Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

[Our Lord's God]

Many people, including Christians, see Christianity as science's foe.

Many Christians see science as their foe.

Christianity is seen as based on faith while science is based on carnal unbelief which can destroy faith in Christ. Needless to say, many people criticize Christianity for its perceived opposition to science. But is Christianity really a foe to science? Most Christian apologists answer with a resounding no. They cite the many great scientists who have been Christians as evidence that Christianity poses no threat to legitimate science. In fact, apologists see the rise of modern science as to Christianity's credit.

But what do you Christians say about Christianity in relation to science? Do you like science and have interest in its discoveries? Is science good or bad in your estimation?

Science means knowledge. How can knowledge be a bad thing?

Do any of you fear science and see it as a threat to your faith?

NO.

Are any of you scientists or plan to become scientists?

Answers would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Many Christians see science as their foe.

That's correct, but why would Christians see science as the enemy of their faith? Do they fear that scientific discoveries can sow doubt in Christians?

Science means knowledge. How can knowledge be a bad thing?

Knowledge can be disturbing. We've all been in situations where we would rather not know.

NO.

It's good that you neither fear science nor see it as a threat to your faith.

Would you ever consider becoming a scientist?

 

[docphin5]

That's correct, but why would Christians see science as the enemy of their faith? Do they fear that scientific discoveries can sow doubt in Christians?

That is it exactly. If animals have been evolving for a billion years it kind of throws a monkey wrench into the whole original sin on earth dogma because suffering and death would have been around for billions of years before an alleged human sinned. So instead of revisiting their dogma they just reject the truth of how we got here. Pretty sad really.

Knowledge can be disturbing. We've all been in situations where we would rather not know.

It's good that you neither fear science nor see it as a threat to your faith.

Would you ever consider becoming a scientist?

 

[El Cid]

Many people, including Christians, see Christianity as science's foe. Christianity is seen as based on faith while science is based on carnal unbelief which can destroy faith in Christ. Needless to say, many people criticize Christianity for its perceived opposition to science. But is Christianity really a foe to science? Most Christian apologists answer with a resounding no. They cite the many great scientists who have been Christians as evidence that Christianity poses no threat to legitimate science. In fact, apologists see the rise of modern science as to Christianity's credit.

No educated Christian sees science as a foe to Christianity. Now there are different kinds of science. Theoretical science if it deals with human behavior can become politicized and then can become an opponent of Christianity. What many people need to know is that without the Christian God science would be impossible.

But what do you Christians say about Christianity in relation to science? Do you like science and have interest in its discoveries? Is science good or bad in your estimation? Do any of you fear science and see it as a threat to your faith? Are any of you scientists or plan to become scientists?

Answers would be greatly appreciated!

Science rightly performed and guided by Christian ethics is a definite good. Yes, I am a scientist.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

lest you believe I am looking down smugly. I'm not. Believe me I have worn those glasses and know how deluded
I was wearing them.... and how easy it is to slip into them.... so what I am saying above, take it kindly which is how i meant it.

I really don't understand how your video about the upside-down eyeglasses is relevant to what we're discussing. Can you elaborate?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

Friend of course.

Science simply means "knowledge" and thus the ascertainment of knowledge - Christianity and/or God are of course knowable....

No God of truth can endorse ignorance. He wants us to seek knowledge and not sophistry.

 

[Ontos]

No God of truth can endorse ignorance. He wants us to seek knowledge and not sophistry.

Of course, but Christianity and science are still friends...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You are clueless Theo if you do not know that evolution is based on mountains of scientific evidence. You need to ask for a refund from whoever granted you a bachelors degree in biology if that is what you earned.

I don't know about Theo, but I agree that it's hard to believe that any trained biologist or any scientist for that matter can honestly deny that biological evolution takes place. I'm sure you've heard of Kent Hovind. He's a young-earth creationist who claims to have taught high-school science and to have a doctorate in education. Yet if you look at his dissertation you can see how sloppy his work is. I think Hovind's claims about his background in science are bogus. It's fairly common for creationists to distort or even lie about their qualifications as scientists.

