Third Day Resurrection
Alan Fuller arfuller@rocketmail.com
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:31:09 -0800 (PST) (00884356269, 19980109083109.21491.rocketmail@web4.rocketmail.com)
Fuller:
If the Bible is true, it is the divinely inspired
Word of God. There is no need to apply man made
rules for human literature to it. It doesn't matter
what Bible college we learn them at. I believe the
Bible is true so I don't have a problem.
Now, I may be the only one on this list that believes
the above. I have been assigned a task. I am to
prove Jonah was talking about a third day
resurrection using rules for normal human literature.
I never said I could do this, but let me think about
it.
---Farrell Till <jftill@midwest.net> wrote:
>
> At 09:58 AM 1/8/98 PST, Alan Fuller wrote:
>
> >
> >TILL
> >No, it doesn't. Your mistake is in assuming that
because the writer of
> Matthew SAID that Jesus SAID what you have quoted
above, this has to mean
> that the writer of Jonah meant for the story of
Jonah and the "great fish"
> to be a prophecy of the third-day resurrection of
the Messiah, but that is a
> very flawed interpretation method. The writer of
Jonah meant what he meant,
> and what someone living centuries later may have
thought that he meant would
> in no way affect the meaning of what was originally
intended. No matter how
> much you may analyze the story of Jonah and the
great fish, you will nothing
> in the text that even remotely suggests that the
writer intended this to be
> understood as a figurative prophecy of a distant
resurrection. So if there
> is nothing at all in this story even to remotely
imply that it was a
> resurrection prophecy, it doesn't matter what
application of the story was
> made by someone who lived centuries later.
> >
> >I have serious doubts about the historicity of
Jesus of Nazareth, but for
> the sake of argument, I will concede both that he
existed and that he made
> the statement in Matthew 12:40. This would mean
nothing more than that
> Jesus used the story of Jonah as a basis for a
simile. I don't suppose you
> would be willing to argue that the application of a
simile to a historical
> event would make the historical event a "prophecy,"
would you? If so, let
> me know, and I will show you how that just about
any event claimed in the OT
> could be made into a figurative prophecy.
> >
> >My position remains the same. Jesus said that it
had been written that the
> Christ would suffer and rise from the dead the
third day. He had to be
> referring to the OT scriptures when he made this
statement (if he did),
> because no other scriptures existed at the time.
So if this statement was a
> true statement, I'd like for someone to show me
where it was written that
> the Messiah would rise from the dead on the third
day. I'd like for someone
> to show me where it was written even in the story
of Jonah that the Messiah
> would rise from the dead the third day. It isn't
there. No such prophecy
> existed.
> >
>
> FULLER
> >
> >Thank you for your prompt response. I would like
to dispute with you a
> >little bit if you don't mind. As much for my own
education as anything
> >else.
> >
> >I think if the New Testament writers were alive
today, you could show
> >them their errors and they would not agree with
you at all. The same
> >could be said for the OT writers. The reason for
that is that they used
> >allegorical or figurative language. Galatians
even uses the word
> >allegory in 4:2. It is plain in the way the NT
quotes scriptures and in
> >the pictures summoned up in the OT. An example:
> >
>
> TILL
> Well, of course, the NT writers would disagree with
me if they were alive
> today, because they leaned over backwards to find
prophecies of Jesus in the
> OT. However, when their prophecy-fulfillment claims
are studied within the
> contexts of the OT passages they were lifted from,
Little connection is
> found between what the original texts were
referring to and the application
> that the NT writers made of their out-of-context
quotations. Many times,
> the NT writers even altered the OT texts to make
them fit the situations
> they were applying them to. I would be happy to
cite some specific examples
> if you dispute this.
>
> At any rate, you are trying to argue from the
assumption that your position
> is correct, a logical fallacy known as begging the
question. You cite
> Galatians 4:2 as proof of your position, but I
think that you must be
> referring to Galatians 4:24, because this is the
verse where Paul said that
> the story of Sarah and Hagar contained an allegory.
He then went on to say
> that the two women represented two covenants, Hagar
the old and Sarah the
> new. But all that you have here is Paul's CLAIM of
allegory in the story.
> Did the fact that Paul said that this story
contained an allegory mean that
> the Genesis writer actually intended the story in
an allegorical sense? If
> so, how do you know? To say that you know, because
Paul said that it
> contained an allegory would be to beg the question
that you need to prove.
> You would actually be arguing in a circle. Paul
said that the story of
> Sarah and Hagar contained an allegory, and it is
true that the story does
> contain an allegory, because Paul said that it
contained an allegory. Paul
> was a great one for seeing allegories and types in
the OT, but the fact that
> he thought that allegories and types were in the OT
proves only that he
> thought that allegories and types were in the OT.
What you need to do is
> find some textual evidence within the story of
Sarah and Hagar that would
> give us reason to think that the Genesis writer
actually meant for the story
> to be so interpreted.
