In the combox for Words And The Word, we established that a word in the Merseian language, Eriau, and another in the Ythrian language, Planha, have been correctly translated as "God" because both refer to a transcendent person. However, the English word, "God," stretches a very long way. A word in the Gwydiona language has also been translated as "God" even though it refers not to a person but to a transcendent reality that is mythologized under Aspects like Green Boy and Huntress.
In Hinduism, it is possible to ask, "Is God personal or impersonal?" Sri Chinmoy described Hinduism as a mother. One of her children meditates for years and says, "Mother, God is impersonal." The mother replies, "I see, my child." Another of her children meditates for years and says, "Mother, God is personal." The mother replies, "I see my child." Non-dualists differentiate between the lower truth of a personal God and the higher truth of an impersonal Absolute but theists regard the former as higher. I am not sure whether the word, "transpersonal," can have any meaning.
When a friend told me about a mystical order that he had joined, I asked whether it was theistic. He asked what I meant so I changed my question to "Does it refer to God?" He replied, "Yes." Then I asked, "Does it refer to God as if God were a person?" He replied, "No"! So we have the paradox of non-theistic meanings of "God."
If "God" means "the transcendent" or "the object of religious experience," then I can buy into an impersonal "God." But we have to be clear about it. Apparently, someone asked Einstein whether he believed in God and he replied, "I believe in the God of Spinoza." Spinoza was a pantheist. His "God" was impersonal and identical with the universe but it was the object of religious experience. I am not concerned about whether we call this "God" but some people do call it that.
55 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe God is a personal Being and that it is a literally true belief. Which means an impersonal conception of God is erroneous.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But what of the argument that self is recognized only by contrast with other? Thus, the creator before the creation would be a self without other which is like a square without sides.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But God is infinitely happy and self sufficient, in need of nothing from outside Himself to be completely God. Compared to that the idea of God being impersonal, cold, remote, indifferent to others, etc., is wrong to think of being God at all.
Or, if you like, the revelation of God being Triune, three Persons in the one Godhead, gives you that contrast of Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Trinity doctrine arose because the Fourth Gospel deified the Son and personified the Spirit yet remained monotheist. Thus: three divine persons but only one God = Trinity. Without that, pure Jewish monotheism would have remained - and St Paul believed in that. He saw Jesus as a man raised up by God, not as God. See also Peter's Pentecost sermon which founded Christianity although as yet only as a new Jewish sect.
God can be self-sufficient only if self without other is possible. I argue it isn't. I am not concerned to argue whether the word "God" should be applied to an impersonal transcendent reality. But some people do use the term that way.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again you persist in using arguments I don't believe in, modern day antisupernatural arguments meant to debunk Christianity. In his book AN INTRODUCTION TO NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY, the late Fr. Raymond Brown showed how belief in the divinity of Christ can be found in many parts of the NT, including the letters of St. Paul. The revelation was not invented by St. John for his Gospel.
And I don't believe a merely impersonal transcendent reality is possible or makes sense.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Can you give me some quotes about Christ's divinity from Paul's letters?
It is the supernaturalists who must prove their case. Otherwise, it is legitimate to assume that everything is natural.
"Transcendent" means that it goes beyond, as a cube transcends a square. "Impersonal" means that is not in and of itself a single individual self-conscious being (person) but it certainly becomes conscious of itself through individual organisms. I think that this is possible and makes sense.
Paul.
Word, "it," missing somewhere in there.
Paul told the philosophers not that God had become a man but that God had raised a man up from the dead. The philosophers laughed because their idea of survival was an immortal soul, not a resurrected body. Paul also said Jesus became significant by being resurrected and that the details of his earthly life no longer mattered.
Peter at Pentecost said, "This Jesus God raised up..."
Kaor, Paul!
I will try. I hope you may sometime look up Fr. Brown's book, because reading his carefully thought out argument at leisure would be better than a few hasty comments here.
