A tale of two statements

I'd prefer a physics article or some respected physicist saying this to establish this as true. What you've given looks like your speculation only.
Brian Cox explains it clearly if you can find his series titled, “The Wonders of the Universe”. He explains it from a scientist perspective. Therefore, he will never say the singularity that caused our universe is god. But “god” is merely the symbol or name for what caused all things in our present universe. Some inference is required. I recommend it for its easy to understand science perspective, not for a theological interpretation, although he mentions angels as a metaphor if I remember correctly.

Wonders of the universe

by

Brian Cox
 
Last edited:
Brian Cox explains it clearly if you can find his series titled, “The Wonders of the Universe”. He explains it from a scientist perspective. Therefore, he will never say the singularity that caused our universe is god. But “god” is merely the symbol or name for what caused all things in our present universe. Some inference is required. I recommend it for its easy to understand science perspective, not for a theological interpretation, although he mentions angels as a metaphor if I remember correctly.

Wonders of the universe

by

Brian Cox
And this will specifically say that pre big bang, everything was light?
 
And this will specifically say that pre big bang, everything was light?
Yes, light or energy. Light is radiated energy. What is really cool is that he visits the ancient temples of Egypt where they were specifically designed so that twice per year the sun would shine its light through a tiny hole and rest upon the altar of the sun God, Ra. It demonstrates the connection between light, God, and creation, going all the way back to Egypt five thousand years ago. Keep in mind that Jesus is called the “morning star” so when a christian prays to Jesus they are praying to the rising sun-god. The Jewish temple was also designed that the rising sun or “morning star” shown through the eastern entrance towards the altar. Again, the Jewish-Christians, namely, Essenes, prayed at sunrise every morning. Apparently, the sunlight was a representation for the god of creation.
 
Last edited:
Yes, light or energy. Light is radiated energy. What is really cool is that he visits the ancient temples of Egypt where they were specifically designed so that twice per year the sun would shine its light through a tiny hole and rest upon the altar of the sun God, Ra. It demonstrates the connection between light, God, and creation, going all the way back to Egypt five thousand years ago. Keep in mind that Jesus is called the “morning star” so when a christian prays to Jesus they are praying to the rising sun-god. The Jewish temple was also designed that the rising sun or “morning star” shown through the eastern entrance towards the altar. Again, the Jewish-Christians, namely, Essenes, prayed at sunrise every morning. Apparently, the sunlight was a representation for the god of creation.
Interesting, but not all energy is light.
 
Interesting, but not all energy is light.
Let us not start splitting hairs. The point to be taken is that no matter or flesh existed before the Big Bang. IOW, the PAST universe was entirely composed of light or energy, whereas, the PRESENT universe contains energy in a compacted, denser form. The point is to contrast the PAST with the PRESENT universe: light-matter, order-chaos. The series will demonstrate that.

Theology characterizes the PAST universe as pristine whereas the PRESENT universe is imperfect. Something happened to change the PAST to the PRESENT. Science calls it a “perturbation” whereas, theology calls it a “cosmic sin” (John 1:29) presuming a free-will existed in the PAST universe: “The Lamb slain at the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8, YLT) and here: “but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself,” (Hebrews 9:23). IOW, Christ Jesus made his “better sacrifice…in heaven” at the “foundation of the world.” Any so-called sacrifice on earth is merely a shadow or copy of a heavenly event.
 
Last edited:
Let us not start splitting hairs. The point to be taken is that no matter existed before the Big Bang. IOW, the PAST universe was entirely composed of light or energy, whereas, the PRESENT universe contains energy in a compacted, denser form. The point is to contrast the PAST with the PRESENT universe: light-matter, order-chaos. The series will demonstrate that. Theology characterizes the PAST universe as pristine whereas the PRESENT universe is imperfect. Something happened to change the PAST to the PRESENT. Science calls it a “perturbation” whereas, theology calls it a “cosmic sin” (John 1:29) presuming a free-will existed in the PAST universe.
I'm not splitting hairs. You have claimed that pre big bang everything was light. Now, I don't know but I've certainly not heard that before, and you say above "light or energy", which indicates you're not sure. I will watch the programme anyway because it sounds interesting.
 
I'm not splitting hairs. You have claimed that pre big bang everything was light. Now, I don't know but I've certainly not heard that before, and you say above "light or energy", which indicates you're not sure. I will watch the programme anyway because it sounds interesting.
I think you will enjoy it. What I find fascinating is that the religious conscious was accurately describing cosmogenesis in terms of a single cause made of light before any astrophysicist discovered it to be true. Atheists always ask for evidence for a divine intelligence so why wouldn’t this be an example? It is not proof but nevertheless supports the theory of a divine intelligence advancing knowledge to humans over five thousand years ago which they believed to be true.
 
