YHWH has indicated that He would do exactly that: embarrass the learned and bring their learning to nothing.
Rabbi Yeshu promised to leave a sign for the whole world to witness, and He said that this sign would be associated with His death and burial.* According to Prof. Beate Kowalski, that sign is an enigma because there is no miracle associated with His death that could be witnessed by an entire generation of people.** Kowalski does not make the obvious connection to the miraculous image on the Rabbi's burial cloth because to do so would cause her to loose all credibility in her academic world since the Shroud has been "proven" to be 14th century.
YHWH has indicated that He would do exactly that: embarrass the learned and bring their learning to nothing.
Rabbi Yeshu promised to leave a sign for the whole world to witness, and He said that this sign would be associated with His death and burial.* According to Prof. Beate Kowalski, that sign is an enigma because there is no miracle associated with His death that could be witnessed by an entire generation of people.** Kowalski does not make the obvious connection to the miraculous image on the Rabbi's burial cloth because to do so would cause her to loose all credibility in her academic world since the Shroud has been "proven" to be 14th century.
Summary: "The Sign of Jonah will remain and enigma in Matthew's Gospel."
I read that that and it doesn't actually support @undead_rat 's conclusions at all. In fact, rather the opposite. To continue from where @undead_rat 's quote of the summary ends:
". The fact that it cannot be unequivocally solved is a component of Matthew’s theology and narrative. Preconditions to understand the sign of Jonah in terms of Jesus’ death and resurrection are repentance and belief. Jesus’ opponents demand a sign and expect a supra-natural sign. They were confronted with a riddle which could be understood by his followers, respectively the Matthean community. It necessarily must be misunderstood by Jesus’ enemies and the community’s opponents as they had other expectations and a hidden agenda." (My bold)
That's ten minutes of my life wasted. The summary of the summary (as opposed to an isolated quote from the summary) is that Jesus is criticising people looking for a supernatural sign. Things like miraculous shrouds, for example.
Yeah but JESUS LIED because He was only dead for 36 hours because the Bible says He died on Friday because
Yes I know Martin and I am enough of a literalist that this does indeed bother me. Why go to all that bother to specify "three days and three nights" eh? If I remember rightly you are a "Good Wednesdayist" is that correct?
It's certainly true that Jesus denying His opponents of a sign there and then was a call to faith in His followers which depends on what they know of His character, rather than faith based on having seen Him do some form of trick. We could ask why His Resurrection appearances were only to His disciples, those who already had faith in Him (albeit faith that had been shaken on Good Friday)? Why didn't Jesus walk into the Temple and present Himself to the chief priests and Sadducees? That would have been an undeniable proof of His claim, the demonstration of the Sign of Jonah that He'd promised. There is very little that indicates that Jesus is willing to present undeniable proof of who He is, but values the faith of those who believe who have not seen.
I find that I regularly come back to thinking about Lamentation 3, and more and more regretting the mistake of Thomas Chisholm when he put that passage into a hymn. Jeremiah spends a couple of chapters describing in detail the state of his own life and the nation as abandoned by God, totally destroyed, nothing but despair. Then in chapter 3 he remembers something - he remembers who God is, that every morning there are new mercies because God is merciful, and bursts into praise, "Great is thy faithfulness". Chisolm gets it wrong, "morning by morning new mercies I see" isn't in the passage, Jeremiah declares the faithfulness of God even though he doesn't see any mercies (in the morning or any other time), it's a declaration made on what he knows even though there's no evidence of that in anything he can see.
Jesus doesn't change that ... faith in His resurrection shouldn't need to depend on a piece of stained linen.
Yeah but JESUS LIED because He was only dead for 36 hours because the Bible says He died on Friday because
Yes I know Martin and I am enough of a literalist that this does indeed bother me. Why go to all that bother to specify "three days and three nights" eh? If I remember rightly you are a "Good Wednesdayist" is that correct?
