Jesus walked across....Ice?!

[Omega X]

----------------------
Study claims ice, not water, kept Jesus afloat

University professor attempts to explain miracles with science...

Tuesday, April 4, 2006; Posted: 6:54 p.m. EDT (22:54 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (Reuters) -- The New Testament says that Jesus walked on water, but a Florida university professor believes there could be a less miraculous explanation -- he walked on a floating piece of ice.

Professor Doron Nof also theorized in the early 1990s that Moses's parting of the Red Sea had solid science behind it.

Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, said on Tuesday that his study found an unusual combination of water and atmospheric conditions in what is now northern Israel could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee.

Nof used records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures and statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee, which Israelis know now as Lake Kinneret.

The study found that a period of cooler temperatures in the area between 1,500 and 2,600 years ago could have included the decades in which Jesus lived.

A drop in temperature below freezing could have caused ice -- thick enough to support a human -- to form on the surface of the freshwater lake near the western shore, Nof said. It might have been nearly impossible for distant observers to see a piece of floating ice surrounded by water.

Nof said he offered his study -- published in the April edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology -- as a "possible explanation" for Jesus' walk on water.

"If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't," Nof said. "Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it."

"We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."

When he offered his theory 14 years ago that wind and sea conditions could explain the parting of the Red Sea, Nof said he received some hate mail, even though he noted that the idea could support the biblical description of the event.

And as his theory of Jesus' walk on ice began to circulate, he had more hate mail in his e-mail inbox.

"They asked me if I'm going to try next to explain the resurrection," he said.
-------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/04/jesus.science.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest
-------------------------

[rockouthippie]

If the biblical account is whacked, the "scientific" explanation has to be at least as silly. When I see Israeli eskimos...... :D

[ElChevelle]

All this will eventually lead to the discovery that the "holy book" (bible) was written embellishing things that may have happened.
It would have been a boring read if it were written as it actually happened, don't ya think?

[rockouthippie]

Maybe like "The Passion", unless we believe that Jesus contained 5000 gallons of red corn syrup.

The bible gets exaggerated beyond it's text too.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Indeed. Even Jason And The Argonauts has some truth to it. The story itself conveys what were probably real acts of economics and trade. But make it into a story of sex and monsters, it makes for a much better read.

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

[rockouthippie]

Even if you don't want to believe in God. Read the New Testament. It's the story of a teacher and healer that taught a philosophy of love and was killed by his own, who preferred to release a rapist and murderer.

Perhaps this meaning gets lost. Regardless, Jesus taught a worthy philosophy. The New Testament teaches a worthy message.

Of course, you can find things that out of context could give people cause to treat each other lousy.

Big Surprise!.

It's the same reason they killed Jesus for his "blasphemy".

[ElChevelle]

Embellishment.

[deeder7001]

if Jesus walked on ice, how did Peter walk on water?

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Even if you don't want to believe in God.
For the record, I don't believe in god simply because I don't want to not believe in him; I don't believe in him because he doesn't exist. Same reason I don’t believe in pink polka dotted unicorns grazing moon cheese in the Moon’s Apollo Crater.

Do I understand the concept of gods? Yes (though, my understanding is likely different than the understanding that is of a religious person). Do I understand some the teachings/morals in the Bible? Yes (in fact, I’d agree that some of them are good). Do I need to believe in a god/the Bible to be a good person? Of course not. Not all Atheists are thieving, wife-beating child molesters with absolutely no morals at all (and I’m not saying that’s what you’re implying. I’m speaking in general with exaggerations).

[rockouthippie]

Do I need to believe in a god/the Bible to be a good person? [/B]

No. but you have to believe something. If you understand biblical ethics, you also understand the ethics you were taught, with dilution.... without religion....

So, lets call our biblical ethics "traditional ethics" and forget all about the bible.

"Traditional ethics" are derived of laws and customs that let us live in peace with each other.

And as we abandon traditional ethics, and ignore human heritage, we get on the slippery slope.

