The Lost Gospels
The Lost Gospels
Amarantha and others have been debating early church history on the ‘Science and Religion’ thread which made me think maybe I should resuscitate a blog I’d intended posting some time ago. The situation is that back in September I recorded a ninety minute documentary by (Rev) Peter Owen Jones in which he looked at the things he was never taught in Theological College. He arranged these under various headings, beginning with an overview of what was lost.
Apparently, it was Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria who compiled the ‘canonical’ list of 27 New Testament ‘books’ in the fourth century. A corollary of this was that over fifteen Gospels, about fifty other texts referring to Jesus, and fifty or so Apocalypses became disapproved and, hence, banned. And so they disappeared – until recent times.
Gnostic Texts
In December 1945 a cache of papyrus texts was discovered (and nearly destroyed) by goat herds at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. Amongst these was the Gospel of Thomas, not a biographical text like the canonical gospels but a collection of the sayings of Jesus. These have a Zen-like elusiveness which demands insight (or ‘gnosis’) from the reader and hence makes them inaccessible to some outlooks. For example: ‘If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.’ This elusiveness did not fit with the salvation-for-all message of the early church fathers, so the Gospel of Thomas became lost. (Indeed in A.D. 447 Pope Leo ordered all gnostic texts to be ‘burnt with fire’.)
Mary Magdalene
Another Nag Hammadi text is the Gospel of Philip which gives prominence to Mary Magdalene. For instance; ‘The Saviour loved her more than the other disciples’ – and – ‘He kissed her many times on the...’ The missing word, alas, was eaten by ants during the centuries when the gospel lay hidden in its cave, but the best guess based on analysis of Coptic grammar would be ‘mouth’. Whatever the word, though, we have something pretty explosive here. It would appear that Mary Magdalene was more important to Jesus than was Peter, on whom the whole edifice of male-dominated Christianity became built. This impression is strengthened by looking at another missing gospel. After 1897 British archaeologists, excavating ancient rubbish dumps around the Egyptian town of Oxyrinthus, found portions of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. In this Mary conveys her understanding of Jesus’s teachings – before and after his death – to the other disciples, which once again emphasises her greater importance. These two gospels suggest a strong role for women in the early church, an impression that Peter Owen Jones bolstered by taking us into the Catacomb of Priscilla beneath Rome, where frescoes in the ‘Greek Chapel’ show women taking prominent parts in Christian rituals.
The Nature of Jesus
Owen Jones then moved on to other Lost Gospels, for instance the Gospel of Peter, found in Egypt in 1886 by French archaeologists. In this Jesus does not actually die on the cross because he is entirely divine and therefore incapable of death – or even of suffering. Hence his passion is an illusion. This outlook contrasts with that found in the Gospel of the Ebionites where Jesus is entirely human and plays host to the divine Christ spirit only after his baptism in the Jordan. This gospel is completely lost and we only know about it because of the vigorous written opposition it aroused.
The Nature of God
The Ebionites emphasised the Jewishness of their faith, whereas Marcion entirely rejected it. In The Antitheses Marcion contrasts Old Testament texts with Jesus texts and decides they are so radically different they must involve different gods. For instance, where Leviticus forbids the touching of lepers, Jesus touches a leper to heal him. Because of examples like this, Marcion decides the god of Jesus was previously unknown to us – ‘a Stranger God’ – who gives love and forgiveness and saves us from the vengeful god of the Old Testament. Following the line of his logic, Marcion drew up a list of texts, entirely excluding the Old Testament and including only the Gospel of Luke and ten letters by Paul. However, the response from his fellow churchmen was to excommunicate him.
Choosing the Canon
Nonetheless, Marcion’s list set a precedent, and eventually we ended up with the canonical list of 27 approved texts. How were they decided upon? Largely in response to Roman policy, is the answer. First of all, the Romans martyred so many Christians that it became logical for Christians to favour those gospels which emphasised Christ’s passion and death. (After all, Gnostic riddles would not give much consolation to the bereaved and the persecuted – which may be why the less persecuted Egyptian Christians retained more loyalty to those texts, burying them when ordered to burn them). Secondly, when Constantine converted in 312 A.D. he wanted a unified Christianity to help unify his fragmented empire. Therefore he and his successors supported those leaders who, like Athanasius, wanted to exclude such controversial texts as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
Final thought from Gerry
Early Christianity sounds to me very much like a New Age religion – lots of interesting and exciting ideas, some weird, some fascinating, some challenging, some uplifting. In this respect it sounds a little bit like the present New Age buffet. We don’t have the disadvantage of Romans messing things up nowadays, but give us time. Soon we’ll have some power hungry dictators telling us which ideas we are allowed to accept and practise. And if we go for anything different, well, get ready to be burnt!
Comments
Subscribe
Visitor counter
Blog Roll Centre
Blog Hints
147 Comments
I've been fascinated by the lost gospels for some time now, and also by the reasoning behind the compilation of the Bible - why did they use some gospels and not others? And why is so much of the teaching of the Old Testament so fundamentally different from that of the New? So I shall be mulling over this and using it as the basis for further research.
I admire Peter Owen Jones' work. I know he is a huge irritation to some of his colleagues, and also to many Christians, because of some of the things he says (which is probably one of the reasons why I like him!) He's the vicar in the neighbouring parish to the one in which we used to live. I wish we were still there! A friend, who vaguely knows him, says that in his church in Firle there is a notice welcoming everyone, regardless of their religion or lack of it, and hoping that they enjoy their visit to the church.
Interesting what you say about the Zen-like qualities of the Gospel of Thomas. There is a theory (which you may or may not have heard of) that Jesus didn't die on the Cross and ascend into heaven but instead was smuggled out of Israel and taken to India, where he became a Zen Buddhist monk. There are some quite scholarly books on the subject.
T.V. documentaries can be very valuable as the topic has to be pared down into ninety minutes (or similar) which means we aren't going to get boggled with detail. I've dipped many times into 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagels and rate it a very good book, but it's easy to get lost in the undergrowth.
Jesus in India - I think the idea is he ended up in Kashmir. I seem to remember a T.V. documentary showing his alleged tomb. There was also something about the feet - maybe showing signs of crucifixion nails. It's not an attractive idea - decamping to India when all the drama is over, but who are we to judge the divine agenda? Maybe there was important, but obscure, work to be done.
I'm far more interested in the idea he visited Cornwall and Somerset ('And did those feet...') as a youngster with his uncle Joseph of Arimathea during the period when Augustus's Pax Romana made long voyages feasible. Joseph allegedly would have been coming along to trade for tin and other metals. Jesus would probably have been calling in on the Druids, the premier religious teachers of the western world (according to Julius Caesar). The Lady Chapel at Glastonbury Abbey is allegedly of the sacred proportions Jesus might have leant as a 'tekton' (carpenter or master builder) in the rebuilding of - mm, where's the place? - Sepphoris, that's it - a city near Nazareth wrecked by the Romans and consequently in need of much rebuilding.
As to the canonicity of the New Testament, Peter Jones documentary that Gerry has described so well gives much food for thought, but perhaps treats the actual formation of the canon in a slightly ingenuous manner. In the early days of the Church, as was the norm, the oral tradition was largely relied upon to relay the stories of Jesus’ life and teaching. It was from these, along with the Old Testament canon (which, incidentally, Jesus Himself, fully accepted as the word of God) that the early evangelists preached. Even when the first gospel accounts started to be put into writing, these took second place to the oral accounts for some time when Christians met for worship.
Gradually, however, as time passed and remaining eye-witnesses became fewer, the four gospels came to be relied upon more than the oral tradition and also other authoritative writings, particularly from the apostles and those reasonably close to them. The gospels even began to be used as part of the liturgy in services, as were the Pauline writings. Although these early Christian writers would not have foreseen their pastoral guidance becoming part of a future canon , the fact that they were so close to the origin of Christianity and so fundamental, certainly left open that possibility.
The number of writings grew, some having more general acceptance among the Churches than others. An open canon of normative books came to be in generally acceptance. Some churches would include more, others less. The writing came to fall into three groups: those accepted by all as authoritative, those rejected by all or most, and some about which the churches were in disagreement.
The need for a definitive canon came about for a number of reasons, not least being the dying out of the original eye-witnesses. Also Christianity was having to face the various philosophies and religious trends of the day and in particular attacks from various heterodoxies such as from Marcion, the Gnostics and Montanists. The existence of the Old Testament canon provided a precedent. Marcion seems to have been the first to suggest a New Testament canon, but by excluding the OT and only including one gospel and ten of Paul’s thirteen letters, his ‘canon’ was not widely accepted. When Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria finally listed the 27 books that we have today, he was not going through all the existing writings and pulling out a set that fitted his particular leanings. He was simply being the implement in listing those writings that had by now become widely recognised as authoritative amongst the churches. He merely formalised what had become the established tradition. By agreeing to a closed canon the church thus protected itself from future infiltration of various heresies such as Gnosticism, which would still, today, it seems seek to undermine the complete and finished work of Christ on the cross.
Looking death in the eye for the first time is often the trigger that awakens spiritual awareness. I know this didn't happen for you since you are still looking for answers to the question: 'What is it about religious belief that defies scientific certainties?' You still feel unable to reconcile the two - seeing science a la Richard Dawkins as having the more convincing case by a country mile - yet you were surprised to find that you were not afraid of death when you believed you were dying. On the contrary, you had a sense of looking forward to 'An awfully big adventure'! (My words, not yours but fitting your mood at the time.)
The lost gospels you refer to were pondered by me - along with the beliefs of Gnostics and many of the epistles written by Paul and expanded on by later Christian theologians which Tony's strong faith rests upon. More than fifty years ago I set out to discover why the nature of Jesus as described by my Church (Anglo-Catholic) was so at odds with what is known of his life and teaching.
For me, the concept of life after death seemed a natural progression from the physical to the spiritual since those I had seen as living people as a child turned out to be the spirits of the dead. They were never spooky or frightening; they were benign in every sense and remain so. I needed to know why they were visible and at times audible to me (and not only me) yet quite invisible to others.
Throughout that time of reading I found I was by no means alone in my experiences; a substantial minority were aware of the 'Other' form of life and a good percentage of the rest sensed there was something beyond the physical they couldn't pin down. Overall, it seems that committed Atheists are in the minority, the majority dividing between Religious Believers, Agnostics and what I describe as Sensitives such as me.
Eventually I settled on Jesus being a mortal man in every sense of the words during his life on Earth but one with a powerfully developed and fully sapient Spirit with a mission to teach and demonstrate the nature of Life to as many as he could in one mortal span. In other words, give mankind a kick-start by creating eye-witnesses to spread the knowledge.
I was inclined to believe that such spiritual power could not have developed in one mortal life-span and must have been reached through an evolutionary process running parallel with and indivisible from organic evolution. Then I found a version of this in the Bhuddist philosophy and learned that Jesus was not the only Master; the same thread of teaching exists in many cultures unaware of each other and is generally described as The Wisdom of the Ancients. That is: spirits that evolved to sapience in the time it took for Homo Sapiens to emerge.
