I always get depressed when I read stories like the following one.
SCIENTISTS SPECULATE THAT FLOATING ICE COULD HAVE EXPLAINED JESUS WALKING ON WATER.
The theory is that conditions could have been such that ice could have formed in the saltwater springs near Tabgha in the Sea of Galilee and
With such conditions, a floating patch of ice could develop above the plumes resulting from the salty springs along the lake’s western shore in Tabgha. Tabgha is the town where many archeological findings related to Jesus have been found.
"We simply explain that unique freezing processes probably happened in that region only a handful of times during the last 12,000 years," said Doron Nof, a Florida State University Professor of Oceanography. "We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."
Nof figures that in the last 120 centuries, the odds of such conditions on the low latitude Lake Kinneret are most likely 1-in-1,000. But during the time period when Jesus lived, such “spring ice” may have formed once every 30 to 60 years.
Yeah, right. Big deal.
There are all kinds of ways to rationalize biblical miracles–the burning bush only seemed to burn because there was a natural gas-emitting fissure that had ignited behind it, the miracle of the loaves and the fishes was really a "miracle of sharing," yadda, yadda, yadda.
Sheesh!
Look, I’m all for recognizing that not everything in Scripture is meant by the authors to be taken literally, but we can’t simply dismiss miraculous occurrences in this fashion, especially not in documents that were written as close to the historical events in question as the gospels (within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and even by eyewitnesses).
The fact is that there are Aramaic and Greek words for "ice," and if Jesus had been walking on it, the Evangelists could have said so. Even if the ice was hard to see, Peter would have been aware of it, because he got out and stood on the water, at least momentarily.
The gospels also depict Jesus walking on the water, not standing and floating along on something.
This just isn’t the picture of the event that the Gospels give us.
Not that that’ll stop some avant garde priests from using the theory in homilies.
This reminds me of the other heresy that went ’round for awhile. You know, the one where the miracle of the loaves and fishes didn’t really happen. The disciples just went around and shook down everyone in the crowd, and collected all of the loaves and fishes they had hanging around in their robes. A priest at my friend’s parish actually told this one during the appropriate homily…..and promptly “ran out” of hosts during communion. My protestant friend (a different one) said he should have “looked in his robes”.
I wrote a parody piece four years ago on the Jesus Seminar where I posited this exact explanation for Jesus walking on water as a joke.
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/003737.php
I’m becoming more and more convinced that natural science is a religion with many people. They put their trust only in what they can see. As a result they confirm I Cor. 2:4
“Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually”
I quoted this in Mark Shea’s blog today in regards to another subject but it still applies.
He who is without spiritual life from the Father in him is dead to understanding the words of the Holy Spirit. As a Protestant who is learning more and more about the Catholic faith and loving it, praying the rosary, have read the entire Catechism and read the scriptures daily, I’ve learned that there is a voice of God that can be heard and understood.
And I guess ANOTHER piece of ice amazingly just showed up so that Peter could also walk on water.
It’s a pretty plausible explanation.
After all, regular salty ice from that area is known to have the property of hardening and softening in proportion to the faith of a person walking on it.
That reminds me, are you aware of the obscure principle of hydrodynamics that dictates how wave patterns in the vicinity of spring ice can actually vary according to the occupation of individuals walking on it? For example, fishermen on spring ice tend to have an agitating effect, but for some reason carpenters on spring ice can actually dampen turbulence. Go figure.
Dang, Francis posted faster than I did. I like my explanation better, though.
Why not just figure that Jesus was an Space Alien, and performed all these great miracles through the use of exotic alien technology? That would cover every seemingly supernatural occurence, without the need to come up with a seperate wild theory for each individual event (which is tedious, as well as embarassing).
I’m sure someone has already done that, but somehow I missed whatever book he/she wrote.
+J.M.J+
Well, I did once know a New-Ager who said that space aliens raised Jesus from the dead, so that’s partway there….
In Jesu et Maria,
This reminds me of the theory I heard several years ago about Moses crossing the Red Sea. Supposedly if wind conditions had been just right (at least according to some scientist who came up with this theory), a strip of dry land could have been exposed by the wind blowing the water in a certain direction, thus allowing a group of people to walk across a portion of the Red Sea.