Most of the problems we face as the human race are directly caused by abandoning traditional ethics.

Show me something in that morality that doesn't make hell break loose when we ignore it.

[zootm]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Even if you don't want to believe in God.
I can't say my lack of belief in God is anything to do with what I "want" or otherwise.

The New Testament is a good story, though. The archaic language can make it quite hard to read in places if you're not used to it though (the first time I read it I was a kid).

[will]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
Do I understand some the teachings/morals in the Bible? Yes (in fact, I’d agree that some of them are good). Do I need to believe in a god/the Bible to be a good person? Of course not. Not all Atheists are thieving, wife-beating child molesters with absolutely no morals at all (and I’m not saying that’s what you’re implying. I’m speaking in general with exaggerations). Exactly! I couldn't agree more.

It annoys me when people* go around saying that athiests can't have morals, because we can. Infact, I think it makes having morals easier because we don't get them from an easily misinterpreted book**.Originally posted by rockouthippie
you have to believe something. I don't believe in things I can't find evidence for. Thus I do believe in being a good person, but not in the supernatural (that includes god).

* Example: the christians at my university have seminars on why athiests can't be moral.
** Example: crusaders, sucide bombers and pro-life terrorists

[Mattress]

Originally posted by will
I don't believe in things I can't find evidence for. Thus I do believe in being a good person, but not in the supernatural (that includes god).
Doesn't Atheism imply a belief that God does not exist? You've found evidence indicating such?

[zootm]

Atheism's definition is fuzzy at best, I've found from these discussions.

[deeder7001]

thanks to everybody in this thread for yet another worthless argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. the result will be that nobody opens their minds and everybody gets pissed off. while you're arguing with people that don't want to hear it, people who need to hear it are not because you're wasting your time with people who won't listen.

[ElChevelle]

The bible needs more pictures.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Mattress
Doesn't Atheism imply a belief that God does not exist? You've found evidence indicating such? I believe that there are no invisible pink unicorns prancing around*. But that doesn't mean that I have found evidence to the contrary.

*Note: I'm actually more Agnostic, but the point is that Atheism is not at all self-inconsistant.

[will]

Originally posted by Mattress
Doesn't Atheism imply a belief that God does not exist? You've found evidence indicating such? Burden of proof.

If you were to say that there was a teapot orbiting the sun, but there was no evidence because we can't see it (being small and far away). Then I would remain skeptical of something so improbable.

I see god as highly improbable and without evidence. So I don't believe. Simple enough?

[deeder7001]

am i on everybody's ignore list or something?

[Mattress]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
The bible needs more pictures.
tada (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0781430550/104-1417043-0422302?v=glance&n=283155)

you're not on my ignore list, Deeder.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by deeder7001
am i on everybody's ignore list or something? What did you expect to happen in response to your post?

"Oh, you're right deeder, clearly a discussion about some dude walking on ice two thousand years ago being in conflict with a book which says he was actually walking on water is exactly what we should be talking about. Sorry, let's get right back to that."

[deeder7001]

from what i can see, the subject is no longer about Jesus walking on water. now it's about the existence of God which i don't think has much relevence to somebody walking on water.

[Mattress]

personally I find it hard to believe that some randomly created surface ice could possibly hold up a person's weight, especially if they're standing on it.

[will]

I find it less hard to believe that a son of a carpenter could make a platform out of wood located just under the surface of the water (which would give the impression of walking on water).

Infact, I find it a lot more likely than the whole son of god explanation.

[rockouthippie]

I don't think in this case the "scientific" explanation has any more merit that the biblical ones.

I remember my dad fell out of a boat in the middle of Tillamook Bay. My mom screamed, but we found out he was standing on a sand bar in 2 feet of water.

I think a "walking on the water" joke occurred to us. :D

[Mattress]

Originally posted by will
I find it less hard to believe that a son of a carpenter could make a platform out of wood located just under the surface of the water (which would give the impression of walking on water).

