Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[metis]

We do know that many Jews, while claiming to honor the Torah as well as the books (scrolls) of what is commonly called the Old Testament, do not accept the writings of the accounts after that, and of course are not believing that Jesus is the foretold Messiah.

It is not anywhere near as cut & dry as you appear to think, and as a matter of fact even Aquinas concluded that if one took a literal perspective on the messianic narratives then they couldn't conclude Jesus being the Messiah. However, since Aquinas was not a literalist, he did believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

 

[gnostic]

In the Bible, God is the Bible's Author (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
It does Not mean Jesus did not write about things but that there was No need for him to write Scripture.
God used the many Bible writers to write about His Son aka Messiah who is named as Jesus in the Bible.

If that were true, then why wait OVER 30 YEARS to write the gospels.

Recall, I gave the estimated dates of when each gospels were composed:

Mark: 65 to 75
Matthew & Luke: 80 to 90
John: 90 to 110​

Those are the names of the gospels, not the names of authors, as no names were given, until the names were ascribed to the respective gospels in the early 2nd century CE.

That it would take this long to write them, tell us, none of these gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

It should have been written within 1 to 10 years before Jesus was resurrected; they weren’t.

In the gospel of Luke, it tell us that Mary recalled the event of her pregnancy and Jesus’ birth. If this birth happened between 6 and 4 BCE, and the last we see of Mary is when Jesus died in the New Testament, then how could the author possibly recorded Mary’s account of Jesus’ birth between 80 and 90 CE.

What happened to Mary after Jesus, is a cloud uncertainties, but one thing is certain, she did live to 80+ CE to dictate to whoever was the author of Luke.

One person (Hippolytus of Thebes) did write, she died 11 years after the crucifixion. Whether this is true or not, it is about 40 years or more before the gospel was composed. But if it is true, then the author lied about Luke 2:19 (But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.).

Considering how many mistakes the gospel narrated about Roman history in Judaea (Quirinius as governor & the census), the author is unreliable.

 

[YoursTrue]

.

It is not anywhere near as cut & dry as you appear to think, and as a matter of fact even Aquinas concluded that if one took a literal perspective on the messianic narratives then they couldn't conclude Jesus being the Messiah. However, since Aquinas was not a literalist, he did believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

Allow me to say that there are many sects among the Jews as well as those proclaiming belief in Christ. Some try to pinpoint a possible Messiah (such as M. Schneerson) and others don't care or know, as I'm pretty certain you are aware. And many Jews are well aware of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and mourn over it once a year.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not anywhere near as cut & dry as you appear to think, and as a matter of fact even Aquinas concluded that if one took a literal perspective on the messianic narratives then they couldn't conclude Jesus being the Messiah. However, since Aquinas was not a literalist, he did believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

I like Handel's Messiah. One thing about it -- aside from the music being so gorgeous -- is the song, "He Was Despised." Of course it's taken from the scriptures.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Sorry, but that’s no better than the claims of Gabriel’s visitation to Muhammad and the angel dictated the Qur’an to him and Muhammad dictated to his followers, or the claims that the angel’s visitation (Moroni) to Joseph Smith, who received and translated some gold plates (supposedly written in reformed Egyptian, not Biblical Hebrew that supposedly were the last Jews to left Judah with Lehi for the New World) into the Book of Mormon, before the plates disappeared to Heaven.
The accounts of both of these prophets about their scriptures coming from god, are as flimsy as people claiming the author of the Bible is God. The credibilities of divine authorship cannot be verified in any ways.

