How did jesus walk on water?

endr34kaladzhn said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think we're supposed to be impressed by the additional sources. It just wasn't implemented very well. Maybe they have discrepencies in order to seem more real? Either way it's just as likely they were all written by one person with a lousy memory.

I think the thread topic violates all sorts of rules against fallacies. It's a loaded question to say the least. Maybe, here's a revised version of the question: IF Jesus existed, IF he walked on water, then how did he walk on water?

Now it's more hypothetical, but at least we non-believers can have access to it. So how would one go about in faking such a magic trick back 2000 years ago. The answer? Fairly easily. If you look at the surface of a lake or a river, etc. at any given time it can differ in luminescence depending upon the amount of light available and viewing angle. It can range from completely transparent to sompletely dark under different circumstances.

If we assume he walked on dark water he could have used preset poles, which would allow him dip something in the water to prove its depth. Of course there are probably to many methods to list here: stilts, anchored rafts below the surface, inflatable shoes, a tightrope or 2 strung along the plane of the body of water, etc. So I repeat, it's pretty easy. Just as easy as faking one's own death, switching water for wine and any number of other cheap parlor tricks.
 
I may not be able to prove that Jesus did walk on water, but i don't understand how he would have been walking on ice. Because, from what the Bible tells us, the disciples were in a boat, how could they be in a boat if the water was frozen? Also, Peter, one of the disciples stepped out, and walked on water. He lost faith and fell in. Why would the disciples be so near to the ice?
 
flameofanor5 said:
I may not be able to prove that Jesus did walk on water, but i don't understand how he would have been walking on ice. Because, from what the Bible tells us, the disciples were in a boat, how could they be in a boat if the water was frozen? Also, Peter, one of the disciples stepped out, and walked on water. He lost faith and fell in. Why would the disciples be so near to the ice?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums. You posed some interesting questions. Let me see if I can 'shed some light' on your queries.

First, let's assume that the Sea of Galilee is located in a dry, salty environment, but that's really beside the point. Have you ever been to the Great Salt Lake in Utah? People have been known to literally walk on water. Probably what they were really walking on at the surface of the briny water was salt mounds, and so with the salty Sea of Galilee. Secondly, it's all figurative, anyway. The statement/belief that Jesus was capable of "walking on water" is a metaphor. It was not intended to be taken literally. Jesus is a metaphor for the sun (the center of our universe). Therefore, when the sun was setting (or rising--whichever the case may be) the reflection of the sun "walked on water." We've seen this very literal sight on postcards from afar. Nothing miraculous about that!

Peter, however, is another problem. I've read that "Peter" is a metaphor for "Peter the Jew" or voila "Jupiter!" So it it was astrologically possible that Jupiter cast his shadow or light upon the Sea of Galilee, which I don't know is truly possible, it's just another met-a-phor.

In other words, there were no disciples except that they were a metaphor for the 12 signs of the zodiac. And there was no boat. There is a constellation called Argo Navis that was probably the source of all the ark stories of myth, Noah's Ark, Jason the Argonaut, Moses in an ark made of bulrushes, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_Navis

Today, however, it is no longer considered a major constellation and has been broken up into smaller designations.

All stories coming from astrological study in the ancient past are myth, and myth is where all man-made religions come from.

PS - All religions are man-made.
 
flameofanor5 said:
I may not be able to prove that Jesus did walk on water, but i don't understand how he would have been walking on ice. Because, from what the Bible tells us, the disciples were in a boat, how could they be in a boat if the water was frozen? Also, Peter, one of the disciples stepped out, and walked on water. He lost faith and fell in. Why would the disciples be so near to the ice?
Click to expand...

Perhaps there was only a limited patch of ice, black ice that can't distinguished from water, especially from the point of view of a boat floating nearby.

Walking on ice would still be a test of faith.
 
It freaks me out how people are interpreting mythological symbols and metaphors literally.
 
It was a miracle, do you really think fishermen who spend their whole lives in boats on the water wouldn't spot the difference between a miracle and a trick. I think they would know where the sand banks were, because (I'm no fisherman but) you tend to try not to crash your boat into underwater objects such as sand banks.
 
I think I linked to the article that proposed the ice formed under unique climate conditions that were not typical in the region.
 
You know, there is an explanation, and part of me is surprised nobody has mentioned it. To the other, it's often couched in a joke, and some of our members might be too young to have heard it, since it became obsolete in the last fifteen or so years:

There were these three guys, see, a Catholic priest, a Methodist minister, and a Rabbi, and they all went fishing together. As they sat out in the boat, the priest's pager sounded. He checked it and said, "I need to take this one, boys," and hopped out of the boat to run across the water to the pay phone on the shore. The Rabbi was amazed, and even more so when the priest ran back across the water and hopped back into the boat. "Turns out it's not important," he said.

About an hour later, the minister's pager sounded. He checked the number and shrugged. "Be right back," he said, and hopped out of the boat to run across the water. The Rabbi looked to the priest, who seemed to not notice. The minister used the pay phone on shore, and then ran back across the water and hopped in the boat.

When the Rabbi's pager went off a few minutes later, he didn't hesitate, and threw himself over the side of the boat only to sink like a lead weight. The priest and minister helped him back into the boat, and as the Rabbi sputtered and coughed, enraged, the minister looked to the priest and said, "Tommy, maybe we should tell him where the rocks are."​
 
Last edited:
sandy said:
Uh, yeah, He did. Because He could.
Click to expand...

At one point, He could've turned stones into bread, but He didn't. So, as you understand things, what distinguishes one situation from the other? Just curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top