I feel that Richard Dawkins has the chicken coming before the egg. He believes absolutely that life is an effect of organic evolution that began with the accidental and purely random fusion of certain elements created from nothing at all in the maelstrom of the Big Bang, while I can only understand it as life being the driving force of organic evolution. I feel that Life is a force as powerful in the Universe as the Force of Gravity (which physists regard as puzzlingly weak yet it cannot be, considering its place and vital role in the Scheme).
So I believe this is how religions come into being. Evolution is ongoing both organically and spiritually and there are young spirits (as there are young species) unable to grasp the eternal nature of life without reference to priests in the confidence of their God or gods.
Your quote from what is said to be Jesu's words: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you" you describe as "Zen-like elusiveness ... " but it is not so obscure when taken in the context of his teaching which concerned only the Spirit and the way it may be consciously developed once it's existence is acknowledged. Know it is within you, bring it into your consciousness, work to strengthen it so that when you die it will carry you on. Deny it and when you die the Spirit will go on, as it must, leaving you in death. It is relative in a way to his response recorded in the New Testament: "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's".
I'm not familiar with the work of Rev. Peter Owen but it appears he is finding his own truth regarding Jesus in the Lost Gospels - not taught at his Theological College - and is acting on it in the way Spangles describes: opening his Church to whosoever will come, as Jesus did.
To sum up: my faith, though not religious, rests in Jesus alone and is unshakeable. It is neither unquestioning nor blind but as fully informed as it may be. He is a Master, my teacher and unfailing friend and I am never hurt, diminished or offended by the attacks of aggressive atheists. As Jesus said in his passion: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
Tony: the victory over death is hard for me to see as significant. Of course people survive death. Where's the big deal in that?
I think there is a lot of interest in the posts above. They key for me comes from the fact that Jesus existed - no doubt about it. hundreds of pages written etc a man called jesus certainly walked the earth. But was he the son of god? was david Coresh, or david Ike? whoever he was he was a good orator but as time goes on and we learn more about the universe, the arguments from the church grow weaker and science grows in strength. and disputed documents from years ago cease to provide people with what they need.
However, as i said, when i thought i was going, i wanted there to be something.
PS My other favorite saying is 'I don't believe in ghosts! i just don't like saying that out loud in case they hear me!'
sorry i hate getting all sciency so i'll throw in another fave submarine saying!!!
'Court marshalls happen on dry land, not at crush depth!' ;-)
Mighty Jock - physicists are the scientists we most often hear referring to 'God' (metaphorically or otherwise), probably because they deal in such big concepts - and also because their subject reveals such vast gaps in our understanding.
Tony - I don't get the concepts of sin and hell - most people are fairly decent - make the odd mistake - have the odd thing to wince about in the middle of the night - but qualifying for hell? (however it is defined) - no, I simply can't see it.
Oh and Mighty Jock - here's another one - I don't believe in reincarnation nowadays but I used to last time I was alive.
So it's simple logic: only God, and Jesus as God, is perfect. Any of us who have accepted God into our lives, His forgiveness and salvation, will, the Bible says, 'be made perfect in Christ' when we die and so can enter heaven without contaminating it. Any other 'way' to God and heaven, would contaminate heaven and is hence logically impossible. Jesus said, 'I am the way.' The Bible says, 'There is no other name given amongst men whereby you must be saved.'
So my god would have to be a creature who experiences desires identical to his creations, but has complete mastery of them. How else could he set himself up as the moral yardstick by which he judges us?
Would you define God in this way?
What I would say, though, is what about shades of grey? Absolute perfection -v- everything else doesn't strike me as very likely. Indeed, I wouldn't expect a 'perfect God' to come up with such an odd plan. Am I seriously to believe that a 'perfect God' would set up a situation whereby if you're in the wrong place (none Christian community) or the wrong time (B.C.) you miss out? Or if you have the wrong disposition - you know the sort of person who goes against priests, pharisees and other 'authority' figures - the sort who thinks for himself - the sort who comes to a bad end - gets crucified or maybe burnt at the stake - are we to assume that these too are outside the plan? Sounds a pretty imperfect plan to me, if that's what it is.
In my defence, I wrote what I did to you, on your blog where you have the opportunity and are fully able to correct me. This is not the way myths are made. Myths grow from tales told after a man is dead and unable to correct misunderstandings so you have no reason to fear being mythologised! :-)
Jesus has not had the luxury of defending himself in writing lately and I'm sure would not if he could; he has no need since he lives and speaks to the spirit. The writings of men are transient and aimed primarily at the intellect which is excellent as far as it goes, but what is written by men must remain open to question as the writings of scientists are to their peers.
Mighty Jock. "Puzzlingly weak" is a layman's term. I am not a physicist. Relatively weak is as measured by scientists in comparison to apparently stronger forces. The point I was trying (and obviously failing) to make was that there are forces at work in the Universe that science (thus far) has no way of measuring because they do not register on any instruments so far invented.
Arguments from the church grow weaker because it at best ignores and at worst denies the laws of God's own creation which scientists bring to light. The development of the human brain and all it is capable of is a miracle in itself that should not be used to strike fear into the hearts of simple men by preaching hell-fire and damnation. Control through fear is wrong.
Wonderful though it is, the mortal brain cannot meet or hope match the Intelligence that created the Universe and everything in it. Jesu's message was aimed at the spirit within mankind, not the intellect.
Aonghus I agree with you. Just as courage is defined by overcoming fear in the face of danger, so goodness is defined by recognising and resisting evil.
Tony, you are not a man to argue with in a debate such as this. You say you find "pseudo-religious" discussion very hard; that is because your mind is already made up and therefore closed to all views but your own. I respect your faith, which is very strong, but this blog is not pseudo-religious or pseudo anything, it is an exchange of views between honest folk who are not convinced by ancient scriptures.
There's a practical reason for having a midwinter festival. People would tend to try to make their supplies last through the winter, but rationing the food is counter-productive. You need to keep the calories up if you don't want to succumb to hypothermia/flu/pneumonia etc. So people were encouraged to pig out during the early part of winter - the yuletide season - not one 'holy day' but a couple of weeks of feasting. By putting on some weight and loading up on unseasonal vitamins (dried fruits etc, a bit like the antiscorbutic diet that kept sailors from dying of malnutrition on long voyages, hence xmas pud, pickles etc) more of a village's inhabitants were likely to survive the worst of the winter, ensuring that there would be enough people still around in the spring for planting etc. If a village's population fell below the practical minimum, the village would no longer be viable. Hence the whole presents thing - not so much generosity as enlightened self-interest. The poorest survived cos the rest shared - if they didn't, there wouldn't be enough people left come the spring to keep the village going. You can kersplain stuff rationally to people, and they won't get it, but put it in terms of superstition and fairy-tales (religion) and they'll listen. That's where the whole xmas thing comes from. Christianity came along a lot later, and claimed credit for it. Xmas is just the christian rip-off of the much more ancient winter solstice festival.
To clarify: I like Dawkins characterisation of 'Einsteinian religion' because of its pantheistic reverence, but then he undercuts it by insisting (without proof!) that its basis is entirely material. And that is my quibble with much science - that it proceeds from a materialistic premise (and thereby excludes mind - e.g. telepathy - and spirit - i.e. telepathy with non-'material' entities).
I also think some biologists might give more attention to what physics tells us - that our sort of matter (baryonic matter) constitutes only about 4% of reality (at the latest count).
I also note with regret the absence of any reference to inconvenient scientific data, such as the meticulously researched and criticised data of the Society for Psychical Research.
I think, on the other hand, that religion might pay more attention to science. On another blog Mighty Jock felt there was a opposition between religion and evolution. I would suggest on the contrary that evolution can help explain many puzzling things in religion. Tony contrasts divine perfection with human imperfection - so far so good - but I would disagree with his conclusion. I would suggest we are evolving (perhaps v. slowly) towards perfection, and this makes the 'divine plan' a lot more interesting. Jesus's role in such an evolutionary plan would be to impart some much needed forward momentum. This also is a highly interesting concept as it suggests we might need another push some time - like round about now for instance.
Now I must apologise to Tony also for appearing to misrepresenting him and I do so unreservedly. We can only understand a man's views by the words he uses to express them and you use the words of others, Tony, more than most as a way of explaining your own. Don't we all? Jesus himself could only teach in the language available to him which was sorely deficient in matters spiritual, as it remains today. He spoke in parables that people of his day might understand but added: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." and "He who has eyes to see let him see."
I am very far from the happy position of being able categorically to state what motivates anyone to hold the views they do. I can only take their words, interpret them as best I may and respond in the language available to me. If I have misunderstood then I welcome correction. I take issue with no-one for imperfectly understanding what I am incapable of expressing perfectly. I remain ... always ... open to comeback and welcome it; ask me to explain and I will do my best.
It is only in sincere attempts to communicate and understand the attempts of others to do so that we learn. Language was invented for the transference of thought and ideas from one mind to another and although imperfect it is all we have. If the spoken word were enough then there would be no misunderstanding between us. That is not to say that we would never disagree in matters spiritual.
Wrathnar, I enjoyed your contribution because you understand the foundation of Pagan beliefs. If I were bound to a religion at all (which I am not) it would be called Pagan because I am more in awe of the miracles of creation (Nature) than any work of man. Christmas is not the only pagan festival taken by the Christian church for use in its own cause; the festival of Eostre, godess of Spring, is also used as an analogy for the death and resurrection of Jesus. All seems fair enough to me.
When i discussed the conflict of evolution v creationism, the discussion commenced about Christianity. It isn’t my personal opinion that there is conflict between the two, i think it is the basis of how the argument starts. I have to say though that these cunning religious types realised when they were on a hiding to nothing and did allow recognition of the hypothesis of evolution, i think fitting it into the genesis story. But original Christianity and the scriptures believe that god created the world. Scientists believe in evolution (most of em anyway). Whilst i find your thoughts interesting and whilst i don't think you can really detract from someone’s beliefs. Some of your answers are based on your opinion (and a good reasonable and pleasant one at that) and not that of Christian faith. So the discussion changed a little bit. You see you are absolutely right that evolution helps explain bits of the bible and Christian faith, largely because the bible and Christian faith skips round it entirely!!!! hehe cos they think god made it not a series of natural happenings. Hence it is unlikely that Christians would agree to god and evolution helping each other as one cancels out the other. Either god did it, or it just happened, you can't give god credit because it just happened. ;-)
The composition of the bible is probably exactly as many believed, it is simply the books that the people in charge at the time wanted and that suited them best. But this is again a separate argument - the bible is a collection of stories about a guy we know existed. But there is plenty of room for artistic licence. This in no way confirms Jesus as the son of god or anything other than an intelligent, charismatic guy. Did Jesus live - Yes. Was he the son of god? Probably not. If he was then, why send him then? Why there? Why not send him again? Why was he white? Why not from a larger race? Why not send him now when communications would greatly increase the number of people he could reach. The list of questions goes on and without any really good answers or any answers at all.