Aye, unless Jesus was that pragmatic, He certainly played fast and loose with all other 'prophecy' and appeared nonetheless to believe what He was saying. He was right for the 'wrong' reasons. For a pre-modern epistemology. As He continued to be after resurrection. It doesn't bother me at all; God is either that pragmatic or our timing is wrong or both. And our timing is wrong because we insist on it on no rational basis.
Jesus doesn't change that ... faith in His resurrection shouldn't need to depend on a piece of stained linen.
Of course, Alan. But the fact remains that He did promise us a sign, and in Matthew that sign is not quite the same as in the other accounts. It is not His resurrection there, so the Sign of Jonah is a sign both for the 500 that his post mortem self appeared to (as mentioned by St. Paul) and for us in the 21st century as provided by His corpse's image.
In his recent book, The 1988 C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Marino reports:
" . . .in 2016, when a team of scientists was allowed to open the tomb where Jesus was believed by most scholars to have been buried, one scientist was quoted as saying that, 'the tomb had as strong, unexplainable electromagnetic field that messed up their equipment.'"
WaWaWaWhat?!!! The tomb has been a pilgrimage site visited by an uncountable number of people for multiple centuries, including me, before 2016. You can go in it.
I do not know whether the shroud is genuine or not. But it doesn't further the cause that it might be to plead weak arguments without attributions from popular magazines or websites.
Nor, I'm afraid, is the statement,
"I believe that the authenticity of the Holy Shroud is as obvious as the nose on one's face, ... "
an argument with persuasive force to someone who doesn't know one way or the other, yet alone those that one might describe as having
"a strident and unrelenting opposition to that idea."
As so often, I find myself agreeing with @Lamb Chopped's
"I'm beginning to think this thing is an idiot trap thought up by the devil to distract Christians from their ordinary duties and love of God and neighbor."
That strikes me as the most sensible thing that 's been said on this thread.
My theory is that, at some point, our friend Mr. Farey realized that, in order for the Shroud to be authentic, a miracle had to have happened.
That idea conflicted with his rationalist philosophy so he was forced to change sides.
We had extended conversations on CAF which benefited the development of my own arguments. He is right about the rat being banned at CAF, but i've been given the 1000 year suspension there so many times that i can't say exactly what that one was for.
Catholic Answers absolutely hates the Prophecy of the Popes, so that may have been it.
BTW, i am not arguing, i am just explaining why i am right, TY.
This has been revealed to me by the LORD, in a Dream, and is therefore manifestly True™.
And for a modest fee of $$$ you too can receive a regular Dream Update™ revealing more of God’s Truth to His World.
Act promptly and receive this lovely Shroud Replica at a special discount. Available in a range of sizes. Wear this and surprise your family at breakfast.
My dudes, before you get your undies in a twist about the three-days-and-three-nights bit, it's worth finding out if it might have been an idiom (which is what I'm told). Like when people say, "I spent the whole weekend at X's place" and when you quiz them, you find they mean they went there Friday afternoon and didn't get home till Sunday lunch. That isn't the whole weekend, that's bits of two days and the whole of the middle one. But human beings talk that way.*
* And for more shits-n-giggles, "weekend" is not exactly a great term for a period that includes the first day of the week. And ancient Aramaic was no more likely to be scientifically precise about these matters than English.
* And for more shits-n-giggles, "weekend" is not exactly a great term for a period that includes the first day of the week. And ancient Aramaic was no more likely to be scientifically precise about these matters than English.
I think of it like bookends - one day at each end.
My dudes, before you get your undies in a twist about the three-days-and-three-nights bit, it's worth finding out if it might have been an idiom (which is what I'm told). Like when people say, "I spent the whole weekend at X's place" and when you quiz them, you find they mean they went there Friday afternoon and didn't get home till Sunday lunch. That isn't the whole weekend, that's bits of two days and the whole of the middle one. But human beings talk that way.*
* And for more shits-n-giggles, "weekend" is not exactly a great term for a period that includes the first day of the week. And ancient Aramaic was no more likely to be scientifically precise about these matters than English.
It don't bother me, but what do bother me is attempting to validate the already decided Friday-Sunday on that basis. Friday-Sunday is far from proven.
