jesus wasn't really a man

[DeistPaladin]

I stumbled onto an interesting thought while thinking about the miracles of the bible and how a miracle is really just any favorable occurrence that violates the natural laws of physics. so far as we know it isn't possible to break the laws of physics (if such an occurrence could be repeated consistently then it wouldn't be breaking physics). so how was Jesus able to walk on water? any reputable physicist could tell you that he either must have been less dense than water or he didn't apply enough force to break the surface tension. Men aren't flat but they are more dense than freshwater. Jesus wasn't really a man or somebody wasn't telling the truth. maybe godmen float, i'm no expert on this though.

edit: according to the bible, faith in Jesus has been observed to reduce your density.

Jesus is a symbol for the sun.

The sun's reflection is seen floating on top the water on its surface. Therefore, the story of Jesus walking on water.

Jesus has 12 disciples, the 12 signs of the Zodiac, as he moves through the year.

His birthday is Dec 25, the day the sun is born and the days from that point forward get longer and longer, until the day of the Spring's equinox, when the light triumphs over the dark. That's when Jesus began his ministry.

The sun died for three days, the day on Winter Solstice when the night is the longest in the year. It rose again to become stronger and bring new life to the planet, resurrecting from the death of winter.

His birth was heralded by a visit from the "three kings" on Orion's belt in the night's sky. They travel through the night sky, following the north star. The three kings point in the direction of the Polaris to the point where the sun rises on the morning of Dec 25.

Hope this explains things.

[Anomalocaris]

I always thought Jesus is whatever culturally attuned charlatans of the 1st - 4th century thought at the time would happen to best impress the credulous yokels of their culture and era.

Once they amassed a large enough mob of yokels, they gained the critical mass needed to condition the culture to ensure continued susceptibility of yokels of subsequent eras to the bullshit they invented during 1st - 4th century.

Trying to explain with rigor what is implied by things that are ambraced by yokels is a waste of time.

[Minimalist]

A mirical is acheaving an end

A miracle would be you learning how to spell.

[Huggy Bear]

Apparently you didn't read my whole post, Also, why would God be bound by his creation?

Well yes, I did. First you say the laws of physics don't apply (bald assertion by the way), then proceed to give what appears to be a justification that does follow the laws of physics, then claim you aren't claiming that's what happened. Either the laws of physics don't apply to him (in which case trying to give explanations using the laws of physics is rather irrelevant if he doesn't follow them), or the laws of physics do apply to him, which means he is limited by his creation.

Choose one man, you can't say the laws of physics don't apply....then apply the laws of physics as an explanation.

clearly you missed where I said Peter also walked on water....

[FatAndFaithless]

Well yes, I did. First you say the laws of physics don't apply (bald assertion by the way), then proceed to give what appears to be a justification that does follow the laws of physics, then claim you aren't claiming that's what happened. Either the laws of physics don't apply to him (in which case trying to give explanations using the laws of physics is rather irrelevant if he doesn't follow them), or the laws of physics do apply to him, which means he is limited by his creation.

Choose one man, you can't say the laws of physics don't apply....then apply the laws of physics as an explanation.

clearly you missed where I said Peter also walked on water....

You're not addressing my point, Huggies. If your god doesn't play by physics rules, then stop using physics rules to justify his miracles. However, if you HAVE to use the laws of physics to justify miracles, then yoru god DOES play by the rules of physics.

[Huggy Bear]

clearly you missed where I said Peter also walked on water....

You're not addressing my point, Huggies. If your god doesn't play by physics rules, then stop using physics rules to justify his miracles. However, if you HAVE to use the laws of physics to justify miracles, then yoru god DOES play by the rules of physics.

I did address your point, a believer doesn't need an explanation, but the "fathless" do, hence the scientific explanation.

[FatAndFaithless]

a believer doesn't need an explanation

Thanks for saying that so blatantly.

[Tonus]

so how was Jesus able to walk on water?

Maybe he was wearing an anti-gravity jockstrap.

[Drich]

A mirical is acheaving an end through God either through or around the laws of nature, that an indivisual on his own would not be able to do.

Christ didn't have to literally be less boyany than water for a mirical to have happened. a more conventional means could have been employed to the same effect, and it would not be anyless miraculous

1 - The christ cannot be proven to be anything MORE than a MYTH
2 - Since no gods are proven to exist - your claim about a miracle is nonsense as well.

No one can prove that they have achieved an end through a god - or an end around the laws of nature.

Example - no matter how much a person prays - that person will die.
No matter how hard a group prays - they have NEVER achieved the regrowth of a lost limb of a human - even though a salamander can do it.

The christ did not have to be buoyant - fictional characters can do anything the minds of their human creators can bake up - except actually provably exist. Obviously James Bond and Harry Potter achieved things that also cannot actually happen in real life - and are just as real as the christ - ie - not at all.

If christ can not be proven with all that has been written about Him from that time period, then no one else can be 'proven to have existed' of that time period. Fore there are more period manuscripts that Speak to Jesus Christ than any other figure in that period of History. To doubt the existance of Christ given all the same evidences we have on every other Historical figure of that time, is to doubt the existance of everyone else that lived then.

http://www.compellingtruth.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/h...-evidence/

[FatAndFaithless]

Ugh...Dripps..again theists cite explicitly-theistically-biased and unreviewed garage server websites as information.

And no, you don't get to pull the Dinesh D'souza historicity argument. It's so ridiuclous it's barely even worth addressing. To say that the contemporary historical evidence for Jesus Christ is as good or better than other contemporary historical figures is a blatant lie.