Romans 9.5: "...who have the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever; amen."
Titus 2.13: "...looking for the blessed hope and glorious coming of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ..."
Philippians 2.5-11 (quoted in part): "Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who though he was by nature God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to be clung to, but emptied himself, taking the nature of a slave and being made like unto men. ..."
So St Paul did believe Christ to be God as well as man. As for the first of the Popes, St. Peter also said in Matthew 16.16, in response to Christ's question to His disciples: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." That does not contradict what Peter said at Pentecost, because Christ is man as well as God.
Nor do I think your argument about what Paul said about Our Lord's resurrection to the philosophers makes much sense. Because all four of the Gospels also proclaims Christ's resurrection. Paul was boldly declaring one of the core teachings of Christianity. Again, as did Anderson in "A Chapter of Revelation," I point out what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15.1-11.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
OK. I think the problem is that ideas developed and the texts are not fully consistent.
Paul.
Sean,
I have ordered Fr. Brown's book through the Public Library. However, we cannot all read every book that someone else recommends and we are unlikely to read anything at this stage that will change our basic worldviews. But we must always remain open to new inputs.
I knew a guy who kept recommending me new material to read or view on the Internet and refused to summarize any of it. Eventually, of course, I just refused especially since I did not share his view of the value of everything that he recommended that I did read. Some of it was good but it is necessary to be selective.
Maybe some people set out a priori to debunk supernaturalism but some of us set out to find the truth of the matter as far as possible. That process does not end.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course it took time, CENTURIES, for the Church to work out adequate formulations for the revelations granted to her. Orthodox Christians had to debate the implications of those revelations thru out many doctrinal controversies and heresies.
Certainly! It's impossible to read every book one should or would like to peruse. Take your time about Fr. Brown's book.
But searching for truth should end with finding that truth--or at least what one believes is the truth.
MY observation is that only Catholic Christianity (and Judaism) gets such sustained and endless attacks. No other faith or philosophy (Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or even Islam) attracts such relentless hostility. I suspect that's because many would be debunkers are afraid Christianity is RIGHT.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And many Christians are afraid that Christianity is WRONG. That kind of imputation of motives doesn't clarify issues.
Searching for the truth should never end. We arrive at informed mature views about the nature of reality but we do not stop learning. I regard my earlier ways of thinking as very superficial.
Attacks and hostility or reasoned disagreement?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Reasoned disagreement is possible, even if the debaters remains convinced the other side is wrong.
And I have seen relentless anti-Catholic hostility--from both Protestants and non-Christians. NO one else attracts such venom.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
CS Lewis said that Christianity has been explained away in so many ways that it must be a formidable opponent. It can be explained away in multiple ways because it incorporates so much:
Jewish monotheism freed from the Law;
the dying and rising god;
an ultimate blood sacrifice;
both bodily resurrection and immortality of the soul;
apocalypticism/end times;
judgement of the dead;
monasticism and the contemplative life;
the Golden rule;
a message of salvation for both rich and poor;
a hierarchical organization based not on the twelve tribes but on the provinces of the Roman Empire;
Greek philosophical systems;
cults of the Virgin and saints which could be jettisoned at the Reformation;
claims of fulfilled prophecies.
All this has made Christianity able to adapt to Roman slave-owning society, medieval feudalism and modern society and to split into many different forms satisfying different psychological needs.
It is undoubtedly formidable.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I recall Chesterton saying somewhat similar things in THE EVERLASTING MAN: over and over thru history the detractors of Catholic Christianity thought the Church was dying or dead, but it kept coming back to life. And more vigorously than ever before.
I do have a few quibbles with your list. The hierarchical organization of the Church is based on the threefold system of bishops, priests, and deacons. With the popes holding a unique authority. The administrative system of the Roman Empire contributed some models and forms, I agree.
