Beer and Theology

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

A massive explosion tears the fabric of space/time, expelling enormous amounts of matter across space. Massive amounts of super hot atoms, called plasma, heat up the surrounding space, giving off huge amounts of radiation. The origin of the explosion is unknown, although theories range from a super dense point of matter to the creation of virtual particles.









6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9. And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


The plasma clouds begin to cool, forming first clouds of gasses, then stars, and planets. On the Earth, the gasses cool and form an completely opaque atmosphere, allowing only no visible light to reach the surface of the Earth. Volcanic and tectonic activity is present, pushing up land masses from beneath water/ammonia seas.












11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

The atmosphere of the Earth begins to grow less opaque, allowing more light to reach the Earth’s surface. This allows the evaporation of ammonia from the seas, allowing for a pre-biotic “soup” to be formed. This in turn allows the first bacterial and viral forms of life to arise, which evolve into single cell plants capable of photosynthesis. As the atmosphere continues to become more transparent, the single cell plants clump together becoming the first multicultural life, eventually forming grasses, ferns and evergreen plants.







14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19. And the evening and the
morning were the fourth day.


The Earth’s atmosphere becomes transparent, allowing visible light from the Sun and stars to be seen from the surface. This allows further photosynthesis, also allowing for more complex plants to emerge. These plants contribute to the cleaning of the atmosphere by turning Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.



















20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl* after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

(*In Biblical Hebrew, the classification of animals is determined by body type or function - thus in English translated as “winged fowl” in Hebrew is 'owph, which merely means a creature with wings. The reference is to insects.)


The first single cell animals appear, and evolve into more complex multicellular animals called fish. The first lungs evolve, in winged insects, which leave the water completely behind except to reproduce. There are relatively few fish or insect species.










24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


The first lunged fish appears, evolving shortly into a huge multitude of amphibians in what is known as the Pre-Cambian explosion. From these amphibians evolved early reptiles, then dinosaurs, birds and mammals.
















26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Man evolved from ape-like creatures . Man was able to walk upright, and had an opposable thumb, giving him the ability to grasp and manipulate objects in ways other apes could not. Early man developed simple tools, such as the spear, bow and arrow, and wheel, allowing him an advantage over other animals and his environment. Man began building primitive temporary shelters, developed plow-based agriculture, domesticated cattle and dogs, developed verbal language and artistic expression, and early communities.






















1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,


Science has yet to discover any completely new species to have evolved since man appeared on the Earth.

INTRODUCTION - The Wayback Machine
FADE IN:

INT. - LABORATORY
Small laboratory filled to the brim along one wall with dials, switches and buttons. We scan along one wall until we come to MR. PEABODY and his boy SHERMAN.

MR. PEABODY
Hello, children. Peabody here. This is my boy Sherman.

SHERMAN
Hi.

MR. PEABODY
Set the Wayback machine for the Big Bang, Sherman. We’re going to prove one of the greatest mysteries of the universe; the existence of God.

SHERMAN-CLOSEUP

SHERMAN
Why don’t we just go to before the Big Bang and meet God, Mr. Peabody?

BACK TO SHOT

MR. PEABODY
Because this is a time machine, boy. Can’t go where there is no time, now can we?

SHERMAN-CLOSEUP

SHERMAN
Won’t we need spacesuits, Mr. Peabody?

PEABODY-CLOSEUP

MR. PEABODY
You ask too many questions for a cartoon character. Please set the machine.

BACK TO SHOT

Both characters walk through an OPEN DOOR during the voice over.

MR. PEABODY (V.O.) (CONT’D)
So with a flick of the switch Sherman and I were off to find God.

FADE TO BLACK.


Only Mr. Peabody could solve the question of the identity of God that simply.
Most lay people fail to understand the controversy surrounding the theory of the Big Bang. Dr. Hugh Ross described the problem succinctly when he quoted former NASA head Robert Jastrow as saying that scientists were afraid if the theory were true “that their colleagues were going to run out and join the First Church of Jesus Christ of the Big Bang.”

This concerned scientists so much that efforts were made to refine the theory to eliminate its Christological ramifications, giving rise to gurus and British rock stars singing to them in India. Ross, a former NASA astronomer, wrote #:

"Most eastern religions, old and new, are founded on the belief that the universe oscillates or reincarnates. In fact, the popularity of these faiths soared with the popularity of the oscillating universe model, more so when it was recognized that the Hindu number for the period of the oscillation, (specifically, four and a half billion years) came close to the twenty to thirty billion year period proposed by the astronomers working on the model. Many reasoned that for the ancient Hindu theologians to get that close to the "right" answer there had to be some truth to Hinduism.

