Did He walk on water...or skate on thin ice?

okay...maybe it was thick ice Did Jesus walk on water - or ice?Could this be a valid naturalistic explanation for a "miracle"? What do you think?

Like the scientific explanations for the parting of the Red Sea (see No webpage found at provided URL: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=210142004) this just comes across as ridiculous.

I agree.

"weeeeee"This message has been edited by Brian, Saturday, 08-04-2006 05:03 AMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-08-2006 10:22 AM

Sounds utterly barking to me, but what do I know?I think your post raises an interesting issue though: why are some people obsessed with finding naturalistic explanations for biblical events?It seems to be a pointless exercise in ahistoricity.Yes, its possible that Paul's Damascene Moment(TM) was the result of his epilepsy, but for the love of Pete - haven't you also considered that as well as that possibility, or the possibility of God doing it, there could be any number of other causes, or that it might not have happened as he said, or that it might not have happened at all?It seems to be the result of failing to try to read texts in their historical context.[a drop of clarification in the edit]This message has been edited by Tusko, 08-Apr-2006 04:38 PM

quote:

---

Could this be a valid naturalistic explanation for a "miracle"? What do you think?

---

Do you believe that Christ existed? If so then the son of an all-powerful God?
This ice thing is not a new thing in the attempt to reduce HIM to a naturalistic explanation.

True. The DaVinci Code and other such "cash-in" books....as well as the latest Gospel of Judas controversy.I see it as entrepeneurs seeking to cash in on an old, old story.

Wow dude Do you think those guys would be out fishing with nets and stuff if the sea were iced over? I mean what were they doing in their boat anyway in weather like that? They shoulda been inside eating and having some wine. Yeah!Oh someone else mentioned the Red Sea thing too in an answer. Come on guys everyone knows that Moses led his people through the sea of reeds. It was really, like big you know?, and always wet and boggy. But big Mo was from those parts and knew all the moves. He knew about a dry path and used it. It was OK for people but not for horsies who were way heavy and got all bogged down and stuck and like heavy man cause all the Egyptian amry guys had to walk all the way back to the barracks. Bummer! Later people were drinking lotsa more wine and the story got changed to the "Red Sea got parted".See? Too much wine will do it every time.Walk on water? Yeah here's how Jesus did it. He became one with the water and so did not sink. Hey explain that to me! OK.You know, like after Jesus resurfaced from the tomb on Easter he was in like a Light Body. This was his "God" body. The atoms and stuff are not packed as close so it floats. Cool huh? Well he did the same thing years before to walk on the water. Hey if you are lighter than the water you won't sink. Can He do that? Sure. Piece O cake.See Jman always has perfectly natural explainations for spiritual stuff. It's all easy.This message has been edited by Jman, 04-09-2006 01:19 PM

That is only one way to look at it.Another way is to see it as an attempt to make those who believe in fairly tales look less foolish. In other words, this is one attempt to show that some of the Biblical tales may have a basis in fact rather than being made up out of nothing.These explanations allow for the actual existance of Christ and the actual occurance of something resembling the Bible stories.

U can call me Cookie

Or it didn't happen at all and it was a story to amaze the converts

That does appear to be the motive, but it is quite wrongheaded, as much of the great value of the gospel is in the "foolish" supernatural facts of it. If Jesus didn't miraculously walk on water the gospel loses its meaning.So an attempt to conform the gospel to the notions of this world is the last thing a Christian can desire. We are SUPPOSED to be foolish to the unbeliever. If we aren't, THEN we should worry.

I'm sorry Funkaloyd but i have to agree with Tom Parfitt by the caculations and by the information he has enough information to back up his theory and i have to say it is quit convincing and it has put new perpectives in to my mind to deal with.

Welcome to EvC, cj! There will never be a definite answer between faith and fact until we die! Picture a point on a number line. [ . ]
Now picture metaphorically all reality being this point of reference.Now picture two points. [ . ] and [ . ] reality has changed from the option of only door#1 to the endless options of doors 1-infinity.If I have strayed too far off topic and thoroughly confused you, please let me know!

No you have not strayed off topic and lost me, but i'm only posing my poposition on that topic. =O yes and thank you for welcoming me.This message has been edited by cj4840, 04-10-2006 05:59 PM