Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

What does Mark say? The reason I ask is that if Mark was the earliest Gospel, wouldn't it stand to reason that the facts are the closest to real life?

RMF5630 said:

---

Does that mean I agree with every single thing in the Catechism, site unseen. No, there are several items that give me issues. But, I still choose to be Catholic and go to Church every Sunday and do the Sacraments.

---

Many blessings to you during journey of knowledge.

If you are ever in Waco would like to discuss any of these issues at George's over a beer or three, let me know. I'd be happy to meet you.

RMF5630 said:

---

I have had this discussion with Moslems, Jews, Priests, Franciscan Brothers Protestants, and Lutheran Pastors, funny it seems the lay Catholics and the Protestants are the worst to discuss. The best was the Moslems, Jews and Jesuits. They seemed to be able to discuss on an abstract level without it being an attack on some tenet of faith.

---

I am curious as to why this seems to be the case for you.

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

What does Mark say? The reason I ask is that if Mark was the earliest Gospel, wouldn't it stand to reason that the facts are the closest to real life?

---

Mark is silent.
Matthew and Luke both had access to Mark and structure their gospels in a broad historical track similar to Mark. But in the "Follow me" context Matthew and Luke seem to have access to a second source that scholars call Q or Quelle for source .(in Greek); therefore they differ from Mark.
In addition Matthew (M) has his own sources (oral and written tradition) and, likewise with Luke.(L)
So counting Mark, Q, M (Mt) and L (Lk) their are four documents.
John is another matter.

Coke Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Does that mean I agree with every single thing in the Catechism, site unseen. No, there are several items that give me issues. But, I still choose to be Catholic and go to Church every Sunday and do the Sacraments.

---

Many blessings to you during journey of knowledge.

If you are ever in Waco would like to discuss any of these issues at George's over a beer or three, let me know. I'd be happy to meet you.

RMF5630 said:

---

I have had this discussion with Moslems, Jews, Priests, Franciscan Brothers Protestants, and Lutheran Pastors, funny it seems the lay Catholics and the Protestants are the worst to discuss. The best was the Moslems, Jews and Jesuits. They seemed to be able to discuss on an abstract level without it being an attack on some tenet of faith.

---

I am curious as to why this seems to be the case for you.

---

Thanks. I will take you up on that. Got an opportunity to travel in military and talk to quite a few Moslems, quite uncomfortable at first. Also, my Dad sponsored several Jews for US citizenship and I got to talk Judaism with them. My wife was Lutheran, My Mom and Grandmother Eastern Rite. My Dad Roman Catholic. And I got to talk Bushido with a Judo instructor. My guess is God wants me to learn to be open minded! I love discussing this subject. I believe it is fascinating.

As for why? Seems that Protestants can't exist with protesting! I find them very difficult to discuss possibilities, they seem to view it as challenging their believes or testing their faith or blasphemy. They are harder to talk to than Moslems who are very knowledgably, devout, so much so intimidating. I wish Catholics were as devout!

Wisconsin Synod Lutherans are real tough to talk to about it. Heard a Jokel

Guy died. St Peter was showing around Heaven. Catholic area, Buddhist, Moslem, Jewish, and so on. Then he says, OK, we have to be real quiet over here. This is the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran area, they think they are the only one here...

Shotgun approach. I think you'll find that many here are willing to discuss in a very polite way with you. Disagreement doesn't have to be unkind. Will that occur at times? Sure

If a person strongly disagrees with another but, does so in a polite manner, is it because they need to be right or because they want the other to know the truth. (Two-way street on this hypothetical)

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Shotgun approach. I think you'll find that many here are willing to discuss in a very polite way with you. Disagreement doesn't have to be unkind. Will that occur at times? Sure

If a person strongly disagrees with another but, does so in a polite manner, is it because they need to be right or because they want the other to know the truth. (Two-way street on this hypothetical)

---

We are good. It is a message board, I just get mad when people play be exact or every fact has to be documentable. I don't have time to research and back up for a message board. But I do enjoy discussing. There seems to be several in each subject area. I don't think I will give my opinion on the QB situation again.

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

A possibility is this: You have had discussions regarding historicity with JXL, with Mothra, with me and probably others. Did all those conversations go the same way.

Some of those conversations involved the 4 of us. Should the points I want to emphasize match the points of all the others?

If we each retell the story of one of those threads, and they don't match verbatim, is each of us a liar?

