Did you even watch the video? Christ’s statement was a reference to Jewish custom. While the groom did know when a wedding was going to occur, he acted as if he didn’t, to give honor to his father. It’s the same with Christ.
The Church is often referred to as “the bride of Christ” (cf. Revelation 19:7-9; 21:2, 9-11). Thus, the analogy makes perfect sense.
Why? It’s an obvious analogy.
Not every statement that comes from a person’s mouth is entirely literal. I’m sure that, if you ever studied or read about biblical hermeneutics, you’ve heard the old “it’s raining cats and dogs” analogy.
No, because there’s no evidence for this.
Straw man fallacy. I’m not arguing that the meaning of Christ’s words can be reversed on a whim, I’m arguing that his words aren’t always literalistic. His statement in Mark 13:32 is clearly similar to a Jewish custom of his time.
You can’t undercut figurative speech without also undercutting the ideas they form as well.
I don’t think so. First, would the people he was speaking to even fathom he was trying to make such an analogy? From their perspective he wasn’t speaking in parable, it didn’t have the cadence of a parable, and he wasn’t alluding to anything grander. It doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Yes I have, but this video is trying to turn that phrase to mean that it’s not raining at all.
A figure of speech reveals either an alternate or a secondary meaning. But you want a figure of speech to mean the exact, 100%, complete, full, total opposite of its literal meaning. If someone is so willing – dare I say, eager – to have things mean the reverse of how they are written then no statement is safe.
Again, figurative speech doesn’t mean opposite speech. Truly no one can twist and obliterate the plain meaning of words like an apologist can. It’s downright Orwellian.You can’t undercut figurative speech without also undercutting the ideas they form as well.
The Bible says X. The author of the video linked to says that Jesus meant “not X”. I, an atheist, am not adding to what is written to give it’s totally opposite meaning. He, the christian, on the other hand, plucks this supposed marital custom and forces a square peg into a round hole to support his confirmation bias.
Yes. It is clear, at many places in Scripture, that the Son and the Holy Spirit give honor to the Father, though they are all coequal.
Yes. He was referring to a commonplace custom which everyone knew about.
The passages before and after Mark 13:32 are figurative. So the context is kinda clear.
Not a lie, an analogy.
Actually, Jewish marriages had three stages: engagement, betrothal, and marriage. At betrothal, the groom and bride could be rightfully called husband and wife, but they could not yet live together, because the father of the groom had not yet given his permission for them to do so. The analogy still stands.
If there were a custom in our culture to wait for the weatherman to say it’s raining before we acknowledge the rain, this would be a perfectly fine interpretation. And if my statements before and after the one saying that it isn’t raining were figurative, it would be almost obvious.
Straw man (yet again). There’s no historical or cultural reasoning behind changing “I AM” to “I AM NOT”, but there is much reasoning behind this analogy.
Nice try. Detailing threads is against forum rules. Start another thread if you’d like, I’ll show up.
For the last time, not all speech is literal. What the Bible means is not always apparent upon skimming the surface. The fact that you completely ignore the cultural context of Christ’s statement actually shows your confirmation bias.
Let me answer your second question first.
The problem with such a position that it would make it difficult to maintain the dogma of the Hypostatic Union: that is, that Jesus is fully God and fully man (that he has both a human and a Divine nature), but that he is one Person (namely, the Son).
The video by JamestheJust is a pretty good answer. Actually there is no single or best answer or on that we are required to believe.
But even if it was a commonplace custom, and I’d like some evidence to that, it doesn’t mean that the people Jesus was speaking to would just assume this analogy was in play. There was no wedding terminology used before or after stating only the father knew the hour. The verses beforehand about the signs to look for (and that’s a whole other topic with the “this generaton” talk). The verses after are about a man leaving his servants in charge of the house. None of that alludes to this practice of wedding privelege.
The two are mutually exclusive. An analogy is an honest comparison between two ideas. It’s a synonym not an antonym.
It would be a white lie but still a lie. Jesus is said to never lie, and either he lied here or the author of the video is wrong (assuming the Bible is true).
Interesting. Thank you for letting me know. I still don’t believe the analogy fits in the slightest, that the people Jesus speaking to would know he’s alluding to this very out-of-the-blue wedding dad analogy; but it was informative.
