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

One cliche after another.

Sam Lowry said:

---

One cliche after another.

---

And this cliche "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?@. What does it mean to you?

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

One cliche after another.

---

And this cliche "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?@. What does it mean to you?

---

It's a straw man. It conflates historicity and inerrancy, which are completely different things.

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.

Sam Lowry said:

---

One cliche after another.

---

The entire article.

Just air and the imaginations of a man.

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.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

One cliche after another.

---

The entire article.

Just air and the imaginations of a man.

---

Justair? What is "just air?"

Waco has chosen his master.

Sadly, for Waco that means defying God, not serving Him.

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.

---

Of course they have different viewpoints - is that supposed to be news? They were of different backgrounds, writing to different audiences. Matthew was a Jewish tax collector writing to the Jews while Luke was a Gentile physician writing to the Gentiles. Why would you not expect differing viewpoints?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco has chosen his master.

Sadly, for Waco that means defying God, not serving Him.

---

"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." Rohr -
How does this statement defy God?

JXL How is thebptemise fslse?
"The narrow, rational/literal/historical approach largely creates an antiquarian society that prefers to look backward instead of forward."

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL How is thebptemise fslse?
"The narrow, rational/literal/historical approach largely creates an antiquarian society that prefers to look backward instead of forward."

---

Well, first, it's a non sequiter - how does viewing historical events as historical create an antiquarian society?

Second, one suspects that when Richard Rohr talks about an "antiquarian society," he means "a society which does not share Richard Rohr's personal values," which is not exactly a firm foundation for textual or historical criticism.

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

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL How is thebptemise fslse?
"The narrow, rational/literal/historical approach largely creates an antiquarian society that prefers to look backward instead of forward."

---

Well, first, it's a non sequiter - how does viewing historical events as historical create an antiquarian society?

Second, one suspects that when Richard Rohr talks about an "antiquarian society," he means "a society which does not share Richard Rohr's personal values," which is not exactly a firm foundation for textual or historical criticism.

---

You only used historical but it is "narrow, rational/literal/historical."
In most arguments here on religion the more orthodox turn on literalism and rationality rather a deep transforming power of love. Later Rohr speaks to the transactional nature of conservative or orthodox but God is transformative in love.
Orthodox/doctrine arguments never saved a soul. Love transforms.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL How is thebptemise fslse?
"The narrow, rational/literal/historical approach largely creates an antiquarian society that prefers to look backward instead of forward."

---

Well, first, it's a non sequiter - how does viewing historical events as historical create an antiquarian society?

Second, one suspects that when Richard Rohr talks about an "antiquarian society," he means "a society which does not share Richard Rohr's personal values," which is not exactly a firm foundation for textual or historical criticism.

---

You only used historical but it is "narrow, rational/literal/historical."
In most arguments here on religion the more orthodox turn on literalism and rationality rather a deep transforming power of love. Later Rohr speaks to the transactional nature of conservative or orthodox but God is transformative in love.
Orthodox/doctrine arguments never saved a soul. Love transforms.

---

Jesus saves. Not Humanism.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL How is thebptemise fslse?
"The narrow, rational/literal/historical approach largely creates an antiquarian society that prefers to look backward instead of forward."

---

Well, first, it's a non sequiter - how does viewing historical events as historical create an antiquarian society?

Second, one suspects that when Richard Rohr talks about an "antiquarian society," he means "a society which does not share Richard Rohr's personal values," which is not exactly a firm foundation for textual or historical criticism.

---

You only used historical but it is "narrow, rational/literal/historical."
In most arguments here on religion the more orthodox turn on literalism and rationality rather a deep transforming power of love. Later Rohr speaks to the transactional nature of conservative or orthodox but God is transformative in love.
Orthodox/doctrine arguments never saved a soul. Love transforms.

---

Jesus saves. Not Humanism.

---

We agree

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL How is thebptemise fslse?
"The narrow, rational/literal/historical approach largely creates an antiquarian society that prefers to look backward instead of forward."

---

Well, first, it's a non sequiter - how does viewing historical events as historical create an antiquarian society?

Second, one suspects that when Richard Rohr talks about an "antiquarian society," he means "a society which does not share Richard Rohr's personal values," which is not exactly a firm foundation for textual or historical criticism.

---

You only used historical but it is "narrow, rational/literal/historical."
In most arguments here on religion the more orthodox turn on literalism and rationality rather a deep transforming power of love. Later Rohr speaks to the transactional nature of conservative or orthodox but God is transformative in love.
Orthodox/doctrine arguments never saved a soul. Love transforms.

---

Jesus saves. Not Humanism.

---

We agree

---

You still need to trust Scripture ahead of human arrogance, Waco.

What does trust thevscripture mean to you?

Waco1947 said:

---

What does trust thevscripture mean to you?

---

Scripture is from God. Commentary from men can be helpful, but never stands higher than Scripture.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL How is thebptemise fslse?
"The narrow, rational/literal/historical approach largely creates an antiquarian society that prefers to look backward instead of forward."

---

Well, first, it's a non sequiter - how does viewing historical events as historical create an antiquarian society?

Second, one suspects that when Richard Rohr talks about an "antiquarian society," he means "a society which does not share Richard Rohr's personal values," which is not exactly a firm foundation for textual or historical criticism.

---

You only used historical but it is "narrow, rational/literal/historical."
In most arguments here on religion the more orthodox turn on literalism and rationality rather a deep transforming power of love. Later Rohr speaks to the transactional nature of conservative or orthodox but God is transformative in love.
Orthodox/doctrine arguments never saved a soul. Love transforms.

---

That's just semantics. We can add in the words if you want, and pose the question of how viewing literal historical events as historical, rational, or literal creates an "antiquarian society" (whatever that means).

And no, "love" is not itself the catalyst of salvation. If it were, John 3:16 would read differently.

Tranformation is wrought not by some inchoate concept of love but by "the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12:2). .

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/

Counterfeit
False Teacher
False Doctrine
False Christian

"There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you." (2 Peter 2:1)

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.

---

Go read the local game stories from last night's Baylor ISU game. Each of them has a decided viewpoint. Is this supposed to bother me?

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

Go read the local game stories from last night's Baylor ISU game. Each of them has a decided viewpoint. Is this supposed to bother me?

---

Only the ones that disparage Scott Drew

(sorry, that is a god of my own creation and this is the wrong board)

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.

Then maybe the question should be, " who is HIM"?

If I have created in my mind, by my interpretation of the Bible, a Jesus that is weak, powerless, teaches some neat but not realistic ideals about love and falsely reported to have done miracles then do I have faith in the true Savior?

My concern is you put more faith in men than in Christ.

And you keep trying to paint Christ as a SJW.

JXL said:

---

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

---

JXL, I consider Richard Rohr to be outside of the Christian faith. His teachings in no way represent the Truth of the Good News of Jesus the Christ.

However, I find Aspiring Ministries as devisive as Rohr. I had never heard of Aspiring Ministries. I have spent some time on their website. I find their rhetoric as nonproductive and, in many ways, their behavior outside of what is appropriate Spirit filled conduct. As I consider 1 Corinthians 13, Aspiring Ministries can be summed up in one word,"nothing." My sense is that positions like those espoused by Aspiring Ministries is what Rohr and 47 Are arguing against.

My issue with Rohr and 47 concerning the quote in the OP is that Rohr and 47 are behaving like Aspiring Ministries. I find both filled with sound bites, phrases that tickle the ears of their constituents, and a gross representation of the True Gospel.

Polycarp said:

---

JXL said:

---

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

---

JXL, I consider Richard Rohr to be outside of the Christian faith. His teachings in no way represent the Truth of the Good News of Jesus the Christ.

However, I find Aspiring Ministries as devisive as Rohr. I had never heard of Aspiring Ministries. I have spent some time on their website. I find their rhetoric as nonproductive and, in many ways, their behavior outside of what is appropriate Spirit filled conduct. As I consider 1 Corinthians 13, Aspiring Ministries can be summed up in one word,"nothing." My sense is that positions like those espoused by Aspiring Ministries is what Rohr and 47 Are arguing against.

My issue with Rohr and 47 concerning the quote in the OP is that Rohr and 47 are behaving like Aspiring Ministries. I find both filled with sound bites, phrases that tickle the ears of their constituents, and a gross representation of the True Gospel.

---

That could be. I was looking for information on Rohr and came across the Aspiring Ministries website, but you have obviously checked them out more thoroughly than I did, so thank you for that.

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.

---

In Christianity, faith and history are intertwined because it is a faith grounded on historical events.
See 1 Cor. 15:14-17.

And if Christ be not risen [historical event] then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ [historical event] whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

If you divorce the Bible from history, you are then left with the question of "faith in what"?

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.

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?

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?

---

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.

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?