Waco1947 said:

---

Mark is silent.
Matthew and Luke both had access to Mark and structure their gospels in a broad historical track similar to Mark. But in the "Follow me" context Matthew and Luke seem to have access to a second source that scholars call Q or Quelle for source .(in Greek); therefore they differ from Mark.
In addition Matthew (M) has his own sources (oral and written tradition) and, likewise with Luke.(L)
So counting Mark, Q, M (Mt) and L (Lk) their are four documents.
John is another matter.

---

There is zero historical evidence for the Q document popularized by 19th century German Bible scholars. There are no source documents and it is not mentioned anywhere in history until the 19th century. The belief in the proto-document of Q is not a serious scholarly position.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

In my reading of the Scriptures is that it is obvious to even a casual reader but the stories and the gospels are shaped to convey a faith message. They are not history although they may contain some history but they are the good news of Jesus Christ the son of God.

---

can you historically or scientifically prove spirit? What about soul?

---

No, I cannot scientifically prove a soul.
But historically I can. You are example A. Do you know a soul? I do. The witness of faith throughout the centuries says that we have a soul; so yes history proves it.

---

This is nonsensical. How can you historically prove there is such a thing as a soul?

Waco1947 said:

---

I Corinthians 15 17 if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christwhom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins."

So yes the resurrection is central, however Paul goes on to say,
35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another.

So Jesus is raised from dead is; He not? But "god gives us a body ...there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies." Jesus had a heavenly body. -- that is His resurrection body.

---

Wait a second...

None of this is real, remember? I think you're forgetting all of the inconsistent beliefs you've expressed on this thread.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco, here is our exchange from the other thread. I think this exchange is pretty clear you answered yes to the question of whether you believe that Jesus is a physical person or entity alive at this moment.

Me:

"Can you please provide a "yes" or "no" response to these 2 questions?


1. Do you mean the Jesus of the bible, a deity who took human form, is actually alive at this moment?

2.In other words, an actual physical person or entity is alive?

Thanks."

You:

"Yes and yes."

---

My apologies. Thank you for tracking it down I misunderstood your questions.
1. Do you mean the Jesus of thbible, a deity who took human form, is actually alive at this moment?
A. Yes, Jesus is alive at this moment spiritually
2. In other words, an actual physical person or entity is alive?
B. I thought you were talking about humans in general not Jesus in particular. I totally misread "entity."
An entity to me in the moment I read it was Jesus is an entity' as in any particular form such as spirit.
Again my apologies. It was a misreading of your question.
Jesus is spirit and as spirit is alive today.

---

Thanks for the clarification. So you believe a "spirit" exists. By spirit, do you mean an actual thinking and feeling being that simply does not have a tangible physical form? If so, how do you reconcile that belief with the laws of nature? Do you have any scientific evidence a spirit exists?

Wouldn't the existence of a "spirit" be supernatural in nature?

---

My understanding of his belief is that the supernatural realm does exist, i.e. the spirit, and that is the only realm in which God has power or influence. He doesn't believe God is "supernatural" in the sense that He doesn't have power to influence the physical universe. Of course, that would make the other beliefs in his theology contradictory or nonsensical (let alone egregiously non-biblical, which he remedies with egregiously bad exegesis and eisegesis).

---

Indeed, a very odd and contradictory set of beliefs. So, there is a spirit world where God exists that isn't supernatural - like another dimension or something? And in that world, God has certain powers, but they're not supernatural?

Very very odd. There is no logic to it at all.

---

Don't put words in my mouth. God is spirit and transcendent in love, justice for the poor, grace which does not mean supernatural. Your love for your wife or SO is not supernatural but real and transcends time and distance just like God

---

Warmth can be measured,

Fuzzy is a description of texture: reporting on an observation

Therefore: 47's Warm and Fuzzy theology is science. 47 has scientifically proven his god.

---

The love of my savior was not fuzzy. It was a cruel, inhuman death.

---

Wait. Savior? He never even had butt sex.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

In my reading of the Scriptures is that it is obvious to even a casual reader but the stories and the gospels are shaped to convey a faith message. They are not history although they may contain some history but they are the good news of Jesus Christ the son of God.

---

You do know what acknowledging Christ as the Lord cost the first generation of apostles?

---

Yes, I know but immaterial to this discussion of historicity of the gospels.

---

No, it's completely material . We know from Roman records that many believers were killed, not for believing that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but for continuing to preach that Jesus rose from the dead.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

In my reading of the Scriptures is that it is obvious to even a casual reader but the stories and the gospels are shaped to convey a faith message. They are not history although they may contain some history but they are the good news of Jesus Christ the son of God.

