• Churchies making up bullshit. He probably walked in ankle deep water at low tide. Miss telling of the story 200 years later. How many artists do you know that the story gets better every time they tell it?
    • Jenny Rizzo is brilliant ⭐
      Thanks for sharing! And oh, the best is saved for last. lol
  • The bible is a spiritual teaching. The fourth watch would be between 3 - 6am. Water often signifies chaos, and in this frame, the sea is stormy. At first the disciples take Jesus for an apparition or spirit. Storms also symbolise internal conflicts and fears. However, their fears were silenced, Jesus calmed the storm with his word, he rectified their mistake by making himself known to them, "it is I, be not afraid," and of course they knew his voice because they are his sheep. Hence, often external comments of the story represent the internal state of a person, i.e a right knowledge, opens the door to true comfort, especially the knowledge of Christ. He encouraged them against their fright. Nothing need be a terror to those who have Christ near them, not even death. So the actual logic of Jesus is less telling than the deeper reasoning, Jesus is divine, he has the fullness of God, why would he not be able to walk on the water, he isn't limited by nature as shown in his miracles?
    • Jenny Rizzo is brilliant ⭐
      Thanks for sharing! I agree Jesus isn't limited to nature. It's a mater of non-believers buying into it.
  • Well...approach it logically. Either Jesus did walk on water (as described in the ONLY account), or the account is false and Jesus did NOT walk on water. *** What if you don't want to do one of those two things, but something else? IMAGINING details CONTRARY to those in the account, and imagining that those details are true, is silly. If you do that, you're making up evidence and giving your imaginary evidence greater weight than the actual evidence. *** SO: it's reasonable to conclude either of these things (I'm giving both sides of the argument): ***A*** - the best evidence (in this case, the ONLY evidence) is what I accept as most likely to be true until equal or better contrary evidence comes along. ***B*** - the best evidence is so unlikely to be true (in my subjective opinion) that I can't believe it, and so I don't believe it, and so I conclude that it didn't happen...until and unless superior evidence to the contrary is discovered. *** Now: if you're wanting a logical explanation of HOW Jesus did this, we don't know because ***the evidence doesn't give us such information***. From the point of view of physics, SOMEHOW the pressure of Jesus' feet on the water was lessened to the point that said pressure was less than the surface tension of the water. From the physics point of view, any number of things MIGHT account for this.. We can generalize and present ideas such as: ***A*** Jesus being lifted (by some unmentioned means), not entirely into the air, thus reducing the force of pressing his feet on the water ***B*** Jesus' mass somehow decreasing ***C*** (closely related) Jesus' body density somehow decreasing ***D*** the contact area of Jesus' feet somehow increasing (consider, for example, water skis, increasing the contact area is one of the things that they do) *** etc. etc. There are quite a few general ways this can be accomplished in physics. Specific ways - well, we have nothing in the account to indicate any such.
    • Jenny Rizzo is brilliant ⭐
      Thanks for sharing! Since the account says Jesus walked on water, then water it was.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy