Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a metaphor for walking on water could be several things. The obvious is that Jesus could manipulate the laws of nature, but I think it was supposed to be more. The disciples are in the boat, and they are scared in the storm and Christ is telling them to focus on him and not be afraid. There's an obvious metaphor in there with "storm" as a common metaphor for difficulties in life.
My favorite metaphor came from a fellow member of the theological study course I took through the Episcopal Church. She saw the "Jesus Feeding The Five Thousand" story as an illustration of the multiplication of love and compassion as it passes from one to another to another to another.
This is such a great point, but OTOH, there's literal magic thrown in there. So it's not just lending a helping hand that's the full point of the story, IMO. In the story Jesus walks on water, stops the storm mystically, apparently just by his stepping onto the boat, then walks Peter on top of water. He doesn't steer the boat safely to shore or something in any non-metaphysical way.
Indeed...to Miss Hepburn (not ragging on you, BTW, your posts are always really sweet and thoughtful): this story seems to try to drive home the fact that people can't do these things. Peter starts to sink until Jesus comes over to him. While on the surface (ha ha! See what I did there?) this seems to be an admonition to have faith, it is made very clear that until Jesus made it happen, it just didn't happen. Not by a human's own will or faith.
It is a traditional way of supplying what is supposed to constitute proof that someone's god/deity is indeed beyond human, can do magic, is...a god.
The point to this story seems to be that when you are troubled, only Jesus can help you. You can't do it yourself; you can't even do it with a whole bunch of strong people; without Jesus you are lost. You may even die (the literal imagery in the story of the men caught in the dangerous storm and unable to get to shore). Taken to a metaphoric extent, of course this could mean "storm" in the typically understood way: any storm in life. That makes total sense. But if we account for that factor, it appears to be a way to drive home that without Jesus, all can be lost in whatever trouble you have. He's not just helping, he's not just being there; he's saving them from death, and he doesn't just call out to Peter and Peter's faith explodes and Peter walks on the water; Peter has to touch Jesus in order to walk on water. These are really really critical points to the story even when taken metaphorically, IMHO.
Ditto for the loaves and fishes. That isn't just extending love to one person and the next person. The illustration is, again, of something that could literally kill people: starving. And only Jesus can save them from that, in the story, through magic. So once again it's a "you MUST have this person" plus "this person is magic" element to the story that could have been illustrated in various different ways that didn't involve something that desperate and didn't involve magic.
The magic, and "this is the ONLY way to be saved," are two critical elements to both stories, IMO. They're probably the two primary points.
Last edited by JerZ; 11-28-2018 at 05:00 PM..
Reason: IMO typed out as LOL for some reason???
Who? Who walks on water and through walls? Who comes alive after being dead for three days?
Ah, so you are saying because after 2000 yrs you don't know of anyone
personally , so that would negate the teaching example of Jesus' that "we can do it also'?
In other words, only he could do that? Just want to clarify before we go on.
I can tell you of a couple of Indian books that tell of many diff people doing those things and way more...
BUT, I do know they would not be believed by many, so we have that issue. Ha!
I know someone personally that raised his son from the dead with a toe tag in the morgue...
right in my town...a pastor and healer...not after 3 days tho....of course, Jesus could have been gone from the tomb within 2 hours....no one talks about that one...we just saw him after 3 days.
I'm saying that is our potential...not just Jesus'....he showed us we COULD!
Is that where we differ, then?
(Peter did it, he actually did it!!!!...until he got distracted....what a guy!!)
Always a pleasure, Jersey.
Ah, so you are saying because after 2000 yrs you don't know of anyone
personally , so that would negate the teaching example of Jesus' that "we can do it also'?
In other words, only he could do that? Just want to clarify before we go on.
I can tell you of a couple of Indian books that tell of many diff people doing those things and way more...
BUT, I do know they would not be believed by many, so we have that issue. Ha!
