Bible Fake: Jesus Stills the Storm

by JosephAlward 54 Replies latest watchtower bible

JosephAlward

RWC writes,
You must present some proof that the second story is made up
All that a skeptic can do is present evidence that the story is made up; he can never prove conclusively that the event never happened. I've given you three examples of stories which Mark seems to have copied from Scripture, and all you've done is say that you don't believe I've proved my case. You need to do more than that if you wish to counter my argument. I've shown you five quite unique elements in the Jonah story which also are found in Mark's story, and you have not yet told us why you think these elements are not unique and why you think the correspondences are just coincidental; until you do that, no one is going to take your objections seriously. You also need to understand that my argument is not based on just one pair of parallels. I've presented the miraculous feeding stories, and the David-Jesus parallels, but you've largely ignored them, making no attempt to show why one should believe the parallels are coincidental. It's apparent to everyone, I think, that you are not doing a good job defending the Bible; unless you start presenting analyses which are more substantive, more comprehensive, and which address the particulars of my arguments, I will just ignore you.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
JosephAlward

don't you think that its possible that the One that directed the fish so that it would swallow Jonah could at the same time provide the means for Jonah to survive while inside the fish, in the same miraculous fashion?
If the omnipotent god of the Bible existed, then of course that's possible, but if the Bible writers really expected their readers to believe this story, they would have told the readers that it was through a miracle from God that Jonah was allowed to live. The writers would not have let the readers reach the natural conclusion that the story was a fable if they really wanted them to believe it actually happened.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
cellomould

While we're being skeptical, why don't we mention the bottle gourd plant that Jonah saw?
It's quite clear that Jonah interpreted the bottle gourd plant as a message from God. In other words, God didn't provide the plant and then explain why... the plant was the message.
It's a very interesting story in Jonah when you get to the disappointment over Ninevah being 'spared'. Why would God go back on his word to destroy the city? How did 'sackcloth and ashes' make God feel sorry for the Ninevites?
And why would Jonah be so distraught that he couldn't unleash his jealous God on them?
Jonah gives a very good insight into the psychology of a prophet.
cellomould
"In other words, your God is the warden of a prison where the only prisoner is your God." Jose Saramago, The Gospel According to Jesus Christ
RWC

Joseph,
I think that it is obvious that you have no scholarly studies to support your theory. When asked to show it, you try to shift the burden of proof and say that all you are doing is tying similar stories together, so the later ones must be fake. If you are going to raise the theory that Mark made up the stories, you must show that he did. You must not ignore the evidence that he was an eyewitness, you must not ignore the evidence that he was killed for his "made up stories", and you must not ignore the portions of the Gospels where he says what he is writing is true. You must be the one to say that he is lying. That would be your role as a skeptic. I think you will start ignoring me because you cannot so this when asked.
What you have done is pick some stories from the old testament, find apparant similarites and than say that that means the new testament story is made up. As I have pointed out, that is not a logical conclusion and is not a rational leap from the evidence you have presented.
Can you present one biblical scholar who has made the same connections you have between these stories? They of course would think both are true, but if they are connected surely a Biblical scholar in the past would have made the connection.
As for the David stories, you are too general to make the connection so I am unable to respond. There are alot of people in the Bible that lamented and experienced agony such as Jesus in the garden. Which event to you think that was copied from?

As for the stories of the feedings we have discussed that in earlier posts. That is why I did not repeat that here. But if you will recall, the stories are not as similar as you have suggested and have no connection to each other.
There are of course some striking differences between Jonah and the Jesus story which you are ignoring:
1. Jonah was asked to go to a particular city and he went the opposite direction. Jesus was going no where in particular.
2. Jonah was not following God's instructions, he was running away from them. Jesus was dooing what he was sent here for.
3. Jonah was on a bost full of people who did not believe in God. Jesus was on a boat with his followers.
4. Jonah was in a deep sleep in the bottom of the boat. Jesus was napping in the stern, there is no mention that he was in a deep sleep.
5. The men on Jonah's boat did not look to Jonah to save them, but that he was the cause of the storm. The men on Jesus' boat looked to him to save them.
6. Jonah was thrown overboard. Jesus was not thrown overboard.
7. Jonah was eaten by a big fish and stayed in his belly praying to God for three days. Jesus was not eaten by a fish and simply told the storm to quiet.
8. Jonah had to repent for not following God's instuctions. Jesus had nothing to repent for.
9. The storm in Jonah was apparently sent by God because of Jonah's failure to follow his wishes. The storm in Jesus' version was apparently naturally caused for no particular reason.
10. The moral of the stories and the idea they are trying to teach are completely different. Jonah teaches that God will sometimes ask you to do things that are in his plan, but not in yours, but you must trust him. The purpose behind the story in Mark is to show that Jesus had control over nature.
Now, you have pointed out five apparent similarites, I have pointed out ten differences. Do you still think Mark copied Jonah for this episode?
It is clear in Jonah, that God spared the Nievites because they repented. It was an example of God's grace.
Finally, what makes you think that the Bible readers needed to be told that only God could make a man live in a fish for three days? Why would they need to be told that that miracle was from God? Don't you think that is obvious?
LittleToe

