At Dan’s place he asked me the following.
“Tell me, Craig, do you really think whether or not Jonah was an actual person who was actually swallowed by a whale impacts on the incredible power of that story?”
My response was to ask him a couple of clarifying questions.
“What "truth(s)" do you take from the story of Jonah?”
Dan has said this.
“We read Jonah, for instance, and find this absolutely fascinating and painful story of a man who tried to run from God, of a God who loved everyone, even the worst people, even people who try to run from God, and of God's gracious, all-embracing mercy. Wow, what a GREAT story!”
My other question was.
“What parts (if any) of the story of Jonah do you consider factual?”
To that end I’ve put together a set of bullet points from the story that appear to be presented as facts. I am hoping that Dan will respond by indicating T or F for each one and I would hope for some reason why he answered that way.
I would also hope for some detail into how he reached his conclusion based on what facts he affirms.
If anyone else wants to chime in that would be great, but this is primarily for Dan
Short version of the story of Jonah.
1. Jonah is a guy from Joppa, the son of Amittai. T/F
2. God spoke to Jonah. T/F
3. God told Jonah to go to Nineveh T/F
4. God told Jonah to preach against Nineveh because it was extremely wicked T/F
5. Jonah went to Tarshish T/F
6. Jonah went on a ship T/F
7. The ship was hit by a storm T/F
8. The storm was caused by God T/F
9. Jonah slept through the storm T/F
10. The captain/crew prayed to their gods for safety T/F
11. The captain woke Jonah up and told him to pray too T/F
12. Jonah tells them he is running from the God who created the land and sea T/F
13. Jonah says throw me over the side T/F
14. The storm stops T/F
15. The Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah T/F
16. Jonah prayed/submitted to Gods direction and the fish vomited him onto dry land T/F
17. Jonah walked through Nineveh for 3 days preaching that the Lord will destroy the city if they don’t repent T/F
18. The city repents T/F
19. Jonah got mad because God didn’t destroy Nineveh T/F
20. God sent a plant for shade T/F
21. The plant grew and died supernaturally quickly T/F
Matt 12:38-41
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.
Does Jesus treat the story of Noah as a non-factual myth or epic?
Matt. 16:4
4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.
Does Jesus treat the story of Noah as a non-factual myth?
Questions from my response at your blog.
1. So what meaning do you pour into the story of Passover?
2. We can see how the Jewish people have treated Passover for thousands of years, we can see how Jesus/the early Church treated Passover. So how do you treat Passover?
3. What "truth(s)" do you take from the story of Jonah?
4. So while you have obviously come up with a hunch or series of hunches that satisfy your sense of logic and Reason, there is no reason for anyone else to accept your hunches on the matter. Does that not seem problematic to you?
18 comments:
Does Jesus treat the story of Noah as a non-factual myth?
He treats it exactly the same way that I treat it: As a story passing on some truths.
Jesus factually no where makes a value judgment on the facts of the story of Jonah. Neither do I.
The POINT OF THE STORY of Jonah is NOT found in the little facts that hold the story together. If Jonah had been from DETROIT and not Joppa, it would not matter to the story. If Jonah existed or not, it does not matter to the point of the story.
Agreed?
"He treats it exactly the same way that I treat it: As a story passing on some truths."
That does not appear to be the case given the way the Matthew passage plays out:
For AS Jonah WAS three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish..."
The highlighted words suggest that Jesus was speaking as if it happened as written in Scripture. He does not say anything to suggest otherwise, such as, "As Jonah was said to have been in the belly of a huge fish.." or, "Like the parable of Jonah says...", or "Like the epic tale regarding the myth of Jonah and the whale says..." The passage of Matthew describes Jesus speaking about something that happened in reality. It is further supported by:
"...SO the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
...which shows a direct comparison. That is, just like Jonah was 3 days in the fish, I'll be 3 days in the earth. And why would Jesus say
"The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah..."
If the men of Nineveh didn't repent after being preached to by Jonah? There's nothing in the Matthew telling that suggests Jesus regarded the story as myth or fable, but actually having happened. That's the fact regarding how it was presented in Matthew and one needs to present some evidence that shows Jesus did NOT view it in this manner. One simply cannot choose to project into Christ's mind what the text itself does not provide. That would not be a case of using one's reason, but of one speculating without basis.
so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Sorry for that last bit of of Matthew piece. I meant to delete that.
