Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2019 10:31 PM
24 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,867 Year: 14,903/19,786 Month: 1,626/3,058 Week: 404/868 Day: 43/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 140 of 750 (825783)
12-17-2017 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
12-17-2017 2:53 PM


Modern scholars examining "The [present] Bible [books]" differ from early Christians?
I really don't think there is anything but massive ignorance of early Christian communities when people assume that there was some uncritical acceptance of a sacred body of scripture that is in any way anything near what is in today's Roman Catholic & Protestant Bibles.

There was nothing but complete total questioning, AMONG EARLY CHRISTIANS, of what was accurate history.

Only a sliver even came remotely close to having a "Holy Bible" that even slightly resembles the one today.

The closest parallel (to what is around today) I have seen is the 2nd century European Christian's 4 Gospel use from around 150 A.D. on. (Not that the Roman Catholic/Greek Orthodox represented anywhere near all European Christians)

But the Jewish Christians seemed to only see Matthew as historically accurate. And there is no evidence of the Gospel of John ever being seen, by Jewish Christians, as anything remotely accurate.

But the Gospel use is just one issue.

(One other important, but by no means ONLY, part to "The Bible" is that the Modern Bible has letters of Paul that were also accepted by ancient Roman Catholics/Greek Orthodox as scripture but no earlier than 100 A.D. and perhaps not until the second half of the 2nd century)

quote:

the modern scholars are predominantly unbelievers. They should not be allowed to say anything about the Bible. Theoretically they should be able to be objective but it turns out in reality they can't.

Why worry about them then?

So what is stopping modern Christians from looking at what the early Christian communities believed?

Why not worry about the early Christian communities?

Just because the Roman Catholics (and Greek Orthodox) slaughtered the others doesn't mean you have to ignore the other communities and then, in turn, follow the winners (winners being the state/world-power wielding writers of history).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 2:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 9:51 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 142 of 750 (825786)
12-17-2017 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
12-17-2017 9:51 PM


Re: Modern scholars examining "The [present] Bible [books]" differ from early Christians?
Even Martin Luther didn't accept "The Bible" to be untainted.

Your attack on "modern scholars" and specifically their questioning the historical accuracy of parts of "The Bible" is based on you assuming that the worship of a book was somehow the only thing on the spiritual menu for all Christians.

Outside of Roman Catholic & Greek Orthodox state dictates, it wasn't even true in the 4th century body of Christian believers.

And you don't seem to understand that Christian's views then were very different from what you see as "Christian views" today.

The issue is "The Bible".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 9:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 10:17 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 144 of 750 (825788)
12-17-2017 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
12-17-2017 9:51 PM


Re: Modern scholars examining "The [present] Bible [books]" differ from early Christians?
quote:

The various councils took note of those regarded as inspired by all the churches uuntil eventually a coherent collection emerged that was deemed canonical by the council tally sheet. Over time those regarded as inspired became the largest collection and formed the basis for later determinations of canonicity. Seems like a perfectly natural way for the Bible to develop.

Except many churches had members that not only weren't invited to cast a vote and thus be on the "tally sheet", but they were seen as folks who needed to be killed.

You always want to look at the Roman Empire Councils, and ignore the actual body count of Christians. (I have seen lots of examples - via quotes by Church Fathers - of the majority having theological and related historical views that differ from the Roman state Councils)

(dead bodies of men can't talk but they did exist and they form part of the collective whole)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 9:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 145 of 750 (825789)
12-17-2017 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
12-17-2017 10:17 PM


Re: Modern scholars examining "The [present] Bible [books]" differ from early Christians?
quote:

I object to UNBELIEVING scholars which so many here rely on. What's that got to do with your complaints?

I noticed that you said that a prominent scholar was not a believer, but a poster showed that he was a believer in a bodily resurrection.

That aside, I will get to my point.

You aren't being consistent when you seem to obsess over modern scholars while ignoring the Christian views.

I suppose your attack will either be that somebody is brain-washed by either "heresy" or "modern scholars".

You want to have it both ways, and you seem to focus exclusively on one or the other at any given time.

Luther wasn't a "heretic" to you, right?

He didn't see himself as attacking God when he questioned scripture in "The Bible".

(and He didn't just reject the Epistle of James, but several other books in "The Bible")


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 10:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 4:30 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 146 of 750 (825790)
12-17-2017 10:39 PM


Example of the majority of Christian differing from the 4th century Papal dictates.
Look at the quotes surrounding the specific verses in Jerome's landmark Bible.

Jerome said that the Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew (called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" )was viewed by most as the original Gospel of Matthew while he had to use the Greek "Gospel according to Matthew" for his Vulgate translation.

Jerome seemed to be saying that the text we now label Mark 16:9-20 was not in the vast majority of Mark manuscripts (though his quotation of Eusebius might not imply agreement, but it still documents what the majority of Bible's contained) while he was forced to include those last 12 verses in his Latin Bible.

Jerome invented the term "Apocrypha" as derision at the books he had to translate and include in his Vulgate. He rejected the Apocrypha but the Catholic Church accepted it.

MY POINT.

