OK. Scanning ahead, we find that download Guthrie comes back onstage in Chapter 28 but then is presented not from his own point of view but from that of a "Terran" - an original-stock human being as opposed either to a Lunarian or to a sophotect - called Fenn who has been the central character of intermediate chapters. We are going to have to backtrack and reread about Fenn, a more pedestrian character although that is my prejudice speaking.
Alone in a spaceship, Fenn is woken by the warning, "'Ship ahoy!'," then hears a "...rough male voice...'" asking "'Do you copy?'" (p. 350) in accented and archaic Anglo. The strange ship smoothly matches velocities in a way impossible for jets so - "Field drive -" (p. 351)
After boarding, self-introduction: "'My name's Anson Guthrie.'" (p. 353)
A historical name and Fenn is not even surprised. Plot strands merge as events approach their climax.
Meanwhile, I have always sensed a close connection between my interests in mythology, fantastic fiction and philosophy. Rereading CS Lewis' fictional letters on prayer, with their theistic account of creation and their literal understanding of the New Testament, is like reading an alternative history novel.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
One thing I think I recall from THE FLEET OF STARS is how "original stock" humans in the Solar System seem to have abandoned surnames. They only seem to have given names (and a code number?). Distasteful, no surnames.
Not surprised Fenn recognized Anson Guthrie, real or a download. I recall the former being keenly interested in ancient history, in times when humans were not the powerless pets of the Teramind. And of Fenn's anger and frustration.
Easter this week, when Christians remember the actual and literal Resurrection of Christ.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If the Resurrection were actual, literal and historical, then it would no longer be a matter of faith. Neither Peter nor Paul (the founders of Christianity) mentioned either a tomb burial or an empty tomb. The first Evangelist introduced those elements in order to make the Resurrection physical. Paul called it "spiritual."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course, the Resurrection was actual, literal, historical. Your argument fails because Peter and Paul were far more interested in proclaiming Who and what is Christ, His meaning. Also, in 1 Cor. 15, Paul discussed how he sought out eyewitnesses who had seen the Risen One. Which would make no sense if the Tomb was not empty.
We have to take many things on faith. E.g., we only have faith that ancient accounts of the life of Julius Caesar are basically correct. That also applies to the NT, guaranteed, as I believe by the Holy Spirit and the authority given by Him to the Church.
Incorrect, it was Christ, not Peter and Paul, who founded Christianity. I also recall the Great Commission in Matthew 28, where Christ commanded the apostles (and their successors) to proclaim the Gospel to all nations, for all time.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My argument doesn't fail! It is a valid argument.
You assume that there was a tomb to be emptied. Peter and Paul make no mention either of a tomb burial or an empty tomb. If you just assume that the account as given in the Gospels is true, then of course it follows that that account is true. You have invested faith and meaning in that account and therefore cannot afford to consider any alternative.
We do not have to take it on faith that Caesar existed. I think that there is enough evidence that both Caesar and Jesus existed although we know much about the former - we have his writings - and nothing but propaganda about the latter. The Holy Spirit and ecclesiastical authority are not evidence to someone who is merely reading and analyzing the NT documents.
Incorrect. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is risen. That belief could only have been founded after his death and therefore was not founded by him. His teaching was "The kingdom is at hand..."
Matthew was writing propaganda about Jesus speaking after the Resurrection.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, that "empty tomb" argument is not convincing. Besides 1 Cor. 15, I should have cited what Peter said in Acts 1.21-22, when the disciples of Christ met after His Ascension to choose a successor to Judas: "Therefore, of those men who have been in our company all the time that the Lord Jesus moved among us, from John's baptism until the day that he was taken up from us, of these one must become a witness with us of his resurrection." With Matthias being the fellow eyewitness replacing Judas.
This, along with 1 Cor. 15.1-11 rebuts the invalid "empty tomb" argument, with the incident from Acts being earlier than Paul's letter. There was no need for Peter and Paul to bother about that tomb, due to knowing it was empty.
Except Caesar's writings has to be used with caution, due to him writing propaganda. The Gospels and the rest of the NT have all that the Holy Spirit wished the Church to teach men for their salvation. Not propaganda.
Still incorrect, you overlook how it was Christ who chose the Apostles and commanded them to teach to all nations after His resurrection. He founded the faith that came to be called Christianity.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not overlook anything. I disagree with you about it! I can only accept that Jesus did anything after his Resurrection if I believe that he was resurrected!
Witnesses of the Resurrection are alleged witnesses of the risen Jesus, not of an empty tomb. No need to bother about that tomb, knowing that it was empty? Surely it would have been evidence? But it is not mentioned because a tomb is not an issue either in Acts or in Paul's letters. The common practice was to throw crucifixion victims in a mass grave. The Resurrection was not in a reanimated physical body but in a qualitatively different kind of
"spiritual body," according to Paul. He scoffs at the idea of looking for the seed that has gone into the earth after the plant has grown.
The pious story of a decent burial in an unused tomb could have grown up in the oral tradition before the first Gospel was written: "We could not prevent the Resurrection but at least we were able to dispose of the body properly." After the crucifixion, the disciples would have been dead or fled and not have seen what happened.
Caesar existed and wrote propaganda. Jesus existed and propaganda was written about him.
I do not believe in the Holy Spirit. The Gospels propagate the belief that Jesus is risen, therefore are propaganda.
How do passages that do not mention a tomb rebut an invalid "empty tomb" argument? An entire world-view is invested in this so the argument is anything but dispassionate.
Paul.
Once a tomb had been introduced into the story, then there was an equation:
tomb burial + Resurrection = empty tomb as an additional piece of evidence
- but the disciples are not described as pointing out the empty tomb to anyone else. In fact, the women fleeing in fear from the empty tomb are said to tell no one. Was this detail inserted to explain to early Christians reading the Gospel why they had NOT heard of an empty tomb until now? Then the next elaboration was that that a guard had been placed on the tomb to prevent the body from being stolen and an angel must have rolled away the stone. Stories grow.
Of course, another narrative, which I no longer subscribe to, was the following, which DOES assume a tomb burial: a man lost consciousness after a few hours of impalement; his legs were not broken; the spear (if there was one) through his side missed his heart; he revived in the well ventilated tomb...
Someone seen alive after his reported death is usually evidence not that he is risen but that the report of his death was mistaken.
David Hume: In our experience, men often lie or err but never rise from the dead. Therefore, it is always more probable that a report of a resurrection is a lie or an error than is true.
I think that the disciples, traumatized by the crucifixion, reinterpreted scripture as prophesying that suffering and resurrection, not Davidic military conquest, were the way to Messiahship and convinced themselves that the risen Christ was spiritually present, confirming their new understanding. Luke writes not just that he appeared but that he appeared and expounded scripture. To this day, Evangelicals claim to have met Christ without meaning that he walked into a room, shook hands, sat at a table, ate fish etc. But Luke and John, in their mutually incompatible accounts, wrote it up as if he was visible and tangible. Paul only saw a blinding light - after the turmoil that he had put himself through.
Post a Comment