ARCHIVE: Thread Theft (docrob and Knight)

[seekinganswers]

You forgot the t in my screenname.

Now, what I meant was that I found no indication that Jonah knew God wasn't going to destroy Nineveh, before they repented.

And I also don't see any reason for Nineveh to doubt that Jonah's meassage was truly from God, since it didn't happen. It served to show that God is true to His word, because He had previously stated that if He determined to destroy a place for its wickedness, and they repented when He proclaimed His plan to destroy them, that He would repent of His plan and let them be.

You are blind then. Here is the smoking gun:

But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. He prayed to the Lord, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish, I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity" (Jonah 4:1-3).

It would appear that Jonah does not perceive a change in God's actions when God does not bring the calamity on Nineveh. And here Jonah declares that he knew God's compassion would extend even unto the Ninevites before he even proclaimed his prophesy (which makes you wonder, why is it that Jonah didn't proclaim it before?), and he refused to go because of God's compassion.

Apparently you are the one who can't seem to imagine a God whose compassion extends before, through, and even after God's coming in truth and thus in judgment. You automatically assume that judgment means condemnation, that overturning is destruction. You think that God has to take revenge on evil people, because you can't imagine a God who is more powerful than the wicked, who does not respond to the wicked according to their sins, because their sins are not a threat to God. You understanding of God is about as amazing as our president Bush, who is really powerful, who tries to get into "relationship" with people, and when he cannot he goes to war, because otherwise the evildoers are threat to his power. You actually think that you have something to withhold from God. And you are a fool for even dreaming it up.

You are like Jonah, and would in fact take Jonah as your role-model, that leads to stubborness in the face of God. You think that God coerced Jonah to preach. And you are wrong, because Jonah went as far as he could to escape God, and could not. Have you even read the "prayer" of Jonah in the second chapter (the one surrounded by being swallowed and then spewed up)? The first two stanzas are accusations against God, and a false sense of piety in a distressful situation. Jonah tried to escape God, even into Sheol (the place of the dead, the place where life stops). And now that Jonah has failed, his piety kicks in, and he interprets the entire situation as the Lord's affirmation of his heritage in Israel. "I called to you, LORD. I was faithful. But you hurled me into the deep, though I was looking to your temple. The waters were there trying to engulf me, and seaweed surrounded me, and I sank into the abyss. And now you saved me. When my life was nearly gone, I remembered you. My mind was set on your temple, and my prayer rose to you there. Those wicked idolators (could he be speaking of the pagan sailors who had "feared the Lord" after their encounter with YHWH?), they cling to things that aren't God. Your grace comes to them, but they give it up (might he be contemplating the response of Nineveh to God's prophesy through him?). But I give thanks to you; I offer up an animal and burn it all in thanks to you. I will do what I vowed, for salvation is from the Lord! (if it is my own salvation)" And what is God's response? SPLEEEEEECH!! God couldn't stomach Jonah's pray so he causes the fish to violently spew Jonah up. That word for spew is not a pretty one in the Hebrew. Of couse its not quite transmitted in our word "spew"; a better translation would be "And God caused the fish to blow chunks".

Jonah is not our role model in these texts. He is a false Israel, who thinks that God is his and that God resides in his temple (and he has forgotten the God who named Godself YHWH, meaning, "I am whatever I am" not "I am whatever you want me to be"). The role models for us in this narrative are the sailors who when God shows up worship God (they feared the Lord). The other role models are the Ninevites, who in response to the impending coming of God, repent of their evil ways and humble themselves and God spares them. And where is Jonah at the end of all of this? Well, Jonah is left in limbo, in the question that God asks (could this possibly be a question addressed to the Isreal of this period, who were so wrapped up in the temple that they failed to see those right next to them who truly feared God?). The question is this: "You have been concerned about this vine (and remember that the image of the vine is a symbol for the nation of Israel), though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well (God is concerned for the animals too? Ain't that a kicker). Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

You are reading the text poorly if you think you can read it out of your own context, because the text does not affirm your way of life. It is rooted deeply in the life of a people who are called out by God, to be the people of God and to do so for the blessing of all.

