DID PETER REALLY WALK ON THE WATER OR WAS IT SYMBOLIC ?

[awestruckchild]

Fascinating. So you think Jesus rose from the grave with rotting flesh and maggots crawling in him?

Nope. I happen to believe He was raised miraculously uncorrupted, just as the bible tells it.
But then, I am not the one having a hard time believing God can raise a body dead for three days or preserve a man in the body of a fish...YOU are...

[the rookie]

He wasn't born in a manger; he was born in a cave, and yes there is symbolism in that.

I meant, "merely symbolic" - as in, "didn't happen" and is a figurative story. Of course there is meaning behind the activities and actions of God.

[LightofTabor]

Nope. I happen to believe He was raised miraculously uncorrupted, just as the bible tells it.
But then, I am not the one having a hard time believing God can raise a body dead for three days or preserve a man in the body of a fish...YOU are...

Listen, if you think three days in a tomb would do more damage to a body than three days in the stomach of a giant fish, then you just need to go get a clue is all.

[LightofTabor]

It is merely symbolic.

I meant, "merely symbolic" - as in, "didn't happen" and is a figurative story. Of course there is meaning behind the activities and actions of God.

[Dani H]

I'd be puzzled because the acids in fish would have surely ruined Jonah's body.

Is God not able to prevent that, like He muzzled the lions' mouth when Daniel was in the den with them?

Jonah definitely wasn't any worse off for the wear after 3 days inside the fish. Went to Niniveh and preached up a storm and the entire city repented.

Acid ... schmacid. God can do anything He wants.

[awestruckchild]

Listen, if you think three days in a tomb would do more damage to a body than three days in the stomach of a giant fish, then you just need to go get a clue is all.

Well why don't you HELP me get a clue?
God CAN raise a body dead for three days - uncorrupted, no maggots, no skin slippage, no damaged cells and tissues.
But He CAN'T keep a man alive in the body of a fish for three days.
The one miracle, He is fully capable of, but the other one He is NOT capable of.
Is this correct?

[awestruckchild]

If you have schmacid, you should take an antacid....

[awestruckchild]

I have enjoyed meeting you and talking with you Light of Tabor.
It is good that we get together and work these things out with each others help.
Hope to see you around and hope you did not become annoyed with me!
God bless.

[Revmitchell]

I must admit that I fail to understand the need liberals have to tear down the miraculous actions of God. If they cannot explain it by physical means they want to turn it into symbolism. I have no problem with a man in the belly of a whale for three days because God can do what He wants. I have no problem with Jesus or Peter walking on water because God can do what He wants. God is God and if you have trouble with that then you are in serious trouble.

[John 8:32]

The story of Jonah and the great fish comes from the myth of the dragon "Leviathan" of the sea. (Isaiah 27:1) Where the monster and the sea are symbolic rather than literally. I think we should apply that same logic to understanding Jonah story and that of Peter and Jesus walking on water.

The only sign Jesus gave that He was the Messiah was that of the prophet Jonah...

Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So if Jonah was not literally in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights, was Jesus literally our saviour? Or is that a myth also?

[glad4mercy]

Fascinating. So you think Jesus rose from the grave with rotting flesh and maggots crawling in him?

Awestruck is saying that if God can raise someone from the dead, ( which He can), then He can keep someone from being destroyed by stomach acids. After all, He preserved Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace.

Additionally, God raised Lazarus from the dead, and he was in the tomb 4 days. Is anything too hard for God?

[the rookie]

It is merely symbolic.

Assertions tend not to work here. Statements backed up with scripture, facts, and proof tend to work better. Until then, I'm going with "Jesus was actually born".

Secondly, I'm going down with "Jesus walked on water" until someone can show me proof that He did not. I happen to like the "faith like a child" approach

[Watchman]

Well....rotting flesh, maggots by then for sure...that's just for starters.

Fascinating. So you think Jesus rose from the grave with rotting flesh and maggots crawling in him?

Psalm 16:10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

blessings,

Watchman

[Beckrl]

Say what...? So no Jonah, though Jesus spoke of him as an actual prophet who actually did what the O.T. says he did? No walking on water? That's symbolic too?

You are reading into what I said, I never said that Jonah wasn't a real prophet. What I said was that the 'story' of Jonah and the great fish comes out of the myth of leviathan the serpent dragon of the sea. As I has been mentioned this 'story' reveals to the reader that Jonah was casted into the deepth of the sea and consumed by a fish. Throughout scripture these have been spoken of in a poetic style to symbolize something from the spiritual side.

Jonah being cast out of the ship symbolized him falling from the presence of God and the sea or deepth of the sea is symbolize as that darkness to which he had fallen into. leviathan then is to symboize Jonah being consumed as being keep in that state of darkness for three days and nights.

So in summary Jonah as the prophet of God was separated from God for three days and nights until he was willing to obey God and go to Nineveh.

Was Jesus born in a manger, or is that symbolic as well...?

I'm not sure how this plays into the story of Jonah or Peter and Jesus walking on water? With that said I'm not so sure that we can take what is written word for word becasue there seem to be some mistranslations and how the writer used poetic literary terms to convey his thoughts.

To me case in points are the stories of Jonah and the fish, Peter and Jesus walking on water. The writer used a picture of Jesus waling on top of the water (sea) in showing that Jesus was not separated from God and was never in darkness (lack of knowledge) for Jesus said he was living water and that his disciples would be fishers of men. So the point that Peter didn't doubt Jesus walking on the water is the reason he himself could walk on the water. Water being the symbol of the deepth of the lack of knowledge.

The writers of the gospels often made use of the poetic literary terms of 'water, bread, light, darkness,fish, serpent, etc'.

[Beckrl]

The only sign Jesus gave that He was the Messiah was that of the prophet Jonah...

Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So if Jonah was not literally in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights, was Jesus literally our saviour? Or is that a myth also?

It's as I've responsed to rookie. Jesus death and in the grave is comparied to that of Jonah in the belly of the great fish for three days and nights. It's only a sign that of being seprated from God for that duration. So then given this sign of this death and resurrection this would point to that Jesus was indeed the Messiah the promised one.

Now the question could be asked did the people whom heard the story of Jonah beleive that as being real? I would think so, they believed in the myth of the great dragon in the sea of which is written in the bible around five times and in revelation as the serpent / dragon of seven heads.

The bigger question is then do you believe in that dragon in the sea? If not then how would you go about understanding the writers?