Originally Posted by boxcar

And maybe even the city of Nineveh never existed. It's all fake. All make-believe. All a concocted allegorical story -- whatever.



Boxcar

Originally Posted by boxcar

This is what Jesus (the Lunatic like me) said about Jonah in Luke:

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yo, Big Brain :lol: :lol: -- here's a clue for you: The form in which we have our bible today came from very old scrolls (manuscripts) from which language scholars translated the scriptures into languages of various peoples' native tongues. How's that for starters? :rolleyes:

Now I have a question for you with respect to the "mythological" figure in the OT who went by the name of Jonah -- supposedly a prophet who very reluctantly went to Nineveh to preach the the gospel (OT style). Jesus talks about this prophet a couple of times, so I'd like to start with the simplest verse and go from there. This is what Jesus (the Lunatic like me) said about Jonah in Luke:

Luke 11:29-32
29 And as the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah . 30 "For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 "The Queen of the South shall rise up with the men of this generation at the judgment and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. 32 "The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah ; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
NASB

So, here's the problem with your allegorical method with respect to this passage. Let's say that Jonah never existed. Therefore, neither could he have been a prophet or "a sign". And maybe even the city of Nineveh never existed. It's all fake. All make-believe. All a concocted allegorical story -- whatever.

However, if all this is true, then we have a huge problem starting in v. 30 because Jesus begins to draw a parallel between himself and this "mythological" figure Jonah. "For JUST AS Jonah became a sign...so shall the Son of Man be.... Are we to believe that Jesus consciously makes this analogy between himself (who I presume was real flesh and blood and really lived) and an a very old OT figure who was simply a figment of some Jew's overworked religious imagination? In other words we're to do extreme violence to the integrity of the analogy by postulating that Jesus is comparing someone fictional (Jonah) with someone real (Himself)?

But this gets even better: If Jesus' listeners understood Jonah to be religious comic book character (as it were), then how in the world could Jesus have ever expected those listeners to take Him seriously!? Are we supposed to believe that Jesus was trying to get his hearers to take him seriously by saying that just as some piece of fictional work became a sign to a non-existent people in a make-believe place, so, too, Jesus would emulate this fictional character and become a sign to what....literal people or allegorical people? And where: In a real place or make-believe place?

Problem number two can be found with a second "mythological" OT figure: Solomon in v.31. Solomon was supposedly the son of David and the third king of Israel (assuming Israel, of course, had any kings). But if king David never existed any more than did Adam, Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, then could Solomon have existed? And could it be said that Solomon was really a son of of non-existent king David? But Jesus clearly says that "something greater than Solomon is here" -- the "something" being Christ himself. But Jesus really isn't saying very much if he's comparing himself to a fictional OT character, is he? But if Jesus was really comparing himself to an actual historical OT character whose fame for his wisdom was known throughout the ancient world, and who had the most glorious, prosperous, peaceful and famous reign in all Israel's history, then Jesus would actaully be saying quite a bit, wouldn't he? He would be making quite a stupendous claim. Then his words would impress his listeners or shock them, wouldn't they?

The third problem arises in v.32. First, we have the identical problem as with Solomon -- "something greater than Jonah is here". But that's not saying very much if Jesus is comparing himself to some Jewish comic book character, is it?

The next problem is that if Nineveh was a contrived place of fiction, then is Jesus telling his listeners that the "men of Nineveh" (equally fictional people) would somehow stand up with the literal generation of people whom Jesus was addressing? Really? The Fictional is going to stand up and judge and condemn the Literal generation to whom Jesus was speaking?

You see, you really have to perform super feats of mental gymnastics in order to try to make any sense out of Jesus' statements once you allegorize everything. But if you allow the context of passages to determine how they should be interpreted, then we don't have to torture ourselves in trying to make allegories fit in with the reality of Jesus' existence and his divine office as Prophet. He was just as much a prophet to the Jews of his day as Jonah was to the people of Nineveh in their day.

As I have repeatedly stated, even my hermeneutics is taken right from scripture. I follow the lead of Jesus and his divinely inspired Apostles in terms of how they interpreted the OT scriptures. So, Mr. Hcap, if this disciple is a "lunatic", then so is my Master.

Boxcar

Originally Posted by TJDave

1. It's what Luke said that Jesus said about Jonah.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do you know what I see, Boxcar?

When WE pose hypothetical arguments to you, you accuse us of "arguing from silence"...whatever that means.

But when these types of arguments suit YOU...then you start with the hypotheticals and the "what ifs".

Originally Posted by boxcar

Do you know what I see? There is no parallel between what you and other skeptics do and what I did with the Lukian passage. You skeptics argue very often strictly from silence (on what scripture doesn't say, but I have presented hypotheticals to Hcap based on [b]what scripture DOES say! :bang: :bang:

Also, you guys don't present hypotheticals per se. You operate on the presumption that scripture is self-contradictory. Hitchens and that Catholic priest did. They made their case for a contradiction between Matthew and Luke on the basis of what scripture didn't reveal (omitted details). (And even then, they were blinded to a couple of important details that helped shed light on the problem. They're not even good at being Skeptics :lol: ) They operated on the assumption that since both accounts differed, as to where the Family's departing point was when they left for Nazareth, that this automatically constituted a contradiction.

Boxcar

Originally Posted by boxcar

There's no escaping the fact that Jesus Christ is either who said he was (Lord) or he was a Lunatic or outright Liar -- out to deceive mankind.

Boxcar

Originally Posted by hcap

boxcar.

No convincing archaeological evidence for Jesus, his listeners, Jonah, Abraham, Noah and more importantly if in fact they said what they are reported to have said exists.

The oral tradition is quite vague. But the vague historical events become a platform, or a shell and enveloping structure for a group of wise enlightened men who have existed as an esoteric inner part of humanity thru' the ages to leave us a gift. Sometimes staying out of sight and sometimes making an appearance in the world. Their "appearance" sometimes takes the form of an encoded message in a cultures myths and legends.

Both the OT and NT are "encoded "cookbooks for self-awareness and the very difficult and complicated process of metanoia. What we are given by these very wise men is unfortunately a mixture of hidden truths and complete garbage and distortion.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Simple people like myself wholeheartedly subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory -- not to mention Occam's Razor. :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by TJDave

There is another set of possibilities:

That Jesus never laid claim to the mantle. That others misquoted and/or fabricated. That the intent was to comfort, not deceive.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Ahh, yes...these darned contradictions...

I would have thought that you would enjoy addressing bible contradictions...after the thorough job that you did explaining the three contradictions I supplied you with some time ago... :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It's funny you should bring up Occam. He is cited numerous times in Hitchens' book.

Originally Posted by boxcar

We've been down this road before.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, after I got done with my first one, I asked you more than once if you were satisfied with my explanation. I said I wanted to know before I moved on to the other two. You, sir, never replied. You never gave me an answer. Shame on you... I took your repeated silence as an indication that you lost interest and got discouraged after the thorough job I did on the first one. (The only thing that surprised me after dealing with the first one is that PA didn't point to my insecurity. :lol: :lol: )

Boxcar