My point is that the majority of early Christian "Bibles" differed for all of the first 3 Christian centuries and most of the 4th.

(Scholars notice some of the same things)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 147 of 750 (825791)
12-17-2017 11:39 PM


I thought this topic was cosmological (and had to do with events before our Universe
Then I read the posts.

Anyway, what I immediately thought of was that there would have to be:

the existence of dirt before the bricks

rock before the dirt

the very existence of elements before the rock

quarks and leptons before the actual elements (like Hydrogen)

(Before that there were the quantum fluctuations)

We always get to the issue of "what came before the (Big) Bang?"

Then the issue can often (?) include already existing universes. (but, I suppose, in a completely different sphere and not in anything that had to do with our universe's "space"?)

There was a process where everything existing in our universe (and all of the other universes if they exist) once did not exist.

There was at one time an unlimited nothingness of absolutely nothing.

That is logical.

(If one really thinks, then it is very illogical to assume that ANYTHING ever existed at all)

How nothing became something can't be understood AT ALL.

Really, not at all.

Not one tiny bit.

(Some can philosophize that "nature abhors a vacuum therefore this 'unlimited nothingness' somehow, by virtue of being unlimited, amounted to an 'unlimited something' and thus (was indeed) 'something' by (being) nothing and a process got underway where SOMETHING is always going on")

It is simpler to think of there being perhaps unlimited universes existing outside our universe but they all would have needed to be absolutely non-existent at one time too.

Some sort of evolutionary (not biological! COSMOLOGICAL!) process led to whatever existed.

The more simple or elementary was the start and then the "building block" process happened and then things got more developed and advanced.

There would be a trillion steps in the process (actually trillions or google-plex illions of steps times many more illions) and that is before quarks and leptons could ever exist in any universe, including our own. Before any particle could exist and fluctuate.

We know that "dirt" in our universe must have existed before our bricks did and the elements must have existed before the rock that made dirt could form.

If there was a "dirt maker" in our universe then he could have come before the dirt and especially before the bricks.

But an advanced Creator would have had a step in the trillion step (plus!) process in some other universe. The step that commenced with an advanced being would have come somewhere along the way, and the less advanced would have preceded him. Perhaps the birth/dawn/origin of our advanced being (our creator) was around step 500,000 in the 1 trillion step process. It would not have been among the early stages.

We are back to trying to understand physics and cosmological evolution.

Just like the early Christians (for example) knew. There was lots of cosmological speculation among the "Gnostics" for example.

Carl Sagan said that we can save a step in the process of understanding how we all got here by skipping the step that involved the creator because it sidesteps the ultimate questions. We will always get back to the ultimate questions even if we say "God did it" because we will always be back to "where did he come from?".

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-18-2017 2:32 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 167 of 750 (826038)
12-20-2017 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
12-18-2017 4:30 AM


Martin Luther wanted Esther in the "Apocrypha": Esther had "heathen unnaturalities"
I will respond by only quoting you (plus a few small Luther quotes later) and not quoting myself or anybody else.

I suppose you will say that my quotes of you are "too long" for you to read.

But here was your last response to me.

quote:

I have never figured out why, but I just about never understand a word you are saying. What you say about me is far far from anything I recognize.

Just before this, I simply asked you what the difference was between Martin Luther questioning books and scholars looking at things.

You said:

quote:

I'm aware of the differences in canon collections and of Luther's objection to the letter of James. There have always been limited areas of disagreement. So what? I don't have the opinion you attribute to me. I object to UNBELIEVING scholars which so many here rely on. What's that got to do with your complaints?
Christian views were NOT so different in the early years, I've read a lot of the early church writers and their views have come down to us as part of the Christian doctrinal legacy.

Remember how this all got started.

You said:

quote:

I do remember that the mystery writer Dorothy Sayers wrote about her conversion by realizing that King Artaxerxes (the king in the book of Esther) really existed. She knew the history already and when she found him in the Bible she realized the accounts were true. I myself wasn't converted by such things though, I was converted by the Catholic mystics Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross who wrote about their personal experiences of God using scripture for references. God uses various things to draw people to Himself.

Somebody pointed out that the book has historical troubles.

You responded with a few posts.

quote:

Fortunately Dorothy Sayers was a much better judge of things historical than you.


The poster responded and you then responded:

quote:

I'm going with Sayers. Modern biblical scholarship is a fraud.

Here is a link on Luther's Canon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon

Here one of many anti-Esther quotes from Martin Luther (this one from Table Talk)

quote:

I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities. The Jews much more esteemed the book of Esther than any of the prophets; though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains.

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/...of-esther.html#CUPeqSZrG0fChmk6.99


Go to www.bing.com and type in

MARTIN LUTHER ESTHER

Here is another Luther quote

quote:

the Jewish canon. You are somewhat biting and derisive yourself about that canon, when you compare the Proverbs of Solomon and the Love-song (as with a sneering innuendo you term it) to the two books of Esdras and Judith, and the History of Susanna and of the Dragon, and the book of Esther (though they have this last in their canon; in my opinion, however, it is less worthy to be held canonical than any of these).

