Pat,
I ran ectoplasm through the OED. The term appears in science in the 19th
century, & it migrated into spiritualist texts by the 1920s. It might be
argued that this explanation for ghosts tries to find a "scientific" ground
to replace religious ideas about souls. At this point I am getting way
beyond my usual field, but it seems to be a compromise between spiritualism
& scientific materialism.
Tom Izbicki
At 11:38 AM 8/25/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>I'd appreciate some clarification on the concept of resurrection of the
body,
>or on the history of this particular affirmation. I've read Ignatius's
>letters, the Apostle's Creed, and 2 Maccabees. I gather this is quite an
>important concept to Catholics, never questioned after the Docetian heresy.
>Also to Anglicans, as it's mentioned in the service for the burial of the
>dead in the Book of Common Prayer. I'm not sure where other Protestant
sects
>stand.
>
>The main point that has me confused is that it doesn't seem to be reflected
>in popular belief as much as I'd expect. "Ghosts" are shown in movies as
>transparent ephemerons, and even Dante's "shades" mention their own lack of
>physical substance. The idea that "souls" live on after death disembodied
>seems to be remarkably widespread.
>
>Why this disparity? If I'm correctly placing the ressurrection of the body,
>it seems to be far too important a belief to have been "forgotten," and I'd
>expect it to be reflected in popular culture more than it seems to be.
>
>Thanks for any advisement, suggestions, or clarifications.
>
>pat sloane
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|