The narrator swears by:
"...Christ-Osiris-Baldr-Xipe..." (p. 46)
Sf writers sometimes put a fictional future item onto the end of a list like that. Not knowing either way, I had to google "Xipe." Let's take them one at a time:
Thus, four dying and rising deities are conflated together in true pagan style. Baldr was a failed resurrection. The gods failed to secure his release from Hel but he will return after the Ragnarok in any case together with a mighty lord who might be a Christian influence. See Voluspa.
Death and resurrection is obviously a powerful myth. Aldous Huxley in The Perennial Philosophy surprisingly condemned what he called a blasphemous and idolatrous focus on things and events in time which insists on a physical and historical resurrection. In the case of Christ, a man has been deified and identified with, among other powerful figures, the dying and rising deity which is clearly mythological in the other three examples.
19 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, some parts of the ELDER EDDA may have been influenced by contact with Christianity.
No, Christ was not "made" a God, as the Second Person of the Trinity He became truly incarnate as man and truly died on the Cross and rose from the dead. History, not a mere myth.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That Jesus was God incarnate is a theological, not a historical, statement.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, something happened at the Conception and the Passion of Christ which had such tremendous consequences the entire world was in time utterly transformed by it. And the mere existence of that belief in the divinity of Christ is also a historical fact.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The existence of a belief is a historical fact, obviously. That is a rather desperate appeal to historicity!
The "Conception" was merely a conception. What happened at the Passion was that a Messianic claimant was executed as a criminal so that his followers were disillusioned and had to reinterpret scripture to convince themselves that suffering had after all been the prophesied way to Messiahship and to a spiritual (not initially physical) resurrection as described by Paul. The Roman Empire adopted Christianity, i.e., Jewish monotheism freed from divisive dietary laws and circumcision, as a unifying belief. This did not transform the world. The Empire did not last.
Paul.
Also, Jews and Pagans alike accepted the barbaric idea of blood sacrifice so there was a universal appeal in the new message that one perfect sacrifice efficacious for all time made repeated animal sacrifices unnecessary. We can now leave this idea behind us in history.
Kaor, Paul!
Wrong, the Conception of Christ after the BVM gave her Fiat was not a simply human conception.
And I was recalling how Stirling said that existence of the belief in the divinity, etc., of Christ was itself a historical fact.
I totally disbelieve the "Modernist" explaining away of Christ and Christianity as a lie concocted by the Apostles because it is logically and psychologically unconvincing. It is not reasonable to think so people, such as the Apostles and the Seventy, would agree that Our Lord rose from the dead when He had not. Or that so many would persevere in that lie for decades with none of them eventually denouncing that falsehood. Or, most unlikely of all, become martyrs for that lie--unless it was absolutely true. A point made by St. Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 15.12-19, where he stressed that only the literal resurrection of Christ made sense of Christianity.
Again, wrong, I see nothing barbaric, per se, in sacrificing animals to the true God in the OT. That was a type or foreshadowing of the once and for all perfect sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Wrong. The appearance of the angel Gabriel to Mary is not a historical event! It is simply one of several stories expressing the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. It is only found in Luke's Gospel.
Of course it is a historical fact that people believed various things.
Christianity was not a lie told by the Apostles. They convinced themselves of their new interpretation of scripture and believed what they said. They did believe that Jesus was risen and present in a spiritual body. It does not follow from this that their belief was absolutely true. BELIEF in resurrection did indeed make sense of Christianity.
Again wrong. (We can both use that word!) We obviously differ about whether shedding blood as a sacrifice to a deity is barbaric. I regard the idea that the one God would accept the impalement of His Son as a perfect sacrifice as ultimately barbaric.
The Buddha said that the best sacrifice was an offering not of blood to the gods but of food to the poor. Surely this makes more sense morally if nothing else?
If the central claims of Christianity were indeed so indisputably true, then acceptance of Christianity would be not an act of faith but an acknowledgement of historical evidence like the way that we accept accounts of the English Civil War and similar events.