I was going to reply again, but RWC took the words from my mouth.
Nicely put, RWC.
JosephAlward

RWC,
Of course there are differences between the two tales, but my argument is based on the unique features of each tale. Based on your logic, Mark would have had to have Jesus swallowed by a big fish in order for you to accept my argument. By the way, while Mark did not make specific reference to Jesus being swallowed, just as Jonah was, Matthew did:
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:39-41)
This shows that Matthew expected his readers to be familiar with the story about Jonah and to compare what happened to Jonah to what was going to happen to Jesus. Is it not extremely likely, then, that other gospel writers--such as Mark--would likewise expect their readers to recall the Jonah story? If your answer is Yes, then why would you not believe that when Mark made all those references to unique events in the Jonah story that he did not want his readers to be reminded of the Jonah story? Are you really blind to this obvious connection?
You suggest that I need to show that the two stories are the same in order to prove that Mark wanted his readers to think about the Jonah story when they read his Jesus story. But, it clearly isn't necessary for the two stories to be the same; all one needs to do is show that certain features of the Jonah story are so unique in literature and folklore that their appearance in Mark's story could not have failed to remind the readers of Jonah. In all of recorded human history, there are only two places where we find a sleeping sailor who is scolded by his shipmates for his seeming lack of concern, and then actions taken by that sailor leading to a calming of the sea, followed by the passengers reacting in fear.
Only fundamentalists who deliberately blind themselves to the obvious can fail to see that Mark wanted his readers to think of Jonah--not to think the two stories are identical, of course--but merely to be reminded of some of the things which happened in the Jonah story.
Why did Mark want his readers to be reminded of Jonah? Well, I think it's obvious: Mark wanted his readers to recall the calming of the sea by the Lord in Jonah so they would seriously consider the possibility that Mark was right--that Jesus was the son of God, since he, too, could still the sea, just like the Lord did in the Jonah story.
What you have not done, RWC, is explain why you do not think that the five elements are unique and appear nowhere else in literature or folklore except in the Jonah and Jesus stories.
Do you agree that in both stories we find a sleeping sailor who is scolded by his shipmates for his lack of concern for his safety?
Do you agree that in both stories, after being awakened, the sea is calmed?
Do you agree that after the sea is calmed, rather than feel a sense of closeness to the divine one whose power saved them, they feel fear instead?
Do you agree that you know of no other stories since the beginning of time--beside the Jonah and Jesus ones--that have all of these very unique elements?
If you answer Yes to all of these questions, please explain to the forum why you still believe that Mark probably did not base his Jesus story on the Jonah story--if that's what you still believe.
Now, you asked for "biblical scholars" who support my view. I suggest you read "Gospel Fictions," by Randel Helms, for example, or join the discussion forum for professors and graduate students called "Kata Markon." You don't have to participate in the discussion there; you may just lurk if you wish. But, if you wish to know whether there are any scholars who support my view that Mark's gospels are pure fiction, all you have to do is identify yourself and ask your question. It's easy to join; just go to the website below, then click on "Archives." While you're there, take some time to check the professional background of the moderators and get a sense of the qualifications of those who participate in the discussion; then go to the archives. You don't have to join the list to read all of the posts which have been made in the last few years. But, if you don't join, you won't be able to ask your question: "Are there any Biblical scholars who believe that the gospels are fiction?"
If you're sincere about wanting to know what Biblical scholars think, say, and write about the gospels, you will join that list and ask your questions. I hope to see you on that list this evening. If you have any trouble finding the forum, or joining it, let me know, and I'll provide whatever assistance you need. Please let me know once you're on board.
The website address is http://www.ibiblio.org/GMark/
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
Yadirf

