Who thinks that Jesus actually walked on "ice"? Many people are talking about it..... that is crazy!!!!!!!!!!!
408305
then why did Simon peter almost drown if it was only "ice? exactly.
407708
No, there has been an tremendous amount of effort to provide natural explanations to the supernatural events described in the scripture. It doesn't matter how far-fetched the alternate explanations are. As long as they make no mention of the supernatural, they make national news. Read the article. Here are some choice quotes - \n\n"But they say geological core samples suggest that average temperatures were lower in Jesus' day, and that at least two protracted cold spells occurred in the region 1,500 to 2,500 years ago."\n\nWOW! What a revelation! The samples SUGGEST that in a period of one thousand years, the temperatures may have dropped to freezing temps TWO TIMES! \n\nThere's more! "In addition to chilly weather, their explanation depends on a rare physical property of the Sea of Galilee ... It is fed by salty springs along its western shore that produce plumes of dense water, thermally isolating areas that could freeze even if the entire lake did not, they assert." \n\nWell, in addition to the chilly weather that occurred twice in a thousand years, more conditions apply. If thermal isolation was ocurring, some of the areas COULD freeze. \n\nLet's recap. We're scientists and we don't believe the Biblical story is true. But, we'll pretend it is and come up with a far-fetched explanation that makes national news and makes the Bible's story sound like bunk. \n\nSo, here's the story: Twice in a one-thousand year period, the temperatures may have gotten really cold. We don't know how cold, but we'll assume that the tropical&#92;subtropical climate of the middle east possibly even got down to freezing temps. Because we know that there is no way it could get cold enough to freeze a large body of water like the Sea of Galilee, we'll mention that there is some thermal isolation in the sea. These isolated regions may have got cold enough to freeze completely solid. These regions may even have become solid enough to support the weight of an adult male. \n\nWhat about the other details of the Biblical account? Why didn't the heavy winds that night help mix the water and dissolve these thermally isolated regions? How did these ice sheets stretch out three and a half miles and provide a perfect walkway right up to the side of a moving boat? What about Peter? He walked on the water for a little while, as well. Did he just happen to step out onto a floating piece of ice? \n\nThe solution offered by the researchers, speculative and far-fetched at best, still fails to handle the Biblical account accurately. They have taken the parts of the Biblical account that were convenient to try to discredit, but ignored the speciic details of the Biblical account. For the uninformed reader, especially those who are looking to discredit the Bible, this article is music to their ears.
248122
Supposedly he was 33. There are other theories as to what really happen but it is in accordance with what you believe in because the King James version is just that, a version.  Our Fahrenheit system of temperature is based on Jesus's life as in degrees of knowledge and degrees of temperature. If you think about, if you have 32 degrees of knowledge you are still freezing. Jesus supposedly had 33 degrees of knowledge and he was much more knowledgeable then most prophets if not all (matter of opinion and belief). Forgive me for getting off the subject slightly but 33 years is the popular belief. Again, there are other interpretations as to what happen. The story of Nimrod would be a good thing for you to look up. Was it Nimrod or Jesus that was crucified on That day?
503407
Have ANY of you actually READ the book? \nI never cease to be appalled at the absolute blindness of the Jesus freaks. Not to mention that not one of you has yet answered the main question posed here.\nYes, the main theory behind the premise of the book is that Jesus has actual blood descendants still alive today. And that there is a secret society whose duty it is to trace the blood line through history and present the knowledge at the right time. \nNow, everyone here loves to just immediately scream "It is fiction!" and "Dan Brown made it up!" Well, if they had ANY idea what they were talking about, then they would know that Dan Brown DID NOT make up the theories presented in the book. The plot of course is his own idea, and is fiction, but the historical background he uses, which is what everyone is upset about, is NOT his idea.\nPlease, folks. Educate yourselves, find out WHAT he wrote. How can you say that what he wrote isn't true, if you don't even know what he wrote?\nBecause most of you have put your brain in the hands of various spiritual leaders, and you have made the conscious decision not to think for yourselves.\nSince my personal belief is that Jesus may have existed, but not as the son of God, then I believe that his blood line could still exist. Does a secret society exist for just this reason? Difficult to believe, but a cool idea.\nAnd because this stuff just really gets me going, I have to say something else. If all of the "Christians" truly believed they are following the One True Religion, and they also believe that every word of the Bible is true (my other favorite subject due to all of the discrepancies in it) why  aren't you showing mercy and compassion for all of the misguided?\nInstead you choose to scream for a banning of the book and a worldwide boycott of the movie. These are the actions of scared people. These are the actions of third world leaders who see their power crumbling. Those who have absolute faith in the truth of their beliefs would only grin, slightly amused, at all the turmoil.