But my response to these explanations is, yeah but what are the odds that the wind just happened to be blowing that way at exactly the right time? Or what are the odds that a block of ice just happened to be there right at the time that Jesus wanted to walk on water? Really these explanations are rather ridiculous. If you want to deny the miracles in the Bible, isn’t it a lot easier just to say that the people who wrote the Bible exaggerated or completely made up the miracles? Coming up with these unlikely, far-fetched “scientific” explanations seems to smack of desperation.
Coming Soon To A Homily Near You?
Not to any homily you will ever hear me preach!
Fr. Philip
Hey, Father-
You could preach about how ridiculous it is!
The Loaves and Fishes miracle “explanation” already made it into one homily I heard. Apparently, the “real” miracle for this priest would be in getting people to share.
Oddly enough, this ridiculous way of looking at the story also made its way into the movie “Miracles,” an otherwise VERY solid film.
I just don’t understand. If you don’t want to believe that He was God, then fine, don’t believe it. Just tell yourself that we made it all up (and then, a bunch of us DIED for a known lie, but whatever) and leave us alone.
“And Chist did say unto Peter, ‘Thou hast slipped off thine ice chunk. But blessed are they that weareth the cleats of faith.'”
COMPLEX MYTH: “Jesus walked on ice.”
SIMPLE GOSPEL TRUTH: “Jesus walked on water.”
—-
COMPLEX MYTH: “The Rapture”
SIMPLE GOSPEL TRUTH: “This is my Body…. This is my Blood….”
.
I’m sure someone has already done that, but somehow I missed whatever book he/she wrote.
Yep – my mother and father read it in the late-60s/early-70s as a goof. It was called “Chariots of the Gods”, and it stated that many of the “ancient mysteries”, like the flaming scroll in Ezekiel or Enoch and Elijah being taken up to God in a flaming chariot were really flying saucers and alien abductions.
This leads to all kinds of other things (not mentioned in the book, but implied), such as the Virgin Mary conceiving Jesus through alien artificial insemination, and the Ascension being alien levitation into a spacecraft.
I remember even reading somewhere that the Ark of the Covenant was actually a nuclear-powered food maker/dispenser – hence the mystery-food “manna” and the prohibitions against touching the ark, lest ye be destroyed.
Amazing that they would rather believe what is essentially sci-fi, instead of the wealth of ancient historical documents.
“And Chist did say unto Peter, ‘Thou hast slipped off thine ice chunk. But blessed are they that weareth the cleats of faith.'”
Hah!
That cracked me up, Jared.
They couldn’t come up with anything better than that? If they really wanted to make me laugh, they should have put this out a few days ago on April Fool’s Day. And they definitely should have said something about it being an iceberg that Jesus was walking on and that Peter jumped onto another iceberg from the Titanic.
Jimmy, don’t get depressed about this stuff, just laugh it off. Save your energy for the real battles!
TomReagan.com
Besides showing the implausibility of this by how another piece of ice would have had to bob up to the surface for Peter, one could also point out that the Gospel of Mark notes how Jesus, before he got into the boat, first “meant to pass by them” (Mk 6:48). It could be safely assumed, if this were the case, that the piece of ice on which Jesus was floating was going in a different direction than directly towards the boat (if it were going in the direction toward where Jesus MEANT IT TO GO-however you’d explain THAT), and then, once the disciples cried out for fear, had to change direction in such a way to where he was then able to step off it into the boat. If one happened to argue against this point by saying that though Jesus intended to pass by them, that it just so happened that the boat and piece of ice floated right next to each other by, say, the storm blowing the boat toward Jesus, I would personally respond by promptly laughing at this person.
Look, I’m all for recognizing that not everything in Scripture is meant by the authors to be taken literally, but we can’t simply dismiss miraculous occurrences in this fashion
Who is dismissing? The authors state, as you quoted, “We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account.” They offer a possible scientific explanation.
When you walk on ice, you are walking on water. It is frozen water.
Someone commented on Mark Shea’s blog concerning just how big the size of the ice sheet would have to be to support the weight of a man. That’s no thin little sheet of ice.
This topic is fascinating to me. Take any miracle in the Gospel, like walking on water. It seems that among the possibilities are:
1) It is true,
2) It is an out-and-out fabrication,
3) It is sort of, kind of true, but there is a physical explanation for it,
Now, what’s interesting to me is why the doubters don’t pick 2). Wouldn’t that be the easiest thing to do? Why go through the trouble of coming up with a “scientific” explanation as in 3)?
