[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Title:Discussions from a Christian Perspective
Notice:Prostitutes and tax collectors welcome!
Moderator:CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
Created:Mon Sep 17 1990
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1362
Total number of notes:61362

840.0. "The Sign of Jonah" by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE (Pacifist Hellcat) Wed Feb 02 1994 19:41

Note 837.13

>   .....Remember how Jesus said, "...No sign
>   shall be given except the sign of Jonah..."

Jack mentioned the sign of Jonah and interpreted it thusly:

>   Three days in a fish for
>   Jonah, three days in the earth for Jesus.

The repentance (of Ninevah) could also be understood as the "sign of Jonah."

To me, Jesus said something very mysterious here.  What are others
understandings of the "sign of Jonah?"

Shalom,
Richard

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
840.1JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeWed Feb 02 1994 20:353
    Repent or be doomed!  I think that's fairly strong sign.
    
    Nancy,the simpleton
840.2AIMHI::JMARTINWed Feb 02 1994 21:3520
    I don't have a bible handy but the whole verse goes thus:
    
    "An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign.  But no sign will be
    given you except the sign of Jonah.   For as Jonah spent three days in
    the belly of a fish, so to shall the son of man spend three days in the
    bowels of the earth."
    
    I believe Jesus was clarifying what he meant by the actual sign.  
    The repentance of Ninevah was probably not the sign because the
    pharisees he was speaking to were unrepentent.  It states a verse or
    two later that Jesus did not perform miracles in that region because
    of their disbelief, although I could be wrong!!
    
    I believe in one of the books of the minor prophets, although Ninevah
    repents, they do fall 100 years later.  Just a factoid, no relevence
    to the conversation above.
    
    -Jack
     
    
840.3CSC32::J_CHRISTIEPacifist HellcatFri Feb 04 1994 14:5514
.2

Jack, the passages (Matthew 12.38-42) suggest that there's something a bit
more complex going on here.

Luke's account (Luke 11.29-32) varies significantly.  Luke doesn't mention
being in the belly of a fish.  Luke does mention Ninevah turning from
sin, however.

But then, perhaps both of us are filtering the matter through our "personal
agendas," eh?

Richard

840.4AIMHI::JMARTINMon Feb 07 1994 13:277
    Richard,
    
    This is an argument from silence, Luke's silence that is.  The fact
    still remains that Matthew's account of what Jesus said was comparing
    three days in the belly of a fish to three days being in the grave.
     
    -Jack
840.5CSC32::J_CHRISTIEHonorary LesbianMon Feb 07 1994 16:3211
    Oh?  I don't think so.  Matthew had a reason for including the
    fish's belly.  Luke had a reason to leave it out.  I didn't
    mention Mark, because even though Mark does have a corresponding
    passage to Mathew and Luke, Mark fails to incorporate mentioning
    Jonah at all.  Mark had a reason to exclude it.
    
    It's fine with me if you believe Matthew was the one gospel which
    got it right.  Perhaps you can convince us to interpret the sign
    of Jonah the same as you.
    
    Richard
840.6AIMHI::JMARTINMon Feb 07 1994 21:2110
    I'm not convince that either were wrong.  Just because Luke omitted
    the part about the fish does not preclude one was right and the other
    wrong.  You will find for example that Matthew and Marks recording of
    the great commission aren't the same, yet they don't contradict each
    other and they both are factual.  
    
    Do you assume from Lukes silence that Jesus didn't say what Matthew
    claimed he said?
    
    -Jack
840.7CSC32::J_CHRISTIEHonorary LesbianMon Feb 07 1994 23:1312
Note 840.6

>    Do you assume from Lukes silence that Jesus didn't say what Matthew
>    claimed he said?
    
No.  It's possible that Luke hadn't heard the fish belly detail or that
Luke didn't think it would hold any significance to his intended audience
or any number of other possible reasons for omission.  It's also possible
that the author of Matthew embellished his gospel a bit.

Richard

840.8AIMHI::JMARTINTue Feb 08 1994 12:5623
Re: Note 840.7                    
>>CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Honorary Lesbian"                 12 lines   7-FEB-1994 20:13

No, you are a lesbian trapped in a male body.

@@>    Do you assume from Lukes silence that Jesus didn't say what Matthew
@@>    claimed he said?
    
>>No.  It's possible that Luke hadn't heard the fish belly detail or that
>>Luke didn't think it would hold any significance to his intended audience
>>or any number of other possible reasons for omission.  It's also possible
>>that the author of Matthew embellished his gospel a bit.

Ahhh, but wouldn't that be a lack of faith, both on Matthews part and on ours? 
First of all, Matthew would be misrepresenting Jesus.  Why would an apostle who 
believed so strongly as to die a martyrs death want to misrepresent or put
his own agenda into the words of Christ?  This doesn't call for an answer by
the way, just thinking out loud.  Secondly, if we cannot put our faith into the
writers and their accounts, then anything can be embellished.  The whole thing
could be a big farse.  I am willing to gamble on eternity that it is not.

-Jack

840.9CSC32::J_CHRISTIEHonorary LesbianTue Feb 08 1994 15:036
    .8  Faith in Jesus is not the same as faith in what managed to make
    it into the canon, though some - perhaps many - make no distinction
    between the two.
    
    Richard
    
840.10AIMHI::JMARTINTue Feb 08 1994 23:123
    Well, this gets into the inerrancy bit!!
    
    -Jack
840.11CSC32::J_CHRISTIEHonorary LesbianWed Feb 09 1994 00:0511
    It could be that the author of Matthew did record what he genuinely
    believed Jesus said.  I'm not claiming the gospel writer was a scoundrel
    or a liar.
    
    Matthew said a few things which one or more of the other gospels
    omitted:  The visit of the magi, the star of Bethlehem, the dead rising
    from their graves at the time of Jesus' death, for example.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    
840.12AIMHI::JMARTINWed Feb 09 1994 13:1211
    Funny you mention this.  In Matts account of the transfiguration,  God
    is quoted as saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased,
    hear him."
    
    Luke's account, "This is my beloved son, hear him."
    
    Notice in Luke it doesn't say God is well pleased with the son.  This
    however, doesn't preclude that the son is not pleasing to the Father
    because Luke omitted it.
    
    -Jack
840.13GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerWed Feb 09 1994 13:155
Jack,

Which account do you think accurately recorded God's words: Matthew or Luke?

				-- Bob
840.14AIMHI::JMARTINWed Feb 09 1994 17:457
    I think they both give equal accuracy in account.  However, I also say
    as I believe Richard said that one may omit parcels and pieces for
    various reasons.  It is also understood that Matthew saw first hand the
    ways of Jesus.  Luke on the other hand is accredited more as
    accompanying Paul on his missionary journeys.
    
    -Jack
840.15CSC32::J_CHRISTIEHonorary LesbianWed Feb 09 1994 17:5512
    To be quite accurate, it is only tradition which says that Matthew
    was written by one of the twelve.  There's nothing contained within
    the gospel itself that says who the actual writer was.
    
    Mind you, this has nothing to do with inerrancy, because it simply isn't
    contained within Scripture.
    
    Incidently, none of the gospels identify who the actual authors are.
    At least Paul identifies himself at the beginning or end.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
840.16AIMHI::JMARTINWed Feb 09 1994 21:084
    Your correct.  You will also find the same case with Hebrews, Samuel,
    Esther, etc.
    
    -Jack