Jesus walked on water or is only a literary resource**: Confused:**
The account was given to us as fact, not as parable or allegory.
Jesus’ miracle of walking on water was something that really happened. He then instructed Peter to also walk on water, which also really happened, but only as long as Peter put his complete faith and trust in Jesus.
When Peter let his fear of the waves override his trust, he sank.
Nowadays we also talk about modern people walking on water, but these modern accounts ARE a literary resource. They mean that the person is showing complete faith and trust in Jesus.
A “literary figure” or “symbol” or “metaphor”, please! A “literary resource” is a dictionary, or a variorum edition, or a concordance.
Also, yes, the text does present his walking on water as an actual event.
I had a discussion about this with a Deist. He also says that it means the patience of Jesus during the problematic in that he was but reviewing the text I found that Jesus was in some trouble but that the passage of the walking on water is just after the multiplication of the loaves that also this friend Deist rejects.
In theory, it could have happened: God Incarnate is presumably capable of doing that. In practice, who knows? It would be very hard to prove if it happened right in front of a crowded city today.
Rather than worrying about the literalism of the story, I might suggest discussing with him its significance (what it could teach us).
What about the resurrection? What about healing the blind? Was Lazarus raised from the dead? Was Jesus God, as he claimed?
I think we need to settle whether we believe the gospel before we can focus in on less critical questions, no?
*For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. *
Believe the good news!
God bless you.
If the miracles of jesus prove that Jesus is God, then know if he walked on water is important
Do you believe that he walked on water?
'Ο βιος βραχυς, 'Η τεχνη μακρη
“Life [is] short, art long” - pseudo-Hippokrates
I believe it is the other way around;
Art is transient, life eternal.
See also the counterpoint in my signature line by St Niketas Stethatos, who says something rather closer to what you just have.
Yeah, did see that
not that I disagree with the sentiment that this life is short and the physical art piece is longer lasting.
Thanks for your quote which is a reminder,
in this age when newer is touted to be better,
that beauty is eternal
This isn’t derailing the thread because all this is miraculous.
How far would you think St Peter made it?
If it is literal I will believe it. Is it literal?
What do you say our mother church?
I am sorry, my brother, but I certainly cannot answer that question.
Further, I rather suspect that you should be asking your priest, or perhaps one of the CAF apologists, because I am not a Catholic, and I do not want to go giving faith advice from the wrong perspective.
Yes, yes, yes! The Church has never understood it any other way. And why should she/we? It’s presumably possible to come up with alternative interpretations for virtually every verse in the bible but at some point one simply needs to…believe.