The big difference between the scientific argument and religious faith is relatively simple. Science attempts to 'prove' lots of stuff (i accept that you cannot 100% prove anything, especially to those who do not wish to have something proven to them) but there is consideration of evidence and conclusions drawn. Religion is faith. As the world 'progresses' people are asked to have a blind faith in a greater god, or as Christians like to refer to him (or her), the creator. – hence creationalism. Yet, despite the best efforts of the churches (various) there is not one single shred of evidence that there is a god or greater being, not a single one! Hence the faith idea. Also there is not one single shred of evidence that Jesus was anything other than a man. If there were anything that could stand as proof of the existence of a god etc then the church would highlight it in quick time.
Amarantha, you are correct that there is lots scientists don’t know and don’t understand, forces great and small, and things we think we kinda understand but don’t really get enough to do anything good with it. Fusion, quantum tunnelling, various matter forms etc etc and the list goes on. I apologise if I missed your point.
I think the bottom line is really, that people are welcome to their own beliefs and spirituality. And i would never argue with someone about that. The beauty of the god idea is simple in that anything science ‘proves’ can be attributed to a god. The ancient argument of creationalism again, this gets blown out of the water and as it turns out, not a problem cos evolution was gods idea anyway. If somebody wishes to blindly believe in something (i use blindly not as a critical term but meaning that there is no proof) that is pure faith, then you cannot and will not convince them they are wrong because they can attribute everything to that faith. I say we discovered nuclear power, god gave us the tools. And so it goes on. But while god gives us all we need to do everything we have so far and it is all attributable to him. He takes no responsibility for shortcomings! That is the free will he gave us!! He kind of has it all ways doesn’t he? If it’s good he did it and if it sucks, well its probably our fault!!!
Why doesn’t god send his son again now? Frankly no one would believe it. He would have to whip out some proper bona fide miracles to be taken seriously. If he can’t convince a world of his greatness, how all powerful can he really be? Church attendance is dwindling in many countries because people are becoming educated and seeing that science offers a believable alternative to blind faith.
Hehe, and just so i don’t have to apologise later – I’m sorry if i offended anyone! I’m not angry or being curt! In fact i’m quite enjoying the debate ;-)
Judaism really does seem to have been highly fragmented at the time of Christ, and Christianity seems no less so during its first three or four centuries. I agree its earlier days seem a lot more interesting. Just taking a first glance at some of the Nag Hammadi material gives me that feeling, and I had a similar impression from the Qumran finds.
It's always a pleasure to read your blogs, Gerry, always thoughtful and inspiring. You should have been my dad! This time, though, I found it very emotional to read some of the feedback as well. My hat is off to you all. Clear thoughts, passion, tolerance, curiosity and interesting ideas - all the elements of fine writing.
Tony, I don't share your feeling that there are only three verdicts, though. I don't think Jesus was a god or a madman or a scoundrel. I think there are other readings. He clearly had excellent reasons for saying many of the things that he said but it may be misleading, even if we take them to have been well transcribed and translated, to presume that they were offered without multiple agendas. He was, after all, apparently a fine orator and a fine leader. I think the more sources we have and the more we know of the politics of that place and time, the better we can attempt to understand. But then my interest in all this is not philosophical or religious but historical. I am not a theist so the subject is no more heated for me than the question of whether the battle of Hastings really happened. It had not occurred to me to see this thread as pseudo-religious. I suppose for me the idea of false religion has little meaning. There are just different religious ideas. Anyway, I was sorry to read that you have found this kind of discussion hard, Tony, but you have been more than willing nonetheless to take part and I admire you a great deal for that. It takes courage to respond to a hot issue with warmth.
Gerry, your idea of evolution having a unified direction reminds me of the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. Have you read him at all? It's appealing to think that intelligence could be manifest at multiple scales. It's intriguing that we still have absolutely no idea what consciousness is. Apologies to Dennett, Penrose, Pinker, Greenfield and Hofstadter, but we really don't. We don't even understand the feeling of getting pissed, but we sure as hell know what it feels like. It was really all too easy to pick holes in Teilhard's work. There are too many examples to show that natural selection just doesn't do what he said - it is not apparently targeting perfection - organisms don't get better and better, they just get different, sometimes apparently more primitive. However, you can still make a case for a general advancement, and natural selection is only half of the evolutionary mechanism. The other half is the way that alternatives are presented for selection. Until recently, many biologists believed it was all a matter of inheritance. About four fifths of our genome now appears to be viral in origin, some of it remarkably recent. Particularly, some of the genes that make our unique brains possible are a recent retroviral incursion, an earlier one being the genes that make the placenta, and thus mammals, possible. Many such developments were introduced in a manner similar to the AIDS retrovirus. It is now clearer that what drives the possibilities for selection is far more than simply inheritance. Not that any of this points to intelligence at all. But it makes the landscape a lot more open to its intervention. The river out of Eden is a more choppy one than previously imagined.
Mighty Jock, you say, "Did Jesus live - Yes. Was he the son of god? Probably not. If he was then, why send him then? Why there? Why not send him again? Why was he white? Why not from a larger race? Why not send him now when communications would greatly increase the number of people he could reach. The list of questions goes on and without any really good answers or any answers at all."
Those are really good questions, Jock, and believe it or not the answers to them are quite central to the Christian faith. They all have answers and anyone who is is interested can easily discover them for themselves by studying the Bible.
The original christians' writings (the apocrypha), by those who lived with Jesus, were suppressed and replaced by the New Testament when the Roman emperor Constantine created the Catholic (literally: 'inclusive') church at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. At the time, the Roman Empire was being torn apart by religious strife. Constantine decided to create a single religion which combined all the elements of the most popular faiths of the time: Catholicism.
The story of Jesus as told in the New Testament bore very little resemblance to the original gospels, in which Jesus was a prince of the house of David. Mary Magdalen was a princess of the house of Benjamin, and an alliance between the two richest and most powerful of the 12 Jewish tribes was a threat to the balance of power, so the other tribes sought the help of the Romans to deal with jesus and his followers.
But Jesus wasn't interested in politics. He took a spiritual path and became a prophet, preaching tolerance and philanthropy. Nowhere in the apocrypha (such of the original writings as survived, eg the Dead Sea scrolls) is it suggested that Jesus was any more divine than any other man. The 'son of God' aspect was added in Constantine's version of his story. Constantine's version of Jesus is largely based on a Roman god called Mithras. Mithraism was very popular with the military, and was therefore a dominant factor in the new Catholic church. See if any of this sounds familiar:
Mithras was the son of the Sun god, born to the virgin wife of a carpenter. Celebrants of Mithraism ate the flesh of a sacrificed bull, and drank its blood, which represented the body and blood of the god. The incarnate Mithras was hanged, but resurrected after three days.
None of the above featured in the original christian writings, but were added by Constantine to bring the Mithraists into the Catholic church.
I find it kinda ironic that christians disregard the original writings of those who actually lived with Jesus, labelling them apocryphal at best, blasphemous at worst, and defend a dogma created three centuries after Jesus by the very people (Romans) who persecuted them for so long.
I do have to say at this point, that i read one of the 'answers' to the God Delusion by Dawkins. I think it was the Dawkins delusion but i can't remember who wrote it. either way, i found the arguments pretty weak but at one point, whilst trying to prove a section of the bible, the author referred to the bible as proof!! basically saying the bible is true cos it says so in the bible!! I think this pretty much sums up the faith for me. There is no proof and there can't be, its a matter of pure faith.
One Bible verse that this happens in would be Romans 8:28. "And we know that all things work together for good." However, this isn't the entire verse, we need to take it in its context. The entire verse reads "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." In many cases, people will only take sections of the Bible, but that is like reading the middle of the book without reading the beginning. You get an entirely different message. The Bible, to those who look into it and search out the different evidences and the context, supports itself.
Your points with the 'we believe the Bible because it tells us so' is actually a very valid argument. Many Christains don't know how to back up their faith. This fallacy is known as begging the question and it used quite often unfortunately. Generally, we are supposed to live by faith, but God did not give us a blind faith to live by. Again, if you take the time to look into the historical accounts of the Bible, such as places, empires, so on, you will find that they were real people and real countries that lived in that time era. Looking into the scientific accounts, evidence for Noah's flood and a young age earth are both evident, despite all the advertising hype about it. I've spent many years of my life searching the scientific aspects despite only being 18, please don't go claiming there is none unless you want some information to back my theories up. That Bible does back itself up as a credible source, though many people don't realize that, but again, the begging the question fallacy comes into play because many people don't know that full truth, hence the 'seek and you shall find.' we need to search for the truth if we plan on ever finding it. That includes looking at both sides of the stories. The fact is, we all get the same facts, there are fossils in the ground, there was an ice age, the earth is older than we are, but it is a matter of how we interpret the information that determines what kind of conclusion we can draw from it all. If we look at it through a preconceived notion, we will interpret it as the notion unless the facts are glaringly against it. Even then some people refuse to change their minds they are so set.
None of this is a direct attack on you, and I apologize if it seems that way. I am simply trying to get my point across as clearly as I can, because with misunderstanding comes numerous different negative side effects. If anything I've written doesn't make sense or you want more, please let me know and I will provide what I can.
I don't consider it an attack at all and am grateful for the time you have taken to reply. However, my point is not that the people who wrote sections of the bible didn't exist. I believe they did. I'm sure many of the sunjects and happenings they discuss did take place. But it does not offer any proof that any of it happened for the reasons that are believed by christians. I think a large amount of interpreatation took place. as well as a large amount of artisitc licence. we have also already heard that segments of other peoples accounts were left out for many reasosn by those that determined how the bible should look.
But at no point does the bible or any other religious text, offer any proof or evidence that there was a force at work outside that of man and/or nature. I may be playing devils advocate here, but there is no proof of a greater existance. as i ahve said previously, i don't doubt jesus and his followers existed. In fact i'm sure they did. The problem would come in proving he was anything other than a normal man.
I should add that i am open to any input and have an open mind on spiritual ideas (easy to say i know! ;-) i have beliefs of my own and at a younger age actually at one point thought i had a calling to join the church. But i still stand by my statement that to date there is no evidence that a god exists. or ever has. Only the faith of those that wish to believe and a disputed book which is not accepted by well over half the worlds population. ;-)
As I pointed out in the post everyone has ignored above, in the original christian writings, Jesus was just a normal man. It was only when the Roman version of the bible was compiled that he became divine, to appease the Mithraists.
No matter how many times it's pointed out that the New Testament version of Christ is in fact a thinly-disguised Mithras, this is something christians simply ignore. The christ of the apocrypha was the historic Jesus: the christ of the Roman bible is Mithras!
But you can't hear me, can you?
Wrathnar: very interesting on apocryphal writings etc but could you be more specific? I'm thinking of the section about 'original gospels, in which Jesus was a prince of the house of David. Mary Magdalen was a princess of the house of Benjamin, and an alliance between the two richest and most powerful of the 12 Jewish tribes was a threat to the balance of power, so the other tribes sought the help of the Romans to deal with jesus and his followers.' Where does all that come from?
Also: 'Nowhere in the apocrypha (such of the original writings as survived, eg the Dead Sea scrolls) is it suggested that Jesus was any more divine than any other man.' I wonder what you have in mind here. The gospel of Peter certainly has him as entirely divine. I suspect the Gospel of James probably does as well (saying that as a child he struck dead a teacher who crossed him). Also, I've just asked Wiki about the Dead Sea Scrolls and there doesn't seem to be anything directly relating to Jesus in there.
