What was Nathaniel doing under the fig tree?

24 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2006-01-05 16:43

Jesus saw Nathan'a-el coming to him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" 48 Nathan'a-el said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." 49 Nathan'a-el answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" 50 Jesus answered him, "Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these." 51 And he said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."

Something significan happened to Nathaniel under the fig tree. We never find out what it is. Some scholars wonder if he was praying or meditating - a practice often undertaken under fig trees apparently.

But why does the big JC address Nathaniel as a man "without guile"? Why stress that he did not or could not do something wrong? What was he up to under the tree? was he facing some kind of temptation?

what do you think happened under the tree. what generally goes on under your fig tree?

Thu, 2006-01-05 17:14

camus

I suspect Nathaniel was trying to make himself blind under that there fig tree...not alot goes on under mine as I am unable to keep them alive longer than 5 days, blinking things weep their leaves off all over my floor!

Thu, 2006-01-05 19:33

maddan

eating figs?

Thu, 2006-01-05 19:48

camus

3 boxes!! My god woman are your bowels still intact?

Thu, 2006-01-05 20:03

1legspider

I think the 'guile' is a misspelt 'girl' in the earlier part of the text, thus we can surmise that Nathaniel was making love to the Fig Tree or indeed letting the Tree make love to him as is stressed he was 'underneath it' in the biblical sense a number of items. Pretty un-enlightened even for his times I'd suggest. Jesus chides him gently then describes the sexual act as it should be performed, with women, sic 'Heaven opened, with Angels Ascending and Descending upon... etc".

Thu, 2006-01-05 20:14

pesky2006

Ah, so you can re-write the bible then 1leg, do we thus surmise that you are in fact god?

Liana

Thu, 2006-01-05 20:28

tom_saunders

That should read "figurative tree." Everything in the bible is figurative. Visit my blog: http://whatisthisstrangeplace.blogspot.com/

Thu, 2006-01-05 20:49

mikepyro

mmmmmm...figs. It's better to be hated for who you are then be loved for who you're not. (signature)

Give me the beat boys and free my soul! I wanna getta lost in ya rock n' roll and drift away. Drift away...

Fri, 2006-01-06 09:33

poetjude

Dates do make you go blind hence the term blind date. I like fresh figs but those dessicated sugary things are quite vile. I always feel a bit sorry for the fig tree that Jesus curses in another story- I mean is it really the tree's fault that it wasn't the season for figs? But fig trees were, apparently the "in-place" for Hebrew-hippies: poets, prophets and mendicants in the days of yore.

Fri, 2006-01-06 11:52

#10

justyn_thyme

It sounds to me like yet another incomprehensible bunch of babbling from the Babble. How can anyone make heads or tails out of that drivel?

Fri, 2006-01-06 12:10

#11

poetjude

Justyn, I find myself agreeing with you more and more as time goes on. Not only is it incomprehensible, but John's version of events is always so totally different from the other three (synoptic Gospels) who are you supposed to believe anyway? It's all very well and good to say they are different interperetations of the truth but it doesn't hold. In John's story of the calling of Simon Peter, it is his brother Andrew who introduces him to Jesus. But in the other Gospels, Jesus calls him as he is mending his net on the Galileean sea shore. Both versions cannot be true. If we go by the majority verdict and dismiss John then we have to dismiss his entire Gospel upon which Jesus' as being 'God' was largely based ... the word was made flesh etc.

Fri, 2006-01-06 13:24

#12

2Lou

Reckon John was winging it.

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Fri, 2006-01-06 13:38

#13

tcook

I know what goes on underneath my fig tree - I enjoy a quiet crafty smoke and wait for figs. They sometimes come in November - they didn't this year. I pruned it heartily to show it who's boss. Maybe Nathaniel was pruning or smoking. Either way he would stand out big time. Hence Natty Dread.

Fri, 2006-01-06 13:39

#14

mykle

I'm not sure just why such small details should be so important. Isn't that what causes religious schisms and sets brother against brother - trivia elevated to dogma? Surely it's Christ's teachings that are important not who made His sandals or which side He parted his hair... The thing that always shocks me the most about religions is how bitterly people who believe in the same God can hate each other over trivial details. This has nothing to do with God and everything to do with human nature. First there was God - all else is speculation!

Fri, 2006-01-06 13:47

#15

poetjude

M, I have of late adopted a more liberal view of the whole thing. When Jesus was asked how we should pray he gave the Our Father - the sentiments of which are echoed in the texts and practices of other religions. When asked about the rules he said "Love God and be nice to others" in not so many words. To live by those simple tenets is enough. But I do like singing hymns I do!!! Under my fig tree I've been eating doughnuts ... ssshhh

Fri, 2006-01-06 13:52

#16

poetjude

By the way...M, His "sandals" were not "sandals" They were "Capernaum Air Max preach-wear flip flops" to give them the correct term and respect brand identity

Fri, 2006-01-06 16:29

#17

justyn_thyme

Back in 1996, in a moment of deep spritual crisis, I decided to re-read at least part of The Babble to see if maybe I'd missed something. After plowing through Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John in one sitting, I concluded that it was even more useles than I'd thought. Most of those three Gospels drone on and on about 'his name' and lot of related bollocks which is essentially spin doctoring to convince the reader that THIS Jesus, a very common name at the time, was the Real McCoy. Then, perhaps realizing there was no there there (ie, teachings with no teachings) the created 'John's Account' so the reader would actually have something Jesus said. Of course, that was all made up years afterwards from stories and stray thoughts that anyone could have picked up at the local fig tree. So, as the revealed word of God, it falls way short of what really should be consistent and precise. As a collection of historical and spiritual writings, it can be any old thing. The latter description makes a lot more sense, especially since the Babble was created by a panel of editors sifting through all kinds of stuff to find what would best suit their political aims. Gee, not too cynical am I?

Fri, 2006-01-06 18:02

#18

2Lou

And who added the show-off-y bit at the end of the Our Father too? Suck ups...

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Fri, 2006-01-06 20:44

#19

mikepyro

mmmm.....talks about figs... what's a fig? If you wanna hear god laugh tell him your plan. It's better to be hated for who you are then be loved for who you're not.

Give me the beat boys and free my soul! I wanna getta lost in ya rock n' roll and drift away. Drift away...

Fri, 2006-01-06 20:58

#20

mykle

I think the expression you're looking for is - "Who gives a fig?"

Sat, 2006-01-07 21:57

#21

yan

right...and the reason why the planets revolve is because angels flap their wings.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Sat, 2006-01-07 22:23

#22

1legspider

What is your explanation yan?

Sun, 2006-01-08 17:33

#23

maddan

everything I know about theology I learned from comics on the internet http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=390#comic "a philospher is a blind man in a dark cellar looking for a black cat that is not there, he differs from the theologian in that the theologian finds the cat"

Sun, 2006-01-08 21:12

#24

neilmc

So what WAS Nathaniel doing under the fig tree? Something he shouldn't?? Interesting that Jesus sys he is "without guile", not that he is without sin of course but is rather a straight guy who says openly when he's sceptical but when he's convinced will stick with it? That's my take anyway. I have a lot of problems with the judgmental nature of the Bible but not really with the gospel disparities - it's not like the "church fathers" lacked brains, they could have easily combined them all into one definitive version but eye-witness accounts will of necessity vary and the gospels reflect that.

Topic locked