 

[Theo1689]

I don't know about Theo, but I agree that it's hard to believe that any trained biologist or any scientist for that matter can honestly deny that biological evolution takes place. I'm sure you've heard of Kent Hovind. He's a young-earth creationist who claims to have taught high-school science and to have a doctorate in education. Yet if you look at his dissertation you can see how sloppy his work is. I think Hovind's claims about his background in science are bogus. It's fairly common for creationists to distort or even lie about their qualifications as scientists.

Yeah, I have a very low view of Hovind.
And if you think his arguments are representative of those who reject evolution, then all you're doing is picking at the low-hanging fruit.

Read some Michael Behe.
Read some Stephen Meyer.
Read some Phillip E. Johnson.

Or are you too afraid to read books that challenge your indoctrination?

 

[Josheb]

Christianity: Friend or Foe to Science?

Cart before the horse.

The fundamental implication of ALL theism is that some god or God has created creation as an expression of Himself in part with the purpose of the creature exploring that creation in an effort to better understand the Creator AND the creatures' relationship with that Creator. This has long been understood within Christianity both corporately and personally.

Many people, including Christians, see Christianity as science's foe.

They are uninformed at best, ideologically enslaved idiots at worse.

Christianity is seen as based on faith while science is based on carnal unbelief which can destroy faith in Christ.

Revelation and the scientific method are not mutually exclusive of one another and the premise the scientific method is the ONLY method of knowledge is not scientifically provable. The premise of science itself is an article of faith.

Needless to say, many people criticize Christianity for its perceived opposition to science.

Ironic, since subjective perception is not science .

But is Christianity really a foe to science?

No. Unequivocally, no.

Most Christian apologists answer with a resounding no.

Most Christians who are also scientists do so as well.

They cite the many great scientists who have been Christians as evidence that Christianity poses no threat to legitimate science. In fact, apologists see the rise of modern science as to Christianity's credit.

Yep.

But what do you Christians say about Christianity in relation to science? Do you like science and have interest in its discoveries? Is science good or bad in your estimation? Do any of you fear science and see it as a threat to your faith? Are any of you scientists or plan to become scientists?

Answers would be greatly appreciated!

I am and have been a scientist and I rely upon scientific research to do my job well, but that does not preclude faith or religion. I'll elaborate more but next client just showed. c u

 

[docphin5]

I don't know about Theo, but I agree that it's hard to believe that any trained biologist or any scientist for that matter can honestly deny that biological evolution takes place. I'm sure you've heard of Kent Hovind. He's a young-earth creationist who claims to have taught high-school science and to have a doctorate in education. Yet if you look at his dissertation you can see how sloppy his work is. I think Hovind's claims about his background in science are bogus. It's fairly common for creationists to distort or even lie about their qualifications as scientists.

Evangelicals have gotten lazy and sloppy. They scour the internet for some teacher to tickle their ears and tell them that evolution is false. So they trot out some fringe christian scientist claiming this or that and make them their poster boy or girl. Nevertheless, >95% of biomedical scientists around the world, to include all reputable scientists, are publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals (versus christian science websites) tens of thousands of studies all supporting evolution. Evangelicals response is to
1) cast doubt or suspicion upon all science
2) confuse the issues, eg, macro versus micro evolution
3) talk about a world-wide conspiracy by scientists
4) blame the devil
5) turn the denial of evolution into a blind faith issue as a an false example of spirituality
6) ask for “proof” in an online forum yet not bother reading a comprehensive book on the topic written by actual reputable scientists

 

[Josheb]

But what do you Christians say about Christianity in relation to science?

There are many books authored by Christian apologists on this subject.

Personally, I'd recommend beginning with Francis Schaeffer's trilogy. I don't know why that link does not show it, but the book is available in kindle format. Literally everything written in conservative evangelical Christianity in the last 50-60 years is borrowing from Schaeffer. This trilogy surveys history, particularly in the areas of philosophy, art, music, and science to explain how we got away from understanding the world holistically, separating "science" from "revelation," and the unscientific nature of postmodernism's abandonment epistemology as something attained in many ways. Imo, every Christian should read that book and read it more than once (that book, along with the Bible and J. I. Packer's "Knowing God").