I disagree with those Protestants who jettisoned veneration of the BVM and the saints. And I'm indignant at those who even MALIGN the Blessed Virgin. And some high church Protestants continue to venerate the Virgin and the saints (some Lutherans and Anglicans).
I don't believe the "Reformation" was a good thing. It was a catastrophe contrary to the will of God. Moreover, the thousands of different kinds of Protestants have never agreed among themselves on matters of doctrine and church government.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have been rereading one of my books on St Paul. It quotes passages which it says, and I agree, are inconsistent.
In any case, I regard the whole idea of a sacrificial death as barbaric.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Two of the most interesting books I've read about St, Paul were these: PAUL THE CONVERT, by Alan Segal; and PAUL AMONG THE PEOPLE, by Sarah Ruden.
Segal is a Jew and the inspiration for his book was his realization that the letters of Paul were among the oldest of non OT Jewish writings to survive. That Paul's thought sheds light not only on the faith of the early Church but also on the currents of thought seen among first century AD Jews.
Ruden is a Greek/Latin scholar who has translated many of the Classics. She's also a devout Quaker who used to believe most of the "liberal" attacks on and denigrations of Paul. HER inspiration was to reread the Apostle from the POV of how Greco-Roman society appeared to him, based on her deep knowledge of those times. And suddenly what Paul said finally made sense to her. Ruden drastically revised her view of him.
Was crucifixion a barbaric and savage method of execution? Yes, it was. AND it was still the means accepted by the Incarnate Logos to bring salvation to fallen mankind, thru His atoning death on the Cross. By his Incarnation and Passion Christ showed He was willing to accept everything human beings had to undergo.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Romans 1: 1-6: (paraphrase) Jesus was born a human being descended from David and designated Son of God BY his resurrection.
Phiippians 2: 5-11: (paraphrase) before birth, Jesus was in divine form; after birth, he was in the LIKENESS of a man; after death, God exalted him to the highest position, Lord. "Son" is not mentioned.
These propositions are inconsistent both with each other and with orthodox Christology.
Is this an attack and denigration or just an engagement with the texts?
Paul.
Sean,
The Good News Bible has:
"...they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised for ever! Amen." (Romans 9:5)
Paul.
A footnote in the Good News says that Titus 2: 13 might read:
"...the great God AND our Saviour Jesus Christ..."
"...the Son of the living God..." does not mean "God." Israel was a collective, adopted son of God.
"I have called my son out of Egypt" referred to Moses leading the Hebrews out of slavery.
Sean,
St Paul fully accepted the ancient barbaric idea that blood sacrifice atoned for sin. It was his revelation that Christ's death fulfilled this role. Understandably, you interpret Christ's death in a very different way. However, how can a scourging and am impalement be something that we should celebrate? (GOOD Friday.)
Paul.
(As a parent, I would hope to hear that my daughter had prevented, not shared, suffering.)
Kaor, Paul!
I will try to respond to the comments you made.
I don't see those inconsistencies you insist on seeing in the quotes taken from St. Paul. The Apostles were men of their times and had to write of what had been revealed to them in sometimes awkward ways.
You quoted from the Good News Version. Frankly, I dislike the GNV because it uses the "dynamic equivalence" method, in which the translator writes down what he THINKS the text means in easy, colloquial English. I prefer versions using "formal equivalence," in which the texts are rendered with more strictly literal accuracy, even if the results seem wooden or stilted. Nuances of translation can be discussed in footnotes.
That's why, most times, I prefer to quote from the Confraternity version of the NT. But I like the annotations for the New American Bible.
And I believe OT prophecies can be rightly applied in different ways. Yes, Israel the nation, was collectively the son of God. And those texts were reapplied to be used of Christ after St. Joseph took the infant Jesus and the BV to Egypt, to escape the murderous paranoia of Herod the Great.
And I still disagree with what you said about St. Peter's response to Christ's question. Esp. since the Lord Himself approved of that response, declaring it had been revealed to Peter by the Father.