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

1200 words is apparently beyond the attention span of many here. Thank you for your insightful posts. Although you will likely continue to be subjected to the childish retorts of many here, your posts are a much needed breeze of fresh air in a place that has grown stagnant with the hardened hearts and minds of those who do not wish to hear. Do not be discouraged, Michael!

Thank you for reading what I have to say with an open mind. What I have not told any before this is that over the summer I spent a number of weeks preparing a sermon that I gave on a Sunday night at my home church. The sermon was grounded deeply in a passage from Jonah, in fact, the passage was the prayer of Jonah in chapter 2. What I have said here is not just my own opinion on the passage, but is the result of intense study, of prayer, and of the comments that come from many commentaries on Jonah (those who have committed a good portion of their lives to the study of this book). So I just have to wonder how intensly the scoffers have studied Jonah to make them so certain of their understanding of it? I do not claim that my study makes me an expert, but I do have to ask whether the others were so concerned in their interpretation of this passage to actually apply what they had to say (like I had to do in my sermon) as opposed to just being right about it? There is a big difference between the arrogance of those who think they have mastered Jonah after reading it through once or twice, and those who after a lifetime of study have only discovered that Jonah has mastered them.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Lighthouse]

You are blind then. Here is the smoking gun:

But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. He prayed to the Lord, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish, I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity" (Jonah 4:1-3).

It would appear that Jonah does not perceive a change in God's actions when God does not bring the calamity on Nineveh. And here Jonah declares that he knew God's compassion would extend even unto the Ninevites before he even proclaimed his prophesy (which makes you wonder, why is it that Jonah didn't proclaim it before?), and he refused to go because of God's compassion.

Apparently you are the one who can't seem to imagine a God whose compassion extends before, through, and even after God's coming in truth and thus in judgment. You automatically assume that judgment means condemnation, that overturning is destruction. You think that God has to take revenge on evil people, because you can't imagine a God who is more powerful than the wicked, who does not respond to the wicked according to their sins, because their sins are not a threat to God. You understanding of God is about as amazing as our president Bush, who is really powerful, who tries to get into "relationship" with people, and when he cannot he goes to war, because otherwise the evildoers are threat to his power. You actually think that you have something to withhold from God. And you are a fool for even dreaming it up.

You are like Jonah, and would in fact take Jonah as your role-model, that leads to stubborness in the face of God. You think that God coerced Jonah to preach. And you are wrong, because Jonah went as far as he could to escape God, and could not. Have you even read the "prayer" of Jonah in the second chapter (the one surrounded by being swallowed and then spewed up)? The first two stanzas are accusations against God, and a false sense of piety in a distressful situation. Jonah tried to escape God, even into Sheol (the place of the dead, the place where life stops). And now that Jonah has failed, his piety kicks in, and he interprets the entire situation as the Lord's affirmation of his heritage in Israel. "I called to you, LORD. I was faithful. But you hurled me into the deep, though I was looking to your temple. The waters were there trying to engulf me, and seaweed surrounded me, and I sank into the abyss. And now you saved me. When my life was nearly gone, I remembered you. My mind was set on your temple, and my prayer rose to you there. Those wicked idolators (could he be speaking of the pagan sailors who had "feared the Lord" after their encounter with YHWH?), they cling to things that aren't God. Your grace comes to them, but they give it up (might he be contemplating the response of Nineveh to God's prophesy through him?). But I give thanks to you; I offer up an animal and burn it all in thanks to you. I will do what I vowed, for salvation is from the Lord! (if it is my own salvation)" And what is God's response? SPLEEEEEECH!! God couldn't stomach Jonah's pray so he causes the fish to violently spew Jonah up. That word for spew is not a pretty one in the Hebrew. Of couse its not quite transmitted in our word "spew"; a better translation would be "And God caused the fish to blow chunks".

