• In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 758 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:50 am

No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
The difference is that theists say that it is God who always existed not matter or energy.




That's what is commonly referred to as a distinction without a difference. As long as it qualifies as something instead of nothing, there is no difference. You open the door on a thousand impossible questions. Has god existed eternally? If so, then what did he do for an eternity before he turned the nothingness around him into something? Where is your evidence?
Clearly much would depend on the being of God. For Christians we believe that God has revealed himself in Christ and revealed things about himself in scripture. So that's faith you will say and it is.
But what God did for eternity can only be known if he reveals this to us.What Judeo-Christian scriptures reveal is creation of angelic spiritual beings prior to our universe and a place where God dwells particularly called heaven. What this is like we don't really know beyond symbolic representations provided.
God is triune. And God may well have or may not have other creations we don't know about. It's seems as if you are implying that an eternal God would die of boredom but I don't see why such a being should have a problem with eternal existence even if we think it might be a problem.
And the same applies to any other concept of a transcendent God capable of creating our universe.

Your naturalistic hypotheses suppose eternally self creating universes/mutiverses. If this has been going on eternally then these universes must be infinite in number.

Andre Linde sums up his theory's implications; "Instead of a universe with a single of law of physics,eternal chaotic inflation predicts a self reproducing eternally existing multiverse where all possibilities can be realised."

If we attribute our universe with it's laws,cosmic order and life forms on our planet to the creative power of the mutiverse what is possible in these other infinitely innumerable other universes?
The mind boggles, and it is an act of faith for the naturalist to believe in such realities.
https://www.alumni.stanford.edu/get/pag ... e_id=32024 Can't get this link right.
Please google/ Stanford magazine; Worlds without end

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... ctheo.html


Interbane wrote: Appealing to god instead of nature does not make this any less ridiculous.
Appealing to nature instead of God doesn't make these naturalistic theories any less ridiculous. At least we know that there is one universe with a single set of laws and that's not wild speculation.

Lee Smolin reckons the functional "purpose" of the multiverse is the endless manufacture of black holes. All else including life forms and intelligence in any of these myriad universes is an unintended byproduct of this mindless obsession with making black holes.
Interbane wrote: With that said, Chaotic Inflation Theory and Smolin Selection. But this doesn't matter. All this does is give you something tangible to investigate for a reason to disbelieve.
http://www.mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/ ... e-machine/

It seems to give you something to investigate for a reason to disbelieve in God. After all it alleviates the real problem in our real universe of fine tuning.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:22 pm, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Black holes are purposeless phenomena that cause countless universes of which perhaps one will have purposeful human beings that believe they have free will when in fact they dont because even if they did, free will would be reducible to purposelessness spawned from a black hole.
Is that correct?
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Flann wrote:The mind boggles, and it is an act of faith for the naturalist to believe in such realities.
As I said, it is a red herring. I don't actually believe them. What I believe is that we don't have enough information to know how the universe is structured, or what happened in the deep past.
ant wrote:Black holes are purposeless phenomena that cause countless universes of which perhaps one will have purposeful human beings that believe they have free will when in fact they dont because even if they did, free will would be reducible to purposelessness spawned from a black hole.
Is that correct?
There's no way to know if that's correct. You tell me.
Flann wrote:At least we know that there is one universe with a single set of laws and that's not wild speculation.
I completely agree, but I'll add a little to that.

To speculate beyond your comment above is acceptable. To believe we know which of those speculations is true is foolish.
Flann wrote:It seems to give you something to investigate for a reason to disbelieve in God.
I don't need a reason to disbelieve in god any more than I need a reason to disbelieve in platinum catacombs underneath the pyramids. A god is a superfluous addition, unnecessary to understanding the universe. Platinum catacombs are a superfluous addition, unnecessary to understanding the pyramids.

You hold reverence for the idea of a god, but not for the idea of platinum catacombs. So this might appear to you to be a comparison of different kinds, but it's not. Both are superfluous additions, unnecessary. Sure, both of these things might end up being true. But let's not pretend that's the case prematurely. There are much simpler scenarios that make sense of our experience than to rely on these superfluous additions.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Interbane wrote:

Flann wrote:
At least we know that there is one universe with a single set of laws and that's not wild speculation.




I completely agree, but I'll add a little to that.

