Matthew 16:4 and the sign of Jonah

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Matthew 16:4
A wicked adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus left them and went away.


In this verse Jesus clearly states that the ONLY sign his generation would get would be the sign of Jonah. My question to Christians is: if Jesus said there would be no miraculous signs given to that generation, why did he go on to perform at least 37 miracles throughout the bible?

He clearly says that no miraculous sign will be given yet the bible mentions at least 37 of these miraculous signs that he supposedly did. Do you consider this a contradiction? If not, how so? Also, what is the sign of Jonah? I already have an idea of what this sign is but I want to see others opinions before I give mine. Thanks for reading.




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


No contradiction here, just another example of someone(you) taking one bible verse out of context, and then attempting to apply it to another part of the bible.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Put the text in question back into context:


The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.

He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away. (Matthew 16:1-4 NIV)

Okay, with the surrounding text, it appears that what Jesus had already done (fed the multitudes, cured many, driven out demons, etc) wasn't good enough for the Pharisees and Sadducees, they wanted to see a miracle "on demand." As the religious elite, they figured that they deserved it.

So, what's the "Sign of Jonah"? From earlier in Matthew:


He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 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 12:39-40 NIV)

In other words, the only sign those guys were going to get was Christ's death and resurrection, and if they didn't understand the fulfillment of God's promise to Israel, too bad for them.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thanks for the reply. What do you think he meant by that "generation"? Did he mean only the Pharisees and Sadducees or the whole generation of those times? I look at it as the whole not just a few. My opinion of course.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I think that it's being used in a generic sense in that passage -- any generation that is wicked is going to ask for concrete evidence that they're wrong, not just the people that were standing before him at that moment. The history of Israel to that point had largely been one of the Israelites rejecting God and, once things got bad enough, a prophet came along and showed them the point of their error. Perhaps the "sign of Jonah" and the words of Christ there were a warning that the time of the Prophets was ending (as it did,) and this was their last sign.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


How exactly did I take it out of context? All I did was quote the bible then ask a question. Thanks for the non-reply though.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So in your opinion the "generation" he was talking about was the generation of Pharisees and Sadducees? Am I right in that assumption? He was speaking to the Pharisees while saying this, so I assume that's what you mean. Correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


No, like I said, I think he was speaking in generic terms -- any generation, not just that one.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


But only after they ask him to perform a miracle does he make the statement that "a generation" asks for a miraculous sign. That points to him including the Sadducees and Pharisees in this generation he mentioned. That's a logical conclusion don't you think? The generation he speaks of isn't limited to the Pharisees/Sadducees but it does include them, correct?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Yes, I think that he was responding to them, making the point that only a wicked generation demands concrete evidence of holiness, and that they were part of one such generation.

I suppose the question would be whether "generation" refers to everyone in a certain time, or subsets of them, like the religious elite of some certain time. Disraeli, Lonewolf, NOTurTypical or someone else well versed in Hebrew could probably tell you the answer to that, I don't know.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


If that's the case, how do you explain Mark 12:9-14 where he heals a mans withered hand in front of the Pharisees? All Pharisees of that time were wicked and a part of this generation, correct? So why does Jesus say later on that the only sign a "generation" (Pharisees/Sadducees) would receive would be the sign of Jonah?

He had already shown them the mans withered hand he healed, so why did he say the sign of Jonah would be the only sign they would see? What about his healing of the man possessed by Beelzebul in front of the Pharisees in Matt 12:22? Weren't those miraculous signs that he said the Pharisees would not see? Yet he performed them in plain sight of them.

What is the sign of Jonah? A man who lived inside a fish for three days? That's pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Maybe what Jesus meant by the sign of Jonah was exaggerated and ridiculous claims made by those in power (Rome) at the time? Maybe.
edit on 4-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Weren't those miraculous signs that he said the Pharisees would not see? Yet he performed them in plain sight of them.


