Jesus Walked on Ice, Study Says

[lgot]

Isnt a bit far fetched this notion that miracles can only be a few modest helpful thing ?
Jesus himself did a good number of things who are just a show off such as turning water in wine in one party (that is just show off, people are not starving at all, they are in a party, jesus just saved the host reputation), showed off his wounds, the whole flaming holy spirit over the disciples heads and if you consider this notion should be respected by tradition and just not cannon, you would have jesus turning mud in birds also...
the walking in the water seem just a like a expected feat for a fisherman group not to mention with with possible symbolism to be used...

[God Fearing Atheist]

Isnt a bit far fetched this notion that miracles can only be a few modest helpful thing ?
Jesus himself did a good number of things who are just a show off such as turning water in wine in one party (that is just show off, people are not starving at all, they are in a party, jesus just saved the host reputation), showed off his wounds, the whole flaming holy spirit over the disciples heads and if you consider this notion should be respected by tradition and just not cannon, you would have jesus turning mud in birds also...
the walking in the water seem just a like a expected feat for a fisherman group not to mention with with possible symbolism to be used...

The reasoning behind my demand that water-walking be helpful is contained in my post to Surlethe. In short, there is nothing that logically requires it, but that is not what im saying. It isnt that Jesus could not have done tricks to show off, its that the clearest examples of tricks he did do show no signs of self-revelation. More uncertain miracle traditions lose historical weight in light of that. To use my Hitler example again, it is more or less likely that Hitler would have said "Jews are awesome" given what else he is known to have said and thought about them?

The analogy to the Cana water-to-wine miracle is a very poor one, by the way. Of all the various miracles in the gospels, Cana is perhaps the least likely to be authentic for a ton of different reasons.

Finally, im not at all sure what you mean by "the walking in the water seem just a like a expected feat for a fisherman group." I do however whole-heartedly agree with the suggestion of symbolism, only im arguing it counts against, not for, the historicity of the miracle. Indeed, the water-walking and surrounding narrative appear to be nothing but a way for the authors to convey their understanding of Jesus' person as divine in some sense or another.

[lgot]

THe fisherman : people living from sailing are more liked to develop feats related to water; as a man walking over the water is surelly special.
Now historical miracles ? You mean, miracles like healing can be basead on a realistic act such a doctor and such ?
So you classify "authentic" as those who are possible an allegory of reality and not authentic, those who are not ?
I would never go there. In the bible there is a few of Divine Interventions (Moses 10 plagues in egypt, darkness and earthquake with Jesus death) to make not only the water walking the lonely "jews are aswesome" of Hitler.

[Magnetic]

1. The NIV version of Mark depicted the disciples as being in danger, and Jesus walking from the mountains across the water to them.

I dont know what sort of NIV you're reading, but in mine, the only danger the disciples face is "straining at the oars, because the wind was against them."

Maybe its just me, but I dont see difficult rowing as a particularly dire state of affairs.

2. The disciples were depicted as being afraid, and asking for Jesus help.

The disciples are not depicted as asking for help, but they are afraid. Why are they afraid? Because Jesus is walking on water and they think he's a ghost!

Jesus does not walk on water to make them less fearful of something. His walking on water is its cause.

He was confusing the 'walking on the water' incident with the time when the disciples were out on the lake and a fierce storm came up. . . . . and Jesus was in the lower deck sleeping. They came down (because they were afraid they were all going to die), woke him up, and then Jesus calms the storm in an instant.

[PainRack]

Oops, me bad

[God Fearing Atheist]

THe fisherman : people living from sailing are more liked to develop feats related to water; as a man walking over the water is surelly special.

If you're suggesting the rather uninteresting fact that fishermen work in the water counts towards the historicity of a man walking on the same substance, all I can say is that if it makes any sense at all, its pretty thin.

I mean, aside from the water itself, what would lead anyone to make this connection? Whats wrong with the stated context of rowing a boat to get somewhere? What point is there in the narrative context at all if not give the Evangelists a chance to show Jesus off? What, if anything, can we learn from linking fishermen with walking on water and why?

On the other hand, if you're saying there is some known principle by which close proximity to water tends to give people water-related superpowers, i'd need to see some evidence.

Now historical miracles ? You mean, miracles like healing can be basead on a realistic act such a doctor and such ?

