I'm not Catholic, but I think a better question to get from that analogy would be

>Is the scientific method perfect though? Isn't it the result of the same fallible human minds that make it's implementation inherently flawed as well?

Maybe the scientific method is not perfect, but itself is still open to improvement in fundamental ways. This is more interesting to me than debates about ancient Judaean fig tree parables.

But in case you're curious! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursing_the_fig_tree

Everything in the Bible points to something else. The fig tree mainly points to Revelation, wherein all people not bearing “fruit” in the “season” of the apocalypse, when He is “hungry” only for the righteous, will be judged to “wither away”.

We build stuff out of trees, so I think he straight-up killed that tree to build a parable out of doing it. It was in his sovereignty to uproot what isn’t Good. In the very next paragraph, he does the same by throwing the merchants out of the temple.

His response to his apostles after they mention the dead tree is interesting. It seems like he ignores them to explain that if they pray about anything, it will happen if they believe it. I think this has something to do with 1) the role of faith in avoiding the tree’s fate so that they may be bear the fruit no matter how impossible it seems since it was “not the season for bearing fruit”, or 2) a picture of the reality of the Kingdom after the harvest, where the Good will have reign to move mountains.

Proofs blossom like trees from epistemic axioms. It’s confounding to believe “Christ is perfect”, but it does bear fruit, however confounding it is. Theology isn’t popularly known, but it’s there if you’re curious.

I remember going to a talk once by the Bishop of Columbus about the Gospels. Someone asked him what he thought the hardest passage of the Bible to interpret was and he responded with this one.

No surprise... I can’t think of a more profoundly un-chill reaction to a fig tree not being in season. Wonder why anyone trying to make Jesus look good would even write it down.

This is related to the "Principle of Embarrassment" in hermeneutics. The idea is that "embarrassing" or inconvenient stories are more likely to have been true because there is no reason for someone to have made them up since they seem to conflict with the broader narrative, or at least complicate it.

Another example is the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene and possibly some other women. At the time women were considered to be more untrustworthy, so the argument was that if the story was fabricated, surely the author would have decided to make the empty tomb discovered by a group of men since it would have been viewed by contemporary readers that this (already implausible) story was coming from a more trustworthy source.

Of course, the most prominent example is the crucifixion itself, since crucifixion was reserved for traitors and the lowest criminals. If you're trying to argue that this man was the Son of God, why write a story in which at the climax he is executed as a despised criminal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

So Jesus fucking over a fig tree is more likely to be true than positive things like turning water into wine?

Two things:

(1) Fig trees bear a type of pre-fruit. If that pre-fruit isn't there in the earlier season, then you know it won't bear any fruit in the final season.

(2) It's super obvious from the context that the fig is a metaphor for Israel. The temple system hasn't been bearing fruit because the Pharisees/scribes running it have so misinterpreted God that they will end up killing his Son. This is a foreshadowing of the destruction of the temple sacrificial system (begun in ~32 AD when Jesus died, finalized with the temple's destruction around 70 AD, never to be rebuilt again because the Muslims have built dome of the rock there now).

Commentary by the church - the Eastern Orthodox Church, which canonized the bible - is the only coherent ideology which hasn't innovated in dogmas and reconciles all the 'hard' scriptures Old and New.

Individual interpretations outside of a conciliar approach to Christianity (which started in the Book of Acts with the Counsel of Jerusalem, and continued into the Ecumenical Councils) has never resulted in anything but sectarianism and confusion.

At least from a perspective of consistency, readers may be interested in the perspective of conciliar, dogmatic foundations which cannot be changed in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

As regards for Mark 11: https://catenabible.com/mk/11 This website provides a range of commentaries which one can choose the earliest Church Fathers. However, blessed Theophylact is the most accessible commentary, largely based on St John Chrysostom, which is a harder read due to depth and language.

Cyril of Jerusalem AD 386 Remember at the time of the sin of Adam and Eve they clothed themselves—with what? Fig leaves. That was their first act after the fall. So now Jesus is making the same figure of the fig tree the very last of his wondrous signs. Just as he was headed toward the cross, he cursed the fig tree—not every fig tree, but that one alone for its symbolic significance—saying: “May no one ever eat fruit of you again.” In this way the curse laid upon Adam and Eve was being reversed. For they had clothed themselves with fig leaves.

St John Chrysostom: https://catenabible.com/com/5735de63ec4bd7c9723b9c17

Eastern Orthodox history of the canonization of scripture: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon_emergence.aspx

Generally the fig tree in the Bible represents Israel. Jesus cursing the fig tree falls in line with Israel’s long history of apostasy.