To speculate beyond your comment above is acceptable. To believe we know which of those speculations is true is foolish.
Interbane wrote:There are much simpler scenarios that make sense of our experience than to rely on these superfluous additions.
The thing is Interbane,that when I suggested that the commonly held big bang hypothesis implied a beginning to time,space and matter you replied by telling me, no, that the current two dominant naturalistic theories did not require this.
Now these are fantastical in their implications and naturalists can believe them if they like.
The proposition of one eternal God creating our universe is simpler and doesn't imply another speculated universe somewhere where you are Rasputin the mad monk.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Flann wrote:The proposition of one eternal God creating our universe is simpler and doesn't imply another speculated universe somewhere where you are Rasputin the mad monk.
An omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being is simpler? Maybe the word "god" is simpler, but the concept that the word refers to is infinitely more complex, with orders of magnitude more ad hoc propositions.

Or do you mean it in the sense that the idea of god eliminates further questioning? Similar to the ancient greeks understanding of lightning. Lighting is thrown from the clouds by Zeus, so lightning need not be questioned further. Even though the idea of a multiverse is by definition infinitely simpler than a god, it is also much more difficult to understand, perhaps because it isn't fantasy. We can dig deep into how the multiverses function, even if only in theory. But can we delve further into how god supposedly exists everywhere at once? Explain this aspect of god to me, and why it's simpler. Explain what triggered god's change of mind, where he suddenly decided to create everything. Explain why god exists in the first place. Explain why he waited an eternity before creating the universe. Explain why he's been hiding for 2,000 years.

The concept of god is much more complex, but that complexity is hidden behind the excuse that no questions shall be asked of god. I understand that this excuse is built into the belief itself - how can we expect to ask questions of a being that is omniscient and omnipotent, after all? From the inside, I'm sure this excuse appears rational to you, but I wish you could see your worldview from the outside.

Your god is so complex, that you can't even be expected to understand him. He's so complex, to even ask questions about him is scoffed at. He's powerful enough to create infinite universes where infinite Rasputin the mad monk's live, and because he's all powerful, each Rasputin has an infinite number of differences from every other. Because your god is so complex, logical contradictions are possible.
Flann wrote:Now these are fantastical in their implications and naturalists can believe them if they like.

A naturalistic explanation is more fantastical than a supernatural one? I think your understanding of these concepts is backwards Flann.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Your god is so complex, that you can't even be expected to understand him. He's so complex, to even ask questions about him is scoffed at. He's powerful enough to create infinite universes where infinite Rasputin the mad monk's live, and because he's all powerful, each Rasputin has an infinite number of differences from every other. Because your god is so complex, logical contradictions are possible.
That's the implications of your theory of eternal chaotic inflation,Interbane. There is no suggestion that God created anything like this. Logical contradictions are possible in your multiverse but not in our real universe which has it's laws and cosmic order.
Interbane wrote: But can we delve further into how god supposedly exists everywhere at once? Explain this aspect of god to me, and why it's simpler. Explain what triggered god's change of mind, where he suddenly decided to create everything. Explain why god exists in the first place. Explain why he waited an eternity before creating the universe. Explain why he's been hiding for 2,000 years.
God exists outside of time and in fact created time,space and matter and is not subject to the constraints of his own creation.
You call creation a change of mind but this is not required, simply that God created when he determined to though even the concept of time only applies within creation and is relative even there.
Because God is spirit he is not constrained by his own material creation.
Comparing God with Zeus is merely a tactic along the lines of the flying Spaghetti monster, and this spaghetti entity is more probable in your infinite universes where everything is possible.
So science can investigate our universe and it is it's comprehensibility,it's natural laws and mathematical describability that makes such investigation meaningful.
The implications of eternal chaotic inflation need to be looked at dispassionately in the light of what we know of our real universe with it's rational intelligibility and logical coherence.
Our being made in the image of this intelligent God is the reason that we and not chipmunks can do science.
A black hole machine and eternal chaotic inflation can not explain how purposeful,intelligent beings like us can be unintentional byproducts of mindless and meaningless processes,which also produce absurd fantasy worlds,unlike ours.