Now that the hesitation, steady state, and oscillation models for the universe have evaporated in the face of new measurements and discoveries, so, too, has any scientific basis for the cosmology of the eastern faiths. The impossibility of the oscillating universe destroys the foundation of Hinduism, Buddhism, and its New Age derivatives. The impossibility of the eternal existence of the cosmos translates into the impossibility of pantheism and all of its daughter faiths."

While the similarities between the Genesis account of creation and the observations that lead to the Big Bang theory may concern scientist (see Appendix 1), most philosophers were perhaps better equipped to deal with the similarities, thanks to familiarity with the various forms of the Cosmological Arguement and the Teleological Argument.

Simply put:

Cosmological:
(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) Therefore: the universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
(5) Therefore: God exists.

Teleological:
(A) The universe displays order, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. The way they exist and coexist displays an intricate order and regularity.
(B) Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(C ) Not chance.
(D) Therefore: the universe is the product of intelligent design.
(E) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(F) Therefore: the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer. This Designer is God.
The question is: Does this God have a name?

Kalam and the Big Bang

Ask the average man on the street what the Big Bang theory is and chances are they will tell you that at sometime in the ancient past a huge explosion occurred and sent the raw materials the universe is made of was sent expanding outward to fill up the empty void. The idea that the universe is expanding from some common point of explosion was first postulated by American astronomer Edwin Hubble. For centuries, astronomers believed that the Milky Way made up the entire Universe. Hubble was the first to show that the fuzzy patches in the sky seen through telescopes were other galaxies, not distant parts of the Milky Way. By looking at different forms of light being emitted from these galaxies (red shift#*), he concluded that the Universe was expanding!#

In 1922, Russian mathematician Alexander A. Friedman discovered an error in Einstein's proof for a static universe that allowed for a non-static model.** # The work of Friedman and Hubble was then developed further by a Belgian theoretical astronomer and Priest, Father Georges Lemaitre, who proposed that our universe started from a highly compressed, extremely hot state called the "primeval atom". By extrapolating the expansion of galaxies backwards in time to a singular event, the violent explosion of this "primeval atom" is estimated to have occurred about 19 billion years ago, with the universe undergoing expansion ever since. # We can detect the residual traces of that cosmic fireball in the form of what is called background radiation (BG). It can be safely said we know the Universe had a beginning.

The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. If we plug in what we know about the Big Bang, the Standard Cosmological argument takes on this form:


(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is the Big Bang.
(5) Therefore: God exists.

This is a false argument. But there are other forms of the Cosmological argument that work better with the data. We can start with simply delineating more modifiers:

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The Universe exists.
(3) It is possible for the Universe to not exist.
(4) Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Therefore: the Universe was caused to exist by the Big Bang.
(5) The Big Bang existed.
(6) It is possible for the Big Bang to have not existed.
(7) Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Therefore: the Big Bang was caused to exist.
(8) Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
(9) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(10) Since the Big Bang existed, it must have a cause.
(11) Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. The uncaused cause must be God.

If God were thought to have a cause to His existence, then stating the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe doesn‘t work. Without God we could not explain the existence of the universe; with God we cannot explain the existence of God. Positing the existence of God, then raises as many problems as it solved.

On the other hand, if God was an uncaused being this would cause difficulties as well. If God were an uncaused being then His existence would invalidate premise (1). If God exists but does not have a cause of His existence then premise (1) is false, in which case the argument is unsound. If premise (1) is false, i.e. if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the argument might be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might exist without cause. The existence of an uncaused God renders the argument unsound and useless as a proof of the existence of God. Numbers (9) and (11) do not remove this objection, and in fact demands an explanation of its own.

In the Kalam argument, the distinction between the universe and God is that the universe has a beginning in time. Something that has a beginning in time has a cause; the uncaused existence of God, who does not have a beginning in time, is then consistent and so doesn’t present the problem encountered in the simple cosmological argument. This takes the form:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3)Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. This cause is God.

So if we plug in the Big Bang data:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(3) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(4) The Big Bang began to exist.
(5)Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being. This cause is God.


In the Kalam argument, God is responsible for starting the Big Bang, because there cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence. If the universe began as a “primeval atom”, in which time and space where infinitely shrunken, and the history of the universe tells the story of the expansion of this original fire ball (giving rise to the physical universe today), God may be introduced to explain the existence of the “primeval atom” and what got it to "explode" and begin expanding.

