Talk:Figs in the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


I suggest moving this page to Parable of the fig tree and changing The Fig Tree to a redirect. The title "the Fig Tree" is not informative as to the contents of the article: it also breaks Wikipedia policies on capitalization of titles. A normal Wikipedia reader would expect to see an article about ficus here. Grover cleveland 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are really three separate biblical stories relating to Jesus and the fig tree:

  • The cursing of the barren fig tree by Jesus (Matthew 21:18-22), (Mark 11)
  • The parable of the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)
  • The parable of the budding fig tree (Mar 13:28-29), (Mat 24:32-33), (Luke 21:29-31)

These really ought to be separated into their own articles. Right now the article is a conflation of all three. Grover cleveland 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, three articles, Parable of the barren fig tree, Parable of the budding fig tree, and Jesus and the fig tree. Jonathan Tweet 05:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article had been headed with the 'unverified claims' or 'original research' sticker-

 This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (October 2007)

please give information as to which 'claims' are 'original' or 'unverifiable' that someone may clear this up. There is nothing on the discussion page about this- therefore I felt this stamp should be removed. If information is added to the discussion about which 'claims' are 'original' or 'unverifiable' then that will be addressed.

[edit] Luke 13 study

What do you think about a bible study group adding their thoughts about the fig tree parable in Luke 13 to the page? I went ahead and added some of their interpretations to the page to give an example. We will focus our contribution on interpretation, but we could also add application. Do you think the application of the story is in keeping with the purpose of the page? David 14:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)revdrdave

Yep Dave I do think it is the purpose to show application, but make it a quote- ie from someone like Spurgeon, or whoever you read. I know what you have written is general Christian teaching but try to get a couple of references or sources in- so that you can't be accused of being original. I wrote the first two Christian parts and someone even gave it the original research stamp (shown above). Good job it's encouraging to see an addition expressing Christian opinion, I'll try do more work on this page- BTW do you belong to a Christian portal on wikipedia or anything- I don't but was looking for a good one to join, so we can be more organised. --Paul McFarland 13:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-categorisation of irrelevant subjects

This article concerns Jesus's parable of the fig tree. Gnostic reference in The Matrix film should be recategorized. Same goes for the usage of LoTR film metaphor. I understand both are employed with the intention to help the reader understand the interpretations better, but I think that this too much of deviation from the original topic and it may mislead the reader instead.

A noticeable lack of citations of the last two contents. No comments on it. Other than urging editors to try find them.

P.s. I support Grover cleveland's notion of moving this page and redirecting The Fig Tree, for the article is the parable, not the tree and lest confusion arise.

220.255.67.66 13:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article can be renamed but all fig tree references/verses need to stay in one article since Christians themselves conflate them as one central message that the fig tree is Israel, figs are Jews/works of Jews, withering is destruction of Israel, budding is restoration and a sign of the Second Coming, fertilizing is evangelizing, etc. Outside of that central conclusion there's not much else to say to justify making an article for each. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)