Wulfnoth, son of Aelfred sees:
"'...little use in all these books and baths, to say naught of that weird cross-god [the Britons] have....'" (5, p. 33)
Centuries later, many of his descendants value books and baths and seek alternatives to the cross-god. Like many others before and after him, Wulfnoth looks both backwards and forwards.
Christianity, occupying a crossroad between the cyclical, seasonal time of agricultural societies and the linear, historical time of urban civilizations, transforms the myth of perpetually renewed divine death and resurrection into a single historical event - at least according to the ideology adopted by the dominant urban civilization.
Wulfnoth suspects neither the enormity of the issues that he addresses nor the identity of the visitors with whom he converses. How much is there that we do not suspect?
42 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Except Christianity is not a myth, not based on mere stories about gods which never existed. Christ existed and lived in HISTORICAL times, died on the cross, and rose from the dead literally.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I accept everything except "...rose from the dead literally." I think we can account for Peter's Pentecost sermon on the basis that the disciples reinterpreted prophecies to mean that suffering had been the way to Messiahship and that they had encountered the risen Christ in the same way that Evangelicals now claim to have encountered him without meaning that he walked into a room, shook hands, sat a table, shared a meal and spoke audibly. Neither Mark's Gospel nor Paul's letters describe such events. The remaining Gospels were propaganda, written later.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I continue to disagree. Christianity makes sense only if its unequivocally supernatural claims are accepted as I believe them to be are: literally true. And I believe Poul Anderson, even if he was not sure he believed, would agree with me. That was certainly the impression I got from his story "A Chapter of Revelation."
Forgive me, if I seem exasperated, but how many times does it have to be repeated that St. Paul also believed in the actual resurrection of Christ? At least you seem to think he did not. Again, I'm reminded of how Anderson quoted 1 Corinthians 15.12-19 in "Chapter."
I no longer believe in the Q theory or a late dating for the synoptic Gospels. David L. Dungan's HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM simply smashed that theory, IMO, beyond any reasonable doubt. And he cited the work of the late William Farmer's revival of the Neo-Griesbachian hypothesis in books like THE GOSPEL OF JESUS for that. With Farmer inspired by the work of Abbot John Chapman, Bishop Butler, etc.
The existence of the Oxford Fragments of Matthew's gospel, datable to AD 65-66 in Egypt, also undermines a late dating for the Synoptics, which I think were written in this order: Matthew, Luke, Mark. Matthew was probably written by the early AD 50s, to give time to reach Egypt. with Luke drawing on Matthew.
I see no contradiction in Mark not mentioning the points you listed. Why should he? Some of the earliest Christian writers cited Mark as summarizing the preaching of Peter, and I don't expect summaries to include everything.
An earlier dating for Matthew and Luke also makes sense of how they treated the prophecies of Christ about the coming fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. Because they wrote BEFORE the Roman capture of Jerusalem in AD 70. If Luke had written his Gospel after 70 it would have been so natural to have mentioned the persecution of Nero, the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and the fall of Jerusalem in Acts. No, he ended that work with St. Paul's first Roman captivity, around AD 61-62.
So, I dismiss Q and a late dating of the synoptics. And I can't help but wonder if some who argue for Q do so out of hostitlity to Christianity, esp. the Catholic Church.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Paul said that the Resurrection was the emergence of a spiritual body from a physical body buried in the earth, not the revival of a physical body buried in a tomb.
Christianity makes sense as a comprehensive religious synthesis that fitted a new world order: monotheism without the Jewish law; one sacrifice efficacious for all time; one historically dated resurrection.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your first sentence immediately above: then we cannot agree. What * I * concluded from Acts and the Letters of Paul was that he saw the GLORIFIED, literally Christ. And he made that plain over and over, esp. in 1 Corinthians 15.
I agree with the second sentence, except I would have worded it somewhat differently, and stressed Christianity also taking over much from Judaism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Paul, while under great stress, saw a light and heard a voice. Such experiences happen. He did not meet a tangible, recognizable person as you would if you had heard that I was dead, then saw me alive.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, we disagree. Because you deny that the supernatural is real, while I do not. I repeat, St. Paul repeatedly declared he MET the the literally risen Christ. And later sought out witnesses who had also seen the risen Lord.
