A Tudor woman says:
"'Christ will receive you...'" (p. 120)
A turbaned white man asks which Christ: Catholic, Lutheran, Greek etc? These indeed differ. Does any objective reality correspond to any of these beliefs? Nothing is known about the historical Jesus who died a long time ago. On the other hand, people have, if not always, then for a very long time, projected deities which have taken different forms. In that sense, Christ is no different from Jupiter whom he replaced in the Roman Empire.
A Native American offers:
"'All roads up a mountain lead to heaven.'" (p. 121)
I agree up to a point. Some roads are dead ends but, but by walking such a road to its end, we can turn back and find another road that will take us further. All roads up point towards heaven by which I mean greater understanding, not a hereafter.
He continues:
"'Let each walk the one his forefathers trod.'" (ibid.)
I disagree. Let each walk the one that he finds for himself.
"'On mine, I see their footprints in the dust before me, and in the wind I hear their ghosts singing the olden songs -'" (ibid.)
There is that wind again. This Native American remains close to his ancestral way but not all of us do that.
22 comments:
Note that the Indian is there on "Loser's Night"...
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I disagree, even non-Christian writers like Flavius Josephus and Tacitus could report true things about Christ and early Christians less than a century after the Resurrection. Plus, we learn much about Him from the Gospels and the rest of the NT. With me believing the arguments of the neo-Griesbachians that Matthew and Mark were written by or before AD 50.
Mr. Stirling: IIRC from past readings of "Losers' Night," that Indian was the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh's brother the "Prophet," whose delusional preaching provoked the battle which wrecked Tecumseh's hopes. Because he wasn't yet ready for war against the US. I think Tecumseh was still busy negotiating alliances with other Indian tribes and the British in Canada.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Gospels are propaganda for the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, not history or biography. There is little in Josephus or Tacitus and there may be interpolations in Josephus.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I refuse the offensive word "propaganda" used in referring to the canonical Gospels. It is the teaching of the Church they contain genuine material on the life and nature of Christ, and on His teachings and miracles.
One of the most hotly debated texts from the writings of Josephus comes from Book 18 of one version of his ANTIQUETIES: "At this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, IF HE CAN BE CALLED A MAN. For he performed marvelous things and became the master of those who joyfully received the truth and many of the Jews and also the Greeks followed him. THIS WAS THE CHRIST. Being denounced by the priests of our nation to Pilate, he was condemned to die on the cross, but his followers did not renounce him FOR ON THE THIRD DAY HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN AS HAD BEEN FORETOLD BY THE DIVINE PROPHETS AS WELL AS OTHER WONDERS IN REGARD TO HIM. There still exists today which has received from him the name of Christians (JESUS AND HIS TIMES, Daniel-Rops, Dutton, 1956, page 16).
Daniel-Rops inclines to the view that the parts I stressed with upper case were added by a Christian scribe whose piety outran scrupulous accuracy copying a text. But if this text is read without the words I capitalized it still says much about Christ which is found in the Gospels.
Ad astra! Sean
Correction: "There still exists today the sect which has received..."
Gggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Sean
Sean,
"Propaganda" is not offensive. There was a Propaganda Fide in the Curia.
The sole purpose of the Gospels is to propagate the belief that Jesus was Messiah. Consistency and accuracy are sacrificed to propagation/propaganda. Matthew added the guard on the tomb purely for apologetic purposes. The Fourth Evangelist composed entire passages that are not historical records.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Refused, the word "propaganda" still has offensive meanings and connotations.
Yes, one of the dicasteries of the Holy See is titled the "Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Propaganda Fide for short.
We have discussed the Gospels before, and I don't believe in the anti-Christian arguments against them. I see nothing impossible accepting that a hostile Sanhedrin took measures to guard Christ's tomb.
Denied, what you said about John's gospel, if you mean denying the miracles recorded there.
I also note you ignored the quote from Josephus.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Refused. Words can be and have been used in different senses. In any case, I can say exactly the same thing in other words.
These are not "anti-Christian arguments." They are simply examination of the evidence.
Ignored the quote from Josephus? I agree that it tells us nothing new and seems to include interpolations. You turn all this into a for and against argument.
Nothing impossible? But did it happen? Matthew added the story without any known source. I believe that crucifixion victims were thrown into mass graves and that the story of a decent burial in an unused tomb could easily have grown in the oral tradition before the first Gospel was written. The tomb is mentioned neither at Pentecost nor in Paul's letters.
Denied what you said about John's Gospel. John made up his teachings put into the mouth of Jesus, his Last Supper discourse and his Resurrection appearances which are completely unlike those in Matthew and Luke.
Paul.