Perhaps this is a case of disbelief paying tribute to truth. Perhaps it is a tactic in the spiritual battle around us whereby the hermeneutics of doubt become more and more embedded into our spiritual culture, or perhaps it is a means by which the deceiver perpetuates the habit of us adopting a materialist worldview even toward spiritual things.
If one is going to believe, he should believe (as C.S. Lewis points out) it because he perceives it as being true. As for the Gospel accounts, let me quote a point Father Thomas Williams made while defending the accounts of the passion:
I should add, that one thing that had prevented me from growing in my faith was a constant reassessment of what I believed to be true. As a result, I could never quite get out of the gate in the race of which St. Paul speaks.
I only started to move forward in the life of the Spirit once I said “Enough, I’ve done enough seeking, enough research. I’ve had enough proofs. I’ve made the decision to believe, it was a prudent and well-thought out decision, and I refuse to keep spinning my wheels in the mud of doubt.”
That doesn’t mean that I don’t have a long way to go still, but the constant going back and forth between belief and doubt was a pretty effective barrier between me and Jesus.
Now, what’s interesting to me is why the doubters don’t pick 2)
But many doubters do pick 2.
Quince, you’re right. But why do some pick three? That’s what’s interesting to me.
Here’s another reason: Could it be that some crave the attention of having the latest theory concerning “what really happened in the Gospel”?
My mother was at an infection control meeting and one of the doctors had a theory that the stigmatists really only have a cutaceous infection of a type of bright red bacterium. Nevermind that it didn’t square with Padre Pio’s experience of losing a cup of blood every day, it still helped this doctor persist in his disbelief.
It’s the view of science that unless something is proven false, it remains open to natural explanation.
The paper was co-written by Florida meteorologist/oceanographer Dr. Doron Nof, educated in Israel, and Dr. Nathan Paldor of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Dr. Nof and Dr. Paldor have worked together on a number of topics, including a paper about the parting of the Red Sea, proposing that it can be explained as a natural phenomenon on the order of once every 1000 years or so. In regard to the Red Sea explanation, Dr. Paldor said his natural explanation “should not affect the religious aspects of the Exodus” and “some may even find our proposed mechanism to be a supportive argument for the original biblical description of this event.”
With respect to the story of Jesus walking on water, the paper states: “With the idea that much of our cultural heritage is based on human observations of nature, we sought a natural process that could perhaps explain the origin of the account that Jesus Christ walked on water… Our present explanation does not exactly address ‘walking on water’ but rather provides a plausible physical process that has some characteristics similar to those described in the New Testament. Despite these differences, and mismatches, we believe that all of those explanations add to our understanding of our own and our ancestors’ lives… The whole story may have originated in local ancient folklore which happened to be told best in the Christian Bible. It is hoped, however, that archeologists, religion scholars, anthropologists and believers will examine such implications in detail.”
You can read the full paper here:
http://earth.huji.ac.il/data/pics/nmp_jpl(2206).pdf
Reading some of these science fantasies makes me think that in the Middle Ages their author’s imaginative creativity would have been used to embellish miracle stories to help butress the reputation of some alleged saint.
I dont really believe in coincidences. That ALL these miracles happened because of all these spectacular oddities of nature at just the “right time,” and it “just so happened.” While I’m open to Darwin and other’s (still unproven) ideas as to the creation of the world, I see too much order in it to believe that it is not directed in some fashion, or at least set up in such a way that provides it will somehow maintain it’s order. I don’t know how the earth got here, but I know God was involved. That being said, if all or some of these miracles somehow do manage to be “explained away” beyond the shadow of a doubt… I still believe God’s hand was at work. Ice popping up at just the right time after a storm (that Jesus just somehow knew would end right when it did)that Jesus could flawlessly balance on so that he could walk on water (and not freeze his little tootsies off) is pretty miraculous.
It’s the view of science that unless something is proven false, it remains open to natural explanation.
True, but what I’m getting at is this: Some will say that nothing can be true unless it has a natural explanation. Those who are inclined to such a view (and, I was one such person at one point in my life) will do two things when encountering a miracle. First, posit a natural cause, and second avoid the subject to prevent their materialist worldview from being challenged.
In the infection control example above, the doctor had an explanation for stigmatism that satisfied him, but any deeper investigation would have shown his hypothesis to be incorrect. My guess, and this is based on my own past behavior, is that the doctor remained in his intellectual comfort zone by not investigating the subject of stigmatism further.
