From: george murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 07:30:03 EDT
I predict that the "discussion" of this topic on this list will be a
100% waste of time. It may be that some folks who are aware of the
importance of the theological significance of scripture and the varieties of
biblical literature will attampt to contribute but they will meet a stone
wall in the naifs who will say
a. I don't care what it means - did Peter actually, physically,
historically, walk on water?,
b. Well, God _could_ have made it happen so it did, &
c. If you don't believe Peter walked on water, you can't believe in
So gentlement, include me out. However, I would be happy to send anyone
interested a copy of the sermon I preached on the Matthew text a few weeks
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
Walter Hicks wrote:
> Both the old and new testaments are used by the pastor of my church to
> illustrate points. Many on this list use the O.T. as containing many
> items which are "true" but not "historical". It does not matter all
> that much to me -- except for the uncommon usage of the word "true".
> The N.T. (to me) is a different story. I definitely do not much believe
> scholars like Spong.
> So I ask this list for opinion.
> In the story about Peter walking on water
> 1.) Is it true?
> 2.) Is it actual history -- i.e. did it really happen as an event in
> time and space?
> 3.) Does it even matter?
> I am prone to answer "yes" to all 3.
> Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 11:00:03 EDT