"Don't read bible literally"?

[truetofaith]

We also need to keep in mind that Jesus was using Jonah as an example and an allusion. The saying is not a statement to the effect that ‘Oh, Jonah was an actual, historical/factual person’, or even ‘Jonah was just a literary creation’, despite the way some folks read this passage. IMHO the example (the Son of Man will be on the heart of the earth just like Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster for three days and three nights) does not stand or fall on Jonah being a (f)actual person or not.

Jesus or the early Christians are speaking a different language (both literally and figuratively speaking) than us, we need to remember that. They aren’t interested in questions many of us are currently preoccupied with such as whether the documentary hypothesis is true or not or whether the creation accounts in Genesis are word-for-word literal or whether David’s kingdom really existed or something along those lines. Jesus alluding to Jonah is not a statement about the work’s historicity. To read the saying in that way I think misses the whole point of the saying.

This quote addresses fundamentalists specifically, but I think it also holds water here:

The high status that the Old Testament holds in the minds of Jesus and the early Christians will be granted by the most critical as a matter of historical fact, and therefore the fundamentalist efforts to prove this are of no importance. On the other hand, the fundamentalist attempts to argue that these sayings of Jesus and the New Testament writers about Jonah, Daniel, Moses and other persons and events prove the historical accuracy of the Old Testament are futile, because they make no attempt to show that Jesus or the early Christians were interested in such questions as the authorship of books, the presence of sources, or the historical accuracy of data and figures.

I’m not saying that the Bible is in error or something, of course. What I am saying is, that in trying to prove the historicity of Scripture, cherry-picking every OT quotation or allusion made by Jesus or St. Paul and saying, “Oh look, Jesus alluded to Jonah! Since Jesus is God, that must mean Jonah’s story is factual!” is, from an outsider’s viewpoint (I’m thinking outside the box here) a rather weak/circular argument.

Pleeeeeaaaaaassssse…spare me!

This is why I actually hate CAF…I only stay on to learn all the false ideas that are floating around the Catholic community.

 

[patrick457]

Pleeeeeaaaaaassssse…spare me!

This is why I actually hate CAF…I only stay on to learn all the false ideas that are floating around the Catholic community.

Heh.

Well, I’ll just say I guess I just don’t read Jesus’ statement about Jonah as a sort of dissertation on whether Jonah actually lived as a historical person or not.

 

[michaelhager]

You may not believe in the literal creation BUT you better believe that Jonah was in the whale for 3 days…because Jesus said "just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days, the Son of man will be in the earth for 3 days.

Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days…Unless you don’t believe that, either!

…and yet the story of Jonah is thought by most scholars to be a parody of the prophets, written to make the reader think carefully about the real prophets… Everything about the Jonah story is in exact 180 degree opposition to the stories of all the other prophets.

All prophets questioned God’s choice of themselves for the task given, but went ahead anyway.

Jonah accepted the task but changed his mind and God swallowed him up in a great fish and deposited him on the shore of his mission.

All of the prophets overcame great hardship to get their point across (how many times did Moses ask Pharaoh?)

Jonah strode right in, proclaimed his message and immediately the entire city including the king is in sack cloth and ashes repenting.

Literal? Lateralist? Allegorical?



.

 

[truetofaith]

All you are saying is God had to force Jonah to fulfill his mission…it still sounds like he was literally swallowed by a great fish & 3 days later, vomited where God wanted him!

 

[PJM]

=Errham;12926407]Traditionally, Catholics believe that there are four “senses” which can be applied to every passage of the Bible. These are:
The literal sense
The allegorical sense
The moral sense
The anagogical sense

Everyone understands the literal sense of the reading , so the job of a good preacher is to reveal the other three senses. It sounds like your friend is having trouble getting to that point.

Thank you, nicely done.

However the first reading of the bible needs to be a literal understanding, presuming that is the intent of the author. Then if the literal sense fails to be God’s Will, then we move on to the other forms.

It is the failing of many non-Catholic Christians to not do this** [John chapter 6 and John 20: 19-23 as examples]** that so easily lead one to conclusions that are not in line with Christ teachings and desires** [Mt. 28:16-20]**

1 13-16Peter 1: 13-16 “Wherefore having the loins of your mind girt up, being sober, trust perfectly in the grace which is offered you in the revelation of Jesus Christ As children of obedience, not fashioned according to the former desires of your ignorance: But according to him that hath called you, who is holy, be you also in all manner of conversation holy: Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy

**2 Peter 1: 17-20 **“For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.”

The “KEY” [Mt. 16:18-20] to right understanding is to follow this rule:

“Follow the teaching of Christ Founded Catholic Church”. Anything else is in error of right understanding.** [Mt.28:16-20] **Cf. YOU teach them ALL that I taught and commanded YOU.”

