Odin is a character in Anderson's heroic fantasies;
Thor wields his hammer in War Of The Gods and Hugh Vallland tells a bedtime story about Thor in World Without Stars;
Gratillonius converts from Mithras to Christ;
one Wodenite converts to Mahayana Buddhism and another to Jerusalem Catholicism;
etc.
While appreciating these works, Anderson fans can also reflect on the significance for them of these and other deities so here is my version of a "sacred seven," although it is in no way exclusive:
Indra releasing rain from heaven personifies the beneficent, life-sustaining aspect of nature;
Prometheus stealing fire from heaven personifies human action on nature, early control of fire and the beginning of technology;
Odin sacrificed an eye and even himself for wisdom;
Thor protects humanity by killing frost giants representing hostile elements;
Krishna taught karma yoga, nonattached action;
the Buddha, not a god but a man - but, mythologically, a teacher of gods and men -, taught meditation which I practice so this is my closest contact with the seven;
Jesus preached the kingdom (a new society and a new consciousness).
With deities like these, we have much to aspire towards.
OK. If we include Neptune for the sea and the Triple Goddess for maidenhood, motherhood and age, then we reach the also significant number of nine. And Jesus is a manifestation of the dying and rising god who also belongs on the list but we have to stop somewhere.
20 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
No offense, but I consider these attempts to deny the supernatural origins of Christianity to be strained, convoluted, unconvincing. No other religion gets this kind of attention. And my observation has been that within Christianity the Catholic Church gets attacked by everybody, from atheist secularists to childish and ludicrous nonsense of the kind seen in Jack Chick comic books.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No offense is taken here. I saw this not as an attempt to deny supernatural origins of Christianity but just to appreciate deities from different traditions.
I have written my assessment of evidence for the Resurrection on another blog.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but your arguments don't convince me, since they still boil down to disbelief in the ACTUALITY of the Resurrection. As St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15.12-19 everything Christianity believes flows from that fact. And Poul Anderson agree, as we see in "A Chapter of Revelation."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course my arguments don't convince you. All that we can do on basic issues most of the time is to clarify our positions and continue to disagree.
It is true that everything that Christians believe follows from the Resurrection but it does not follow from that fact alone that the Resurrection happened! Maybe you do not mean to argue in this circle but it is important not to seem as if you do.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It also seems important to you, because of how often it comes up in your blog pieces. Mutual circularity, you might say! (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Oh yes, it is important. Everyone should be able to make an informed judgment as to the truth or falsity of the historical claims of Christianity.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Only the actuality of the Resurrection of Christ makes Christianity possible. And I also believe things like the Shroud of Turin and Lourdes are meant by God to persuade SOME unbelievers to be at least uncertain. And hence possibly open to changing their minds.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Oh, right. I might be connecting better in terms of at least understanding the argument. The argument is that ONLY an actual Resurrection is sufficient to explain Peter's Pentecost proclamation, the certainty of the Apostles, their confidence in preaching and proclaiming salvation through Christ, their perseverance in the face of persecution, the martyrdom of some them etc.
But I disagree with that argument. I think that the trauma of the crucifixion with its apparent disproof of Jesus's Messiahship is sufficient to explain the disciples' subsequent psychology. They reinterpreted scripture to mean that suffering was the way to Messiahship. Peter at Pentecost did not mention an empty tomb, claimed only once that he and others were witnesses and mainly relied on questionable interpretations of scripture. They were "witnesses" to what? Evangelicals claim to this day to have encountered Christ without meaning that they were introduced and shook hands with him. Paul, after a traumatic experience, proclaimed a spiritual resurrection and ridiculed a bodily resuscitation. The Evangelists introduced the empty tomb and the tangible resurrected body. Paul made up what has become the "rapture" idea when his converts started asking him why some of them were dying but Christ hadn't returned yet. They expected him then, not thousands of years later. Their expectations have been disproved.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Apologies, I simply can't agree. Our Lord's death on the cross was traumatic to His disciples, but it did not end with that. ALL of the canonical gospels are emphatic that Christ truly rose from the dead. I esp. recall how the Doubting Thomas was converted from disbelief to belief. And that was emphatically also St. Paul's belief after he met the Risen One on the road to Damascus. And which he reiterated in 1 Corinthians 15.
And Christ warned the disciples that no man knows the hour of his return. So I get very impatient with how some, like "evangelical" Protestants, keep trying to joggle God's elbow.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you disagree. That goes without saying.
The Gospel resurrection accounts are completely inconsistent. Matthew has the disciples going to Galilee and says that some doubted. The man on the road to Emmaus was not recognized as Jesus. The latter appearing to Peter is explicable because of Peter's bereavement, disillusionment and guilt. Paul only saw a blinding light. The author of the Fourth Gospel composed his version of Jesus's Last Supper speech. The guard on the tomb and the story of Doubting Thomas were added for apologetic purposes. Mark says that the women who went to the tomb told no one because they were afraid. Thus, he introduces the empty tomb but explains why his readers have not heard of it before and the other Evangelists contradict him by saying that the women did tell Peter etc.
Paul.
BTW, I didn't mean to get back into evidence for the Resurrection when I compared deities from different pantheons but we go where the argument takes us.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't agree the Gospel accounts are completely inconsistent. I would EXPECT some minor variation due to the risen Christ appearing at different times to different persons. What is overwhelmingly important is that they all agree on Christ rising from the dead.