The possible objection to the argument is that there is no reason that God has no cause. The Kalam Argument eliminates this objection:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(1.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(1.1.1) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(1.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(2.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(2.1.1) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(2.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2.3) If the Big Bang has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a cause of the Big Bang, who, outside the Big Bang, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and powerful.
(4) The Big Bang began to exist.
(4.1) The Big Bang is not necessary in its existence.
(5) Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being.
(5.1) This cause is defined by (2.3).
(8) Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
The uncaused cause must be God.

While this allows for the possibility of an uncaused God, it doesn’t define it as the only possibility. Pantheism and Consciousless Force works just as well in this argument as monotheism. Both Pantheism and Consciousless Force are described attributes of Hinduism, the other religious cosmology scientists have suggested is similar to the Big Bang. The answer to the Identity of God is a simple one then; compare and contrast the creation stories of Judaism and Christianity with the Hindu creation story and see which one matches up most closely with the Big Bang scenario. Before this can be done however, further definition is required. This is where we begin to examine the Teleological argument. Using the Teleological argument, we can determine which religion’s Creation story follows the timeline of the Big Bang scenario most closely.

Design, Creation, and the name of God

Before examining the Teleological argument itself, a little housekeeping is in order.

Describing the attributes of God and the universe, as defined in Judaism/Christianity and as defined in Eastern religions and daughter faiths like Hinduism/New Age, may help us in limiting the definition of God further. For our purpose we will limit the scope of the comparison to astronomy, physics, biology and metaphysical criteria as applied to the Creation myths and the design of what was created:

Judeo-Christian
The universe was created from nothing (ex nihilo). God existed before the universe. God exists totally apart from the universe, and yet can be everywhere within it. (extra-dimensionality) God is very near, yet we cannot see Him, a further evidence of His extra-dimensionality.
Time has a beginning. God's existence precedes time.
The Earth is round, and suspended in space.
God designed the universe in such a way that it would support life.
God created life in a specific order, man being the last living creature made.
God is a Personal God, interacting in history with His creation.
Specific to Christianity
Jesus Christ created the universe. He has no beginning and was not created. (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17)
God created the universe from what cannot be detected with the five senses. (Hebrews 11:3)
After His resurrection Jesus could pass through walls in His physical body, an evidence of His extra-dimensionality. (Luke 24:36-43, John 20:26-28)

Hinduism #
The material universe is not the creation of a personal God but is rather a sort of unconscious emanation from the divine.
The universe is (1) beginningless, and endless, and (2) unreal, an illusion because the only true reality is Brahman. There are many gods or incarnations of gods, all of whom are manifestations of the one supreme being, Brahman, described as a supreme, impersonal being completely above all creation and uninvolved with life on earth.
The universe "pulsates," alternately being destroyed and recreated over time. Each creation period lasting about 4 billion years. The world is seen as a huge series of repeated cycles, each cycle being nearly a copy of the last.
The earth was universally held to be flat. The earth is supported by a 1000-headed serpent. The earth floats in a sea of wine The universe is 26 trillion years old . The universe is filled with alcohol.
The universe existed in darkness. Brahman appeared and dispelled the darkness.
Brahman produced beings of many kinds from his own body, by placed his seed in water, which became a golden egg; in that egg he himself was born as Brahman, thus giving birth to himself.
Brahman resided in the egg one year, then divided it into two halves, forming heaven and earth, the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, the mind, the ego, the soul, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation. Joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.

Now that we have a very crude definition of God for both Hinduism and Judeo-Christianity, we may turn our attention to the actual argument. To reiterate:

(A) The universe displays order, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves.
(B) Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(C )Not chance.
(D) Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
(E) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(F) Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

From (A), the obvious question is what kind of order. Ross assembled a partial list which will demonstrate for our purposes in this argument#***:

1. gravitational coupling constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2. strong nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
3. weak nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4. electromagnetic coupling constant
if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
if smaller: no chemical bonding
5. ratio of protons to electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: no chemical bonding
if smaller: no chemical bonding
7. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
8. entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
9. mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
11. initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
12. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
if smaller: planetary orbits become destabilized
13. solar luminosity
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect
if increases too late: frozen oceans
14. fine structure constant (a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)
if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
16. 12C to 16O energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
17. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
18. mass difference between the neutron and the proton
if greater: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
if smaller: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
19. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form #

So when we speak of “order“, we refer to the highly detailed interaction of nuclear, chemical and molecular entities in a coherent system. Since similar interaction takes place on higher levels, “order” may speak to these as well. The question is whether (B) is accurate.

(B) is problematic, because in actuality it could be either chance or design. Neither possibility is completely ruled out of the equation, although mathematical probability can help us determine the likelihood of one over the other. In looking at the data in Appendix 2, # we can determine that the mathematical probability of 75 requirements for the creation of a life sustaining planet (which is only one part of the necessary requirements for life) occurring is approximately 10 -99 . This exceeds the maximum possible number of planets in universe, which is approximately 10 22 . # And since the possibility of life by necessity has other requirements too numerous to mention that are just as statistically complex, we can safely eliminate chance as a probability for the creation of the universe, although as stated we cannot eliminate it as a possibility.

The question then remains which religion’s Creation story fits what science knows about the origin of the Universe and origin of life. Keeping in mind that neither the Hindu Vedic or Upanishad scriptures or the Bible are science textbooks, the following comparisons can be made:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judeo-Christian
The universe was created from nothing (ex nihilo) in an explosion of light. (extra-dimensionality) Light and darkness were separated as day and night. Dry land was formed in the midst of the seas. God allows stars and celestial bodies to be created in the night sky. The universe is expanding.

Hinduism
The material universe is not the creation of God but is unconscious emanation from God (Brahman). The universe is unreal; an illusion within the mind of Brahman. Brahman produced beings of many kinds from his own body, by placed his seed in water, which became a golden egg; in that egg he himself was born as Brahman, thus giving birth to himself. Brahman resided in the egg one year, then divided it into two halves, forming heaven and earth, the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, the mind, the ego, the soul, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.

Science
A massive explosion tears the fabric of space/time, expelling enormous amounts of matter across space. Super hot atoms, called plasma, heat up the surrounding space, giving off huge amounts of radiation. The origin of the explosion is unknown, although theories range from a super dense point of matter to the creation of virtual particles. The plasma clouds begin to cool, forming first clouds of gasses, then stars, and planets. On Earth, volcanic and tectonic activity is present, pushing up land masses from beneath water/ammonia seas. The Earth’s atmosphere changes from opaque to transparent, allowing visible light from the Sun and stars to be seen from the surface. The Universe is expanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Judeo-Christian
Time has a beginning. God's existence precedes time.

Hinduism
The universe is beginningless, and endless. The universe "pulsates," being destroyed and recreated over about 4 billion year span. The world is a series of repeated cycles.

Science
Although theories have changed over time, it is believed that time began along with the physical universe in the Big Bang singularity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Judeo-Christian
God designed the universe in such a way that it would support life.

Hinduism
The universe is unreal; an illusion within the mind of Brahman. The only true reality is Brahman. Brahman is described as a supreme, impersonal being completely above all creation and uninvolved with life on earth which is not truly real.

Science
Evolution theory states that natural forces created conditions for life. Life sprang forth from these unique conditions. Random chance is responsible for the unique conditions in which life appears regardless of mathematical probability against likelihood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Judeo-Christian
God created life in a specific order. After the creation of the planetary system, God created plant life, then fish and insects, then land based life, then man.

Hinduism
Brahman produced beings of many kinds from his own body, by placed his seed in water, which became a golden egg; in that egg he himself was born as Brahman, thus giving birth to himself. Brahman resided in the egg one year, then divided it into two halves, forming heaven and earth, the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, the mind, the ego, the soul, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation. Joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.

Science
Volcanic and tectonic activity is present, pushing up land masses from beneath water/ammonia seas. The atmosphere of the Earth begins to grow less opaque, allowing for a pre-biotic “soup” to be formed. This allows the first bacterial and viral forms of life to arise, which evolve into single cell plants capable of photosynthesis. As the atmosphere continues to become more transparent, the single cell plants clump together becoming the first multicultural life, eventually forming grasses, ferns and evergreen plants. The first single cell animals appear, and evolve into more complex multicellular animals called fish. The first lunged fish appears, evolving shortly into a huge multitude of amphibians in what is known as the Pre-Cambian explosion. From these amphibians evolved early reptiles, then dinosaurs, birds and mammals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Judeo-Christian
The Earth is round and suspended in space. Directly over the North Pole there are no stars visible.

Hinduism
The earth was universally held to be flat. The earth is supported either by a 1000-headed serpent, or by an elephant resting on a turtle. The earth floats in a sea of wine. The universe is filled with alcohol.

Science
The Earth is round and suspended in space. Directly over the North Pole there are no stars visible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By direct comparison, it would seem that the Biblical account matches up better with what science says the universe is like and how it was created than the Hindu account, although there are still some similarities there as well. It is interesting and important to note that both ancient Israel and ancient India were pre-scientific societies when their respective religions were formed.