Mythwriter Tela: I'm interested in your statement that 'Looking into the scientific accounts, evidence for Noah's flood and a young age earth are both evident.' Well yes, as regards flood myths - because an awful lot of ice sheets melted at the end of the Ice Age, sea levels rose by about 300 feet etc But what's this about young age earth? How young? Are we talking billions, millions, thousands, or what? Does anyone scientifically believe dinosaurs, for instance, survived beyond 65 million years ago?
Mighty Jock: you're quite right that I don't proceed from a fundamentalist Christian position but that's nothing unusual. There are too many contradictions in the Bible to take it literally even if we wanted to. The worst example from my point of view is the disagreement in Genesis 1 and 2 about the creation of women. Genesis 1 has man and women created equally, both in the divine image, whatever that may be. Genesis 2 has Eve made out of Adam's rib - blatantly anti-feminine propaganda, in my view - and along with the apple story it has been used to oppress half of the human race for over two thousand years. (To be fair, the Greeks were also pretty anti-feminine. What was wrong with everybody? Why had they suddenly started hating the the nicer half of the human race?... I mustn't go on...)
Aag, I'm being shunted out of the computer room again. (Mother in law's lie down.) Thanks to Jules for kind words. respect to Tony and Amarantha for consistently thoughtful responses. Apologoes to anyone else I've missed. I'm being forcibly ejected... Soz... I'm gone...
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
Basically, Christianity and Mithraism were the main rival religions in the 4th C AD, and arguably Mithraism won.
Now I really am going down the pub, whether it's god's will or not!
The subject of Mithras is a difficult one, as there were so many versions of Mithraism, the oldest being Persian. However, it seems undeniable that the post-Constantine version of Jesus is Mithras renamed.
The fact that modern christians seem unaware of this is a little puzzling. Perhaps they don't want to know?
In 2056, an archaeological dig in Northern Egypt unearthed a number of sealed clay jars found to be at least three thousand years old. They were not prioritised, looking rather unremarkable compared to some of the other finds, and it was some time before they were finally opened under controlled conditions and the contents examined. Largely they contained documents - lists of household effects, astronomical recordings and an interesting set of what appeared to be logarithmic tables. To the shock of the assembled team, one final jar opened to reveal the first complete and unabridged text of the Old Testament, as dictated by God in the original Greek. It contained the previously unknown first page, now held at the museum of antiquities in Hama. Thanks to this remarkable find, we have in our possession an original edition of one of the most enduring pieces of literature in the world. But it is that first page that has held everyone's attention for the last decade:
To my darling Cassandra,
with whom it has been my
privilege to share a
planet, an epoch and
many loins.
His cognizance the almighty
God Apollo asserts his moral
authority to be identified
as the author of this work.
Any resemblance to real
persons living or dead
is purely coincidental.
For the young earth, there is believe that the earth is only a couple thousand years old. There is evidence in the way the earth spins, how close the moon is, the size of the sun, nova remnants, and the fact we've seen no forming stars (though there have been claims) as well as other evidences. There are also other evidences that can lead to a creationist point of view, such as DNA, the molecular world, and physics.
Also, another bit i forgot to include, as for dinosaurs, because of the perfect and different environment before the flood, iot is plausible that the reptiles, and people, could have grown to larger proportions than normal, since reptiles grow every day of their life a longer lifespan and better growth rate would be causing a large lizard or reptile to form. As for their extinction, because of their large size and the ice age that occurred after the flood, they weren't able to adjust as well as the other animals on earth, and died off due to predators or lack of vegetation. This is just a theory, mostly because no one truely knows what happened to the dinosaurs, but we do know that they existed.
I hope this all makes sense, if not let me know
But, back to Gerry's topic, one thing that's undeniable is that the early (pre-Constantine) version of christianity was Gnostic. Catholicism was anti-gnostic by definition (gnosis = direct experience of god, catholicism says you can only come to god through the church), and was bound to persecute the surviving remnants of christianity's original form.
I became interested in the subject because of the Manicheans, a very much misunderstood gnostic sect who, incidentally, held that Jesus and Mithras were one and the same.
and if the earth was so bad then that god sent a flood, he must be due sending another shortly, cos things have gotten pretty bad.
But that aside, there is proof of floods etc and the ice age. but these things are natural phenomenon. Nothing at all to say there was any greater force involved than natural eartch movement etc.
Mythwriter, you're surely not suggesting there is any real evidence for creationism? I heard Duane Gish speak once, and there wasn't an ounce of truth or value in anything he said. Honestly, take care with those guys.
Wrathnar: Mithraism is probably worthy of a good look, but I think you credit Constantine with too much power. Many of the early Christians were thoroughgoing headbangers, quite willing to get martyred or - later - martyr someone else (e.g. Hypatia of Alexandria - a woman too clever for their liking). It's hard to see them saying, 'Okay, fair cop, we'll worship Mithras but pretend he's Jesus.' Just doesn't ring true.
On the other hand, it's more than credible that Constantine sided with the most myopic of the Christians because they would give a nice straightforward unifying message - no nonsense about being 'saved' by bringing forth 'what is within you' (Gospel of Thomas) - that would be no good for power. No, Constantine would want to say the greatest power in the universe was on his side - so, of course, he would side with those Christians who insisted that salvation was only through Jesus. If the Romans emperors then kept the Popes in their pockets, salvation would then effectively be through the emperors. (i.e. they'd control you in this world and the next - hence the increase in popularity for Hell round about this time.) I was amazed to read in the Catholic Encycopaedia online that for the Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. the Emperor Justinian actually imprisoned Pope Vigilius. (Why? Well, that was the council at which they completed the anathematising of Origen and one of Origen's key beliefs - reincarnation - a belief that would be no good for a Roman emperor because that would loosen his grip on you in the next world.)
Will post this and then see what else has been developing - things is moving fast. Oh, but before I do, I think we'll have to put Wrathnar's theory about Jesus, Mary Magdalene etc into Room 101 - doesn't look like there's any actual evidence. Soz...
The idea of a relationship between early Christianity and Mithraism is based on a remark by the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr, who accused the Mithraists of diabolically imitating the Christian communion rite.[113] Based upon this, Ernest Renan in 1882 set forth a vivid depiction of two rival religions: "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic,"[114] Edwin M. Yamauchi, a Christian apologist, makes the claim that Renan's work was "published nearly 150 years ago, [and] has no value as a source. He [Renan] knew very little about Mithraism..."
Doesn't sound promising. Nonetheless, I have printed out Wrathy's reference (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html) and shall mull it at leisure.
Gnosis = knowledge. The Gnostics were a heretical off-shoot of Christianity who held that only those with special secret knowledgecould come to God.
Catholic = universal. Everyone, without exception could come to God. Pretty much the opposite of Wrathnar's interpretation.
Some good points, Mythwriter, although creationists mostly suggest the Earth is between 6000 and 10000 years old. Ther are, btw thousands of very eminent creation scientists.
Jules: your article fro 2056 is a fake. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek. ;-)
The earliest gospel to be written was Mark's.
MightyJock: The answer to those questions involve a thorough knowledge of the whole Old Testament and takes in God's plan from creation through the Fall, the selection of Abram to become the father of a great nation, the history of the Jews, the prophets, the last of whom was John the Baptist and finally the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. I'm away from home atm. If you're really interested, message me and we can talk about it later.
I wish I had time to say more.
This does not prove the Gospel of Thomas came first, but it makes it credible to ask the question. It also makes it credible to doubt that gnostics were some sort of heretical off-shoot. More likely they were the losers in a later Battle of the Believers.
1) How can christians believe in the literal truth of the new testament when it was entirely rewritten by Roman politicians in the 4th C AD?
2) How can they believe in the literal truth of the NT Jesus when he's clearly Mithras renamed, and entirely unlike the historical Jesus as described in the apocryphal gospels?
3) Why, whenever we get into this kind of debate, is it the atheists, agnostics, Luciferians etc who know about the history and origins of christianity, and the actual christians just say "Well, it says in the Bible . . ."
Are they not interested enough in their own religion to look into its origins? The Bible was rewritten by various people with political agendas; surely anyone truly comitted to a belief in Jesus would want to know what those who actually lived with him have to say? But no, they just trot out quotes from Constantine's version, and don't want to know what came before.
4) It seems that the atheists etc are willing to debate the historical basis of christian belief, whereas the christians themselves aren't willing to listen to any evidence. Many people are of the opinion that religion is an excuse for not thinking for yourself - do christians really think that god gave us a brain but doesn't want us to use it?
5) History clearly shows that the current version of christianity is Mithraism by another name - how can christians blindly accept that? How can they believe that Constantine's version of Jesus - clearly Mithras - is the same as the real historical Jesus, who was predated by Mithras? How can it make sense that the story of Mithras, predating the historical Jesus, could then be the same?
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I'm genuinely baffled by these questions.
I'm also with Wrath on the whole 'bible has been re-written' thing - it's a matter of historical fact that the bible is as much a political document as anything else, and has been re-jigged many times to suit what ever the people in charge at the time wanted it to say. That and recent studies into early fragments have discovered that the translations are vague at best: for example, there is a good case of the number of the beast being 616, not 666, simply due to a mis-translation. This has happened to many different so-called holy scriptures (and is still happening, especially with the Qur'an), mirroring political as much as ideological thinking of the time.
Mithras's persona was much less developed than Christ's and the key image was the tauroctony - Mithras slaying the bull and fertilising barren soil with its blood. Similarily, you were baptised in a bull's blood. Although the corollories are obvious, this is fundamentally different from Christianity, in which the key image is the crucifixion. By extension, Mithras is generally depicted as a warrior, astride a horse, very similar in appearance to Alexander the Great, whereas Jesus is seen principally as a victim.
1) How can christians believe in the literal truth of the new testament when it was entirely rewritten by Roman politicians in the 4th C AD?
This is just not true. The 27 book canon of the NT that existed at the time Constantine adopted Christionity was the original, inspire word of God, mostly written late first centuary and early second centuary. And, of course the OT, too, remained unchanged.
2) How can they believe in the literal truth of the NT Jesus when he's clearly Mithras renamed, and entirely unlike the historical Jesus as described in the apocryphal gospels?
I've already explained the process in which the NT canon gradually came to be accepted by the Church to be the the inspired word of God, and other, often worthy writings were rejected because they also contained some serious flaws. Jesus is clearly NOT Mithras renamed, if for no other reason than the sacrificial bull which seems to have been central to the exclusive Mithraism was symbolic of all that Jesus came to replace! He put an end to the need for continuous imperfect sacrifices and the shedding of blood to enable the people's sin to be forgiven, by becoming the one perfect sacrifice and shedding his own blood, once and for all, that your sin and mine might be forgiven.
3) Why, whenever we get into this kind of debate, is it the atheists, agnostics, Luciferians etc who know about the history and origins of christianity, and the actual christians just say "Well, it says in the Bible . . ."
Are they not interested enough in their own religion to look into its origins? The Bible was rewritten by various people with political agendas; surely anyone truly comitted to a belief in Jesus would want to know what those who actually lived with him have to say? But no, they just trot out quotes from Constantine's version, and don't want to know what came before.