Yes, John's "signs" as well. Why should we accept either the water into wine or the raising of Lazarus?
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree because many people dislike the word "propaganda" on perfectly reasonable grounds.
Disagree, you are only offering interpretations, interpretations others will reject.
Disagree, I interpreted the text from Josephus differently from what you preferred, stressing what he said without the high-lighted text.
Yes, attacks on Christianity are going to be met with pushback.
Disagree, what you said about the burial of Christ. I see no reason to disbelieve He had influential sympathizers who asked Pilate for permission to bury Him. You are only offering speculation from those denying that.
Refused, what you said about John's Gospel, which contains theological reflections drawing out the meaning and purpose of Christ.
Christ is God as well as Man, of course He can change water into wine and raise Lazarus from the dead. Again, I'm reminded of how antisupernaturalists wave away the miracles recorded at Lourdes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree with everything.
Of course I am only offering interpretations which some other people will reject. That is all that I am trying to do! What else CAN we do? What ARE we trying to do here? I aim as ever only to say what I think and why I think it but I neither hope nor expect to say anything that you will agree with. Ever. We have established that conclusively.
Of course we interpret Josephus differently. Is anything else going to happen? Do we expect unanimity on such issues? For what it is worth, I accept that Jesus lived, preached, healed and was executed. I have a theory based on a lot of reading and reflection about how his execution came about and why belief in the Resurrection arose. I am prepared to discuss that theory but I prefer not to do it like this. Meanwhile, we know nothing of Jesus' origins or private life.
"Attacks on Christianity"? Not just different beliefs and opinions but "attacks"? That one word shows what is happening here. You identify yourself with a belief. Therefore, you defend the belief as if you were physically under attack. Relax. Accept that beliefs differ, always have done, and that you are not under attack. Be prepared to discuss and to consider alternatives. The truth, bigger than all of us, bigger than any set of beliefs, waits for us to find it - a cooperative enterprise.
Disagree. I see no reason to believe that Jesus had influential sympathizers who... etc. This also is speculation. Is it not more likely that the disciples were killed or fled when Jesus was executed, that there were no eye witnesses to what happened next, that the Christian community later consoled itself with the story that it had been able to bury the body respectfully? Of course I am offering only speculation. What else can any of us do? We do not know what happened.
Refused, what you said about John's Gospel. John's theological reflections are not historical accounts either of what was said or of what happened.
Not accepting John's miracles is "waving away"? Why should we accept his accounts. Christ is God as well as Man? Surely you realize that you cannot just say that and have it accepted?
"Antisupernaturalists"? We need to be given reasons to accept supernaturalism. We do not need to mount arguments against it.
The Lourdes phenomena alone do not prove monotheism, Biblical revelation, the Resurrection etc to anyone who disagrees with those things on other grounds. They do not simply settle the matter. And they should certainly not be waved away. They are extremely significant data. But you make them like a bone that two dogs are fighting over.
Surely there is something very wrong with the whole basis of these exchanges?
Paul.
I suggest that we either leave this issue behind us permanently or start again from scratch but without the adversarial attitude but the latter might be impossible.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I'll content myself with just a few comments. The Roman law of "jus religio" made many concessions to the religions, laws, and customs of the peoples conquered by Rome, including the Jews. Specifically, the Jews were allowed to bury before sunset any executed Jews, including those crucified. The DIGEST of Justinian quotes Ulpian as stating this goes back to a rescript of Augustus. That's why the legs of the criminals crucified with Christ were broken, to hasten death. And it would be the families and friends of those executed who would bury them. That strengthens the strong likelihood of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus burying Christ.
Additionally, the Jehohanan case comes to mind, the remains of a crucified man with a nail thru the heel or foot was found in a family tomb, not that common grave you insist on. Only unclaimed bodies would be tossed into that common grave. Your insistence on that ignominious burial of Christ is not supported by either Roman law or archeology.
I am not insisting that you believe in Christ's divinity, I am only rejecting your denial of that revelation.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not insist on a common grave. I was told of it by a Biblical scholar. No one can insist on anything in these matters. I have read things that seemed plausible, passed them on in good faith, then read or been told that they were not necessarily the case. All our knowledge is provisional.
Paul's account is of a different kind of "spiritual body" arising like a plant from a seed buried in the ground, not of a resuscitated corpse emerging from a tomb. A spiritual body was different from the Greek concept of a spirit animating, then leaving, a body. Greek philosophers laughed at Paul when he said that God had raised a man from the dead. (Paul said that God had raised a man, not that God had become a man, then raised Himself. We observe Christianity taking shape.)