I know you are Not alone in your thinking, and the above mentioned teachings ( along with corrupted 'Christendom's ' corrupted teachings meaning: church customs, church traditions taught as being Scripture but Not found in Scripture )
God's purpose (His will) for the Earth is often ignored in favor for ' after life ' (more alive after death than before death)
The Bible teaches a need for a future 'earthly resurrection' (Acts 24:15) because the dead know nothing
- Ecclesiastes 9:5
The dead only know ' sleep ' un-conscious sleep - Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; John 11:11-14

If a person believes God's power can create the universe then a person can believe God can give us His written word.
A harmonious written word which is revealed by the numerous corresponding cross-reference verses and passages as in No other religious writings.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.................Considering how many mistakes the gospel narrated about Roman history in Judaea (Quirinius as governor & the census), the author is unreliable.

To me what is unreliable is the problem with reading comprehension of Luke 2:2 by ignoring the word " first ".
'First' would indicate there was another registration at another time.
Also, a person can also be governor for a 'second' time.
There is No evidence that Luke's account was ever challenged by the earlier historians including Celsus.

 

[gnostic]

To me what is unreliable is the problem with reading comprehension of Luke 2:2 by ignoring the word " first ".
'First' would indicate there was another registration at another time.
Also, a person can also be governor for a 'second' time.
There is No evidence that Luke's account was ever challenged by the earlier historians including Celsus.

No, Judaea was a client kingdom, and Roman census would only occur if Judaea was annexed as a Roman province, after Augustus had Archelaus removed from his throne and exiled, which was 10 years after Herod’s death, as recorded in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews.

Rome don’t do census on client kingdoms. Herod and his son were client kings to Augustus, they paid tributes, not taxes to Rome.

Plus, Quirinius was legatus of Galatea from 12 to 1 BCE, trying to quell insurrection in Cilicia and Cappadocia. He wasn’t legatus of Syria until 6 CE, after Archelaus’ banishment. When Judaea became province, Quirinius became its governor (proconsular legatus), had control of the legions, and had more power than a prefectus of Judaea, so Quirinius was appointed to initiate the Roman census.

At the time he was governor of Galatea, Syria was contemporarily governed by the following governors when Herod the Great was still alive (till 4 BCE):

Marcus Titius (13 - 9 BCE)
Gaius Sentius Saturninus (9 - 6 BCE)
Publius Quinctilius Varus (6 - 4 BCE)​

Quirinius was only legatus of Syria from 6 to 12 CE, 10 years after Herod’s death in 4 BCE. And Archelaus was king of Judaea from 4 BCE to 6 CE.

When Herod died, Augustus divided the lands between Herod’s sons, with Galilee belonging to Herod Antipas, who along with Archelaus in Judaea, he became client king, as tetrarch. Antipas ruled for 43 years, until he himself was banished in 39 CE.

Beside that, in Matthew 1 & 2, it conflict with Luke 1 & 2.

In Matthew, Joseph was already a resident in Bethlehem, have a home in the town when Jesus was born. No where in Matthew 1 & 2 Nazareth and Galilee were mentioned until 2:22-23, when they left Egypt:

22 But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. 23 There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazarene.”

The gospel of Matthew not only never mention anything about Nazareth and Galilee, until this passage, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, this gospel never mention anything about any census or any governor of Syria.

In Luke 1 & 2, it showed that Joseph and Mary as residents of Nazareth, and since Joseph was living in Galilee, this conflict with Matthew 1 & 2.

You would only need to register in Roman census, where you were residents of, not where Joseph’s ancestors and ancestry home were.

According to Luke 1, both Joseph and Mary were already residents of Nazareth, and in Galilee, it was Rome’s client kingdom, where Antipas was client king from 4 BCE to 39 CE.

Whoever wrote the gospel of Luke, was terribly unreliable. Josephus was contemporary to the authors of both gospels, but he came from noble house, an aristocrat, who joined the rebellion in 65 to 70 CE, but was captured and became hostage of Vespasian, and befriended Vespasian’s son Titus, the future emperor.

As an aristocrat and friend of Titus, Josephus had both Jewish and Roman sources, hence he would be more reliable than the 2 gospel authors. And Josephus was definitely more reliable as he mentioned both Saturninus and Varus as governors of Syria, that’s in agreement with Roman records. There are no records that two census were carried out in Judaea while Augustus was alive.