The Bible's 66 books were indeed written by over 40 authors - some highly educated, some simple farmers, shepherds, kings, fishermen, ex-Roman collaborators, theologians - a disparate bunch; it was also written over a period of about 4000 years. The different styles of the writing can be clearly discerned - and yet there is an amazing wholeness about the Bible. It clearly forms a complete work. This is because each writer was inspired to write as he did by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is God's love letter to his created people showing us the way to God.
4) It seems that the atheists etc are willing to debate the historical basis of christian belief, whereas the christians themselves aren't willing to listen to any evidence. Many people are of the opinion that religion is an excuse for not thinking for yourself - do christians really think that god gave us a brain but doesn't want us to use it?
If I were lost in a unfamilliar city and someone led me through the maze of roads onto my route and pointed ahead to where I could see my destination in the distance, I would be a fool, indeed, if I were to say to myself, 'Well, actually some of those other roads we passed looked interesting and some, at least, certainly looked as though they were going in the right direction, I think I really ought to try a few of them, rather than just follow this road blindly all the way to my destination that I can see at the end of it.' I certainly use MY brain.
5) History clearly shows that the current version of christianity is Mithraism by another name - how can christians blindly accept that? How can they believe that Constantine's version of Jesus - clearly Mithras - is the same as the real historical Jesus, who was predated by Mithras? How can it make sense that the story of Mithras, predating the historical Jesus, could then be the same?
This is a bit repetitive. Christianity is clearly NOT Mithraism; it is findamentally different. Constantine adopted the already established Christian Bible. You ask how a Christian can believe. A Christian is simply someone who has come to realise that he is a sinner (no matter how good or neutral he may be as well) and that God loves him inspite of it. Loves him enough to let his own Son come and die in his place to pay the price of that sin. Welcomes him as his own son or daughter when he accepts Christ's free and unconditional offer of salvation. When such a person, now a Christian, sees his whole life changed and experiences the love of God in his heart, I ask you, how can he help but believe?
The relationship between Christianity and Ancient Egypt was a concern to the middle Victorians who were very broadminded in in their researches compared with today's thinkers (Through family research I came across the name Gerald Massey who was both a Chartist and a scholar of ancient Egypt but looked no further than what was on the 'Internet' I had wondered why a great-great grandfather had named one of his children Gerald Massey. The baby did not survive and is buried in a cemetary in India. The name Gerald Massey is not recalled now - even in the local studies department of South london - where he occasionally lived.
I watched the first part of a TV serial about Jesus and Mary. Gabrielle appears as a man and not an angel; this did not work. i thought the idea of telling the story from the vantage point of the three Kings a good one, but did not watch the succeeding episodes so i have no comment on this either. I watched Ben Hur last week which dramatised a very conventional view of Christ and included miracles, but I doubt if a similar film could be made now. There was no TV repeat of Bach's Christmas Oratorio which is a shame; instead Mozart's Don Juan was shown.
I did attempt a play about someone who believed in God. However, the plot would rely more on a grandson having faith in a grandfather, rather than a grandfather having faith in God. Ie, for example. a grandfather could obtain immortality though a grandson, (On the surface, there is no connection, but my Greek novel is an update of my grandfather's travel books ) I think my grandfather may have incorporated his view on faith into his view of his muse, but i am not sure.
But it does seem to me that it's highly likely that what began as oral stories about Jesus, passed from one person to the next as someone described above (sorry, but I don't have enough time to identify who said it), would have become subtly changed in the telling. Rather like Chinese whispers. You only have to listen a news report on the radio and compare it with the same story on the TV news, or to compare two different newspaper stories on the same item, to see how that happens. So surely there must be discrepancies (which we will never be able to identify) between the life and character of the man who was Jesus and the way he is described in the gospels that made it into the Bible. And also it seems to me highly likely that the finished version of the Bible would have been edited to impart a particular message, some of which may not have been the word of God.
Wrathnar, you really did get me curious with this Mithras stuff, but it just doesn't seem to be panning out in the research, as Gerry says above. Sorry - would go there with you if I could, but now I'm puzzled how you are able to state what you do so categorically. Are there some sources you can give to back up your position?
Tony, you make a strong case in places, bringing proper historical context to some things I never understood before. In between gems like this, though, you do state some things that seem to come from nowhere. I suppose someone telling me that anything is the original, inspired word of God, without any attempt to show what that means or why they believe it, is always going to leave me behind. It really made me think hard, reading your post. Some of your religious convictions read like some of my scientific ones. When I state that there is no absolute time, only relative measurement of change, I have reasons for believing that, but I will never be able to convince a temporalist that it is true - my reasons aren't articulate or verifiable enough. I find it self-evident, which doesn't help anyone. Maybe some things that we believe for what are, to us, excellent reasons are next to impossible to communicate to anyone of a different persuasion. Perhaps we are forever bound to disagree. We all have different theories that naturally appeal to us. I'm just wondering whether that is true. And if it is, I think I'm okay with it.
Thanks, Gerry, for welcoming a foreign deity to a page that is already spreading tendrils. But is Tony saying the old testament wasn't written in Greek? By Apollo? You know what this means? This whole piece-of-crap wormhole gadget I got from the market doesn't work at all. You wait till I get my hands on that tosser with the flat cap and the bent nose that sold it me. Merry christmas, you...you...
I have read that the actual historical Jesus was called Yeshua, and was not only Jewish by birth but also by religion. He was never a 'christian', but remained a Jew, a practitioner of Judaism, throughout his life.
It's also worth pointing out that the gospels are very contradictory, so that they can't all be literally true.
Damn, wasn't long before I got sucked back into this, was it?
Jules: I can't be arsed to cite my sources in detail. But try googling "mithras jesus", there's plenty of info online. Incidentally, many parallels can be drawn between the NT story of Jesus and other deities, eg Horus. It's arguable that christianity is an amalgam of many religions, which may account for its popularity - it took all the best, most popular bits from everyone else!
Lucifer 'the bringer of light' has been identified with the morning star (Mars).
Jesus was quoted as saying "I am the morning star".
So, is Jesus Lucifer?
The earth's rotation is deteriorating at a certain speed. If you do a simple calculation backwards a couple million years, the earth would be spinning so fast that any living thing would have been thrown off if the plant's orbit wasn't thrown into chaos first.
The moon, that too is getting closer at a determined rate, do the same calculations and you can come to the same conclusion, if the earth was millions of years old, the moon would be inside of the earth and the tides would have flooded the continents.
The sun, according to science goes through different stages, if their timings are correct as they say, the sun would be so large it would be out and beyond juipiter.
With supernova remnants, there are 3 classes. The first are remnants of explosions that happened withing the first 10 years, 2nd withing about 50000, and the third, into the millions of years. According to evolution, there should be about 5 stage 1, 600 (approximately) stage 2's, and 5000 stage 3's. what we see is 2 stage 1's, 250 stage 2's, and 0 stage 3's.
DNA, the evidence is in its intricacy. There was a 'finding' that there was useless dna, this is not the case. every piece of DNA does something whether that's what kind of protiens or what cells they will be, everything is mapped out. Something of random chances I find is nearly impossible to believe in chances when every intricacy that is needed is create a human, or any other being, for instance, let me give you some statistics.
Now forgive me if these are slightly off, I don't remember the exact statistics, but TrueU has it in its lessons, a good resource btw. Anyways, with the statistics I have written down, there is a 1/20 chance of creating an amino acid that actually is useful in a way. There are about 150 amino acids in a protein (generally they are 300-400). The probability becomes about 1/10^74. Each protein that is made needs to be left sided otherwise it is useless. There are also 2 different links that are possible, and only one will work correctly. Between all of these, the end result is about 1/10^164. Then, on top of that, it takes 250-400 proteins to make a small cell, that increases the number exponentially. And, with the statistics the way they are, if there was an evolutionary change every second for 6 billion years, The amount of changes are actually moer than the amount of seconds in that 6 billion years.
These are just a few different evidences, others can be found at the website for the institution for creation research, it's a really good source, as well as answers in genesis.
You cite very good points Mythwriter. I'm quite sure that a convinced evolutionist - and I mean one who has studied any available evidence, not the hoards who blindly believe whatever the atheistic side of the scientific community tell them next - any true-thinking, yet convinced evolutionist must have a far greater faith than I could ever hope to have!
Don't let Wrathnar stir you up. I can see the spoon from here!
But what you say in support of Mythwriter's text does trouble me greatly. These are not good arguments. But I think the only way to back up what I'm saying is with a separate blog. I will try to set that up when I can and give you both the opportunity to answer it critically.
Mythwriter,
Much appreciate your openness in presenting these arguments. To me, though, the logic is flawed throughout, building on implicit and faulty suppositions. It is typical of the deliberate misinformation of the Creationist movement. Believe me, they know what they're doing. Please don't be taken in by it, and do read some good books on cosmology and genetics. Try, for example, Lee Smolin's The Life of the Cosmos, Steve Jones's Almost Like a Whale and Frank Ryan's Virolution. You will find no arrogance or narrow-mindedness there, only curiosity and compelling reasoning.
This blog probably isn't the place to discuss either DNA or the galactic life cycle, but I will try as soon as I can to write up a separate article, or two, and give you the opportunity to argue a case against it.
It is possible that our estimate of the age of the universe is incorrect. It is possible that our estimate of the age of the earth is incorrect. It is even possible that the concept of age is a misguided one. And it is likely that a good proportion of the vertebrate and viral legacy in our DNA still to be explained does nonetheless have a function. But whatever the case, creationism and intelligent design do not offer alternative answers to the careful study of the subject itself. They are a political organisation and they use dishonest methods to achieve their objectives. Half-truths and misappropriated arguments, with careful omission of relevant facts. They are a danger in a demon-haunted world. Take care.
There. Got that off my chest. That was more blunt than I like to be, but I got burned by those guys years ago - I don't want to see it happen to anyone else.
I agree, DNA is an entirely different matter altogether and I've probably overstepped my bounds in this discussion, considering it was about the books of the Bible and not science.
They do not offer answers, they are simply another perspective in the way to look at the information. if science would remain fact and research based rather than preconceived notions one way or another, we would be much farther along than we are debating which side is correct or not. people can make their own assumptions, just focus on the actual research. Also, both sides will leave out facts, sometimes about the exact same subject, I will not deny this, it is still however after looking at both sides of the argument that I find one over the other. I will say I have a lot to learn, and I'm not afraid to go search for it, but as to my knowledge right now, that is my belief, though I refuse to be closed minded. I appologize for this rant in teh next section, but i am so freaking tired of everyone saying the other side is closed-minded all the time, they're bloody stereotypes! Yes, some people have a narrow-minded approach, but that is not always the case, humanity looks at teh worst in people more than anything. Just because I believe one way or another I'm not narrow minded to the other subject. I appologize as well for my bluntness in that past statement but that is one thing that bugs me to an incredibly high degree
For example, we in this house have always found straight Darwinism a bit too simple. The idea that characteristics cannot be inherited struck us as, lets' say, disappointing, and we always had some sympathy for the discredited Larmackian view that they can. And then guess what - along comes epigenetics, and yes folks some characteristics do seem 'inheritable'. Here's how it works: different parts of our genes are in switch-on and switch-off positions, but if something dramatic happens - let's say a famine affecting our grandparents - then trauma seems to cause different gene portions to switch on and off; hence we become genetically able to respond better to any future famine conditions. (I'm remembering a Horizon documentary on the topic: if anyone find this summary unclear I'll dig out the print-out and post a clearer summary.)
