Does It Really Matter If One Does Or Does Not Believe That Jonah Was Swallowed ?

[SarahM777]

 Is it really all that important to insist that the story of Jonah is a factual account or is more important to get the message of the account? I am beginning to wonder if it truly matters if one does or does not believe some of the finer points. Will it matter in the end?

[Jayne]

I lost my faith in my late teens but I believe that following the lessons/advice is more important then believing the story.
From religion to mythology we have many stories throughout history that contain valuable life lessons regardless of the validity of the story.

I went to a pentacostle church & their main concern was that you believed in the holy trinity & conducted yourself as a good person, your personal belief about various religious tales wasn't an issue

[tekla]

Well at least it gave us this.

[Elsa]

NOPE!!!

[Sarah Louise]

It depends entirely on how you view the Bible.

[SarahM777]

It depends entirely on how you view the Bible.

I lost my faith in my late teens but I believe that following the lessons/advice is more important then believing the story.
From religion to mythology we have many stories throughout history that contain valuable life lessons regardless of the validity of the story.

I went to a pentacostle church & their main concern was that you believed in the holy trinity & conducted yourself as a good person, your personal belief about various religious tales wasn't an issue

That is where I am starting to struggle between what the traditional view teaches and what may be really there. Is the traditional view truly accurate and is truly based on what the Bible really says? What is meant by "The Bible is the inspired Word of God"? Does one mean the writers were given it word for word? Or does it mean something else? Could it be a combination of given word for word and something else?

What do we really mean by the Trinity? Is it a man made construct or is it something that we are not suppose to try to explain?

Too many questions butting up against the traditional views.

[peky]

If you are orthodox then the bible is the word of G-d and you have to accept everything as factual, end of the discussion.

If you do not, then it is pick and choose, and lets interpret it to fit our moral and ethical values.

Personally, I do not think any book is holly. I believe when I quiet my spirit and mind I can hear the voice speaking to me through my soul.

[SarahM777]

If you are orthodox then the bible is the word of G-d and you have to accept everything as factual, end of the discussion.

If you do not, then it is pick and choose, and lets interpret it to fit our moral and ethical values.

Personally, I do not think any book is holly. I believe when I quiet my spirit and mind I can hear the voice speaking to me through my soul.

Not only that you also have to believe the three creeds,Apostles,Nicene,and Athanasian, depending on the franchise you also have to believe the same things about baptism and communion,etc,etc etc. But does a differing belief on those things mean that one is not a Christian? Does the Bible itself have a different view of what a Christian is? If so then saying you have to believe those things becomes a barrier.

People do that even if they believe it's the inerrant,inspired word of God.

The Bible itself was never meant to be an idol.

[Annah]

Is it really all that important to insist that the story of Jonah is a factual account or is more important to get the message of the account? I am beginning to wonder if it truly matters if one does or does not believe some of the finer points. Will it matter in the end?

For a non bible literalist, it's nothing to worry about. It's the message that's important. Not whether or not it actually happened.

For a Bible literalist it's devastating. Their line of thought usually is: "if it didn't happen then it downplays the inspired word of God and then anything can be up for interpretation."

I do not believe in the Trinitarian concept. If i die and find out it's real, then it's real. It's something I do not worry about.

As a Pastor, I am more focused on Social Justice issues than what really happened three thousand years ago.

You would be surprised how many Pastors really do not believe in Original Sin, Hell, Trinity, etc.

[justmeinoz]

If you ask a Uniting Church Minister for example,  they will tell you they view the whole Bible as an allegory , so the question misses the point in attempting to look for a literalist answer. 
For a literalist who believes that the whole Bible is the infallible word of God, anything that can be proven incorrect  has to logically disprove the whole edifice, and they suffer a crisis of faith. 

[SarahM777]

For a non bible literalist, it's nothing to worry about. It's the message that's important. Not whether or not it actually happened.

For a Bible literalist it's devastating. Their line of thought usually is: "if it didn't happen then it downplays the inspired word of God and then anything can be up for interpretation."

