Originally posted by vistesdIn reading Johah it has always been my assumption that God sent him there in order to motivate the people to repent so that he could turn his anger from them. In essence, I had always pictured that God knew they would repent if warned and that is why Jonah was sent. Therefore, God saying that he would overturn the city was not a lie, rather, it was simply a warning of what would happen if they continued on their same path.
Maybe God is a liar. 😉
We have argued ad nauseum about what I and others see as inconsistencies in your God-concept. We could probably write each other’s posts!
With regard to God changing his mind: read the Jonah story again, paying close attention to the exact message that God gave to the Ninevites through Jonah,* God’s changing his mind, ...[text shortened]... ho assume from the sutra that the Buddha taught that “All life is suffering.” That is an error.
What is apparent to me is that Johan did not like the people of Ninevah. As the scriptures suggest, they had done great evil and Johah had probably suffered from it in some form or fashion. It is also evident that Johah did not want to go to Ninevah as God had commanded him. I always interpreted this to mean that Jonah knew full well that his mission was to motivate the people of Ninivah to repent so that God would turn his anger from them. As a result, he hated the idea that God would show mercy upon them if they repented thus he chose not to go at all so as to deny them the oppurtunity for God to show them mercy.
Originally posted by whodeyI had always pictured that God knew they would repent if warned... (Italics added)
In reading Johah it has always been my assumption that God sent him there in order to motivate the people to repent so that he could turn his anger from them. In essence, I had always pictured that God knew they would repent if warned and that is why Jonah was sent. Therefore, God saying that he would overturn the city was not a lie, rather, it was simply a ...[text shortened]... ed thus he chose not to go at all so as to deny them the oppurtunity for God to show them mercy.
And that is certainly a valid interpretation (which also involves some reading into the text; with which I do not have any particular problem). However, under that reading, God did not disclose his intent in his message to them—that is, his message through the prophet Jonah was not complete, but had a hidden dimension. Still, you have to deal with Jonah 2:10—“When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.”
That part about Jonah not liking the people of Nineveh from the get-go: I had never thought of that! The people of Nineveh were not Israelites. Good insight! (I wonder if parallels could be drawn with the Samaritans in the NT.) Again, very good insight.
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdThanks. As for my interpretation of it saying that God changed his mind, I do not interpret that as God not knowing what the outcome would be, rather, it is simply stating that he now will not overturn the city because they repented. If my interpretation is correct, how would you write down that God now says that he will not destroy them even though he knew beforehand that he would not because he knew they would repent? I think in large part we need to be able to identify with the unidentifiable. We are not all knowing so how could we relate to this state? Therefore, it reads that he "changed his mind".
[b]I had always pictured that God knew they would repent if warned... (Italics added)
And that is certainly a valid interpretation (which also involves some reading into the text; with which I do not have any particular problem). However, under that reading, God did not disclose his intent in his message to them—that is, his message through ...[text shortened]... (I wonder if parallels could be drawn with the Samaritans in the NT.) Again, very good insight.[/b]
Another way of looking at it is that Biblically sin brings death and destruction. All that are on this path will encounter it, thus, the people of Ninevah were not different in this respect. God was simply reitorating what he has been saying from the beginning of creation. You might say that his condemnation of the city was even redundant in that sense. Therefore, when it says that God changed his mind you could interpret that as meaning they simply changed coarse.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, while I do not necessarily agree, that is good and thoughtful exegesis.
Thanks. As for my interpretation of it saying that God changed his mind, I do not interpret that as God not knowing what the outcome would be, rather, it is simply stating that he now will not overturn the city because they repented. If my interpretation is correct, how would you write down that God now says that he will not destroy them even though he knew says that God changed his mind you could interpret that as meaning they simply changed coarse.
EDIT: You know that, following rabbinical hermeneutics, I do not think there has to be—or even ought to be—a single “right” reading. Even when I argue, I have to keep that in the back of my mind. Therefore, I would say that either reading—and undoubtedly a host of others—can be valid.
