Christianity's going through the mincer...

[nocturnia]

So in the day when Judas' Testament is revealed, scientists discover a possible explanation behind Jesus walking on water.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060403/jesus_his.html?source=rss

Of course, it's also possible he just walked on water.

Comments

[_grimtales_]

Or that it never happened at all. More likely. There's not even any direct evidence he existed at all.

[brinker]

Hard to have direct evidence of random peasents 2000 yrs ago. But Josephus talks about him. So does Tacitus.

[_grimtales_]

Long after the event and at a remove.

[mrmmarc]

Tacitus and Josephus were much closer.
Josephus was there.

[themadone]

Or it's a mistranslation. I remember hearing/reading/etc once that in
the language it was originally written in, "on" and "in" are the same
word.

[brinker]

Prepositions are horrible in any language, and Greek is no exception. But I did some research to see if it could be translated as in. [By way of explanation, I have a degree in classical languages which included 3 years of Attic/Koine Greek.] Also for the record, I'm not particularly Christian, and certainly not dogmatic about it. But the academic side intrigues me.

The key word in Matthew, Mark, and John is "epi" (from which we get words like epidermus and other such words"). It translates to on, at, by, over, above, across. I've never seen it translated as "in", though, and couldn't find any references to it as "in" in any lexicons, either.

Mark 6:44 - "peripaton epi tes thelasses".

John 6:10 - "peripatontai epi tes thelasses."

"walking on/over/above/across the sea".

Matt 14:26: "mathatai idontes outon epi tes thelasses peripatounta." ("The disciples saw him on/over/above/across the see walking."

[themadone]

Might not have been "in" then. I just remember the preposition was
ambigious in that it could either make the context of the sentence mundane
or a miracle.

[brinker]

Yeah. Prepositions in general are ambiguous.

[What does "on" mean? First thought would mean something like "on top". But then you can knock on a door [on = against], put clothes on [on = around]. Etc. Obnoxious things, they are! :)

I'm not sure that any of the prepositions were ambiguous in this case, though. A couple other points.

1) The sea of Galillee is deep enough that if he wasn't walking on it, he'd have had to be swimming. That's a very different verb than walking.
2) It wouldn't explain the disciples disbelief or thinking he was a ghost or Peter's calling for Jesus to "save him" when he falls into the water.... if it was shallow enough that Jesus was walking on it. [Both from Matthew's account, btw]

So I'm still inclined to say it was supposed to be a miracle.

[nocturnia]

From what I remember (books are all in a box so I can't just grab my Bible), the whole point is that Peter realises he shouldn't be able to do what Jesus is doing, loses faith, and falls into the water.

Hence, what Jesus is doing is a miracle.

[mrmmarc]

Christianity is going through the mincer?
REALLY?

(blinks)
How?

The Gospel of Judas was found years ago; it's contents have been open for debate for years.
All that has happened is that its been translated.
Will this one be any more revalatory than the Gospel's of Thomas? Gospel of Peter? The Secret Gospel of St. Mark. The other 40 non-canonical gospels?

(thinks)
Nope.

The edifice of Christianity will not be shaken.

As for walking on water?
(glances around)

Oh yes.
There they are.
The dogmatics.
Those poor delusional souls who believe the Bible is literally true.
Yes, THEY are having problems- but then again they will bury their heads in their hands and ignore the facts- as they always do.

The rest of the Christian world who do not say the Bible is LITERALLY true will be fine I think.
Ice?
Really?

Cool.

But as it says elsewhere in the thread...
ON/IN/THROUGH/AROUND the water- don't really matter and we ain't really sure.

[brinker]

Agreed.

Although I do find the ice theory a bit... odd. Particularly since I'm having trouble picturing the disciples navigating their boat through ice. Furthermore, it seems hard to explain the the disciples reaction (see my comments above).

I'm in full agreement with you about it not really being a challenge to Christianity... only to the dogmatics. And they'll probably stick their head in the sand, anyway.

I think it just drives me crazy when I see people trying to rationalize away the miracles in the Bible. Believe them or don't believe them, I don't care. But trying to rationally explain them usually just results in silly explanations. Furthermore, if your faith is based on miracles, then why try to rationalize them? If your faith isn't based on miracles, what does it matter?

Guess I just don't get it.

[_grimtales_]

In rivers at least, water flows more slowly closer to the shore and more quickly towards the middle. Water is also less deep at the sides of lakes/rivers and thus freezes more quickly.

Therefore you could have ice at the sides and navigable water in the middle.

Personally I think this sort of thing is basically arguing how many flies are settled on a turd.

[brinker]

True about the ice on the sides rather than the middle. But still wouldn't have gotten them all the way out to the boat.

Regardless, it sounds like we're in agreement about the pointlessness of the debate.