did tho, this "baking a cake" tweet was posted after he told a friend that he was planning a Boondocks Saints inspired attack on certain groups of kids (frats and sororities mostly) and asked if he wanted to take part. The kid called the cops.
>>8068618
that would have been a strange mass shooting case if he'd gone through with it. what happened to him
>>8066010
Believers would tell you that it's a metaphor for how Judaism failed to "bear fruit" with it's doctrines (or at least, that's the line I was fed).
In reality? Probably just points out that Jesus was a Bronze Age child brained madman that everyone took far too seriously.
But don't listen to me, "lel, fedora u guise!!!"
>>8068618
this kid's Twitter is gr8 ty
>>8068618
>not wanting to play School Shooter: College Edition on co-op mode
That friend is a bitch.
>>8068688
not even in disguise, you are a very plain fedora
There is none, religion is an arbitrary and clearly man-made phenomenon.
>>8069100
>>8069111
I know you are but what am I
>>8066010
Jesus hates Figs.
Don't be a Figgot, figger.
>>8066384
We have the journal that belonged to the guy who was friends with Jesus' brother. Any student of antiquity knows that Jesus of Nazereth was a real dude. Whether or not he is God is up for debate.
>>8069164
>Whether or not he is God is up for debate.
At this point, I don't think anyone would bother (not here, I mean in general).
>>8069201
The majority of the world is religious. What are you even saying?
>>8068505
not him but can you explain what do you think he's actually saying in that parable
>>8069164
>We have the journal that belonged to the guy who was friends with Jesus' brother.
No, we don't.
>>8069207
Yeah, we do, man. You never heard of the Diary of Hershel? Hell yeah, man, he, Jesus and James all hung out, spun the dreidel and shit.
>>8066010
Perhaps, you should ask why Christ cursed the tree.
>>8069216
Nigga that's a story on Wattpad. There ain't no such document.
>>8068697
funies poas of dh eear
>>8067920
You retarded ass monkey
If someone wrote a book on ww1 today he'd have to cite sources from then. First hand accounts that can be verified.
>>8069852
bother to read further, dumbass
>>8069206
> Then He began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug out a pit for a winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went away. At harvest time he sent a slave to the farmers to collect some of the fruit of the vineyard from the farmers. But they took him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent another slave to them, and they hit him on the head and treated him shamefully. Then he sent another, and they killed that one. He also sent many others; they beat some and they killed some. “He still had one to send, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ “But those tenant farmers said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!’ So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. “Therefore, what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the farmers and give the vineyard to others. Haven’t you read this Scripture: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This came from the Lord and is wonderful in our eyes?” Because they knew He had said this parable against them, they were looking for a way to arrest Him, but they were afraid of the crowd. So they left Him and went away.
Mark 12
>>8066753
100 years for ancient history isn't much. Most of it is usually like that.
so people have spoken about the fig itself being a metaphor
but what about the whole thing?
disregarding historicity a bit, does anyone have anything to read based on a more literary minded view of the new testament?
personally it makes much more sense for not only the specific instance of the fig but for the whole gospel to be collected literature that came out of the the writers' knowledge of history, language, surrounding culture(s), symbolism, religion and so on
in that sense, the gospel can be seen as a work of literary genius rather than a straight historical document. and i think this takes nothing away from it as well
>>8069971
The vineyard is Israel or the world that God made. He wants us to flourish in this garden which has been entrusted to us. We are servants of God.
Again there is the image of bearing fruit (remember the fig tree not bearing fruit brought up in the original post).
God has sent his prophets to Israel to remind them to whom their fruits belong at harvest. They have rejected them and killed them, preferring their own counsel. They resent the coming of prophets, because they remind them of their own sin. We are but tenants that owe everything to the Lord.
The owner has been patient, sending his slaves to these tenants only to be rejected again and again. Still, he sends his only Son, knowing that he will be rejected and killed like the others. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."
>>8069981
yeah, i believe we have more early mentions of jesus christ than of many ancient rulers
also it's not really 100 years despite the book was written somewhere in 110ss a.d., jesus was mentioned when tacitus described events of 64 a.d. how nero ordered many christians to be executed, tacitus briefly explained who were those christians - that they worshiped some 'christus' who was executed by pontius pilate; tacitus himself was of age of 7 or 8 in 64 a.d. and jesus was executed only ~30 years before that, so it's not nearly as far from the actual event as some people here claim, tacitus clearly heard a lot of it when he grew older in the few years past the great fire
>>8069971
>>8069989
> The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.