Infact, I find it a lot more likely than the whole son of god explanation.
That explains all the miracles where he healed people and brough people back from the dead too.

[rockouthippie]

Yeah, Jesus committed a big fraud so that the romans would kill him by scourging him and nailing him to a cross...... that must be it....:rolleyes:

[will]

Originally posted by Mattress
That explains all the miracles where he healed people and brough people back from the dead too. And this one time he even levitated, then survived getting frozen in ice.

Oh wait, that was David Blaine.

I think he was a conjuror in a less skeptical age. Add thousands of years of embellishment and exaggeration and you get the son of god people believe today.

And I think thats far more probable than any supernatural explanation.

[deeder7001]

wouldn't it be kinda hard to stay on a piece of ice if there were waves? even without waves, i think it would be kinda hard.

[ElChevelle]

David Blane for Jesus!

I haven't even seen proof that there was a Jesus. Except for a few of them latino fellows that mostly live in L.A.

[Omega X]

Originally posted by deeder7001
am i on everybody's ignore list or something?

Nah.

I pretty much agree. You can't just say, "Hey Jesus really walked on ice you know"...And then expect 2000 years of religion to come crumbling to the ground. But what can you say...

[rockouthippie]

I dunno, I saw the same sort of thing about Moses parting the Red Sea... Some scientific explanation that allowed him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt if I remember right....

Why scientists would investigate things like this is like examining "How many fairies will fit on the end of a pin?".

[ElChevelle]

Why so many people can read it in a book and believe it astounds me.

[mikm]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
For the record, I don't believe in god simply because I don't want to not believe in him; I don't believe in him because he doesn't exist. Same reason I don’t believe in pink polka dotted unicorns grazing moon cheese in the Moon’s Apollo Crater.

Do I understand the concept of gods? Yes (though, my understanding is likely different than the understanding that is of a religious person). Do I understand some the teachings/morals in the Bible? Yes (in fact, I’d agree that some of them are good). Do I need to believe in a god/the Bible to be a good person? Of course not. Not all Atheists are thieving, wife-beating child molesters with absolutely no morals at all (and I’m not saying that’s what you’re implying. I’m speaking in general with exaggerations). Sums up my feelings.

[deeder7001]

Originally posted by mikm
Sums up my feelings.

as well as probably 80% of the registered users here.

[LuigiHann]

I think the "oh it was just some ice" theory is one of the dumbest things I've seen. If there was enough ice there to hold him up, somebody would have noticed it. If I felt the need to assume Jesus couldn't walk on water, I'd just as soon assume that particular story was just made up.

[will]

Originally posted by deeder7001
as well as probably 80% of the registered users here. Does that bother you? And if so, why?

[ElChevelle]

I'm the oldest person on the forums, the only one who drives a cement mixer for a living and the only one who keeps a sex sheep in his spare bedroom.
Does that bother me? Hell no!
Except when I have to clean my spare bedroom.

[Phyltre]

Back on topic, there was a pretty long discussion about this on digg and basically I don't call this science.

I mean, we have the scientific method being used, but from even a completely non-religious viewpoint the chance of this supposed phenomenon having anything to do with the story is essentially zero. This phenomenon, as his study says, probably occurred only a few times in the last 12,000 years--once or twice in the past two thousand. That's not enough to even base a conspiracy theory on, much less a valid explanation.

[deeder7001]

Originally posted by will
Does that bother you? And if so, why?

it doesn't really bother me. it's just frustrating sometimes.

[rockouthippie]

Even taking a completely secular viewpoint, this is preposterous "science".

[shakey_snake]

From a scientific viewpoint most "science" is preposterous.

[Omega X]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
Why so many people can read it in a book and believe it astounds me.

You can say the same thing about the internets... ;)

[Mattress]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
Why so many people can read it in a book and believe it astounds me.

People read lots of shit and books and believe it. for example pretty much any history book.

Astounding!