Weber approaches, but does not quite reach, an understanding of what is about to happen:
"Hadn't that xenologist once said something about the death and resurrection of the fertility god in may primitive cultures throughout the Galaxy? Symbol of the grain, buried and rising anew, of old generations dying and new generations springing from their loins, of summer which dies and is buried under winter and rises again in spring....So I am to be resurrected today, eh? Cosmos, I need it - ouch, my head -" (p. 133)
Poul Anderson spells it out as far as he can without giving away the ending. Weber must be physically killed before he can be symbolically resurrected. (In another culture, it is necessary to die before being canonized.)
Let us keep mythologies about dying and rising gods without either human sacrifice or the celebration of an historical impalement.
23 comments:
Shows it pays to read anthropology if you're going to remote places... 8-).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul
Both: Or Weber should have read William H. Prescott's HISTORY OF THE CONQUEST OF MEXICO! The warlike human sacrificing culture we see in "Teucan" strongly resembled the Aztec Empire.
Paul: No Christian can agree with your last sentence. The Crucifixion of Christ was precisely the means willed by God from all eternity for bringing salvation to mankind. Christians should be awed, humbled, and full of gratitude that God so loved our wretched, Fallen race that He humbled Himself to dying on the Cross to open the way to that salvation for us.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You celebrate an impalement by claiming that it is a means to salvation.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, at every Mass, every Easter, Catholics remember the atoning sacrifice of Christ on His Cross. The Cross is no longer an instrument or symbol of an agonizing death. It is the symbol of the triumph of Christ over Satan, sin, and death. It is the throne of Christ in a very real way.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that that is celebrating an impalement.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
A celebration of how salvation was brought to mankind.
Ad astra! Sean
By an impalement.
Kaor, Paul!
And the Cross is no longer a symbol of torture to Christians. We focus on its positive, not negative meaning.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But it can't possibly have a positive meaning! Traumatized by a failed Messiahship, the disciples reinterpreted scriptures as prophesying that suffering, death and resurrection were the way to Messiah-hood except that the texts quoted by Peter at Pentecost prove nothing, he does not describe any of the Resurrection appearances and he makes no reference either to a tomb burial or to an empty tomb. That story developed later.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And you are mistaken at every point, your cardinal error being your refusal to accept the reality of the supernatural, the actual, literal resurrection of Christ. That is what mattered to St. Peter and the other Apostles. Since the Resurrection is what they proclaimed, then of course the tomb of Christ would be empty.
Which means the Cross has a positive meaning.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am correct at every point. (I do not usually express myself like that but I am merely replying in kind.)
I do not refuse to accept an assumption. I need to be given reasons why I should accept that assumption. Those who see no reason to accept the supernatural are not obliged to disprove the supernatural. Those who do affirm the supernatural are obliged to give reasons for their affirmation. We are permanently stuck on this fundamental logical point. I just have to accept the supernatural, actual, literal resurrection of Christ? No. I need to be persuaded of it.
There is no "of course" about any of this. Crucifixion victims were thrown in a mass grave. The pious story of a decent burial in an unused tomb could easily have grown in the oral tradition before the first Gospel was written. Indeed, the story seems to have grown in this way. It is mentioned neither by Peter at Pentecost nor in Paul's letters. Mark ends his account by saying that the women told no one of the empty tomb as if he is trying to explain why this story had not been heard before. Of course the other Evangelists contradict this. They are mutually inconsistent. After the Crucifixion, the disciples would have been either dead or fled so they would not have been around to see what happened.
"Of course" the tomb was empty if Christ was buried in a tomb and if he was physically resurrected. This is a set of assumptions. Paul mocks a merely physical resurrection and insists on a qualitatively different "spiritual" resurrection, meaning not that it didn't happen but that it was like a plant growing from a seed, not a body coming back to life.
I think that we should discuss all this, not just contradict each other. If I am told that I am mistaken at every point, then I will just reply that I am right at every point. Then we just have to start all over again.
But you have invested all value and meaning in this one belief so that the kind of discussion that I would prefer becomes impossible. Skeptical arguments have to be totally rejected instead of merely discussed.
