"Demonic possession," or mental illness?

[annabenedetti]

How do you reconcile that with Matthew 12:41? It seems that Jesus is crediting Jonah with a rather literal existence. Or do you see it as a convention that was known to the audience and the speaker? An implied "we all know the story of" bit?

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The book does not bear the least evidence of having been written by the prophet or even during his time; and its age must be gathered from different indications. It has long since been held that it is one of the latest books of the Hebrew canon. This is proved in the first place by the language, as considered lexically, grammatically, and stylistically (comp. on this point the commentaries, and books like S. R. Driver's "Introduction"). Only Esther, Chronicles, and Daniel are of later date. Again, the way in which Nineveh is referred to shows that the city had long since vanished from the face of the earth and had faded into legend (comp. iii. 3). The King of Nineveh, also (iii. 6), could have been referred to only in a late myth; and the legendary atmosphere of the whole story, from beginning to end, is in accord with the length of time that had elapsed since the events recounted took place. This becomes evident both in the episode of the fish which swallows a man and then casts him up alive after three days, and in that of the plant which in one night grows high enough to overshadow Jonah. These things might, it is true, be considered as divine miracles; but such an explanation can not be offered for the three days' time that it takes to pass through Nineveh (iii. 3), nor for the fasting, sackcloth, and penitent cries of the animals (iii. 7 et seq.), much less for the conception that an Israelitish prophet could preach penitence to the city of Nineveh, and that the king and the citizens would listen to him. Everything about the story is, and was intended to be, miraculous and legendary.

. . .

It becomes necessary to inquire into the purpose and teaching of the book, because of the fact that it is not a historical narrative, but a midrash . . .
​

If the Jewish people don't consider it historical narrative, why do Christians?

The entire entry was interesting to read through the eyes of a different faith perspective, although it only serves to add to my consideration of literal interpretation, including demon possession.

 

[Nazaroo]

 

[Angel4Truth]

If the Jewish people don't consider it historical narrative, why do Christians?

The jewish people also deny all prophecies of Christ being of Christ and deny Christ Himself, why is that your authority instead of Christ?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Do you see the virgin birth as literal?

bump for anna

 

[annabenedetti]

If the Jewish people don't consider it historical narrative, why do Christians?

The entire entry was interesting to read through the eyes of a different faith perspective, although it only serves to add to my consideration of literal interpretation, including demon possession.

Sorry, that was poorly stated. I meant 'reconsideration,' but on a reread it doesn't work well enough. My reevaluation.

 

[annabenedetti]

The jewish people also deny all prophecies of Christ being of Christ and deny Christ Himself, why is that your authority instead of Christ?

If the story of Jonah and the whale was never meant to be taken literally, why is it taken literally now?

 

[Selaphiel]

The jewish people also deny all prophecies of Christ being of Christ and deny Christ Himself, why is that your authority instead of Christ?

Which interestingly enough means reading those very prophecies in a non-literal manner.

You are begging the question when you ask her why she adheres to that opinion instead of the "authority of Christ", assuming that Christ necessarily understood the story to be literal, which is the very thing in question. The fact that Christ talks about the story does not mean that he understands it literally anymore than me comparing an event to some event in the Lord of the Rings means that I understand that story to be actual history.

 

[Ben Masada]

If the story of Jonah and the whale was never meant to be taken literally, why is it taken literally now?

The story of Jonah is taken literally only by those who either have never read the Tanach or do not understand that, to the prophets of Israel, the Lord speaks to them in a dream or vision. (Numb. 12:6)

 

[annabenedetti]

bump for anna

I'm thinking.

 

[annabenedetti]

The story of Jonah is taken literally only by those who either have never read the Tanach or do not understand that, to the prophets of Israel, the Lord speaks to them in a dream or vision. (Numb. 12:6)

Thank you, I appreciate your input.

 

[annabenedetti]

Which interestingly enough means reading those very prophecies in a non-literal manner.

You are begging the question when you ask her why she adheres to that opinion instead of the "authority of Christ", assuming that Christ necessarily understood the story to be literal, which is the very thing in question. The fact that Christ talks about the story does not mean that he understands it literally anymore than me comparing an event to some event in the Lord of the Rings means that I understand that story to be actual history.

Thank you, that's where I was going, but you said it much better than I could have.

 

[Ben Masada]

Except they are shown separately and there is no evidence whatever to get that from the text and this is merely your invention.

Angel4Truth, I am sorry for I see that you have not understood my explanation and I don't have any how to explain to you any better. Believe me, every one dreams with other people speaking to him or her within a dream.

 

[Nazaroo]

*bumping for some laughs

 

[Angel4Truth]

If the story of Jonah and the whale was never meant to be taken literally, why is it taken literally now?