Some people SAY that the stories about the guards at the tomb and Christ appearing to Doubting Thomas were only fictions--but, they can't prove that was the case. I find it at least as likely that the Sanhedrin posted those guards and that Thomas doubted the Resurrection.
I simply don't agree the apostles and disciples of Christ would knowingly lie about the Resurrection. It makes no sense for the apostles to struggle, toil, suffer hardships, accept even martyrdom for a Person they knew had not risen from the dead. No, their transformation after the Resurrection was because they KNEW it was real.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I agree that they did not lie. They had convinced themselves and each other that Christ was spiritually present and with them.
Crucifixion victims were thrown into mass graves. The pious story of a decent burial in an unused tomb, mentioned by neither Peter nor Paul, could have grown up in the oral tradition before the first Gospel was written.
The Four Gospels were canonicised only because they proclaim the Resurrection as fulfilling prophecy. There is no attempt to harmonize them. They are four different versions of a story, a situation that we are familiar with in other contexts. The Fourth Gospel ends with Peter etc not proclaiming the Resurrection but returning to their previous occupation of fishermen.
The mere possibility that certain stories were added for apologetic purposes is enough to cast doubt on them. It is not necessary to prove that they were additions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except I don't believe what happened was a mere convincing of themselves by the apostles that something which did not happen actually did happened. I don't buy that at all.
Nor do I think it that implausible that Christ could have gained, during about two or three years of His earthly ministry, a few wealthy and influential sympathizers, including even members of the Sanhedrin. Given that, I can see Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus taking steps to make sure Christ was decently buried.
We see Peter fishing at the end of John's gospel. We also see the risen Christ reaffirming and confirming Peter's status as the first of the Popes. And NOTHING about Peter permanently going back to fishing. Instead, we see Christ commanding the first pope to continue following Him.
All these "Modernist" arguments strikes me as desperate, strained, unconvincing attempts to deny the claims of Christianity and its supernatural origins.
Ad astra! Sean
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But even to this day someone who converts to Christianity becomes convinced of the presence of Christ and the inner working of the Spirit and this conviction is not based on any meeting with a visible, tangible Jesus. If that can be regarded as a valid religious experience now, then why not then?
In Luke, the risen Christ appears and explains his Resurrection from scripture but why should he expound scripture when his mere presence is surely sufficient proof? Maybe what happened was that the disciples met, reinterpreted scripture and became convinced that the risen Christ was spiritually present confirming their new understanding, then later the Evangelist recounted this as if it had been a dialogue with a visible, tangible Jesus? This is not dishonesty but a literalist exaggeration of an experience that might now be regarded as valid? There are interpretations of Christianity that do not require a physical resurrection and they can base themselves on Paul's account. Far from being desperate or strained, this seems to me more plausible and more in accord with how people do interpret their experiences.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your first paragraph: Of course! Because that conviction of the presence and grace off Christ and Our Lord the Spirit is the way it has to be for most Christians after the Ascension of the Savior. I would add, however, that Catholics believe that Christ sometimes does appear to various of His saints and contemplatives.
But, first the Incarnate Logos had to be physically present on Earth to proclaim the Gospel, attract the first apostles and disciples, die on the Cross, and rise from the dead before the Church could even begin. Iow, Christ was like a mason building the foundations and laying the first courses of stones. With, ironically, the cowardly denier Peter as the Rock on which He would build the Church.
Catholics say it's not an either/or thing, it was both.
Your second paragraph: Our Lord had to explain the Scriptures referring to Him to the disciples because they had a persistent misunderstanding of His mission. Before Christ the dominant perception among Jews of the role and mission of the Messiah was that he would be a conquering warrior king raising up the Jews to world power and glory. The alternative, and correct view, as seen in the Suffering Servant oracles of Isaiah, was far less popular!
And Christ more than once warned the disciples that He would have to suffer and die, before rising from the dead. In Matthew 16 we see Peter protesting against that idea (because he still had the warrior king Messiah in mind), with Christ then rebuking Peter for persistently misunderstanding Him.
No, your alternative explanation, about the disciples meeting, reinterpreting Scripture, and saying Christ only "spiritually" rose from the dead does not convince me. There is nothing in the canonical NT supporting such a view. Rather, it is emphatically stated the Messiah truly and literally died on the Cross and then rose from the dead.
The only word I can use for those "interpretations" of Christianity which denies the divinity of Christ and His actual resurrection is "heretic." And St. Paul, as 1 Corinthians 15 makes plain, did not believe in only a "spiritual" resurrection of the Lord.
The modernist interpretations of the NT and of Christ still strikes me as strained, desperate, unconvincing, etc. To say nothing of how "puzzles" like the Shroud of Turin and the apparitions and miracles recorded at Lourdes has to feel like burrs under the saddles of these modernists.
Finally, to make this discussion somewhat related to the works of Anderson, my view is that he, despite being mostly agnostic, favored the view I have been defending here: that Christianity makes sense only if you accept its supernatural claims. A view which Anderson most clearly expressed in "A Chapter of Revelation."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, I think we have aired the two points of view sufficiently for the time being.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
True. I hope I have not caused you any offense!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Please stop worrying about offense! If I am ever offended, which I never am, I'll say so.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Ha! Thanks!
Sean
Post a Comment