No. I dont presume to know the mechanism by which Jesus healed. By the same token, it is impossible to know even if Jesus healed. In other words, my saying "Jesus healed an epileptic" does not entail that Jesus had god-given supernatural powers. It does not mean he did magic tricks, was in league with the devil, or worked all the same suggestive techniques Benny Hinn does in this century. It does not mean he cured the disease nor that he just waited out the seizures. All an authentic miracle tradition implies here is that at some point during his ministry, Jesus interacted with an epileptic, people thought the epileptic was cured, and Jesus used this to further his message.

To go beyond this is idle speculation.

So you classify "authentic" as those who are possible an allegory of reality and not authentic, those who are not ?

I classify as authentic those miracles that, per standards methods of historical inquiry, are likely attributable to the actions of Jesus of Nazareth, first century Galilean guy. Inauthentic miracle traditions, on the other hand, are those that the weight of historical evidence suggests were not among the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth, first century Galilean guy, but ascribed to him later by others.

I would never go there. In the bible there is a few of Divine Interventions (Moses 10 plagues in egypt, darkness and earthquake with Jesus death) to make not only the water walking the lonely "jews are aswesome" of Hitler.

Again, congruence is not about evaluating a putative event in light of just any ol' claim. Its about seeing how well that event meshes with the picture painted by others that are themselves historical. A historical judgement about "Jews are awesome" is impossible if we only compare it to things Hitler didnt say. It is only against a body of sayings we have other good reasons to accept that something so positive appears out of place.

Are any of those acceptable on historical grounds? I dont think so. Even if they were, are they helpful in understanding the character of Jesus of Nazareth and his public ministry? Again, I dont see it.

[lgot]

If you're suggesting the rather uninteresting fact that fishermen work in the water counts towards the historicity of a man walking on the same substance, all I can say is that if it makes any sense at all, its pretty thin.

Historicity ? In no momment I ever argue about historicity of any deed of jesus. In fact, they are all literary (oral or writen) fiction in my view.
You are rather confuding what I said.

What point is there in the narrative context at all if not give the Evangelists a chance to show Jesus off? What, if anything, can we learn from linking fishermen with walking on water and why?

Well, the given scene is in fact a scene of the development of Peter. It not only shows Jesus super-powers ,etc (something rather commun in Mathews) but also is pointing to one disciple in particular and his constant leaps of faith.

No. I dont presume to know the mechanism by which Jesus healed. By the same token, it is impossible to know even if Jesus healed. In other words, my saying "Jesus healed an epileptic" does not entail that Jesus had god-given supernatural powers. It does not mean he did magic tricks, was in league with the devil, or worked all the same suggestive techniques Benny Hinn does in this century. It does not mean he cured the disease nor that he just waited out the seizures. All an authentic miracle tradition implies here is that at some point during his ministry, Jesus interacted with an epileptic, people thought the epileptic was cured, and Jesus used this to further his message.

That is exactly what I said, you classify as authentic miracles who seem to be possible to be "created" by the real acts of jesus...
I must say, this we may have agreed and disagreed at same time. I got confused with the use of word authentic, as I thought you refereed as textual modifications while you don't. You talk about plausible miracles for what I seem.

I classify as authentic those miracles that, per standards methods of historical inquiry, are likely attributable to the actions of Jesus of Nazareth, first century Galilean guy. Inauthentic miracle traditions, on the other hand, are those that the weight of historical evidence suggests were not among the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth, first century Galilean guy, but ascribed to him later by others.

Except there is no such difference, as you said, You can not even tell if Jesus did walked among people with disease of if that was also a construction to build the "holy" character of Jesus, since it is expected for holy man to make prophecies, to cure, and all. The difference between the most "show off" miracles, who are the more epic, divine miracles is so thin, It can - and it is rather normal - that Jesus's traditions mixed him with two roles and both are equally fantastic.

Are any of those acceptable on historical grounds? I dont think so. Even if they were, are they helpful in understanding the character of Jesus of Nazareth and his public ministry? Again, I dont see it.

The character of Jesus is build around facts who are not acceptable by historical standards (ressurection, divine birth). He is a character developed by oral story tellers and a bunch of writers. The gospels are great clues to understand the characters of Mathew, John, etc. The lack of support will never give us much clue to understand jesus, who could only give a hand for someone to have tripped to be labeled as healer. Would make a jesus more plausible for history to ignore angels, stars, earthquakers, water walking, etc ? Sure.