"The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 "The Queen of the South shall rise up with this generation at the judgment and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. (Matt 12.38)

Jesus seemed to believe it was literal since what He says above isnt figurative clearly and He would know. Thats much more authoritative for me than writings of those who deny Christ, and were written after Christ in order to deny Him and the word of God, since its also prophetic.

PS how do you conclude that "it was never meant to be taken literally" when only some sources make such a claim?

 

[annabenedetti]

"The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 "The Queen of the South shall rise up with this generation at the judgment and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. (Matt 12.38)

Jesus seemed to believe it was literal since what He says above isnt figurative clearly and He would know. Thats much more authoritative for me than writings of those who deny Christ, and were written after Christ in order to deny Him and the word of God, since its also prophetic.

PS how do you conclude that "it was never meant to be taken literally" when only some sources make such a claim?

I'm taking that information from the Jewish encyclopedia, since I figure they know what they're talking about.

Later Uses and Interpretation. In the New Testament Jesus (Luke xi. 29-32) makes use of the book in its original sense, referring to the people of Nineveh as examples of the faith and repentance that he missed among his contemporaries, while refusing them the miracle that they were asking at his hands. The endeavor to find more than this simple reference in the "sign of Jonas," which is akin to the tendency of the artificial inter pretations mentioned above, has led in the parallel passage (Matt. xii. 39-41) to the interpolation (verse 40), according to which Jonah's three days in the belly of the fish are a prophecy of the three days that Jesus would spend in the grave. The early Christian Church more correctly elevates Jonah's rescue from the belly of the fish into the standing type of the resurrection from the grave, a type which is found in all the plastic representations that decorate the early Christian sarcophagi and other monuments.
​

 

[annabenedetti]

In doing a little research on various approaches to the story, including Catholic (which leaves it open to either literal or allegorical interpretation) I did come across this interesting statement from a priest at an online Catholic source, who leans to the literal:

A final suggestion to preachers and teachers of the Word. Unless you are firmly convinced about the non-historical character of this work, either by infused knowledge by God Himself or by diligent study of the text and related matters which are compelling, I would hesitate to tell the Faithful that this is myth or fiction. It does nothing to deepen the faith and it only raises issues of credibility and inerrancy, which you should be prepared to answer. The symbolism and central message of Jonah remain and are sufficient subject matter for preaching and teaching for the general public.​

I find that pretty compelling, because I've sensed echos of that over the years, the idea of not raising unnecessary doubts that might cause problems. It's part of why some Christians segregate themselves, why some of them don't tolerate well a challenge to their beliefs because their entire lives are wrapped around those beliefs. It's their entire reason for being. To question or to doubt is to risk a shattering of the gestalt, so they don't want to go there.

As an additional, more Catholic-themed observation: I hear clericalism in those words.

 

[chrysostom]

If the story of Jonah and the whale was never meant to be taken literally, why is it taken literally now?

why is it important?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I'm taking that information from the Jewish encyclopedia, since I figure they know what they're talking about.

Later Uses and Interpretation. In the New Testament Jesus (Luke xi. 29-32) makes use of the book in its original sense, referring to the people of Nineveh as examples of the faith and repentance that he missed among his contemporaries, while refusing them the miracle that they were asking at his hands. The endeavor to find more than this simple reference in the "sign of Jonas," which is akin to the tendency of the artificial inter pretations mentioned above, has led in the parallel passage (Matt. xii. 39-41) to the interpolation (verse 40), according to which Jonah's three days in the belly of the fish are a prophecy of the three days that Jesus would spend in the grave. The early Christian Church more correctly elevates Jonah's rescue from the belly of the fish into the standing type of the resurrection from the grave, a type which is found in all the plastic representations that decorate the early Christian sarcophagi and other monuments.
​

Do you figure they know what they are talking about when they claim that Jesus was merely a magician? You also didnt respond to what Jesus said, showing literal rendering, and you didnt respond to the objection to your claim that it was "never" to be taken literally.

 

[annabenedetti]

Do you figure they know what they are talking about when they claim that Jesus was merely a magician? You also didnt respond to what Jesus said, showing literal rendering, and you didnt respond to the objection to your claim that it was "never" to be taken literally.

I'll answer as I think best. The excerpts I posted give a good explanation of Jewish interpretation. If you'd like to offer an example of literal Jewish interpretation I'd be interested in seeing it.

Did you by any chance read the entire encyclopedia entry at the link?

 

[Totton Linnet]

The reason orthodox theologians believe the Jonah story to be true is because Jesus refers to it.

"as Jonah was in the belly of the whale...etc"

I cannot accept the proposition that the Master was speaking to a popular understanding of His day.