Of course I agree with what St. Paul said about how Our Lord's atoning death on the Cross (and Resurrection) opened salvation to mankind. That's the POINT of the entire NT and proclaimed as such by the Church ever since then. And THAT is why what happened on Good Friday was GOOD. And commemorated as such ever since then.
I was unclear about those attacks on Paul written about by Sarah Ruden. She was focusing, among other things, on how "liberals" vilify what Paul said about women and homosexuals. It was reexamining what Paul said about those things from what he saw in Greco-Roman society from her own knowledge which suddenly made her able to understand Paul.
As for your daughter I would point out how women who are nurses or doctors do a LOT to prevent or ameliorate suffering.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't insist on finding inconsistences. I simply find them. (There is always the implication that sceptics have some ulterior motive.) The proposition that Christ BECAME the Son of God AFTER his death BY being resurrected surely contradicts the proposition that he already WAS the Son of God BEFORE his birth? And I still think that Paul mainly subscribed to the first view but also was inconsistent.
My remark about my daughter was a response to the view that God shared the worst of human suffering, my point being that it is better to prevent suffering than to share it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would still argue you see "inconsistencies" because the Apostles and Evangelists had to speak and write in ways that were not always clear. Which is why we need to keep in mind the totality of all the evidence given us by the NT. Not just this or that writer or book. And those "inconsistencies" has stimulated or caused many doctrinal controversies, which means there had to be someone with the authority to judge disputes. As a Catholic I believe that authority to be held by the Church when it speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Either by the Pope or by an ecumenical council presided over by him or his legates.
Nonetheless suffering exists. And I can't think of anything more noble or moving than God Himself being willing to share in the pains and griefs of mankind.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The discussion is at least moving on. Doctrinal disputes could be settled neither by reason nor by evidence so they could only be settled by the imposition of authority with the condemnation of heretics. How much freedom of expression was there for pagans, Jews or heretics when the Church wielded power in the Roman Empire?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It was not that simple! The complicating factor in the forth century disputes between Catholics and Arians (for example) was the state interfering in ecclesiastical matters. AND, more often than not, down to the First Council of Constantinople, it was the Arians who were suppressing the freedom of expression of their Catholic opponents. E.g., the Emperors Constantius II (r. 337-61) and Valens (r. 364-78) were Arians or Arian sympathizing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, whoever was at fault, my point is that, since doctrines were neither rationally nor empirically based, the only way to resolve a doctrinal dispute was to (try to) enforce/impose an answer on everyone whether they wanted it or not. There was no other way to do it. Bad news.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
What this means, I think, is that you don't believe Christianity to have supernatural origins, that it was not founded on or derived from revelations from God. That Christianity, and, by extension, every other religion, are merely man made constructs. Since I do believe Christianity to have been divinely founded, I do not accept your statement about "...since doctrines were neither rationally nor empirically based,..." Because doctrines about the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the authority of the popes, etc., cannot be proved, solved, or demonstrated the way problems, experiments, or equations can be in chemistry, physics, or mathematics. Questions about the faith and doctrines are BEYOND physics, and belongs more to the realm of metaphysics.
As a Catholic I believe Christ conferred on Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome, a unique authority only they can hold. The Scriptural basis for this can be found in Matthew 16.13-20 (esp. 18-19), Luke 22.32, and John 21.15-17. And support for this can be found as early as Clement I's "Letter to the Corinthians" or St. Ignatius of Antioch's "Letter to the Romans" (circa AD 110).
I am not saying that papal authority was fully developed from the beginning! That took centuries. I'm only saying that tradition is ancient and goes back to the earliest Christians. And led to the popes asserting that the decisions of even ecumenical councils needed to be ratified by them in order to be valid and binding. Also, once such a council has defined a disputed matter of faith, the Church has a right to ask her children to assent to that definition. Any who refused were excommunicated and left the Church.