>
> FULLER
> >ISA66:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the
Gentiles, and shalt suck
> >the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I
the LORD am thy Saviour
> >and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
> >
> >Would anybody besides an atheist insist that we
have to understand this
> >verse literally? Even a fundamentalist would
balk. I believe that
> >literalism is the source of what you call errors.
>
> TILL
> What atheist would insist that this verse must be
interpreted literally?
> Any time that the literal meaning of the words of a
text would result in an
> absurd meaning, it is logical to assume that the
writer intended the words
> to be understood figuratively. That's just a very
basic principle of
> literary interpretation, and I remember that the
same principle was taught
> in hermeneutics when I was a Bible college student.
Psalm 31:3 said of
> Yahweh, "You are my rock and my fortress." If one
interpreted this
> statement literally, he would understand that the
writer meant to say that
> Yahweh was made of minerals like granite and that
he was a structure put
> together with mortar and stones. Since the literal
interpretation of the
> words result in an absurd meaning, rational readers
know to assign
> metaphoric meaning to the words "rock" and
"fortress."
>
> Now would you please explain to us what there is in
the story of Jonah and
> the great fish that gives any kind of reason to
assume that the writer meant
> for it to be understood figuratively or
allegorically? Certainly, Jonah's
> reference to the "bars of the earth" closing upon
him "forever" is
> figurative, but there is nothing in the text that
even remotely suggests
> that its figurative meaning had any reference to
anything but his experience
> of having been swallowed by the great fish. If you
claim that there is
> something in this text that requires a figurative
application to a literal
> resurrection from the dead, you have the obligation
to show us exactly what
> that is. Otherwise, you have no recourse but to
argue in a circle again.
> Jonah's experience in the belly of the great fish
was symbolic of Jesus's
> burial in the earth, and we know that this is so,
because Jesus said that it
> was so.
>
> FULLER
> >There isn't any way for you or I to know what was
on the mind of Jonah's
> >author.
>
> TILL
> Well, not exactly. We have the words that the
writer of Jonah used, and
> there is nothing in those words that even remotely
suggests that this story
> had reference to a resurrection from the dead in
the distant future.
> Therefore, to say that it did have such a reference
is an arbitrary assertion.
>
> FULLER
> >If we presume there is no supernatural, then
Jesus, or Matthew,
> >or whoever, couldn't have been sure either. From
the language Jonah
> >used in the belly of the whale, I can see the
comparison to death.
>
> TILL
> Yes, Jonah likened the experience to his own death,
but your task is to show
> that the writer intended these words to be
understood as having reference to
> a death that would occur in the still distant
future. What is there in the
> text that gives you any reason to think that?
>
> FULLER
> >The NT authors might also point to Hosea 6:2 as a
figurative example.
> >
>
> TILL
> Well, let's just take a look at this passage:
"Come, let US return to
> Yahweh; for it is he who has torn, and he will heal
US; he has struck down,
> and he will bind US up. After two days he will
revive US; on the third day
> he will raise US up, that WE may live before him"
(Hosea 6:1-2). This
> passage had reference to the nation of Judah, which
Hosea was reprimanding
> for having gone astray from Yahweh. I have
emphasized certain words ("us"
> and "we") in bold print to show that this passage
was a plea for many (US)
> to return to Yahweh. The prophet's promise was
that if the people would
> return, Yahweh would heal US and bind US. To say
that it had "figurative"
> reference to Jesus is purely arbitrary and requires
that you take a
> statement addressed to many and apply it only to
one person. Please give us
> your rationale for doing this.
>
> FULLER
> >I understand you presume there is no supernatural.
What is
> >"supernatural" anyway? If I prophesy the
Philadelphia Phillies will win
> >the World Series this year, and it comes true, is
that supernatural? I
> >think we agree not. Then again, considering the
weaknesses of the
> >Phillies, maybe it would be a miracle :-) But
since the odds might be
> >50-1 or so, we don't need to invoke the
supernatural. What if the odds
> >were a million to one? The odds against winning
the Texas lottery on a
> >single ticket are 16 million to one, and yet
people do win.
> >
>
> TILL
> So what's your point? There is nothing at all
supernatural involved in
> winning a lottery. Everything involved happens in
accordance with natural
> laws. Can you say the same for the resurrection of
a dead person?
>
> FULLER
> >For the sake of argument, lets assume Jonah is a
figurative prophecy
> >about the resurrection of the Messiah. If he was
right, does that prove
> >the supernatural?
>
> TILL
> Yes, it would. Please explain why a resurrection
from the dead would not
> necessarily involve the supernatural, since it is
natural for dead things to
> remain dead.
>
> FULLER
> > The odds seem so much against it, that we might
> >accept it as proof. So proof of the supernatural
could be based on
> >statistics. If we can't accept very small
probabilities as proof, then
> >maybe we could accept instances where the
probability is zero. Time is
> >infinite. My existance is limited. Therfore, the
probability that I
> >exist is zero. I have just proved the
supernatural :-) I can't take
> >credit. I've read that Einstein said that to a
class once. Not that he
> >believed in the supernatural, but the example.
> >
> >What do you think?
>
> TILL
>
=== message truncated ===
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com