Quirinius was never mentioned by Josephus till Archelaus was banished from Judaea in 6 CE.

 

[metis]

... church customs, church traditions taught as being Scripture but Not found in Scripture )

How do you think the scriptures were chosen?

 

[gnostic]

To me what is unreliable is the problem with reading comprehension of Luke 2:2 by ignoring the word " first ".
'First' would indicate there was another registration at another time.
Also, a person can also be governor for a 'second' time.
There is No evidence that Luke's account was ever challenged by the earlier historians including Celsus.

When I reread your reply, the highlighted portion, I’d agree that people can be made made governors, more than once, as Quirinius have, first, in Crete and Cyrene, in Galatia, and then at Syria.

While Quirinius was at Galatia, as governor, 3 successive governors were appointed in Syria, when Judaea was still being ruled by Herod the Great before his death in 4 BCE.

Quirinius was only governor of Syria, once in 6 CE, when he was left in charge of overseeing the census. There was no way Quirinius could have been governor of Syria, when Saturninus and then Varus were governors.

Whoever wrote the gospel of Luke got roman history wrong. Josephus had more reliable sources than the gospel author.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

When I reread your reply, the highlighted portion, I’d agree that people can be made made governors, more than once, as Quirinius have, first, in Crete and Cyrene, in Galatia, and then at Syria.
While Quirinius was at Galatia, as governor, 3 successive governors were appointed in Syria, when Judaea was still being ruled by Herod the Great before his death in 4 BCE.
Quirinius was only governor of Syria, once in 6 CE, when he was left in charge of overseeing the census. There was no way Quirinius could have been governor of Syria, when Saturninus and then Varus were governors.
Whoever wrote the gospel of Luke got roman history wrong. Josephus had more reliable sources than the gospel author.

Luke 2:1-2 Caesar Augustus ( 27 BCE to14 CE)
The Roman senator P. Sulpicius Quirinius governor twice.
The first time after P. Quintilius Varus ended in 4 BCE
Or, Quirinius' first governorship in 3-2 BCE
The first registration in 2 BCE ( also connects to Daniel 11:20 )
The second registration in 6 or 7 in BCE ( Acts of the Apostles 5:37)
Luke 2:2 places Jesus birth at 2 BCE
There are both 'consular dating' and 'accession-year dating' method.
Josephus said Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem,
so if he counted according to the regnal year, then Herod could have died in 1 BCE

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How do you think the scriptures were chosen?

The ancient manuscripts support Bible canon.
So, the church merely needed to testify to what was already established: the 66 Bible books.
Any apocryphal books simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the harmonious '66' Bible books.
The '66' have corresponding cross-reference verses and passages which show the internal harmony among the Bible writers.

 

[gnostic]

The first time after P. Quintilius Varus ended in 4 BCE
Or, Quirinius' first governorship in 3-2 BCE

You’re forgetting that the Jesus’ birth story included Herod being alive at the time, and Varus was still governor at the time after Herod’s death. Varus was still governor when Herod Archelaus was appointed to succeed in Judaea and crushing the rebellion at Archelaus’ succession.

Herod has been dead for ten years, Archelaus booted out when Quirinius was appointed in 6 CE.

Quirinius was never in Syria, while Herod was still alive. The last governor when Herod was alive, was Varus, not Quirinius.

Luke (gospel) got the timeline wrong.

There was no two census...there was no census when Herod was alive.

You are conjecturing and making excuses for the flaw in the gospels timeline.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

“The Universe Breakers”: Six Galaxies That are Too Big, Too Early
“We looked into the very early universe for the first time and had no idea what we were going to find,” Leja said, in a press release. “It turns out we found something so unexpected it actually creates problems for science. It calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question.”