I keep asking you why you keep attacking people who point out that "The Bible" has been discovered to be the work of man as oppose to the work of a deity?

You want to side step any rational discussion.

Please spend some time telling us why Luther (the first modern scholar to reject Esther as divine) is somehow o.k. while modern scholars are so evil.

You had a problem with Bruce Metzger when we were discussing Mark 16:9-20 (you kept saying that modern scholars like him were anti Christian non believers), but then I quoted Eusebius saying that the vast majority of Mark manuscripts lacked those 12 verses.

Why can't you answer the question and address the fact that Luther rejected all these Biblical books ( at least 5 in the current King James, plus over a dozen more STILL when you look at the Apocryphal books in the 1611 King James).

He rejected:

Esther

James

Hebrews

Revelation

Jude

5 of the 66 Bible books and 4 of the 27 New Testament books we rejected by Luther.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 4:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 168 of 750 (826041)
12-21-2017 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Thugpreacha
12-18-2017 2:32 AM


Re: I thought this topic was cosmological (and had to do with events before our Universe
quote:

Think.
If ever there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, it would be impossible for there to have ever been something after that point.

So there was always "something", right?

But then the question will always be "where did that come from?".

The must have been a time when there was absolutely "nothing" (we used to always think of space itself as always existing until we learned to look back in time through telescopes, but we now know that was in fact "something", and a something that didn't always exist) everywhere.

(I will not even attempt to come up with a "solution" because it would be a joke)

My only suggestion is that we look (for an idea of what was going on) outside our own universe for any "place" this might have been going on (and don't even bring up the issue of "time" in the "time and place").

There can be clues from our own universe, but everything here (we know of) seems to have been after there was already particle building blocks seemingly already "evolved" (from wherever?) if one knows about the quantum fluctuations.

Heinz Pagels died in a tragic mountain climbing accident (at all too young of an age), but his quotes are interesting.

www.google.com

keyword

heinz pagels laws physics vacuum

or

Heinz pagels quotes

or

heinz pagels law physics void big bang

This quote was interesting.

quote:

What 'tells' the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time

quote:

There was emptiness more profound than the void between the stars, for which there was no here and there and before and after, and yet out of that void the entire plenum of existence sprang forth.

www.quotetab.com


He was looking at our own universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-18-2017 2:32 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 181 of 750 (826430)
12-30-2017 9:13 PM


The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
I was thinking about the New Testament concepts and what the cosmological obsession among the early Christians must have meant to Jesus, James, and Paul.

Look at the precedents to Christianity.

Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, said that there was a continuity from Pythagorean teachings and Christianity. He said that while physically standing on a church that was built over the traditional birthplace of Pythagoras (which I think was home to the Pythagorean's meeting place)

quote:

Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity
By Luke Timothy Johnson
pp.82-84

It was the "way of life" (bios) established by Pythagoras, however, that most influenced later political thinking and showed traces of elements we have seen also in Orphism and the cult of Dionysus.

Building of the premise that "friends hold all things in common," Pythagoras established a community that was far more structured than the "schools" that were to meet in the Academy of the Porch. A genuine community of possessions enabled the maintenance of firm community boundaries both for admission and dismissal. Stages of initiation into full membership were not unlike levels of initiation into the Mysteries, and like the Mysteries demanded the observance of silence. ....

The key tenet holding everything else together was the conviction that the essential self was the soul (psyche) and that this soul moved through successive existences (metempsychosis) either upward (away from entanglement with matter) or downward (into greater entanglement). This tenet explains Pythagoras' reverence for all living beings who had souls - all living beings were, in this sense, "friends" - and the number of commands concerning the soul's purification. The Pythagorean tradition does not invoke a myth of origins or of eventual future bliss, but the "religious" character of this philosophy is evident in two ways: it organizes all of life, and this organization depends on the apodictic instructions of a figure regarded as divine.

In the Dialogues of Plato (ca. 427-347 BCE). there are a number of passages that support the position that these traces of a religious sensibility were all know in classical Athens and that the version we find in Poimandres represents not a new and late creation so much as the fuller development of trends already present among some Greeks and Romans for centuries. In a passage that clearly alludes to the Pythagorean tradition, Plato has Socrates say, "I have heard a philosopher say that at this moment we are actually dead, and that the body [soma] is our tomb [sema],' before relating an elaborate set of metaphors about "the soul of the ignorant" and the importance of living temperately (Gorgias, 493C). ....

In a discussion on the nature of the soul in Cratylus, Plato has Socrates allude to the position that the body is the tomb of the soul, "their notion being that the soul is buried in the present life." He ascribes the view to the "Orphic poets" who held that "the soul is undergoing punishment for something: they think it has the body as an enclosure to keep it safe, as a prison, and as the name itself denotes, the safe [soma] for the soul, until the penalty is paid" (400C). And in the Laws, Plato has the Athenian Stranger speak of tradition concerning people in the past who refused to perform animal sacrifices but who instead performed only "bloodless sacrifices" of meal and grain, a practice consistent with their having been forbidden "so much as to eat an ox": "from flesh they abstained as though it were unholy to eat it or to stain with blood the altars of the gods; instead of that, those of us men who then existed lived what is called 'Orphic Life' [orphikoi bioi], keeping wholly to inanimate food, and contrariwise, abstaining wholly from things ani8mate" (782C).