It's the foundational article of your faith, that all can ultimately be explained by eternal natural and material processes.
Meanwhile in a distant universe somewhere amidst the infinity of worlds there is one planet where it's moon really is made of cheese.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xm75iy ... shortfilms
Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Flann wrote:It's the foundational article of your faith, that all can ultimately be explained by eternal natural and material processes.
Actually, that's one area where faith isn't needed Flann. Every explanation that has ever come our way for every phenomenon we've ever encountered has been naturalistic. The most amazing phenomenon that past man has considered surely supernatural has turned out to be natural. This isn't a matter of faith, it's a conclusion with tremendous evidence.
Flann wrote:Logical contradictions are possible in your multiverse but not in our real universe which has it's laws and cosmic order.
If logical contradictions are possible in the concept of a multiverse, then I do not believe such a thing is real. Scratch another one off the list! If you wouldn't mind, please tell me how logical contradictions are possible in a multiverse. I'm curious. But for the record, it isn't "mine". I don't own ideas, not even the ones I believe with all my heart. Perhaps that's why it was so easy to divest myself of a belief in god.
God exists outside of time
What? Where's your evidence for this fantastical claim? You're making stuff up Flann. Or at least, repeating the things other men made up. How can you even pretend to know this sort of stuff? Is the book written by ancient Romans really filled with impeccable divine knowledge that trumps even scientific knowledge? You don't even need evidence, you have the bible. Show me evidence that god exists outside of time. Don't just repeat what other men claim.
Flann wrote:So science can investigate our universe and it is it's comprehensibility,it's natural laws and mathematical describability that makes such investigation meaningful.
Ask a quantum science how comprehensible our universe is. Not that you'd believe them when they say parts are incomprehensible. The only thing you seem to believe is whatever agrees with your faith. When scientists the world over are telling you that mankind evolved, you shrug and dismiss them. What good are the combined efforts of our species in investigating the universe if a book written by ancient Romans can trump what they say?
Flann wrote:Our being made in the image of this intelligent God is the reason that we and not chipmunks can do science.
This is more fantasy. The real reason we can do science when chipmunks can't is that we've evolved a large brain. We have the cognitive capacity, they don't.

Flann wrote:A black hole machine and eternal chaotic inflation can not explain how purposeful,intelligent beings like us can be unintentional byproducts of mindless and meaningless processes,which also produce absurd fantasy worlds,unlike ours.
In less than 24 hours, you have such a firm grasp of these two speculative hypotheses that you can not only list what they can explain, but you can list what they can't explain! :shock:

I think you are the only person on Earth who understands their scope so well that you know the limits of what each of these hypotheses proposes.

Sorry for the sarcasm. These things aren't needed to explain purpose. See the more recent posts here: http://www.booktalk.org/the-purpose-beh ... 19435.html
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Actually, that's one area where faith isn't needed Flann. Every explanation that has ever come our way for every phenomenon we've ever encountered has been naturalistic. The most amazing phenomenon that past man has considered surely supernatural has turned out to be natural. This isn't a matter of faith, it's a conclusion with tremendous evidence.
I don't think you can say every explanation that has ever come our way for every phenomenon we've ever encountered has been naturalistic. This requires omniscience of all events in all places and times in human history. Natural regularity is the norm and the miraculous would be the exception though even the universe could not continue to exist or function without God sustaining it from a biblical standpoint.
Christians claim Christ's resurrection from the dead as historic fact. Now all this is endlessly disputed by sceptics to the point of denial of his existence in some cases.Other miracles of Christ were recorded which enemies are on record as attributing to sorcery, but not denying.
It's an oversimplification too. In Judeo-Christian thought they were well able to distinguish between acts of God and natural occurrences.
So the normal natural order of the universe and it's laws is expected by Christianity and God identified as the creator of the natural order of things.
Interbane wrote: If logical contradictions are possible in the concept of a multiverse, then I do not believe such a thing is real.
It's certainly worth remembering that these are theories and not without their critics. I wonder then how much you agree with Andre Linde's statement of what his theory predicts?
Interbane wrote:Quote:
God exists outside of time