Leja explained that the galaxies the team discovered are so massive that they are in conflict with 99% of models for cosmology. Accounting for such a high amount of mass would require either altering the models for cosmology or revising the scientific understanding of galaxy formation in the early universe. Either scenario requires a fundamental shift in our understanding of how the universe came to be, he added.
"The Universe Breakers": Six Galaxies That are Too Big, Too Early

Ohoh, 99% of all cosmological models of the universe may be dismissed as being wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

“The Universe Breakers”: Six Galaxies That are Too Big, Too Early
“We looked into the very early universe for the first time and had no idea what we were going to find,” Leja said, in a press release. “It turns out we found something so unexpected it actually creates problems for science. It calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question.”

Leja explained that the galaxies the team discovered are so massive that they are in conflict with 99% of models for cosmology. Accounting for such a high amount of mass would require either altering the models for cosmology or revising the scientific understanding of galaxy formation in the early universe. Either scenario requires a fundamental shift in our understanding of how the universe came to be, he added.
"The Universe Breakers": Six Galaxies That are Too Big, Too Early

Ohoh, 99% of all cosmological models of the universe may be dismissed as being wrong?

Yes, if galaxies, and they are not sure of that yet, they will probably have to alter the theory a bit.

Does that refute the Big Bang? If so how?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, if galaxies, and they are not sure of that yet, they will probably have to alter the theory a bit.

Does that refute the Big Bang? If so how?

Be patient, let us see what the what alterations to the theory are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Be patient, let us see what the what alterations to the theory are?

I am very patient. And I am happy to see that you are too. I have seen far too many claim that this somehow refutes the Big Bang theory.

We are not even sure that these are actual galaxies or perhaps some other phenomena. Some are only one pixel in size. There may be other explanations. But even if they are galaxies they just may mean that the math has to be tweaked a bit. I get so tired when people immediately try to claim that something has been refuted.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am very patient. And I am happy to see that you are too. I have seen far too many claim that this somehow refutes the Big Bang theory.

We are not even sure that these are actual galaxies or perhaps some other phenomena. Some are only one pixel in size. There may be other explanations. But even if they are galaxies they just may mean that the math has to be tweaked a bit. I get so tired when people immediately try to claim that something has been refuted.

Well put it this way, if these are large galaxies and 99% of cosmological models are shown to be wrong, then I for one will not at all be surprised.

 

[Polymath257]

Ohoh, 99% of all cosmological models of the universe may be dismissed as being wrong?

No. 99% of the models of galaxy formation. That is a very different thing than models of cosmology.

Cosmology deals with the universe as a whole. So very large scale structures. Galaxies, on this scale, are very small. That means they have a much more complicated dynamic than the universe as a whole.

Yes, there is an interaction. Cosmology will give the basic data for modeling galaxy formation: how many of each element, general temperature, size of density fluctuations.

The question is how that basic structure turns into galaxies.

There has long been a debate about whether galaxy formation is 'top-down' or 'bottom-up'. In other words whether stars formed and then congregated into galaxies by having smaller structures merge, or whether density fluctuations outlined the galaxies and then the gases formed into stars.

The surprise in the recent data is how large some of the very early galaxies were. And they had stars.

So that suggests a combination of the two. One issue is that we don't (yet) have good resolution on the time when various events happened. We do have smaller galaxies very early on, but whether those were really before the larger galaxies or not is still in question. If so the question becomes what mechanisms give rise to massive galaxies so early on.

 

[Polymath257]

Well put it this way, if these are large galaxies and 99% of cosmological models are shown to be wrong, then I for one will not at all be surprised.

No, 99% of the models of galaxy formation are wrong. That is a different matter than cosmological models.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, if galaxies, and they are not sure of that yet, they will probably have to alter the theory a bit.

We will certainly have to modify our theories of galaxy formation. But it was clear well before this that we didn't know much about galaxy formation, so this is actually a good thing for astrophysics.

Does that refute the Big Bang? If so how?

No. Not even close.