It's the affect of Jesus calming the storm on the disciples that counts not it's historicity.
Look at each story. How does Jesus use the word faith?
Matthew "little faith"
Mark "No faith"
Luke "where is your faith?"
It's the faith relationship of the disciples to Jesus that counts not it's historicity.
If one gets distracted by historicity then which saying about faith is true?
The historicity is disciples and Jesus on a boat, a storm and at Jedus Word it calms. But how one sees those events from the point of view of is what counts AND more importantly what does it mean to you in your storms?
If in your faith journey it helps you to believe Jesus actually stopped the storm then I affirm your interpretation. It's a valid interpretation. I disagree
But we do agree it's fsith in Jesus presence in our lives that calms our fears.

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's the affect of Jesus calming the storm on the disciples that counts not it's historicity.

---

Look at each story. How does Jesus use the word faith?
Matthew "little faith"
Mark "No faith"
Luke "where is your faith?"
It's the faith relationship of the disciples to Jesus that counts not it's historicity.
If one gets distracted by historicity then which saying about faith is true?
The historicity is disciples and Jesus on a boat, a storm and at Jedus Word it calms. But how one sees those events from the point of view of is what counts AND more importantly what does it mean to you in your storms?
If in your faith journey it helps you to believe Jesus actually stopped the storm then I affirm your interpretation. It's a valid interpretation. I disagree
But we do agree it's fsith in Jesus presence in our lives that calms our fears.

---

If Jesus didn't calm the storm in front of the disciples, why would something that didn't happen have an effect on their faith at all? Why testify to something that didn't happen at all in the first place?

And if you can interpret the calming of the storm as not literal, then anyone can say those words of Jesus' weren't literally said either, thus taking away its authority since it wasn't spoken by the Son of God.

You find yourself in a theological catch-22.

Waco1947 said:

---

If in your faith journey it helps you to believe Jesus actually stopped the storm then I affirm your interpretation. It's a valid interpretation.

---

Also, since you are now affirming that believing Jesus did indeed stop a storm is a valid interpretation, then you MUST also affirm one's belief that God then, since he has the power to stop a storm, should also be able to move tectonic plates. Right?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But how do you know Jesus said any of this? If Luke records clearly that the disciples directly witnessed Jesus calming storms with just a word, but you say this didn't happen, then why is their testimony to what Jesus said any more reliable?

---

Immaterial. The gospel writers wrote down the witness of Jesus' disciples and apostles and I believe them. Jesus existed and is alive in my heart today. That's all I need to know.

---

You believe them? But you don't believe their witness that Jesus calmed the storms, right?

So why believe one part of their witness, but not the other? How do you differentiate?

---

. I was not there. But I believe that Jesus did something in the midst of the storm that calmed their hearts and taught them a lesson in faith. Jesus calms storms everyday in my life. Why would you have a problem with that? I said I validate your belief in miracles but I think miracles operate at different level.
We can both be disciples with Jesus at our side.

And there it is. You believe what you want, but deny the truth which you cannot accept.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Well then you aren't reading the gospels deeply enough. "One must pick up his cross daily and follow me."
"Be ye perfect as your heavenly Fathet is perfect."
"Love neighbor as yourself.."
"God will bless you when others hate you and won't have anything to do with you. God will bless you when people insult you and say cruel things about you, all because you are a follower of the Son of Man. 23 Long ago your own people did these same things to the prophets. So when this happens to you, be happy and jump for joy! You will have a great reward in heaven.

24 But you rich people
are in for trouble.
You have already had
an easy life!
25 You well-fed people
are in for trouble.
You will go hungry!
You people
who are laughing now
are in for trouble.
You are going to cry
and weep!"
This is Jesus I follow straight from the Bible.

---

But how do you know Jesus said any of this? If Luke records clearly that the disciples directly witnessed Jesus calming storms with just a word, but you say this didn't happen, then why is their testimony to what Jesus said any more reliable?

---

When I go to a buffet, I only choose the items I like. On those items I really load up.

There's a great new buffet in Waco, 47th I think.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But how do you know Jesus said any of this? If Luke records clearly that the disciples directly witnessed Jesus calming storms with just a word, but you say this didn't happen, then why is their testimony to what Jesus said any more reliable?

---

Immaterial. The gospel writers wrote down the witness of Jesus' disciples and apostles and I believe them. Jesus existed and is alive in my heart today. That's all I need to know.

---

You believe them? But you don't believe their witness that Jesus calmed the storms, right?

So why believe one part of their witness, but not the other? How do you differentiate?

---

you must be new here

this dude is a drunk ass ratard bent on blaming white men for all the shltty stuff

corncob pipe said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But how do you know Jesus said any of this? If Luke records clearly that the disciples directly witnessed Jesus calming storms with just a word, but you say this didn't happen, then why is their testimony to what Jesus said any more reliable?

