Jesus walking over the sea

[Goinheix]

Well in the Goinheix version of the bible, the boat was a toy and it was floating in the midst of a mud puddle (which contained water) and Jesus stepped over it.

Obviously you have nothing better to replay than moking of me. You are reported...and it is irrelevant if the administrators will do anything about.

 

[Don]

The difference is that wlaking arroiund the Sea is not the same as walking above the water.

Sir, seriously? Whether you walk around it or on it, the sea is made up of water. So pointing out the greek words for sea and water make no bearing on this discussion either way. For it to have any bearing at all, you'd have to explain why water and sea are different.

 

[Goinheix]

Jesus was fully aware of all things around him. He is God. He is omniscient. It is one of his divine attributes. You can see it here.
1. omniscience
.

We have allready discuss about Jesus divine atributes. I will not shift this thread into that discussion. In this very case, the Bible is clear that Jesus was not aware of the situation until he saw it. Your interpretation is based on your believe that Jesus was omniscient. As I say, I will not discuss any atribute of Jesus, but in this very case, Jesus did not know of the situation, and according to the Bible he only knew it when saw it.

 

[Don]

My acount is not acurate at all. I already say that.
What is acurate is that when Jesus knew of the situation; becose he was not aware of it; he went to try to help the disciples. Even he faikled in his intend, is him trying to help the explanation of all the situation.

The disciples didnt know where they were. They thot all the time to be in deep water. This what Jesus was trying to comunicate to them, but it was not possible for him to do it.

Where in scripture do you see that Jesus was trying to communicate to His disciples that they were in shallow water? This is an example of eisogesis, putting a meaning into scripture that isn't there.

 

[Goinheix]

Your opinion is worth zilch; nada; zero.
It is God's opinion that we go by. His is written in the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, preserved and given to us as the very words of God. Who is more authoritative: you or God? I vote for God.

Again, your opinion. It is worth zilch; zero points. That is not what God says. It is not in the Biblical account. You lose.
.

I agree. Confronted with the Bible my and your opinion worth nothing. Your opinion is that Jesus was aware of all thing and that worth nothing confronted with the Gospel. When Jesus saw the situation, and not before, is when he tryied to do something. He clearly didnt know it before seeing it. That is the scriptures and your opinion and mine worth nothing.

 

[mandym]

This is discussion that it is not closed. It has nothing to do with any other thread (except for the one named "did Jesus wlked over the water?"). The discussion on if Jesus did or did not walked over the water started in another thread; but this present thread is not intended to revive or continue the main disscusion on that original thread. To disscus the other issue we had an own and proper thread. That thread was closed and we have to asume that the discusion on that topic was long enough and it was nothing left to say.

I will apreciate if we can focus in this very topic without going back to the topic just closed.

Did Jesus walked over the water in the fashion that all of as picture and visulize? Or is the Gospel saying something different that we can not see because of the traditional interpretation?

Are you anti-supernatural?

 

[Goinheix]

It is like saying "put up or shut up." What traditional account? Where are your sources? Quote them! Be honest--you have none. Traditional sources say that he walked on water. That has been the orthodox position ever since the apostles.
.

Do you ask me where are my sourses? Do you expect from me sourse of what the traditional account is? I will give it to you:

there is a brother in this very forum, participating in this thread, wich is not other than you in person...you stated that "traditional sources say that he walked on the water. That has been the orthodox position ever since the apostles" Do you remember saying that? There is two interpretation, mine, and the traditional. My sourses for what the traditional interpretation have been is yourself.

 

[Goinheix]

Furthermore, how do you walk over water without walking on the water? Did he fly? That would have been more of a miracle, even more supernatural than that which was recorded.
.

have you noticed that according to the three Gospels Jesus did not walk on the water? Dont you read that Jesus walked upon the sea? Your traditional and orthodox interpretation is not the same as the Gospels.

 

[Don]

have you noticed that according to the three Gospels Jesus did not walk on the water? Dont you read that Jesus walked upon the sea? Your traditional and orthodox interpretation is not the same as the Gospels.

You know, I seriously hope this is a language barrier thing. The sea is made up of water. Water is the generic term for the fluid that exists in the seas, the oceans, and in your drinking glass.

Trying to make a distinction between walking on water and walking on the sea is like trying to make a distinction between walking on the highway and walking on the road.

 

[Frogman]

My Screen is doing weird things, when I came to this thread all I saw was a solitary initial post to the thread of 4 pgs

 

[Goinheix]

Quote the Scripture please or don't make unwarranted assumptions.

You say that Jesus failed. What? Did he sin? Or did he lose his power? Either way you are saying Jesus is not God. God doesn't lose power. God never fails. Jesus cannot fail. To say such is blasphemous.

.

Read above the transcription of KJV i posted of the 3 accounts.
Jesus did nothing until he saw the situation.
Once he saw the situation he acted immediately.
Hes action was an atempt. He tryed to overpass the disciples. But all ended in the atempt, in the trying.