No, read Acts. Paul saw the resurrected Christ and even the men with him heard His voice. Only physical bodies can produce sound.

No, Christ had scars and ate food. Only real bodies can do those things. I Corinthians 15:3-5 is an ancient Christian Creed that predates Paul and his letters to within 5 years of the resurrection. Even many non-Christian scholars believe this.

There is absolutely no evidence for this.

There is no evidence for this.

Yes, the HS rose Him from the dead.

No, read verse 6 it refers to our old sinful nature being crucified to bring about our new life in Christ where we are no longer enslaved to sin.
So, he's not referring to a literal crucifixion of the physical body then, correct?
No, if it is an allegory then it is irrelevant if it is in accordance with the scriptures.
You're not being consistent in your argument. See above.
There is no evidence this is allegory.

If He was just a spirit, Paul would not have added body to the term. Plainly this means he is referring to a physical body that is transformed by the spirit. Verse 44 also calls it a spiritual body. Life giving spirit is just the type of spiritual body that Christ became with his resurrected body.

If none of it was physical then there would no need to mention sufferings. Non physical entities dont suffer and dont die.

Verse 8 does not refer to an abortion. It just means one born at the wrong time.
Abortions are not born on the correct time table.
He was born again at a later time so He didnt see the resurrected Christ at the time all the others did.

The Nag Hammadi was written much later than the NT so that it is not historically accurate and is just esoteric mysticism that has little or no connection to reality.
Ironically, mysticism is a direct connection to Ultimate reality. All of the biblical prophets were mystics. They were all connected directly to God.
Gnosticism is much more exclusive than orthodox Christianity. Why would God limit those with some esoteric knowledge that no ordinary person can understand to salvation?
When you answer why Jesus openly points out that not all are given the ability to understand his parables, you'll have your answer.
Even a child can understand the way to salvation in orthodox Christianity.
There's nothing orthodox in Christ's proclamation of the gospel, nor does it resemble orthodox Christianity in the slightest. Regardless, orthodox Christianity isn't understood by children just because they can regurgitate orthodox Christian doctrine. Perhaps that's why so many professing Christians are falling away.
 
@Whatsisface

The importance of cosmogenesis to the early Christians was the distinguishing factor for a ”true prophet“. We argue over so many things yet what really mattered in the times of the apostles, —what separated the men from the boys, was, knowledge of how the cosmos began. You probably never heard that before. Look here, this found in the Recognitions of Clement and attributed to Peter.

” the True Prophet is necessary for every matter of the Fear of God, for he will tell us all these things, as they are, and how correctly to believe concerning everything…

On account of this, before everything it is appropriate for us to seek the True Prophet, because without him it is impossible for anything true to be revealed to human beings.”

“before everything it ought to be inquired what is the First Cause, which is faultless of everything that came into being—if it did come into being—and what it is and from what;

according to the Tradition of the True Prophet. He alone knows how the things that came into being came into being, how the future things come into being,”

I posit the “true prophet” in the mind of Peter, James, and John, was the “Teacher of Righteousness” around 100 BC, according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, who later Jewish-Christians thought returned as the apostle Paul, which is why his epistles were canonized.

There is a lot in Paul’s epistles relating to cosmogenesis that has been distorted by christian orthodoxy, for example, the sophia mythology is translated in a way to avoid any association with gnostic tenets.

Compare the following translation to the common one found in Bibles today. The one below is completely compatible with gnostic tenets of cosmogenesis in the Nag Hammadi but you would never know it because the translators don’t want you to know it. It is too gnostic so they translate it differently.

”Yet among the mature we do speak of Sophia, though it is not the Sophia of this aeon or of the archons of this aeon, who are doomed to perish. But we speak of the holy Sophia, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the aeons for our glory. None of the archons of this aeon understood this.’ (1 cor 2:6-8)​
For comparison, found in Bibles today.

”But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this,​
But orthodoxy will tell you that there are no secrets and that the wisdom is found in the Gospel stories interpreted literally as historical events, plain for everyone to see for themselves. Yeah, right! (Sarcasm)
 
Last edited:
@Whatsisface

The importance of cosmogenesis to the early Christians was the distinguishing factor for a ”true prophet“. We argue over so many things yet what really mattered in the times of the apostles, —what separated the men from the boys, was, knowledge of how the cosmos began. You probably never heard that before. Look here, this found in the Recognitions of Clement and attributed to Peter.