Also, with that point you are giving with the DNA bit (which i believe it would be technically tied into), the DNA has the information in it already, it is a matter of what parts are dominant or recessive, like we learned in our science texts whether creation based or not. blonde hair, black hair, brown hair, we have the capability of having any of them, but depending on situation will determine which is dominant. This can be taken into an extreme with saying human has a recessive gene with not having tails, but I find this illogical in some ways, but that may be just opinion. I apologize, but I must leave for now, I will be back tomorrow. I look forward to reading what else is new.
Okay, here goes:
1) How can Christians believe in the literal truth of the New Testament when it was entirely rewritten by Roman politicians in the 4th C AD?
No, it wasn’t. The Roman politicians backed those Christians whose views were most in sync with their wishes. Hence, Gnostics out; ‘Catholics’ in. Tony, the 27 book canon postdates Constantine, being Athanasius’s contribution (in A.D. 367 says Wiki).
2) How can they believe in the literal truth of the NT Jesus when he's clearly Mithras renamed, and entirely unlike the historical Jesus as described in the apocryphal gospels?
Wrathy must specify his apocryphal gospels. And no, Jesus is not *clearly* Mithras renamed. This is one of those grey area things – I’m inclined to give the idea 20% credibility at present but shall dig further to see if any proofs stack up. As Tony says, the sacrificial bull thing seems opposite to the Christian approach to sacrifice.
3) Why, whenever we get into this kind of debate, is it the atheists, agnostics, Luciferians etc who know about the history and origins of christianity, and the actual christians just say "Well, it says in the Bible . . ."
Wrathy may have half a point here, as it’s obvious that sceptics would look for inconvenient truths which believers would not have any great motive to discover. On the other hand, I cannot entirely dismiss Tony’s idea that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit; I would add though, that just because it’s the Holy Spirit on one end of the telephone it doesn’t follow that the human on the other end is hearing or listening properly.
4) It seems that the atheists etc are willing to debate the historical basis of christian belief, whereas the christians themselves aren't willing to listen to any evidence. Many people are of the opinion that religion is an excuse for not thinking for yourself - do christians really think that god gave us a brain but doesn't want us to use it?
Parable of the Talents – we’ve *got* to use our brains, we’ve *got* to think for ourselves. Humans often duck out of that one, be they religious or scientific in outlook – they often just hook their views onto whatever dogma prevails nearby.
5) History clearly shows that the current version of christianity is Mithraism by another name - how can christians blindly accept that? How can they believe that Constantine's version of Jesus - clearly Mithras - is the same as the real historical Jesus, who was predated by Mithras? How can it make sense that the story of Mithras, predating the historical Jesus, could then be the same?
This is where I suspect Wrathy has stopped being serious, so I’ll turn to Tony’s answer. He stresses the real-life experiences of believers. I think this is a crucial point. I am certain that such experiences happen; what I’m not certain about is how they are interpreted. This methinks is the crux of the matter.
Jules, a little earlier you wrote, "But whatever the case, creationism and intelligent design do not offer alternative answers to the careful study of the subject itself. They are a political organisation and they use dishonest methods to achieve their objectives. Half-truths and misappropriated arguments, with careful omission of relevant facts. They are a danger in a demon-haunted world. Take care.
This may conatin some elements of truth. Ironically, however, you could write the exact same paragraph, just replacing the words, "creationism and intelligent design" with "evolutionists" :-)
Oh, and btw, we mustn't mix up hereditary genetics - which results in individual species gradually evolving (eg, humans getting taller) - with the theory of evolution which postulates one species turning into something completely different (eg a plant eventually becoming an animal). And do note that, althought the media and educationalists have long since dropped the 'Theory of' from any mention of the theory of evolution and treat it as fact, any self-respecting scientist will still refer to it as a theory yet to be proven.
I don't have time to answer properly now but will take a look later. But consider this! If I begin to run and accelerate at a constant rate. Will I eventually go so fast that I will run into myself from behind?? Of course not! It's nonsense and simply not possible!! Everything has boundaries and limits. ;-)
See you all tomorrow ;-)
Okay - I promised some examples of supposition. Here are a few. But, as I promised, I will work on something separate in a lot more depth. Don't expect many people will read it, but it will be a labour of love!
The earth's rotation, or in other words the annual mean true solar day, is currently deteriorating, but not at a fixed rate of deceleration. The trend fits a logarithmic curve, in exact accord with the theory of general relativity. You have supposed a linear relationship with time to support a thesis that the earth is young. This is not so. You are making a simple calculation based upon a supposition which defies the evidence.
The moon is receding, yes. But again, not at a constant speed, and not even at a constant rate of acceleration. So check the measurements that have been recorded and do the calculation. The data does indeed support the moon having coalesced out of material ejected from a broken Earth. It is consistent with the young planet, only a few hundred million years old and a good four billion years ago, striking another planetoid, roughly a fifth its size, if I remember. Earth would have been destroyed. If you model the amount of material that would have achieved escape velocity of the combined mass, it corresponds closely with the mass of the moon. The rest would have become what is the Earth we have now. So what am I suggesting here? I cannot say that that is what happened. It is a theory. But a good one. It fits the facts assembled so far. The Earth at the time would actually have been devoid of water, by the way. And by the way, even if you set two bodies rotating around each other somewhere beyond the ecliptic plane, their speed of rotation subsequently would not be constant but would vary in several ways at once. We also see all those effects in the changing speed of Earth's rotation. But shall we put that aside for now? Don't want to go on too long on Gerry's Lost Gospels blog!
Ideas suggesting that the sun should be currently bigger than it is and is set to go nova in another couple of thousand years were based on a faulty assumption, much touted by a couple of arrogant, macho particle physicists, that the neutrino had no mass. They were wrong, and were themselves making faulty assumptions that led to their own error. It does have a small mass, and now that we can measure it we can run the calculations again and see that the sun is performing as expected. It will not go nova, it seems. It will become a red giant and then a brown dwarf.
Your data on supernova remnants is itself faulty. I think it is based firstly on a misunderstanding of the stages of the stellar life cycle. There is a fusion event that terminates remarkably soon for stars in a certain range of masses, a star class as you put it. It looks to me as though you have that figure with other figures for quite different events that are later in the life cycle. You then interpret them as if the galaxy were a static thing, whereas it is in a wondrous state of constant change. You can capture an instant of time and take a census of the stars of various masses and their current status. Nice. But that's all you've done. Every day it changes. Think of a galaxy instead more like a living thing, with cells dying and others being created all the time. Our galaxy is in its prime, a stage at which it bears spiral arms. These arms do not rotate. Instead it is an arm, a wave, of stellar birth and stellar death that is sweeping through it at the speed normally quoted as the rotational speed of the galaxy. The proportions of particular classes of star, particular masses, varies with time. I guess the main thing to bear in mind is that stars are being created all the time, and we can now watch it happen with remarkable clarity.
Your statistics regarding the likelihood of producing, for example, an amino acid from random sequencing may or may not be valid. It is irrelevant. Evolution is not a random process, far from it, and your presumption, in the stats, appears to be that it is. It is instead an emergent phenomenon and is as such highly self-organising and directed. The results of evolution are governed by successful replication of patterns. Alternatives may be presented to the mechanism of natural selection randomly - they are not at all, and more on that in the other promised blog, but let's suppose they are, as evolutionists have sometimes suggested in the past - even if they were presented randomly, natural selection of patterns is not at all random. Some are vastly more successful than others. To begin with, we can discuss the DNA sequences that code for the proteins that wrap the DNA itself, as we now find in our chromosomes. Nude RNA molecules are capable of self-replication but they are not good at it and can only do it a few times before denaturing. Nonetheless, they change, splice, recombine, alter, but not often and most results make no difference. Imagine just one gene, however, that causes a single triplet of bases to repeat. It turns lysine into a protein polymer that wraps itself around the outer bonds of the nucleic acid molecule, protecting it from the environment and making it vastly more long-lived. It is able to replicate enormously more times. Soon the seas are dominated by this pattern, while others have been extremely unsuccessful and have few descendants. The odds are not equal - anything but. Restrictions on raw material for new copies then compound the differential. The dice is stacked, and with each passing generation, the stacks of dice stack up unilaterally even more so.
This is just a start. As Gerry points out, there are epigenetic effects at many levels, and there are symbiotic effects and viral mechanisms for sequences to be transferred from one location to another, now even from one organism to another. There are powerful selectors at many levels and they all stack the dice.
Myth, does any of this help explain where I see some holes? As I say, I will try to do better when I can put serious time into it. And I will try to explain why evolution is compelling.
Tony, I don't think it is fair to compare Duane's creationist organisation with the scientific establishment that supports evolution. The whole establishment is not trying to deceive the public with carefully constructed smoke. I believe the creationists are doing exactly that, for a public largely in Australia and America that is not familiar with the science and is ready to accept an apparently scientific argument from them. You would be right to accuse members of the establishment of bigotry, stupidity, stubbornness, arrogance, turf war, spoiling of evidence, narrow-mindedness and just being plain wrong. Often. But, though there have been some notable exceptions, on the whole they are not trying to deceive the public. They can just be twats at times. I suppose I share Dawkins's faith in the scientific method, but not his faith in the people who practice it. As a result, a lot of bad science has been done and a lot of time has been wasted, but useful and coherent ideas do get through. But evolutionists are not all organised together, like a herd of cats, with the specific purpose of misleading the public. From my experience with the Creationist movement, they are organised with that very purpose. Very much so. And it is to their eternal damnation.
You seem to be making a case that speciation is something different from variation within a species. It is not. There is no such thing as a species. It is an artificial construct devised by biologists who were unfortunately no more than stamp collectors. There are only individual organisms. The more genetically different two organisms are, the less likely it becomes that a particular combination of their genomes would result in successful reproduction of a viable organism. There comes a time when one particular group of individuals with a history of mating have diverged adequately from another such group that the majority of possible inter-group liaisons would not be fruitful. That this can happen quite suddenly is partly a product of the digital nature of the DNA code. However, sudden as it might be, it is not absolute. Some individuals of one species are still able to mate successfully with some individuals of another closely related one, sometimes. There are many examples of this happening all around us. Species is a notional thing. We are all individuals. There is no such thing then as the human genome. There is only yours, mine, and a few billion others. We can watch speciation happening and there has been a lot of work on this the last thirty years.
Hallelujah, brother. If only!
I wasn't referring to a 'creationist movement', but to the thousands of individual creationist scientists.
Night all.