55761
There are many things that Jesus did where the Tanach (OT) fulfillment is hard to find such as Jesus walking on water. Then we find an obscure little passage in Job where we read that God "treads on the sea". In the case of the "I AM" statement knocking the sense out of the arresting officers, I do not think there is any prophecy related to it other than what would have happened to Moses if he didn't take the shoes off his feet. We do know one thing, and that is that Jesus was not just saying "I AM", He showed that there was power and authority behind it.
288049
#1   I really hope you didn't just say that the bible is historical evidence (maybe it was just misread on my part) \nweather or not jesus was here on this planet is not the real question. there very well could have been a man fitting his description that lived on this planet. The real question is weather or not he is a divine being or not. If there was evidence of his exsistance your best shot would be through roman literature from jesus's contemporary period. not afterward, that would be tainted.
113087
I think he meant he dont PRE-judge anyone.  Yes I am getting stirred up over Jesus!  Look at the world and the extremely elevated debate over Christianity, if that isnt proof that the Bible is accurate, non-believers will NEVER be convinced. I am amazed at how many people I am seeing converting to Christianity.  I have even seen in the last few days people here go from anti-christ, to believer- God is amazing!\n\nNOTE: Before anyone else says he didnt ask a question, read it again- the bold highlited part.  "Getting stirred up over Jesus?"  - that looks like a question to me so,,, are you???
286041
Here it is another 15 year old sermon from an unbeliever . . . and for an unbeliever . . . I am more familiar with the scriptures and historical documents than some of these believers.\n\nWHO IS JESUS CHRIST?\n\nSince Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah) walked this earth as a human 2,000 years ago, there has been a controversy over who he really was. The Bible tells us in many places that there is only one true God (Deu. 6:4; Mal. 2:10; Mark 12:32; Rom. 3:30; Jam. 2:19; etc.). So where does Yeshua fit into the Godhead? \n\nMost modern Christians have been taught that Jesus is the second co-equal "person" in a triune Godhead composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, many (if not most) Christians don't really understand the Trinity. Other believers today, perceiving problems with the Trinity doctrine, have adopted a belief in the "Oneness" of God which is similar to the ancient doctrine of Modalism. \n\nBefore we can truly understand who the Messiah is, we need to look at the historical background of first-century Jewish religion and subsequent philosophical/religious doctrines that arose to explain his identity. This is going to examine the beliefs of first-century Jews regarding the Godhead and present the succeeding theories put forth to define who Yeshua is. Then we will discuss by harmonizing the Scriptures with this information to better understand what the Bible really says about the identity of the Messiah. \n\nFirst, let's start by looking at what first-century C.E. Jewish religion believed about the Godhead. There has been a tendency by scholars to define first-century orthodox monotheistic Judaism in rather restrictive terms. Jewish literature or beliefs from that time frame that seem to stray from the accepted norm have been reinterpreted to accommodate Trinitarianism or used to prove that Judaism was derived from the polytheistic religions surrounding Israel. \n\nRegarding how modern scholars tend to view first-century Jewish religion as either totally monotheistic or essentially polytheistic, University of Manitoba Professor Larry W. Hurtado wrote: \n\nI suggest that on both sides of the issue . . . there has been a tendency to proceed deductively from a priori presumptions of what monotheism must mean, instead of building up a view inductively from the evidence of how monotheism actually operated in the thought and practice of ancient Jews. There seems to be an implicit agreement on both sides that more than one transcendent being of any significance complicates or constitutes a weakening of or threat to monotheism. Those who see first-century Jewish religion as monotheistic tend, therefore, to downplay the significance and attributes given by ancient Jews to any transcendent beings other than God. For these scholars often, ancient Jewish monotheism must mean that the descriptions of such beings are largely rhetorical. Though I am convinced regarding some examples, I am not sure that the descriptions are always purely rhetoric . . . \n\nThose on the other side of the issue tend to emphasize the honorific ways in which transcendent beings other than God are described and the prominent positions they occupy in the religious conceptions reflected in ancient Jewish texts, alleging that first-century Jews were not really monotheists after all. It is clear that ancient Jews were not characteristically monists or unitarians, but does this mean that they were not monotheists? That is, on both sides there is a tendency to proceed as if we can know in advance what "monotheism" must mean, which turns out to be a very modern, monistic form of monotheism, and can accordingly evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs as to whether or how closely they meet an a priori standard of "pure" monotheism. ("What Do We Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?," Journal for the Study of the New Testament) \n\nAs the above quote shows, Profe
599842
Certainly that's possible, but why do you assume he was alive after having been crucified?  Why do you assume he was crucified at all, or that he even existed for that matter?\n\n...just because it's written in the Bible, a book clearly filled with outrageous myths and legends!?  \n\nIt isn't necessary to come up with complicated theories if you start with the presumption that the Bible is unreliable, and that we really don't know anything about Jesus as a result.