Jonah is not our role model in these texts. He is a false Israel, who thinks that God is his and that God resides in his temple (and he has forgotten the God who named Godself YHWH, meaning, "I am whatever I am" not "I am whatever you want me to be"). The role models for us in this narrative are the sailors who when God shows up worship God (they feared the Lord). The other role models are the Ninevites, who in response to the impending coming of God, repent of their evil ways and humble themselves and God spares them. And where is Jonah at the end of all of this? Well, Jonah is left in limbo, in the question that God asks (could this possibly be a question addressed to the Isreal of this period, who were so wrapped up in the temple that they failed to see those right next to them who truly feared God?). The question is this: "You have been concerned about this vine (and remember that the image of the vine is a symbol for the nation of Israel), though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well (God is concerned for the animals too? Ain't that a kicker). Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

You are reading the text poorly if you think you can read it out of your own context, because the text does not affirm your way of life. It is rooted deeply in the life of a people who are called out by God, to be the people of God and to do so for the blessing of all.

Peace,
Michael

I'm not going to read all of what you wrote, because it's too long, and your point was made in the first paragraph.

Now, even though you are on my ignore list, I checked just to see what you had said. And I was not going to respond, but then felt compelled to, so I am going to.

First, show me where Jonah said what He said at home. Can you? So we can maybe clear this up a little?

Secondly, the only thing I can see is that Jonah thought that Nineveh might repent, and knowing God's earlier promise, knew that if they did then god would not destroy them. And he [Jonah] was bothered by the fact that that might happen, because He did not like Nineveh, and wanted them to perish for their evil. He did not want them to be forgiven, because He felt they deserved the consequences of their actions. Which is why Jonah's not God.

And, from this, I can see that Jonah believed it was possible for God to change His mind, if the circumstances mitigated it. This shows that Jonah believed the future was open, and that there were different possibilities. Just like David when He prayed that God would spare His child. Except that God did not change His mind in that case.

 

[seekinganswers]

I'm not going to read all of what you wrote, because it's too long, and your point was made in the first paragraph.

Now, even though you are on my ignore list, I checked just to see what you had said. And I was not going to respond, but then felt compelled to, so I am going to.

First, show me where Jonah said what He said at home. Can you? So we can maybe clear this up a little?

Secondly, the only thing I can see is that Jonah thought that Nineveh might repent, and knowing God's earlier promise, knew that if they did then god would not destroy them. And he [Jonah] was bothered by the fact that that might happen, because He did not like Nineveh, and wanted them to perish for their evil. He did not want them to be forgiven, because He felt they deserved the consequences of their actions. Which is why Jonah's not God.

And, from this, I can see that Jonah believed it was possible for God to change His mind, if the circumstances mitigated it. This shows that Jonah believed the future was open, and that there were different possibilities. Just like David when He prayed that God would spare His child. Except that God did not change His mind in that case.

You are fool along with Jonah, because you don't even see Jonah's foolishness. Jonah says himself in Jonah 4:1-3 that he knew God would do exactly what God did. They are not the narrator's words, but are words that Jonah himself speaks. Jonah says that he knew this would happen even back at home, and it was the reason he fled to Tarshish. It's right there in Jonah 4:1-3, and I quoted those verses in the previous post in the NIV. So you are the one ignoring the text, not I.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Lighthouse]

You are fool along with Jonah, because you don't even see Jonah's foolishness. Jonah says himself in Jonah 4:1-3 that he knew God would do exactly what God did. They are not the narrator's words, but are words that Jonah himself speaks. Jonah says that he knew this would happen even back at home, and it was the reason he fled to Tarshish. It's right there in Jonah 4:1-3, and I quoted those verses in the previous post in the NIV. So you are the one ignoring the text, not I.

Peace,
Michael

:doh:

Have you ever said, "I knew that would happen!" Huh? I have. And I didn't actually mean that I knew it. I meant that I figured it would happen. And Jonah meant the same thing, for how coudl Jonah have known for certain what would happen? How could he have even known what God was thinking, unless God told him? And God did not tell him, for the scripture does not show that God told him. And, judging from what Jonah said, in chapter 4, it is obvious that God did not tell him, because Jonah was upset. If God had told Jonah, then Jonah would have no reason to be upset. If he had known exactly what was going to happen, he would have no reason to be upset. But, because he knew what could possibly happen, and didn't want that to happen, and yet it did, he was upset.

