Jesus Walking on Water

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, James214, is it safe to say that the “ice theory” is just preposterous speculation, with no basis in historical fact?
 
Last edited:
In the Middle East. . In a hot climate?
That itself would be a miracle. Kind of like find Nessie in Loch Ness.

Even if ice was there, God created a miracle to place it there.
 
It was not cooler back then. We know the Middle East was in drought conditions.
 
Probably inappropriate but here goes:
Two old golfers go to heaven. They are on the first tee, playing with Jesus who has disguised himself to be ‘just one of the boys.’ (You can have too much attention in Heaven, after all).
As one golfer is about to tee off, Jesus says, “Hmm… I think Jack Nicklaus would use a 3-wood.”
Down the fairway, Jesus again chimes in, “No, I’m sure Nicklaus would use a 5-iron there, buddy.”
This happens twice more before one golfer slices his shot onto a small island in the middle of the lake. Jesus calmly walks across the water and retrieves the ball.
“Well, look at that,” says one golfer. “Who does he think he is – Jesus Christ?”
“Nah,” said his friend. “He thinks he’s Jack Nicklaus.”
 
Under the ice Theory that’s about how long that’s the weather conditions would potentially have lasted for, in my understanding. It is safe to say that this theory is nothing but wild speculation and is not backed by any evidence or observation.
 
Hope1960 said:
40.png
Hope1960:
I was told by another poster that Jesus walked at least a mile on the Sea of Galilee.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know if that’s true? Because I doubt ice could’ve been solid, able to be walked upon for a mile or more. Correct?
Click to expand...
John 6:16-19 tells us:
When it was evening, his disciples went down to the sea, embarked in a boat, and went across the sea to Capernaum. It had already grown dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea was stirred up because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat
Click to expand...
Soooo… three or four miles, then? 😉
 
There didn’t have to be ice for Jesus to walk on water. There didn’t even have to be water for Jesus to walk on water.
 
Hope1960
I looked it up and found an article suggesting a theory I’ve read before, which is that Jesus was really walking on ice. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
How did Jesus know to find the ice? Why would He risk it? How could He know it would lead Him all the way to where He wanted to go?

Don’t all three Gospels say the sea was rough, with wind and high waves? How could the ice be solid enough to walk on under those conditions?

Why didn’t any of the disciples notice the ice, if there was so much of it Christ could use it to go places?

If Peter stepped out of the boat onto ice, how is it that the boat could be rowed anywhere through solid ice? And in that case how could the disciples not know about the ice? Yet they reported that Christ came walking on the water.
 
Last edited:
He literally walked on water. I’ve seen another theory, but as God, He can do that.
 
“Kei said:
Oh my! How lucky to walk on ice in the middle of the ocean when they were sailing on a boat and then for ice to just so happen to appear under Peter’s feet when called out to but then disappear when he doubted!
Click to expand...
Now that would’ve been a miracle!
 
Last edited:
The way I see it, there are two possibilities.

1, the gospel account is completely fabricated and never happened.

2, Jesus really did walk on the water as described in the gospel account.

A third option where Jesus pulled some sort of illusion trick just doesn’t hold up to The Gospel accounts.

And I don’t think option one is correct because it is recorded separately by two eyewitnesses, in the gospels of Matthew and John.
 
Hope1960 said:
The articles include the possibility there were ice floes or chunks of ice.
Click to expand...
Saint Peter is a Fisherman. In other details of the Gospel writers, there was a storm causing waves. But sure, there could had been chunks. But then again, how well balanced were these ice chunks? And, how solid were they? There is buoyancy too.

But again, they thought there was a ghost.

But, I get the appeal of the article, though. That it could had been cold, ice, and perhaps the snowy drift compounds blown about made Jesus look like a ghost. But again, why would Saint Peter (and including the Gospel writers) emphasize walking on water instead of ice? Or was there no word for frozen water in those days? It begins to question whether the Gospel account is true or not.

Most agnostics try to reason a non-supernatural explanation to many of the events in the Gospel. Because, if any of them proved to be true, agnostics would put their hands up in the air, quit what they are doing, and start believing in a miracle to do everything they need/want. Many historical criticism on the events of the Gospel is generally a test ran by those who doubt.

Which is not a unreasonable thing. For, even Saint Thomas the Apostle, doubted. So an agnostic has every right to question. God gave Him a mind, the gift of intelligence, and reason.: Lo and behold! A miracle 😉 That the mind works, and a person has an intrinsic capacity/capability - a soul. Thus, the greatest miracle God had achieved in creation was the marvel of making finite creatures after Himself.

Saint Peter was a Fisherman.And Jesus saw His Father’s attention behold the man whom He would make become a fisher of men (saving souls.) And if that means walking on water, for the Saint to take faith and trust in God to hold him up, even when he doubted the gift to walk on water.
 
Last edited:
Is it safe to say that the ice theory is preposterous speculation with no basis in any known historical fact?
 
Last edited:
The ancient Israelites knew what frozen water was. There are a dozen or more references to snow in the Bible. It snows occasionally in the heights.

It’s certainly reasonable and a good idea to critically examine the claims made in the Bible or any other source. I’d expect no less from a thinker. What I don’t think is reasonable is when someone starts with the assumption that supernatural explanations are false by definition and so therefore there must be a natural one, then creating long chains of speculation and unfounded and improbable assumptions until the natural explanation fits the observed phenomenon . That seems intellectually dishonest to me.
 
James214 said:
It’s certainly reasonable and a good idea to critically examine the claims made in the Bible or any other source. I’d expect no less from a thinker. What I don’t think is reasonable is when someone starts with the assumption that supernatural explanations are false by definition and so therefore there must be a natural one, then creating long chains of speculation and unfounded and improbable assumptions until the natural explanation fits the observed phenomenon . That seems intellectually dishonest to me.
Click to expand...
Right. And I don’t think the Gospel writers were intellectually dishonest. Saint Luke, a Gentile. Saint Matthew, a Roman Tax Collector. Intelligent men would not put flowery language and metaphors to their audience. When they wrote what took place, indeed it took place.

To concur/hold up what you are saying.
 
Agreed. In contrast to a writing like the Protoevangelium of James which has a lot of fancy imagery and overdoing the supernatural so as to feel not credible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top