Not to mythologise in any way, Gerry remains almost superhumanly logical, open-minded and careful of facts in all his summaries. One note I made for Gerry though: you found no reference to Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is only a suggestion but perhaps that is because Jesus is the Greek version of his Hebrew name. The scrolls were first studied and translated into English by Hebrew Scholars who would have used the Hebrew names. As Wrath says Jesus was Yehuah/Yehoah or some other version (there were a few) of the more familiar Joshua and there could be other Biblical characters not immediately recognised for this reason. Just a thought. :-)
Wrathnar, your connection to Mithras I found very interesting and certainly would have responded to it had I known of it before today. For anyone interested in ancient history you are making a valid point. Mithras was revered by the Roman legions much in the way Christians appeal to their saints as patrons of special causes, but I doubt that the Romans picked on Mithras particularly to overcome the Christian religion. The Romans were not monotheists as Aonghus says in reference to Mithraism; they accepted as divine every regional god they came across during their Empire-building and certainly did not wish to provoke any into action against their own. Also, as remains the case today, they knew that the conquered are much easier to govern when allowed to worship in their own way. Mithras was no more original to Rome than most of their pantheon: Jupiter, Neptune, Venus Pluto et al were Roman versions of the Greek gods. Zeus was prodigious in his getting of offspring with mortal beauties (Leda, Europa) and the godesses were partial to a little dallying among mortal men too. Hence the semi-divine Heroes of Greek myth. The Romans were also in the habit of conferring divinity on their Emperors in much the same way as the Ancient Egyptians conferred the divinity of Osiris on successive Pharaohs.
At the time Jesus was born, conception by divine intervention was accepted as not only possible but a matter of fact in most cultures of the known world. The Jews awaited a Messiah sent to them by their God; the faithful are still waiting.
Pontius Pilate, recorded in the New Testament as washing his hands of the treatment of Jesus, leaving it up to the Jews themselves to judge Him, was acting entirely according to official Roman policy throughout the Empire.
And of course the Roman Catholic church, in a subtler way, took the same route in it's mission to Britain: using pagan festivals as Christian festivals where there was symbolic resonance. (At risk of misrepresenting Tony again - this blog is much too long now to scroll all the way back to check - I think he's of the opinion that pagan rites have died out now but that is far from so.)
I may have been overtaken by other postings by now; perhaps by others making the same points. Hey-ho!
This means that Methuselah died just over 1000 years ago. And Jesus came after him. Which by my reckoning means that Jesus was alive in the early Middle Ages - at the time of the Crusades, in fact. How is it, then, that the early saints sailed over to the British Isles in the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th centuries to introduce Christianity here when the man on whom that religion was founded hadn't even been born?
According to scientists, based on actual physical evidence, and calculated in many different ways which all turn out to agree with each other, the Earth is 4540 million years old.
Well this post moves fast! no doubt about that.
I'd like to make only a few comments - To
Mythwriter - Jules has given a very full answer to your post. He obviously speaks from a much stronger knowledge base on this topic than me as i would have simply answered it based on mathematics. I would have added a slightly different slant to your figures about protiens but i think we have moved in sufficiently since then now. ;-)
I have to say i find some of the arguments hard to follow but the concept that 'god' created man, that we simply were not, and then we were! just seems ludicrous to me given half of the evidence available that supports our evolution from more primitive life froms. (although i agree if we were monkeys it would make it much more difficult to stop us picking fruit at will, even if there was a sign saying Don't eat the apples!!!!!! ;-)
Finally, and i can't remember who said it, scientists are not locked together in a conspiricy to delude people and lie to them! the very nature of scientific competition and peer review ensures this. No soomer does one research body discover something than another wants to disprove it or take it further etc. Look at how radiation was discovered? or the models of the atom etc. the research often brings forward more questions than answers, but as a group scientists are not together in that way.
Yes you do get many mistakes, theories that are proven wrong etc. but that is the nature of it. I see no evidence of the various churches setting up groups to try and disprove the bible etc. to really subject it to rigorous investigation to see if it stands up to inspection. This simply doesn't happen! to those that believe it simply seems to be what it is. it contains all the answers and is unquestionable. In fact i reckon if you did seriously question and really start arguing the facts and basis, you'd find yourself persona non grata at the next sunday morning mass etc
Science is the search for truth, that doesn't mean everything that is said is the truth. but i think many religions have just stopped looking past what they believe. and that will always mean that they cease to move with the times and will eventually be replaced.
And really finally, yes there are liars biggots and assholes in science! Man i know a few ;-) but for anyone involved in religion to suggest that more this is a problem in science really needs to consider their position. Nothing divides like religion, nothing causes hatred like religion, nothing causes racial bigorty like religion. I've never joined a peacekeeping force in any country because two scientific bodies fell out and were trying to cleanse each other. and i don't remember ever picking up body parts from the streets of northern ireland because someone disagreed with another persons scientific findings.
Creationist don't 'believe this to be true' Wrathnar. Don't put words in their mouths. They do believe in a 'young earth' without being specific, but certainly closer to 6000 yeras than 4000 million years!
So-called scientific measures of age are all based on huge assumptions. If the assumptions are correct, then the extrapolated age will be correct. If the assumptions are wrong, then you have nothing. For example, for Carbon 14 dating to work, we have to assume that the proportion of radio-active C14 to normal C12 in the atmosphere way back in the distant passed was ecactly the same as it is today. There's no other way of calculating the decay of the C14. We have to assume that the amount of it absorbed by the living matter at the time it died and became fosilised is the same as it would be today. Assuming that to be the case, and knowing how long C14 takes to decay back to C12, and measuring how much C14 still remains, we can calculate how old the fossil is. However, if the fossil contained much less C14 when it died than we attribute to it, it would already have an apparent old age by C14 dateing as soon as it was burried. Applying the technique to fossils now woul mean the apparent age would show as mush olde than they really are. And interestingly there is much evidence to suggest that conditions in the past may well have resulted in a much lower ratio of C14 to C12. So Carbon-dating is pretty useless going back more than a few thousand years. One other example, the rate of formation of stalagtights and stalagmites was assumed to be constant and the sizes of these found in ancient cave systems is also use to calculate the age of the surrounding rocks. Unfortunately, in more recent time stalagmites that have formed in man-made tunnels have grown many time faster than anticipated, confounding the previous age-estimates based on such methods.
Ama, I didn't mean to imply that pagan rituals had actually died out, I just mentioned in passing that, perhaps the celebration of Yuletide might not have been such a big occasion as it is now if the church hadn't picked that date to celebrate Christmas.
yes the dating procedure is based on assumptions as to the quantities of a specific isotope in the subject speciment. But the difference would have to be significant to give a massive discrepancy. It's also worth noting tha the way in which radio isotopes decay is not uniform. What i mean is that C-14 doesn't sit stable for 5700 years and then emit a particla and decay. In a mass of C-14 there is as much proability that a particle will decay in a second as there is that it will last 5000 years. what we can say is that by 5700 years then half will have undergone decay. hence the half life. However we can back this up with significant research to be the case. Considering this it would hold that the intial error in the mass of C-14 would have to be quite large to give a significant error as to the dating. But it also holds that dating is less accurate as time goes further back.
however, isotopes are considered to have decayed after around 10 half lifes usually (broadly speaking). but the point is that being a half life many isotopes never fully decay, the amount remaining just becomes very very small.
what i'm saying is that we can calculate with reasonable accuracy how much C-14 was present by working this back, albeit within a margin of error. So carbon dating would become a little less accurate but i would suggest it would be good for around 50 000 years ish without too much problem. I should add that this isn't my field and i would be happy to be corrected by someone with more knowledge in this specific area (Jules perhaps?)
If this is not sufficient could i refer you to the Oklo 'natural Nuclear Reactor' this is the only recorded time (i believe) when a nuclear chain reaction was set up at a site on the earth. The products from this fission indicate that fission occured many millions of years ago and that the site was self sustaining for thousands of years. This is bourne out by many radio isotopes and can be replicated now as we still use similiar materials and can observe their decay.
I apologise that i cann't remember more of the facts but i'm sure of you search it you will found the evidence is compelling and is not related to any efforts to try and disprove the church etc. From the top of my head (and i can't be bothered to wiki it) i think they say ot went critical more than a billion years ago.
just had a quick look, this article covers the topic a bit and also there is a page on wiki.
either way the earth is considerably older than 6000 years!!! ;-)
While this is good, it would be even better to have another line of comparison, and that is what we get with the Greenland Ice Cores. Annual snow accumulations can show us what dust particles etc were in the air at different times in the past. Consequently, when – for instance – dendrochronology shows very poor tree ring growth from 2354 BC to 2345 BC, it is possible to check the Greenland Ice Cores to see what the problem was, volcanic or maybe even extra-terrestrial impact.
I can see from Wiki that there are far more camps in Greenland than when I last looked a few years ago. This is all to the good as they can check their results against each other to iron out any inconsistencies (dust particles landing at different rates in different sites according to air currents).
The essential point, though, is that the C14 measurements are very robust because they are calibrated against two independent lines of evidence – tree ring growth and ice core samples. Wiki informs me that ‘the 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP’.
Samples taken from Earth, and from meteorites (because the entire Solar system condensed from the same cloud of material) are compared for ratios of Lead isotopes. Pb206/204 is plotted against Pb207/204. (Pb 206 & 207 are end products of Uranium decay, U238 & 235 respectively). This gives a line on a graph which, traced back to origin, gives an age of 4.5 billion years.
This method isn't based on 'assumptions'. If it was based on incorrect assumptions, there would be no reason for the data points to form a straight line on the graph.
But in the spirit of Christmas, can I ask a question? Does any of this debate really matter? I appreciate the breadth of knowledge that is tied up in this thread - and am daunted by some of it - but surely what is really important is how we behave towards our fellow creatures, by which I mean humans and the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and the planet that is our home. Whether we show love towards them and towards ourselves. Whether we show understanding and compassion. Whether we leave this world a better place than when we arrived. Whether we follow what I think is the central tenet of each of the world's great religions, which is to love one another.
Because I most certainly believe in God and in Jesus. I believe in the Hindu gods as well, and in every other religion's gods. To me, they are all facets of the same thing, which is a numinous being that is so vast and so complex and so omnipresent and so benign that our human brains will never be able to grasp it. It is part of being human that we try to understand it, and part of being human that we will never manage it. But we can capture the Divine essence that is within us, whether or not we belong to a particular church.
Here endeth my sermon. xxx
But there must be assumptions. whether it be assumptions as to decay, assumptions as to quantity. nothing like this is absolute. ;-)
that said, i think we can say with a degree of certainty that the earth was not created in the last million years or so;-) and until someone shows me a fossil of human remains (hell i'll take monkey remains!) caked in 2 billion year old material. then i'm thinking that life evolved all on its own ;-)
I've heard Creationists argue that rates of radioactive decay aren't constant, which is true for single atoms, but the fact is that decay rates averaged out over many atoms are very reliably constant. Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions.
The decay of isotopes is well understood in terms of quantum chromodynamics: neutrons tunnel through the potential barrier of the nucleus, the shape of which can be directly measured. The process is not as random and unpredictable as many people seem to think it is.
I don't disgaree with what you say, simply with the absolute certainty with which you state it. There is considerable evidence, overwhelming in fact. but it is not absoilute. I doubt the comuter code even exist that would allow this to be done without at least some bounding assumptions
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/090203-006-science.html?s_kwcid=TC|7308|how%20old%20is%20the%20earth||S|e|6134798357&gclid=CLmRkLv-kaYCFQZO4QodURHeZg
Wow, this has driven a lot of people to say a lot of stuff.
