Re: Did Peter walk on water?

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 09:41:46 EDT

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: Did Peter walk on water?"

    John Burgeson wrote:

    > >>I don't
    > know the answer either George, but I'll walk the road
    > of faith before I listen to this kind of muddle.
    > >>
    >
    > I am in general agreement with you on this subject, Wayne, but I have to say
    > I'll at least listen to the "muddle." I find Murphy's arguments interesing,
    > sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. Here at Iliff we get exposed to many
    > varieties of spiritual thinking. Nobody tells us we must buy into them, but
    > always we are enjoined to understand them. That is sometimes hard to do -- I
    > think some here may have preceived my discomfort with process theology when
    > I reviewed Griffin's book RELIGON AND SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM last year. But I
    > learned a lot from Griffin, and I'm willing to listen more.

    Yes, but if one does not know what a "haggadaic midrash" is, then it is more
    than just a question of listening. How would one know that "muddle" is _not_ a
    good definition? George Murphy has subsequently defined "haggadaic midrash" to
    be equivalent to a "theological elaboration". So the real issue is whether or
    not we are reading events that actually happened or an elaboration inserted by
    the author for his own theological purposes. If the latter, then they can
    certainly be called into question as to whether or not that author's opinions
    are valid ones (since theologians vary widely in interpretation). Interesting
    potential grounds for accepting or rejecting NT scripture.

    The argument that this passage is theology, not history, lies largely on the
    fact that other gospels omit the part about Peter. I think it strange to think
    that if another Gospel had mentioned Peter, it would then be converted from
    theology to history. Pretty footloose set of rules. Moreover, I now have to ask
    if other of the words of Jesus in Matthew are theology -- especially the
    parables which exist only in his gospel -- and never were really
    said by Jesus.
    Sure the parables are theology, but is it Jesus' theology (as Matthew said it
    was) or are the words attributed to Jesus really Matthew's own "midrash"?

    I know that some others often take the view that scripture is non history until
    proven otherwise. I prefer the alternative about the NT ====> that it _is_
    history until shown not to be. Otherwise, it is full of stories that are "true"
    to a particular brand of theologians, but must be looked upon as
    non-historical,
    theological fabrications by a plain vanilla Bible reader like me.

    Walt

    --
    ===================================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.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 30 2002 - 10:25:09 EDT