Turning Jesus into God

I did quantum in my 4th year - and told Koko specifically that some of the formula's didn't work - for example - it works in calculating the ground state energy for hydrogen .. a two body problem - have the nucleus and the electron.

When you go to Helium - now is a 3 body problem - and the electrons shield each other .. so the number you get is close .. but not quite matching the empirical data .. so we had to add in a fudge factor on the end .. and no person has yet to figure everything out .. so going on about some "he got this wrong" - even if True - does not make E=MC2 wrong .. nor all the other stuff he got right.

So that is a down a path of fallacy right off the get go..

Energy and mass/matter transform one into the other at the sub-atomic level .. and let us consider this "Space" as it is mostly empty.

The distance between the electron and Nucleus is quite far - as far on a relative basis as the distance between the particles in this cubic meter of interstellar space.

So the electron would be roughly from your kitchen window to the street in a normal subdivision. and you say there are 1 million of these.. mind you I think I am out of whack here - if the particles being talked about are sub atomic particles .. which might is most certainly the case .. I would be really shocked to find that there are that many atoms .. but .. should check this out - to finish this one example - where I might be able to claim that the two spaces are similar - and we would not call the sub - atomic space in question " Empty Space" I don't think - or would we ..

interesting perspective in any case. but here is the thing .. every point in the Interstellar Space within our Galaxy - every cubic meter - is bombarded with Photons and every point of space within that cubic meter .. we could take this down to cubic millimeter and it would still hold .. down down down .. all the way to the sub atomic level - at which point the photon is blocked/reflected .. so in outer space ..must not be atoms.

but - we have found particles which go through matter - so even these regions are getting bombarded - and at this level we can actually get back to the OP ..

The Fabric of space -is "Light" and God said "Let there be light" - conquering the forces of Darkness .. this battle between light and dark - echoing through the battles of the God's - but .. more correctly - the other side is not "Dark" but Chaos .. it is the battle between Light and Chaos - the Serpent representing and/or being the Symbol of the Powerful God's of Chaos.

When Jesus say - I am the Light - I am the way - now we are hearing echo's of Darkness .. the path through the darkness .. through the Chaos ..

 

Interesting. You certainly have more physics than I do, by the way.

In my view, the allegories of Genesis hold up very well. I do think they have something to say. I just don't believe that what they are saying is physics. For example, I know of no way that Genesis contradicts any of the models of physics that we've had from the writing of Genesis onward. One would have to resort to literal interpretations of Genesis to find that conflict, and then very serious problems emerge in bunches.

 

Indeed it is Physics - perhaps the reason for the term "metaphysics" but it is also Philosophy - which is the core of any Science - making observations about the world - noticing the difference between light and dark - and pondering how things came to be.

The ancients are turning out to be quite a bit smarter than folks have given them credit as well .. in 3000 BC - man was not living in caves .. but building cities ..

 

I don't see a way to rationalize in terms of physics what we know today and the Genesis comments about light and dark.

I would also suggest that allegory develops based on shared beliefs of the time and is meant to be interpreted in that context. Surely we have lost a significant amount of that context over the millenia since Genesis was written - and that probably came long, long after that creation story developed as oral tradition. So, I think caution is called for - especially since there are two different creation allegories.

Also, care must be taken in discussing philosophy in general and the philosophy of science in specific- especially if one wants to include metaphysics in the discussion.

 

Observation of one's surroundings - Chaos and Order - Light and Dark - can be found through observation - from such observations comes science -

 

Sure. But, I'm not so sure that is worthy of an allegory as major as Genesis.

Of course, Genesis 1:1 begins a declaration of their being a specific God. But, I struggle with what it could mean beyond that.

 

Struggle no more ! as luck would have it - when you dig into the Sumerian Lore from which Genesis was taken - The Serpent is Tiamat - God of Chaos .. who goes to war against the other Gods .. in one battle Marduk goes to defeat Tiamat and usurps Enlil to become "Most High" .. similar to how YHWH defeats all the various other Gods to usurp Enlil and become "The Most High"

Serpent is the representation of Chaos my friend - and so in the "Good and Evil" light and dark .. the struggle that is represented by Story of Adam and Eve.

