My Verification Challenge

[Carl Emerson]

It was way before we had the tele...

Must have been flying...

 

[sjastro]

And if He began to sink?

Matthew 14:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

This verse is about Peter sinking not Jesus.
Apparently you are unaware of the Gospel of Thomas which was declared heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
According to the account in Thomas, Peter cheated by using inflatable sandals and began to sink due to air leaks.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Philip was one of the 12 disciples.

Thanks, I guess I just don't remember him from the Gospels. I suppose that's why "Acts" is writing about him.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Thanks, I guess I just don't remember him from the Gospels. I suppose that's why "Acts" is writing about him.

He is mentioned 18 times in the Gospels...

 

[SelfSim]

According to the account in Thomas, Peter cheated by using inflatable sandals and began to sink due to air leaks.

Now available on Amazon:

 

[Sorn]

How would you scientifically verify Jesus walking on water, even if you were there when He did it, and had the technology at your disposal that you have today?

As opposed to what exactly?

 

[dqhall]

Matthew 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

How would you scientifically verify Jesus walking on water, even if you were there when He did it, and had the technology at your disposal that you have today?

(Keep in mind the ship is being tossed with waves.)

You have all the equipment and knowledge at your fingertips.

How would you verify it?

It is not the only report of a buoyancy miracle. In 2 Kings 6 a group of prophets wanted to build a camp near the Jordan River. One was cutting down a tree to make a beam. The axe head went into the water. Elisha was able to have the iron axe head float.

2 Kings 6:1 (WEB) The sons of the prophets said to Elisha, “See now, the place where we live and meet with you is too small for us. 2 Please let us go to the Jordan, and each man take a beam from there, and let’s make us a place there, where we may live.”

He answered, “Go!”

3 One said, “Please be pleased to go with your servants.”

He answered, “I will go.” 4 So he went with them. When they came to the Jordan, they cut down wood. 5 But as one was cutting down a tree, the ax head fell into the water. Then he cried, and said, “Alas, my master! For it was borrowed.”

6 The man of God asked, “Where did it fall?” He showed him the place. He cut down a stick, threw it in there, and made the iron float. 7 He said, “Take it.” So he put out his hand and took it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not the only report of a buoyancy miracle.

Good point!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Matthew 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

How would you scientifically verify Jesus walking on water, even if you were there when He did it, and had the technology at your disposal that you have today?

(Keep in mind the ship is being tossed with waves.)

You have all the equipment and knowledge at your fingertips.

How would you verify it?

A miraculous event does not need scientific reasoning.
Blessings

 

[AV1611VET]

A miraculous event does not need scientific reasoning.

I agree.

My point though, is that, even if scientific reasoning was demanded, it couldn't be produced.

Science is myopic.

 

[SkyWriting]

Matthew 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

How would you scientifically verify Jesus walking on water, even if you were there when He did it, and had the technology at your disposal that you have today?

(Keep in mind the ship is being tossed with waves.)

You have all the equipment and knowledge at your fingertips.

How would you verify it?

Round up witnesses and grill them.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I agree.

My point though, is that, even if scientific reasoning was demanded, it couldn't be produced.

Science is myopic.

Well I love science and how far it has come but some things just can't be explained in that discipline. Thanks for engaging!

 

[SelfSim]

Well I love science and how far it has come but some things just can't be explained in that discipline. Thanks fo engaging!

So if there was no discipline, there'd be no things that can't be explained, eh?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So if there was no discipline, there'd be no things that can't be explained, eh?

Huh?

 

[SelfSim]

Huh?

The mental discipline required in Science, provides the basis of consistency of 'things' calling for an explanation.

There is no discipline required in a worldview based on an uncorralled stream of consciousness as the basis for explanation of 'things' ... (IOW, any old story will suffice).

 

[Sabertooth]

The mental discipline required in Science, provides the basis of consistency of 'things' calling for an explanation.

There is no discipline required in a worldview based on an uncorralled stream of consciousness as the basis for explanation of 'things' ... (IOW, any old story will suffice).

As an amateur mathematician, I accept that "i" exists, but I cannot demonstrate i oranges...

(For non-mathematicians, i means "the square root of negative one" [√-1].)

 

[SelfSim]

As an amateur mathematician, I accept that "i" exists, but I cannot demonstrate i oranges...

(For non-mathematicians, i means "the square root of negative one" [√-1].)

So you'd be aware that when 'i' gets squared, we get -1, which can then result in a reduced quantity of something real (which exists), like one fewer oranges (which can be demonstrated).

 

[Sabertooth]

So you'd be aware that when 'i' gets squared, we get -1, which can then result in a reduced quantity of something real (which exists), like one fewer oranges (which can be demonstrated).

Yes, but not i.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, but not i.

Same can be said of any number(?) Eg: does '2' exist?
(I'm not sure I see your point yet .. would you kindly elaborate, please?).

 

[Sabertooth]

Same can be said of any number(?) Eg: does '2' exist?
(I'm not sure I see your point yet).

Two can be demonstrated quantitatively, where i cannot.
(i is taken on faith.)