Jonah eaten by a shark?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom_of_Assisi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Mike:
If people believes that Jonah is really an allegory then they call Jesus a big liar, period.
Click to expand...
I think it is agreed that the traditional language of people in those times was that things were often stated in extreme or exaggerated form when a certain point was to be made. Everyone at the time would understand the point and not take the words as stated at face value.

I am not suggesting it can’t be true. But to say that not believing the literal form of the story is calling Jesus a liar is a stretch.

If someone today refers to a mythological figure, a movie character, or any other fictional character in conversation, does that make them a liar? No. People will understand what you are talking about.

"As Forrest Gump said, ‘Stupid is as stupid does.’ " If I pass this quote along, am I a liar because Forrest Gump really didn’t exist?

Your statement, IMO, is ludicrous, and has the same kind of tone as a fundamentalist arguing for the 6-day creation account. Catholics are allowed to think critically. You have every right to believe the story is literal, and I have every right not to believe it is literal. If I should believe it is literal, the Church would teach me that I should. They don’t. The important thing is the message of the story.
 
Mike,

For the record, I didn’t say that I thought Jonah was an allegory. My point is that I know Fundamentalists who will insist that Jonah lived in a fish for three days and that God created the world in 6,000 years based on the Scripture that states “a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day”, along with other literal interpretations of Old Testament Scriptures. These same folks will then dismiss John 6, where Jesus Himself explained what the Eucharist would be, as an allegory or they will dismiss the significance of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper as being figurative.

This was probably not the thread for that particular point. Sorry.
 
Tom of Assisi:
Jonah 2:2 says “I called to the Lord, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of **Sheol **I cried, and thou didst hear my voice.”

Would the use of the word Sheol suggest that he had in fact died? The earler links were interesting and suggest it could have been a whale and he could have lived in the belly of a sperm whale for three days.

I’ll read the Jewish Enc. article next and see what it says.
Click to expand...
speaking of being resurected from Sheol, I thought I would resurrect this thread from a long time ago to get any new feedback.

Did Jonah die in the belly of the animal as a prefigure of Christ?
 
I liked it when the Donkey talked in the Old Testament.
Another problem with the fundamentalist argument is that the HEbrew word was literally fish. Whales are not fish!
IF this story is literal a whale makes sense however a fish makes not sense thus some will deny whale (mammal) and go for the shark (which is not a fish either but hey its not a mammal so they go with it)
I take the creedal statements literally but the fathers did allerorize some of these more myth like stories in the OT ie creation account, a lot of stuff involving animals. the great flood, etc not all events were taken 100 percent literally.
The words and events of Jesus however were never taken as myth but in a literal fashion by the fathers. I think we can use them as a guide in how to interpret these stories and be safe.
As far as I know none of these things are essential in knowing to determine our salvation so we shouldn’t obsess over the details.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
I liked it when the Donkey talked in the Old Testament.
Another problem with the fundamentalist argument is that the HEbrew word was literally fish. Whales are not fish!
IF this story is literal a whale makes sense however a fish makes not sense thus some will deny whale (mammal) and go for the shark (which is not a fish either but hey its not a mammal so they go with it)
I take the creedal statements literally but the fathers did allerorize some of these more myth like stories in the OT ie creation account, a lot of stuff involving animals. the great flood, etc not all events were taken 100 percent literally.
The words and events of Jesus however were never taken as myth but in a literal fashion by the fathers. I think we can use them as a guide in how to interpret these stories and be safe.
As far as I know none of these things are essential in knowing to determine our salvation so we shouldn’t obsess over the details.
Click to expand...
There is an interesting excerpt from one of Karl Keatings books on this matter. Can anyone else recall it?
 
40.png
Maccabees:
I liked it when the Donkey talked in the Old Testament.
Another problem with the fundamentalist argument is that the HEbrew word was literally fish. Whales are not fish!
IF this story is literal a whale makes sense however a fish makes not sense thus some will deny whale (mammal) and go for the shark (which is not a fish either but hey its not a mammal so they go with it)
I take the creedal statements literally but the fathers did allerorize some of these more myth like stories in the OT ie creation account, a lot of stuff involving animals. the great flood, etc not all events were taken 100 percent literally.
The words and events of Jesus however were never taken as myth but in a literal fashion by the fathers. I think we can use them as a guide in how to interpret these stories and be safe.
As far as I know none of these things are essential in knowing to determine our salvation so we shouldn’t obsess over the details.
Click to expand...
Old testament stories could be allergorized, but that does not deny their literal truth.

I thought sharks were fish.
 
i say, if you feel good about the fish, go for it… if you would rather believe it’s a whale, knock yourself out…

in the big scheme of things, i don’t think anyone’s salvation is at risk here to be wrong…
 
Tom of Assisi:
Old testament stories could be allergorized, but that does not deny their literal truth.

I thought sharks were fish.
Click to expand...
Depends what your defintion of literal truth is. Augustine did not think the creation story indicated 7 literal days so he would deny you would have to interpret the creation story literally. What is turth here and cannot change is that God created man. Also our common ancestory is from the creation of this one man and woman How and when this man and woman came to be created is not dogma. The genesis story contains literary deivises from Mesopatania creation sories as well that predated the Jewish creation story. There is a lof of room to nitpick on literary truth and devises. As long as these theories do not interfere with our creed and God as our creator one could think of some elements in a non-literal fashion.
Don’t worry too much heaven is not a hermanuetics contest that protestants make it out to be. Beleive the creeds of the church as literal and we are on good standing.
 
Tom of Assisi:
I heard recently–on a non-Catholic radio program–that Jonah the prophet was eaten and killed by a shark (not a whale) and that he was resurrected after three days as a precurser (or type) of Christ.

Which was it? Shark or Whale?

Which was it? Did Jonah die or did he live in the belly of the animal?
Click to expand...
Was there even an actual Jonah?
 
40.png
JimO:
What I cannot understand is that people will spend hours arguing that the book of Jonah be taken literally and then call John 6 allegory!
Click to expand...
Absolutely right, Jim! If you ever get to Southern California, I’d like to buy you a drink.

Isn’t it funny that we have no problem with all the resurrections and other miracles in the New Testament, but we get all bent out of shape over Jonah being in the belly of the great fish for 3 days. Until proven otherwise, I will take the sacred text at its word.

BTW, one of my identical twin grandsons is named Jonah Paul. I look forward to the day when he is old enough for me to tell him the story of his namesake. I won’t present it as allegory.
God love you, Jim.
Paul
 
for a fact i found that whale shark only eat plantkton and they are found mainly in tropical waters. maybe jonah was eaten by a big fish maybe a snapper, an because it was so big it is compare with a whale. bless you all.
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
Absolutely right, Jim! If you ever get to Southern California, I’d like to buy you a drink.

Isn’t it funny that we have no problem with all the resurrections and other miracles in the New Testament, but we get all bent out of shape over Jonah being in the belly of the great fish for 3 days. Until proven otherwise, I will take the sacred text at its word.

BTW, one of my identical twin grandsons is named Jonah Paul. I look forward to the day when he is old enough for me to tell him the story of his namesake. I won’t present it as allegory.
God love you, Jim.
Paul
Click to expand...
Christ at one point compares himself to Jonah. The question is: was the miracle his surviving for three days or his resurection (as a type representing Christ)?
 
Uh, you guys do realize that the whale was not classified as a mammal untile relatively recently. In fact the oldest animal classification system goes back to Aristotle who classifed animals based on their means of transportation (air, land, or sea). So under that system if you flew, you were a bird, if you lived in the sea, you were a fish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top