Ad astra! Sean
I would note that most Indo-European-speaking cultures have a rather linear approach to time -- the world is created, and will be destroyed in some equivalent of "Ragnarok" at some time in the future.
That would be, I think, traceable to the original PIE-speakers. The original language seems to have had a rather "external" view of time, as something that proceeds irrespective of the thinker's point of view.
This can be in interpreted in a linear or a cyclical fashion, but I think inclines to the former.
Sean,
We keep disagreeing so there is no need to say it! If Paul met someone, a living person, then this is not described anywhere in Acts or in his letters. People claim to encounter all sorts of supernatural beings.
Paul sought out witnesses but what had they seen? To this day, Evangelicals testify that they have encountered Christ. The man on the road to Emmaus did not resemble Jesus. At the end of Matthew's Gospel, there is a single meeting of a group with the risen Christ but it says that some doubted. Matthew added the guard on the tomb for apologetic reasons and has the disciples not staying in Jerusalem but going to Galilee for the resurrection appearances because it had been said elsewhere that he was going ahead of them to Galilee. The accounts are not clear or consistent enough to be acceptable in many people's opinions.
Paul.
Sean,
I do not deny the supernatural. I request evidence for it. I think that there should be research into every kind of alleged phenomenon.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We need a defining of terms. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the literal resurrection of Christ not only meant life returned to His body, it was also glorified and transformed by the power of His divinity acting far more directly on His flesh than hitherto.
What some evangelical Protestants say is not relevant to this discussion. I'm focusing on what St. Paul. In 1 Corinthians 15 he talked of knowing of 500 witnesses who had seen and met the Risen Christ, albeit some had died by the time he wrote that Letter. And I take Paul at his word when he talked of having met the LIVING Christ on the road to Damascus.
I would also remind you of the end of John's Gospel, where he stated not everything Christ had said and did were recorded in his Gospel. So, I'm assuming that was the case with the human authors of the Synoptic gospels, they did not claim to have recorded everything said and done by Him.
As for evidence of the supernatural, I only need to cite the miracles recorded at Lourdes. And you yourself brought to my attention a truly striking example of one such miracle.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But these miracles must be studied further. We cannot just leap into metaphysical conclusions from them.
I know what the Church teaches about a glorified body but I am talking about the very great difference between Paul's account of the Resurrection and the Evangelists'.
A guy writing 2000 years ago that he knew of 500 witnesses is just not enough for us now to know what happened. People can lie, exaggerate, be mistaken, believe what they want to, be very unrigorous in their checking of details, mean different things by what they say etc.
I think a stranger en route to Emmaus consoled two disciples by expounding scripture, Peter distraught with bereavement and guilt is certainly not a reliable witness of an apparition, the disciples, remembering Jesus' references to the Suffering Servant, could have reinterpreted scripture as meaning that suffering confirmed Messiahship and convinced themselves that Jesus was spiritually present, confirming their new interpretation. Luke wrote that Jesus appeared and expounded scripture. Why expound scripture? Surely just appearing was enough. The Pentecost sermon is entirely a (highly questionable) expounding of scripture. It does not mention an empty tomb, does not point to that tomb as evidence and mentions witnesses only parenthetically to back up an interpretation of scripture. How many witnesses? What did they see and hear? When and where? Are they "witnesses" only in the sense that they can confirm that they are convinced that Jesus must be risen. Peter spends his entire sermon arguing from scripture that Jesus must be risen. He does not recount interviews or conversations with the risen Jesus.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the miracles recorded at Lourdes HAS been studied intensively for over 160 years, by some of the toughest, most skeptical, even unfriendly experts in the medical sciences. Frankly, it looks a lot like some being UNWILLING to admit something is going on at Lourdes which cannot be explained by natural means.
As for the rest, we are not going to agree. E.g., I don't interpret the road to Emmaus incident as you do. It's far more likely Christ, for His own reasons, temporarily veiled His identity to those two disciples.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Something is going on at Lourdes that cannot yet be explained. The nature of knowledge and science is that they always have a frontier.