I perhaps should mention, too, that I am no stranger to science, with advanced degrees in the mathematical sciences, and working as a senior scientist in a Silicon Valley company. So, it should not be construed that I am hostile to science. I’m merely pointing out that the philosophy of scientific materialism often parades as science.
My guess, and this is based on my own past behavior, is that the doctor remained in his intellectual comfort zone by not investigating the subject of stigmatism further.
The same can be said of those who are willing to close the books and call it a “miracle”.
“Our present explanation does not exactly address ‘walking on water’ but rather provides a plausible physical process that has some characteristics similar to those described in the New Testament.”
Rot.
It is not in the least plausible, and you don’t have to be a scientist to see that.
It doesn’t matter how they dress it up rhetorically, they are clutching at straws… er… ice.
It is not in the least plausible, and you don’t have to be a scientist to see that.
That’s what many have to say about your interpretation of the Bible story. Like the paper suggests, “The whole story may have originated in local ancient folklore which happened to be told best in the Christian Bible.”
Some may view the paper as support for the Bible story, and others may see it otherwise.
I can understand non-believers wanting to come up with rationalistic explanations of miracles. But it really puzzles when Christians resort to this as they sometimes do.
I mean, we believe a man ROSE from the DEAD.
What could be weirder than that? And you have problems with the Red Sea parting or a bunch of dead fish?
Exactly. If a Christian can believe stories about people coming back from the dead, what’s so hard to accept about a rational scientific explanation?
“That’s what many have to say about your interpretation of the Bible story.”
No, Quince. The idea of someone walking on water isn’t implausible, it is IMPOSSIBLE.
That’s sort of the point. That’s why it is called a miracle.
If the supernatural is discounted at the outset, then one is backed into a corner where one has to either call the miracles lies, or try to explain the stories by means of silly naturalistic theories.
Discounting the supernatural may be scientific, but it is not logical.
The idea of someone walking on water isn’t implausible, it is IMPOSSIBLE.
Tell that to the eskimos. They walk on frozen water quite regularly.
Discounting the supernatural may be scientific, but it is not logical.
Say hello to the monster under your bed.
Tim, I’ve tried to explain this to you before, but you aren’t getting the message: This whole Resurrection Thing was invented by the Apostles. They invented it because of all the gain they knew they’d get from it: loss of livelihood, arrest, exile, torture, and death. Peter, Andrew, and Philip were all quoted as saying the same thing as they were hanging on their crosses: “Boy, we sure put one over on them!”
Quince the Eskimo-
I grew up in Alaska, you don’t have to tell me about walking on ice.
Do you hold the “swoon” theory, or do you figure Jesus was beamed up and revived in the sick bay of the Mother Ship? There is as much evidence for that as for this mess.
Oh, and I don’t believe in monsters.
‘cept trolls.
Oh, and I don’t believe in monsters.
No sea monster in the Nile? Or locusts that look like horses prepared for battle, with crowns of gold on their heads, and faces resembling humans? Or an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads?
“O ye of little faith”, Jesus said while reaching out his hand. “Why did you doubt?”
Question: Why do priests who preach bad homilies about the miracle of loaves and fishes think the real miracle is “sharing”?
Answer: Because they are priests who preach bad homilies about the miracle of loaves and fishes.
I agree with Noah. An accomplished skeptic would just discount the whole gospel as myth. It seems the meteorologists went through a lot of trouble to write something that would appeal to: absolutely no one.
Non-believers would not bother because they already do not care.
Believers can easily see the meteorologists don’t get it.
————————-
Quince,
Science comes from Catholicism and thus, is grounded in the Catholic understanding of the supernatural. We understand the universe is made of matter, and thus in a state of constant decay. Matter is not eternal. We also understand the relationship between cause and effect — cause always preceding effect and effect never occurring without a cause. This is the very basis of all science.
Now, I ask you to offer an explanation of the existence of non-eternal matter that accounts for the fact that nothing creates itself.
If you can do that without “eternalizing” the universe (basically proclaiming the natural universe as supernatural) and without resorting to the existence of a Supreme Being, we would most gladly like to chat with you.
A word of caution: the following proofs are nearly a millennium old and have yet to be toppled by any so-called great thinker.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm
Also, the theory of the Big Bang comes from a Catholic priest/physicist.