I remember what it was like first to be brought up accepting a religious belief and secondly to feel a need to defend that belief. I am convinced that at least some apologists are trying to reassure themselves that what they believe is true but they need to reply to what is in fact being said on the other side. For example, I fully agree that the Apostles did not proclaim lies or perpetrate a hoax. If everything had happened as described in the Gospels, then it would have been a simple matter afterwards of going to a particular tomb and checking whether it was empty or not. But neither Peter's Pentecost sermon nor Paul's letters mention either a tomb burial or an empty tomb. The pious story of a decent burial in an unused tomb grew up (I think) in the oral tradition before the first Gospel was written.
Paul.
BTW, I do not believe that either of us is "Right" or "Wrong." Far more likely that both of us are wrong in all sorts of ways. The Truth is bigger than we can possibly imagine.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree. I believe Our Lady was asked by God to give her consent to becoming the mother of the Messiah. This is just the anti-supernaturalism you favor speaking.
Again, no. I do not believe the Twelve and the Seventy convinced themselves of the truth of what would have to be called a delusion. That new interpretation of the Scriptures came about because of the literal Resurrection of Christ. Again, this is just anti-supernaturalism speaking.
Again, I disagree, what you said about the Deicide on the Cross. I firmly believe the Passion of Christ was accepted of His own free will to bring salvation to mankind.
Again, no, what you said about sacrifices. Prayers and offerings to God does not mean being unable to show charity to the weak and poor. Long before Buddha was born the Prophets of Israel were castigating the Jews for oppressing the weak or offering sacrifices without the proper interior motivations.
Christianity is based on revelation and its supreme proof was the Resurrection of Christ. And that will always have to remain a matter of assent and faith. Most people have no problem accepting the truth of Julius Caesar but many will deny the Gospels, because of the supernatural events recorded.
But I can turn your last paragraph against the antisupernaturalists by saying they have a similar need to deny the claims of Christianity. The anti-Christian writers you favor work hard to write ingenious but strained and unconvincing arguments based on opposition to Christian beliefs.
Why on Earth should Peter and Paul even bother to mention a "empty tomb" when they both proclaimed the literal Resurrection of Christ? By definition the tomb would be empty, and reported as such by the Gospels. The Resurrection is what matters, not a tomb!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the fact that the Annunciation is described in that one text, Luke's Gospel, is no proof that such an event happened. That is not anti-supernaturalism speaking. It is just a perfectly valid comment on the text.
I just don't get it. You are merely asserting that a literal Resurrection occurred. That has to be proved. Asking for proof is perfectly legitimate. It is not "anti-supernaturalism speaking." Yes, the Apostles proclaimed the Resurrection but that can be sufficiently explained by the fact that they were convinced that there had been a Resurrection. Their conviction can be sufficiently explained by their having reread and reinterpreted scripture and become convinced that it had prophesied that the Messiah (the Suffering Servant) would suffer and die and then be resurrected. He had suffered and died so must have been resurrected. He was, they thought, spiritually present confirming their new understanding. To this day, Evangelicals talk about meeting the risen Christ and do not mean by that that he was visible and tangible - although, of course that visibility and tangibility did get written into the Gospel accounts where it is entirely subordinate to the primary theme of the confirmation of prophesied resurrection.
Paul.
Rules of evidence again: Someone has to prove, not just assume, that not only empirical natural events but also occasional supernatural events occur.
Sean,
Continued:
You believe that the Passion brought salvation. That is not a historical proposition but a theological interpretation of a historical event.
I did not say that prayer and offerings to God make anyone unable to practice charity! Where did that idea come from? (But we can have the charity without the shedding of blood.)
But of course accounts of supernatural events make it harder to accept particular texts! It makes perfect sense to accept accounts of natural events involving Caesar but to question accounts of supernatural events involving a prophet or Messiah! There is no inconsistency in that.