Which is more likely? Mistaken identity and disillusionment seizing on a new hope? Or a resurrected man contradictorily revealing and veiling himself?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
* I * think many who are HOSTILE to Christianity ignore Lourdes or drag their feet about making conclusions on what has been reported there from unwillingness to take seriously the supernatural claims of the Church.
Or, even more simply, Christianity is simply CORRECT in what it has been saying about Christ.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Any of us can just state that we are CORRECT! Such claims and counter-claims just cancel out.
Many are hostile to Christianity. Many others are prejudiced in favour of it. That also cancels out.
We just have to do our best to discuss evidence and recognize that honest (as well as dishonest) people disagree.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
My point being, that at best, many who are hostile just seem to blank out, mentally speaking, when it comes to cases like Lourdes.
I agree with your last sentence.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Many people of all points of view blank out when confronted by anything that does not fit with their point of view.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that certainly has been the case with Lourdes, by many anti-Christians!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But it applies to people of all beliefs!
If there are unexplained cures at Lourdes, it does not follow from that alone that all Catholic beliefs are true. Many other factors have to be considered.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I disagree. I consider the cures recorded at Lourdes to be one of God's ways of saying: "See, I am here and real. These are signs I give, not only out of mercy, but also to Affirm that what My Church and her Vicars teach is true."
You may not agree. But that is how orthodox Catholics believe and think.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes. That is what you and other Catholics believe. Yes. I may not agree. Someone who has all sorts of grounds for not believing in the Biblical God and for understanding the universe in a completely different way cannot consider unexplained cures as God saying anything. They are unexplained phenomena. There are others. We cannot explain everything. Scientists keep trying but there is always a frontier of knowledge like, at present, quantum mechanics.
An Evangelical told me that any unexplained cures at Lourdes were diabolical, intended to mislead people. I consider that a vile remark but it is an example of what someone else, starting from a supernaturalist premise, can think of.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And many have investigated these alleged cures at Lourdes, searching for natural explanations for them. Weeding out the ambiguous cases from those which researchers had to admit had no known scientific explanations. After 160 years of rigorous study, somewhere around 70 plus cases has been so ruled.
Well, I would expect some evangelical Protestants to think like that. Because to do otherwise would fatally undermine all of Protestantism, that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al, were WRONG in what they said and did.
Both kinds, it still looks like desperate attempts to deny the obvious conclusion. Albeit, all alleged cures at Lourdes should always be studied.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not an obvious conclusion from Lourdes that Catholic belief is true. I disagree with that belief on many other grounds.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree. EVERY other shrine where such miracles has been reliably reported were Catholic. That, to me, is one way God says that what the Church teaches is true. Those who disagree may need to rethink their premises.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Does anyone nowadays base Catholic apologetics on Lourdes and similar shrines?
I do not accept any arguments for the existence of God.
I argue that monotheism is conceptually incoherent.
I do not accept the theological concept of "free will."
There are conceptual problems with the idea of personal identity continuing forever.
I do not accept that the Bible shows God progressively revealing himself.
I accept only the healing miracles in the New Testament.
I do not accept that the Resurrection occurred.
Catholic bishops claimed the authority to decide that non-attendance at Sunday Mass should be a mortal sin and EXERCISED that authority!
They try to prevent anyone using contraception.
The theological Problem of Evil is insoluble.
Immortal souls and resurrected bodies are two incompatible forms of survival. (Sometimes Christians think that they are waiting for a general resurrection and sometimes they think that they enter a hereafter immediately after death.)
Jesus, Peter and Paul expected the Kingdom in their lifetimes. They did not intend to found a church that would last for millennia.
Sure. I can rethink all of this. Everyone can rethink something.
Paul.
Sean,
If you think that your belief is obviously correct and that others disagree with you only because they are unaccountably obtuse or wilfully blind, then I think that you miss both the complexity of external reality and also the subtlety of the ways in which beliefs are formed. Many people think that their belief is obviously right mainly because it has been ingrained into them. My upbringing showed me how not to bring up my daughter.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I do disagree with your list. Nor do I deny the complexity of life and "reality." I still believe the basic cause of our disagreement is you denying, in fact, if not in theory, the possibility of the supernatural, God, being real and acting in the world.