I agree this was often badly handled and was attended by inflamed passions and very personal attacks on one another by both Catholics and the heretics. I'm reminded of how the Council of Trent handled a similar situation much more wisely. Those teachings of the Protestants which could not be accepted were condemned, yes, but the authors of the errors were not named or personally attacked.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course I don't believe in supernatural origins. I can account for belief in the resurrection naturalistically. Traumatized by Jesus' execution, the disciples reinterpreted scriptures to convince themselves that suffering and even the ignominious death of a criminal had been the way to Messiahship after all. They came to believe that Jesus was risen, spiritually inspiring their new interpretation of scripture. This easily became the story that the risen Jesus appeared in a closed room and expounded scripture to them. The tangible risen Jesus of Luke and John is a far cry from the blinding flash of light described by Paul.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but I find the scenario you propose implausible, impossible to accept. I don't believe a hundred or so men can convince themselves of a FALSEHOOD of the kind you argue was the case. If it had been as you say it was, too many who had also known Christ would have objected.
And St. Paul would agree. Again, I remind you of 1 Corinthians 15.1-11, where he insists on the reality of that tangible, literal resurrection of Christ.
No, the Church arose and spread because Christ actually rose from the dead. And the apparitions of the BVM reported at Lourdes and Fatima are also proofs, to me, of the supernatural being real. It's one of God's ways of saying: "See, I am real and so is the Church My Son founded."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People convince themselves of falsehoods all the time. Many did not accept the proclamation of the Resurrection. Apparitions of different kinds are well-attested phenomena.
Paul.
Paul affirms the Resurrection but not that resurrected bodies are tangible. He distinguishes between physical bodies and spiritual bodies and says the resurrected bodies are of the latter kind.
He also wrote that the Son would place himself under God who would rule over all. (1 Cor. 15:28)
If it is acknowledged that, in matters of faith, there are many differences, then the issue rests there whereas, if it continues to be maintained that the historical evidence in favour of Christianity is so overwhelming that everyone should accept it, then disagreement and argument continue.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe what you are basically asserting: that hundreds of people who testified to having seen and met the risen Christ suffered mass delusions and hallucinations.
Hundreds have tried and failed to debunk the apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima. And the most hostile and skeptical investigators have been forced to accept about 100 of the cures recorded at Lourdes as having no known cause. NO other faith has shrines where miracles were recorded and some were grudgingly conceded as having no known explanation.
You are still mistaken about St. Paul and the Resurrection. He too believed Christ tangibly and literally rose from the dead. That does not contradict also believing in a spiritual interpretation of that event. I repeat, 1 Cor. 15.1-11 refutes your view.
Christianity is not only a historical phenomenon, but also bases its claims on what it un-yieldingly declares were historical facts: the birth of Christ (and His Incarnation), the Passion and Resurrection, and rise and spreading of the Church. These are matters of both faith and history.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Hundreds? I think that this figure is cited once by Paul. But that is not enough for us to accept it now. (And he had heard it from someone else.)
Where does Paul say that the risen body is tangible?
If Christ existed (which I accept), then he was born, of course.
The Church spread because Paul preached and people were looking for a new message.
It is a historical fact that Peter proclaimed the resurrection but he neither mentioned nor pointed to an empty tomb. That came into the Gospels later. Peter's main argument in his Pentecost sermon is quotations from scripture. Parenthetically, to back up his scriptural arguments, he mentions that they are witnesses without divulging any details. Evangelicals to this day bear witness to their encounters with Christ which do not mean that they met, saw, spoke and shook hands with him.
Some cures are unexplained, of course. There is such a thing as faith healing. A hypnotist cured what he thought was a psychosomatic skin condition which turned out to have had a chemical cause.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, hundreds. Besides the Twelve and the Seventy, Our Lord had many other followers during His earthly ministry.
Until proven otherwise, I see no reason not to accept what St. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15.5-6: "...and that he [Christ] appeared to Cephas, and after that to the Eleven. Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at one time, many of whom are with us still, but some have fallen asleep."