So please mind your manners and spare us your presumptuous attitude. We are not Fundamentalists but the bringers of a great light shared by all regardless of faith.
For attitude and manners, check the mirror. You have no light that I do not share. None.
I think no-name has a little brother…
“It’s the view of science that unless something is proven false, it remains open to natural explanation.”
In other words, every phenomenon in the universe can be eventually sensed, understood, and explained using our rational brains and our 5 senses. Almost as if the universe was designed (oops…evolved) for man.
Yes, you.
Quince are you Catholic?
In other words, every phenomenon in the universe can be eventually sensed, understood, and explained using our rational brains and our 5 senses.
That’s the goal, the hope of science… to understand. Like in religion, to know Him, the Truth.
Quince are you Catholic?
I am. What else is there?
Um…so if somebody only has the stigmata in one hand, is that astigmatism?
Do you have a scientific explanation for the miracle of transubstantiation?
I guess now that StubbleSpark and Innocencio have entered the topic the real debate is going to begin, if Quince and Anonymous can handle it. Mable Realist’ll show up, that’d make things interesting. He’d actually raise points, stupid as they may be, not just quibbling.
Do you have a scientific explanation for the miracle of transubstantiation?
Why, do you need a bedtime story?
As a Catholic you believe the miracle of transubstantiation is a bedtime story? A yes or no would be greatly appreciated.
No but he does want to show something about the nature of miracles.
“No but he does want to show something about the nature of miracles.
What?
As a Catholic you believe the miracle of transubstantiation is a bedtime story?
It is when you talk about it.
A (non-religious) professor teaching a philosophy of science course that I’m taking brought this story up and was quick to point out the difficulties with it, citing the point that the story doesn’t explain why Peter had such a hard time walking on the water. I presume that if Jesus was just standing on ice, then Peter would have been able to stand on the same ice (and let’s keep in mind that, until his faith failed him, he didn’t have a problem standing on the water).
Personally, I have a hard time giving much weight to naturalistic explanations of Biblical miracles. Take the parting of the Red Sea (it serves my point here better than the walking on water). Now, even if scientists can come up with a natural explanation for why the Red Sea parted (the winds were just right, perhaps?) it’s obviously something that doesn’t happen often. So the fact that it happened RIGHT when the Israelites needed to get across is a miracle in itself, even if it can be explained by natural causes. I know St. Thomas and others like to think of miracles as a violation of natural law, but when an extremely rare, but still natural, occurance happens at just the right time to contribute to God’s plan, I don’t see how that is any less of a miracle.
Quince,
I have been down this road before…let me guess your next response will be…“I know you are but what am I?”
miracle(Latin: mirari, to wonder)
An effect which causes admiration because it cannot be produced by any natural agency but only by the power of God. New Catholic Dictionary
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
citing the point that the story doesn’t explain why Peter had such a hard time walking on the water
He was afraid and, perhaps, he didn’t watch his step and found himself on thin ice.
Inocencio, my above anonymous post was in response to a FAR earlier one of Quince’s, the server messed up, I guess. It doesn’t make much sense in the context, I know.
But to stray away from Quince’s rambling quibbling speech, don’t you think that, for your definition of miracles, as Mike said above, the mere occurance of a rare natural phenomenon precisely when needed is a miracle in and of itself?
~Kosh
miracle(Latin: mirari, to wonder)
Wonder: to daydream.
Some people wonder if the Flying Spaghetti Monster may be involved.
The english word wonder is ambiguous, Quince.
Oh, and way to go Inocencio for using LATIN.
Even older than Latin, it also comes from a word meaning to smile, to laugh, as one might upon hearing a joke.
Here’s a little context about the prevailing weather when Jesus walked on thin ice. It’s really a miracle how the ice didn’t shatter into bits:
Matt 14:24 – Meanwhile the boat, already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it.
I didn’t say Jesus was walking on thin ice. The scientists were speculating on ice sufficiently thick for ice skating. But perhaps Peter wasn’t watching his step.
Didn’t say you were Quince, I was talking to the scientists who came up with that crazy theory. They seem to have removed all the context except “Jesus seemed to walk on water”.
Here’s another problem. If the boat was “a few miles offshore”, then Jesus walked on miles and miles of ice, and yet the waves (of ice?) were buffeting the boat of the apostles. If the waves were tossing the boat around, would there be any ice around stable enough to hold Peter, no matter how carefully he tried?
