rationalskepticism.org

proudfootz wrote:

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Do not worry, I don't fail to notice that you keep evading the point that the fig tree was supposed to have taqsh when Passover neared and instead keep resorting to flaccid yet completely unconvincing tricks to discredit what I say.

Turgidity and flaccidity don't enter into it, mate.

The source seems to say it wasn't the season for figs, and I made an observation about this which is backed up by every translation I could find.

It's not a 'trick' to simply tell the truth - don't be afraid.

You seem to miss the point, it was too early for figs, but it was the right time for the edible but untasty buds or tarqsh.

proudfootz wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:


No, no, you can't just read the words, you have to interpret them or it's no fun.

Yes, let's say it was a species of figs which Mark didn't know was supposed to be in season and Mark was putting in his opinion and thus was misled by Jesus's wholly correct response...

Who's speaking of a different species of fig? This would just be the common fig. Another unsubtle projection by you. Taqsh does not equal fig.

Markus 11:13
Het Boek (HTB)
13In de verte zag Hij een vijgeboom die in blad stond. Hij liep ernaar toe om te zien of er vijgen aanzaten, maar er zaten alleen maar bladeren aan. Het was nog niet de tijd voor vijgen.

(from your link)

Not finding taqsh in the gibberish above.

But Vijgen is Dutch for Figs...

Nobody said the text from gMark said "taqsh". >_> The Greek actually doesn't have "figs" in its thrice; Jesus was not looking for figs, but whether there was anything on it, but there were only leaves... How often is Russell's silly dig going to be reheated? >_>

GakuseiDon wrote:

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Don't get me wrong, I agree with the allegorical interpretation (which does not seem like overanalysing to me). The reason I dwell on this point is that some people here overanalyse it into something that is definitely wrong and keep doing so despite being corrected repeatedly.

True. I have to laugh at the "That bad Jesus, killing the poor innocent fig tree!" comments.

I suspect they are secretly advocating the aims of this website.

But fair's fair, proudfootz's point is (aside the odd point of "ignorance" which has been debunked too often now) that Jesus was cruel to destroy somebody's livelihood, not simply for killing the fig tree.