Who is rejected and becomes the foundation? It is Christ himself, who being rejected by his own people is embraced by the Gentiles. God will have favour in those who believe in his Son.
Jerusalem will fall, but the world shall know the grace of God through his Son. Israel were to be a priestly people who followed the law and doctrines of the Lord. In Christ, the law is written in our hearts. In Christ, we are grafted onto the tree of Israel. he is the true vine.
He is the light of the world to whom all the tribes of the world shall come.
The Gospel writers did not write these scriptures without knowledge of their meaning and potential.
>>8069994
There is more Jesus than Cesar afaik.
I don't understand why atheists feel the need to deny Christ's existence because it's much easier to deny the Resurrection.
>>8070019
>There is more Jesus than Cesar afaik.
i doubt it...
It means exactly what THE BIBLE says because THE BIBLE is literally true in its entirety.
Pic related: What you look like right now btw.
In my religious studies class it was suggested it is a metaphor for Israel, Jesus is cursing Israel for rejecting him. There were parallels made between the tree as described and the tribes of Israel but unfortunately I forget.
>>8070083
Israel and men in general, it is a very clear metaphor.
>>8066231
>le Jesus is a revolutionary meme
Yeah He's so revolutionary that, being one of the Three Persons i.e. God, he never submitted to the Father by being circumcised.
Read the Scripture instead of leninists.
>>8070083
Well obviously your 'religious studies' class was taught by an autistic loser fedora because the Bible is the literal truth from start to finish.
>>8066280
That can't possibly be false.
>>8066731
Thanks for letting me rationalize my brother's decision.
>>8067273
Kill yourself, you add nothing
>>8067874
Underrated
>>8066968
kek
Constantine confirmed best trip poster.
>>8066010
>Wasting time and effort "studying" theology
You're better off reading a bunch of fucking comic books and LOTR every day of your life.
>>8072443
>>8072510
ebin, simply ebin
>>8068639
He's not facing any serious charges, AFAIK. He had a good record with his church and community and came from a family with money. I believe he just said something along the lines of he was joking and his friend misunderstood (possible tho very unlikely because I knew Pauley and he legitemately seemed to have asbergers and didn't make subtle jokes), and that he had guns because he was from a small town where most people did, which is true. He had a hunting rifle and two pistols.
It was pretty bizarre. A friend of mine saw him being escorted off campus, fedora trenchcoat and all, by police and asked how he was doing and he said nonchalantly "Just taking a stroll"
>>8066010
>The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing 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. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.
...
>In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" "Have faith in God," Jesus answered. "Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."
To show that no prayer is beyond or beneath God.
>>8072567
Yes, they need a PhD in Physics to understand such intellectually stimulating material like comic books. If only christfags had your IQ....
>>8072567
This is a Catholic board, please go away kind sir.
>>8066010
To all who act like retards in this thread:
"Any communiy that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots, will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they are in a good company."
The story is simple. The tree is unproductive, it bears no fruits. It is baren. While at the same time it takes nutrients from the soil. It might offer some shade, and firewood/timber should someone need it, but its primary and most important role is unfulfilled. Thus it has no point or purpose to exist.
Now apply this to modern day situations and state of affairs.
>>8073657
>Now apply this to modern day situations and state of affairs.
i think we should kill all the people in the women studies department, they are like that tree, right?
>>8066010
>>8073670
desu i apply that "too fucking lazy to walk to the next tree" to everything 'otherworldy' in the bible
>>8072591
>He's not facing any serious charges
When he actually snaps will you enjoy all the "nobody had any idea" comments?
>>8073657
>The story is simple. The tree is unproductive, it bears no fruits. It is baren.
Utter nonsense. It was simply not the season for figs. If the tree were already withered, there'd be no need to wither it.