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[michaelhager]

We certainly are free to interpret scripture in any way we like. But does that make us right?

27 “…Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
Acts 8:27-31

The scriptures must be explained to us. Jesus gave the Apostles the gift of interpreting the scriptures;

44 He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 ***Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures. ***
Luke 24:44-45

Jesus gave the Apostles the power of the Holy Spirit;

21 [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ***“Receive the holy Spirit.” ***
John 20:21-22

These and several other passages make it clear that the Apostles and their successors were specifically given the power to interpret the scriptures for us.

We can, and certainly should read the Bible, probably more than we do. And we should take meaning, solace and knowledge from what we read. But we should also heed what the early fathers up to the contemporary Magisterium teach us about the interpretation of scripture. There are thousands of years and many generations of scholars who have read, re-read, interpreted, written, spoken and analyzed the Bible far more minutely that we can on our own. Every successor to the apostles has built on the writings and knowledge of the previous to understand the Word of God.

As Catholics we should heed those teachings and strive to understand the interpretations handed down to us. If you read what the church fathers have had to say, I am certain you will be amazed at the logic and truth that has been revealed to them over the ages.

I don’t suggest that we should take everything we hear at face value. I say question EVERYTING! Leave no stone (rock?) unturned in your quest for the truth. But do it with prayer and contemplation and with an open mind. If there is any teaching in the Church that you don’t agree with or understand, question it. Look it up. Find it in the bible, in Magisterial Documents and/or the catechism.

There is no teaching in the Catholic Church that contradicts anything in the scriptures.
There is nothing in the scriptures that contradicts any teaching of the Catholic Church.

Believe that and you cannot falter…
.

 

[Tom_Baum]

…and yet the story of Jonah is thought by most scholars to be a parody of the prophets, written to make the reader think carefully about the real prophets… Everything about the Jonah story is in exact 180 degree opposition to the stories of all the other prophets.

All prophets questioned God’s choice of themselves for the task given, but went ahead anyway.

Jonah accepted the task but changed his mind and God swallowed him up in a great fish and deposited him on the shore of his mission.

All of the prophets overcame great hardship to get their point across (how many times did Moses ask Pharaoh?)

Jonah strode right in, proclaimed his message and immediately the entire city including the king is in sack cloth and ashes repenting.

Literal? Lateralist? Allegorical?



.

Most of the prophets wanted to get their message across and had great difficulty but Jonah did NOT want to get his message across and he got it across, piece of cake.

So one could say that Jonah joined the line of prophets dealing with their “initial failures”, Jonah’s failure, in his eyes, was that he succeeded in getting his message across.

 

[Faith1960]

1. 
   

   Most of the prophets wanted to get their message across and had great difficulty but Jonah did NOT want to get his message across and he got it across, piece of cake.
   
   So one could say that Jonah joined the line of prophets dealing with their “initial failures”, Jonah’s failure, in his eyes, was that he succeeded in getting his message across.

   I dont understand.

 

[patrick457]

1. 
   
   I dont understand.

1. 
   Well, Jonah didn’t want to be called. That’s why he took that boat ride in the first place. Then when Jonah finally relents and says, “Fine, I’ll do it,” he finds out that God doesn’t follow up on what He told Jonah - that Nineveh will be destroyed - and throws a hissy fit.
   
   You might say Jonah doesn’t understand how the so-called prophetic worldview works. The ‘prophetic worldview’ - so-called because it is the worldview found in the OT prophetic books* - has a conditional view of things, where the outcome of an event depends on the actions of the people. So suppose a prophet says that a disaster will come because the people are sinful: if the people don’t do anything then the disaster will hit the land hard, but if the people mend their ways, the disaster will never come.
   • This is in contrast with the so-called ‘apocalyptic worldview’, the type you see in works like Revelation. Unlike in the prophetic worldview, when something is predicted in an apocalyptic work, the view is that it’s what will happen because God had already set it in stone since the beginning.
   In other words, apocalypses and prophecies are different literary genres, with different worldviews, and should be read as such. This is where many people make a mistake: they read apocalypses as if they were prophetic works and vice versa, mistakenly injecting the worldview of the one into the one.

