"'I trust you realize that we, at least we who are educated, do not take our ancestral myths for literal truth, as if we were Christians.'" (Roma Mater, p. 326)
I agree. Death and resurrection are a powerful and meaningful myth but not a historical event. See here and here.
Gratillonius does not think that there is any problem with him incarnating one God while worshiping another:
"'Have we become Christians here, to deny respect to everything divine other than the Lord of our narrow sect?...Or sects, rather. They might as well have a dozen different Christs, the way they quarrel about His nature.'"
-Poul and Karen Anderson, The King Of Ys: Gallicenae (London, 1988), p. 30.
Again, if we project the Gods, then it seems that there was a historical Jesus, a man about whom little is known, but that there are many Christs. One Christian, accused of religious discrimination, replied, "Some day soon the Lord is going to come and what a day of discrimination that will be!" I think that some of my Christian friends would not like to meet the bigots' Christ of the Rapture. One facebook correspondent informed me that she would like to see my face on the Day of Judgment. This is an inconsistency because there is both instant damnation at the moment of death and eventual damnation on a Last Day. The first reflects Greek philosophical belief in an immortal immaterial soul surviving the body (originally reincarnating) and the second reflects Zoroastrian/Biblical belief in immortality only through the eventual resurrection of the body.
However, I apologize for this digression.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But ther was, or rather IS, a "historical" Jesus the Christ. That, Christ was a real Man (who I also believe is God Incarnate) and mentioned as such by Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc.
And I also believe Christ's Resurrection was real, not merely a "myth." In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul lists many witnesses who had seen the Risen Christ. He says flatly that if Our Lord had not truly risen from the dead, then vain and useless would have been the faith of Christians.
Sean
Paul:
I take it that comment about seeing your face on Judgment Day was hostile, implying a desire to gloat at your damnation?
"But I don't really care;
In fact I wish him well.
'Cause I'll be laughin' my head off
When he's burning in Hell!"
-- Weird Al Yankovic, *Amish Paradise*
David,
Precisely. A morality that condones gloating in anticipation at someone else's expected suffering.
Paul.
Sean,
I assess "Evidence for the Resurrection" on my Religion and Philosophy blog.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I know. but I don't find the arguments against the Resurrection of Christ to be convincing. And, in the past, I have also mentioned the Shroud of Turin. At the very least, something very STRANGE happened with the Body that linen cloth once wrapped (to be minimal about it!).
Sean
David and Paul:
And it is absolutely wrong for any Christian to gloat or rejoice at the possible damnation of any soul. FAR better for all Christians to keep in mind how weak and sinful we all are, and how much in need of the divine mercy.
Finished rereading Brother Guy Consolmagno's INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE? Much food for thought in that booklet! I've also been marking up the page margins with my glosses. (Smiles)
Sean
Sean,
If the Resurrection WERE scientifically proved, then it would become a new datum and thus would cease to be an article of faith.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't understand what you mean about "scientifically" proving the Resurrection of Christ. Isn't this more a matter of searching out witnesses, questioning them, and then deciding on how trustworthy they were? After, that's exactly what St. Paul did in 1 Corinthians 15, where he mentioned the Apostles and 500 witnesses who saw the Risen Lord. And, of course, there was the incident where Saul of Tarsus met the Pierced One on the road to Damascus.
I think the only "thing" we have that might give us scientific evidence of the Resurrection is the Shroud of Turin.
I think the Resurrection will always remain a matter of faith, rather than something that can be scientifically analyzed and quantified.
Sean
Sean,
I meant the Shroud.
As I say in my article on the Resurrection, I find Paul's number of 500 unconvincing in the light of the other accounts.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We both agree the Shroud of Turin deserves and needs objective and scientific study. Good!
But, we do know from those "other" accounts that there were other witnesses, besides the Apostles, who saw the Risen Christ. So, there MIGHT have been 500 such witnesses.
Sean
Post a Comment