Let us return to our argument now, with all of the necessary modifications:

Identity Revealed

(A) The universe displays order, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves.
(B) Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(C )Not chance.
(D) Therefore: the universe is the product of intelligent design.
(E) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(F) Therefore: the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.
(G) The universal design pattern can be mapped by scientific observation.
(H) The Biblical account of creation (and other relevant scriptural references), most closely resemble the universal design pattern as mapped by science.
(I) Therefore: the intelligent Designer of the universe is the God of the Bible.

One, and in our opinion the only, objection to this argument would be centered on how the ancient Israelites, living in a prescientific society, came to knowledge of this type. While the details of that issue are beyond the scope of this paper, one issue gives us a clue as to how that research might go. The ancient Israelites were a desert people, nomads initially, and there is no account of their travels outside of the Ancient Near East. Then why, in Job 26: 7 (He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.), do they know there are no visible stars directly above the North Pole, and that Earth is floating in space?

If this objection is not legitimate, and it is our contention it is not, then the case is made from the Teleological argument that the God of the Bible is the identity of the intelligent Designer. We can now go back to the Kalam argument and synthesize the two arguments:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(1.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(1.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(2.1) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(2.1.1) The universe is not necessary in its existence.
(2.2) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2.3) The Big Bang began to exist.
(2.3.1) The Big Bang is not necessary in its existence.
(2.4) Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being.
(2.4.1) If the Big Bang has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a cause of the Big Bang, who, outside the Big Bang, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and powerful.
(2.4.2) The Big Bang produced a very specific universe. We know this by the displayed evidence of having a beginning point and an intelligible order of chronology and interaction among its components (universal design pattern).
(2.4.3) Therefore: the cause of the Big Bang is defined as that which is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, powerful, and which caused the universe to form following a recognizable chronological order and method of interaction within its components (universal design pattern).
(3) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(4) Something that comes into existence displaying intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(4.1) Chance does not fit the definition in (2.4.3).
(5 )Not chance.
(6) Therefore the universe was caused by intelligent design.
(7) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(8) Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.
(8.1) Of the two religious cosmologies science says share similarities with the details of the Big Bang scenario (Hinduism and Judeo-Christianity), only one fit’s the definition found in (2.4.3) - Judeo-Christianity.
(8.1.1) The Biblical account of creation (and other relevant scriptural references), most closely resemble the universal design pattern as mapped by science.
(8.1.2) The Biblical description of God and his attributes most closely resembles the description of the timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and powerful cause described in (2.4.1).
(9) Therefore the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible.

Epilogue

FADE IN:

INT. - LABORATORY

MR. PEABODY and his boy SHERMAN walk through the doorway back into the lab.

MR. PEABODY
Did you enjoy meeting God, Sherman?

SHERMAN
Boy did I ever, Mr. Peabody And was he ever nice, considering how rude we were.

MR. PEABODY
Rude, Sherman?

SHERMAN-CLOSEUP

SHERMAN
Well, we didn’t call ahead to tell Him we were coming.

BACK TO SHOT

MR. PEABODY
I’ll save that one for when we meet John Calvin, Sherman. In the meantime, If you should ever want to see Him again, you can simply go to the mall.

SHERMAN
The mall, Mr. Peabody?

MR. PEABODY-CLOSEUP

MR. PEABODY
Of course, Sherman. Every scientist knows you can find God… in the Gap!

SHERMAN
Aww, Mr. Peabody!

MR. PEABODY scrunches his face and the music swells as we
FADE TO BLACK

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:
*The linear velocity-distance relation, now referred to as Hubble’s Law, was set out in a paper in 1929, followed by a series of papers with Humason between 1931 and 1936 that verified the relation to large (i.e. 60,000 km s[-1] redshifts. This discovery lead to the expanding universe cosmological models of today.

** In carrying out his proof, Einstein had divided both sides of an equation by a quantity, which Friedman found could become zero under certain circumstances. Since division by zero is not permitted in algebraic computations, the possibility of a non static universe could not be excluded. Friedman showed that two non static models were possible. One pictured the universe as expanding with time; the other, contracting.