Of course you reject my denial of your belief! That statement proceeds precisely around in a circle.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But you have repeatedly stated the claim Christ was buried in that common grave. And scholars who either ignored or did not know of how Roman law regulated Imperial relations with the Jews or how they buried their dead are not doing their job.
Again, no, you are forcing on Scripture an either/or interpretation Catholics reject. In 1 Cor. 15 St. Paul made it absolutely clear he believe in the actual Resurrection of Christ's glorified body. The Scriptures and the tradition of the Church teach both the actual Resurrection of Christ and how that also has a spiritual meaning. It's both X and Y, not either X or Y.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Reread carefully. I do not claim to know for sure how he was buried. Scholars who are doing their jobs have very different opinions about what might have happened. Everything is not as clear cut as you seem to think. (Another possibility is that he did not die on the cross but merely lost consciousness and revived in the tomb.)
I am not forcing an interpretation on Scripture. I am disagreeing with you about it. Of course Paul made it absolutely clear that he believed in the actual Resurrection of a glorified body. It was a new kind of "spiritual body" differing from the physical body as a fully grown plant differs from the seed that went into the earth. No one asks where the seed is now. Paul called that question foolish. The word "actual" has become ambiguous here. Paul did believe that there was a completely real actual event.
I know that the Church teaches that there was a physical (what you call "actual") Resurrection AND that this has a spiritual meaning. I do not deny that that is what the Church teaches. We seem to have enormous difficulty in communicating about this.
I think that the problem is that you cannot accept that we have different beliefs and have by now said what we have to say about them. You have to keep maintaining that I am saying something I am not or are forcing an interpretation or waving away evidence etc. The contrary view has to be discredited/ruled out of order etc. This is unnecessary. Acknowledge and accept difference.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I did read what you wrote and the fact still remains you repeatedly stated Christ was tossed into a common grave. Only after I pointed out how the Romans made concessions to Jewish burial customs were you willing to say you were not sure about what happened.
The point is not that scholars have different opinions--the point here is that some did not do their job and look up what Roman law conceded to the Jews or investigate their funerary customs. Both of which would not be hard to find out. Another possibility is that some scholars have anti-Christian partisan axes to grind.
Again, you are refusing to accept St. Paul believed in the actual, literal, bodily resurrection of Christ. Both PHYSICAL and spiritual. Our Lord's risen body was also glorified in the sense that it was no longer bound by the ordinary physical limitations all other humans have with their bodies.
I think the problem is that you cannot accept Christians are not going to agree to anything that minimizes or denies what orthodox Christianity believes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I did not repeatedly state that Christ was tossed into a common grave. You cannot now start telling me what I said! I have never claimed to be sure about what happened. One thing that is certain is that different scholars will tell us different things at different times. I have encountered this several times already and have had to adjust what I think and say in accordance with that.
It is not that some scholars did not do their job. They are always doing their job and coming up with different details and emphases from the past. There is not one single simple straightforward account. It is not that simple.
Many scholars have partisan PRO-Christian axes to grind. Can we just consider what is said and not impugn motives?
Again, I am not refusing to accept something. I am disagreeing with you about it.
You clearly do not understand the difference between Paul's and the Evangelists' accounts of the Resurrection. Paul: the physical body went into the earth like a seed never to return and a different kind of ("spiritual") body rose from the earth. This was a real but different kind of body. Evangelists: a dead body was placed in a tomb where it came back to life. This body was visible and tangible unlike Paul's blinding flash of light. They are completely different accounts. I do accept that Paul believed in an actual Resurrection.
I do accept that Christians are not going to agree to anything that minimizes or denies what orthodox Christianity believes. I am not saying that Christians can accept what I say and remain Christians.
I do not see the point of any of this.
You seem to be unable to understand anything that you fundamentally disagree with. You automatically misinterpret it as something obviously wrong so that it can be summarily dismissed instead of seriously discussed.
Paul.
BTW, I would welcome genuine discussion instead of accusations of refusing to accept, waving away of evidence, partisan axes to grind, "attacks on Christianity" etc.
Based on a lot of past experience, I can anticipate further directions for this exchange. There are paths that I hope that we do not go down but I will respond as necessary.
Scholars who have learned not only NT Greek but also Aramaic so that they can deduce possible original forms of Gospel sayings are certainly doing their jobs but they cannot possibly agree on every historical detail especially since information and interpretations of it change.
I have ordered a book on eBay.
By the aftermath of the War of 1812, the Indians were effectively doomed. They didn't have the numbers -- their population was still shrinking -- to resist the whites, even if they'd had the arms.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Correct. Even if his idiot brother had kept his mouth shut there was no real likelihood that Tecumseh would have succeeded in successfully fighting the US. The Indians did not have the numbers, industrial/agriculture, organization, etc., to fight the US.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment