in Anderson's History of Technic Civilization, one Wodenite converts to Mahayana Buddhism and another to Jerusalem Catholicism;
at the climax of his Time Patrol series, a Danellian wears a "...robe, cowled like a Christian monk's, dull yellow like a Buddhist's..." (The Shield Of Time, p. 433);
Everard addresses the Danellian as "'Rabbi...'" (p. 434) whereas Wanda addresses him or her as "'Sensei...'" (p. 435).
Appropriate and fitting.
The two Patrol agents meet their Danellian teacher on a seashore. Thus, three important encounters in the Time Patrol series occur on shores. I recently discussed the significance of such a setting here.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And we even wondered, in others of your blog pieces, if the Danellians were Christians. Because, the ability to travel in time would have given them the opportunity of personally verifying events like the Resurrection of Christ. Which, if personally observed by the Danellians, would have almost necessarily compelled them to become Christians.
I would merely add that the Risen Lord told the Doubting Thomas that those who came to believe despite not having St. Thomas' opportunity of seeing and touching the risen Christ were still blessed.
Sean
Sean,
I don't accept the Fourth Gospel as a historical account. Certainly, John writes long discourses for Jesus, as Plato did for Socrates, but I think that these are John's own theological reflections, not words spoken by Jesus. No one had a tape recorder or even short-hand at the Last Supper.
I further think that Paul and the Evangelists present very different accounts of the Resurrection. Paul has not a revived body exiting a tomb but a "spiritual body" rising from the earth like a plant rising from a planted seed. (We don't go back looking for the seed after the plant has grown.)
But, if the Resurrection in either form were witnessed, then it would cease to be an article of faith and would become a new empirical datum.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Respectfully, I have to continue to disagree with you. For example, commentators like the late Fr. Raymond Brown, SS came to no longer believe John's Gospel was merely a theological discourse. Fr. Brown's own studies convinced him there was more of history to be found in John's Gospel than other commentators had thought.
Nor do I think St. Paul's comments about the Resurrection of Christ at odds with the Gospel accounts. I only need to point out how, in 1 Corinthians 15.14 St. Paul makes it very plain that he believed in the BODILY, not merely "spiritual" Resurrection of Christ. He says flatly and with the utmost possible clarity that if Our Lord had NOT risen literally and bodily from the dead, then the faith of Christians in Him was vain and useless.
I don't see what a merely "spiritual" Resurrection of Christ can MEAN if it was not also a bodily resurrection.
I do agree that if the Danellians personally observed the Resurrection of Christ, that made an article of faith also an empirically verified datum.
Sean
Sean,
1 Cor. 15.14 says, "If Christ has not been raised...," but does not add "...literally and bodily."
1 Cor. 15. 37 "...what you sow is not the body which is to be..."
1 Cor. 15. 44 says that there is both a physical body and a spiritual body.
1 Cor. 15. 50 says, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
Paul.
Sean,
1 Cor. 15. 28 shows the Son as subordinate to God. I do think that the Pauline and Johannine teachings differ.
Paul. (I was named after him and do share his puzzlement about our propensity to want good and do evil.)
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, I still have to disagree. First, I'll take a closer look at 1 Cor. 15.14 by quoting more completely (1 Cor. 12-19) : "Now if Christ is preached as risen from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ risen; and if Christ has not risen, vain then is your preaching, vain too is your faith. Yes, and we are found false witnesses as to God, in that we have borne witness against God that he raised Christ--whom he did not raise, if the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, neither has Christ risen; and if Christ has not risen, vain is your faith, for you are still in your sins. Hence they also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If with this live only in view we have had hope in Christ, we are of all men the most to be pitied."
I have to conclude from this that St. Paul emphatically believed in both the bodily as well as the "spiritual" resurrection of Christ. Also, don't forget the "kerygma" or summary of the Christian given by Paul in verses 1-12 of the same chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians. Esp. verses 5 to 7, where Paul lists WITNESSES who testified to the bodily resurrection of Christ.
As a Catholic I have to stress that it's not a matter of EITHER the "spiritual" resurrection of Christ OR his bodily resurrection. It's BOTH the spiritual (which I understand to mean the theological meaning or implications of the Resurrection) AND the bodily resurrection, meant to PROVE the truth of Christ's teachings and claims, etc.
I do understand, I think, that you don't believe Christ truly rose from the dead, but I don't think the other texts you cited backs up your argument. In fact, 1 Cor. 15-44 backs the argument I've given above. And I think 1 Cor. 15.50 has St. Paul talking about ordinary non believers. He does argues in defense of believers who are saved having GLORIFIED or transformed bodies at the general resurrection.
Sean
Sean,
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom? Paul lists witnesses to the Resurrection but does he stress that it was bodily? I don't think that the teaching is consistent. It developed. Paul spoke of the physical body becoming the spiritual body like a seed becoming a plant. He differentiated the spiritual body from the physical body. He did not mention a tangible body re-emerging from a tomb. He did not mention a tomb burial or an empty tomb. He implied a burial in the earth, which I think is more likely. Mark introduced the tomb. The later Evangelists present the tangible resurrected body.
The earliest accounts of the Resurrection, by Peter and Paul, are of a man raised up by God, not of God becoming a man and raising himself up.
An article of faith that became an empirical datum would thereby cease to be an article of faith.
Sorry for telegrammic style. I am trying to summarize much reading and reflection.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
To your frustration, I'm sure, I do believe the teaching about Chist's resurrection was both consistent AND developed. That is, the deeper implications of Christ's resurrection was worked out as time passed. And I still have to argue that the context of Paul's comments means he believed the literal body of Christ rose from the dead. And I simply don't see any contradiction in Paul's comments about the physical body, not when you take into account that those who rise in Christ will regain physical but TRANSFORMED bodies.
And I don't see any contradiction as well as regards what you said about Peter and Paul. The IMPLICATIONS of who and what Christ is needed time for more carefully nuanced language to be worked out. Which means I don't believe 1 Corinthians 15.28 contradicts or denies the divinity of Christ.
Btw, I don't know if you ever heard of them, but the Oxford Fragments of Matthew's Gospel gives us possible evidence that gospel existed BEFORE AD 80, the common date many commentators argue for. Too briefly, fragments of Matthew's gospel were discovered in Egypt alongside legal documents dated to the twelfth year of Nero's reign (AD 66). And since it would take time for Christianity to spread, I think it's reasonable to think Matthew existed ten years before then. That turns upside down many commonly accepted theories of the Gospels!
Sean
Post a Comment