---

Immaterial. The gospel writers wrote down the witness of Jesus' disciples and apostles and I believe them. Jesus existed and is alive in my heart today. That's all I need to know.

---

You believe them? But you don't believe their witness that Jesus calmed the storms, right?

So why believe one part of their witness, but not the other? How do you differentiate?

---

you must be new here

this dude is a drunk ass ratard bent on blaming white men for all the shltty stuff

---

stick around corncob. We may start a thread on what flows from a man's heart. It may be some great reading.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The Biblical/theological world I rattle around in.
"The narrow, rational/literal/historical approach largely creates an antiquarian society that prefers to look backward instead of forward. In my experience, it creates transactional religion much more than transformational spirituality. It idealizes individual conformity and group belonging over love, service, or actual change of heart.
Literalism was discredited from the beginning of the New Testament through the inclusion of four Gospel accounts of the same Jesus event, which differ in many ways. Which is the "inerrant" one?
The earlier centuries of Christianity were much closer to the trans-rational world of Jesus and his storytelling style of teaching (which does not lend itself to dogmatic or systematic theology). The Gospel says, "He would never speak to them except in parables" (Matthew 13:34). The indirect, metaphorical, symbolic language of a story or parable seems to be Jesus' preferred way of teaching spiritual realities.
Almost all of Jesus' parables begin with the same phrase: "The Reign of God is like. . . ." Jesus fully knows he is speaking in metaphor, simile, story, and symbol. But in recent centuries, many Christians have not granted him that freedom, and thus we miss or avoid many of his major messages. We are much the poorer for it."
Richard Rohr

---

The premise of this essay is flat wrong. The early church most certainly viewed the life of Christ - particularly the Resurrection - as a definite, literal, , historical event.

From Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians (written around AD 100-107):


Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

---

So?
The four gospels at variance with another. You can try and harmonize but an in-depth reading show each gospel has a decided view point.

---

Each writer of each gospel had their own view, perspective and christology of Jesus - as did Ignatius and others of the early church. There was not uniform agreement.

JXL said:

---

http://apprising.org/2008/05/10/who-is-richard-rohr/

---

No one denomination of doctrine has a corner on what is doctrinal correct in Christianity. Christian beliefs have changed and evolved over the years.

JXL said:

---

And more about Richard Rohr, who is certainly an interesting theologian but not really a Christian one.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/the-divine-dance/

https://www.aquinasandmore.com/blog/why-we-dont-and-wont-ever-carry-richard-rohr/

---

By what standard/criteria does Rohr fail to be a Christian?

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

And more about Richard Rohr, who is certainly an interesting theologian but not really a Christian one.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/the-divine-dance/

https://www.aquinasandmore.com/blog/why-we-dont-and-wont-ever-carry-richard-rohr/

---

By what standard/criteria does Rohr fail to be a Christian?

---

He's like an equestrian coach who works exclusively with unicorns. Oh, and he created the unicorn with parts from Christianity and humanism and eastern mysticism.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

http://apprising.org/2008/05/10/who-is-richard-rohr/

---

No one denomination of doctrine has a corner on what is doctrinal correct in Christianity. Christian beliefs have changed and evolved over the years.

---

News flash. The Gospel accounts have not changed in all those years.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's the affect of Jesus calming the storm on the disciples that counts not it's historicity.

---

Look at each story. How does Jesus use the word faith?
Matthew "little faith"
Mark "No faith"
Luke "where is your faith?"
It's the faith relationship of the disciples to Jesus that counts not it's historicity.
If one gets distracted by historicity then which saying about faith is true?
The historicity is disciples and Jesus on a boat, a storm and at Jedus Word it calms. But how one sees those events from the point of view of is what counts AND more importantly what does it mean to you in your storms?
If in your faith journey it helps you to believe Jesus actually stopped the storm then I affirm your interpretation. It's a valid interpretation. I disagree
But we do agree it's fsith in Jesus presence in our lives that calms our fears.

---

If Jesus didn't calm the storm in front of the disciples, why would something that didn't happen have an effect on their faith at all? Why testify to something that didn't happen at all in the first place?

And if you can interpret the calming of the storm as not literal, then anyone can say those words of Jesus' weren't literally said either, thus taking away its authority since it wasn't spoken by the Son of God.

You find yourself in a theological catch-22.

---

No, you have to trust your faith journey. If you believe it's a miracle claim it. But my faith journey is different.
To the disciples the miracle did happen but it happened for a reason - to deepen their understanding of faith. The stories deepen my understanding of faith. Did you not read - each gospel writer said no faith Little faith. Where is your faith? It's about faith. Same story different witness interpretations

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

And more about Richard Rohr, who is certainly an interesting theologian but not really a Christian one.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/the-divine-dance/

https://www.aquinasandmore.com/blog/why-we-dont-and-wont-ever-carry-richard-rohr/

---

By what standard/criteria does Rohr fail to be a Christian?

---

As an atheist, how much of the OP would you disagree with?

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

http://apprising.org/2008/05/10/who-is-richard-rohr/

---

No one denomination of doctrine has a corner on what is doctrinal correct in Christianity. Christian beliefs have changed and evolved over the years.

---

The basics have not changed. Few if any Christians would find much to disagree with in the Nicean Creed or the Apostles' Creed.

Waco1947 said:

---

No, it's not supposed to "bother" you but to enrich your understanding of the game and draw your own conclusions as the strength or weaknesses or abilities of our team.
The gospels do the same for faith (not history) FAITH. Faith is the key not historic. What in the text leads us to believe in God as revealed in Jesus of the gospels! The goal is faith not proof of error. The Bible is full actual errors of timelines, facts, and historicity but the the Bible of disciples doesn't give a damn about those errors but only gives a damn if we to faith in God. Let me repeat "faith in God."
Never quite sure why you guys want twist my statement away from faith. But I bet much want people to believe in and love God and become disciples of Jesus, placing their whole faith in him.

---

Having an appearance of godliness, yet denying its power. Avoid such men as these. (2 Timothy 3:5)

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

Then don't look in a mirror

Waco1947 said:

---

Then don't look in a mirror

---

support your statement

Sam makes assumptions - straw men then applies them to me.
Heck I can play that game too. Hence "Sam, look in the mirror for your false prophet."
It's stupidity.
I made my case for Christianity and he disagrees but engages only in sophistry and name calling.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's the affect of Jesus calming the storm on the disciples that counts not it's historicity.

---

Look at each story. How does Jesus use the word faith?
Matthew "little faith"
Mark "No faith"
Luke "where is your faith?"
It's the faith relationship of the disciples to Jesus that counts not it's historicity.
If one gets distracted by historicity then which saying about faith is true?
The historicity is disciples and Jesus on a boat, a storm and at Jedus Word it calms. But how one sees those events from the point of view of is what counts AND more importantly what does it mean to you in your storms?
If in your faith journey it helps you to believe Jesus actually stopped the storm then I affirm your interpretation. It's a valid interpretation. I disagree
But we do agree it's fsith in Jesus presence in our lives that calms our fears.

---

If Jesus didn't calm the storm in front of the disciples, why would something that didn't happen have an effect on their faith at all? Why testify to something that didn't happen at all in the first place?

And if you can interpret the calming of the storm as not literal, then anyone can say those words of Jesus' weren't literally said either, thus taking away its authority since it wasn't spoken by the Son of God.

You find yourself in a theological catch-22.

---

No, you have to trust your faith journey. If you believe it's a miracle claim it. But my faith journey is different.
To the disciples the miracle did happen but it happened for a reason - to deepen their understanding of faith. The stories deepen my understanding of faith. Did you not read - each gospel writer said no faith Little faith. Where is your faith? It's about faith. Same story different witness interpretations

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus didn't calm the storm in front of the disciples, why would something that didn't happen have an effect on their faith at all? Why testify to something that didn't happen at all in the first place?

And if you can interpret the calming of the storm as not literal, then anyone can say those words of Jesus' weren't literally said either, thus taking away its authority since it wasn't spoken by the Son of God.

You find yourself in a theological catch-22.

---

No, you have to trust your faith journey. If you believe it's a miracle claim it. But my faith journey is different.
To the disciples the miracle did happen but it happened for a reason - to deepen their understanding of faith. The stories deepen my understanding of faith. Did you not read - each gospel writer said no faith Little faith. Where is your faith? It's about faith. Same story different witness interpretations

---

Quote:

---

"To the disciples the miracle did happen but it happened for a reason"

---

If you acknowledge that to the disciples the miracle did happen, and they testified to it, why don't you believe their testimony? Why do you believe their testimony as to what Jesus said, but not what he did?

Waco1947 said:

---

Then don't look in a mirror

---

- what Waco warns himself every morning.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam makes assumptions - straw men then applies them to me.
Heck I can play that game too. Hence "Sam, look in the mirror for your false prophet."
It's stupidity.
I made my case for Christianity and he disagrees but engages only in sophistry and name calling.

---

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (1 John 4:1-3)

I am astounded that you should be so quick to desert one who called you to the grace of Christ, and go over to another gospel; this can only mean, that certain people are causing disquiet among you, in their eagerness to pervert the gospel of Christ. Friends, though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him! I repeat now the warning we gave you before it happened, if anyone preaches to you what is contrary to the tradition you received, a curse upon him! (Galatians 1:6-9)

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

And more about Richard Rohr, who is certainly an interesting theologian but not really a Christian one.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/the-divine-dance/

https://www.aquinasandmore.com/blog/why-we-dont-and-wont-ever-carry-richard-rohr/

---

By what standard/criteria does Rohr fail to be a Christian?

---

As an atheist, how much of the OP would you disagree with?

---

I'm not really familiar with Rohr and his views. But, I think much of what is in the OP rings true.