Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ll-xn!mit-amt!mit-eddie!barry
From: barry@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: From Fig to finding a Candy Man
Message-ID: <3357@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 21:42:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3357
Posted: Wed Oct  1 21:42:37 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:48:45 EDT
References: <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1150@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 45
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:353 net.religion.christian:4804

In article <6336@think.COM> craig@godot.think.com.UUCP (Craig Stanfill) writes:

>Mikki completely misses several points.  First, the story of the fig tree
>has given biblical scholars trouble for a long time.  It is strongly
>suspected that the story is garbled in some fashion.  Part of it may be
>missing, or two stories may have been run together.  There is plenty of
>precedent for both in other parts of the scripture.  Interpreting this
>story is difficult.

Well, Craig.  If I am missing several points, perhaps you can enlighten me.
Why is it that when stories do not quite "fit", "scholars" suspect there
is something wrong with the story, rather than with the act?
Does this mean the bible is not infallible?  If so, who is to decide
which portions are garbled, and which are not?

>Second, Jesus spoke an parables and often acted in parables.  The
>essence of a parable is that it MUST be interpreted on the symbolic
>level.  Mikki ignores this.  As I interpret it, the fig tree that bears
>no fruit is the disciple who does no good.  When Jesus gives the tree
>more time to show fruit, he is showing mercy.  When Jesus chops down the
>tree, the day of judgement has arrived and Jesus will disown the
>fruitless disciple as a hypocrite.

Who are you to say that this was a parable?  Why is it that some stories
are labeled as parable, and a strange interpretation given them, while
others MUST be interpreted as fact?  Craig seems to have a convenient
explanation, ignoring the "facts" as stated in his own bible.  What if
I tell you the resurrection is a parable, and christ returned from the
dead not physically, but only in spirit (as the gnostics believe)?  How
are we to tell which is parable and which is "real"?

>Third, since Mikki misses the symbolism of the interpretation, his
>criticism is way off the mark: God created the fig tree (disciple) with
>free will, the choice of whether to bear fruit or not.

Excuse me, Craig, but could you please tell me how a tree can "decide"
whether or not to bear fruit?  Perhaps like a person "decides" to breathe?


Mikki Barry
HASA 
--------------------------------------
"The bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it
 describes God as a mass murderer.  This may be the single most important
 key to the political behavior of Western Civilization"