Actually, the “Jesus can walk on water” argument is invalid. Even if you’re not equivocating on the word “water,” which it appears that you are (“Jesus can walk on water” is really saying that Jesus can walk on bodies of water without sinking below the surface, so you can’t treat that use of water to be the same as ‘water’ as it is referring to in the statement “Cucumbers are 96% water”), the most that you could conclude from the given premises are that you can walk on things that are 96% water.

If we assign the following letters these definitions:
j = Jesus
y = you
w = people that can walk on water
u = people that can walk on cucumbers
c = things that are cucumbers
a = things that are 96% water
e = things that are 96% Jesus

then the given argument has the form (using syllogistic logic):
Ajw
Ayu
Aca
Therefore, Ame

The conclusion does not at all follow. None of the categorical statements even have common terms.