 

For what it's worth, Yeshua referred to himself as the "Son of Man."

 

That he did - the question here however is if this matters to the message.

 

And we agree on this

 

That's your opinion. I find it rather amusing. I'm completely accurate on the comprehension of the scriptures. You simply don't understand the question.

 

Yes, Titus 1(verse 11 teaches they do it for fithy lucre or money)

 

You have just done another post of nothing - accusations - not backed up by anything.

What is this question I do not understand ? - and what have I posted that was inaccurate .. and never gave an opinion .. just told you what scripture says .. this post being an attempt to demonize the messenger - rather than address the message of Scripture .. of which I am far more advanced that you are .. in every way .. So quit projecting your lack of understanding and inability to support your claim - onto others.

 

Far more advanced in what? Dementia?
Jesus is God the Son of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost)
Jesus is therefore unlike the rest of us. We cannot atone for each other's sins. Nor, can we resurrect anyone as well. Jesus is not like the rest of then.

 

What is this question I don't understand ? and what did I post that was inaccurate ? - I posted Scripture.

You accused me of a bunch of things in your last post .. but where is the back - up for your accusations against my good nature.

Son of the "Godhead" !? - when did I suggest Otherwise ? - not that I necessarily agree or disagree - but find your use of rather Gnostic terminology interesting. .. I have used that term myself in previous discussions of the Trinity - and was immediately labeled a heretic - an "unbeliever" - kind of like what you are doing - cept in reverse.


So tell me about this Godhead - 3 personages. .. does this mean 3 separate wills/thoughts/identities. like 3 different persons .. but united in essence ..

Thats kind of how it goes does it not ?

 

In Titus, Paul is telling Titus how to pick elders.

YOU want to stretch that to claim that those who teach any other religious believe are doing so for money.

And, that is a PURPOSEUL misinterpretation - and you should think about that seriously.

 

Actually, Bishops in verse 11. "...teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre." Teach, preach not for money.
I think it's interesting that a preacher (bishop or elder) must have only one wife. Sounds like polygamy was excepted in the Church then. Why not now?

 

You're still totally misinterpreting that.

There ARE those who preach for money. I might point to Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

But, YOU are trying to pretend that those who preach a different belief than YOUR belief are ALL doing that for money.

And, that is absolute garbage - and certainly not what Paul was saying in his letter to Titus.

Your religion can NOT be justified on the grounds that all others are just doing it for the Benjamins.

 

I wonder how the RCC interprets that passage concerning count of wives.

Surely those recruting guidelines Paul was discussing would be those denied marriage by the RCC.

Is this another difference Pauul interjected?

 

Not so much that the RCC denies plural marriage by the reason would be important. As with the LDS Church in 1890 when they did away with polygamy because it was required to in order for Utah to become a State of the United States of America. It was a policy change rather than a "Thou Shalt Not Have Plural Wives" commandment from the Lord.

 

Perhaps it is in the bible.

 

Perhaps what is in the Bible . ?? speak in complete sentences mate .. out with it ..

 

Yes...he said that....
but where/when/how did he say he is different than us in any way.
You still have provided no reference for that...
you are only assuming that to be true.
Jesus did not claim to be any different than us.

 

What "enormous influence" are you referring to exactly....
you mean all the right wing religious fanatics?
Somehow I don't think that is the message Jesus was trying to get across.

 

My point is simple....you quoting E=mc2....for what purpose?
Do you think that somehow supports your argument in any way shape or form??
You quoting E=mc2...is the same as you screwing in a light-bulb and claiming to be an electrician,
when even a qualified Master electrician does not know what electricity is.
E=mc2 only means someone figured out how to blow things up big time.
It's certainly nothing for anyone to brag about....even wiener himself would agree with that.