Re: Did Peter walk on water?

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Wed Sep 25 2002 - 16:36:54 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Mormons and science"

    george murphy wrote:

    > "Terry M. Gray" wrote:
    > > George and the others who've commented on this thread,
    > >
    > > While we all admit that there's a certain amount of theologizing
    > > going on in the gospels, i.e. each writer (under the inspiration of
    > > the Holy Spirit) has a theological purpose that goes beyond the mere
    > > reporting of some space-time event, is there any reason from the text
    > > to think that the events reported didn't happen? I don't quite
    > > understand the reservation in acknowledging that Peter (and Jesus)
    > > "actually, physically, historically" walked on the water.
    > >
    > > Why are folks who want to affirm the actual, physical, historical
    > > event labeled "naifs"?
    > My statement was made when this topic was proposed just
    >after a rather
    > unsatisfactory go-around on Jonah, in which the possibility that that
    > book might not
    > be an account of actual events was brushed off with pseudo-arguments
    > like those I
    > note below. I intended to characterize as naive those who
    > continually rely on such
    > arguments in order to hold onto a belief that essentially everything
    > in scripture is
    > accurate historical narrative.

    The trouble is that, when a person is offering counter arguments, you
    get in huff
    and dismiss them as stubborn "na‘fs" or worse. I would suggest that
    you unjustly
    character assassinate others who do not agree with you without
    reflecting upon any
    viewpoint other than your own. I get information from your posts but
    it looks like
    you get none from anyone who does not agree with you. That is usually called

    As I said to you before, I generally do not necessarily hold that any
    given OT book
    is valid history but I want to hear the arguments for and against. If
    you expect me
    (or some others) to just roll over and play dead at one of your
    pronouncements --
    well it is not going to happen. If providing some proof to support
    your viewpoints
    and then listening to counter arguments is all that distasteful to
    you, then you
    are right in not responding.


    Walt Hicks <>

    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 : Thu Sep 26 2002 - 00:33:08 EDT