From: Shuan Rose (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 11:48:00 EDT
Another complication is that Mark recounts the same story at 6:45-51 without
mentioning Peter doing anything... I would prefer to believe it is
historical but it is strange that Mark would not mention Peter's effort.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:33 AM
To: Walter Hicks
Subject: Re: Did Peter walk on water?
Walter Hicks writes:
> 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.
I say "yes", though I (most likely) have another definition of "true" than
Walt. But I, too, do not want to quible over words, when it goes about
Peter walking on water.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 02:45:02 EDT