Also, I have repeatedly cited 1 Cor. 15.1-11 as showing us how Paul empathically believed in the actual, literal resurrection of Christ.
Apologies, but you seemed FIXATED on Paul, overlooking how there were other apostles and disciples of Christ, such as Peter, James, Barnabas, Apollos, etc. The Church spread because of THEIR efforts as well. Paul was not the founder of Christianity and even called himself the LEAST of the apostles.
It does not matter if Peter had little interest in the empty tomb. Why should it when what was important was the Resurrection of Christ? And some of those "details" were given in the gospels accounts of the Resurrection and the oft cited text from 1 Cor. 15.
No offense, but your last comments, about cures and hypnotism, was weak. You yourself brought to my attention a truly spectacular cure recorded at Lourdes: an Italian dying of bone cancer was INSTANTANEOUSLY cured when placed in the waters at Lourdes. A case solidly verified and recorded by many physicians and scientists.
It seems we are gong to have to agree to disagree about Christ, His Resurrection, the Apostles, miracles, and the supernatural.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the only written accounts of the Resurrection are by Paul and the Evangelists. Matthew says that the disciples went to Galilee and that some doubted even as they saw the risen Jesus. Luke's and John's accounts are set in Jerusalem and are inconsistent. John clearly writes narratives to make a point. 500 written, detailed, mutually consistent statements signed by reliable witnesses would be strong evidence. The mere figure of 500, cited once, is not. There is not enough evidence to verify what happened. If there were, it would be a historical record, not an article of faith.
Paul founded Christianity as a Gentile religion. The Jerusalem Christians were a new sect within Judaism.
We do not understand the miracle cures or many other things but these do not provide evidence for the Resurrection.
Paul.
Paul's belief in resurrection is not doubted but there is a difference between his "spiritual body" and the tangible resurrected body of the Evangelists.
Kaor, Paul!
And the only written contemporary accounts we have of the Roman conquest of Gaul is Julius Caesar's GALLIC WAR, but that's no reason, unless shown otherwise, for doubting his accuracy. My observation has been that anti-Christians insist on the highest standards of accuracy by Christians but setting much lower bars for others. (Shrugs)
So I will continue to say that, until proven otherwise, I have no reason to doubt what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15.5-6.
Of COURSE many would doubt the Lord had actually risen from the dead, as did, famously, the doubting Thomas. I would expect the different writers to select varying details in their accounts of the risen Christ. And in recent decades many writers has been admitting John's gospel contains more history than was previously thought by "modernist" writers.
And I have not been denying the Resurrection of Christ can be understood in a spiritual way, only that it was BOTH an actual resurrection and a spiritual event. And St, Paul himself would agree. Your argument has been that Paul preached only a figurative, "spiritual" resurrection, and I have repeatedly pointed out 1 Cor. 15-1-11 as evidence Paul believed in an actual resurrection of Christ. I hope you will concede that point.
Inaccurate, what you said about Paul founding Christianity as a gentile religion. You are overlooking St. Peter's role in the first ten chapters of Acts in opening Christianity to non-Jews. No, Christ founded Christianity. And we see Peter continuing to agree with that opening to non-Jews in Acts 15.
My point about the cures recorded at Lourdes, such as the Vittorio Micheli case, is that I believe they provide evidence for the reality of the supernatural. Those who don't are free to do so, but they have failed to explain what happens at Lourdes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I did not say "figurative." (We are not communicating.) I QUOTE Paul as distinguishing between a spiritual body and a physical body and writing that the latter cannot become immortal. I do not need to concede because I have already agreed that Paul believed in the Resurrection. The tangible resurrected body in Luke and John is different from the mere light and voice in Paul's account. These are very different accounts of the Resurrection.
I keep saying that I do not understand what happens in Lourdes. Those events ARE prima facie evidence for something supernatural.
