Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-02-22
Religious Questions
DISCUSSED BY
DR.. S. Pdrkes CGdman.

material bread He bestowed cherished
material life, so He, the very bread OF
God" out of heaven, impaired to recip-
lent souls the life He shared with the
Father.
1t is not surprising that this teach
ing sounds strange to you. Even His
disciples understood not about the
loaves." Their ideas were nothing If
not concrete. They did not then and
there enter into the holy mystery of
that unseen bread Of which "if any
man eat he shall live forever" Indeed,
after the lapse of nearly 1000 years
many professed Christians do not right
ly appraise the spiritual values of the
Eucharist.
The scene in the upper room enabled
the Masters first disciples to recognize
that he was more than a friend or an
instructor. He was also the lifegiver,
the personal source of divinely recreat-
ing strength and grace. Through that
meal, so simple yet majestic, they Sc
cured regeneration of soul, fortitude
of will, an energizing of their whole ma
ture, which made them sufficient for
claims and duties of their high calling.
Likewise in our earthly pilgrimage we
participate in the Eucharistic feast and
absorb its benefits. Catholic and Prot
estant differ as~to its Interpretation but
nearly all agree concerning its vitallz-
ing power. 1t is the supreme mystery
of the New Testament faith, but one
amply guaranteed by Christian expert
ence alone. If to you this is superSti-
ton, can only suggest your consulting
any Christian you know about the Eu-
chariSt and its effect upon his or her
| innermoSt life and being. Their an
swers are my chief argument.
@. 1 personally believe that the Jesus
history in the New Testament is merely
| COPY of the NEUROLOGICAL histories OF
| the Hindu saviour Krishna and the
saviour Buddha, with mixture of the
NEUROLOGICAL borrowed from the Per-
slams and other nations. I should be
interested to have your views on the
subject.
A. 1t would require bulky volume
to reply adequately to your letter. II
presents a view which has cropped out
at various times during the last GEN.
fury and a half, usually after period
of strain and stress such as the late
war inflicted. Indeed, it is part Of
skepticisms panoply which may be ex-
pected to emerge again when faith !:
! feeble and love is cold.
Although advocated with fervor, Il
has never been able to secure much Of
a following Scholars who know frs
century Palestine are well aware thai
! the conditions requisite to produce such
a myth were not there. This was made
clear a score of years past wher
Thomas James Thorburn published hi:
book on 1.-THE Mythical Interpretation;
of the Gospels" It was a crushing re-
joinder to writer's like Smith (Ameri.
CAM, Robertson (English) and Drew:
| Germany, who had resuscitated YOU
pet theory. Since then Brandes en-.
deavored to galvanize it into a SEM
blance of life, and Weigan, in his vol
ufne, 1.-The Paganism in Our Chris.
| tianity," has paralleled certain myths
common, as he alleges, to both systems
1t should be added that Weigall doe
net question the historicity of Jesus.
Klausner, Montefiore and Enelow
learned and able Jewish authors, like.
wise accept that historicity. But why
club a ghost? Did not celebrated
English author prove by similar argu
mentS that Napoleon / never existed
See in this connection Bishop John F
Nuelsens work on Some Recent Phase:
of German Theology"
The truth is there is far more re.
liable evidence for the actual presenc,
numerous other famous historical char.
acters whose existence you have no
dreamed of doubling. Pardon me fol
saying that the issue you raise is i'm.
material.