My view remains that of Poul Anderson, as expressed in "A Chapter of Revelation."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you disagree with that list. My point here is only that that is how much I would have to rethink when you ask us to rethink our premises.
Of course you do not explicitly deny the complexity of life but such a denial becomes implicit IF you get to the stage of thinking that all contrary views are too obviously wrong.
I do not deny a possibility. Theists, failing to convince us of their case, fall back on challenging us to disprove it. There is no obligation to prove a negative. It is insufficient to fall back on asserting that your belief is merely possible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And one thing about that list which puzzled me is why you should object to the Sunday Mass obligation. Off the top of my head I can think of several good reasons. One being the Commandment to worship only God. Second, I recall passages in the Gospels and Letters of Paul about heeding and obeying the Church in all legitimate ways. That logically includes legislating on the times and occasions for participating at Mass. Once a week on Sundays is not onerous. Even if you also include a small number of holy days of obligation.
And neither have persons with your basic POV disproven a POSITIVE, the cures recorded at Lourdes. I mean they have not found any natural explanations for them. I still get the impression of some investigators DESPERATE to avoid making unwanted conclusions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Believing that you can cause people to be damned? Then causing them to be damned? It puzzles you that I object to this?
I have acknowledged that the cures at Lourdes are as yet unexplained. Science always has frontiers.
I get the impression of people of all beliefs desperate to avoid unwanted conclusions.
Paul.
BTW, it used to be taught that a Catholic who missed Sunday Mass, didn't confess and died went straight to Hell. This does not square with the idea that the damned are only those who ultimately, absolutely reject God.
Kaor, Paul!
No, no one is damned who does not CHOOSE to reject God. THAT is the Catholic teaching. Problem is, some Catholics are not as PRECISE as they should be. A problem I've seen myself, clumsy, inaccurate statements of doctrine.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But then what of the teaching that I quoted above which definitely did exist?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
What you listed above sounds more like the mistakes of people or teachers who did not pay enough attention to OFFICIAL sources like the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. And I recall Anderson himself saying similar things in his prefatory note to THE MERMAN'S CHILDREN, warning readers that the Catholic faith of the peasants and fishermen seen there was not how St. Thomas Aquinas would have expressed it.
More than once I've seen Catholics making a botch of, for example Limbo, stating that it was defined doctrine when that was not the case. I myself corrected such persons by saying Limbo was a permitted theological OPINION, but not dogma.
Ad astra!! Sean
Sean,
This teaching was given by Marists and Jesuits. You never heard that non-attendance at Sunday Mass was a mortal sin, meaning instant damnation at death?
Paul.
kaor, Paul! Yes, I did. And I agree with it. But you have to die IMPENITENT to be damned. Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But my point is that merely missing Sunday Mass falls well short of choosing to reject God.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I'm sorry I did not understand you. Yes, a living man would still have a chance of repenting.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We seem to be back to square one. The bishops claimed the right to declare that nonattendance at Sunday Mass was a mortal sin and then exercised that right. Monstrous.
2nd point that has arisen: mere nonattendance at Sunday Mass does not constitute a decision to reject God.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree with your first sentence. You are overlooking the RIGHT of any organized body to legislate on the terms and conditions by which its members take part in its activities.
Second sentence, I agree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We really seem not to be communicating on this. I do not dispute the right of bishops to tell their congregations when to go to church. I do think that it is monstrous to decree that anyone should be damned for non-attendance. This is the point that I have been making, I though quite clearly, from the beginning of this exchange.
2nd point that has arisen: You have said BOTH that only those are damned who have chosen to reject God AND that it is possible for a Catholic to be damned if he dies without repenting after missing Sunday Mass. THAT is a contradiction.
However, I am beginning to think that, on some issues, our premises are so far apart that we cannot find any common ground of mutual comprehension.
Paul.
Post a Comment