686251
cdf-rom: You are a lunatic. No one is trying to sway people away from the faith. Seriously. If you honestly believe that is a real motive for anyone, anywhere in this whole Magdalene/DVC controversy, then you suffer from paranoid delusions and need to get your head checked. \n\nIt just seems weird to a lot of people, myself included, that so many Christians (not all, but a lot) went totally apesh*t over the mere suggestion of Jesus acting like a normal guy of his times.\n\nI really like Mary Magdalene, always have. Never cared much for the Madonna, though. What did she do, really? She had a kid, supposedly while a virgin (not actually true, see Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14, definitely says young woman, not virgin). So, basically she had a kid. Which is what the "Church Fathers" believed was all women were really good for, anyway. So their number one female figure is a girl whose biggest accomplishment is getting knocked up.\n\nNow take a look at this passage from the Pistis Sophia, referring to Mary Magdalene:\nJesus, the compassionate, answered and said to Mariam:\n"Mariam, thou blessed one, whom I will complete in all the mysteries of the height, speak openly, thou art she whose heart is more directed to the Kingdom of Heaven than all thy brothers."\n\nYeah, she was bright, she got was Jesus was saying, apparently more than his other (male) disciples. And that's nothing compared to the Gospel of Mary (go look it up). So I figure, why not have the female co-star of Christianity be Jesus's wife instead of his mother? She was actually an intelligent woman, rather than just a pregnant one. Aren't we a little past the 'barefoot in the kitchen' era?
492603
Very angry -- but not for long, I suspect.\n\nFOLLOWUP:  Interesting social experiment.  Surprising how many people have reacted angrily without even bothering to wonder what ice-nine is.  A smaller but still statistically significant number asked what it was, but it doesn't appear that any of them have bothered to actually find out.  Only two people seem to know about ice-nine, and yet still reacted angrily.\n\nShall I let the cat out of the bag?
575081
I do beleive in a creator/God, but the Jesus part is questionable, don't matter if you're a Christian, Jew, or Muslim!!! People have to open their mind I realize certain things are out of place about his story. I believe it was put there to worship man instead of god, to have more control over people, to divide and conquer and the list goes on, it so many. Because the truth is NO ONE knows how God really looks or etc!!!
305961
Illegal or not, Jesus would have gone willingly. That is interesting though. Thanks for calling attention to that.
412701
thats nice... you also watched that!!!\n\nactually, there is alot of inconsistent details in the bible but nonetheless the same....\n\njudas' gospel was very compelling it contradicted the 4 gospels but i guess you wouldn't believe in that unless you have a strong faith towards jesus...\n\n\nnow, i'm having a hard time thinking.......
737291
That is a very pretty video, with beautiful music and a great feeling. I wish everyone felt the love of Christ, as so obvious in this video. I love the music, too. ( I'm not a Pentecostal, but I am a Christian) You're right, "sharing Christ with others in a spirit of love and friendship, looks like this." \nAlso, these people were getting Baptized into the body of Christ, by immersion, ( not by sprinkling)  and that is correct, according to Christ's example. Thank you for sharing, it's beautiful!\n\nAdditional message: Wow! it's too bad you're not getting alot of answers in the spirit that you intended, as you are just sharing something nice. Anyone who is offended, just has to click on another question; they don't have to give a nasty answer!
939916
Intersting that the only reference cited outside the bible is Josefus, who never mentioned Jesus. Any reference to Jesus in his writing was added 1000 years later by other 'christians 'trying to strengthen their arguement.\n\nGreenleaf may have decided that the story was real but I don't believe that it would stand up in court. It would be interesting to look at his background.
719123
He pulled away...there's the proof. I love having my feet tickled. Lots of guys do. \n\nAs far as Jesus and all that. It's a bit off topic...