The highlighted words suggest that Jesus was speaking as if it happened as written in Scripture.
As I have pointed out repeatedly: I use that exact same language all the time. I'll say, "When Jonah was in the belly of the whale..." or words to that affect all the time. Doesn't mean I demand that it's a literally factual story. I'm not referencing the FACTS, I'm referencing the story.
Boom. Down goes that argument.
Again.
Dan you are a typical Dalmatian "Christian" who eats at a buffet so as to pick and choose what you want to believe.
Jesus gave no hit that the story was a fable, yet you want to assign that belief to Him. If the story of Jonah wasn't true, then there is no point to the story.
"Boom. Down goes that argument."
Not at all. Just because you may speak in the same manner, using the same words, it doesn't in the least imply the intention behind that use was the same. That is, there's nothing to suggest that Jesus DID have the same intention as you do when you speak that way. Indeed, by your own words, you show that you ARE projecting your biases and preferences onto the text.
But from my perspective, free from any such projections, I read the text as it is and assume the words mean what they mean as they are written, at least until there is some actual evidence to support another conclusion. The best you can say is that since when you make references to a story, and in doing so you don't intend to suggest the story is an actual record of true historical events, it is possible that Jesus was doing the same thing, but you are only speculating. And that's fine. Speculate all you like. But speculation is not something upon which a reasoned and honest conclusion can be based. One must begin with the passage taken at face value and treat it as the record offered and treat guesses and hunches as what THEY are: only guesses and hunches.
And therein lies the truth of our differences. It isn't this side of the issues offering hunches. It is you. We take it at face value and treat it as truth until actual evidence can be found to suggest otherwise, or an actual rational argument can persuade us from that position.
For example, saying that some cultures were proven to use a mythic style of recording their history (and I really don't buy such "records" were even meant as more than fables rather than actual histories) is reason to regard ANY OT story in the same manner isn't a reasoned argument. It's a hunch on your part only, and a very weak one at that. More to the point, it's an excuse to disregard what you don't like.
Glenn...
Jesus gave no hit that the story was a fable, yet you want to assign that belief to Him. If the story of Jonah wasn't true, then there is no point to the story.
Read slowly and understand my friends:
I
GIVE
NO
HINT
THE
STORY
ISN'T
FACTUAL
When I speak of this story, I never say, "It's not really a literally factual story, you know..." In fact, I have no opinion as to the factuality of the story because THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT.
One can read an entirely fictional story and get meaning out of it. One can read a parable and it be entirely reliable in spite of the fact that it isn't factual. One can hear a hyperbolic statement and get meaning out of it even though it's not literally factual. To dwell in the literality of the stories various points IS TO MISS THE POINT.
You all really just don't seem to grasp that. You seem to acknowledge, "Yes, yes, a story can be fictional and have meaning," all the while thinking that I can't find meaning in a story if it's fictional. OF COURSE WE FIND MEANING IN FICTIONAL STORIES. That is not even in question here.
Glenn, the points of Jonah are ENTIRELY AND WHOLLY TRUE regardless of the literality of the story, to say there's no point is just idiotic, unless you are prepared to dismiss ALL stories that aren't wholly true as having no point.
Seriously, fellas... I don't know what to say to this sort of ad hoc demonization and denial of obvious truths.
Craig? A little help here.
Let me try this a second way. Glenn...
Jesus gave no hit that the story was a fable, yet you want to assign that belief to Him.
1. We all agree it is a fact that Jesus did not say, "I'm referencing Jonah, which is a fable-style story..."
2. It is ALSO a fact that when I reference Jonah, I do not preface it by saying, "This is a fable."
3. The presence or absence of such a disclaimer, then, is clearly not "proof" that it is or isn't a fable, or that Jesus did or didn't think so.
Agreed?
4. I'm not "wanting to assign that belief to Him." I didn't say that.
5. I merely stated the aforementioned FACT that merely referencing a story is not evidence that a story is literally factual.
Agreed?
And I'm asking if we agree, but I am just stating obvious reality that can be borne out in many instances, there's not anything really to agree to, it's just the way it is. But I'm curious if you can agree that this is the way it is.
Glenn...
If the story of Jonah wasn't true, then there is no point to the story.
Again, I'm just asking if we can't agree to the obvious truth that simply because a story isn't literally factual does not mean there is no point to the story?