Of course we demand a higher standard of evidence for a less probable event. I do not question a child who says that she saw a neighbour in the street but do question her if she says that she saw the King in the street.
David Hume's argument: In our experience, men often lie or err but are never resurrected. Therefore, any past account of a resurrection is always more likely to be a deception or an error than true.
Paul was told that Jesus had appeared at one time to 500 people. No way is that enough for us now to accept that a dead man did appear to 500 people. There are other, likelier explanations of why that story was told to Paul. We can start by asking whether the number was exaggerated and go on to ask what exactly happened. Someone addressed a crowd proclaiming the resurrection and was misunderstood by some of those present as claiming that he himself was the person who had been resurrected? I do not say that this happened. My point is that we do not know what happened.
Certainly we can say that it does sound as if the man on the road to Emmaus was not Jesus.
At the end of Matthew's Gospel, the disciples did not stay in Jerusalem but went to Galilee to see the risen Jesus. Matthew writes that some of the eleven doubted that they were seeing him. That is not a convincing account.
My only point here is that doubt is quite valid in all these circumstances.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Many thanks for your patience with me, esp. when I misunderstand you.
What Saul of Tarsus saw on the road to Damascus was a bit of the blinding glory of the Risen Lord. It was Christ's way of getting thru to Saul, breaking thru his obstinate hostility to realizing Christ is Lord and Savior.
Catholics don't tend to think of rigidly "...distinguish[ing] between a spiritual body and a physical body..." because they are both rightly "part" of Christ. That is, Christ's risen body was transformed and glorified (and made immortal) by His Resurrection.
The point I was making by "higher standards" was how I've observed anti-Christians putting their thumbs on the scales to disfavor the Christian side in these debates and favoring their preferred view. Bias and dishonesty of that kind does exist.
I fear we are going to have to disagree about 1 Cor. 15.5-6. Absent evidence to the contrary, I see no reason not to accept what Paul wrote there.
And I do believe the man those two disciples met on the road to Emmaus was Christ.
I disagree with David Hume because I believe the Resurrection of Christ disproves his view. Moreover, unless Hume was an atheist, what he said amounts to denying God can raise the dead to life, if He so wishes. Also, the raising of Lazarus by Christ contradicts Hume.
I interpret the incident you cited from Matthew very differently. I can easily imagine what a storm of clashing and contradictory emotions and thoughts were being felt by the apostles in those first days after the Resurrection. E.g., stunned disbelief, wonder, amazement, incredulity, joy, etc. What else would be so natural in the face of such a shattering event? It speaks well for Matthew that he wrote as he did.
Ad astra! Sean
And the miracles recorded at Lourdes also contradicts Hume's view. I am glad you agree those events were/are prima facie evidence for SOMETHING supernatural going on there.
Sean,
I certainly think that the raising of Lazarus was not a historical event but a story written by the author of the Fourth Gospel - also the Marriage Feast at Cana.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, unsurprisingly, I disagree. If Christ is God as well as man, then He certainly had the power to raise the dead and transform water into wine. I also point out how recent writers are now conceding John's Gospel has more history in it than had previously been thought.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, history in the Passion narrative but not in the miracles!
Transforming water into wine is a parable of replacing water of purification with the wine of communion.
There is nothing like the raising of Lazarus in the Synoptics although there is a parable in which it is requested or suggested that a man called Lazarus be sent back from the dead. Alan Moore told me he knew which Egyptian myth the raising of Lazarus was based on.
Hebrew writers did write stories to make points.
Of course, if Christ was omnipotent, then he could do all these things but that begs the question.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, I disagree, because I believe Our Lord did perform miracles. And one of the most striking characteristics reported of His miracles was of how they happened by a direct word of command by Christ. With no need of rituals or acting thru power delegated by God.
The water turned to wine at Cana does have eucharistic interpretations, but that does not prove the miracle did not happen.