Other resources I recommend are "The Soul of Science," by one of Schaeffer's proteges, Nancy Pearcey. Her books, "Total Truth" and "Love Thy Body," are also very good but neither are specifically about science, or the scientific method, and science is understood within Christianity. Oxford mathematician John Lennox also has a very good chapter in the Ravi Zacharias edited book, "Beyond Opinion," on "Challenges from Science," and Lennox has written several books on various aspects of Christianity/religion/faith and science. Chemist Michael Polyani has written extensively about faith and science. Everyone here is probably familiar with biochemist Michael Behe's books on irreducible complexity (and the very lame efforts at dissent). National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins has written apologetics addressing the matter. Physicist (and Nobel Laureate) John Polkinghorne, astronomer Hugh Ross are also scientists who've written about this subject. Theologians Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Platinga have written about the subject. Lawyer Philip E. Johnson has also written extensively on the subject but he's not a scientist and he's borrowing from the work of others. He does serve as a source surveying other sources, though. Most of these people were atheists who converted to Christ as adults.

I also recommend a couple of secular sources written in the secular arena from the secular perspective. I do not know if any of these men are Christians, religious in any way, or atheist but "The Emperor's New Mind," by Roger Penrose (Stephen Hawking's doctoral supervisor), books by Michio Kaku's such as "Hyperspace," several of James Trefil's books such as "The Dark Side of the Universe," and Carlo Rovelli's "Seven Brief Lessons on Physics," are expositions on science from an evolutionary perspective that are completely reconcilable with the Bible (even though I suspect the authors may have never considered the premise). Penrose's commentary on entropy alone is evidence for a Creator. Even noted (anti-theist) atheist Lawrence Krauss' lecture, "A Universe from Nothing," is reconcilable with the Christian understanding of creation (even though he'd probably not acknowledge it).

Religions have long asserted the existence of a "multiverse," and the premise that there is a reality transcendent to the limited one finite humans observe and experience. Religious people, theist or not, did not need science to confirm what we already "knew" and believed. "Scientists" build up science unscientifically as preeminent even though their efforts routinely reconcile with faith and our understanding of the Bible. Christians were the first to believe in an uncaused cause, not secular scientists. Christians believed in an environment where time is relevant or doesn't exist at all. Christians are much more open to both science and religion/faith/God than secularists.

Do you like science and have interest in its discoveries?

I am fascinated by exploration of many kinds and opposed to prejudiced views that close off exploration and, as you can see from the recommendations above, have an interest in many different fields in science.

Is science good or bad in your estimation?

Neither. Science, like any other human endeavor may be used well or poorly, for noble purpose or ignoble purpose.... AND abuses occur at the hands of both Christians and non-Christians.

Do any of you fear science and see it as a threat to your faith?

LOL! I fear nothing . I know Whose I am and am confident and assured of my destiny. Because of that, I do not fear science.

Christianity has assimilated valid fact, truth, knowledge wherever it has existed, no matter the source. It has not always done so readily, but it has accommodated and adjusted on many occasions. There was a lot of resistance to heliocentrism, for example, because the notion the earth is not the center of the universe has challenging implication for a Church that believes humanity is central to everything. The necessary philosophical implications hindered the acceptance of the scientifically discovered facts (and truths thereof) but that discovery improved our understanding of scripture and did not in any way compromise the truth of scripture. It affirmed it. The problem was not scripture; the problem was in the human reading of scripture. The same proved truth with many scientific discoveries like Pasteur's advances in microbiology confronting the previously held view of spontaneous generation, or Francis' and Crick's discovery of the double-helix. In point of fact one of the greatest challenges to secularism is the discovery of inherently existing information (as opposed to that of attributed information).

The fact and truth of science is that it changes about every 100-150 years. Much of what was held as fact and truth in the 16th century was radically altered when Isaac Newton showed up. Previously held "fact," and "truth" consequent to Newton were radically changed and expanded upon when folks like Einstein and Planck showed up. Previously held "fact" was an article of faith and amended as new discoveries dictated. This happens all the time in science and while Christians of the 15th and 16th centuries may have been challenged by these discoveries, informed Christians of the 21st are much more open and accommodating, and often much more scientifically rigorous than our earlier counterparts. Galileo was summoned before the Church. Pasteur was vilified by his peers...


...until he wasn't.

Are any of you scientists or plan to become scientists?