---

You do know what acknowledging Christ as the Lord cost the first generation of apostles?

---

Yes, I know but immaterial to this discussion of historicity of the gospels.

---

No, it's completely material . We know from Roman records that many believers were killed, not for believing that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but for continuing to preach that Jesus rose from the dead.

---

That is a good point. Nice.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

A possibility is this: You have had discussions regarding historicity with JXL, with Mothra, with me and probably others. Did all those conversations go the same way.

Some of those conversations involved the 4 of us. Should the points I want to emphasize match the points of all the others?

If we each retell the story of one of those threads, and they don't match verbatim, is each of us a liar?

---

Fair question. No, you are not liars but literal translation is the issue. Are you saying both stories are true literally?

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

In my reading of the Scriptures is that it is obvious to even a casual reader but the stories and the gospels are shaped to convey a faith message. They are not history although they may contain some history but they are the good news of Jesus Christ the son of God.

---

You do know what acknowledging Christ as the Lord cost the first generation of apostles?

---

Yes, I know but immaterial to this discussion of historicity of the gospels.

---

No, it's completely material . We know from Roman records that many believers were killed, not for believing that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but for continuing to preach that Jesus rose from the dead.

---

That is a good point. Nice.

---

I am sorry RMF.but oldbears point although is off . In my reading of the scriptures is that it is obvious to even a casual reader but the stories and the gospels are shaped to convey a faith message. They are not history although they may contain some history but they are the good news of Jesus Christ the son of God. The martyrs believed the story but they were closer to events. I am talking scriptures as received.in the late 4th century. We are stuck with oral tradition, inaccurate copying and the whims of the council Constantine brought together. Oldbear will claim the Holy Spirit guided the whole but that is huge stretches which strains credulity.
Literalists like oldbear get stuck on the passages I mentioned above about following. He can't explain it. He can't which is "right."
Literalists want to play proof texting card until confronted with conflicting claims. But oldbear may see it different

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

In my reading of the Scriptures is that it is obvious to even a casual reader but the stories and the gospels are shaped to convey a faith message. They are not history although they may contain some history but they are the good news of Jesus Christ the son of God.

---

You do know what acknowledging Christ as the Lord cost the first generation of apostles?

---

Yes, I know but immaterial to this discussion of historicity of the gospels.

---

No, it's completely material . We know from Roman records that many believers were killed, not for believing that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but for continuing to preach that Jesus rose from the dead.

---

That is a good point. Nice.

---

I am sorry RMF.but oldbears point although is off . In my reading of the scriptures is that it is obvious to even a casual reader but the stories and the gospels are shaped to convey a faith message. They are not history although they may contain some history but they are the good news of Jesus Christ the son of God. The martyrs believed the story but they were closer to events. I am talking scriptures as received.in the late 4th century. We are stuck with oral tradition, inaccurate copying and the whims of the council Constantine brought together. Oldbear will claim the Holy Spirit guided the whole but that is huge stretches which strains credulity.
Literalists like oldbear get stuck on the passages I mentioned above about following. He can't explain it. He can't which is "right."
Literalists want to play proof texting card until confronted with conflicting claims. But oldbear may see it different

---

I think his point was the historic one, that the Roman's killed Christians. They believed enough to martyr themselves, do you do that over faith based stories?

Personally I believe it is a mix of historic and faith clarifying parables. I am not saying which ones. I learn...

Coke Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Depends on how literally you take the Bible and if you believe Paul is even an Apostle. That should give you something good to stew on.

---

It depends on what you mean by literal.

Jesus walking on water, miraculously feeding the 5000, raising Lazarus from the dead, healing the blind, deaf, mute, lame - all literally happened.

Prodigal son, rich man begging Lazarus for a drop of water - Parables to explain a greater teaching.

As a Catholic, we are bound to believe that sacred Scripture is inerrant -

From Vatican II document Dei Verbum (The Word of God) 11:

"Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures"

---

Paul walked on water, too. Don't know why he never gets mentioned.

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Depends on how literally you take the Bible and if you believe Paul is even an Apostle. That should give you something good to stew on.

---

It depends on what you mean by literal.

Jesus walking on water, miraculously feeding the 5000, raising Lazarus from the dead, healing the blind, deaf, mute, lame - all literally happened.

Prodigal son, rich man begging Lazarus for a drop of water - Parables to explain a greater teaching.

As a Catholic, we are bound to believe that sacred Scripture is inerrant -

From Vatican II document Dei Verbum (The Word of God) 11:

"Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures"

---

Paul walked on water, too. Don't know why he never gets mentioned.