” the True Prophet is necessary for every matter of the Fear of God, for he will tell us all these things, as they are, and how correctly to believe concerning everything…

On account of this, before everything it is appropriate for us to seek the True Prophet, because without him it is impossible for anything true to be revealed to human beings.”

“before everything it ought to be inquired what is the First Cause, which is faultless of everything that came into being—if it did come into being—and what it is and from what;

according to the Tradition of the True Prophet. He alone knows how the things that came into being came into being, how the future things come into being,”

I posit the “true prophet” in the mind of Peter, James, and John, was the “Teacher of Righteousness” around 100 BC, according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, who later Jewish-Christians thought returned as the apostle Paul, which is why his epistles were canonized.

There is a lot in Paul’s epistles relating to cosmogenesis that has been distorted by christian orthodoxy, for example, the sophia mythology is translated in a way to avoid any association with gnostic tenets.

Compare the following translation to the common one found in Bibles today. The one below is completely compatible with gnostic tenets of cosmogenesis in the Nag Hammadi but you would never know it because the translators don’t want you to know it. It is too gnostic so they translate it differently.

”Yet among the mature we do speak of Sophia, though it is not the Sophia of this aeon or of the archons of this aeon, who are doomed to perish. But we speak of the holy Sophia, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the aeons for our glory. None of the archons of this aeon understood this.’ (1 cor 2:6-8)​
For comparison, found in Bibles today.

”But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this,​
But orthodoxy will tell you that there are no secrets and that the wisdom is found in the Gospel stories interpreted literally as historical events, plain for everyone to see for themselves. Yeah, right! (Sarcasm)
I appreciate the effort you've gone to here, but I need more than what you've given to be persuaded of anything. Hard evidence would be good.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the effort you've gone to here, but I need more than what you've given to be persuaded of anything. Hard evidence would be good.
You have the hard evidence to verify for yourself provided in all the references attached to my comments. I don't expect you to believe without verifying. And there is much more in the existing literature written anywhere from 200 BC to 200 CE, if one really cares to know. I have only scraped the surface of what is out there.
 
You have the hard evidence to verify for yourself provided in all the references attached to my comments. I don't expect you to believe without verifying. And there is much more in the existing literature if one really cares to know. I have only touched the surface of what is out there.
Give me one piece of hard evidence.
 
on what? I already recommended a video series by a reputable astrophysicist explaining how our universe formed. What exactly are you asking about?
I'm trying to understand where you're coming from so I thought a specific example from you might help with that.
 
@El Cid
Below is a reference for the meaning of resurrection from the Nag Hammadi. These are the writings of christians who were persecuted by orthodoxy.
Gnostics are not Christians.
The point is that the original meaning of resurrection was suppressed by the less abstract thinkers. We now have the original meaning of resurrection. The resurrection begins with the knowledge of the son of man rising in humanity (in the form of a moral consciousness) and culminates on the “Last Day” of Jesus in the beginning of a new heaven and earth, the “bodily resurrection” of Christ. There is no flesh and bones, much less, matter in the resurrection.
No, I Corinthians 15:3-5 is the oldest part of the NT many scholars believe it is an ancient creed or hymn composed less than five years after the Resurrection. It is plainly referring to physical resurrection. Otherwise there would no reference to burial. You dont bury a nonphysical entity.
The new cosmic body will be made of extremely ordered light as it was in the beginning. Matter will return to its original form, ie., LIGHT or energy ruled by Wisdom, Reason, or the “spirit of Jesus” now rising in us. (1)
This makes no sense whatsoever. Having wisdom, reason and a spirit are PERSONAL characteristics. Light or energy are impersonal entities and cannot have such characteristics. Isaac Newton proved this at least 300 years ago.
Some say, “On the last day we will certainly rise again [35] [in the] resurrection.” But they do not [know what] they are saying, for the last day [is when] those who are Christ’s…the earth, which is…. When the [time] was ripe, he destroyed their [archon] of [darkness]33…souls.......34 [He took] his stand….

[It is these people] Christ will bring to heaven,36 since they have [renounced] ignorance and advanced to knowledge. And those who have knowledge.......37 …the great…[the spiritual]38 resurrection…. [He has come to] know [the Son of Humanity], that is, [he has come to] know [himself. This] is the perfect life, [that] people come to know [themselves]39 through the All.40

Therefore, [do not] look for the carnal resurrection,41 [37] which [is] destruction. [Those who] go astray by [expecting] a [resurrection] that is empty [are not stripped] of the flesh.42 [They do] not [know] the power [of God], nor do they [understand the interpretation] of the scriptures, [owing to their] duplicity of mind.
(The Testimony of Truth, Nag Hammadi)​
————-​
1) “If then you have been RAISED with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.” (Col 3:1)…because that is where our true home is! Our inheritance.
If Christ is just an abstract construct then He cannot be seated at the right hand of God. Gnosticism makes no sense theologically or scientifically.
 