What? Where's your evidence for this fantastical claim? You're making stuff up Flann. Or at least, repeating the things other men made up. How can you even pretend to know this sort of stuff? Is the book written by ancient Romans really filled with impeccable divine knowledge that trumps even scientific knowledge? You don't even need evidence, you have the bible. Show me evidence that god exists outside of time. Don't just repeat what other men claim.
I acknowledge that this is based on my belief in divine revelation and what is revealed concerning the nature of God. Still I don't see how you can say it is trumping scientific knowledge as though science could empirically show that a spiritual being who is God did not exist since it's telescopes hadn't located him.
It's mainly written by Jews Interbane.
It's a question of the basis of trust in this revelation. That's multifaceted and hotly contested at every point by those on self styled "infidels" websites.Prophecy for instance.This requires a great deal of study and understanding, but I think the postdating solution is simplistic.
It would be a painstaking undertaking to go into the arguments for dating each specific incident and maybe necessary, but the assumption that the sceptical view is correct a-priori should be treated with caution.
You see how Gnostics make claims about history, but both sides need to be examined. And second Christians claim that God can be known though this is often dismissed as delusional.
Interbane wrote:Ask a quantum science how comprehensible our universe is. Not that you'd believe them when they say parts are incomprehensible. The only thing you seem to believe is whatever agrees with your faith. When scientists the world over are telling you that mankind evolved, you shrug and dismiss them. What good are the combined efforts of our species in investigating the universe if a book written by ancient Romans can trump what they say?
I'm not saying that we do comprehend everything. Quantum physics is baffling yet a great deal of the natural world is comprehensible on which principle science proceeds.
Many intelligent Christians do accept the neo-Darwinian synthesis. They interpret Genesis in a particular way,some of which I agree with but have problems other elements.
The Darwinian theory is coming under increased questioning within biology though probably will just be adapted.
I do question the theory though and it's not a just shrugging off of what is unquestionable.
Interbane wrote:In less than 24 hours, you have such a firm grasp of these two speculative hypotheses that you can not only list what they can explain, but you can list what they can't explain! :shock:
Not really. The M&M's analogy is about my capacity.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Flann wrote:I don't think you can say every explanation that has ever come our way for every phenomenon we've ever encountered has been naturalistic. This requires omniscience of all events in all places and times in human history.
Right, it needs a qualifier. Every phenomenon that is present enough for intense scrutiny has turned out to be naturalistic, where there are records, and where proper method has been employed.

Flann wrote:Natural regularity is the norm and the miraculous would be the exception though even the universe could not continue to exist or function without God sustaining it from a biblical standpoint.
So we conclude the bible is at least partially false, since a god is not needed to sustain the universe. We can apply our reasoning in both directions.
Flann wrote:So the normal natural order of the universe and it's laws is expected by Christianity and God identified as the creator of the natural order of things.
So a bunch of ancient Romans say. They also said Zeus threw lightning bolts. It's amazing that men from Aquinas through Lennox believe their fantasies.
It's certainly worth remembering that these are theories and not without their critics. I wonder then how much you agree with Andre Linde's statement of what his theory predicts?
It's not worth remembering. What is worth remembering is that these hypotheses are red herrings, irrelevant to what we're discussing. I said this as a disclaimer many posts ago, yet you refuse to acknowledge. Finding reasons to prove them wrong does nothing to support a different belief.
Flann wrote:It's mainly written by Jews Interbane.
It's a question of the basis of trust in this revelation.
Why trust what they write? I mean, is that the default? You read it and believe it, voila? Why trust in the first place? Skepticism is a virtue, not a vice.
Flann wrote:The Darwinian theory is coming under increased questioning within biology though probably will just be adapted.
Another way to word this is that our understanding grows closer to the truth. Old models need revision, increasing their explanatory breadth and incorporating new findings. The progress of knowledge sometimes goes in reverse, but the creationist position is that it will revert to ground zero, which is essentially impossible unless God is playing an April fools day joke on us.
Flann wrote:And second Christians claim that God can be known though this is often dismissed as delusional.
Flat Earthers claim the Earth is flat, though this is often dismissed as delusional. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... 324.0;wap2

Alien conspiracists claim there are aliens among us, though this is often dismissed as delusional.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_ ... ject02.htm

Hollow Earth cultists claim the Earth is Hollow, though this is often dismissed as delusional.
http://www.ourhollowearth.com/

Vampire victims claim vampires are real, though this is often dismissed as delusional.
http://vampirewebsite.net/