---

Paul walked on water?

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Depends on how literally you take the Bible and if you believe Paul is even an Apostle. That should give you something good to stew on.

---

It depends on what you mean by literal.

Jesus walking on water, miraculously feeding the 5000, raising Lazarus from the dead, healing the blind, deaf, mute, lame - all literally happened.

Prodigal son, rich man begging Lazarus for a drop of water - Parables to explain a greater teaching.

As a Catholic, we are bound to believe that sacred Scripture is inerrant -

From Vatican II document Dei Verbum (The Word of God) 11:

"Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures"

---

Paul walked on water, too. Don't know why he never gets mentioned.

---

Probably because he changed his name.

You're right: Peter.

That's what happens when your PR team slacks.

quash said:

---

You're right: Peter.

That's what happens when your PR team slacks.

---

Paul was a Johnny come lately, couldn't he be more original???

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

In my reading of the Scriptures is that it is obvious to even a casual reader but the stories and the gospels are shaped to convey a faith message. They are not history although they may contain some history but they are the good news of Jesus Christ the son of God.

---

You do know what acknowledging Christ as the Lord cost the first generation of apostles?

---

Yes, I know but immaterial to this discussion of historicity of the gospels.

---

No, it's completely material . We know from Roman records that many believers were killed, not for believing that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but for continuing to preach that Jesus rose from the dead.

---

That is a good point. Nice.

---

I am sorry RMF.but oldbears point although is off . In my reading of the scriptures is that it is obvious to even a casual reader but the stories and the gospels are shaped to convey a faith message. They are not history although they may contain some history but they are the good news of Jesus Christ the son of God. The martyrs believed the story but they were closer to events. I am talking scriptures as received.in the late 4th century. We are stuck with oral tradition, inaccurate copying and the whims of the council Constantine brought together. Oldbear will claim the Holy Spirit guided the whole but that is huge stretches which strains credulity.
Literalists like oldbear get stuck on the passages I mentioned above about following. He can't explain it. He can't which is "right."
Literalists want to play proof texting card until confronted with conflicting claims. But oldbear may see it different

---

I think his point was the historic one, that the Roman's killed Christians. They believed enough to martyr themselves, do you do that over faith based stories?

Personally I believe it is a mix of historic and faith clarifying parables. I am not saying which ones. I learn...

---

This is a prescient point I was independently commenting earlier while reading through the thread. I think it goes back to a faith perspective what must have literally occurred to be considered True. That's where ultimately it does become a matter of Faith. I acknowledge the inconsistency - from a Western perspective - in individually and corporately aligning on what literally occurred, but I am not sure necessarily it matters. Don't think it is a reach, for example, to believe the Resurrection must be literally True while not losing sleeping over how many literally people Jesus fed on the mountainside. There is a lot of symbolism behind Jewish numerology, so an ANE Judean would take Truth from the meaning of the numbers not the literal headcount.

quash said:

---

You're right: Peter.

That's what happens when your PR team slacks.

---

Don't you just hate that when it happens

quash said:

---

You're right: Peter.

That's what happens when your PR team slacks.

---

I mentioned Peter earlier in this thread, I believe, for just that reason. His faith in Christ allowed him to walk, just a few steps, on the seas.

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

Any trial lawyer or insurance adjuster can tell you that eyewitness accounts often differ in minor details.

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

I'm late to the discussion. Are you seeing a contradiction between Matt 8 & Luke 9?

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

I'm late to the discussion. Are you seeing a contradiction between Matt 8 & Luke 9?

---

16 As he was walking along by the Lake of Galilee he saw Simon and Simon's brother Andrew casting a net in the lake -- for they were fishermen.
17 And Jesus said to them, 'Come after me and I will make you into fishers of people.'
18 And at once they left their nets and followed him.
19 Going on a little further, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John; they too were in their boat, mending the nets.
20 At once he called them and, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the men he employed, they went after him.

I like going back to Mark. As the earliest Gospel I like to see what it written before too many re-writes.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

I'm late to the discussion. Are you seeing a contradiction between Matt 8 & Luke 9?

---

16 As he was walking along by the Lake of Galilee he saw Simon and Simon's brother Andrew casting a net in the lake -- for they were fishermen.
17 And Jesus said to them, 'Come after me and I will make you into fishers of people.'
18 And at once they left their nets and followed him.
19 Going on a little further, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John; they too were in their boat, mending the nets.
20 At once he called them and, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the men he employed, they went after him.