I think it’s the scientists who were not watching their step.
“the mere occurance of a rare natural phenomenon precisely when needed is a miracle in and of itself?”
Yes, more precisely Providence.
“The will of God by which all things are ruled by right reason.” Saint John Damascene
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The problem with the mundane “scientific” explanation is that it overlooks all the times the Gospels demonstrate Jesus and the disciples doing mundane things.
If the writers bothered to include details like idly picking heads of grain and writing in the dirt, why wouldn’t they mention that Jesus got on an iceberg in the middle of the desert?
Also, there are other miracles that are not given the same spectacular treatment, like finding a donkey in the city or transubstantiation. The Gospel writers did not feel compelled to jazz those instances up. But they are considered miracles despite their simplicity nonetheless.
Others have pointed out the “scientific” explanation does not negate the miraculous nature of the deed, it only changes it from walking on water to creating and controlling a large block of ice to walk on.
This would not be too different in substance from using mud to heal blindness.
Still others have pointed out that ANYTHING is more plausible (space alien, etc) than God in person coming to Earth. So why even search for something as convoluted as the iceberg theory?
Why not a utility belt?
Or lordship over all creatures of the sea as the King of Atlantis?
An essential aspect of science is knowing where the natural ends and the supernatural begins. This is why believer scientists fight for the sanctity of life while secular scientists, in pursuing their “scientific despotism” actively attack it.
I suppose in the example of this story, we can see the opposite of religion intruding on science. Here, we have science intruding on religion. It is funny to see how people like Quince, so confident in their personal infallibility, actively and gleefully play the secular brand of Fundamentalist Creationist by trying to force an issue that does not apply down the throats of honest seekers who know he is wrong.
And while we are on the topic of mentioning people who frequently post, I kind of miss neoconspy…
If the waves were tossing the boat around, would there be any ice around stable enough to hold Peter
The Bible story seems to indicate that the wind was not constant.
“Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink… And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down.”
And lakes can have sections of ice and water along with wind.
If the boat was “a few miles offshore”, then Jesus walked on miles and miles of ice
The Bible does not say the boat was “a few miles offshore” at the time of the water walking. The boat was a “considerable distance” (Matthew) from shore or at the “center of the lake” (Mark) on the first watch of the night, but none of the gospels indicate where the boat was at the time of the water walking during the fourth watch of the night. John says they had “rowed three or three and a half miles”, but that does not indicate from when or where or the position of the boat with respect to any shore (it was dark, perhaps they didn’t know), or even to where Jesus may have traveled on land while the boat was in the water.
“the mere occurance of a rare natural phenomenon precisely when needed is a miracle in and of itself?”
Yes, more precisely Providence.
No, in the specific sense, mere occurance of a rare natural phenomenon is not sufficient for something to be declared a miracle. Rather, a miracle may be defined as having a supernatural cause. If a natural cause existed, then it’s not a miracle. The obvious problem therefore with declaring anything a miracle is that without a full understanding of the laws of nature, what validity can a proclamation of miracle have.
Quince –
Nothing indicates the wind calmed down until Jesus climbed aboard.
Your assertion that lakes can “have sections of ice and water along with wind” is irrelevant unless you add the qualification that the wind can be strong enough to cause waves that toss a boat around and yet provide a stable foundation of ice for someone to walk from the shore to the boat.
If it was too dark to see the shore, how could Jesus have located the boat and known where to walk? If it was too dark, how would he know that the ice stretched from the shore to the exact location of the boat? How would he know that the boat would not move from the time he started walking on ice to the time he reached the boat?
Too many questions, these are just a few.
But a final one. If you are reading the account in a literal enough fashion that we can argue about wind constancy and distance, why did you decide to read the walking on water as walking on ice? Are people back then too stupid to know the difference between ice and water? That when they see someone walking on ice they’ll assume he’s the Son of God?
One additional curious note about the study. I could be misreading it, since it contains a lot of technical terms, but on first reading it seems to me that authors explicitly require that winds be calm in order for their ice-scenario to occur. In fact, they mention a wind speed of no more than 6m/s (22 Km/ hour), which is meteorological terms is ‘moderate’. Winds stronger than that would cause the ice to break and mix with the water. (Again, I could be misreading).