Which makes the case pretty well that the Pharisees kept demanding more, and the only thing they were going to get was his death and resurrection. It comes rather late in the narrative, just before the Transfiguration, so it's likely that the exchange you're asking about was very shortly before his arrest and death.


Maybe what Jesus meant by the sign of Jonah was exaggerated and ridiculous claims made by those in power (Rome) at the time? Maybe.


Who in Rome, and at what time? Jesus and Rome (proper) had no interaction in his lifetime, the whole of the Gospels takes place in a small part of what was once Israel.

The bit about Jonah is obviously about being taken from the Earth for three days, and to return in one piece. Whether you think it ridiculous or not, or whether it was true or just a Jewish fable, makes no difference -- it was the allegory that mattered. Jesus liked talking in parables, there's no reason that this would be an exception.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
The simple explanation is this. The time in the tomb was supposed to have been 3 days. The full wording of Matthew 12.

38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

The sign was his resurrection.

However he may have been alluding to this as well. The New Jerusalem in Revelation. It says that after the 1000 year reign of the saints the world would be destroyed and the new world and Jerusalem would take it's place. And according to 2nd Peter 3-8 a day with the Lord is as a 1000 years upon the earth. Perhaps it alludes to this prophecy.

Hosea 6
1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

edit on 4-12-2012 by ntech because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The fact still remains that Jesus said that the ONLY sign the Pharisees would see was the sign of Jonah. If he had already performed miracles in front of the Pharisees then why would he say they would see none? They already had!

No, Jesus may not have had any connection to the Romans while alive except for his crucifixion but the Romans are the ones who took his story and ran with it. Peter was born in a Roman province, he was captured and imprisoned around the time of Jesus' death by the Romans and was even "supposedly" crucified upside-down. Jesus even called Peter Satan at one point.

It all seems to add up to a Roman takeover of the story and manipulation by adding in sun-worship themes like the virgin birth. The pope even just acknowledged that Jesus wasn't even born in December. All of this information leads me to think that the Romans killed Jesus then took his story and altered it, but I'm sure you know that about me already. The bible is editable in all reality, all it took was a pen, paper, and time, something the Romans had plenty of.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


The fact still remains that Jesus said that the ONLY sign the Pharisees would see was the sign of Jonah. If he had already performed miracles in front of the Pharisees then why would he say they would see none? They already had!


He didn't say that they hadn't seen any, he said that they're asking to see a sign, and they're going to get one, but it's not what they want. Go back and read the full passage that I posted above, and you'll see that.


No, Jesus may not have had any connection to the Romans while alive except for his crucifixion but the Romans are the ones who took his story and ran with it. Peter was born in a Roman province, he was captured and imprisoned around the time of Jesus' death by the Romans and was even "supposedly" crucified upside-down. Jesus even called Peter Satan at one point.


Actually, there are other instances of Jesus interacting with Romans, even favourably, I was saying he had no interaction with Rome. And you're confusing your people there -- it was Paul who was the Roman citizen, not Peter, and Jesus called Peter "Satan" because Peter wanted Jesus to be the expected political messiah, who would overthrow the Roman rule in Israel and re-establish the Kingdom of Israel.


The pope even just acknowledged that Jesus wasn't even born in December.


No, the Pope recently said that Jesus may have been born in a year prior to when he is generally accepted to have been born (by a few years.) No church has ever claimed that Jesus was born in December, Christmas is a festival that celebrates Christ's birth, it isn't a birthday party. The date in December was chosen because it coincided with the Roman festival of Saturnalia, because if you want people to stop doing something (celebrating Saturnalia,) you'll be more successful if you give them something else to do instead.

No, there is a preponderance of evidence that Jews from Palestine wrote the New Testament, and zero evidence that the Romans did, and even if that was true, why would they leave in this "clue" that you think you've found?
edit on 4-12-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Matthew 16:4
A wicked adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus left them and went away.


In this verse Jesus clearly states that the ONLY sign his generation would get would be the sign of Jonah. My question to Christians is: if Jesus said there would be no miraculous signs given to that generation, why did he go on to perform at least 37 miracles throughout the bible?

He clearly says that no miraculous sign will be given yet the bible mentions at least 37 of these miraculous signs that he supposedly did. Do you consider this a contradiction? If not, how so? Also, what is the sign of Jonah? I already have an idea of what this sign is but I want to see others opinions before I give mine. Thanks for reading.

To me Jesus was speaking about what has come to be known as "Christianity", they believe that Jesus' death signifies their inheritance, they aren't much different than the vinedressers who said, "Lets kill him and then we'l get his inheritance." They believe that their actions are justified by someone else's death. As Jesus was three days and nights in the heart of the earth is what Jesus meant by the sign of Jonah, that's their sign, Christians, for the most part, set aside the teachings of Jesus in order to reassure others that Jesus died for them so that they don't have to. Well Jesus said that a person has to carry their own cross, not just point to Jesus' cross and brand others and themselves "sinners for life", that's my take on it.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


He said the "ONLY" sign they would get was the sign of Jonah. The Pharisees had already seen a miraculous sign before so why say "only" instead of "last"? He knew they had already seen miracles by him so why use the words "only"? It doesn't fit in with the story before that instance.

I said Peter was born in a Roman province, that of Bethsaida. Whether he was a Roman or not is up for debate, then again I think Peter and Paul were actually the same person. Peter/Paul was the trojan horse sent in by the Romans in my opinion.

Saul/Paul, Simon/Peter, both jailed in Mamertine prison, both founded the RCC together, etc. Also, the last pope is supposed to be called Peter the Roman and he's supposedly the antichrist. Matthew 20:16 comes to mind here. Peter is considered the first pope, Peter the antichrist is supposed to be last. Coincidence? Maybe.

Is it just a coincidence that Peter wasn't reinstated until after Jesus' supposed resurrection? You know, the time after he was supposed to have died and should have been dead? I don't think so.

So Romans replacing Saturnalia with CHRISTmas isn't evidence of their intervention? Why would they stop there? They didn't stop for a thousand years before that.

The evidence that Romans wrote part of the bible is in Paul's epistles. You just admitted that Paul was a Roman earlier. The evidence is right in front of you, you just choose to ignore it.
edit on 4-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



I think Peter and Paul were actually the same person.


I would like to see what scripture makes you believe this...

Interesting thought..




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


While I don't think there is one certain verse to back up my idea, I do think there are things that point toward it. Their name changes, both being continuously jailed, both founded the church together, Jesus calling Peter Satan, Peter's fathers name was Jonah (sign of Jonah), them being martyred around the same time, Peter being crucified upside-down, etc. They have a lot of similarities to be sure, it takes a bit of reading between the lines to get it though. We don't even know the names of Paul's parents which is very convenient.

I just realized Peter's fathers name was Jonah. Maybe the sign of Jonah was Peter the antichrist? Maybe the coming of Rome's intervention? The antichrist is supposed to be a smooth talker with the tongue of a snake, Christians eat up Paul's sweet words about salvation and eternal bliss in heaven.

Also, is it a coincidence that one of the apostles name was Simon(Peter) the Zealot which is also what Paul ended up being, a zealot? Is it a coincidence that Judas' fathers name was Simon?
edit on 4-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Also, what is the sign of Jonah?

I think that most of the mentions of 3 days found throughout the gospels are later additions. Take a look rather at Luke's version:

Luke 11:29-32
American Standard Version (ASV)
29 And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah.

30 For even as Jonah became a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn them: for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

32 The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.

Jonah himself with his message of doom in 40 days was the sign. Jesus also was preaching "repent". Evidently, Judea didn't think there was anything to repent for. Jerusalem ended up getting quite messed up about 40 years later.

Luke's take on sign of Jonah doesn't have anything to do with fish, or three days, just a contrast between repentance versus no repentance.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join