 

[Faith1960]

Well, Jonah didn’t want to be called. That’s why he took that boat ride in the first place. Then when Jonah finally relents and says, “Fine, I’ll do it,” he finds out that God doesn’t follow up on what He told Jonah - that Nineveh will be destroyed - and throws a hissy fit.

You might say Jonah doesn’t understand how the so-called prophetic worldview works. The ‘prophetic worldview’ - so-called because it is the worldview found in the OT prophetic books* - has a conditional view of things, where the outcome of an event depends on the actions of the people. So suppose a prophet says that a disaster will come because the people are sinful: if the people don’t do anything then the disaster will hit the land hard, but if the people mend their ways, the disaster will never come.

• This is in contrast with the so-called ‘apocalyptic worldview’, the type you see in works like Revelation. Unlike in the prophetic worldview, when something is predicted in an apocalyptic work, the view is that it’s what will happen because God had already set it in stone since the beginning.

In other words, apocalypses and prophecies are different literary genres, with different worldviews, and should be read as such. This is where many people make a mistake: they read apocalypses as if they were prophetic works and vice versa, mistakenly injecting the worldview of the one into the one.

Do you, personally, believe that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days?

 

[truetofaith]

Do you, personally, believe that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days?

I do…and I also believe in the individual creation of Adam & Eve!

How about that …

You are probably getting Jonah mixed up with Pinocchio…whom Walt Disney compared to Jonah’s situation!

 

[KD8TZC]

Do you, personally, believe that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days?

I know I do! God was certainly able to accomplish this if He wished. To deny the possibility of miracles is atheism. The actual occurrence of this particular miracle is adequately attested by the very fact of its record in the Holy Scriptures, and is doubly confirmed by the testimony of Christ.

Pax,

John

 

[truetofaith]

Why are you baiting us? We’re not that stupid !

Those are the literal words of Christ, yes, but he was saying it as an exaggeration to the people, who understood what He meant…and I believe you do, also !

 

[Tom_Baum]

1. 
   
   I dont understand.

1. 
   Jonah did not want the people of Nineveh to repent, he wanted Nineveh to be wiped off the face of the earth, he got very upset when the people of Nineveh from the lowest to the highest repented.
   
   Didn’t you notice that about Jonah the reluctant prophet?
   
   That is what I was getting at when I wrote, "So one could say that Jonah joined the line of prophets dealing with their “initial failures”, Jonah’s failure, in his eyes, was that he succeeded in getting his message across. "

 

[KD8TZC]

Why are you baiting us? We’re not that stupid !

Those are the literal words of Christ, yes, but he was saying it as an exaggeration to the people, who understood what He meant…and I believe you do, also !

I don’t think he is baiting anyone… just reinforcing that you need to look at not only the literalistic sense of the words, but also the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses as well.

John

 

[patrick457]

Do you, personally, believe that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days?

I’ll give you the long answer, because I can’t really do the question justice with a simple one liner.

It really depends on what you mean by the question.

‘Was Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days’? Is the fish a whale or some sort of gigantic sea monster? I don’t know, and it’s not really important. Personally I think people are just wasting their time trying to determine the exact species of the ‘great fish’ that would have swallowed Jonah and seeing if humans really could survive being swallowed by whales or such. Even assuming that Jonah really was a historical figure and that the whole story of the fish literally, factually happened, the fish and Jonah surviving inside it is not even the important element of the story. The point is that God had just saved someone who was, in a way, rebelling against Him. God sparing disobedient Jonah via the fish represents and foreshadows His eventual sparing of the disobedient Ninevites. If God had just rescued someone who tried to run away from Him, why can’t He spare the Ninevites who were sinning against Him? Skulking Jonah had just missed the whole point.

‘Was Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days’ - as opposed to say, four days or two or five? The text says “three days and three nights,” so I see no need to question that. That being said, you need to keep in mind that the way people in those days reckoned time may not necessarily be the same as how we today reckon time. (Some people who read the text literalistically argue that Jesus must not have been crucified on a Friday but rather on a Wednesday, because they reckon ‘three days’ in the modern sense: three full twenty-four hour days. But when they do so they run into the difficulty of the tradition strongly implying Jesus was crucified on the day before a Sabbath (i.e. a Friday), which requires them to do some more complicated mental gymnastics to say, in effect, ‘Jesus was not crucified on a Friday’.)

