From: Jim Eisele (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 14:50:08 EDT
It has been brought up that we need to "steer clear" of getting
too worked up over historicity.
I'm always willing to follow things to their logical conclusion.
It seems to me that the logical conclusion of Peter not walking
on water is that we can no longer trust the plain words of
Scripture. That's an awful lot to swallow. But, perhaps someone
wants to explain the theological value of saying Peter walked on
water when nothing of the sort ever happened. I haven't seen
the explanation yet. But, obviously there must be some theological
value for it to be included in the gospel.
And what about Jesus? Did he walk on water or not? What would the
theological implications be one way or the other?
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:30:44 EDT