***For the purpose of our argument we will accept Dr. Ross’ data a priori. We refer any questions about the accuracy of the data back to the original paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ross, Hugh, Ph D., “Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible “, 1989, Reasons to Believe,
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/astroevid.shtml?main

Sandage, Allan, Ph D., “EDWIN HUBBLE 1889-1953”, Vol. 83, No.6 December 1989 Whole No. 621, Journal De La Societe Royale D Astronomie Du Canada (The Journal Of The Royal Astronomical Society Of Canada )
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html

Scientific American, Sept. 1956, p. 140. As quoted on http://zyx.org/BBHIST.html

“Science & Hindu Scripture” http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/in4.htm

“Creation beliefs” http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/creation_belief

“The Bible Compared to Major Contemporary Religious Systems”, http://www.eburgcofc.org/otherfth.html

Kreeft, Peter, Ph D., “Comparing Christianity & Hinduism”, May 1987 National Catholic Register
http://www.christlife.org/faith/articles/C_comparinghinduism.html

Ross, Hugh, Ph D., “Design Evidences in the Cosmos”, 1998, Reasons To Believe , as reprinted from Ross, Hugh, Ph D., The Fingerprint of God, 1989, Orange, CA: Promise Publishing
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/designevidenceupdate1998.shtml?main





Footnote References

http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld004.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html.

Appendix References

Appendix 1
Visual from Men’s Discipleship Class at Crystal Springs Assembly of God, prepared by Tom Bryant. Listed at the next blog this site.

Appendix 2: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/designevidenceupdate1998.shtml?main

One of the things about being out of work is no matter how much job searching you do, you still have a lot of time on your hands.

One of the ways in which I pass the time is to surf the various news sites, and WorldNetDaily has become one of my favorites. I enjoy the columnists there, many of whom write from a Christian or Jewish perspective.

Which is why I read Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s March 5th column, Jesus at Midnight: “The Passion’s” Portrayal of Christianity as a Cult of Death with almost as many tears as I had when I saw The Passion of the Christ at the theatre. He begins his column having come out of the theatre in hiding behind his coat collar, semi-afraid his Orthodox Jewish accoutrements might spark a pogrom in the parking lot. Rabbi Boteach does ask a young woman her thoughts on the film, to which she replies, “It rips you apart inside. It made me think. But you probably wouldn't understand." He admits that perhaps he doesn’t understand the full meaning of the film, because he saw the film as both anti-Semitic and anti-Christian, reducing Christianity in his eyes to the same cult of death as the mystery cults and modern Eastern religions like Hinduism and Shintoism.

I agree with Rabbi Boteach on many social and political issues. I agree with him here as well; he doesn’t understand.

In fairness, he does come from another faith tradition, and one that, to both Christianity’s and Humanity’s shame, has borne the blame for a deicide it is not guilty of, beyond the collective guilt all men share. Jewish community leaders of today are reacting to this film based on historical precedent - the Passion Plays of the Middle Ages did incite anti-Semitic violence.

That was then. The “Passion Play” theology that lead to the violence Jews suffered originates with Martin Luther’s attitude towards the Jews after they rejected his reforms, and thus rejected the Protestant interpretation of Jesus' life. Luther thought that Catholic trappings made Christianity seem too much like idol worship for the Jews to accept. Remove the trappings of Rome and the Jews will recognize their Messiah, or so he thought. When they didn't, he became anti-Jewish in his thinking.

This doctrine is based on two things: one is the paid crowd in Jerusalem (in the employ of an illegitimate High Priest who had the audacity to say he and the mob spoke for “all” Jews) calling Jesus' blood guilt upon their brethren, and two, that call being fulfillment of Moses' prophesy that if the Jews did not follow where God led them He would cause them to be dispersed throughout the whole world. It is outdated theology that is in disrepute in all but the heretical Sects, but even if it were true, God said that the curse Moses spoke of would be lifted in the day that Israel was recreated, when the "dry bones" were resurrected.

It is that message of resurrection that Rabbi Boteach misses in Christianity, and in Mel Gibson’s movie. He writes that there are two ways to view Christianity: as a call to live virtuously with Jesus as the model to emulate (which he calls the “Christianity of life”), and as cheap out to personal responsibility by having “faith” in Jesus to rescue our souls (the “Christianity of death“). The exact place the good Rabbi misses the point is when he writes, “In this insulting film, he (Gibson) virtually ignores the entire life of Jesus, preferring instead to tell us that what made Jesus special was not that he lived righteously and meekly, but that he died bloodily.”

Scourging and crucifixion was not intended as physical punishment by the Romans; it was to humiliate their victim. Honor was the foremost value to someone in the ancient world, like having wealth would be to us today. It was the ultimate dishonor to die in such a way as scourging and crucifixion, having no control over your own body, being spat upon, urinating and defecating on yourself as you lose control of your body functions, and to have others gawk at you as this happens, watching their faces as you beg for mercy and get none...