Are you saying that if the meaning of the “raining cats and dogs phrase” were different and/or was used in a different manner then it would make sense that understanding would be different? Sure, if that’s what you’re saying then yes things are different if things are different. If “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse” was understood to mean that the person saying it WASN’T hungry then I would have no problem with its figurative meaning being completely opposite from its literal meaning. But it’s not.
I think it’s important to note that you seem not to know what a straw man argument. Even if everything I am saying is incorrect it wouldn’t be one. It seems as though that you’re labeling any and all arguments you disagree with as straw men.
Fair enough. I just wanted to show that apologists have an interesting relationship with words. If an apologist wrote the thesaurus instead of Roget, he’d probably put tall and small in the same category.
I think we’ve reach an impasse here. Which of is violating Revelation 22:18-19 to get a desired meaning?
Yes, but the context is clearly figurative, as you concede. Successive parables don’t have to be about the exact same metaphor.
And in this case, the analogy includes denying something that both parties know to be true.
To lie is to intentionally deceive. The groom wouldn’t be lying if he said he didn’t know, because the hearer would understand that he was denying knowledge to honor his father.
But in Jewish culture, it was commonplace for the groom to deny knowledge, even though he really knew. So such an analogy would exist. You just proved my point.
Christ didn’t speak English. He spoke Aramaic. Just because such an analogy doesn’t exist in English (though I’m not entirely convinced that it doesn’t; give me some time and I could probably think of one) doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist in Aramaic.
You were misrepresenting my argument. You claimed that I was arguing that any statement of Christ’s could be turned on its head. This is not what I’m saying; I’m contending that, in this particular instance, there is cultural and historical context for this statement of his being an analogy.
Actually, I suppose He could have been speaking sarcastically. Not sarcasm as we connote it; that is, rude and snide, but rather, the de notation of sarcasm, which is to say one thing in such a way that one knows that one’s audience will understand that one means the opposite.
no, at least according to historical revelation and biblical hermeneutics.
You keep bringing up the context of the times while completely ignoring the context of the discussion Jesus was having. In the middle of this discussion where he talks about the signs they would see you claim that he threw in this random reference to wedding tradition, despite the fact that there’s not word one to indicate to them that he’s making such a reference.
So you’re saying that the desciples fully understood what he’s saying and could at no point interpret I don’t know as I don’t know? The same disciples that throughout the Gospel struggled mightily to understand what Jesus tried to teach them? The same disciples that would question Jesus often? The same disciples that didn’t have the benefits of Paul’s teachings?
I’ve asked a few times for a reference to the commonality of the practice. You might be wholely right on that, but I’d really appreciate a reference to this.
I will be waiting with baited breath.
No I was not claiming that you were arguing that. I was showing that by saying if Jesus says X but means not X, then it’s possible that when he says Y he means not Y. You noted how by your reasoning there isn’t proper context to say that, but then you ALSO claimed I was creating a straw man argument – even though your understanding of the term is lacking at best. Words have meaning and should be used as such.
So let’s say that is the case – despite the fact that it makes no sense. Is it in the realm of possibility that something else that Jesus is quoted as saying in the Bible was said with this kind and loving brand of sarcasm? Remember that this theory the video author used to make Jesus mean the opposite of what he said is not one that most believers think is accurate. Now the number who believe in theory has no bearing on whether its true or not, but I bring that up because you can’t just throw it out there without rigorously defending it.
Which you concede was entirely figurative.
He’s using parables in that discussion. Parables are a figurative form of speech which explain something difficult to understand by comparing it with a thing with which the hearers are familiar. This isn’t a random reference. It falls under that definition.
Christ usually uses the formula of “Amen, amen, I say to you…”, to especially distinguish literal speech.
Well, I’m not saying that they all understood 100%. But it is a conclusion that was completely reachable for the disciples.
IP provides these books as his sources:
Since the definition of a straw man is irrelevant to our general debate, I’ll not be responding to this.
We have a very comprehensive understanding of ancient Jewish culture today. The three books above rigorously apply that knowledge to NT hermeneutics, and don’t find anything that contradicts Catholic doctrine.