* And for more shits-n-giggles, "weekend" is not exactly a great term for a period that includes the first day of the week. And ancient Aramaic was no more likely to be scientifically precise about these matters than English.
I think of it like bookends - one day at each end.
Continuing this tangent, I was once told that there are flat stones just beneath the surface of the water at the place where this incident is supposed to have occurred.
Jesus therefore only seemed to be walking on the water...
Continuing this tangent, I was once told that there are flat stones just beneath the surface of the water at the place where this incident is supposed to have occurred.
Jesus therefore only seemed to be walking on the water...
Continuing this tangent, I was once told that there are flat stones just beneath the surface of the water at the place where this incident is supposed to have occurred.
Jesus therefore only seemed to be walking on the water...
Continuing this tangent, I was once told that there are flat stones just beneath the surface of the water at the place where this incident is supposed to have occurred.
Jesus therefore only seemed to be walking on the water...
If the water was shallow enough for Jesus to wade, then it was too shallow to float the boat.
Non-keel boats can float in very shallow water. I note that a boat from about Jesus's time excavated from the area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee_Boat) has a shallow draft which would allow it to be easily beached. However I think we need a reference for where Farey said this before diving too deeply. My own view is that this was a story that accrued to Jesus after his death and never actually happened.
Non-keel boats can float in very shallow water. I note that a boat from about Jesus's time excavated from the area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee_Boat) has a shallow draft which would allow it to be easily beached.
How shallow?
A boat with a draft of twelve inches can be easily beached. I have trouble believing that a boat that would hold twelve people would float in less than a foot of water.
I think the idea of stories accruing to Jesus within the time frame of the gospels being written is based on a mistaken analogy with the transmission of very different kinds of traditions over much longer periods.
Matthew’s Gospel is generally regarded as having reached its present form in AD 80-90, only 50 or 60 years after the events it recounts. There is significant internal and extra-biblical evidence to suggest that ‘The Twelve’ exercised considerable control over the material about Jesus for years, even possibly decades, after his death and resurrection, one aspect of which was the prevention of stories accruing.
Even in our very non-oral culture it wouldn’t be hard to gather living memories of the 1960s and 70s. And to reiterate, the idea of stories accruing in this way is derived from very different kinds of material transmitted over a very different time frame.
Non-keel boats can float in very shallow water. I note that a boat from about Jesus's time excavated from the area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee_Boat) has a shallow draft which would allow it to be easily beached.
How shallow?
A boat with a draft of twelve inches can be easily beached. I have trouble believing that a boat that would hold twelve people would float in less than a foot of water.
You really need to use your powers of imagination better. Our house is built on just over a half acre of land, so a polystyrene boat or raft that size would almost certainly carry a dozen people and draw less than a foot. I expect you to say that there was not that much polystyrene around in first century Palestine, but how do we know that?
Draft figures don't seem to be mentioned anywhere except as shallow or very shallow. The max preserved boat height is stated to be 1.3 meters but the draft would be considerably less than that (btw you can wade in 12in of water).
Draft figures don't seem to be mentioned anywhere except as shallow or very shallow. The max preserved boat height is stated to be 1.3 meters but the draft would be considerably less than that (btw you can wade in 12in of water).
How large were these boats? How many people or how much cargo could they carry? Were they big enough to carry twelve people?
And then you get the miraculous catches of fish. I doubt that the boats would have been very large as normally they would only have a couple of people aboard at once. If they were much larger than decent sized dinghy, they'd be hard for more than a couple of crew to row in the event that they were becalmed. Perhaps a half dozen metres long, a metre and a half wide? A bit less freeboard?