Gnostics are not Christians.
That opinion was refuted when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered which revealed a Jewish-Christianity up to two hundred years BEFORE formal Christianity claims it started. Moreover, they held gnostic tenets and called themselves “The Way”. The evidence now extant in the DSS has flipped the false narrative for gnostic Christians coming after orthodoxy to the other way around, that is, orthodoxy changed the teachings of the original Jewish-Christians who held gnostic tenets. Your information is out of date. Arguably, you are not the Christian for you have put your faith in myths.

No, I Corinthians 15:3-5 is the oldest part of the NT many scholars believe it is an ancient creed or hymn composed less than five years after the Resurrection. It is plainly referring to physical resurrection. Otherwise there would no reference to burial. You dont bury a nonphysical entity.
The word for “appeared” means mental perception closely associated with the words “in accordance with scripture”. The obvious meaning would be that the early Jewish-Christians mentally perceived from scripture that the cosmic son of god had died. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls address the same theme of a dying/rising son of God in humans, then you have a big problem. For they too mentally perceived the same thing that Paul claims but BEFORE formal christianity began. Do I need to spell this out for you?

Paul is describing a prophecy about the dying/rising cosmic power ”according to scripture” interpreted by his Qumran community as published in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If he had just been referring to a dying/rising human then there would have been no need to say “according to scriptures” because then there would have been eyewitnesses. Paul would have just said, “The man died and rose in the year 33 CE as everyone witnessed”.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Having wisdom, reason and a spirit are PERSONAL characteristics. Light or energy are impersonal entities and cannot have such characteristics. Isaac Newton proved this at least 300 years ago.
Wisdom, Reason, and Spirit is the moral consciousness in us made of matter or flesh, but at the resurrection the same Wisdom in us now will be in us in the new resurrected body not made of flesh or bone, per Paul. We will be as the angels says Gospel Jesus.
If Christ is just an abstract construct then He cannot be seated at the right hand of God. Gnosticism makes no sense theologically or scientifically.
The Gospel Jesus is an allegorical character personifying the inner “spirit of Jesus” described by Paul. Jesus according to Paul’s epistles is the moral consciousness in all humans manifesting virtues (Gal 5). The name Jesus is actually a mistranslation from Joshua, son of Nun, in scripture who early Jewish-Christians interpreted to be a type for the inner Holy Spirit (Paul explicitly says so.).

Remember, Joshua leads Israel to the promised land. This is not history but allegory for the “new heaven and earth”. “Isra-El“ means those who see God. Moreover, Joshua (or Jesus) does this “three days” after assuming command of the chosen people. Look it up! The Dead Sea Scrolls interpret the “days” to be prophets, or incarnations of YHWH-Elohim on earth. Even this is not a stretch if all matter and souls are physically connected to or produced by a single Cause, aka, son of God who lived before the Big Bang and now lives in and through us!
 
