Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Parables are obviously parables. So I guess if you don't like the historic or literal words... you just decide that it is some sort of metaphorical story?

So are the words of Jesus metaphorical or literal text? Was the life of Jesus literal or not?

How do you decide which parts are literal and which are not?

Jesus talked about Noah and the Ark in Matthew 24... was he a liar? Or maybe Jesus never said those words? If so, what let's you know which words of Jesus are literal and which are untrue?

---

Mythical rather than metaphorical. Jesus is a historical but the stories about him probably mythical like the virgin birth.
There is no historicity to any of these events but their historicity is not their point. There point is, and this is the key, is to engendered faith in God. Their intent is to say God is love and sent the Son to show us love. Literalism is gone.

---

No.

The Bible is a book of many lessons, including that miracles happen.

I understand this is difficult for someone to accept, if they understand nothing beyond what their senses tell them, but this is important:

We are more than just animals, more than brute instinct and matter.

Every life matters, because each and every human being is a miracle, designed and created for a unique identity and purpose, and part of Life is discovering that purpose and identity, and crafting our own contribution to Creation.

The Bible accounts show God is in control, to the point that Jesus can turn water to win, make the blind see, walk on the seas, and raise the dead. That these things are done for love and hope in no way makes them less real.

---

These acts fail the test of historicity but What's a gospel writers could care less about the actual hisstericity and cared more about the good news of Jesus Christ which is that he is God's Son and that God's reign is here.
The gospels never pretend to be about history. They are not a historical record, memories, or newspaper accounts. The gospels were written do engender faith and to make them do anything else rob them of their power, Especially with secular folk. The church will continue to shrink in membership membership and power and authority as long as we ask people to believe impossible doctrines of traditional faith. A new theism is called for. Gravity is a son of a gun because it defies "God's control and people know it.

---

How do they fail?

I'll wait for an answer but won't get one.

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?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

fadskier 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?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier 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?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

JXL 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?

---

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

---

I routinely use the Three Blind Men and the Elephant in my closing argument to juries.

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier 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?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

It looks like he is saying that they are completely different because of the leaving out of the boat by Luke. Am I incorrect on this?

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 other words, it's all a bunch of make-believe.

Mothra said:

---

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 other words, it's all a bunch of make-believe.

---

Something clearly happened. We have multiple writings all with a similar theme. All three may have happened pretty much as described at different times. Or, the general theme based event occurred and the description was based on different vantage points. Or, different authors paraphrased to relay the information to different audiences. My point is that even if it is not exactly as written, it does not change the message or the fact that something happened significant enough to change the world going forward.

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.

---

I'm confused on what you are asserting.
Are you saying the passages contradict one another?
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred?
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred?

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

The two accounts do not conflict with regard to time and place. You are assuming they do based on your flawed reading of them. Not to mention they aren't decidedly different, either.

---

Certainly they conflict on time and place. Matthew is early on and Luke's jesus is on his way to Jerusalem.

The two accounts differ. Matthew address the disciples during the storm
""Lord, save us! We are perishing!" 26 And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a dead calm."

Mark after the storm, "And waking up, he rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Be silent! Be still!" Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. 40 He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?

Different time and place Jesus. Matthew has Jesus coming of the sermon on the mount.
and in Mark Jesus is beside the sea.
If you claim historicity then the two accounts differ in when Jesus commands the storm and the time and the place. You can have it both ways - If these passage are indeed history and eye witness accounts then they do not match are not two separate events.

Look deeper at text. They are not about history but the good news of Jesus the Son of God.

I'm confused on what you are asserting.
Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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 other words, it's all a bunch of make-believe.

---

Something clearly happened.

---

Don't disagree. I was describing Waco's beliefs. He thinks it's all made-up, which begs the question as to why he calls himself Christian.

---

Don't put words in my mouth. You are lying about me..

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

Waco1947 said:

---

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was.

---

So, if you're saying Jesus calming a storm is true, then you're saying it's historical.

For God's sake, man, please make sense.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier 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?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectual dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

The two accounts do not conflict with regard to time and place. You are assuming they do based on your flawed reading of them. Not to mention they aren't decidedly different, either.

---

Certainly they conflict on time and place. Matthew is early on and Luke's jesus is on his way to Jerusalem.

The two accounts differ. Matthew address the disciples during the storm
""Lord, save us! We are perishing!" 26 And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a dead calm."

Mark after the storm, "And waking up, he rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Be silent! Be still!" Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. 40 He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?

Different time and place Jesus. Matthew has Jesus coming of the sermon on the mount.
and in Mark Jesus is beside the sea.
If you claim historicity then the two accounts differ in when Jesus commands the storm and the time and the place. You can have it both ways - If these passage are indeed history and eye witness accounts then they do not match are not two separate events.

Look deeper at text. They are not about history but the good news of Jesus the Son of God.

---

Matthew's "follow me" account appears earlier in his gospel than what Luke records, but it doesn't mention anything about time or place- only that it happened. The gospel writers aren't necessarily trying to present an accurate timeline of events. They may be choosing to highlight certain events out of sequence in order to communicate certain theological themes or points to their audience.

But even if Matthew remembers the event happening earlier in Jesus' ministry than what Luke records, it still doesn't mean the event didn't actually happen. You have this puzzling mindset that if the gospel accounts are not presented in chronologically correct order, then there is absolutely no historicity to them, and so they must be just made up stories. Crazy false dichotomy.

Has the thought ever ocurred to you, that the gospels could be shaped faith narratives.... AND actual events? Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier 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?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

The two accounts do not conflict with regard to time and place. You are assuming they do based on your flawed reading of them. Not to mention they aren't decidedly different, either.

---

Certainly they conflict on time and place. Matthew is early on and Luke's jesus is on his way to Jerusalem.

The two accounts differ. Matthew address the disciples during the storm
""Lord, save us! We are perishing!" 26 And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a dead calm."

Mark after the storm, "And waking up, he rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Be silent! Be still!" Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. 40 He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?

Different time and place Jesus. Matthew has Jesus coming of the sermon on the mount.
and in Mark Jesus is beside the sea.
If you claim historicity then the two accounts differ in when Jesus commands the storm and the time and the place. You can have it both ways - If these passage are indeed history and eye witness accounts then they do not match are not two separate events.

Look deeper at text. They are not about history but the good news of Jesus the Son of God.

---

Matthew's "follow me" account appears earlier in his gospel than what Luke records, but it doesn't mention anything about time or place- only that it happened. The gospel writers aren't necessarily trying to present an accurate timeline of events. They may be choosing to highlight certain events out of sequence in order to communicate certain theological themes or points to their audience.

But even if Matthew remembers the event happening earlier in Jesus' ministry than what Luke records, it still doesn't mean the event didn't actually happen. You have this puzzling mindset that if the gospel accounts are not presented in chronologically correct order, then there is absolutely no historicity to them, and so they must be just made up stories. Crazy false dichotomy.

Has the thought ever ocurred to you, that the gospels could be shaped faith narratives.... AND actual events? Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?

---

Ask some Baylor fan about the Baylor vs OSU B12 championship game. I'm guessing that very early in the story-telling the account of the McPlay comes up. When that is told before Shapen's 17 for 17, we know that person is a liar.

I guess we are all liars

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

---

What he has said on this thread is that he doesn't believe any of it really happened. It's merely fiction used to convey a message, though he doesn't believe in a deity so I'm not sure what that purpose is or whose purpose it is.

In truth he's being purposely vague because he knows the implications of what he saying. He purports to be a Methodist minister.

---

Do you have to have one without the other???

Example,
Christ existed, we know from history of Romans.
Christ would have been born in Bethlehem (Census, happened and his lineage says he would go there).
We know there was a brighter star
Magi can actually be proven to have existed in the east.
Christ in Egypt makes sense as well, based on Herod's actions that are documentable.

Was he born in a manger and the magi find him there?? Did the Angels come down? I don't know. But that does not change the facts he was born and fit the prophecies. All enough to view the Nativity as a legitimate theological text and confirm some doubts.

The point being there is documentable history in the Bible and around Jesus's life. He obviously lived, taught, and his message was dangerous enough that the Jewish hierarchy wanted him dead. His message did not die and changed the world for billions against odds. I don't need the everything in the Bible to be factual history, there is enough there if you look to show it is based on some history and his message survives 2000 years later, we are still discussing it. That is the biggest miracle of all to me.