The excavated boat was 27 feet (8.27 meters) long and 7.5 feet (2.3 meters) wide and very flat bottomed so quite a good size boat (several of the researchers think it was probably about the largest usual boat of the Lake of Galilee [especially since its construction indicated that usable wood for boat building might have been rare]). It likely had a sail but would also have depended upon rowers. From the literary reading, some researchers think the number of rowers might have been 4 along with a helmsman. On a fishing boat (and this is thought to be a fishing boat) there likely would have been some people along to help with the handling of nets and the catch. It could also hold more people if being used as a transport from A to B (this is where some of Josephus comes in since he talks about boats capable of having 10 or so people on board). When being used for fishing some of the space would be used for storing the catch so less people.
Comments
YHWH has indicated that He would do exactly that: embarrass the learned and bring their learning to nothing.
Rabbi Yeshu promised to leave a sign for the whole world to witness, and He said that this sign would be associated with His death and burial.* According to Prof. Beate Kowalski, that sign is an enigma because there is no miracle associated with His death that could be witnessed by an entire generation of people.** Kowalski does not make the obvious connection to the miraculous image on the Rabbi's burial cloth because to do so would cause her to loose all credibility in her academic world since the Shroud has been "proven" to be 14th century.
*Gospel of Matthew
**https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307626105_Meaning_and_function_of_the_Sign_of_Jonah_in_Matthew_1238-42_and_161-4/fulltext/57cd92fc08ae83b37460da31/Meaning-and-function-of-the-Sign-of-Jonah-in-Matthew-1238-42-and-161-4.pdf
Summary: "The Sign of Jonah will remain and enigma in Matthew's Gospel."
I read that that and it doesn't actually support @undead_rat 's conclusions at all. In fact, rather the opposite. To continue from where @undead_rat 's quote of the summary ends:
". The fact that it cannot be unequivocally solved is a component of Matthew’s theology and narrative. Preconditions to understand the sign of Jonah in terms of Jesus’ death and resurrection are repentance and belief. Jesus’ opponents demand a sign and expect a supra-natural sign. They were confronted with a riddle which could be understood by his followers, respectively the Matthean community. It necessarily must be misunderstood by Jesus’ enemies and the community’s opponents as they had other expectations and a hidden agenda." (My bold)
That's ten minutes of my life wasted. The summary of the summary (as opposed to an isolated quote from the summary) is that Jesus is criticising people looking for a supernatural sign. Things like miraculous shrouds, for example.
I wish we still had the "beats head against wall" emoji.
Yes I know Martin and I am enough of a literalist that this does indeed bother me. Why go to all that bother to specify "three days and three nights" eh? If I remember rightly you are a "Good Wednesdayist" is that correct?
I find that I regularly come back to thinking about Lamentation 3, and more and more regretting the mistake of Thomas Chisholm when he put that passage into a hymn. Jeremiah spends a couple of chapters describing in detail the state of his own life and the nation as abandoned by God, totally destroyed, nothing but despair. Then in chapter 3 he remembers something - he remembers who God is, that every morning there are new mercies because God is merciful, and bursts into praise, "Great is thy faithfulness". Chisolm gets it wrong, "morning by morning new mercies I see" isn't in the passage, Jeremiah declares the faithfulness of God even though he doesn't see any mercies (in the morning or any other time), it's a declaration made on what he knows even though there's no evidence of that in anything he can see.
Jesus doesn't change that ... faith in His resurrection shouldn't need to depend on a piece of stained linen.
Aye, unless Jesus was that pragmatic, He certainly played fast and loose with all other 'prophecy' and appeared nonetheless to believe what He was saying. He was right for the 'wrong' reasons. For a pre-modern epistemology. As He continued to be after resurrection. It doesn't bother me at all; God is either that pragmatic or our timing is wrong or both. And our timing is wrong because we insist on it on no rational basis.
Of course, Alan. But the fact remains that He did promise us a sign, and in Matthew that sign is not quite the same as in the other accounts. It is not His resurrection there, so the Sign of Jonah is a sign both for the 500 that his post mortem self appeared to (as mentioned by St. Paul) and for us in the 21st century as provided by His corpse's image.
I do not know whether the shroud is genuine or not. But it doesn't further the cause that it might be to plead weak arguments without attributions from popular magazines or websites.