There is nothing strained or unconvincing about explanations of the origin of Christianity that do not refer to the supernatural. It is supernaturalists who must demonstrate that there is a supernatural, not antisupernaturalists who must demonstrate that there is not a supernatural. This rule of evidence keeps being missed. If Christian doctrines require assent and faith, then this is precisely because they are not in the same category as natural events in the life of Caesar.
Peter and Paul would mention an empty tomb, if there was one, for the same reason the Evangelists did, as evidence. The tomb would be important as evidence of a resurrection. It is not a matter of definition that a tomb would be empty if there was a resurrection because it is not a matter of definition that a body would be buried in a tomb. Crucifixion victims were thrown in a mass grave. Paul, writing before the Evangelists, wrote about a physical body going into the earth like a seed and a qualitatively different kind of "spiritual body" rising from the earth like a plant. That is not a physical body resucitated in a tomb - where, in any case, a body that had lost consciousness after a few hours of impalement might have still been alive and regained consciousness.
Paul.
Paul ridiculed the idea of the original fleshly body still being found anywhere after the completely different kind of "spiritual body" had grown. "You foolish man!" Paul's experience of the risen Christ was of a blinding light and a voice, not of a tangible individual walking down the road who could be seen and conversed with, who could shake hands etc. Paul's experience is also psychologically explicable by the stress he was under, defending the Law but also finding it impossible to live by the Law, then suddenly finding release by switching to the new belief that he had been zealously persecuting. People do undergo personal crises in which they can see visions and hear voices. We have to examine the stages that the new belief went through while it was forming and was very gradually differentiating itself from Judaism. Petrine Christians worshipped in the Temple and Paul was arrested making an offering there. Christianity did not spring ready formed from the brow of Zeus.
Finally (for now) (perhaps), I know some theologians and know of others who, while of course disagreeing with what I am saying, would acknowledge that I am presenting a reasoned point of view that cannot be quickly and easily dismissed as "anti-supernaturalism speaking." On that basis, an informed and informative discussion cannot even get off the ground. We expect, most of the time, still to disagree after an exchange but also to have learned something in the process, not just to have reinforced what each of us had thought in the first place. This is difficult but we can start to move towards it. Maybe. My views have changed completely over a lifetime, not just after one disagreement. And I hope to live for another twenty years.
Kaor, Paul!
As regards St. Luke's Account of the Annunciation, no proof--but only for those who don't share the faith of Christians in the truth/divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
I also don't believe in the very late dating of Luke/Acts by those who advocate for the Q/Two Source theory. Luke ends Acts with St. Paul's first Roman captivity around AD 60-61. I don't buy that because, if he had written after AD 70, why didn't he mention Paul's hoped for journey to Hispania, the great fire of Rome, Nero's persecution of the Christians, the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, the Jewish revolt and the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, etc., if writing after AD 70? Too much is omitted that a historian would naturally include!
No, Luke was active in the 40's and 50's of the first century, and had contact with eyewitnesses who had known and met Our Lord. Including, I believe, traditions about the BVM and the Annunciation.
You are also making an assertion, that the Resurrection of Christ was not an actual event, only metaphorical or figurative, so the early Christians could make use of the Suffering Servant oracles of Isaiah. On this matter we cannot agree, because Peter and Paul did believe in and proclaimed the Resurrection of Christ. I have repeatedly cited 1 Corinthians 15.12-19 where Paul made that very plain, including discussing the eyewitnesses who had seen the risen Christ. The supernatural claims of orthodox Christianity makes sense only because of the supernatural events denied by the antisupernaturalists.
I see nothing intolerably implausible in Christ being decently buried--not if men of wealth and influence, such as Joseph of Arimathea, could intercede with Pilate about His burial.
I agree that writers like James Crossley can make reasoned arguments against Christianity--as can those who don't agree with them. And I believe the antisupernaturalists are wrong.