I am curious if he spent time in t he East or was exposed to Eastern thought somewhere based on his teaching style and message. But that is a personal curiosity.

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

---

What he has said on this thread is that he doesn't believe any of it really happened. It's merely fiction used to convey a message, though he doesn't believe in a deity so I'm not sure what that purpose is or whose purpose it is.

In truth he's being purposely vague because he knows the implications of what he saying. He purports to be a Methodist minister.

---

I'm trying to be generous. His theology confuses me

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

---

What he has said on this thread is that he doesn't believe any of it really happened. It's merely fiction used to convey a message, though he doesn't believe in a deity so I'm not sure what that purpose is or whose purpose it is.

In truth he's being purposely vague because he knows the implications of what he saying. He purports to be a Methodist minister.

---

I'm trying to be generous. His theology confuses me

---

It's not that difficult.

Pick your favorite from column 1
Pick 2 from column 2
Get a drink
Don't forget your egg rolls

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

---

What he has said on this thread is that he doesn't believe any of it really happened. It's merely fiction used to convey a message, though he doesn't believe in a deity so I'm not sure what that purpose is or whose purpose it is.

In truth he's being purposely vague because he knows the implications of what he saying. He purports to be a Methodist minister.

---

I'm trying to be generous. His theology confuses me

---

It's not that difficult.

Pick your favorite from column 1
Pick 2 from column 2
Get a drink
Don't forget your egg rolls

---

That pretty much covers Christianity since Luther

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

---

What he has said on this thread is that he doesn't believe any of it really happened. It's merely fiction used to convey a message, though he doesn't believe in a deity so I'm not sure what that purpose is or whose purpose it is.

In truth he's being purposely vague because he knows the implications of what he saying. He purports to be a Methodist minister.

---

I'm trying to be generous. His theology confuses me

---

It's not that difficult.

Pick your favorite from column 1
Pick 2 from column 2
Get a drink
Don't forget your egg rolls

---

That pretty much covers Christianity since Luther

---

Sadly, it does for a lot of people but not all.

Just like a bunch of crooked lawyers don't provide a good image of the legal system that you are a part of, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a good representation of what Christianity is. But, you already knew that.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

---

What he has said on this thread is that he doesn't believe any of it really happened. It's merely fiction used to convey a message, though he doesn't believe in a deity so I'm not sure what that purpose is or whose purpose it is.

In truth he's being purposely vague because he knows the implications of what he saying. He purports to be a Methodist minister.

---

I'm trying to be generous. His theology confuses me

---

It's not that difficult.

Pick your favorite from column 1
Pick 2 from column 2
Get a drink
Don't forget your egg rolls

---

That pretty much covers Christianity since Luther

---

And before.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

---

What he has said on this thread is that he doesn't believe any of it really happened. It's merely fiction used to convey a message, though he doesn't believe in a deity so I'm not sure what that purpose is or whose purpose it is.

In truth he's being purposely vague because he knows the implications of what he saying. He purports to be a Methodist minister.

---

I'm trying to be generous. His theology confuses me

---

Think of it as process theology couched in orthodox language.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-approves-plan-to-redeploy-several-hundred-ground-forces-into-somalia/ar-AAXlbyi, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Gen 1 and 2 are not history but poetry. There is history, prophecy, apocalyptic literature, songs, analogies, metaphors and they are all true WHEN read in context and take into consideration the type of literature they are.

The gospels are written as history and part of that history is Christ teaching with parables.

Not every train leaving Chicago at 60 mph in 7th grade math is a real train.

---

Yes true, but they always seemed to go in opposite directions and the other train never went the exact same speed.

---

But the real question is what color was the train?

RMF5630 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-approves-plan-to-redeploy-several-hundred-ground-forces-into-somalia/ar-AAXlbyi, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Gen 1 and 2 are not history but poetry. There is history, prophecy, apocalyptic literature, songs, analogies, metaphors and they are all true WHEN read in context and take into consideration the type of literature they are.

The gospels are written as history and part of that history is Christ teaching with parables.

Not every train leaving Chicago at 60 mph in 7th grade math is a real train.

---

Yes true, but they always seemed to go in opposite directions and the other train never went the exact same speed.

---

But the real question is what color was the train?

---

I thought we were past obsessing about color.