>>8073720
>Utter nonsense. It was simply not the season for figs.
fig trees produce early figs (which are but barely edible) before they sprout leaves, those early figs fell somewhere mid summer (?), anyway much later than the time when jesus came to the tree, and later the fig trees produce actual figs, it seems that if they don't produce those early figs they don't have the actual fruits that year as well
jesus went to a tree which had leaves but didn't have the early figs... the metaphor of the judaism is very clear here
i understand that since we usually don't know much about figs nowadays the metaphor was lost, but at the very end you should credit that the people back then weren't morons and would question killing a tree for not having fruits before it's the season for the fruits just like you are doing it, so the 'utter nonsense' it's your homebrew village atheism
p.s. the thread has links
>>8070892
How loving and tolerant of you :3
>>8073736
It wasn't midsummer, asshat. Mark directly states "it was not the season for figs".
"The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing 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." -- Mark 11:12-14
Yes - "because it was not the season for figs". Can't get any clearer than that.
>>8066291
"Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. For I say to you, that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough."
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
>>8073736
I hope you're trolling and not seriously this fucking retarded.
>>8073773
i suggest you to read something about fig trees, and also when you shat yourself you better be silent
>>8066317
Chesterton Catholics? Chesterton, as in the guy who wrote:
The truth is that it is the image of Christ in the churches that is almost entirely mild and merciful. It is the image of Christ in the Gospels that is a good many other things as well. The figure in the Gospels does indeed utter in words of almost heartbreaking beauty his pity for our broken hearts. But they are very far from being the only sort of words that he utters...
As I say, while the art may be insufficient, I am not sure that the instinct is unsound. In any case there is something appalling, something at makes the blood run cold, in the idea of having a statue Christ in wrath. There is something insupportable even to imagination in the idea of turning the comer of a street 'coming out into the spaces of a market-place, to meet petrifying petrifaction of that figure as it turned upon a generation of vipers, or that face as it looked at the face of a hypocrite. The Church can reasonably be justified therefore if she turns the most merciful face or aspect towards men; it is certainly the most merciful aspect that she does turn. And the point is here that it is very much more specially and exclusively merciful than any impression that could that could be formed by a man merely reading the New Testament for the first time. A man simply taking the words of the story as they stand would form quite another impression; an impression full of mystery and possibly of inconsistency; but certainly not merely an impression of mildness. It would be intensely interesting; but part of the interest would consist in its leaving a good deal to be guessed at or explained. It is full of sudden gestures evidently significant except that we hardly know what they signify; of enigmatic silences; of ironical replies. The outbreaks of wrath, like storms above our atmosphere do not seem to break out exactly where we should expect them, but to follow some higher weather-chart of their own.
..."For instance, [a man reading the Gospels] would not find the ordinary platitudes in favor of peace. He would find several paradoxes in favor of peace. He would find several ideals of non-resistance, which taken as they stand would be rather too pacific for any pacifist. He would be told in one passage to treat a. robber not with passive resistance, but rather with positive and enthusiastic encouragement, if the terms be taken literally; heaping up gifts upon the man who had stolen goods. But he would not find a word of all that obvious rhetoric against war which has filled countless books and odes and orations; not a word about the wickedness of war, the wastefulness of war, the appalling scale of the slaughter in war and all the rest of the familiar frenzy; indeed not a word about war at all. There is nothing that throws any particular light on Christ's attitude towards organized warfare, except that he seems to have been rather fond of Roman soldiers."
>>8066685
Right, which is why He spoke in favor of paying taxes to Caesar, and why He performed miracles for Roman soldiers.
"FOR IT WAS NOT THE SEASON FOR FIGS." - MARK 11:13
>>8073794
He never existed in the first place, so he didn't "speak" of anything.
>>8073802
>>8073802
le edgy
>>8073798
yet again
if a fig tree has leaves it should have early figs because those appear before leaves
that fig tree had leaves, it is specifically stated for, you know, a reason
the actual figs come later
it's simple biological facts about fig trees you can find anywhere
>>8073802
You do know that no reputable historian, Christian or not, doubts the existence of Jesus, right?
>>8073844
We already covered this earlier in the thread. Jesus of Nazereth never existed. He was a fictional character in an allegorical story. Reputable historians not affiliated with divinity schools understand this.
>>8073809
Utter bullshit.
>>8073663
funiest post of the thread
>>8073870
Why fig master anon?
Have you ever seen a fig? Because he's right.
>>8073866
Anon your claims have been debunked countless times already. Give up.
>>8066024
kek
>>8073687
Yeah. Hopefully from very far away.
Damn this thread is a fucking trainwreck