Yadirf had said to Farkel:
You do a good job of casting doubt on the Bible, but you keep forgetting about the abilities of the One that inspired it. Regarding your conclusion that there was absolutely no way that Jonah could've survived such an ordeal, don't you think that its possible that the One that directed the fish so that it would swallow Jonah could at the same time provide the means for Jonah to survive while inside the fish, in the same miraculous fashion?
In response to that, JosephAlward (an apparent atheist) said this:
don't you think that its possible that the One that directed the fish so that it would swallow Jonah could at the same time provide the means for Jonah to survive while inside the fish, in the same miraculous fashion? -- Yadirf.
If the omnipotent god of the Bible existed, then of course that's possible, but if the Bible writers really expected their readers to believe this story, they would have told the readers that it was through a miracle from God that Jonah was allowed to live. The writers would not have let the readers reach the natural conclusion that the story was a fable if they really wanted them to believe it actually happened. -- JosephAlward.
You really take the cake, man! You atheists never cease to amaze me, as you can be so outlandishly ridiculous in your desperate attempts at keeping yourselves free from having to obey God: Now WHY in the world should the "Bible writers" really NEED to tell the readers about something that is so plainly obvious that even a child would have no trouble reaching the right conclusion about?
You make a person want to swear, man.
.
Daniel 11:35 ... a KEY prophecy that must be fulfilled before the "time of the end" gets underway.
JosephAlward

Now WHY in the world should the "Bible writers" really NEED to tell the readers about something that is so plainly obvious that even a child would have no trouble reaching the right conclusion about?
You're looking at this from the point of view of the fundamentalist who believes all of the Bible stories are literally true. Naturally, if you believe that Jonah reallylived inside the belly of a big fish for three days, you have to assume that this was done by the Lord, because you know such things just don’t happen. However, folks in those days didn't blindly accept on faith that everything described in Scripture was literally true; they understood that the writers often used parabolic language and symbolisms to make their point.
When the Bible writer described the conversation between a donkey and its master, Balaam, he was careful to let the reader know that this was not a parable; the donkey had actually spoken, and it was because the Lord made him do it. (Numbers 22:21-35) Thus, an event that otherwise would be dismissed as fantastic by many readers is accepted by some as true because they're told God made it happen.
The same is true about the story of the sun being stopped in its tracks to give Joshua’s army more daylight to defeat his enemy: the writer made sure the readers knew that this astonishing event was caused by the Lord. (Joshua 10:1-12), otherwise some readers might have assumed that the story was not literally true.
As for Jonah being swallowed by the big fish, there would have been many at that time who would just assume that the story was not literally true, because people just don’t live in a fish’s belly for three days. If the writer had been guided by the omnipotent and all-wise God, that god would have been smart enough to know that some readers would have assumed that Jonah did not literally live inside the fish for three days, so God, in his infinite wisdom, would have had the writer explain to the readers that the Lord had worked a miracle to prevent Jonah from being suffocated, or dissolved in the digestive juices of the big fish. The fact that the god did not have the writer say this is good evidence that the writer never wished for his readers to believe the story was literally true.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
Yadirf

You certainly ARE trying to make me swear, aren't you!
The same is true about the story of the sun being stopped in its tracks to give Joshua’s army more daylight to defeat his enemy: the writer made sure the readers knew that this astonishing event was caused by the Lord. (Joshua 10:1-12), otherwise some readers might have assumed that the story was not literally true.
According to Matthew 24:29 similar celestial happenings will take place in the future: "The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven."
Because the writer DIDN'T 'make sure the readers knew that this astonishing event will be caused by the Lord' I suppose such readers shouldn't assume that this account is literally true either, eh?
Because every thinking person knows that it's impossible for the literal "stars" (which are humongous suns) to fall to earth (a tiny object in comparison), you would, in your usual fashion, argue that such a fact marks Matthew's words as being unreliable. Never mind the fact that even a young person is possessed with the ability to discern the fact that the account has reference to meteorites -- which are known as "stars" -- falling stars, that is.
You're reasoning sucks! Is that a swear word?
Yadirf
Yadirf

I hate it that we aren't able to edit. C'mon, Simon, get a life!
I wanted to correct this:
Never mind the fact that even a young person is possessed with the ability to discern the fact that the account has reference to meteorites -- which are known as "stars" -- falling stars, that is.
To say this instead:
Never mind the fact that even a young person is possessed with the ability to discern that the word "stars" has reference to meteorites -- which ARE indeed known as "stars" -- falling stars, that is.
Sucks, sucks, sucks! The fact that we're not allowed to edit our comments, sucks, sucks, sucks!
Swear, swear, swear!

Bible Fake: Jesus Stills the Storm

Share this