Maybe, just maybe, the things that are often dismissed as delusional are in fact delusional. Whenever it's directed at my own beliefs, I take it seriously, and examine what I believe(because, what if?). From everything I've seen, theists do not do the same.
Flann wrote:Not really. The M&M's analogy is about my capacity.
Then how do you know what the hypotheses cannot explain?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:I admit that I'm no expert on Gnosticism, but I do note that the foremost scholar on the subject Hans Jonas, disagrees with your understanding of the nature and beliefs of Gnosticism.
It is strange that you seem to present this information about Jonas as news when I just drew attention to it in a recent post at http://www.booktalk.org/post140360.html#p140360 where I explored the problem with Jonas’ view. It is as though you half read my comment and then forget what I said.
Flann 5 wrote: Christians contended with the Gnostic teachings from quite early and were well aware of their teachings. Do you think that if they and the empire were so efficient they would not have purged such passages as you claim are unmistakeably Gnostic? Ruthlessly efficient bunglers I suppose. These passages can be interpreted otherwise as I've shown in the past.
You are just making things up Flann to suit your orthodox assumptions, which is just what theology has always done. This “very early” contention that you describe is the equivalent of you and I having a debate today about the battle plan at Gettysburg, with the earliest Christian attacks on Gnostics dating to a century and a half after the purported events.

I am suggesting a very different method of historical analysis, namely assuming that the Gospel writers were intelligent and informed, and sought to convey a deep accurate understanding of reality. As the political bunglers (to use your term) who ran the church sought to use the Gospel sources, they found that the wheat and the weeds were intimately entangled, and they could not get rid of the cosmic wheat (as it appears they wished to do) without also destroying their own corrupted weeds. So for example the loaves and fishes miracle, by far the most prominent miracle in the Gospels, can only be contorted into the Orthodox rack by ignoring most of what it contains. But such learned willful ignorance is one of the key dark arts of theology. What you call “having shown” something really means just ignoring plain logic and evidence.
Flann 5 wrote: Your old testament revisions conspiracy is unfounded. Evidence please.
You really should not constantly introduce this bilious insulting term ‘conspiracy’ when it is not relevant and you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Of course scribes constantly revised religious texts. That is abundantly known. And of course the theory of the day=millennium code is at the centre of Christian orthodoxy, as you can read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennial_Day_Theory

But I am saying that this popular central YEC idea actually conceals a coherent scientific meaning, based on astronomical observation of precession of the equinox, coherent with both ancient and modern empirical knowledge.

As Paul said, some people need milk rather than solid food, and that is partly why the scientific basis was suppressed in favour of popular magic. But the point is that when we try to provide a coherent explanation of how Christianity emerged, the existence of two levels of thought, popular and wise, is abundantly compelling. It is such a shame that the church got totally captured by the popular story and became fools. But the wisdom is there to be reconstituted if people have the patience and sense to study it carefully.
Flann 5 wrote: Paul was no Gnostic. Here's an article by the J.P.Holding on "Gnostic" Paul incorporating Gerald Massey's ideas as used by Freke and Gandy.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gnostpaul.php
As expected, that JP Holding essay is worthless apologetic drivel. The MO is to identify any statement which can be twisted to achieve a polemical objective, while systematically ignoring the main context. If we ask Holding how the Gospels evolved, his hypothesis would be far less plausible than the two level mystery theory of Pagels, Freke and Gandy.

Traditional Christianity involves the completely implausible Big Bang Theory that an obscure nobody, whose name just happened to be Anointed Saviour, amazingly became the Anointed Saviour of the world, while completely evading all detection by normal history, in a context where masses were yearning for just such a hero and were ready and willing to believe the most plausible one.

The story was supplied to fit the demand. By contrast, the Gnostic hypothesis may be likened to a Cambrian Explosion, whereby conditions achieved critical mass for a tipping point to a new equilibrium. In the Cambrian it was oxygen breathing, while in the Common Era it was the modus vivendi of a shared belief in an Anointed Saviour, Christ Jesus.
Flann 5 wrote:Genesis looks to me like an account of the creation of the material world, but then I'm not an astro-theologist.
No, you are not an astrotheologist. Maybe that is why your understanding of the Bible is so weak.

Astronomer priests in the big ancient civilizations were a separate royal caste. They maintained a high level of secrecy, and as in Catholicism, sought to intermediate for the masses with God by inculcating a popular sense of mystery and awe. So when it comes to explaining the creation account in Genesis, we can choose between YECist degraded literalism, or the high allegorical mystery wisdom tradition which explores the use of symbol in myth, and coheres with this text having multiple levels of meaning.

Genesis dates to the exile of Israel in Babylon, a context where astral theology was dominant. The origins of Jewish cosmology in interaction with Babylonian astronomy, including accurate knowledge of precession, provide a coherent basis for integrating the 7000 year theory of time into the creation account.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”