That Plato is not unsympathetic to the Orphic-Pythagorean perspective is suggested by two passages in the Phaedo, a dialogue devoted to Socrates' last moments with his followers and subtitled "On the Soul." Explaining why suicide is forbidden, Socrates alludes to "a doctrine that is taught in secret about this matter, that we men are in a kind of prison, and must not set ourselves free or run away" (62B). More fully, he discourses on how the philosopher "would not devote himself to the body, but would so far as he was able, turn away from the body and concern himself with the soul" (64 E), a course he subsequently elaborates: "And while we live, we shall, I think, be nearest knowledge when we avoid, so far as possible, intercorse and communion with the body, except what is absolutely necessary, and are not filled with its nature, and keep ourselves pure from it until God himself sets us free. And in this way, freeing ourselves from the foolishness of the body and being pure, we shall, I think be with the pure and shall know of ourselves all that is pure - and that is, perhaps the truth. For it cannot be that the impure attain the pure" (67 A-B).


Perhaps the view was that the original matter of the universe was the same thing as "God" and it was part of everything, especially the matter of sentient life.

The Soma of Jesus was a replacement for sacrifices (the Passover).

All Christians are members of the Soma of Jesus.

This concept is present in the current New Testament and even more so in the Ebionite/Nazarene Gospel of Matthew.

The early Gnostics has traditions of James and Mary handing secret teachings to others and cosmology was very relevant.


Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-31-2017 3:25 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 183 of 750 (826439)
12-31-2017 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Thugpreacha
12-31-2017 3:25 AM


Re: The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
Perhaps one, if a "Biblical Christian", MUST have a sort of pantheistic type of view on "where God came from", when one has to consider that God would have come from another universe.

Stay with the idea of (the) God, consistent with modern Christian fundamentalist's beliefs, coming from another universe, and one (such universe) that would have begun as absolutely nothing.

Staying there,now we have to consider:

1. If you want to avoid the issue of God having to evolve somewhere along the way to his/her/its very existence, then you must assume that any (of whatever initial) matter that came from nothing was God, so he/she/it was the first of all the initial matter (whatever it was that went from nothing to something).

2. One must see God as not just a "collective soul" of all initial proto-sentient "life", but he/she/it must also have been any and every type of matter.

O.K., but the ancient Greeks didn't really consider the issue of another universe (even if one is willing to stretch out a grant to the ancient Greeks which is giving them credit for - at times - generally understanding what our own universe actually is), instead there was a view of a spirit world.

Here are some google quotes

quote:

Plato (427-347 BC), in his later work entitled Timaeus sketched out a theory of the origin and nature of the cosmos. The world was the creation of a "Demiurge" (from the Greek "demos" or people and "ourgos" or work) -- the most highly placed of gods, working in the "public" interest (Plato, like the ancient Greeks generally, was a polytheist -- a believer in many gods). This superior god was by nature good, and so tried to create an image of itself that was as good as possible. But the Demiurge could not create a world out of nothing; its powers were more limited than the God of Genesis. The Demiurge fashioned the cosmos out of materials provided by a pre-existing "chaos", or jumble of matter, which the Demiurge organized into the four elements -- Earth, Water, Air and Fire. These formed the "body" of the cosmos, which was also endowed with a "soul". The soul of the cosmos, which Plato considered as its better or more important part, was its principle of eternal and recurring circular motion, bringing about the circular motion of the moon, planets, sun and stars.

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/...ci/Cosmology/Cosmo1Background.html


quote:

Plato wrote the following question and answer sometime around 350 BC:

“ Is the world created or uncreated?—that is the first question.
Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and if sensible, then created; and if created, made by a cause, and the cause is the ineffable father of all things, who had before him an eternal archetype."[2]

http://creationwiki.org/Plato


Then the first group to be called "Gnostics", according to Hippolytus (wrote in the first decades of the 3rd century).

quote:

Naassene Sermon[edit]

The Naassenes had one or more books out of which Hippolytus of Rome largely quotes in the Philosophumena, which professed to contain heads of discourses communicated by James, the brother of Jesus, to Mariamne. They contained treatises of a mystical, philosophic, devotional, and exegetical character, rather than a cosmological exposition. A very interesting feature of the book seems to have been the specimens it gave of Ophite hymnology.
....
Creation[edit]