Jesus tells the story of the Prodigal son without saying, "This is a parable," but does its lack of literal factuality mean there is no point to the story? Of course not.
Basically, I'm just appealing to you all to reconsider your words, because you're rejecting just obvious real world facts, or at least it sounds like it.
Thanks Dan,
You've answered one question, I'm sure you'll get to the others at some point.
Thanks.
"Yes, yes, a story can be fictional and have meaning,"
This is true, however it can not be true.
Any meaning a fictional story has can only be arbitrary.
"Glenn, the points of Jonah are ENTIRELY AND WHOLLY TRUE..."
If, as you claim, the story is fiction, then at best the points are true for you. They are not true in any universal sense.
One obvious real world fact is that truth and fiction are not the same thing.
It seems as though we need to spend some time defining terms. Like Truth, truth, truths, fact, fiction, etc.
Sorry, the language clearly suggests that Jesus was treating the Jonah story as something that actually happened. He could have used other language that would have left room for the story to be false.
Craig...
Any meaning a fictional story has can only be arbitrary.
This is simply not true, not a valid point. "ONLY" arbitrary? Of course not.
If an author writes a story and the point of the story is to say, "don't pollute," IF someone reads the story and concludes its meaning is, "we ought to pollute," HE HAS MISSED THE REAL POINT OF THE STORY.
As stated earlier and as I believe you agree, not every interpretation of a story is valid. This is basic English language, friends. Stuff they cover in elementary school.
Craig...
the language clearly suggests that Jesus was treating the Jonah story as something that actually happened.
You say that, but you are not supporting it with anything, Craig. I'm telling you that in my circle of Christians, it is not at all uncommon to use those exact words regarding Jonah, or to read the exact text, and NOT be trying to indicate that it is or isn't a factual story.
WHY does the story "clearly suggest" to you that Jesus was treating it as - and only as - a literally factual story? Does it matter to you that many people use those SAME WORDS and not mean what you are guessing Jesus "clearly suggested..."?
"HE HAS MISSED THE REAL POINT OF THE STORY."
No he has missed one of multiple possible points of the story.
"Does it matter to you that many people use those SAME WORDS and not mean what you are guessing Jesus "clearly suggested..."?"
Since all I have is your unsupported claim that you and others you know use the exact same words Jesus did without any context, I'll pass on this one.
But nice try.
Okay, I see. You ARE the same blinded-by-your-culture, brainless demonizing sort of grade school Christian as the others in your crowd. I'm sorry to hear that. I thought you were more mature than that.
Peace, little brother.
"You ARE the same blinded-by-your-culture, brainless demonizing sort of grade school Christian as the others in your crowd. I'm sorry to hear that. I thought you were more mature than that."
For now I'm going to leave this post up as an example of how those who are much more intelligent, aware, and full of christian love and respect handle people who they disagree with.
But this is your warning. Any more of the condescending, grade school, bullying crap you been spewing at your blog and you're done here. It's your choice, you can whine about slander and libel and ad-hom attacks, or you can step up and behave the way you expect others to.
But the bullying assaults need to stop.
I expect this kind of juvenile crap from Alan, you've always managed to stay above it.
Dan, if you're still there somewhere,
You are missing the point, which is that what other people mean when they use "the exact same words as Jesus" has nothing whatever to do with what Jesus meant when HE used them. Thus, your reference to how other people use the words is no more than anecdotal evidence that can only be used to speculate about what Jesus meant.
BUT, as what Jesus did mean is never explained or suggested, one can only proceed as if He regarded the Jonah story as factual. It's the only position one can honestly take regardless of what one's own speculation might imply.
And this goes, in part, to what we mean by taking it literally. Speculation is worthless because it can go anywhere on the slightest hint influenced by personal bias of any kind. To say, "this is what I mean" can itself have as many meanings as the number of people who might say it. We don't take such liberties. Without something substantial to back it up, no suggestion that a passage is "epic" can be taken seriously.
The stories are written as a record of actual events. They are never referred to in Scripture as anything less by other characters, such as Jesus Himself. Ever.
In a related matter, from somewhere in this discussion as it spanned over a few posts and a couple of blogs, there is a major difference between the use of figurative language by a character in a Bible story, and the story itself (or a story itself). For Jesus to say that we are to be the salt of the earth is not anywhere near the same as imagining an entire event is figurative or mythical. You continue to use oranges to compare to the apples of the discussion.
Post a Comment