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

[SarahM777]

I don't think anyone is arguing that. What people are bringing up is how Bible Literalism can change how one views the message that is there.

Or vice versa

[SarahM777]

And, once you start down a path of saying 'well this is no longer in effect' and 'that one is not true, it's meant as an allegory' then what are you left with?  That quote above is not mine, but from Hans Kung, and he is not alone in re-thinking the Resurrection as not a literal event, but an allegory for how Christ's love can transform us in day to day life, for everyday that we forgive, and accept forgiveness we are resurrected, we have triumphed over the death of our souls and are born anew in Christ's love.  I mean if Jonah is an allegory, who's to say that the Resurrection isn't an allegory too?

Of course, what that says in the end is that there is no life everlasting, no heaven, no hell, just this life, and we should find ways of making it better and not resenting it as some sort of test.

Paul even touches on that

1 Corinthians

12 So if the message that is preached says that Christ has been raised from the dead, then how can some of you say, "There's no resurrection of the dead"? 13 If there's no resurrection of the dead, then Christ hasn't been raised either. 14 If Christ hasn't been raised, then our preaching is useless and your faith is useless. 15 We are found to be false witnesses about God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, when he didn't raise him if it's the case that the dead aren't raised. 16 If the dead aren't raised, then Christ hasn't been raised either. 17 If Christ hasn't been raised, then your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins, 18 and what's more, those who have died in Christ are gone forever. 19 If we have a hope in Christ only in this life, then we deserve to be pitied more than anyone else.


Paul basically says the same thing if it's just an allegory,faith in it is worthless,because everything is based off that one thing they were claiming to be true.

[Annah]

to play devil's advocate, Paul never saw Jesus raised from the dead.

Heck, he never even chatted with Jesus ever...unless you count the part where Jesus knocks Paul off of his donkey and made him blind...a few months after the resurrection.

Paul also stated his generation will see the second coming of Christ. Never happened.

[SarahM777]

to play devil's advocate, Paul never saw Jesus raised from the dead.

Heck, he never even chatted with Jesus ever...unless you count the part where Jesus knocks Paul off of his donkey and made him blind...a few months after the resurrection.

Paul didn't say that what he said was

1 Corinthians 15

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me, as if I were born at the wrong time.

[Annah]

like I said...Paul was never there when Jesus discipled his followers.

According to Paul, the resurrected Jesus in heaven knocked him off his donkey and made him blind for a short while.

And the author of Acts wrote it in another way. Paul (Saul) heard a voice. He never saw Jesus.  So Jesus did not appear to Paul as he did to James and the apostles (according to Acts)

[tekla]

Taken by themselves the four synoptic gospels preach a message that is pretty benign.  It's only the after market add-ons that really twisted that message into one that could be used for hate, persecution and intolerance.  And, at the heart of that hate, are the Pauline teachings and messages.

[SarahM777]

Paul also stated his generation will see the second coming of Christ. Never happened.

If you are referring to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord's word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

In the context of the passage it's a general statement to the body of believers,it is the brothers and sisters alive at that time. When Paul uses we to refer to the body of Christ as a whole it's not a generational idea.

[SarahM777]

Taken by themselves the four synoptic gospels preach a message that is pretty benign.  It's only the after market add-ons that really twisted that message into one that could be used for hate, persecution and intolerance.  And, at the heart of that hate, are the Pauline teachings and messages.

And the problem comes from people misusing them and leaving a lot out of the context. One would have to leave out the love chapter which was written by Paul

1 Corinthians 13

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Even Paul speaks of love of others not hate.

[tekla]

Paul also says that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church[1 Cor. 14:34–35] and also: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.[1 Tim. 2:11-12]

So one might well ask, according to Paulist doctrine, why are you presuming to talk about Paul at all?

[SarahM777]

Paul also says that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church[1 Cor. 14:34–35] and also: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.[1 Tim. 2:11-12]

So one might well ask, according to Paulist doctrine, why are you presuming to talk about Paul at all?

Am I in Church? Both are within that context. There is also no restriction on women teaching women.

[Annah]

Am I in Church? Both are within that context. There is also no restriction on women teaching women.

is there a restriction on women teaching men?

Also, for  1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, in Koine Greek it does not read as if Paul is talking about those who are alive when Christ returns in whatever generation that may be.

In Koine Greek it is in the accusative (referring to the direct object) and the 1st Person Present Perfect Active Indicative (verse 15). So, no. Paul is not writing for whatever generation who may be around when Christ returns. He literally means right at this present moment in time, within our Generation those who died first will be raised and we will proceed after the dead. In it's original language in which Paul writes in, it does not suggest whatever generation is around at the time. The grammar construct (as I pointed out earlier) refers to right now. Right in this generation.

I know what the translated Bible says. But I also know what the original language says too. I tend to believe the original language supersedes all translations.

But back to my initial question: is there a restriction on women teaching men?

[SarahM777]

Good question but does the text itself give a clue

1 Corinthians 14:34

34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Define which law he is referring to and you have your answer. Can you even find it in the Mosaic law? Does Paul even refer to the 616 various Mosaic laws? Where does Paul ever tell the Gentiles they are to fulfill the requirements of the Mosaic law? Paul does refer to the 10 commandments. So is Paul talking about a local law? If so then it also fits in with where he talks about submitting to the authorties. The point is they are breaking the law,and at that time did they not have such laws concerning women teaching and speaking in public? Remember women in ancient Greece were not allowed to do much in public by their laws.