Psychology and the other social sciences are generally considered "soft" sciences based on the perception they aren't as methodologically rigorous as the "hard" sciences, but the truth is those in that field have studied human behavior applying the scientific method for the better part of two centuries and when fields like biology or physics were 200 years old they were teaching illness came from frogs living inside you and everything was made of water (or fire). At this very moment Christians in my field are exploring the importance and relevance of brain electrobiological chemistry (a phrase unheard of two centuries ago) in effecting positive behavioral change.

A good counselor relies on the latest research and factors it into diagnosis and treatment. I do not imagine that is any different for any Christian biologist, chemist, zoologist, anthropologist, cosmologist, physicist, economist, historian, etc.

 

[Theo1689]

Personally, I'd recommend beginning with Francis Schaeffer's trilogy. I don't know why that link does not show it, but the book is available in kindle format.

Thanks for the recommendation.
Schaeffer has quite the reputation, but I've never read anything he wrote.
I'm putting it on my list.

Imo, every Christian should read that book and read it more than once (that book, along with the Bible and J. I. Packer's "Knowing God").

I used to go to used book stores, and every time I saw a copy of Lewis' "Mere Christianity", or Packer's "Knowing God", I would pick it up to give to people. "Knowing God" is great.

Chemist Michael Polyani has written extensively about faith and science. Everyone here is probably familiar with biochemist Michael Behe's books on irreducible complexity (and the very lame efforts at dissent).

Yes, Behe is good.
I also love Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell".
But biochemistry is rife with evolutionarily-impossible structures, such as:
- ATP-synthase rotational proton motor;
- the development of DNA both as a storage system, AND all the data which is stored in it;
- ribosomes, made partially of proteins, being structures which create proteins; (chicken and egg)
- the 10-stage glycolysis process, along with the enzymes which control each step, as well as the enzymes which regulate THOSE enzymes;
- the RNA code, which as a system of redundancy which screams of design.
- etc.

Lawyer Philip E. Johnson has also written extensively on the subject but he's not a scientist and he's borrowing from the work of others.

Author of the book, "Darwin on Trial".

Most of these people were atheists who converted to Christ as adults.

Reminds me of the investigative journalist Lee Strobel, who tried to disprove God and ended up being convinced of His existence.

I also recommend a couple of secular sources written in the secular arena from the secular perspective. I do not know if any of these men are Christians, religious in any way, or atheist but "The Emperor's New Mind," by Roger Penrose (Stephen Hawking's doctoral supervisor),

I believe Penrose was the one who coined the term, "black hole".

books by Michio Kaku's such as "Hyperspace,"

I love Michio Kaku.

Religious people, theist or not, did not need science to confirm what we already "knew" and believed.

Dr. Raymond Damadian, a Christian, invented the MRI.
And I wish I had remembered that the last time I taught our Biological Applications course, where we learn about viruses and pandemics, CT Scans, MRI's, ultrasound, X-rays, PET scans, etc. etc. The truth is that one doesn't have to embrace evolution in order to be successful in science, as long as we recognize the structural and genetic similarities between related species.

It turns out that Dr. Damadian studied the sodium-potassium pump. I may need to go and read some of his work.

Christians were the first to believe in an uncaused cause, not secular scientists.

Yep.
The "Big Bang" (which makes no sense from a scientific standpoint) is simply God's creation of the universe from nothing.

I'm also seeing more and more scientific works which are concluding that "free will" doesn't exist (which makes sense from a scientific standpoint), which as a Calvinist I'm not terribly unhappy about.

I am fascinated by exploration of many kinds and opposed to prejudiced views that close off exploration and, as you can see from the recommendations above, have an interest in many different fields in science.

Sadly, critical thinking skills are greatly lacking in recent generations, which is why we see secular evolutionists who feel butt-hurt that anyone would "dare" question their indoctrinated beliefs.

Pasteur's advances in microbiology confronting the previously held view of spontaneous generation,

There's a 1940's movie about Louis Pasteur which I love showing to my class.

or Francis' and Crick's discovery of the double-helix.

I think you meant (James) Watson and (Francis) Crick.
IIRC, James Watson appeared in a Ben Stein documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", and if I'm remembering correctly, Watson believes our existence on Earth is more likely due to panspermia (extraterrestrials settled here) than it is due to evolution.

Oops!