 

[seekinganswers]

:doh:

Have you ever said, "I knew that would happen!" Huh? I have. And I didn't actually mean that I knew it. I meant that I figured it would happen. And Jonah meant the same thing, for how coudl Jonah have known for certain what would happen? How could he have even known what God was thinking, unless God told him? And God did not tell him, for the scripture does not show that God told him. And, judging from what Jonah said, in chapter 4, it is obvious that God did not tell him, because Jonah was upset. If God had told Jonah, then Jonah would have no reason to be upset. If he had known exactly what was going to happen, he would have no reason to be upset. But, because he knew what could possibly happen, and didn't want that to happen, and yet it did, he was upset.

You are going to lecture me on the nuances of what Hebrew means? You who would use the logic of English to support your point? In the words of Dib, the bigheaded boy on "Invader Zim," who is about to be blown up by the alien menace, "This is stupid. This is stupid, stupid."

Despite what you may think, "I knew" does not work the same way in Hebrew that it does in English. If you want to listen to a better rendering of the Hebrew into English, in the TANAK English-parallel it states, "O LORD! Isn't this just what I said when I was still in my own country? That is why I fled beforhand to Tarshish." Jonah didn't like it from the beginning, and if you had read the prayer of Jonah that is his own personal affirmation of himself, than you have seen a man who is a complete fool. He would run from God in the first place because he knew God would show compassion, and then when God punishes him, he thinks that God would do the same against Nineveh, "Those evil idolators who reject the grace given to them." Jonah assumed that Nineveh, not being Israel, would be rejected by God, because they are a bunch of idolators. And God responds by causing the fish to blow-chunks.

In the words of Jesus, "Let the one who has an ear hear, let that one hear!"

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

Let's try that quote from Jesus again (and I should add, "Let the one who can speak, speak"), "Let the one who has an ear to hear, listen."

Peace,
Michael

 

[Lighthouse]

You are going to lecture me on the nuances of what Hebrew means? You who would use the logic of English to support your point? In the words of Dib, the bigheaded boy on "Invader Zim," who is about to be blown up by the alien menace, "This is stupid. This is stupid, stupid."

Despite what you may think, "I knew" does not work the same way in Hebrew that it does in English. If you want to listen to a better rendering of the Hebrew into English, in the TANAK English-parallel it states, "O LORD! Isn't this just what I said when I was still in my own country? That is why I fled beforhand to Tarshish." Jonah didn't like it from the beginning, and if you had read the prayer of Jonah that is his own personal affirmation of himself, than you have seen a man who is a complete fool. He would run from God in the first place because he knew God would show compassion, and then when God punishes him, he thinks that God would do the same against Nineveh, "Those evil idolators who reject the grace given to them." Jonah assumed that Nineveh, not being Israel, would be rejected by God, because they are a bunch of idolators. And God responds by causing the fish to blow-chunks.

In the words of Jesus, "Let the one who has an ear hear, let that one hear!"

Peace,
Michael

:sozo2:Have you, for one second, thought that maybe the English is a translation of what was meant, and not what was said!?

If it had been what was said, then we wouldn't understand it, because figures of speech, idioms, and many other things are too different!

How could anyone be so ignorant?!:bang:

 

[seekinganswers]

:sozo2:Have you, for one second, thought that maybe the English is a translation of what was meant, and not what was said!?

If it had been what was said, then we wouldn't understand it, because figures of speech, idioms, and many other things are too different!

How could anyone be so ignorant?!:bang:

You are going to let a bunch of liberal protestants determine your understanding of the scriptures? You do realize they are the ones who have translated our scriptures into English (and almost any other language of the Bible we currently possess). I currently am able to muddle my way through the Greek and it is enough to show me that the translators, though very capable in their language abilities, took certain ideological paths to come to their final interpretation (because translation is not perfect and ultimately is nothing more than an interpretation). I am extremely capable in the Spanish language, and even in a language so extremely close to English, I cannot translate the entirety of Spanish over to English or vice versa. In my current Hebrew studies, it becomes quite apparent that the gaps between English and Hebrew (a language over 3,000 years old) are much greater than Spanish and English. And you are going to question my assertion that to use the English to understand the Hebrew is idiotic?