The Naassene work known to Hippolytus would seem to have been of what we may call a devotional character rather than a formal exposition of doctrine, and this perhaps is why it is difficult to draw from the accounts left us a thoroughly consistent scheme. Thus, as we proceed, we are led to think of the first principle of nature, not as a single threefold being, but as three distinct substances; on the one hand the pre-existent, otherwise spoken of as the Good being, on the other hand the "outpoured Chaos," intermediate, between these one called Autogenes, and also the Logos. Chaos is naturally destitute of forms or qualities; neither does the preexistent being himself possess form, for though the cause of everything that comes into being, it is itself none of them, but only the seed from which they spring. The Logos is the mediator which draws forms from above and transfers them to the world below. Yet he seems to have a rival in this work; for we have reference made to a fourth being, whence or how brought into existence we are not told, a "fiery God," Esaldaios, the father of the idikos kosmos. That is to say, it was this fiery being, the same who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, who gave forms to the choical or purely material parts of nature. It is he who supplies the fiery heat of generation by which these forms are still continued. In this work the Logos had no part, for "all things were made through him, and without him was made nothing." The "nothing" that was made without him is the kosmos idikos. On the other hand, it is the Logos, who is identified with the serpent, and this again with the principle of Water, who brings down the pneumatic and psychical elements, so that through him man became a living soul. But he has now to do a greater work, namely, to provide for the release of the higher elements now enslaved under the dominion of matter, and for their restoration to the good God.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naassenes


I don't know how much of the early Gnostic cosmology was shared by Jesus, Paul, and James but they were familiar with God saying that he had help (let us make man) in creating man according to a "page one" creationist view of Genesis chapter 1. They also know that Chronicles (a post Exile book) essentially said that satan/Satan (whatever that meant at the time) was the agent God used to get David to take the census of Israel, while the earlier Samuel book simply said God did it.

I also don't know how much the views of Plato completely represent the Gnostic beliefs.

But Plato seems to feel that the Demiurge (perhaps a type of "Satan"?) did not make matter but in fact simply used it to bring about the elements; perhaps the four fundamental forces of nature were being "finely tuned", by a "Satan", and then with a Dark Energy type of force as well?

Perhaps the spirit world (known to the ancients and described by them) was a synonym for another universe or possibly a conflation of the dual reality of the advanced beings being from BOTH alternate dimensions AND another universe?

It will be difficult to parse and interpret ancient beliefs through a modern scientific understanding of the Cosmos, but a modern analysis of ancient beliefs might help us understand where they were coming from and what their texts/philosophies/devotionals were trying to convey. (And fundamentalists almost think that Jesus would have understood the universe's origins anyway, and the same fundamentalist will say that he knew "where God came from" as well as saying that Jesus was actually God)

I would not rule out a REQUIRED pantheistic view of the first matter in another universe, IF ONE WANTS TO MAINTAIN FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN VIEWS.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-31-2017 3:25 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-01-2018 2:31 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 187 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-01-2018 10:57 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 192 of 750 (826452)
01-01-2018 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Thugpreacha
01-01-2018 2:31 AM


Re: The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
quote:

See you got me there. From everything that I have studied, there has never been evidence of either pantheism as defined by Websters nor of dualism. Granted the Genesis scripture is problematic. After all, who is us? Everything that I have read from what you call Christian Fundamentalism emphasizes a literal Bible...so we do have an interesting rabbit trail to explore. (I like googling almost as much as you do! )

I have confused you, and it is my fault (I think I know where I really confused you about my entire post, and it was a poorly placed paragraph. Will quote it later). You did good in trying to follow my post, but I was allowing for God to have created the "us" in Genesis, as well as pretty much everything in THIS universe.

God made THIS universe we all know, and matter is from his creation, but not part of God.

The pantheistic God would have referred to the same God (but!) in ANOTHER universe (or perhaps the entire multi verse of everything that made up the initial NOTHINGNESS that existed everywhere and by that I mean all the other places/non-places that ever have existed outside our universe) and I was offering that as an alternative to the idea that God must have "evolved" on some other universe, then come to our "SPOT" (which later became our Universe we live in) to create our universe.

I was saying that God might have made up all of the earliest matter that came from "nothing to something" in ANOTHER universe, thus he would not have "evolved" but in fact he would have been the collective "first something", though perhaps this quasi intelligence might not have had much (if anything) going on mentally as the proto-matter would have lacked much of a mind (even on a collective consciousness "spiritual" level).

I think I know where the confusion came in.

I was quoting and (in a lousy broad brushing way) describing the cosmological views of early Christians (or at least the early Gnostics)and certain Greek philosophies, WHICH ONLY COMPREHENDED OUR OWN UNIVERSE.

Here were the confusing parts I dropped in.

quote:

I don't know how much of the early Gnostic cosmology was shared by Jesus, Paul, and James but they were familiar with God saying that he had help (let us make man) in creating man according to a "page one" creationist view of Genesis chapter 1. They also know that Chronicles (a post Exile book) essentially said that satan/Satan (whatever that meant at the time) was the agent God used to get David to take the census of Israel, while the earlier Samuel book simply said God did it.

I also don't know how much the views of Plato completely represent the Gnostic beliefs.

But Plato seems to feel that the Demiurge (perhaps a type of "Satan"?) did not make matter but in fact simply used it to bring about the elements; perhaps the four fundamental forces of nature were being "finely tuned", by a "Satan", and then with a Dark Energy type of force as well?


I was simply making the point that there was a recognition of entities existing (and continuing to exist) BEFORE the Big Bang (not that they knew of a Big Bang!).

I was not saying that God did not create them, in fact I was granting that God created everything in OUR universe.