You expressed dislike to how OT Jews sacrificed animals to God. That looked like dislike for any formal liturgical worship, which can be offensive to Catholics, Orthodox, and some high church Protestants.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Come on! Disliking animal sacrifice is not the same as disliking liturgy. We used liturgy to prepare for meditation in our Zen group.
Paul.
If a natural explanation of an event is possible, then a supernatural explanation is unnecessary: Occam's razor. We explain lightning as atmospheric electricity, not as an action by Zeus or Thor. That is not anti-supernaturalism. It is an explanation.
To deny the supernatural is not to deny that Christianity is based on belief in the supernatural.
Peter and Paul believed in the Resurrection as a real supernatural event, confirmed by witnesses like Paul himself who saw a blinding light, not a tangible body. Neither Peter nor Paul describes a dead body placed in a tomb, returning to life, coming out of the tomb and interacting physically by speaking, eating food etc. Evangelicals to this day claim to encounter Christ without meaning that he visibly walked along a road or into a room.
It is possible that Jesus was thrown into a mass grave like other crucifixion victims and it is also possible that Joseph of Arimathea intervened to have him buried in a tomb. We do not know exactly what happened.
It should be possible just to discuss the evidence without arguing back and forth between two points of view.
Kaor, Paul!
And that is what we are doing: exchanging opposing POV. And I believe your use of Occam's Razor is misplaced, because Trinitarian Christians believe the supernatural is real, that God can and does intervene in our mundane world and history (e.g., Lourdes). Also, Occam's Razor supports an earlier, not later dating for Luke/Acts, for the reasons I've given.
Good, you at least concede the possibility of Joseph of Arimathea arranging for Christ's burial. That is a start.
The accounts we have of the Resurrected Christ emphasizes how tangible He was to the Apostles, including Peter. Such as speaking, eating, and touching them. And Catholics also believe Christ can appear in visions to whoever He wishes.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because I don't believe the evidence we have supports the views of the antisupernaturalists.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course it is possible! Acknowledging that doesn't concede anything. It is also possible that the tomb story grew up in the oral tradition.
I am not talking about the dates of Luke or Acts.
Of course we know that the Gospels describe the risen Christ as tangible. That is why I differentiate them from the earlier accounts that don't.
Again, a mere statement that some people believe that the supernatural is real.
JB Phillips saw and conversed with the deceased CS Lewis. Phillips' wife, present at the time, saw that her husband was looking at and addressing someone although she neither saw nor heard Lewis. I do not deny that people sometimes have such experiences. Maybe it means that the dead survive and can communicate although I remain sceptical on other grounds.
I suggest that:
the man on the road to Emmaus was not Jesus;
Peter, traumatized by guilt and bereavement, could easily have projected a vision of the deceased;
Paul's vision is psychologically explicable - conflict and stress followed by blindness and a voice;
Matthew's Gospel says that the disciples had to go to Galilee to see the risen Jesus and that, when they saw him, "some doubted" - so, even by that account, it was not a clear cut issue.
We each need to try to understand what the other is in fact saying, not just interpret it in a way that we find easy to disagree with. Thus, I do not deny that Paul was convinced of the reality of the Resurrection but I have said how I interpret his vision. Also, Paul believed that Jesus would return while some converts were still alive, right after he, Paul, had completed his mission to the Gentiles. One convert questioned the delay and Paul replied by making up the story of the Rapture. 2000 years is a very long wait.
Jesus was meant to fulfil the Abrahamic tradition, not start a new tradition. The Kingdom, initially seen as "at hand," had to be reinterpreted in the 4th Gospel as "not of this world."
All of this does not mean necessarily that I am right but it certainly means that the orthodox belief is very far from being obviously and indisputably right.
All the NT accounts of the Resurrection are mutually inconsistent. They are clearly not eye witness accounts written soon after the events described. It is impossible to construct a single coherent account.
This has been not a discussion but a rigid refusal to consider any alternatives. I do not think that anything has been learned by either side.
Post a Comment