The fact that the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, and the Tanak Enlish-parallel versions of the Bible all vary to some extent here shows how wonderfully difficult it is to preserve the essence of the Hebrew in the English language. Have a look at the Psalms sometime, and compare translations. You will be amazed by how much they vary. The word davar in the Hebrew is translated very often into the English as "word," which is unfornuate for us, because the English "word" does not carry the same meaning as davar. Davar can mean a spoken phrase (never a single word, because words that were written in Hebrew did not have spaces between them or punctuation or even vowels; a "word" was a phrase, which is an idea that can be inferred from the English, but is not primary to the English understanding of "word"). Davar, however, also carries the nuance of matter and thing as well. Now why would this be? Because the only true word for a Hebrew was one that accomplished what was said. The 10 commandments for the Jews are not the commandments but are "10 words".

Only an ignorant fool would accuse another of ignorance without anything to back up his statement. I, at least, am beginning my pursuits in the Hebrew language to understand it directly, as I showed evidence of in the previous postings. I do not stand on the crutch of some interpretation of the scriptures handed to me through some lens of a translator who was more wrapped up in his "quest for the historical Jesus" or for his "preservation of family values" or for his affirmation of the English state than with the actual text.

Get something to stand on, lighthouse (a most ironic name for the one who in the previous posting grounded his assumptions on someone else's "lighthouse").

Peace,
Michael

 

[Lighthouse]

Are you Catholic?

You know what, forget it. I'm done with you. You're not worth my time. Hopefully God can use someone else to show you the light.

 

[seekinganswers]

Are you Catholic?

You know what, forget it. I'm done with you. You're not worth my time. Hopefully God can use someone else to show you the light.

And the lighthouse switches off to let the ship crash on the crags (that is if the lighthouse was really standing on anything at all). You are the ignorant one, because you think that my statement against "protestant liberals" makes me a Roman Catholic. You do realize that the current evangelical movement is a response against the protestant liberals, the liberals who do their scholarship mainly in the mid to late 18th century into the early 19th century. One does not need to be Roman Catholic to be against the protestant liberals.

My qualm with my own tradition (which is evangelical) is that we don't react strongly enough because we still have a foundation in the principles of the liberals (in the Enlightenment), though we are "conservative", which might give us a clue as to the utter absurdity of the two categories "liberal" and "conservative," because ecumenical "conservatives" in the United States are found in the center of the "liberalism" known as the project of the nation-state, with principles grounded in the Enlightenment (principles that are quite liberal).

Your response would be almost commical, if it just weren't so terribly ignorant.

Peace,
Michael

 

[chrysostom]

it's a sign!

it's a sign!

Michael, how many people do you need to accuse you of being Catholic before you see it as a sign?

 

[Delmar]

...It would appear that Jonah does not perceive a change in God's actions when God does not bring the calamity on Nineveh. And here Jonah declares that he knew God's compassion would extend even unto the Ninevites before he even proclaimed his prophesy (which makes you wonder, why is it that Jonah didn't proclaim it before?), and he refused to go because of God's compassion....

I would say it differently but I think we are sort of in agreement here. I do agree that Jonah knew that if they repented, God would not destroy them. I would agree that Jonah did not perceive this as a change in God righteous character!

 

[Delmar]

...Jonah is not our role model in these texts...

Of coarse not! Jonah wanted Nineveh destroyed! God wanted them to repent!

I simply don't understand your assertion that anyone thinks Jonah is a good role model.

 

[seekinganswers]

Of coarse not! Jonah wanted Nineveh destroyed! God wanted them to repent!

I simply don't understand your assertion that anyone thinks Jonah is a good role model.

Lighthouse seemed to think that he was.

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

Michael, how many people do you need to accuse you of being Catholic before you see it as a sign?

