How did jesus walk on water?

one_raven said:
I couldn't disagree more.
Much of what she posts here is heresay, supposition, jumping to unsupported conclusions and simply made-up fantasy.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Wow! Coming from you, that was a real surprise, but just to let you know, I don't
make-up my own theories! I suppose if I did, I could get rich writing about them. I do read a lot, however, and I've listed here some of the more recent research I've read:

The Ancient Gods: The History and Diffusion of Religion in the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean, by E.O. James, Professor Emeritus of the History of Religion in The University of London and Fellow of University College and Fellow of King's College, London, Castle Books, 1960.

Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion, by Ahmed Osman, (also wrote The Hebrew Pharaohs of Egypt, Moses and Aknenaten, and Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs, Bear & Company, 1998 and 2005.

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, by Acharya S., Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999.

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, by Acharya S., Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004.

The Dark Side of Christian History, by Helen Ellerbe, Morningstar Books, 1995.

Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism, by David Fideler, Quest books, 1993.

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill, Ulysses Press, 2005.

Cracking the Symbol Code: The Hidden Message Within Church and Renaissance Art, by Time Wallace-Murphy, Watkins Publishing UK, 2005.

The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics: An Introduction to the Recently Discovered Ancient Manuscripts That Rival the Dead Sea Scrolls in Importance, by Jean Doresse, MJF Books, 1986.

There are also several web sites which I cannot get into while on this program, but one is about Astro-Theology. It can be Googled under that title.
 
Medicine Woman,
I know you have refernces, and I know you are well read.
The comment wasn't intended as an insult to you, it was an insult of your sources.

I do not question your personal integrity.
A lot of where you get your information from, however, is highly speculative nonsense, in my opinon and the opinion of the majority of religion students and historians.
I think to speak of it as if it is verified historical fact as you do, is fairly irresponsible.
 
Gordon said:
The interesting part of this story is that it is not really about Jesus showing that he has wonderfully supernatural powers that no one else could ever have...

Gordon.
Click to expand...

You make some interesting points, Gordon. Although I consider myself an atheist and reject supernatural claims, I also think there is something profound about the story of Jesus. He could not help expressing his ideas in the religious language of the time, but I think he far exceeded the typical meanings of religious terms in orthodox Judaism. The idea that this story is about releasing your fear has a parallel.

A Taoist story tells of an old man who accidentally fell into the river rapids leading to a high and dangerous waterfall. Onlookers feared for his life. Miraculously, he came out alive and unharmed downstream at the bottom of the falls. People asked him how he managed to survive. "I accommodated myself to the water, not the water to me. Without thinking, I allowed myself to be shaped by it. Plunging into the swirl, I came out with the swirl. This is how I survived."
 
one_raven said:
Medicine Woman,
I know you have refernces, and I know you are well read.
The comment wasn't intended as an insult to you, it was an insult of your sources.

I do not question your personal integrity.
A lot of where you get your information from, however, is highly speculative nonsense, in my opinon and the opinion of the majority of religion students and historians. I think to speak of it as if it is verified historical fact as you do, is fairly irresponsible.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Okay, that's fair enough. Although I believe I stay away from authors who have not done their research and those who provide no referenced material, I could understand your point if I solely based my opinions on the more sensational writers' theories, but I don't. It's their research into the subject that draws my attention. Otherwise, I would be writing my own books and getting rich. The theories I am comfortable with are the ones that make the most sense to me. I suppose that is the way we all believe what we choose to believe. I cannot verify "historical fact" any more than the next person, but I do put trust into the researchers who do the work and make comparisons between theories. An example of someone I wouldn't trust on particular religious subjects is Dan Brown, for instance. He's a novelist not a legitimate religious scholar. I make every effort to read what the biblical scholars and archeologists have written, and I promote what I believe to be true. But, just to let you know, when I reach a point of disbelief on any subject that I have at one time believed in, I will always provide the reasons I have changed my mind. Case in point, when I came to sciforums, I believed in a creator God and that Jesus was an historical person. My, how times have changed!