I know someone personally that raised his son from the dead with a toe tag in the morgue...
right in my town...a pastor and healer...not after 3 days tho....of course, Jesus could have been gone from the tomb within 2 hours....no one talks about that one...we just saw him after 3 days.
I'm saying that is our potential...not just Jesus'....he showed us we COULD!
Is that where we differ, then?
(Peter did it, he actually did it!!!!...until he got distracted....what a guy!!)
Always a pleasure, Jersey.
So what you're saying is that we can do these things and we don't need Jesus to do them, and anyone of any religion can do them (I am assuming the yogis you read about weren't Christian), hence, Christianity is defunct. Since the entire premise is that we NEED Jesus. Otherwise it's no different from Hindus doing magic?
This interesting news didn't come in time for millions to be killed as "heretics" in many countries and centuries around the globe but it does come in time for Christians to stop demanding their religion be taught in schools, commanding what we are allowed to do with our own bodies, and knocking on our doors at inconvenient times. So I'll take it. Good enough for me. I'll watch for the many changes as former Christians (now they don't really have a religion anymore) stop constantly meddling. I feel a sense of freedom already. Good to talk to you too.
But it's easy and kind of obvious. Throughout time the gods have been said to fly, float, rise to the sky, etc. The stories are meant to prove that the being is immortal, a god, because it can do impossible things, and specifically, the flying, levitating, etc. thing is an old classic. In this story somebody kicked it up a notch with the hero being above water, but that's like a magician making an elephant appear instead of a rabbit. Same magic trick with a twist to attempt to prove it's different somehow, this time.
Now, metaphors. In a pragmatic way the story shows the being (in this case, Jesus) can do something no human can do; in a metaphorical way it shows that the being is "higher than" humans, although frankly, I kind of think you have to be pretty high to believe it in the first place. JMO.
No, it's not easy and/or obvious because you're saying that Jesus being able to walk on water is a metaphor symbolizing the belief that a divine being can do impossible things. It's not a metaphor for anything. It's an example of something a divine being can do. Of course, not everybody believes it happened, but if you understood what a metaphor is, you wouldn't have answered as you did.
According to Merriam-Webster, "You're a peach!" We've all heard the expression, and it's a good example of what we call metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase denoting one kind of object or action is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them: the person being addressed in "you're a peach" is being equated with a peach, with the suggestion being that the person is pleasing or delightful in the way that a peach is pleasing and delightful."
Now, John 6:53 is another matter. It says, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Catholics, who believe in Transubstantiation, would say that when a person receives the Eucharist, he is actually eating their Savior's flesh and drinking his blood. Most Protestants would say that the words "flesh" and "blood" in that verse are used as metaphors.
The OP should have just asked, "Did Jesus really walk on water or not?" The way I figure, if He could create the earth, He could probably do pretty much anything else He wanted to.
(This is all just me, acting as the grammar police.)
No, it's not easy and/or obvious because you're saying that Jesus being able to walk on water is a metaphor symbolizing the belief that a divine being can do impossible things. It's not a metaphor for anything. It's an example of something a divine being can do. Of course, not everybody believes it happened, but if you understood what a metaphor is, you wouldn't have answered as you did.
According to Merriam-Webster, "You're a peach!" We've all heard the expression, and it's a good example of what we call metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase denoting one kind of object or action is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them: the person being addressed in "you're a peach" is being equated with a peach, with the suggestion being that the person is pleasing or delightful in the way that a peach is pleasing and delightful."
Now, John 6:53 is another matter. It says, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Catholics, who believe in Transubstantiation, would say that when a person receives the Eucharist, he is actually eating their Savior's flesh and drinking his blood. Most Protestants would say that the words "flesh" and "blood" in that verse are used as metaphors.
The OP should have just asked, "Did Jesus really walk on water or not?" The way I figure, if He could create the earth, He could probably do pretty much anything else He wanted to.
(This is all just me, acting as the grammar police.)