The closest thing to an understanding of another universe (among the ancient peoples) was the idea that there were spiritual entities that existed before our own.

That is what we have to work with when we want to consider a "first cause" in our universe.

Here was the rest of my post 183, after your above quote.

quote:

Perhaps the spirit world (known to the ancients and described by them) was a synonym for another universe or possibly a conflation of the dual reality of the advanced beings being from BOTH alternate dimensions AND another universe?

It will be difficult to parse and interpret ancient beliefs through a modern scientific understanding of the Cosmos, but a modern analysis of ancient beliefs might help us understand where they were coming from and what their texts/philosophies/devotionals were trying to convey. (And fundamentalists almost think that Jesus would have understood the universe's origins anyway, and the same fundamentalist will say that he knew "where God came from" as well as saying that Jesus was actually God)

I would not rule out a REQUIRED pantheistic view of the first matter in another universe, IF ONE WANTS TO MAINTAIN FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN VIEWS.


I was saying that God either evolved in another universe or he was the first matter to come from "nothing to something" (both refer to another universe and BEFORE our own). The latter would be the pantheistic scenario. Think of it as the difference between the first biological life to come from the rocks, and the first Hominid to evolve from the Australopithecines (advanced chimp like creatures that are much further along the way to modern humans). But God would have been proto-elemental (with a collective spirit type of proto-intelligence, but it wouldn't have been an intelligence that was manifested in the material realm) if the Pantheistic scenario is correct. He could very well have been something we don't have or understand on our own universe.

You then said

quote:

Thre is an interesting website called Closer to Truth which is the first thing I found. It has lots of interesting videos but I don't really have time to explore them at the moment. I need to focus on finding an answer to the question of who us is in genesis. Winging it, I have often found it easy to believe that God is by definition the uncaused first cause...and by that I mean that nothing ever came before Him...not to say that once upon a time there was nothing and later on there was God, mind you.

That before time was, He is. Before space was, He was. Before matter, he was. Revelations has an interesting take on it that I often use.

Note, by the way, that time and space are believed to be created things...thus we are only discussing ideas. The idea of an eternal uncreated god is a belief. Perhaps I like it because it explains God in a way that I can appreciate His vastness and infinite omnipotence. I'm not sure that the ancient Greeks were any worse at contemplating these things than I am, but let me give two of my favorite Bible scriptures that I came to agree with...at least so far.

1) Revelation says that God was, is, and essentially will always be. It also implies that the Beast(which some see as satan) Once was, is not and yet is for those whose name is not written in the Book of Life.

Granted I am simply parroting my beliefs to you, and I respect the articles which you google as well. In fact, the 2004 version of me would have tried to essentially win this discussion and stereotype you as a seeker of knowledge rather than truth, which at the time i would have declared that I in fact had.(By virtue of having been saved. Now, in 2018, (Happy New Year by the way) I try and present discussions and arguments without necessarily trying to win.

Question for you, LNA. If you were given the choice between monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, agnostic, atheist and/or dualist...which would you consider to be the most logical belief?


I don't know about the last question (though "agnostic" by definition admits an ignorance that we all truly have, so it sound closer to what we all are BUT WON'T ALL ADMIT TO), but everything above that last question seems to look at our own universe .

(except perhaps the part where you said "and by that I mean that nothing ever came before Him...not to say that once upon a time there was nothing and later on there was God, mind you" which can possibly be interpreted as referring to other universes before our own)

You then said

quote:

Paul talked of an unknown god and then proceeded to explain that the god he worshipped was known.

Acts 17:22-28 NIV writes:

"Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring."

Perhaps one could argue that this concept did not rule out pantheism, but rather supported it...but I have always been taught that Monotheism (and at worst Trinitarianism) was the essential doctrine of fundamentalist Christianity.

jar has also brought up the idea that Paul was out to start a distinct belief or religion apart from traditional Judaism.

To be honest with you, I have considered myself a monotheistic Christian, but would welcome criticism as long as it is constructive.


Keep in mind that Paul, read literally (if the NIV has the tenses correct), was giving God credit for ongoing creation when he says, "he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

But every fundamentalist knows that there are naturalistic forces behind oxygen PRESENTLY, even if God is said, by those same fundamentalists, to have placed the atmosphere around the Earth 6000 years ago.

An admission that the Bible telescopes a long period of time (countless "ages" that man arbitrarily labels via a separation into various periods/eras to classify the history into an understandable and comprehensible summary portion) would be wondrous if the same understanding of Paul's words would be applied to the early chapters of Genesis.

Even a directly acting God (100% "creationist") is telescoped by Paul, in the same speech.

Here we can see that Paul combined/telescoped the chapter 1-2 creation of Adam with the direct separation of man in the Babel incident roughly 10 chapters later.

"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."

But God uses agents (like an "evolving" or changing atmosphere) to presently GIVE ALL MEN things like breathable oxygen.

But, to the point of your question, Paul did seem to want the pagan Greeks to see monotheism (or perhaps a dual worship of God THE FATHER AND God THE SON if he came to see Jesus as God, which I think is possible, though most scholars will say that Paul considered Jesus to NOT BE GOD, therefore Paul was monotheistic, and thus they disagree with my non-expert opinion) as the correct way to go.

