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.
21 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.
Kaor, Paul!
We have reached an impasse, I don't believe in these desperate anti-Christian arguments. Acts 1.21-22 and 1 Cor. 15.1-11 rebuts that "empty tomb" argument.
Nor do I believe in Hume's argument, based as it was on denial of the supernatural. The miracles recorded at Lourdes challenges/refutes those who think like that.
No, I will not accept that, to be frank, absurd and impossible "traumatized" argument. No faith based on nothing but an implausible mass self-delusion
could last as Christianity has done.
I am a Catholic, not an evangelical Protestant, so it doesn't really matter to me what they think. Btw, many Catholic saints have reported being granted actual visions/meetings with Christ or the BVM or other saints. Some of them grudgingly and reluctantly accepted as genuine by the dicastery which investigates such things.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
These arguments are not "desperate"! They are simply different from your understanding. If the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection were as historically well based as you claim, then the Resurrection would not be an article of faith but an accepted historical event like the execution of Socrates or the assassination of Caesar.
Acts 1: 21-22 just refers in general to everything from John's baptism to the Ascension without mentioning any details, certainly not a tomb. 1 Cor says that he died, was buried and was raised but does not mention a tomb.
Hume's argument is based not on denial of the supernatural but on experience and probabilities. You cannot begin merely by asserting the supernatural without giving good reasons for it. The miracles recorded at Lourdes refute what? I accept that there are as yet unexplained events and always will be.
It is not absurd or impossible to state that Paul was in a highly charged psychological state, first insisting on the Law and persecuting Christians, then blinded by a flash of light and hearing a voice. Mass self-delusion is not implausible. People do it all the time. Your argument sounds desperate. The faith brought together monotheism, morality and mythology and certainly provided a unifying world-view which satisfied needs in the Roman Empire and has adapted to every social change since.
People in all religious traditions have visions.
We can discuss all this but should not be so partisan about it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am not convinced, century after century these anti-Christian writers have labored mightily to attack Christianity with a zeal and ingenuity no other faith gets. It's only Christianity, esp. Catholic Christianity, that gets such impassioned attacks.
I disagree, re Acts 1.21-22 and 1 Cor. 105-1-11. Peter and Paul were referring to witnesses who had also seen the risen Christ. Given that, there was no special need to bother about a tomb known to be empty.
I disagree, re Hume. I have never seen any convincing arguments for denying the supernatural. Lourdes is a challenge to men like Hume, because things happens there contradicting their preferred view of the world.
I disagree, what you said about St. Paul. Esp. when I recall the matter of fact way he consulted with St. Peter on making sure he correctly taught about Christianity. And discussed how he sought out eyewitnesses who had seen the risen Christ.
Incorrect, what makes orthodox Christianity unique is precisely what the Church proclaims to be exact and literal truth about God, His Incarnation as Man, Passion and Resurrection, etc. No need to drag in the Roman Empire.
Irrelevant, people from other claiming to have visions--because they are not true visions authorized/sent by God. And those "visions" are never scrutinized as rigorously and skeptically as the Catholic Church does to those later canonized as saints.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not trying to convince you. We express different understandings. We do not labour mightily. We disagree with you. Christianity is a large, complex belief system that makes specific historical claims. Of course it has to be taken seriously and assessed for what it claims to be.
I am contradicting your preferred view of the world. Hume's argument is perfectly logical. As yet unexplained phenomena always exist on the frontier of science. We can never discuss on a level playing field. You are always assuming simply that your belief is right and that other people reject it for discreditable reasons. That kind of argumentation, simply trying to discredit the other side, can be applied either way and should not be used anyway.
I think that you express your faith by trying to discredit those who disagree with it. You do not need to do that. There are Christians with whom I can debate on the clear understanding that we both honestly disagree with each other and maybe learn something from each other.
I agree with what I said about Paul. He sought witnesses of the risen Christ but did not mention an empty tomb.
Incorrect. I assert that what I said is correct! The Church provided a unifying monotheistic ideology for the Roman Empire. The Empire is hardly "dragged in"!
Irrelevant other people having visions! Not true visions! How do you know what is sent by God? Visions are not scrutinized rigorously because the same kind of dogmatic claims are not made about them.
This is not a discussion. You respond as if under siege. Can we not just discuss?
Paul.
One thing you have to keep in mind about residents of the Roman Empire in the 1st century CE is that they didn't have a scientific worldview.
They lived in a universe swarming with spirits -- Jews included, most of the time. Paul got mistaken for Zeus in human form at a Greek town in Anatolia, IIRC.
If you expect to meet Gods now and then, and think that spirits inhabit trees and rocks, you're living in a different universe than the one we inhabit.
We can imaginatively enter into earlier world-views to some extent.
Paul: yeah, stretching the imagination. OTOH, the -emotional- consequences are hard to recreate.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Then we are at another impasse.
Mr. Stirling: Your comments reminded me of what you've said at other times, how one of the things that made Christianity unique was its demythologizing of the world/cosmos. The sun was just a sun, a rock just a rock, a tree just a tree, etc. Creatures of God, yes, but still only things not having spirits. You wrote of how that demythologizing was necessary before a true science could arise. And also needed the kind of logical mindset worked out by the Scholastic philosophers of the 13th century.
Catholics believe God or one of His saints can appear to any one of them whenever He so wishes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, we disagree but we do not expect to agree.
Is it a fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions either a tomb burial or an empty tomb?
Christians see Jesus or Mary. Hindus sees Krishna or Kali. Culturally conditioned.
Ramakrishna, a 19th century Hindu, saw Jesus but in a Hindu context.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I explained why that "empty tomb" matter is unimportant.
There is no Krishna, no Kali. Pagan gods are not real.
That other gentleman had an inadequate view of Christ.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You did not. It is highly important. You ASSUME that Peter and Paul knew of an empty tomb. Their whole way of discussing the Resurrection implies no tomb burial or empty tomb. Paul wrote about a seed going into the earth.
People see visions of Kali, Krishna, Christ and Mary. Of course none of these are real. They are culturally conditioned projected visions.
That other gentleman had a vision of Christ. If you think that I thought that he saw a literally existent Christ, then you are not understanding what I am saying. They are all visions, not perceptions of reality.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You are doing the same thing "assuming" the Apostles "knew" Christ did not rise from the dead.
Pagan gods are not real, literal non-entities. Christ is a true Being, both God and Man, as are the saints.
No, because St. Paul warned false visions are possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You are not understanding what I am saying. I am not "assuming" anything! I am examining the evidence. According to that evidence, the Apostles did not "know" that Jesus did not rise. On the contrary, they were clearly convinced of and proclaimed the Resurrection! How can I possibly be denying that?
However, Paul taught not that a dead body was reanimated in a tomb but that the dead physical body went into the earth like a seed and that a qualitatively different kind of "spiritual body" rose from the earth like a plant. He scoffed at enquiries about what had happened to the physical body.
Of course pagan gods are not real. If you think that I am saying that, then you are again misunderstanding.
"Christ is a true Being" is an affirmation of faith. We are discussing grounds for either accepting or not accepting that faith.
No, again? Of course there can be false visions! No mere vision is a perception of reality.
I am concerned about some clear misunderstandings of what I am saying. Peter and Paul did not mention a tomb, therefore "knew" that Jesus did not rise? Non sequitur.
Paul.
Post a Comment