What it probably was is a representation of one of Jesus’ goals for his time here. The Israelites were being their usual disobedient selves as they always have been. Instead, the job of spreading the gospel has been relegated to the gentiles, since the Israelites were not producing fruit…ie spreading the gospel, following the law, etc.

At the present time, AD, we are in the age of the church…where the gentiles are the ones working. Israel won’t be back to being the focus until sometime in the future. Thus that situation could be an allegory for what was going to happen.

That would be the Christian interpretation. I'm guessing the Jewish one is a little different. What Jesus actually believed on the matter (or whether it was relevant to him) is unknown. Paul thought this way. Whether Peter and James thought the same way back in Jerusalem is also unknown. It is known that the second century Jewish Christians called the Ebionities did not view Paul favorably. But the proto-orthodox believed Paul was legitimate, and they won out, in part because converting gentiles meant a lot more followers.

Right. Paul was the one who wrote about how gentiles were grafted into the family with the Jews. The Jews don’t believe that Jesus is the messiah, and I don’t even think they consider Him a prophet either. So they probably don’t have an opinion on it, not to mention they don’t follow the New Testament

It's pretty obvious from the context and you don't need Paul to get there. I am going to quote from the paper (which I wrote and linked in another comment) on this subject.

The story of the fig tree takes place within a Markan intercalation. Jesus’s entrance into and cleansing of the temple is sandwiched between the cursing of the fig tree and the observation that the fig tree has withered. Edwards’ central thesis is that “the middle story nearly always provides the key to the theological purpose of the sandwich.” The fig tree is best interpreted through the lens of the temple.

In the middle of the cleansing of the temple, Jesus declares “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17, NRSV). The quotation is from Isa 56:7, which takes place amidst an eschatological vision of the covenant being extended to Gentiles. The failure of the second temple to adequately address Isaiah’s vision suggests that it is not the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise. The phrase “den of robbers” comes from Jer 7:11. Kirk comments that word den is “aptly chosen to represent the practice of a people who see the temple as a place of safety to which they can flee after committing various forms of injustice in other spheres.” Thus, the leaders who are in the temple are not merely condemned for their practices in the temple, but for the way in which they assume participation in the temple system guarantees their forgiveness and safety regardless of their unjust actions elsewhere. They are not the sort of people Isaiah commended, who “maintain justice, and do what is right” (Isa 56:1) but rather seek their own profit and work to kill the Messiah (Mark 11:18).

This is why Jesus’ teaching in response to Peter’s comment in Mark 11:19 focuses on the destruction and replacement of the temple. His explanation in 11:20-25 focuses on prayer and how “this mountain” (i.e. the temple mount toward which they were heading) may be thrown into the sea. The use of the demonstrative pronoun τούτῳ in reference to the mountain indicates that Jesus was referring to this specific mountain, not offering a discourse on the general power of prayer. The mountain serves as a metonymy representing the entire temple system, which is to be overthrown; the fig tree serves as an additional symbol of how this temple system will be cursed. To further clarify, Jesus proposes an alternative pathway to fulfill the function that the temple performs. Rather than perform sacrifices in the temple to receive forgiveness from God, the disciples need only pray and forgive others. This alternative route to forgiveness indicates the temple system is no longer necessary.

Shortly following this sandwich is a story with parallel language that also illuminates the meaning of the passage: the parable of the tenants (Mark 12:1-11). The two words καιρὸς and καρπῶν are found in both passages. Few commentaries have focused on the use of the word καιρὸς, likely because it is such a common word. However, a closer look indicates that it is used in the gospels primarily in two ways: either as a common phrase (e.g. Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ in Matt 12:1) or with an eschatological reference point (e.g. ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν in Luke 21:24). Unlike the other synoptics, Mark never uses καιρὸς as a common phrase, which suggests that there may be greater linkages between passages where he uses the term. The placement of these words so closely to one another would likely raise more commentary if the fig tree was not already part of a Markan sandwich. Specifically, the themes raised in Mark 11:12-25 continue to be raised in the subsequent chapters in complex ways, such that the fig tree may be part of a “double intercalation” or triple decker sandwich.

Needless to say, I was very hungry after writing this paper...

My husband shared this with me because he knew I wrote a paper on this subject.

If you can make it through the paper, I'm happy to answer any further questions more specifically: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FLh6voQlieHMfUMckU83C2gNKjF...