Back to my point.

God used agents to make the present world. Naturalistic agents and spiritual agents.

Like the early Christians knew (well they were more obsessed with the idea of spiritual beings making the world, so perhaps there wasn't much naturalism there).

But I was not saying that anything was not created by God on THIS UNIVERSE , though the very forces of nature might have been imported (and perhaps modified) from another universe that God did not create. Ditto for the elements and the building blocks.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-01-2018 2:31 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 193 of 750 (826453)
01-01-2018 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Thugpreacha
01-01-2018 10:57 AM


Re: The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
Since you said that a paragraph of mine really made you think ("This idea tweaks my brain"), I suppose I should quote this great thing I typed.

I said (rather brilliantly):

quote:

Perhaps one, if a "Biblical Christian", MUST have a sort of pantheistic type of view on "where God came from", when one has to consider that God would have come from another universe.
Stay with the idea of (the) God, consistent with modern Christian fundamentalist's beliefs, coming from another universe, and one (such universe) that would have begun as absolutely nothing.

Simply brilliant (joking).

After you quoted me, you said:

quote:

This idea tweaks my brain. I wonder what Son Goku thinks? Granted one definition of pantheism is this:

quote:
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

Thus if i claim to be a monotheist, I cannot equate God with any forces or laws
(such as the informal law of karma, or what fundies state as the law of sowing and reaping) nor can I claim that God is definable since even that is a law of human wisdom.

Though some claim that modern humanity is idolatrous at its core---we at times value money, football, and SI swimsuit models with more passion than we do God---I would agree that some could argue that Trinitarianism can be perceived as polytheistic and that in a strict sense, attributing power to Satan and the entire concept of idolatry multiplies worship into a virtual pantheistic panopoly.


All I will say is that any "God of the gaps" notion that what we cannot comprehend & scientifically discover the origin of (or at least what brought about these things) must therefore be of God, should be avoided.

The same avoidance should be part of our approach to the theological idea of actual things (forces, sub atomic particles and where they came from) BEING God himself.

But we should understand that God, if he created this Universe, had to have come from somewhere.

We should also understand that our ancient texts didn't comprehend another Universe (But they DID have God and/or spiritual entities existing before the beginning of our Universe).

Understand that the ancient texts lacking a description of another universe doesn't mean that they would not have done so if OTHER UNIVERSES were part of the philosophical (or also the camp fire)discussions going on.

There is a difficult enough time for scientists, of all people, to wrap their minds around the possibility of other universes.

Know our limitations but cautiously read (other universes) into the ancient descriptions of spiritual beings existing before creation.

(God might have efficiently used the idea of physical forces and matter from other universes, and modified them to make up our own physical reality. Modified the idea and then created that forces and matter HERE in our Universe)

quote:

attributing power to Satan and the entire concept of idolatry multiplies worship into a virtual pantheistic panopoly

But everybody is given certain powers.

And there are two completely different things between idolatry and God giving Satan power to separate elements that God created.

(Don't Christians say "Lucifer" is the same thing as Satan, so why can't the Biblically described light giver - Satan! - be responsible for separating enough elements further and further apart so that the temperature can drop enough so that Photons can "light up" by 378,000 years after the Big Bang?)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-01-2018 10:57 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2018 4:41 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 194 of 750 (826454)
01-01-2018 10:13 PM


Satan (as "Lucifer)AND HIS POWERS from Wikipedia's Lucifer page.
The Wikipedia page is pretty helpful at showing Biblical hot spots which give Satan quite a lot of power over nature.

quote:

Lucifer as Satan or the devil[edit]

Adherents of the King James Only movement and others who hold that Isaiah 14:12 does indeed refer to the devil have decried the modern translations.[84][85][86]

Those treating "Lucifer" as a name for Satan may use that name when speaking of such accounts of the devil or Satan as the following:

Satan inciting David to number Israel (1 Chronicles 21:1), though in 2 Samuel 24:1 it is stated that God caused David to take census of Israel

Job tested by Satan (Book of Job)

Satan ready to accuse the high priest Joshua (Zechariah 3:1–2)

Sin brought into the world through the devil's envy (Wisdom 2:24)

"The prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2)

"The god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

The devil disputing with Michael about the body of Moses (Jude 1:9)

The dragon of the Book of Revelation "who is called the devil and Satan" (Revelation 12:9;20:2)

They may also use the name "Lucifer" when speaking of Satan's motive for rebelling and of the nature of his sin, which, without using the name "Lucifer", Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine attributed to the devil's pride, and Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, and again Augustine attributed to the devil's envy of humanity created in the image of God.[87][88][89] Jealousy of humans, created in the divine image and given authority over the world is the motive that a modern writer, who denies that there is any such person as Lucifer, says that Tertullian attributed to the devil,[90] and, while he cited Tertullian and Augustine as giving envy as the motive for the fall, an 18th-century French Capuchin preacher himself described the rebel angel as jealous of Adam's exaltation, which he saw as a diminution of his own status.[89]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer


Actually, the early Gnostic Naassenes (who seem to have existed before 150 AD and certainly before 200 AD when they were mentioned as using the Gospel of the Egyptians by an Orthodox Church Father) might not have had overall cosmological views too far removed from Jesus, James, and Paul.

