Still sounds like a miracle, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news63367761.html

http://www.physorg.com/news63367761.html

If it only happened a handful of times in the last 12,000 years (even if this WAS what happened) I think it still qualifies as a miracle. What impecable timing Jesus had. ;-)

But the bible describes on of the fisherman on the boat. This fisherman attempts to walk on water but sinks. He does not plumit but sinks slowly. When jesus tells him to believe he floats slowly out of the water. Ice? nope.

I live in Israel and visit the kineret (sea of Galilee), at least twice a year. someone please explain how did this lake which is 200m (600 feet) BELOW sea level froze? what's next, the dead sea freezing? this must be a joke.

I still think is buddies got a little too fired up on peyote one night and that he was simply moonwalking through a puddle.

Well here is another tohing to think about.
1, if they only had 25 degree weather for a couple days the ice would not have been thick enought to walk on,

2, if subsequent rain would have smoothed the ice it would have melted the ice or the rain would have been snow.

3. if Jesus was walking on ice then when he walked up to the boad to get in after saveing a deciple from sinking, they would have seen the ice or the deciple would not have sunk.

but then who knows

This completely misses the point that it was suppoused to be a miracle. What sort of miracle is walking on ice? This is the exact reason creationists aren't able to be swayed- the whole concept of I'm-God-I-Can-Do-Anything.

It sounds like this guy is trying to prove miracle-by-miracle that Jesus couldn't have done the things he did. If this claim tries to sway people religiously, it's pointless: the atheists will say that it's just a story and never happened anyway. The believers will say it was God's power over nature, which is capable of anything.

Jesus isnt real.

What a waste of time.

Yes, Vince is right, One of Jesus' disciple did not believe so he told him to step into the water, he was able to walk on it until he lost faith in Jesus and he began to sink then he believed in Jesus again and rose back. Paraphrasing from Matthew 14:22-36

Oh come on stop believing what a 2000 year old book says rather than modern science. Open your damn eyes and realize it's all lies and fairy tales. Do you also think that Noah fit all 2 billion species on a boat to save them from a flood?

Isn't it strange how we believe everything that magazines and newspapers
say, but we question the words in the Bible? And now, scientists which clearly have nothing better to do, spend their time picking apart the bible. These guys must be UCLA fans.

The Bible says Jesus walked on water, all you're trying to do is take credit away from the man who died on a cross for your shortcomings. This scientist clearly states that he's just proving there could have been these ice "patches" floating around, and it's up to you to determine whether you believe Jesus just happened to land on one of these.

This is so unscientific, it demeans this site's purpose and leads to pseudoscience.

"floating ice patch could develop above the plumes generated by the salty springs."

1. Salt added to water LOWERS it's freezing point. So water around that would freeze solid BEFORE the layer above the salty water plumes.

"Their analysis supports the likelihood that a brief blast of frigid air descended over the lake and dropped to 25 F (-4 C) for at least two days, coinciding with the chill that had already settled in for a century or more and quite possibly encompassed the decades in which Jesus lived. "

2. So the cold air came and froze the water. See point #1, that it would be reasonable everywhere except the place where salty plumes were in action.

"Using paleoceanographic records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures along with analytical ice and statistical models, not and his colleagues focused on the dynamics of a small section of Lake Kinneret comprising about 10,000 square feet near the salty springs that empty into it. "

3. Taking a model of data, coupled with statistics (OK, time to throw darts), they construct a model that is both highly probabilistic and illogical (see points #1, #2) with odds of once in 1000 years we end up with the DEFINITIVE statement "Jesus walked on ice, not water".

4. The source material does not mention the cold (for any period of time) that would be unusual for the time, and it is preceded by a large gathering on a hillside (so it says) where again, no ice, storm or other freezing elements were discussed (extra clothes put on, etc).

Yes, taking the unvoiced expectations that a) GOD COULD NOT DO IT, and IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AS STATED, the only possibility is that a one-in-a-thousand chance of cold air freezing on that day, that time, just enough to support his weight, just the water that is saltier than the rest is what Jesus must have walked on.

You gotta have faith, one way or the other.

I like the old naturalist explanation at the turn of the 20th century much better: Jesus was just walking on the underwater rock formation of the lake. It takes more faith of me to believe that Jesus was walking on ice...

I am being sarcastic, ofcourse...

Funny Science can make statements like this yet when drug into a court of law OJ runs free, Bush stays in office and we the people get bent over.

I am not some religious bump BUT apart of faith is believing because you want to believe......any scientific papers on that?