Thank you for your reply, and no offense has been taken.

~ Medicine*Woman
 
Somewhere, in the 1st 4?

Kendall said:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click to expand...

I don't know where--haven't read the dusty thing in awhile..if that tells you anything, but I believe it's mentioned 'somewhere' in the 1st 4 Books of the NT, i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John [i.e., essentially the same boring story rehashed 4x over; with whatever so-called observation(s)/artifacts that were ómmitted' by the 1st author of the epistle, were picked up by the remaining 3 authors sort of leaves me with a rather sour impression of inconsistency, or gaps in time where writer 'witnessed' JC do this and that, while the others 'witenessed' JC do that and the other. {That's when I decided the last book of the NT should have just ended with the book of Revelation after the book of John. It's full of errors due to mistinterpretations by scholars who laborously transliterated the whole thing from the original Greek text.

I can't tell you how many versions of the Qu'ran there are due to misinterpretations by numerous prophets starting with Mohammed (sp??) who, uh, find this a little hard to stomach ....anyway, Allah's side-kick apparenly was sleeping while the angel Gabriel told his version of who their Creator of the Heavens and......er....'Paradise' and Earth was (*scoffs*, yeah-right, again :rolleyes: I'm NOTgoing there with this pathetic discussion} .

Oh, btw, back to the book of Reveleation, if you want to read CRYPTIC BS? Like WTF is all this crap about??, Try reading it sometime. I 'tink someone was having a little too much fun writing while smokin' that :m: .

You should have, if not already, known by now that I take the all of this religious grap with a grain of salt. I have yet to see any intellectual value to the bible(s) worthy of discussion, that's why we have philosophers.....they're more intellectually stimulating, alowing room to express your own opinions .
 
Last edited:
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: Wow! Coming from you, that was a real surprise, but just to let you know, I don't
make-up my own theories! I suppose if I did, I could get rich writing about them. I do read a lot, however, and I've listed here some of the more recent research I've read:

The Ancient Gods: The History and Diffusion of Religion in the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean, by E.O. James, Professor Emeritus of the History of Religion in The University of London and Fellow of University College and Fellow of King's College, London, Castle Books, 1960.

Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion, by Ahmed Osman, (also wrote The Hebrew Pharaohs of Egypt, Moses and Aknenaten, and Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs, Bear & Company, 1998 and 2005.

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, by Acharya S., Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999.

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, by Acharya S., Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004.

The Dark Side of Christian History, by Helen Ellerbe, Morningstar Books, 1995.

Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism, by David Fideler, Quest books, 1993.

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill, Ulysses Press, 2005.

Cracking the Symbol Code: The Hidden Message Within Church and Renaissance Art, by Time Wallace-Murphy, Watkins Publishing UK, 2005.

The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics: An Introduction to the Recently Discovered Ancient Manuscripts That Rival the Dead Sea Scrolls in Importance, by Jean Doresse, MJF Books, 1986.

There are also several web sites which I cannot get into while on this program, but one is about Astro-Theology. It can be Googled under that title.
Click to expand...


Medicine Woman

One_Raven is right to question the credibility of your sources.
At least one of them, Suns of God, states that Krishna is born of a virgin birth, which is absolutely incorrect. Vishnu blesses his surrogate parents with great sex in order to have Krishna since birth is a harmful process.

To another topic:
Assuming Jesus existed and accomplished some feat, what, reasonably speaking could the feat have been for onlookers to exaggerate it in its entirety?
 
I theorize that jesus introduced a primative form of barefoot water skiing, maybe peter put up a few extra sails to get some more speed, and jesus was just like "hey everyone! check out what I can do!" and then he does a few 360s and butt slides.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: I agree with you. Jesus is a metaphor for the sun as it dances on the water.

It's all metaphor!
Click to expand...