Is there a restriction? Yes when you flaunt the laws of the land.

[Annah]

Is there a restriction? Yes when you flaunt the laws of the land.

That's a mighty big assumption. So what laws of the land did this woman in the Church of Corinth flaunted to prompt Paul telling the women of the church to remain silent? Where did you get that?

[SarahM777]

That's a mighty big assumption. So what laws of the land did this woman in the Church of Corinth flaunted to prompt Paul telling the women of the church to remain silent? Where did you get that?

1 Corinthians 14

Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

He is pointing out that they are breaking the law. Again which law is Paul pointing to is it Mosaic or is it Greek or Roman? Define that and you have your answer.

It's not hard to see that they may have been flaunting things when as Paul says they had pride and arrogance in who they were following,in Paul's own word "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father's wife. 2 And you are proud!",they were bringing law suits against each other,sexual immorality (prostitution),and they were proud about it and boasting about these things.

Curious question as you are the seminarian, Isn't part of understanding the text is by using
Hermeneutics and Exegesis in which one has at least a basic understanding of the culture and times,and by who and to whom it was written? And also understanding it within it's context?

As you were the one that did a thesis on part of Corinthians,did you do any back ground checking of any of the historical background? Because if one were to have done so would the meaning of the rest of the text within the context be obscure to the one had done so?

[Annah]

Yes. I actually have taken about 60 credits worth of Hermeneutics and Exegesis; which prompted me to make the statement that you assumed too much from reading that passage.

1. Yes it was a very patriarchal age
2. Yes you do need to gather all cultural and social relevance on the topic

However, you still assumed too much.

As my professors would have said, "How do you know there was a woman who was flaunting the laws of the land" There may have been an argument within the church between the sisters of the time. There may have been a dispute among the deaconess and one tried to overcome the other for a position. When you get into specifics like that, it's called you are assuming too much.

You must take the passage at hand and the passages preceding and following and then formulate any possible pericopes that may have surfaced from the studies. When I do this, I do not see the reasoning Paul said what he said because a woman flaunted the law of the land.

When I see the court issues, I see Paul saying we should not be like them and do what they do. Likewise, the church of Corinth did have Deaconesses and females were in leadership positions....so the idea that Paul was responding like he did was not because "a woman was flaunting the laws of the land" because the very essence of a woman being a deaconess in the first place was a direct contrast to the patriarchal age back then and this was not the issue Paul was addressing.

Oh...and yes..a Deaconess in the early church did teach men...wanted to throw that out there because your prior comment made it sound like women were not allowed to teach men

[SarahM777]

However, you still assumed too much.

As my professors would have said, "How do you know there was a woman who was flaunting the laws of the land" There may have been an argument within the church between the sisters of the time. There may have been a dispute among the deaconess and one tried to overcome the other for a position. When you get into specifics like that, it's called you are assuming too much.

Yes you are correct I did assume to much and I do apologize for my error.

But again I ask which laws was Paul referring to?

[SarahM777]

I believe he was and it is a reference to Christ being dead and buried too.

There are modern examples of people being swallowed by whales and recovered alive.

The question you can then ask if you're willing to not believe this is "Does it really matter of one does or does not believe that Jesus died and was buried in the tomb for 3 days?" as it is a reference to that.

Personally I believe both are factual accounts.

I believe that this is the passageyou are refering to

Matthew 12:39-41

39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.

Jesus takes it as being factual not an allegory.

[tekla]

There are modern examples of people being swallowed by whales and recovered alive.

Reliable citation needed.

My research show no such thing.  There are two old stories, one from a passenger on The Star of the East, back in the 1890's that's been discounted, and several from the whalers in New England (New Bedford holds most of the ship logs from that period) who talk about people being in the closed mouth (but not swallowed), and even being chewed, and surviving (albeit with missing parts). 

First there is only one species of whale that could swallow a man whole, that's a sperm whale (and they are not commonly found in the Med).  Now Jonah is going to have to make it past the jaws (about 30 feet) that are lined with 8 inch teeth without being chewed - because pretty much one chomp from a 15 ton animal with 8 inch teeth is going to do you in.  Then your going to have to go through the digestive tract (only a sperm whale has one large enough for a man to fit through, this has been well-researched by people attempting at the time - 19th Century - in an attempt to prove the Bible story true) to end up in an airless chamber of digestive acids and water , for 72 hours - then you're going to have to come back the other way.  And...and...and - all without panicking to the point of extreme shock that you would die of a heart attack,^* which BTW is a natural protection mechanism in most mammals to prevent them from having to experience things exactly like this, say with a boa.

19th Century scientists and archaeologists went to great lengths to try to use modern scientific evidence and methods to true the Bible stories (and other ancient myths/legends/stories/tales) and had much success.  (parting of the Red Sea, the story of Jericho, the existence of Troy)  But they also managed to conclusively prove that some of those stories could not have happened in the way the book recounts - as with Jonah and the belly of the whale.



* - about half the people who jump from the Golden Gate Bridge are not killed by the fall (220 ft. ave.) but die on the way down of a panic-induced heart-attack.

[Sarah Louise]

Instead of trying to prove (or disprove) of this scientifically, accept it as a Miracle of God.

[Brooke777]

Instead of trying to prove (or disprove) of this scientifically, accept it as a Miracle of God.

The term faith comes to mind.