 

[Caroljeen]

Many people, including Christians, see Christianity as science's foe. Christianity is seen as based on faith while science is based on carnal unbelief which can destroy faith in Christ. Needless to say, many people criticize Christianity for its perceived opposition to science. But is Christianity really a foe to science? Most Christian apologists answer with a resounding no. They cite the many great scientists who have been Christians as evidence that Christianity poses no threat to legitimate science. In fact, apologists see the rise of modern science as to Christianity's credit.

But what do you Christians say about Christianity in relation to science? Do you like science and have interest in its discoveries? Is science good or bad in your estimation? Do any of you fear science and see it as a threat to your faith? Are any of you scientists or plan to become scientists?

Answers would be greatly appreciated!

Are you a Christian?

I recently finished a book by John Lennox that he wrote on this subject called, "Can science explain every thing?"
The first chapter is called, " Can you be a scientist and believe in God?"
I recommend this book if you are truly interested in an intelligent Christian point of view from a scientist and mathematician.

 

[e v e 21]

I really don't understand how your video about the upside-down eyeglasses is relevant to what we're discussing. Can you elaborate?

the point is that the carnal mind, the Self's way of seeing is backwards and upside down.

I will quote my own post so i can be more clear.

 

[Josheb]

Thanks for the recommendation.
Schaeffer has quite the reputation, but I've never read anything he wrote.
I'm putting it on my list.

Let me speak to that separately.

Schaffer was a prolific author. He considered himself an evangelist, not a theologian. He single purpose was to help Christians develop a Christian worldview that applied to all areas of life. The "trilogy," is literally called the trilogy because it was originally three separate books that were published separately. They are no published as a single volume. It's not a simple read so anyone endeavoring to read it should be patient with themselves and commit to the reading - and learning about some of the sources he discusses! Seriously.

I read the last of the three books first. I read, "He is There and He is Not Silent," first and I read it before I was a convert to Christ! I did not understand much of what I was reading. I'd heard of guys like Aquinas and Descartes and Nietzche but didn't know much about them one way or another. So I set out to learn more. At one point I studied philosophy, history and the history of philosophy at the university (to do philosophy correctly one must also study history so one understands WHAT was happening as well as WHY it was happening). In studying philosophy and history, I learned also to disagree with Schaeffer! As brilliant and insightful as the man was, I don't think he got it all correct and he didn't always represent the sources wholly correct. No one reading Schaeffer will know that if they don't have some knowledge of his sources. For example, you can read what he writes about the composer John Cage but if you don't know Cage's music you won't fully grasp Schaeffer's commentary and if you do listen to Cage then you're either a poor pitiful smuck for tolerating it or to be admired and held with some esteem because you've figured it out . It's akin to understanding what the Impressionists were trying to do was communicate reality through color. Simply enough concept in and of itself but to fathom the success of their artistry takes time and insight of its own. Does not mean you'll like Impressionism.

Schaeffer also wrote commentaries on books of the Bible, and treatises on social issues. The first books by Schaeffer most read is either, "How Shall We Then Live?" (not to be confused with "How Now Shall We Live," by acolytes Nancy Pearcey and Chuck Colson), and "A Christian Manifesto," both of which are well worth reading. The latter is a treatise on non-violent protest and abortion. The cornerstone of everything he wrote, however, are the three books, "The God Who is There," "Escape from Reason," and "He is There and He is Not Silent." No matter what else you read by him, and whatever else is read about Christianity and science AND Christianity and politics and social policy, it will be better understood having first read his trilogy.

 

[Josheb]

"Knowing God" is great.
Yes, Behe is good.
I also love Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell".
I love Michio Kaku.

Sadly, critical thinking skills are greatly lacking in recent generations, which is why we see secular evolutionists who feel butt-hurt that anyone would "dare" question their indoctrinated beliefs.

Let the readers take note.

I think you meant (James) Watson and (Francis) Crick.

LOL! Yes, of course. I stand corrected. Thanks

 

[e v e 21]

actually I don't agree with you about much at all. So no.

a living thing in the other reality is npsh. The only thing related to that here, in this reality, is the soul of each of us who are His...

the current reality of the five senses is so very limited and so different than His creation before the fall.

For example, after this body dies a soul goes somewhere right? and that somewhere is not like here. So at least it can be imagined that not all reality is like the reality of this material world. Another reality exists.