‘Was Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days?’ Is Jonah historical?

This is just my personal opinion, but I think, Jonah’s historicity is not on the same level of importance as, say, the historicity of Jesus. One might believe that both Jonah and the story are historical and literally happened, or one might believe that Jonah is a historical prophet, but the story is an allegory/parable rather than a literal record, or believe that Jonah is a fictional character in an allegory/parable. No matter where in the spectrum one falls, I don’t see any real difference. Whereas Jesus’ literal historical existence is of course very important for Christianity, I won’t say the same thing about Jonah. The story of Jonah does not really rely on whether Jonah really existed or not or whether the story literally happened ‘as written’ or not. As I mentioned earlier, even Jesus’ saying about the ‘sign of Jonah’ does not really stand or fall on Jonah’s historical existence or non-existence, because He was using Jonah as an example of what will happen to Him, not making a declaration about his historicity.

I know I’m getting some flak for this (I won’t pretend to be a devout/‘right-wing’/whatever label person), but if you ask me, I really don’t care much whether Jonah or the story is historical or not. If he is, that’s good; if he’s not, not bad. I admit I tend to at least lean to the idea that a prophet named Jonah did exist (since one is mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25), but as to whether this Jonah is the same as the Jonah in the book of Jonah or whether the story in the book of Jonah is a record of real events or not (as opposed to being a fictional parable which features a real person), I do not care much. I just don’t ascribe to it the same amount of importance I give to the historicity of Jesus or even Moses.

 

[patrick457]

Good for you. I really need to be a better person.

 

[Faith1960]

I’ll give you the long answer, because I can’t really do the question justice with a simple one liner.

It really depends on what you mean by the question.

‘Was Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days’? Is the fish a whale or some sort of gigantic sea monster? I don’t know, and it’s not really important. Personally I think people are just wasting their time trying to determine the exact species of the ‘great fish’ that would have swallowed Jonah and seeing if humans really could survive being swallowed by whales or such. Even assuming that Jonah really was a historical figure and that the whole story of the fish literally, factually happened, the fish and Jonah surviving inside it is not even the important element of the story. The point is that God had just saved someone who was, in a way, rebelling against Him. God sparing disobedient Jonah via the fish represents and foreshadows His eventual sparing of the disobedient Ninevites. If God had just rescued someone who tried to run away from Him, why can’t He spare the Ninevites who were sinning against Him? Skulking Jonah had just missed the whole point.

‘Was Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days’ - as opposed to say, four days or two or five? The text says “three days and three nights,” so I see no need to question that. That being said, you need to keep in mind that the way people in those days reckoned time may not necessarily be the same as how we today reckon time. (Some people who read the text literalistically argue that Jesus must not have been crucified on a Friday but rather on a Wednesday, because they reckon ‘three days’ in the modern sense: three full twenty-four hour days. But when they do so they run into the difficulty of the tradition strongly implying Jesus was crucified on the day before a Sabbath (i.e. a Friday), which requires them to do some more complicated mental gymnastics to say, in effect, ‘Jesus was not crucified on a Friday’.)

‘Was Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days?’ Is Jonah historical?

This is just my personal opinion, but I think, Jonah’s historicity is not on the same level of importance as, say, the historicity of Jesus. One might believe that both Jonah and the story are historical and literally happened, or one might believe that Jonah is a historical prophet, but the story is an allegory/parable rather than a literal record, or believe that Jonah is a fictional character in an allegory/parable. No matter where in the spectrum one falls, I don’t see any real difference. Whereas Jesus’ literal historical existence is of course very important for Christianity, I won’t say the same thing about Jonah. The story of Jonah does not really rely on whether Jonah really existed or not or whether the story literally happened ‘as written’ or not. As I mentioned earlier, even Jesus’ saying about the ‘sign of Jonah’ does not really stand or fall on Jonah’s historical existence or non-existence, because He was using Jonah as an example of what will happen to Him, not making a declaration about his historicity.

I know I’m getting some flak for this (I won’t pretend to be a devout/‘right-wing’/whatever label person), but if you ask me, I really don’t care much whether Jonah or the story is historical or not. If he is, that’s good; if he’s not, not bad…

So you dont have an opinion one way or another?

 

[Faith1960]

So you dont have an opinion one way or another?

?

 

[Telstar]

?

I kinda think he was being facetious.