Nor, I'm afraid, is the statement, an argument with persuasive force to someone who doesn't know one way or the other, yet alone those that one might describe as having
As so often, I find myself agreeing with @Lamb Chopped's That strikes me as the most sensible thing that 's been said on this thread.
My theory is that, at some point, our friend Mr. Farey realized that, in order for the Shroud to be authentic, a miracle had to have happened.
That idea conflicted with his rationalist philosophy so he was forced to change sides.
We had extended conversations on CAF which benefited the development of my own arguments. He is right about the rat being banned at CAF, but i've been given the 1000 year suspension there so many times that i can't say exactly what that one was for.
Catholic Answers absolutely hates the Prophecy of the Popes, so that may have been it.
BTW, i am not arguing, i am just explaining why i am right, TY.
BTW, i am not arguing, i am just explaining why i am right, TY
This is surely worthy of the SoF Quotes File, no?
He's right though, it's not an argument it's just contradiction.
No it isn't.
I want to complain.
Unless, along with preaching in Hell, He also crosses the International Date Line a couple of times.
Jet lag from Hell is probably, er, jet lag from hell.
Therefore, the Bible is Wrong™.
This has been revealed to me by the LORD, in a Dream, and is therefore manifestly True™.
O wait - suppose the earth really is flat ?
I'd better lay me down, and have another Dream.
Or the hell-ta skelta
Don't take the stairs.
The best short horror story ever written.
And for a modest fee of $$$ you too can receive a regular Dream Update™ revealing more of God’s Truth to His World.
Act promptly and receive this lovely Shroud Replica at a special discount. Available in a range of sizes. Wear this and surprise your family at breakfast.
😉
O indeed. Scary stuff, and thanks (I think) for reminding me of it...
Man needs to read his Bible better, then--the walking-on-water thing came when they'd spent half the night trying to cross the Sea of Galilee in a windstorm (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 14:22-33&version=ESV)
* And for more shits-n-giggles, "weekend" is not exactly a great term for a period that includes the first day of the week. And ancient Aramaic was no more likely to be scientifically precise about these matters than English.
I think of it like bookends - one day at each end.
It don't bother me, but what do bother me is attempting to validate the already decided Friday-Sunday on that basis. Friday-Sunday is far from proven.
This. Neat.
However I do have a follow up question regarding the etymology of shits-n-giggles.
Is it similar to all-fun-and-games-until-someone-loses-an-eye or a level of toilet humour I have yet to plumb?
Or maybe I just have.
If the water was shallow enough for Jesus to wade, then it was too shallow to float the boat.
:thumbsup:
Jesus therefore only seemed to be walking on the water...
And the boat managed to avoid these stones?
What bothers me is traction.
Perhaps there were navigational aids warning of them.
Non-keel boats can float in very shallow water. I note that a boat from about Jesus's time excavated from the area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee_Boat) has a shallow draft which would allow it to be easily beached. However I think we need a reference for where Farey said this before diving too deeply. My own view is that this was a story that accrued to Jesus after his death and never actually happened.
How shallow?
A boat with a draft of twelve inches can be easily beached. I have trouble believing that a boat that would hold twelve people would float in less than a foot of water.
Matthew’s Gospel is generally regarded as having reached its present form in AD 80-90, only 50 or 60 years after the events it recounts. There is significant internal and extra-biblical evidence to suggest that ‘The Twelve’ exercised considerable control over the material about Jesus for years, even possibly decades, after his death and resurrection, one aspect of which was the prevention of stories accruing.
Even in our very non-oral culture it wouldn’t be hard to gather living memories of the 1960s and 70s. And to reiterate, the idea of stories accruing in this way is derived from very different kinds of material transmitted over a very different time frame.
You really need to use your powers of imagination better. Our house is built on just over a half acre of land, so a polystyrene boat or raft that size would almost certainly carry a dozen people and draw less than a foot. I expect you to say that there was not that much polystyrene around in first century Palestine, but how do we know that?
How large were these boats? How many people or how much cargo could they carry? Were they big enough to carry twelve people?