Paul.
1 Corinthians 15.
BTW, I invest some time and effort in a particular spiritual practice and in a certain view of society but I do not condemn as mistaken at every point people who see things differently from me. I think that that kind of polarization is both unnecessary and unhelpful.
Kaor, Paul!
If I seemed too sharp, I'm sorry about that. But I will continue to absolutely reject these anti-Christian claims by the writers you favor. They are strained, desperate, unconvincing attempts at "de-mythologizing," debunking the supernatural claims of Christianity.
And that makes sense. People who dislike Christianity will naturally tend to write like that. If they can convince the world Christ is not divine, did not rise from the dead, that the apostles were either liars/con men or deluded self-hypnotized fools, then Christianity will become empty of all meaning and die out. That is, bluntly, what many anti-Christians hope for.
I disagree with what you said about how those who deny the supernatural claims of Christianity don't have to disprove. The writers you favor invest a of effort in trying to do exactly that.
The supreme proof of Christianity remains the Resurrection of Christ, which can only be accepted or rejected.
Disagree with what you said about the burial of Christ. We have discussed before how Our Lord had among His followers some who were men of wealth and influence, such as Joseph of Arimathea. Given that it's not unreasonable to believe Joseph could have asked Pilate for the body of Christ, a request which the Prefect would have no reason to refuse.
Disagree, with your erroneous comments about St. Paul. He never denied or mocked the actual, literal resurrection of Christ. He makes very plain his belief the Lord actually rose from the dead in 1 Corinthians 15, esp. verses 12-19. The Resurrection is not an either/or thing, it's both spiritual and actual.
I disagree with what you said about Mark's Gospel--because what matters is that he too wrote of how Christ actually rose from the dead. That is what matters.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I completely disagree with every single word that you have written.
The Resurrection has to be just accepted or rejected? No. It has to be proved by those who affirm it. If I claimed that someone I had known had just been resurrected, I would have to prove it.
Non-Christian interpretations or explanations of the New Testament narratives are not strained, desperate or unconvincing. I find them quite straightforward. It is not strained to suggest that the man on the road to Emmaus was not Jesus or that the appearances to Peter and Paul are explicable as traumatic experiences.
Some people claim to be Christians while demythologizing Christian supernaturalism. People who simply do not accept Christianity do not do that. Do not confuse these two groups of people.
Logically, no one has to prove a negative. Positive assertions must be proved. We have to have clarity on that or we get nowhere. Which writers do I favour? Many writers who, like me, are interested in the subject do study the texts and explain why they do not accept supernaturalist claims. That is not trying to disprove anything. It is discussing the subject.
You have to do more than establish that a tomb burial was possible. Why did Peter at Pentecost not point at an empty tomb as evidence?
You disagree about Mark? He wrote that the women found an empty tomb but told no one about it. That he wrote that is a fact.
I did not make erroneous comments about Paul. I will get back to you about this. In the meantime, you misunderstand what I wrote about Paul. Of course he believed the Resurrection was real. I said that. The question is about the mode of the Resurrection.
Paul.
"People who dislike Christianity"? You are criticizing motives instead of just discussing issues. For that matter, there are people who "like" Christianity. These conflicting motives just cancel each other out. Let's just discuss the issues dispassionately. The disciples were neither liars nor fools but they suffered a big disappointment, convinced themselves of a new interpretation of scripture (Peter's Pentecost sermon) and believed that they were in touch with the risen Christ just as Evangelicals do to this day. "Anti-Christians" (not just non-Christians?) hope that Christianity will die out? Christians hope that it will not die out. Let's just discuss the issues.
I am now reading 1 Corinthians 15: 35 onwards. Paul writes that it is foolish to ask in what kind of body the dead will be raised. He continues: what is sown is not the body that will be but just a seed; the natural body is not the raised spiritual body; "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom..." (verse 50) OK? It is foolish to think that the raised body is the body that had died.
He says that there are different kinds of flesh which is not true.
Sean, You are not discussing. You are uncompromisingly arguing and attributing discreditable motives to your opponents. This makes discussion, to which I am committed, very difficult.
