24but the (disciples') ice-boat by this time was a long way from the land, beaten by the creaking pack ice, for the glacier movement was against them. 25And in the fourth watch of the night he (Jesus) came to them, walking on the ice. 26But when the disciples saw him walking on the ice, they were terrified, and said, "Won't his feet get frostbitten?!?!?" and they cried out in fear. 27But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Take heart; my feet really aren't that bad."
28And Peter answered him, "Lord, if your feet really aren't numb from the cold, command me to come to you on the ice." 29He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the ice and came to Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to break thru the all-of-a-sudden thin ice, he cried out, "Lord, save me." 31Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt the ice would hold you?" 32And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." But they were just products of their time, exercising superstitious ignorance.
Hat Tip to a Florida St. Univ professor on this one.
This must have been one of those "Quick, let's think of something clever to discredit Christianity and foist our naturalistic bias on the world!" jam sessions that took place in the Student Union after 3:00 am and about 6 cinnamon-hazelnut non-fat Fair Trade coffee bean lattes. I'm beginning to appreciate those more and more. The lattes and the jam sessions. Both.
Alan, come on. Be realistic and open minded. In a 1000 year time period, 33 years of which Jesus lived in, these ice packs may have appeared one or 2 times. I'd say that's pretty irrefutable evidence that Jesus walkin on water was a fraud. This professor is a genius!
ReplyDelete"We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."
ReplyDelete-Nof (Florida professor)
Oh... We appreciate that you leave us the decision.
This reminds me of an little mind experiment I dreamed up.
ReplyDeleteYou are an archaeologist studying the creation of cities. You notice that all cities have many similar structures. All have roads, sidewalks, parks, places of business, single and multiple-family dwellings, water, sewer, and power systems.
Some cities are larger and more complex than others. Also the shape and functionality of different cities seem to have adapted to the different terrain and weather that the cities were found in.
You came to the conclusion that the cities must have evolved through some as yet unknown set of random variations. Some cities that had evolved in the wrong direction failed. You could find their ruins everywhere. The cities that evolved correctly were still active and thriving.
You also concluded that the larger, more complex cities were younger and the smaller, less complex ones were older, since the evolution of cities, logically, must inevitably progress from the simple to the complex, and in fact the "fossil record" bears this out. Of the buried ancient cities, one can see very little of the sophistication or size of present day cities. And yet there are many similarities which just further support the conclusion that this evolutionary theory is the correct one.
The one little bit of information that you are missing is key, and that is you are missing the fact that cities don't evolve randomly. They are actually designed. So you are missing the designer.
Sound familiar?