I do not believe in the Trinitarian concept. If i die and find out it's real, then it's real. It's something I do not worry about.

As a Pastor, I am more focused on Social Justice issues than what really happened three thousand years ago.

You would be surprised how many Pastors really do not believe in Original Sin, Hell, Trinity, etc.

That is where I am having to rework some things. The context is what should determine whether it is meant to be taken literally,not a broad based statement that the Bible is meant to be taken 100% literally.

What does one do with the Psalms and Song of Solomon? They were written as songs. Most songs use imagery,metaphors,and similes,and some literal lines. When David says God is my fortress is he saying that God is a castle in the sky with a moat and a drawbridge or is he using that as a colorful metaphor?

What then does one do with passages like these

Exodus 19:4

'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

Isaiah 40:31

but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.

Somehow I don't think they are suppose to be taken as literal.

The real question is What is the Biblical definition of a Christian?  Have we really been taught that or have we just accepted what the "church" says a Christian is suppose to believe? Are they one and the same or are they different? If they are different and one starts pointing that out they will be viewed as a heretic.

[Annah]

The def of Christian is a follower of Christ. I try not to get doctrine involved in something so simple. Plus, i do not take the word "heretic" very seriously as the word gets thrown around everwhere

[SarahM777]

If you ask a Uniting Church Minister for example,  they will tell you they view the whole Bible as an allegory , so the question misses the point in attempting to look for a literalist answer. 
For a literalist who believes that the whole Bible is the infallible word of God, anything that can be proven incorrect  has to logically disprove the whole edifice, and they suffer a crisis of faith.

There is a problem with that view. How do you deal with he epistles which are written as letters and meant to be used as instruction manuals? Paul even goes on to state that very thing

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What does it mean?

[SarahM777]

The def of Christian is a follower of Christ. I try not to get doctrine involved in something so simple. Plus, i do not take the word "heretic" very seriously as the word gets thrown around everwhere

I think it's a little more than that but it is still very simple. Jesus also included believing on Him and obedience. Paul refines just a bit. He adds confession of the mouth. Do you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? Do you believe in your heart that Jesus came in the flesh and do you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead? Do you obey Jesus? That is the Biblical definition of a Christian. Short,sweet,simple and to the point. Anything else just adds man made rules and regulations. If anyone else can find something else please let me know. I haven't been able to find it.

One shouldn't take the word heretic seriously unless the church ever goes back to the time of the Inquisition.

[Annah]

I think it's a little more than that but it is still very simple. Jesus also included believing on Him and obedience. Paul refines just a bit. He adds confession of the mouth. Do you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? Do you believe in your heart that Jesus came in the flesh and do you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead? Do you obey Jesus? That is the Biblical definition of a Christian. Short,sweet,simple and to the point. Anything else just adds man made rules and regulations. If anyone else can find something else please let me know. I haven't been able to find it.

One shouldn't take the word heretic seriously unless the church ever goes back to the time of the Inquisition.

Actually, many of these verses can be interpreted is so many ways. For example. the "conversion experience" where one confesses by mouth, has a salvation moment wasn't really popular until the Calvin/and then Puritan movements. Before, it was suggested that one confessed Christ as Lord at infant baptism where one was given grace and your witnesses made the confession for you...it was up to you as you grew older whether or not to continue with that grace (pre Protestantism...current Catholicism)

Jesus being raised from the dead has interpretational views as well. I am not meaning to "demean" the resurrection. My opinion is: if he had a physical resurrection then he did...if he didn't then he didn't. Many have interpreted as a spiritual resurrection and a spiritual ascension.

Also, the Apostles Creed was written as a result of some Bishops disagreeing with others. They basically took a vote on it, and the ones who won the vote was "orthodox". The ones who lost the vote were "heretics."  For example, Mary being a virgin was just not something that was believed in the early church because the hebrew word for Mary being a virgin was a "young hand maiden." When the Greek Septuigent translated that, they did not have a word for young hand maiden and transliterate it to a virgin definition of someone not having sex before.