To an ancient person that was worse than death. Mel Gibson's movie presents a good scenario as to why Jesus' scourging was worse than what would have normally happened. In the film, Jesus stood up after the caning, regaining some of His lost honor, driving His persecutors to even greater heights of barbarity. Scourging with the flagellum, or "cat o'nine tails" was reserved for the worst of the worst, which the NT says Jesus was not - per Pilate‘s admission. His punishment thus did not fit the crime - there was no crime, but to all eyes this “ethical teacher”, - who said He spoke with God’s authority - was dishonored in the worst of all possible ways.

All sin is an insult to the honor and authority of God, and it makes us unclean before Him. In an honor based system, an insult to one’s honor or authority demands the repayment for the insult, called shame. If God holds the ultimate honor and authority, any insult demands the ultimate shame. But how can we pay the ultimate debt? By sinning we have insulted God and befouled ourselves in a way we are incapable rectifying.

By Jewish law a debt could be satisfied by a family member if the offender was unable to satisfy that debt themselves. In this way someone else could help us become clean before the Law of God. The type of debt sin incurred would require someone of sufficient means to pay. God, the Ultimate Good, shamed Himself to pay that debt.

The Resurrection was God’s vindication of Jesus. Jesus claimed the authority of God in what He taught. The Sanhedrin rejected His claims, and the Romans couldn’t have cared less what He claimed. The Passion was these two groups way of stripping the honor that Jesus claimed to have from him. The Father restored Jesus’ honor and authority by commuting their collective sentence of death. This includes the authority of His teachings.

And that’s the point. To separate the teachings of Jesus from the Passion and Resurrection is to deny why we should follow them. Without the Passion of Jesus, and the subsequent Resurrection, the “incomparable ethical teachings of Jesus” that Rabbi Boteach admires so much have no more weight than a politician‘s. (Following the good Rabbi’s logic, if we don’t like what we hear from Jesus we can vote ourselves a new morality, which I‘m sure that is not what he meant.) The Passion and Resurrection established by the authority of the Father Himself that the conniving of Caiaphus, the corruption of the mob, the cowardice of Pontius Pilate, and the cruelty of the guards -- sins each man and woman who have ever lived have within them in various degrees -- had no right to condemn Jesus for what He taught. In fact, they, and we, should have been in His place. He was punished with what WE deserve, willingly substituting Himself for us, His children, to make us clean again.

That is why the “life-affirming joy” the Rabbi finds in the evangelical community exists, and why the Passion of the Christ will be used as an evangelism tool. In the scriptures it says we are to be able to defend our faith, give a reason for the joy in our hearts, and spread the good news to the ends of the Earth. Our honor debt is paid in full and we are CONFIRMED clean before God, with the honor mandate to stay clean by following the teachings of Jesus. That is the source of Mel Gibson’s joy, and the evangelicals (like me), Mainline Protestants and Catholics who support this film’s joy as well. And we are only too happy to explain to our friends like Rabbi Boteach why that violent moment in history should be a source of joy for all mankind.

After all, that’s our job. Guess I’m not unemployed after all.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: …
Isaiah 1:18a KJV


Christianity was born into a world vastly different than our own. Society was group oriented, rather than oriented towards individualism as we are today. Honor was the overriding social value, and elaborate honor tests and challenges were commonplace interactions among all classes of people. Stereotypes, considered rude by modern standards, defined a person’s place within the social hierarchy. Gossiping about your neighbors was not only acceptable, but required behavior to keep social order.

A person’s value as a human being was determined by their dyad, or group affiliation. This is why both the Biblical texts as well as the writings of pagan historians referred to individuals by what city they were from or what school they belonged to. When Paul said in Acts 21:39 “But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city…," he was giving his credentials and establishing his authority to speak and be taken seriously. Family, city, national identity, clan affiliation, job description and patronage determined a person’s worth, and how they would be treated.

In addition, age and tradition were revered. Religions and philosophies were measured not on their teachings, but on how far back into antiquity they traced their origins. Judaism was considered a superstition by the Romans, and Jews were thought of as atheists because they did not treat all of the pagan gods with the same respect they gave their own God, but they were tolerated by the Hellenistic world due to the fact they traced their traditions back into antiquity. Anything “new”, particularly religious beliefs, were immediately considered dangerous and contrary to the order of society. Philosophical beliefs were subject to this “age of tradition” criteria as well.