I just think its funny that I'm accused of being a Roman Catholic, when all I am doing is tying myself to the Christian tradition (not just back to the Roman Catholic/Protestant split, but to the church catholic, which includes the East and looks back to before the first split and before Constantinianism). I'm still an evangelical (because I agree with the evangelical response to the liberal protestant scholasticism of the 18th and 19th centuries, I just don't think they've gone far enough). I hardly see the ridicule from people on this site to be a sign to convert to Catholicism. Many of the people on the site adhere to a radical evangelicalism known as dispensationalism, which I think is a complete and total foolishness on the part of evangelicals, an attempt to understand the scriptures in their own way, using the same foundational principles as the liberal protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries (and I would consider myself as part of this movement).

The Church of the Nazarene has its own issues, but within the scholarship of the church, within its schools and its seminary, there are some good things happening that help me to see hope for the church.

Roman Catholicism has its own issues, ever since the first Christiandom (which is the height of the church that has been in decline ever since). And now with the New Christendom, the church has found itself helpless in the face of the distortions of the state. The pope no longer holds authority over his people (because his word has been left to the conscience of individual people).

Peace,
Michael

 

[Lighthouse]

And the lighthouse switches off to let the ship crash on the crags (that is if the lighthouse was really standing on anything at all). You are the ignorant one, because you think that my statement against "protestant liberals" makes me a Roman Catholic. You do realize that the current evangelical movement is a response against the protestant liberals, the liberals who do their scholarship mainly in the mid to late 18th century into the early 19th century. One does not need to be Roman Catholic to be against the protestant liberals.

My qualm with my own tradition (which is evangelical) is that we don't react strongly enough because we still have a foundation in the principles of the liberals (in the Enlightenment), though we are "conservative", which might give us a clue as to the utter absurdity of the two categories "liberal" and "conservative," because ecumenical "conservatives" in the United States are found in the center of the "liberalism" known as the project of the nation-state, with principles grounded in the Enlightenment (principles that are quite liberal).

Your response would be almost commical, if it just weren't so terribly ignorant.

Peace,
Michael

Hold on. Wait a minute. Are you calling me a liberal?

 

[Lighthouse]

What in the world made you think I thought Jonah was a role model?:liberals:

 

[seekinganswers]

What in the world made you think I thought Jonah was a role model?:liberals:

By "role-model" I mean that you feel sorry for Jonah, and that you place youself in his position. That is not what the story calls us to do. The story brings us out of Jonah and into the faithful outside of Israel, so that we can see that Israel hasn't been that faithful. Jonah doesn't drive the story, God does.

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

Hold on. Wait a minute. Are you calling me a liberal?

Yes you are a liberal, and you don't even know it. The philosophical and theological roots for the evangelical brand of protestantism comes from the Niebuhr's and Paul Tillich. If you actually look at what they ground their endeavors in, it is the Enlightenment (which is a liberal response to the monarchy, which would be conservative). You are not a conservative at all when it comes to politics, but are in fact on the left, just not all the way to the left.

That's why I think the two categories of liberal and conservative are simply inappropriate and say nothing in the end. You still ground yourself in the principles and ethics of the Enlightenment and both Democrats and Republicans are given over to the liberal project of the Nation-state.

You are a liberal and you don't know it, because you don't know where the ideas you have been taught come from. In the last few years I have been influenced by a professor who studied under Stanley Haurwas. Now Haurwas comes in the line of Barth, and is a strong voice in the Radical Orthodoxy in the Evangelical world. Barth falls along the line of the Niebuhr's and Tillich, but in fact goes much further than they do, because they will denounce the liberal protestantism of the 19th and 20th centuries, but they continue to ground themselves in the mythology of the Enlightenment. Barth goes further.

Now Bonhoeffer may have been in the mix had Bonhoeffer not been put to death in WWII. But this is the response to the prostenant liberals as a whole, of which the evangelical movement is only a part. But the evangelicals continue to ground themselves in the liberal foundation of the Enlightenment.

Peace,
Michael