When the Apostle Creed was written and voted on, those who did not vote on the Virgin nature of Mary were heretics. Fast forward about some generations later, the church added on to this by saying Mary's mother was a virgin too. Anyone who disagreed with this was a heretic. Anyone who disagreed that Mary remain a virgin forever was a heretic. Then a doctrine was passed that Mary ascended and never experienced death. Anyone who disagreed with this was a heretic and not a Christian.

This is what I mean by the word "heretic" being thrown around like craziness. And the word "Christian" became more politically motivated than anything else.

Hell, the first theologians (Apostolic Fathers) are heretics by their writings. All of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Didache's writings are not coherent with the future doctrine of the Divinity/Human naturehood of Christ, etc etc.

So for me, the definition of Christian is still simply, "one who follows Jesus." In whatever way you follow him.

[Sarah Louise]

You have every right to your interpretation of scripture.  I don't happen to agree with or accept your version and that is my right.

[SarahM777]

Actually, many of these verses can be interpreted is so many ways. For example. the "conversion experience" where one confesses by mouth, has a salvation moment wasn't really popular until the Calvin/and then Puritan movements. Before, it was suggested that one confessed Christ as Lord at infant baptism where one was given grace and your witnesses made the confession for you...it was up to you as you grew older whether or not to continue with that grace (pre Protestantism...current Catholicism)

I think at this point I want to stay away from both the sinner's prayer,(Salvation moment) and infant baptisim. I think that those open up a tangent that I would like to stay away from at this time.

Jesus being raised from the dead has interpretational views as well. I am not meaning to "demean" the resurrection. My opinion is: if he had a physical resurrection then he did...if he didn't then he didn't. Many have interpreted as a spiritual resurrection and a spiritual ascension.

What do you do about Thomas? Thomas did not just doubt,he would not believe unless he could touch the nail prints and Jesus side. It implies a physical touch not a spiritual one. You also have the claim of the empty tomb,the 500 eye witnesses,the two men on the road to Emaus,and the fact that most of the disciples died claiming that He rose pyshically from the dead.

Also, the Apostles Creed was written as a result of some Bishops disagreeing with others. They basically took a vote on it, and the ones who won the vote was "orthodox". The ones who lost the vote were "heretics."  For example, Mary being a virgin was just not something that was believed in the early church because the hebrew word for Mary being a virgin was a "young hand maiden." When the Greek Septuigent translated that, they did not have a word for young hand maiden and transliterate it to a virgin definition of someone not having sex before.

Plain and simple the Apostle's creed was not written by the Apostles.

When the Apostle Creed was written and voted on, those who did not vote on the Virgin nature of Mary were heretics. Fast forward about some generations later, the church added on to this by saying Mary's mother was a virgin too. Anyone who disagreed with this was a heretic. Anyone who disagreed that Mary remain a virgin forever was a heretic. Then a doctrine was passed that Mary ascended and never experienced death. Anyone who disagreed with this was a heretic and not a Christian.

Mary remaining a virgin is a man made tradition. It leaves out the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters by His earthly father Joseph. James for sure one of His brothers and possibly Jude,and the Bible implies sisters also.

So for me, the definition of Christian is still simply, "one who follows Jesus." In whatever way you follow him.

The question remains is that the Biblical definition?

[SarahM777]

You have every right to your interpretation of scripture.  I don't happen to agree with or accept your version and that is my right.

At this point I should state why I believe why I can take the Bible as being the written word of God and it is to be taken literal unless the text indicates otherwise. It goes down to one thing I believe that what Jesus said is true. Jesus never gives any indication that the stories of Noah,Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah,Jonah or Elijah are to be taken as allegory's He Himself implies that they are as stated and written. In many cases He uses them as examples.

He then also deals with Moses and the Prophets that they testified about Him. It implies that He saw them as being true. Being Jewish He would have been taught and believed  that the scriptures were the revealed written word of God. If He did so should I not also believe likewise?

[Sarah Louise]

I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

[Ave]

I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

even the Old Testament?