Kaor, Paul!
The supreme proof of Christianity remains the Resurrection of Christ. And I would add the history of Christianity supports that. Despite untold follies, blunders, vices, idiocies, etc., by Christians, the Faith has survived--because Christ promised He would always be with his Church.
I disagree with what you said about non-Christian misinterpretations of the NT. If they write from a POV denying the supernatural nature of the events recorded therein, they are contradicting what its human authors wrote, intended, believed, forcing into the texts meanings which are not there. That is bad literary criticism. At most such non-Christians should be content with saying they don't believe what the NT says. They can even suggest alternate explanations as long as they admit it's merely speculations which contradicts the NT texts.
So, yes, the Man on the road to Emmaus was the risen Christ, who had veiled His identity. Non-Christian "explanations" contradict the text.
The empty tomb is not important. All St. Peter cared about was proclaiming the Resurrection. Anyone who wanted more could talk to the eyewitnesses who had seen the risen Christ, which St. Paul himself did.
I do not accept as even heretical Christians anyone who denies the divinity and resurrection of Christ. They are simply not Christians.
Obviously, those women in Mark's gospel later told others about what they saw. One suggestion I've seen made sense to me: we only have the first draft of Mark's work, traditionally believed based on the preaching of Peter. Before a final text was finished, Peter was crucified during the persecution under Nero. In any case, the other two synoptics supplements Mark.
Yes, I do question the motives of at least some non-supernaturalist critics of the NT. You can't deny there are plenty of people hostile to Christianity.
Again, I do not believe what you insist on: that the Apostles suffered a traumatic disappointment and tried to rationalize what happened by saying they were in touch with a merely metaphorically (not actually) risen Christ. Strained, desperate, contradicting what the texts actually says.
I disagree with what you said about St. Paul. You are still overlooking what he insisted on in 1 Cor. 15.1-19, emphatically proclaiming his belief in the actual resurrection of Christ. The text you quoted should be understood as how Christ's resurrection also has other meanings. For the Catholic Church it's not an either/or, it's both/and. Christ's resurrection was/is both actual and has spiritual meanings.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
And all this has wandered far from the original point: your objection to believers in Christ using the Cross as a symbol of their faith. We are not obliged to heed what non-Christians say we should have for such symbols.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
There are other Christian symbols you probably like better, such as the Chi-Rho and the Fish. Sometimes they are also seen and used.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course people who write from a non-supernaturalist position contradict what the Evangelists wrote. That is just ordinary run-of-the-mill fully acceptable disagreement! It goes on all the time about everything.
The Resurrection is not proof of anything unless and until it is itself proved.
I will read the rest of your comments and might respond further but surely we can by now agree that this entire exchange is pointless if its purpose is perceived as being to get one or other of us to change his entire world view just after reading a few more (fairly repetitive) comments here? My reading of it is that you have a problem with accepting that you are simply and genuinely disagreed with and will continue to be disagreed with. You have to think that some of us really recognize that Christianity is true but are for some reason opposing it dishonestly. That accusation, if it is being made, is unwarranted and unacceptable.
Paul.
Sean,
Of course you are not obliged to heed what others say about symbols but I still stay that a cross was an instrument of torture and execution by impalement.
Paul.
Sean,
Non-Christians do say that they do not believe what the NT says. They do offer alternative explanations. They do say that they contradict the texts. They do not admit that these are mere speculations. They are well-founded interpretations.
Now I have been through everything (I think). Was there any point? I certainly do not want to repeat it all over again. You seem unwilling to accept that many well-informed and well-intentioned people simply disagree and see things differently from you. Somehow they are in the wrong for contradicting a text? People who claim to be Christians are in the wrong for contradicting the texts but not people who do not make such a claim. It is very difficult to get a level playing field for discussion here. You want to tip the playing field over into a presumption that you are right from the start - end of. I am trying to identify sticking points to prevent endless repetition in future. In fact, we must not repeat all this in the future. Either we find something new to say or we leave it.
Paul.
Post a Comment