Re: theology (Was Re: Did Peter walk on water?)

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 15:24:03 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: A falsifiable test Re: AiG bites the dust"

    Thanks for the explanations, George

    george murphy wrote:

    > The term "haggadaic midrash" was used in a passage that I quoted from
    > Gundry. Perhaps I should have explained briefly what it meant then.
    > I attempted
    > to do so in response to Wayne's earlier post. In any case, I appreciate the
    > difficulty that a non-specialist may have in encountering technical
    > terminology,
    > especially in a location where there are few resources.
    > I would point out, however, that the internet makes a lot of resources
    > available. A quick look at Google gave something like 12000
    > "haggadah" and 67000
    > "midrash" sites. Admittedly one would have to do some hunting among
    > them to get
    > an idea of what "haggadaic midrash" might mean but it's not
    > impossible.

    Actually it is pretty easy. As you know, I am prone to do it quite
    often. There were
    only 61 sites mentioned in Google for the term "haggadic midrash".
    Perhaps the best
    for definitions of jewish words was Most of the
    sites I saw used it strictly as a term describing extra-biblical
    writings about the
    old testament. None of the definitions seemed to fit incorporating
    such writings
    directly into the Bible.

    OTOH several sites refer to the NT gospels as primarily just that
    (midrash). Most
    popular was the story of the Magi and the "star". An opposing view
    was presented at
    the site

    > Actually
    > I'm pretty old fashioned about such matters & woudl suggest looking at
    > the corresponding articles in _The Interpreter's Dictionary of the
    >Bible_ or a
    > similar encyclopedia.
    > >What is a poor engineer or scientist to do? If ASA is truly a "Big
    > >Tent" where
    > >many members of the Christian Faith may abide, then where would describe the
    > >relative position of the viewpoint below with respect to the ASA center of
    > >gravity (to use some "scientific" lingo ;-)?
    > I think Bob Schneider's comments (snipped here) are
    > left-of-center in the
    > ASA but not in the church catholic. I'd put myself in pretty much the same
    > position theologically. I know that a lot of people in the ASA regard me as
    > quite "liberal." OTOH in wider religion-science discussions such as those at
    > Templeton conferences, as well as in the religious circles I frequent
    > in general,
    > I'm often seen as quite conservative.

    When you live in Kennedyland, anyone from the other 49 states is
    Even Burgy would be toast in my town ;-).

    I think that it is worthwhile to note that just because a person does
    not agree with
    you or Bob, he is not necessarily a dummy who did not understand what
    you you have
    been saying. I feel that you and Bob often act that way. Actually I
    take your ideas
    seriously and research the web for comparison. It is a rare subject
    that I cannot
    find pro and con viewpoints on the web.

    Generally people have some underlying philosophy to what they are saying. In
    religion they range from atheists to biblical literalists. Can you
    define what your
    view of the Bible is in broad terms -- rather than book by book or
    verse by verse. I
    do understand and agree with the fundamental nature of the Christian
    belief and what
    you have said about starting from the cross. I also realize that the
    Bible's value
    is in what spiritual messages it teaches -- not the history. However,
    that does not
    automatically make it historically inaccurate or indicate that the
    author actually
    knew that it did not happen as he described (I almost said "was not
    true"). None of
    that would explain why you would steer away from explanations by
    Tyndale in favor
    of "other scholars" whom you prefer. Can you help me to "wrap my arms
    around the
    concept"? BTW, I resist any appeal to some scholarly authority
    because there is
    always a different expert who takes the other side. It's like a
    murder trial where
    one can always buy the opinion he wants.

    Thanks again


    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 : Wed Oct 02 2002 - 19:55:26 EDT