Calm < 2 km/hr) Light (2-12km/hr) Moderate (13-30Km/hr) Fresh (31-40) Strong (41-62) Gale (63-87) Storm (88-117) Hurrican (> 117)
Also, there are other miracles that are not given the same spectacular treatment, like finding a donkey in the city or transubstantiation.
Finding a donkey in the city may be unusual to some, but unless it has a supernatural cause, it’s not a miracle.
Transubstantiation, as in the conversion of bread and wine into Body and Blood of Christ, is also not a miracle in the strict sense because it lacks an an apparent effect, graspable by the senses, of supernatural cause.
On the other hand, if water were to be turned into wine by supernatural cause, that would be a miracle, because the miraculous effect is apparent and graspable by the senses.
Nothing indicates the wind calmed down until Jesus climbed aboard.
According to Matthew, when Peter got out of the boat to walk on the water, everything seemed ok at that moment: “Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.” Then: “But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink”. If there had been constant wind, there would be no need for a subsequent “but when” as Peter would have already been afraid before he ever got out of the boat. And then, once again, the wind died down after they had returned to the boat.
unless you add the qualification that the wind can be strong enough to cause waves that toss a boat around and yet provide a stable foundation of ice for someone to walk from the shore to the boat.
During the first watch of the night, when the boat was in open (liquid) water, the boat was “buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.” However, during the fourth watch of the night when Jesus met them, the stories do not indicate the extent of any such buffeting by wind or waves. If we accept that there was some wind present, we cannot say however that there were waves of any significant size in the location where Jesus met them. This may be because Jesus did not meet them far out in the lake, but nearer to shore, where the wind originated without having a chance to kick up the water.
If it was too dark to see the shore, how could Jesus have located the boat and known where to walk?
I mentioned the matter of darkness because none of the story versions seemed to well indicate the location of the boat distance wise at the time when Jesus appeared, as if the discliples might not have known where they were.
We could say Jesus knew where he was and where the disciples were headed, even if the disciples in the boat may have been a bit disoriented. Where was he, where were they? In John, it states that after they got back into the boat, “immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.” That would seem to indicate Jesus had met them very near their intended destination, near the shore — unless Jesus magically moved the boat once he climbed aboard.
If we deny that they had essentially arrived at their intended destination when they met Jesus, then we might assume Jesus knew where the disciples were headed, examined the weather, anticipated their course of travel, and met up with them somewhere along the way at a point where the ice had extended out towards them.
How would he know that the boat would not move from the time he started walking on ice to the time he reached the boat?
Why would Jesus care? If he had walked out from the shore across the ice to them, he could always walk back the way he came if the boat ride didn’t work out.
Are people back then too stupid to know the difference between ice and water?
The Bible says “they were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves.” Perhaps their minds were a bit confused by that point. Add to that, like the scientists suggested, that it would have been a rather freak occurrence. There may also have been some rain which could have given the ice an appearance of water. Even if they had seen it was ice, perhaps in light of the freakish nature and surprise, they thought Jesus froze the water so he could walk upon it.
it seems to me that authors explicitly require that winds be calm in order for their ice-scenario to occur
Yes, in order for the ice to initially form, during the period of ice formation the winds should not have been more than about 13 mph. That doesn’t mean winds could not rise up subsequently, after thick ice had formed over the water. Their paper does not explore the specifics of this. However, it does suggest that if eddies could stir up water beneath the surface of the ice, eventually the ice sheet could thin and weaken.
But perhaps by then Jesus had taken his walk.. and had a good laugh at the ice theory.
“Say hello to the monster under your bed.”
“Why? Do you need a bedtime story?”
“It is when you talk about it.”
“Some people wonder if the Flying Spaghetti Monster may be involved.”
Do your mommy and daddy know you are playing with the computer?
Y’all DO know that quince is a spiny shrub with hard, sour fruit?
Don’t feed the troll.
The Greeks and Romans valued the quince to ward off the influence of the evil eye. The quince was also held sacred to Venus, who is often depicted with a quince in her right hand, the gift she received from Paris. The ‘golden Apples’ of Virgil are said to be quinces. The fruit, being dedicated to Venus, was regarded as the symbol of Love and Happiness. Quinces sent as presents, or shared, were tokens of love. Some even say the fruit in the Song of Solomon and of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden may actually have been a Quince, not an apple.
Something tells me quince may also be the center of the universe for you as well…