DB Roy wrote:We have to remember too that ancient peoples had no scientific language. If an enlightened person back then had a complex thought about reality, he had no way to express it except through metaphor. For example, Father, Son and Holy Ghost could be primal in the sense that when a neutron decays, it forms a proton that has almost all the original mass of the neutron so the proton is the father. An electron will be emitted from the neutron but which is 1800 times smaller than the proton so it represents the son. The excess energy is emitted as a neutrino--a ghostly particle with no rest mass which is tiny even compared to the electron. There are billions, trillions of them passing through you right now, passing through through the planet and yet are tiny they will never make physical contact. If the motion of a neutrino ceases, the neutrino ceases to be. So it represents the Holy Ghost.

So you see why there was so much controversy about consubstantiality and what not. They were three in one but were sterile and unproductive. With the decay of the primal neutron, the first atom and element--hydrogen--was formed. This is the same thing that we see with Adam and Eve. Adam is the neutron and Eve came from his side as the electron and Adam was transformed into the proton, i.e. his eyes were opened, with the first matter came the first stirrings of consciousness which is inherent in matter (more precisely, it IS matter). In this decay of the neutron was created the Great Duality. The neutron was neutral, dead. But the proton was positive and the electron negative and between these two opposite poles came light and dark, male and female, anode and cathode, good and evil, microscopic and macroscopic, etc.

The Filioque Controversy is a lot of silliness. The original statement was that the Spirit proceeded from the Father. This is true--the neutrino proceeds from the neutron-turned-proton--but religious arseholes used the Filioque to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son. It does not but rather BOTH proceed from the Father.

But how were these great poets of old, these giants, these great men of renown (Genesis 6:4) to make this knowledge known to people who had not the capacity or language to understand it? They wrote it down as creation literature or told it in an oral tradition in metaphor and allegory. As it was passed down, it was changed and corrupted by those who lost its meaning.

When we get to today, fools think it is a literal account and science scoffs at it when, in fact, it IS science--ancient science. It is but a dead husk today but it can be revitalized. But the problems arise because language is limited and culturally bound. Myth was an attempt to free language from this constraint. But only those who understood it could decipher it. It's not elitism, it's just the way it is.

tat tvam asi wrote: Are you familiar with the work of Laird Scranton and his introductory book, "Hidden Meanings: a study on the founding symbols of civilization?"

This side topic becomes a lengthy and mysterious topic of it's own. Perhaps worthy of its own discussion just for the fun of it...

DB Roy wrote:The purpose of the Jesus story, is, once again unification. it gave all Christians someone to rally behind

DB Roy wrote:I just received the book in the mails and have been reading the opening chapter. He points out that fictional stories whose purpose is unification stand the greatest chance of being taken as true. Carrier compares Jesus to King Arthur. No one today believes King Arthur existed but they did in the past. His story was told in order to bring about a unified England. Those who believe in the unification believe in the story. To doubt one was to doubt the other. Carrier goes onto discuss Moses and Daniel the same way. The same scholars who believe Jesus was historical reject the idea that Moses was even though Moses performed miracles and his birth caused a slaughter of innocents. You doubt one for the same reason you doubt the other.

The purpose of the Jesus story, is, once again unification. it gave all Christians someone to rally behind and gave to him all moral authority. For them to conclude he didn't exist after investing all that emotion is unlikely.