Uh, no, LOL. As you show by quoting me above, I was making a distinction between the two, even stating which was pragmatic and which was metaphorical. ("Prove" was one strong hint to this, if you missed it. Feel free to re-read.)
You also need to drop the quotation marks at the end of the second paragraph you wrote...at least of you want to qualify as someone who can (and should) correct another's grammar.
You may want to reconsider your self-appointed job as grammar policeman. How about grammar janitor? Perhaps work your way up from there? We all have to start somewhere. Just a thought. (You're quite welcome.)
This is such a great point, but OTOH, there's literal magic thrown in there. So it's not just lending a helping hand that's the full point of the story, IMO. In the story Jesus walks on water, stops the storm mystically, apparently just by his stepping onto the boat, then walks Peter on top of water. He doesn't steer the boat safely to shore or something in any non-metaphysical way.
Indeed...to Miss Hepburn (not ragging on you, BTW, your posts are always really sweet and thoughtful): this story seems to try to drive home the fact that people can't do these things. Peter starts to sink until Jesus comes over to him. While on the surface (ha ha! See what I did there?) this seems to be an admonition to have faith, it is made very clear that until Jesus made it happen, it just didn't happen. Not by a human's own will or faith.
It is a traditional way of supplying what is supposed to constitute proof that someone's god/deity is indeed beyond human, can do magic, is...a god.
The point to this story seems to be that when you are troubled, only Jesus can help you. You can't do it yourself; you can't even do it with a whole bunch of strong people; without Jesus you are lost. You may even die (the literal imagery in the story of the men caught in the dangerous storm and unable to get to shore). Taken to a metaphoric extent, of course this could mean "storm" in the typically understood way: any storm in life. That makes total sense. But if we account for that factor, it appears to be a way to drive home that without Jesus, all can be lost in whatever trouble you have. He's not just helping, he's not just being there; he's saving them from death, and he doesn't just call out to Peter and Peter's faith explodes and Peter walks on the water; Peter has to touch Jesus in order to walk on water. These are really really critical points to the story even when taken metaphorically, IMHO.
Ditto for the loaves and fishes. That isn't just extending love to one person and the next person. The illustration is, again, of something that could literally kill people: starving. And only Jesus can save them from that, in the story, through magic. So once again it's a "you MUST have this person" plus "this person is magic" element to the story that could have been illustrated in various different ways that didn't involve something that desperate and didn't involve magic.
The magic, and "this is the ONLY way to be saved," are two critical elements to both stories, IMO. They're probably the two primary points.
I don't see the bolded, especially in the loaves and fishes story, but that's probably why I go to an Episcopal church.
I don't see the bolded, especially in the loaves and fishes story, but that's probably why I go to an Episcopal church.
Maybe!
Where I get that the stories say they could only have happened with Jesus is that Jesus was present, was the key player, and saved numbers of people who could not save (or feed) themselves. This was driven home further by the people muddling on (without Jesus) for a little while, really trying, but ultimately failing.
If the stories were meant to illustrate love and sharing in general, but they maintained the main elements, I'd think Peter would not have fallen down (and required Jesus, specifically, to save him), and that any of them could have increased the loaves and fishes. Perhaps Jesus could have pointed to the person as being of great faith or whatever, since after all he was the primary deity/demigod in the books of the Gospel. But the stories very carefully required Jesus to be the one, and only one, who could ultimately save (bodily and apiritually). Therefore I feel this really had to be one of the major points. In fact, without that, who would feel they needed Christianity?
IMO, it was critical to have (create? Sorry) these stories where people would have bodily died without Jesus (the intimation being of course one spiritually dies without Jesus too)...otherwise, what would make Christianity relevant? There are many faiths and practices that teach love, compassion, lack of focus on the material, and swami magic stuff.
Jesus said we must become like children to enter the kingdom.
With God's divine justice, these miracles are possible.
And dreams are real to some.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who comes alive after being dead for three days?
(You're quite welcome.)