And the raising of Lazarus was not the only time Christ raised dead persons back to life. I refer to the widow of Nain's son in Luke 7.11-17. And His raising of Jairus' daughter is reported in all three of the Synotics: Matthew 9.18-26, Mark 5.21-43, and Luke 8.40-56.
We agreed SOMETHING supernatural is going on at Lourdes. My belief that what is happening there are miracles by the BVM, acting thru power delegated to her by her Son. If miracles happens at Lourdes now, I again see no reason to think it impossible for Christ to perform them during the reign of Tiberius.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
How can Christ's resurrection disprove Hume's argument? According to that argument, any accounts of a resurrection are less likely to be true than alternative explanations of the accounts. The cures at Lourdes do not disprove Hume's argument because these cures do happen in the experience of the people involved.
That the miracle at Cana has a eucharistic interpretation does not disprove the miracle? The onus is on the believer to prove, not on the sceptic to disprove. (This point keeps recurring.)
I did not agree that something supernatural is happening at Lourdes. I agreed that the cures are prima facie evidence for something supernatural. The scientific approach is to continue to seek explanations for as yet unexplained phenomena.
An Evangelical told me that the Lourdes cures are demonic. I do not believe that either.
The point is not that it was impossible for Jesus to heal. In fact, I believe that he was a powerful faith healer. One story shows him employing a technique that had to be used twice before the man could see properly. (Soil and spittle.) Others indicate that he became tired after too much healing. One passage says that he could do no signs in his hometown because people knew him there. (Mystique was necessary.)
The raising of Lazarus is different because Lazarus had been in a tomb for a couple of days. Jesus said that the girl was merely sleeping.
Paul.
The Public Library has got me an abridgement of Fr. Brown's book and THE CONSCIOUS MOND by David Chalmers. I will read the latter first.
In an argument between a believer and a sceptic:
the believer is obliged to prove/back up/substantiate his claims;
the sceptic is not obliged to disprove any such claims;
if both parties have firmly held points of view, then either the points of view will not be changed in any way by the exchange or possibly there will be some slight modifications over time;
when the exchange becomes repetitive, then it is time for it to stop;
one rule of engagement should be that each regards the other as at least honest in what he is saying;
Evangelicals in particular speak only on the assumption and that their belief is true and therefore are incapable of engaging with any alternative point of view.
One too many "and"s in that last clause.
Kaor, Paul!
Speaking broadly, I remain unconvinced by Hume's arguments against miracles. But since this is becoming repetitive I will set Hume aside.
You wrote: "I agreed that the cures [at Lourdes] are prima facie evidence for something supernatural." I THOUGHT you were agreeing with me. And the Medical Bureau at Lourdes does exactly that, document and investigate alleged miracles.
Christ was more than a mere faith healer. I see no difficulty in the story about Him making mud with His spittle for the man born blind and then telling him to wash his eyes. Because Christ sometimes used different methods for His miracles.
Lazarus had been dead for two or three days. That made his resurrection by Christ all the MORE awesome. And Christ's use of "sleep" for Jairus' daughter merely meant He would soon "wake" her from death. Also, it's a common metaphor in Semitic literature/culture to use "sleep" for "dying." E.g., "And he [Asa] slept with his fathers and was buried with them in the city of David his father" (3 Kings 15.24).
I hope Fr. Brown's AN INTRODUCTION TO NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY interests you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Prima facie" means "on the first impression." Thus, in Stieg Larsson's MILLENNIUM TRILOGY, Lizbeth Salander's fingerprints are on a murder weapon. That is prima facie evidence that she committed the murder. In fact, she had handled the weapon before someone else used it to commit murder.
Paul.
The story of Jesus' miraculous powers had grown by the time the Fourth Gospel was written.
Kaor, Paul!
Understood, your explanation of "prima facie."
And one of the things, among others, all four gospels have in common is Christ performing miracles.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment