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

[glad4mercy]

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.

Before I say what I am going to say, I first want to make it clear that this is not a personal attack on anyone or their beliefs, just a general statement of what I think to be true.

Liberals are watering the Bible and the Gospel down, as part of satan's grand plan. This way when satan launches his final deception and attack on humanity, many will be powerless to stand. 2 Thessalonians 2 says there will be a great apostasy first, then the man of sin will be revealed. We have people denying the miraculous, we have people denying the absolute perfection of God, we have people saying the Bible is not inspired, we have people saying the Bible is a bunch of myths, we have people saying that the Bible is filled with errors, on and on and on and on. Basically what satan is attacking is the credibility of the Bible, so that everyone can go ahead and believe what they want from the Bible, and discard what they don't like, and when the fire comes, ( severe persecution that many Christians in the Western world have never truly experienced), it will mean disaster for many.
The Bible is the Sword of the Spirit. Hold on to it firmly. Like Eleazor.

2 Samuel 23: 9And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away: 10 He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword: and the LORD wrought a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to spoil.

[glad4mercy]

The reason why I reposted the above is because I wanted to edit it, and my computer is making it so I cannot edit without copying and pasting before editing. Anyone know what's causing this?

[LightofTabor]

The sea represents death. Jesus walking on the water represents resurrection (power over death). Peter walking on water symbolizes how we may rise with Christ into a new, glorious life.

[Dani H]

The sea represents death. Jesus walking on the water represents resurrection (power over death). Peter walking on water symbolizes how we may rise with Christ into a new, glorious life.

But ... do you believe that any of it actually, physically happened?

I don't think any of us here take issue with symbolic meaning behind certain physical events.

But do you believe they were physical events? Yes or no?

[the rookie]

You are reading into what I said, I never said that Jonah wasn't a real prophet.

Apologies. However, if the story is just a story with spiritual meaning - and not an actual account of Jonah's ministry, how do we know that he was 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.

According to whom?

Did it actually happen or did it not actually happen? Again, Jesus spoke of it as a historical event, not an allegorical tale derived from ancient myth.

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.

That seems to be a consistent theme with you. I have yet to read a post where you take scripture - in any genre - at face-value. The whole of the word appears allegorical by the way that you communicate here. I don't know if you mean to come across that way?

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.

According to whom?

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

According to whom?

[LightofTabor]

No, I don't. Why would I?

But ... do you believe that any of it actually, physically happened?

I don't think any of us here take issue with symbolic meaning behind certain physical events.

But do you believe they were physical events? Yes or no?

[the rookie]

No, I don't. Why would I?

Because once you make one gospel event an allegory (rather than a historical account with spiritual meaning), you can make every gospel event an allegory. There would therefore be no objective standard, and you do not have the authority, clarity, or basis in fact to make such claims.

Nothing within the text itself communicates that the event was an "allegorical non-event"; it is communicated in a straightforward manner as if it actually happened.

[Revmitchell]

The sea represents death. Jesus walking on the water represents resurrection (power over death). Peter walking on water symbolizes how we may rise with Christ into a new, glorious life.

Can you back this up with any scripture?

[LightofTabor]

Because once you make one gospel event an allegory (rather than a historical account with spiritual meaning), you can make every gospel event an allegory. There would therefore be no objective standard, and you do not have the authority, clarity, or basis in fact to make such claims.
.

Why do you say that? Explain your reasoning.

[LightofTabor]

Can you back this up with any scripture?

Please see Rev.20:13

[Revmitchell]

Please see Rev.20:13

ev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Ok so break this down as to how it relates to Jonah

[the rookie]

Please see Rev.20:13

Rev. 20:13 is actually going to happen, and doesn't connect itself to "Jesus walking on water" in any way. The passage itself provides no basis to make such a connection; therefore it is spurious for us to imagine we can make such a connection on our own.

This is an example that explains my reasoning a bit. Your hermeneutical methodology does not respect the original intent of the author, nor does it take into consideration the manner in which the original audience received / understood what was written. You've simply made claims about scripture passages, on your own, that cannot be backed up authoritatively or objectively by others in the body of Christ. We simply have to take your word for it that the scripture means what you say it means, though 1000 believers from 1000 different cultures would not come to that same conclusion on their own.

Your interpretation is subjective and not authoritative, in other words. To say it simply, it's hard to take a believer seriously that dismisses the possibility that Jesus, Son of God, could have walked on water - or that the apostles were even wanting to communicate that He actually did.

[Beckrl]

Apologies. However, if the story is just a story with spiritual meaning - and not an actual account of Jonah's ministry, how do we know that he was a real prophet?

I tend to read this story of Jonah as poetry. In this story it tents to convey his ministry and his reluctance to obey Gods word. How was the writer to convey that idea of Jonah's ministry? The writer appears to use figurative speech with symbols ie cast into the sea, a great fish all of these ideas can be found in the NT as well with an spiritual meaning rather than one literal.

The idea that Jesus told his disciples that by faith one can say to 'this mountain' be casted into the sea. Well was Jesus telling them literally that they could by faith cast that particular mountain (Jerusalem) into the sea? No. That is to be understood spiritually. So that mountain and sea represents kingdom authority being casted into darkness as to the deepth of the sea (Hell fire judgment). Jesus had already used 'water' as to him being living waters in an figruative sence where water is the knowledge of God's word. This type of poetic literary appears to be very common among the writers. Thus the deepth of the sea appear to symbolize the lack of knowledge of God's word. In the case of Jonah he was reluctance to obey God's word thus the write conveyed that point in a poetic nature of picture telling of a sea monster.

Jonah might have been a real person and prophet of God, but it appears the writer fantasized his ministry to convey the idea of his reluctance as being casted into the deepth of the sea and consumed by a great fish. It then seems that the writer had knowledge of mythology of the ANE.

According to whom?

Did it actually happen or did it not actually happen? Again, Jesus spoke of it as a historical event, not an allegorical tale derived from ancient myth.

Jesus never corrected the people from their mythology. He used those tales to convey the kingdom of God. Just as Revelation has a beast of the sea and beast of the earth so also does the OT use of the monster [seprent/dragon] of the sea (Leviathan) and the (Behemoth) as an land beast.

So Jesus never corrected the false ideas of the myths as mentiond by Johan, Isaiah, Psalm, and Job, but incorprated them into his teaching of the kingdom.

That seems to be a consistent theme with you. I have yet to read a post where you take scripture - in any genre - at face-value. The whole of the word appears allegorical by the way that you communicate here. I don't know if you mean to come across that way?

No I had no intension of coming across in that way, but would say it takes discernment.

According to whom?

Are you arguing for the face value that Jesus often said of himself as being water or bread? So I'm not sure 'according to whom' it would matter.

[awestruckchild]

The sea represents death. Jesus walking on the water represents resurrection (power over death). Peter walking on water symbolizes how we may rise with Christ into a new, glorious life.

I'm glad you came back Light of Tabor!
I see what you and Beckrl are saying.
I DO understand the spirit of the words and I DO see how everything repeats and repeats. Like, the story of Jonah and the fish was a foretelling of Christ in the grave.
But I think also that they DID literally happen.

The Spirit of the words is far superior to just the literal, because the Spirit is who gives life, and the Spirit is who shows us the depth of the literal words.

When some ancient civilization has a part or piece of our story in their literature, it is because there IS no other story. There is one Author and He makes everything to repeat and repeat.

I guess I'm trying to understand how you can hold that Jesus literally died and was raised but then also hold that the OTHER miracles of God did NOT happen literally. It's like, the one miracle that saves my hide is the one that happened - the rest, no, they didn't happen.

The words are literal but they are also Spirit. The Spirit is just far superior.
I'm just trying to understand.
Thanks for talking to us, you guys.

[LightofTabor]

Your response was nothing more than knee-jerk reaction. You're clearly a bit trigger-happy here, and you are misfiring terribly.

In the interest of having a discussion, let us dig deeper into Rev. 20:13, shall we?

Why is the sea here associated with death?

Rev. 20:13 is actually going to happen, and doesn't connect itself to "Jesus walking on water" in any way. The passage itself provides no basis to make such a connection; therefore it is spurious for us to imagine we can make such a connection on our own.

This is an example that explains my reasoning a bit. Your hermeneutical methodology does not respect the original intent of the author, nor does it take into consideration the manner in which the original audience received / understood what was written. You've simply made claims about scripture passages, on your own, that cannot be backed up authoritatively or objectively by others in the body of Christ. We simply have to take your word for it that the scripture means what you say it means, though 1000 believers from 1000 different cultures would not come to that same conclusion on their own.

Your interpretation is subjective and not authoritative, in other words. To say it simply, it's hard to take a believer seriously that dismisses the possibility that Jesus, Son of God, could have walked on water - or that the apostles were even wanting to communicate that He actually did.