I really wish we had more texts (oh just a tantalizing sliver we have) to see what else was part of early Christianity.


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 199 of 750 (826499)
01-03-2018 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by ICANT
01-02-2018 4:41 AM


Re: The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
quote:

I am a fundamentalist and I do not believe our universe came from another universe. That is string theory.

I do not believe anything that exists came from nothing. Only scientist believe that.


What about Carl Wieland and his magazine?

quote:

Carl Wieland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Carl Wieland

Born
1950[1]
Australia

Residence
South Australia

Occupation
Evangelist

Known for
Advocate of Young Earth Creationism

Spouse(s)
Margaret Buchanan

Website
www.creation.com

Carl Wieland (born 1950) is an Australian young earth creationist, author and speaker. He was the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (formerly Answers in Genesis - Australia), a Creationist apologetics ministry. CMI are the distributors of Creation magazine and the Journal of Creation.
....

In 1976 Wieland formed the Creation Science Association (CSA), a South Australian creationist organisation modelled after the Creation Research Society. In 1978 this organisation began publishing a magazine, Ex Nihilo (later called Creation Ex Nihilo), "to explain and promote special creation as a valid scientific explanation of origins." In 1980, CSA merged with a Queensland group to form the Creation Science Foundation, which subsequently became Answers in Genesis (AiG).[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wieland


Then.

quote:

Science has not and can not discover the origin of the universe.

There is no scientific data until T=0-40 second.
This is due to a mathematical problem, General Relativity breaks down and can not give any information.

String theory was proposed to solve this problem. Since there is no data available anything that is devised by scientist that existed prior to T=0-40 second has to come from their imagination.


Well what fraction of a second is that, exactly?

The telescopes can look back to about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

That is well over 99.9% of the universe age we can look back to.

So, isn't a Universe with a documented "start", an indication of it not being eternal (perhaps?)?

Some think the idea of a beginning and from nothing might very well be compatible with Genesis 1?

(Will stop here. I will probably have a longer post in a few days, but am a little busy now)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2018 4:41 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2018 12:43 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 202 of 750 (826542)
01-04-2018 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by ICANT
01-02-2018 4:41 AM


Re: The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
I guess you aren't going to answer my questions until you get a longer post?

quote:

I am a fundamentalist and I do not believe our universe came from another universe. That is string theory.

I do not believe anything that exists came from nothing. Only scientist believe that.


I'm not so sure what most scientists believe.

I will skip commenting on String theory, except to say that it alone isn't the only theory that has multiple universes. Not by a long shot.

The whole issue of saying that only scientists saying that something came from nothing is just a confused confusion that is really really confusing.

On the "beginning" part.

There is the issue of time and space being the same thing and space being created by some force (to counteract the gravity), then temperatures dropping. Temperatures below 1.2 billion degrees Kelvin allowed particle to fuse to form the elements (deuterium which is Hydrogen) when there is space to allow the temperature to drop.

Space and Time and particles fusing to form the first elements.

But is the "beginning" of space (time) really the very first thing?

Do (all or most)scientists really say that?

quote:

Science has not and can not discover the origin of the universe.

There is no scientific data until T=10-43 s.
This is due to a mathematical problem, General Relativity breaks down and can not give any information.

Added by edit: The Planck epoch is the time during which physics is assumed to have been dominated by quantum effects of gravity.

String theory was proposed to solve this problem. Since there is no data available anything that is devised by scientist that existed prior to T=10-43 s. has to come from their imagination.


There is an issue of there being no space and no time in the math.

As for observations via telescopes:

There is also the issue of the temperature of the universe needing to be low enough to allow photons to be visible. That goes back to when the universe was less than 1 million years old(out of a total age of about 14000 million years old), so telescopic observations cover around 29,999/30,000 or the universe's age. But not the last 1/30,000 rough age of the Universe.

Going back to the slightly earlier unobserved events (during the first few minutes of the actual Big Bang):

It is known that a temperature above 1.2 billion degrees Kelvin will see the same photons smash into the proton and neutron that are creating a deuterium nucleus and break it apart. Fusion - creating the first elements - couldn't happen without space allowing the temperature to drop.

The event in the 1/30,000 unobserved time period isn't seen via observations, but the same overall theories match the later 29,999/30,000 time periods observed via telescopes and such.

And particle accelerators have shown what happens (plus fusion devices made by man).

Space equals time and lower temperatures to allow elements.

A creation event.

But was it truly "nothing" before?

Then

quote:

The Hebrew word ùçø translated "Lucifer"
exists 1 time in the Hebrew text. Isaiah 14:12

ben-shachar is son of the dawn.

Heyleyl or heylel is Lucifer.

Lucifer son of the dawn.

You typed (or pasted) the word for dawn.

(without the vowels or ben/son hyphen part)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2018 4:41 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-04-2018 8:06 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 227 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2018 5:53 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019