Last edited:
You obviously dont know much about mainstream science. It assumes methodological naturalism. Do you know what that is?
I have thirty years in biomedical science so I know how science works.
Good for you. I have been a biologist for 34 years. So you should know that MN assumes that there is nothing supernatural like God.
El Cid said:
There is strong evidence the Christian God exists, there is little or no evidence those other gods exist. In addition, there is pretty strong evidence Christ literallly rose from the dead.
There is some evidence for a good God or gods to exist, to include an adversarial, imperfect “god of this world.”
No, the evidence only points to one God.
The “Christian God”, namely, YHWH-Elohim is no different than the storm gods of other religions, to include, Baal. So to say there is more evidence for your god over other gods is just naive.
No, Those other gods could not have created this universe because they were part of the universe. According to the law of causality (a law of logic) the cause cannot be part of the effect. So only the Christian God is transcendent to the universe, ie "outside" the universe.
Then you have the Gnostic Christian God, and Jewish-Christian God, namely, Elyon, who is no different than the Good God of moral philosophers but distinct from YHWH-Elohim or Jesus because even Jesus said his Father was not only greater than himself but true God.
The Gnostic god is impersonal so cannot have created this univese either. No, Jesus said He and His Father are one (in the same) as far as essence is concerned.
The confusion for most people is that the Son of God is also called God because the Son of God is viceroy for God. If the President of the USA steps away from his duties for whatever reason, then the vice-President becomes acting President. In the same way True God has put his son in charge of creation so the son is also called god. The Son of God is acting God or acting Gods. the point being that multiple gods are presumed in Christianity. And one of them is the adversary to humans.
No, Scripture teaches that there is only one divine essence or being composed of three persons. Satan is not a god.
El Cid said:
Yes, Read I Corinthians 15:3-5. Paul quotes an ancient Christian creed and says that Jesus was buried and then raised. If he was not talking about a literal body why bother to mention burial?
Because the cosmos itself has a life of its own as son of god, “in whom we live , move, and have our being.”
There is absolutely no scientific evidence the cosmos is a living thing. But you are correct that God thru the Son gave us our life and being and we cannot live without Him.
The cosmos went from a single complex thing made of light to chaos and matter. Therefore, the present state of the cosmos is the grave the son of god is buried in. Paul is using common examples from human life to illustrate cosmic events for the son of God.
The cosmos is not chaos otherwise science would be impossible. The universe is orderly and intelligible, and such things can only come from a personal intelligence. No first century jew or Christian would understand such esoteric concepts.
El Cid said:
There is no evidence that the gospels are myths.
<facepalm>. The stories in the Gospels have every indication of being myths, from Jesus talking with Satan on a mountain to Superman Jesus flying in the clouds. You exhibit utter naivity.
No, myths generally do not form until 100 years or more have passed. The Gospels were all written within 60 years of the events. There are no overblown, spectacular childishly exaggerated events. Nothing is arbitrary, everything fits in. The character development and depth espeically of Jesus is remarkable. Totally unlike myths. Myths are verbose, the gospels are laconic. Compare the account of the tomb in the Gospel of Peter to the canonical gospels and you will see the huge difference.
El Cid said:
They have much more character development and dont have overblown stories like the gnostic gospel of Thomas which is a myth like a giant cross that follows Christ out of the tomb.
The Gospel myths have more character development for immersion in order for you to FEEL as if you were there. That is the point of it, but it worked too well because some people like you took them literally as historical events.
Most all biblical scholars including non Christian scholars all agree that the authors meant for the gospels to record actual physical and historical events.
El Cid said:
No, the gospels are too realistic to be allegories,
see above
See above about the Gospel of Peter and how it compares to the canonical ones.
El Cid said:
you can tell by comparing them to the gnostic writings which are strongly allegorical and mythologized
true, but many of the gnostic writings were never intended to be taken literally. the authors were not shooting for immersion as much as trying to describe abstract ideas regarding God’s divine nature, power, and attributes involved with creation. I concede that some of them are too complicated for daily use. Whereas, reading the Gospel of John, for example, is relatively easy to get through because of the human details for immersion and the general moral teachings.
Yes, they are plainly myths developed long after the historical events that are recorded in the Gospels. Even a child can understand some aspects of the John. Christianity is much more inclusive than gnosticism. You dont have to be a mystical brainiac to understand the essentials.
El Cid said:
which is one of the reasons they were rejected by the early church as non-canonical. And there is no evidence Paul allegorized the story of Christ.
Except he allegorized everything from scripture and never provides any biographical data for the Gospel Jesus and never names Jesus of Nazareth. To Paul Jesus is only the inner spirit or moral consciousness of the good human. And when the good human suffers then so does the inner Christ Jesus because humans and god are metaphysically connected through life of cosmos.
Yes, he does as I demonstrated above he records Jesus being buried and also he even repeats Jesus words at the Last Supper. And there are many other examples such as quoting part of the Gospel of Mark and etc.
El Cid said:
He is referring to the Jews because of their rejection of Christ, they dont see the relatively clear markers of the Old covenant pointing toward the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ.
He is condemning the Jews for the same thing you do, that is, for looking to a fleshy Messiah or national Messiah to save them, when the Messiah is nothing more than an anointing of the Holy Spirit upon any real human being with a moral consciousness. The Spirit is the moral consciousness.
No, the jews were looking for a Messiah that was going to only save the flesh, ie the Nation of Israel, he was explaining to them that the true messiah came to save the soul of the entire world, including the Gentiles.
“we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once [as a Pharisee] regarded Christ according to the flesh [expecting a national Messiah], we regard him thus no longer.” (2 cor 5:16)

Paul’s Messiah is saving souls through virtue (aka, spiritual Isra-El, meaning, the one who sees God), not meaning a fleshy human who saves nation Israel to rule Palestine. The earthly meaning is merely an imperfect copy or shadow of heavenly realities, eternal truths.

”It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.” (John 6:63)
No, see above how I explain the difference between the two different types of messiah. The jewish traditional expectation as compared to the real Messiah, Jesus.
 
Back
Top