I like going back to Mark. As the earliest Gospel I like to see what it written before too many re-writes.

---

Do you this passage conflicts with Matt 8 and/or Luke 9?

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

I'm late to the discussion. Are you seeing a contradiction between Matt 8 & Luke 9?

---

16 As he was walking along by the Lake of Galilee he saw Simon and Simon's brother Andrew casting a net in the lake -- for they were fishermen.
17 And Jesus said to them, 'Come after me and I will make you into fishers of people.'
18 And at once they left their nets and followed him.
19 Going on a little further, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John; they too were in their boat, mending the nets.
20 At once he called them and, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the men he employed, they went after him.

I like going back to Mark. As the earliest Gospel I like to see what it written before too many re-writes.

---

Do you this passage conflicts with Matt 8 and/or Luke 9?

---

As a follow me, I find Mark more powerful. He told them to come and they came. No miracles mentioned, no complicated stories to figure or need to finish anything. It must have been an hell of a message to prompt that response. But that is just me.

God gave us brains to reason with, but we need to remember that His ways and our ways are not the same. What seems logical to us may be in opposition to the one who created us. If I could completely understand and explain God I would be God. Do trust his word.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

A possibility is this: You have had discussions regarding historicity with JXL, with Mothra, with me and probably others. Did all those conversations go the same way.

Some of those conversations involved the 4 of us. Should the points I want to emphasize match the points of all the others?

If we each retell the story of one of those threads, and they don't match verbatim, is each of us a liar?

---

Fair question. No, you are not liars but literal translation is the issue. Are you saying both stories are true literally?

---

yes. My story of Baylor vs BYU doesn't match my son's but we were both there. We both saw the game. Some things stick out to me and other things stick out to him.

If I tell you about my dad, my story will not match my sister's story about my dad. Neither story would be lies.

---

The two stories decidedly differ and as that is true then one cannot claim that the stories are "literally true" because "literally true" mean, in your words, "historical." Historical means in a the same time and place. The stories take place in a different times and places.
You cannot have it both ways. You claim historicity (that is, they really happened) which presupposes time and place which is a basic tenet of history.
The BYU game was played in a time and place and you and your son have differing views of it but you did not change the time and place.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

A possibility is this: You have had discussions regarding historicity with JXL, with Mothra, with me and probably others. Did all those conversations go the same way.

Some of those conversations involved the 4 of us. Should the points I want to emphasize match the points of all the others?

If we each retell the story of one of those threads, and they don't match verbatim, is each of us a liar?

---

Fair question. No, you are not liars but literal translation is the issue. Are you saying both stories are true literally?

---

yes. My story of Baylor vs BYU doesn't match my son's but we were both there. We both saw the game. Some things stick out to me and other things stick out to him.

If I tell you about my dad, my story will not match my sister's story about my dad. Neither story would be lies.

---

The two stories decidedly differ and as that is true then one cannot claim that the stories are "literally true" because "literally true" mean, in your words, "historical." Historical means in a the same time and place. The stories take place in a different times and places.
You cannot have it both ways. You claim historicity (that is, they really happened) which presupposes time and place which is a basic tenet of history.
The BYU game was played in a time and place and you and your son have differing views of it but you did not change the time and place.

---

It is a sin to bear false witness, Waco.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

A possibility is this: You have had discussions regarding historicity with JXL, with Mothra, with me and probably others. Did all those conversations go the same way.

Some of those conversations involved the 4 of us. Should the points I want to emphasize match the points of all the others?

If we each retell the story of one of those threads, and they don't match verbatim, is each of us a liar?

---

Fair question. No, you are not liars but literal translation is the issue. Are you saying both stories are true literally?

---

yes. My story of Baylor vs BYU doesn't match my son's but we were both there. We both saw the game. Some things stick out to me and other things stick out to him.

If I tell you about my dad, my story will not match my sister's story about my dad. Neither story would be lies.

---

The two stories decidedly differ and as that is true then one cannot claim that the stories are "literally true" because "literally true" mean, in your words, "historical." Historical means in a the same time and place. The stories take place in a different times and places.
You cannot have it both ways. You claim historicity (that is, they really happened) which presupposes time and place which is a basic tenet of history.
The BYU game was played in a time and place and you and your son have differing views of it but you did not change the time and place.

---

In my opinion the historic piece is Jesus told people to follow him and was at a lake with fishermen. Being that all three gospels were written at different times for different audiences, does it matter if all three are historic and/or literal? The point survives.