I've sat and read quite a lot and consequently forgotten half what I've read so far to comment on. (but then, I'm only just out of my 3rd session of chemo so can be forgiven for not keeping up. lol)
I'm always interested in 'the books that weren't used in the final decision to make up the bible'.
Twas first highlighted to me many years ago. Since when, I've simply changed the road I now tread - religionwise.
I simply wanted to say 'good on you' for writing it and sharing it with us all.
And thanks to everyone who responded in their own individual manner with their own opinions, ideas and thoughts.
This i think is what makes this country so good,
Freedom to explore and speak.
:o)
Nibs
Mythwriter talk about 5 other methods of dating the Earth. I don't know whether it's true or not, but it motivates me to stick simple-mindedly to calibrated carbon14 measurements for the last 26,000 years. We can all picture tree rings, and if we ask google images we can easily picture Greenland ice cores. I think that helps a lot, because it's pretty difficult picturing carbon 14 (or any of the other interesting isotopes). And what we get from our pictures is a feeling of solidity. If the tree rings and the ice cores are backing up the carbon 14 then that looks like very solid evidence. True, it only takes us back 26,000 years or so (although uncalibrated carbon 14 can take us back a lot futher) but that's quite enough to push the parameters way back beyond 6,000 years or whatever Young Earth figure is favoured.
(By the way, can't resist mentioning the Toba supervolcano - c.73,000 years ago - here the carbon 14 evidence will have lots of volcanic dust in ice cores to back it up, so we be can pretty confident about the story - which is that most of the human race got wiped out - probably only the African sections survived - although fresh data may show pockets of other survival - but I think the DNA evidence is that we all derive from a genetic bottleneck round about 73,000 y.a. - converging lines of evidence, you see - hence rather persuasive.)
Spangles brings in two other lines of thought. Mostly we have been talking about:
1. 'facts', theories, evidence - i.e. theories of what is. However, Spangles also brought in:
2. morality - how we should behave - boiling lots of ideas down to 'love one another' or, as Pnut Cat puts it, 'Hifn evrywuns bez sharing dems pnutz, nowun r havs 2 hargu bout stufs'. She then went on to:
3. experience - it's probably best to quote her direct: 'a numinous being that is so vast and so complex and so omnipresent and so benign that our human brains will never be able to grasp it. It is part of being human that we try to understand it, and part of being human that we will never manage it. But we can capture the Divine essence that is within us, whether or not we belong to a particular church.'
A lot of people would go some way along with this (including Saint Dawk, I think, although he'd argue it is all physically based) - but it's when we get onto the interpretations (i.e. aspect 1. facts, theories, evidence) that we are most likely to part company (and possibly burn each other).
It may be that some people feel unable to go very far with Spangles description at all, and their viewpoints are worthy of respect. (Putting it in terms of Genesis 1 - if we are, male and female, made in 'The Image of God', then that image would appear to include a capacity for doubt, seeing things differently, etc)(Or putting it terms of the Parable of the Talents - different people have different talents; let's be glad they use them.)
Yes indeed, we must emphasise the positive - we may not get everything right (my daughter works in the sharp end of the N.H.S. so I know that everything is certainly not right there) but let's be glad of the things we do get right - especially as they seem to contrast with some of the dubious goings on when Roman Emperors try to get a stranglehold on people in this world and the next.
Religion may be used for good or evil and I would say that today Christianity does a great deal more good than harm, but is not itself responsible for evil; people are that and always will be. Weapons of mass destruction - indisputably works of Science - cannot be used for good in any way unless it is 'good' to end a particular dispute between peoples by using them to wipe out two entire cities and all life within; also leaving the sites uninhabitable and survivors from the fringe and their future children sick for many generations after.
This blog started as a discussion of Lost Gospels and the underlying question is: is the New Testament a reliable record of events at the time of Jesus that supports Creationism and Christian faith or is it a load of bo...propoganda pushed by a few men with an agenda of their own?
For me the book is a wonder in itself: the world's No.1 best seller that has survived in essence through many centuries and will I'm sure survive for as long as there are publishers of text and readers to read it. It's an account of life on Earth and contemporary thinking in the Middle East from several centuries before Jesus was born and may be used not least as a comparative study of history, psychology, the ever changing human condition. Fascinating or what?
My own Holy Bible is the most treasured - on several levels - book that I own. It was published by Wakefield in the fifties; the time that I bought it (on HP actually because I was still at school with only parental pocket-money and the proceeds of a Saturday job to spend). Its binding was made to resemble that of the Gutenberg Bible, the stories and songs are illustrated with full-page plates of the most glorious mediaeval and renaissance art. I can dip into that book with joy and total absorption at any time.
The modern sciences of physics and biology interest me on a purely intellectual level; the Bible too as a study of ancient history and psychology, but my beautiful Bible feeds my soul as well. No other book I know of has the capacity to do that.
Just thought that little piece was worth popping in here.
I am fascinated by the Sumerians and am much interested in how Sumerian stories filter down into the Bible. The Sumerian Noah, for instance, is Utnapishtim (or Ziusudra in other versions). The Sumerian Cain and Abel are, arguably, Dumuzi and Enkimdu. The Garden of Eden narrative has points in common with the Inanna story, especially as regards the Tree. I've sometimes wondered what happened to the Sumerians - where did they go after their great days? Did they recycle themselves as the Jews? (Probably not, but Dan Brown or his ilk could make something of the idea.)
When all's said and done, these ancient tribes are part of our ancestry (Scientists and Creationists agree on one point at least: all modern humans are descendants of one pair.) So wherever our ancestors went, there went the Sumerians. Tracing the journey is fascinating isn't it?
Thanks to Amarantha for reminding us of the enormous contribution of the Bible as a piece of culture and a work of inspiration. It is so much more than great literature. The body of art it has inspired is stultifying. And working with text of such gravity has stimulated translators all over the world to deliver some of the finest prose ever achieved. The Lutheran bible brought great things to the German language and the Tyndale bible arguably did more for the English language than Shakespeare did. You don't have to be religious, even if it may help a bit, to appreciate what a wonderful thing the Bible is. Just pick one up and read it to find truth and enlightenment. One day, of course, folks may be saying a similar thing about The Simpsons. But that's probably the only other piece of five thousand years of global culture that can touch the Bible for level of insight.
We drove past Firle village yesterday, which is the parish of Peter Owen Jones, whose TV programme inspired this blog. I mentally sent him a message saying he'd unwittingly started a huge and complex debate!
I thougt your comments quite appropriate, Spangles. While I can't go along with your pantheism, I agree it's much more important to be sure we are living right and treating each other right than to exercise our minds on what may or may not have happened in the distant past. A bit of both, maybe, but not the latter at the expence of the former.
When I was a teenager I was given extra coaching in English literature by our vicar, who was a Welshman with a great love of words. He had started off as a miner in Swansea and frequently upset a lot of his flock because he said what he thought. He once told me that many of his parishioners thought they were 'buying a seat in Heaven,' as he put it, by going to church each Sunday. 'Then they go home and kick the cat,' he added, bitterly.
On Christmas morning my two-year-old grandson, Benjamin, who believes in telling it how it is, was arriving at church with his familly, just a little late. As they opened the door at the back the vicar was announcing the first hymn and Ben was announcing I DON'T WANT TO GO TO CHURCH!. The vicar paused and then said, "Well, I don't think you're the only one."
The interesting gist of the Topic to me is that Pantheism seems to work better in poetry than any other ism or ity. Does this mean it is in some way true? For me the answer is yes. It is true (for me) in the sense that Truths of the Imagination are true. Do such truths matter? For Coleridge (and Wordsworth) Primary Imagination is the Deity imagining the universe into existence; Secondary Imagination is the human echo of this act, as we create music, poetry, art etc. (There's a lot more to it than this, of course - for instance the difference between Imagination and Fancy - whereby Imagination comes up with something genuinely new, whereas Fancy merely reassembles familiar ingredients [e.g. horse + horn = unicorn].)
So yeah, Pantheism rules. (I do suspect, however, that it should be possible to define the Holy Spirit as God Immanent - i.e. in everything = Pantheism.) (By the way, while I'm thinking aloud I suspect the well known atheist Philip Pulman of having incorporated the Holy Spirit into his atheistic 'His Dark Materials' trilogy in the guise of the mysterious 'Dust'.)
Water can come in various qualities but is still essentially water. So it can (a) break off into different lumps (icebergs in the sea, for instance) or it can (b) filter into everything (present in all life forms, seeping through soil etc) or it can (c) be distant from us (in clouds, water vapour etc). These can act as metaphors for (a) polytheism (b) pantheism (c) transcendence. But it/they are/is all the same, ultimately.
For me, the fascinating thing about ice, water and steam is that they truly are chemically very different. The changes to the chemical bonds that occur when water melts or evaporates are larger than in most other compounds, but a change of state in any substance is a chemical reaction, the molecules or ions reacting with one another. At any temperature and any pressure, water exists in all three states, so an ice cube at -10C contains some water and some water vapour. There is merely a catastrophic change in likelihood at a state change such as freezing or condensing. It all comes down to stats, as you said about radioactivity. Yes, the Monseigneur had unwittingly prompted me to look all this up at a remarkably young age, and yes, I did mention it the following week, asking if a similar thing happened with God. Is He always present in all three forms but at some times and in some places taking predominantly one form or another? He answered that one straight away, but when I asked if temperature had an effect on Him too, he went away to consult. And I did get an answer to that in the end. No, it does not. Which may help to explain why no corner of the Earth, neither icy waste nor burning desert, is godforsaken.
Amarantha: if I remember rightly (big if) Ramakrishna was challenged to reconcile his worship of Kali (i.e. one of the many deities of the polytheistic Hindu canon) with his avowed non-dualism (i.e. all is One, or, in Hindu terms, advaita vedanta). How could he have it both ways - many and one? His answer, more or less, was that the sea is like the One and the heat of a disciple's devotion could cause an iceberg to form (in his case, the adored Kali, the Mother), and then you start to have the many.
Although I thought his analogy very good, I was never totally comfortable with the heat of devotion causing a drop in temperature. But I think I was being picky. His meaning was quite clear.
M.Jock: I'm sorry if Tony's analogy is vastly over simplified. I was considering nicking it (possibly with modifications).
Tony: I might still nick it. Analogies, by their nature, are bound to be imprecise.
Unpacking the doctrine
The idea that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means:
There is exactly one God
The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father is not the Son
The Son is not the Holy Spirit
The Father is not the Holy Spirit
An alternate way of explaining it is:
There is exactly one God
There are three really distinct Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Each of the Persons is God
Common mistakes
The Trinity is not
Three individuals who together make one God
Three Gods joined together
Three properties of God
Of course, this is debatable.
Hiya Keeks, I don't think I could read it all in one go. Am amazed at how it has grown. I expected it to be an interesting side issue, gather a few comments, then quietly subside.
Tony: thanks for your help with the Forum Topic (Pantheism)
A physicist may be able to explain it though. Scientists have a habit of turning what we thought facts in the material world upside down. :-(
Click here to sign up now.