How much that can be extended to the NT, I don’t know. I think Matthew, for example, was a sound midrashist; Paul was a profound midrashist. John, on the other hand, drew much more from Hellenistic thought; not adapting his gospel view to it, but it to his gospel view, if you will. With him, I am apt to do a much more “literary” analysis. That’s all really outside my purview, however—though I have played there occasionally.
7 edits
But that is reporting on the existence of Christians and their beliefs - it hardly qualifies as being an independent report. At best it verifies that that belief existed amongst Christians around the time that the Gospels were being written.twhitehead,
If I found someone that wrote about Elvis 100 years after his death that many of his fans still believe that he is alive, is that independent verification that he never died?
When you continue to raise the bar of evidence in that manner you are attempting to make it impossible for Christians to point to third party evidence of their existence. It is ridiculous.
Under this criteria in the future someone could not even use your own posts here to be valid evidence of the existence because you, an athiest are also reporting or at least arguing about the beliefs of Christians.
Could your own words on this forum be used as third party verification of the beliefs of Christians?
I think a Yes or a No would do it. Please don't say "Yes, but only all the ridiculing and negative aspects of their beliefs could testified to."
Could , for example, many years from now your own words be used to verify the existence of Christians and that they worshipped Jesus Christ as a Deity?
In the future could you be used as a third party evidence of the existence of Christians and their beliefs in the 21rst century?
To all of you in here.
I read a lot of comments about how religion isn't the way to go and how religion is what's wrong with the world (ie: wars, bigotry etc.). And I agree. But I agree not because I don't believe in Jesus Christ because I do. I agree because true Christianity isn't a religion. It isn't based on tradition or ritual and isn't centered in a certain location on the globe. True Christianity is a relationship with Jesus and is centered on Jesus. There's only one God and Jesus is it! Wake up folks!
I wish some of you unbelievers would really examine the Bible with an open mind. There is plenty of proof that Jesus is who he said he was.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and find out that there isn't than live like there isn't and find out that there is!"
THE CONSEQUENCES OF OPENLY REJECTING THE ONE TRUE GOD IN THE FLESH (JESUS CHRIST) IS ETERNAL. FOREVER!
What's so special about Jesus? I'll tell you. I hope you'll admit that everyone sins. Even essentially good people do sin. God is perfectly holy and perfectly just so he cannot let any sin into heaven, so we're all doomed to hell. UNLESS... someone who was sent by God and (is God) who is sinless dies in our place. That is the beauty of Jesus. He openly accepted the wrath of God on our behalf. Something that we deserved and took it himself! Acknowledgement of his sacrifice for us is a free and he promises atonement of sins if we trust him and turn our lives over to him. In no other religion is there atonement for sins! None! There is no savior in any other religion. Jesus is the only way.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillNo, it is you that is being ridiculous. I am not raising the bar, simply stating the obvious.
twhitehead,
When you continue to raise the bar of evidence in that manner you are attempting to make it impossible for Christians to point to third party evidence of their existence. It is ridiculous.
Let me give another example:
I know about the church of Scientology started by L. Ron Hubbard. They believe that we are descended from aliens. As far as I know he started it less than 70 years ago.
Is my report acceptable as third party evidence that we are descended from aliens?
The issue was not the existence of Christians or their beliefs, the issue was the existence of Christ.
See how ridiculous your claim looks?
Originally posted by chappy1In other words you are totally ignorant of other religions.
What's so special about Jesus? I'll tell you. I hope you'll admit that everyone sins. Even essentially good people do sin. God is perfectly holy and perfectly just so he cannot let any sin into heaven, so we're all doomed to hell. UNLESS... someone who was sent by God and (is God) who is sinless dies in our place. That is the beauty of Jesus. He openly ...[text shortened]... atonement for sins! None! There is no savior in any other religion. Jesus is the only way.
Originally posted by twhiteheadaw, come on man...we haven't had a theist on here this entertaining since Acemaster or dj2becker, don't discourage him too quickly. 😉
You mean "truly brainwash yourself and you can believe anything."
If the proof was there and you had found it, then why are you unable to pass it on in proof form?