A cheap move that stinks for miles around: one says (s)he agrees with something, but inserts in a further "explanation" which is something not what the first person said, so everyone gets an impression that the first person said what you said in your "agreement" which postulates something entirely or partially different.
 
Ayodhya said:
Medicine Woman

One_Raven is right to question the credibility of your sources. At least one of them, Suns of God, states that Krishna is born of a virgin birth, which is absolutely incorrect. Vishnu blesses his surrogate parents with great sex in order to have Krishna since birth is a harmful process.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Ayodhya, I don't mind anyone questioning my references. At least they are reading what I write!

Acharya S. is not the only citation referring to Krishna being born of a "virgin." All "virgin" means in the bible is "young woman." It has nothing to do with a woman's sexuality. They married really young in those days, had sex, brought forth children, and were still considered to be "almas," or "young women." A woman who has already given birth is given a different title, but she could still be a "young girl," or "virgin." The two alternate words for one who has given birth is "bethula" and "parthenos." My spellings, however, may be incorrect.

I've posted some references on Krishna's mother:

Jesus' and Krishna's mothers were holy virgins: Actually, the virginal state of Miriam when she conceived Jesus is a matter of debate. Paul and the author(s) of the Gospel of John appear to directly reject the concept. The author of the Gospel of Mark appears to have been unaware of it. The authors of Matthew and Luke accepted the belief. Christians today are divided.

The virginal state of Devaki is also a matter of debate. One tradition states that Krishna was her eighth child. Another states that it was a virgin birth: "In the context of myth and religion, the virgin birth is applied to any miraculous conception and birth. In this sense, whether the mother is technically a virgin is of secondary importance to the fact that she conceives and gives birth by some means other than the ordinary....the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." 11
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

Claims of divinity were commonly associated with virgin birth in the ancient world. The Hindu god Krishna, Gautama Buddha and Zoroaster were reputedly the product of virgin births. Alexander the Great, Constantine and Nero claimed to have virgin births. Admirers of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and Pythagoras claimed virgin births for these sages. In the ancient world virgin birth was a sign of distinction.

http://www.utahkrishnas.com/main/page.asp?id=478

Remarkably, almost every god originates from a virgin or impregnates one. There has been some discrepancies in the translations through the ages. Isiah, of the Christian Bible, was translated from Greek, which was translated from the original Hebrew. The word used was "almah" which simply means "young woman". Buddha was born of the virgin, Maya. Followers also celebrate December 25 as his birthdate. To find out more, read up on the historical beginnings of your favorite god.

http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/handicap.html

Whether fiction or not, scholars say accounts of miraculous births are plentiful throughout history. Linking the divine to the human in a dramatic way, for instance, is the story of Krishna, the Hindu god who was born to the virgin Devaki.

http://www.thesupernaturalworld.co.uk/index.php?act=print_article&topic_id=4375

Please let me know if these links do not open.

~ Medicine*Woman
 
True, after reading scripture, much divine intervention is relayed in the birth of Krishna.

But it is clear that Devaki has sex to have a fetus before Vishnu interjects. She does not have sex with an angel. Small details, little difference.
 
Last edited:
Walking on shallow waters is still technically walking on water. Food for thought. ;)
 
Is there any first-hand written accounts by any of the hundreds of thousands of people who witnessed any of the 47 miracles supposedly performed by Jesus in the bible?

If thousands of people saw Jesus perform these incredible miracles like feeding 5,000 with a couple loaves of bread and some fish, surely someone other than the anonymous authors of the Gospel would have wrote about it.
 
Huck Finn has his name on a story. He didn't write it. There were two main writers of the so-called 'gospels,' one was the author of Mark the other was the author of the "Q" document.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
"Anonymous authors of the Gospels?" Uh duh, their names are on them.
Click to expand...

LMAO. anonymous means the author didn't write his/her name in any part of the actual text of the document. The people who compiled the Bible gave the Gospels their TITLES or names (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John) because they THOUGHT that those names COULD be the author.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top