 

[Goinheix]

There is no according to "you". We go "according to the Bible." It is the Bible that is our authority, not you or any other person.

.

No. Ypou go according to the traditional interpretation. In all cases you go in the oposite direction I go does not matter in wich direction, you go in the oposite.

 

[Goinheix]

Sir, seriously? Whether you walk around it or on it, the sea is made up of water. So pointing out the greek words for sea and water make no bearing on this discussion either way. For it to have any bearing at all, you'd have to explain why water and sea are different.

If Jesus did walked aroud the Sea; then he was walking at the beach, in dry ground; and them try to reach the boat. If Jesus did walk over the water, obviously he did go stright across the Sea directly to boat.

The 3 Gospels prefer the first interpretation.

 

[jbh28]

Obviously you have nothing better to replay than moking of me. You are reported...and it is irrelevant if the administrators will do anything about.

This reminds me of a child that screams "I'M TELLING" when he doesn't get his way.



Anyway,

peripateō is a verb and means to walk.
epi is a preposition meaning upon, on, at, by, before, over, against, at, across, to.... Propositions as usual have many meanings. Here, the meaning is on. Jesus walked on the....

thalassa means "sea" It either means a body of water or it is referring to a specific Sea. Either way, a body of water.

So Jesus walked on the sea.

As it has been pointed out, Peter walked on the water and sank in the water. Jesus was on the water. It was a miracle. One of the divine attributes that Jesus had. He made peter to be able walk on the water.

So..

If Jesus did walked aroud the Sea; then he was walking at the beach, in dry ground; and them try to reach the boat. If Jesus did walk over the water, obviously he did go stright across the Sea directly to boat.

The 3 Gospels prefer the first interpretation.

Not even close. Nothing is mentioned of going "around" anything. Context in no way supports a definition of around.

 

[Goinheix]

Where in scripture do you see that Jesus was trying to communicate to His disciples that they were in shallow water? This is an example of eisogesis, putting a meaning into scripture that isn't there.

Yes, that is putting meaning into scripture. My bad.
Any how Jesus was trying to overtake or pass by the boat. Jesus was trying to get infront of the boat. We dont know for sure why, but he was trying and were impossible for him to do his intentions.

 

[Goinheix]

Are you anti-supernatural?

God did create the cretion and stablish a number of natural laws. Matter, energy, space and time obeys the natural laws stablished by God. God the Son was the one who created all and stablished all natural laws. Now (after the conclusion of the creation proses) is God the Son keeping all together. Is God the Son enforcing the respect for the maintenace and respect of all natural laws stablished by himself.

I strongly believe that all miracles all across the Bible have an explanation in wich God is operating without braking the same laws he is holding. There is a similar position with wich I sahll like you dont confuse mine. The position wich is not mine is that all miracles are nothing but natural event in wich God did not participate.

For example: in order to anounce the birth of Jesus, God did explode a supernova wich brigted in the fashion described on the Gospel. It was not a misterious and magical star floating and hovering over Belem; it was a supernova that God provided to explode few thoiusand years ago and which light God made coincide with Jesus birth.

That is my position. God is omnipotent and can do all without limits. But he did stablish limits he will never cross.

In the case of Jesus walking around the Sea; if we follow the traditional interpretation, then we have to admit that God/Jesus did break the natural laws stablished by him.

 

[Goinheix]

You know, I seriously hope this is a language barrier thing. The sea is made up of water. Water is the generic term for the fluid that exists in the seas, the oceans, and in your drinking glass.

Trying to make a distinction between walking on water and walking on the sea is like trying to make a distinction between walking on the highway and walking on the road.

did Jesus told the servants in the weading to put sea into the jars? did Jesus ask the samaritanin woman to take out some sea for him to drink? where Jesus baptised in the sea?

 

[mandym]

But he did stablish[sic] limits he will never cross.

And just what scripture do you have to back up such a statement?

 

[webdog]

Well in the Goinheix version of the bible, the boat was a toy and it was floating in the midst of a mud puddle (which contained water) and Jesus stepped over it.

A couple years ago there was a guy here who thought Noah's ark was a spaceship using very similar reasoning and greek "skills". They must be from the same church. Wonder what Nike's they all wear...

 

[webdog]

This reminds me of a child that screams "I'M TELLING" when he doesn't get his way.



Anyway,

peripateo is a verb and means to walk.
epi is a preposition meaning upon, on, at, by, before, over, against, at, across, to.... Propositions as usual have many meanings. Here, the meaning is on. Jesus walked on the....

thalassa means "sea" It either means a body of water or it is referring to a specific Sea. Either way, a body of water.

So Jesus walked on the sea.

As it has been pointed out, Peter walked on the water and sank in the water. Jesus was on the water. It was a miracle. One of the divine attributes that Jesus had. He made peter to be able walk on the water.

So..


Not even close. Nothing is mentioned of going "around" anything. Context in no way supports a definition of around.

In all fairness he may have been out there walking around checking out fishing locations.