To many, the other reality seems unreal.... but imagine .... the beauty and physicality of heaven puts this one here to shame.

The fall caused changes , an altered reality separated from God.

The soul is not the same as this fleshbody .... the soul is connected to God and His reality. But the flesh is only interested in its needs and wants, this world. this world came to be after the fall... as part of the result of sin.

the way this world functions is not how His functions...Recall Christ said He is not from here. For good reason...and in Paul, not to be of this world. For a good reason...

Many believe eden was on this earth and was of the same cosmology. I do not.

the attempt by this current type of 'science' to fit everything into its standard model as if God had to conform too, is pathetic.

Relates to my last point that we are trained to think this current reality (cosmology) is the only one.

Also that God would have to obey the laws of the current reality is untrue.

It's backwards...trying to get God to obey the sin nature rather than for souls to obey Him.

Sin nature is the currently cosmology.

You are looking at things with backwards glasses on.

the mess we are in is because of adam... which has caused another type of mindset (the carnal mind , natural mind, self) to start to rule...
and that is basically, sin nature... (those glasses).

Many think sin is actions...

consider that adam's sin had cosmological effects on us.

and that mind 'interprets' reality... from its own distorted perspective.

the natural mind is part of this body and this physicality = sin nature.

Never mind though, this type of reality and its mind is going away...

in prophets we see this earth will be destroyed at end times.


the glasses relate to seeing reality as trained to --

backwards.

so here is an example of those glasses... my college students enjoyed this clip too...and I used it to explain to them the above, which I am trying to explain to you....

enjoy.

@Unknown Soldier

 

[e v e 21]

Many people, including Christians, see Christianity as science's foe.

By science I assume you mean the current local materiality (the current material reality) as can be measured on this earth by those trained to or experts of such. A feature of this current reality is that everything dies.

Now consider God's reality, heaven, which is not subject to the 'rules' of the current reality, specifically its situation of mortality.

two realms.

Christianity is seen as based on faith while science is based on carnal unbelief which can destroy faith in Christ.

My understanding of this is that because we are trapped in the physicality of the limited 5 senses of the current reality, because of adam's actions we left eden our paradise... and now we experience pain and mortality and separation from God, in which we cannot see God and can only in our souls experience God's reality.

Needless to say, many people criticize Christianity for its perceived opposition to science.

The problem is when science poses 'all reality' as conforming to the current one and itself as arbiter of what constitutes reality, by this attempting to diminish or hide the other reality.

 

[Gary Mac]

By science I assume you mean the current local materiality (the current material reality) as can be measured on this earth by those trained to or experts of such. A feature of this current reality is that everything dies.

Now consider God's reality, heaven, which is not subject to the 'rules' of the current reality, specifically its situation of mortality.

two realms.



My understanding of this is that because we are trapped in the physicality of the limited 5 senses of the current reality, because of adam's actions we left eden our paradise... and now we experience pain and mortality and separation from God, in which we cannot see God and can only in our souls experience God's reality.

You dont get the spiritual connotation in Adams departure from the house for law called eden. Our pews are full of these sitting in that comfortable eden, but the moment they gain Gods knowledge we get kicked out of comfortable place to till the SPIRITUL ground.

The very same thing happened in Jesus in Matt 3:16 when he was kicked out of that eden for law to till the SPIRITUAL ground in which he came out from in Matt 3:16. And that group d he tilled had him crucified by the ones in that beautiful temple called eden by the laws of it.

You see becoming like God to know this difference as Adam did in Gen 3:22 and Jesus did in Matt 3:16 as sin. Truth is -- they were delivered from that eden of laws for sin, so was I and now live the ;life of the Father to have His same mind where those laws of eden are fulfilled and no longer of them but live them.

Your understanding is carnal and elementary.

The problem is when science poses 'all reality' as conforming to the current one and itself as arbiter of what constitutes reality, by this attempting to diminish or hide the other reality.

And this is exactly what eden is about, trying to hide the truth from God by law and Adam was guilty of this until he gained Gods knowledge. Then he became like God to know this difference, Gen 3;22, just as we all do who is born of God as Adam was, As Abraham was, as Moses was, as Jesus was in Matt 3:16, as 120 did in an upper room