Christianity stood contrary to the established order. Christian minister and apologist James Patrick Holding, in an article that has been widely debated in academic circles entitled The Impossible Faith, or, How Not to Start an Ancient Religion, makes the case that there were 17 different factors in which Christian beliefs and practices would have been objectionable to the established social order in Roman times, and that any one of these factors should have been enough to kill off Christianity in it infancy were it not for some factor strong enough to overcome those objections. These elements gave rise to the various stereotypes Romans believed about Christians. Professor of Church History at Baptist Theological Seminary, Richmond VA, Dr. E Glenn Hinson writes:

Roman absorptionism and Christian exclusivism made a clash between Christ and Caesar inevitable. Non-Christians--relying usually on hearsay, often about heretical sects, for their understanding--found a variety of Christian ideas and customs offensive. Christianity sundered families and discouraged marriage, they claimed. Some Christians espoused voluntary poverty and community of goods and sowed seeds for the decay of slavery. They held “secret” meetings at nighttime and spoke of “eating the body” and “drinking the blood” of Christ or exchanging “the kiss of peace,” customs that invited pagan charges of cannibalism and incest. The very best of Christian intention turned against them in the dark imagination of pagan minds. Some supposed that Christians took unwanted infants, deposited along with human excrement to die, chopped them into pieces, and ate their bodies and drank their blood. Others claimed that in their nocturnal assemblies Christians gorged themselves with food, turned dogs loose to scramble across the tables and turn over lamps, and then engaged in sexual orgies (Tertullian Apol. 7). Christian martyrdom was construed as a perverse “obstinacy”; their refusal to hold public office, serve in the army, or attend public games acts of disloyalty; their breaking away from customs of Jews or Romans impiety; and their abandonment of altars, images, and temples “a sure token of an obscure and secret society” (so Celsus).

Some of these objections were purely social, but some had strong philosophical elements behind them, such as Jesus’ physical Resurrection, the concept of which would have been horrendous to most Romans who saw the flesh as something evil to be shunned. Indeed, Platonic thought surmised that all matter was evil. From early on the Church Fathers preached of a physical resurrection in direct contrast to Platonic assumptions, citing Christ‘s return from the dead as proof of Plato‘s philosophical error. Justin Martyr wrote:

Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless it was to demonstrate the resurrection of the flesh?

This idea of a physical Resurrection was so unsettling to the Hellenistic mind, that persecutions were started against Christians over it. When Irenaeus became Bishop of Lyons, he was replacing another Bishop who had died in a pogrom which had as one of its stated reasons the Christian belief in a physical resurrection. Letters from those times describe how Christians were burned alive and their ashes scattered as a means of insuring that a material, physical resurrection would not occur.

Christians appealed to Roman authorities to stop the persecutions, usually with little success. Apologists attempted to explain Christian beliefs to the authorities, including contrasting the philosophical similarities and differences between the official Pax Romano and Christianity. Given the rise of heretical movements, and how many Roman subjects were misinformed about Christians as a result of exposure to those movements, many of the Early Fathers took an anti-philosophy stance. Tertullian believed that philosophy was at the heart of the heretical movements. He wrote:

Heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy.

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What agreement is there between the Academy and the Church? … Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition!

And much more sarcastically, Lactantius wrote:

It has been handed down to us in the sacred writings that the thoughts of philosophers are foolish. … Therefore, there is no reason why we should give so much honor to philosophers.

One reason that was important in the Christian attitude toward philosophy was the earliest exposure to it was in the form of heretical movements, particularly Gnosticism.

Gnosticism was not limited to Christianity; there were Jewish and pagan Gnostics. Gnosticism was marked by a metaphysical dualism that was suggested due to the Platonic notion of the evil of matter. Since matter was evil, God (who, being purely good, must be a purely spiritual being) could not have created the physical world. Thus what we see and hear in the physical world must have been created by a second deity, known as the Demiurge, who built reality around concentric circles or orbs in order to separate the physical world from the spiritual world and protected each orb with demons. Passage from one realm to another required shedding the physical body. But the preparation of the soul required the learning of “secret” knowledge about the spiritual realm, and in Christian Gnosticism this was what Jesus brought to Earth. Jesus was thought to have been spirit only, but gave Himself the appearance of flesh in order to impart His knowledge to the world.

Reactions to the Gnostics was swift and harsh, as the early Church Fathers recognized the potential seductiveness of the movement. Its basis in Neo-Platonic thought gave it a familiarity in the Hellenistic world which the Church Fathers thought would lead others from the true faith. Hegesippus wrote:

When the sacred band of apostles had in various ways completed their lives’ work, and when the [next] generation of men had passed away (to whom it had been vouchsafed to personally listen to the godlike wisdom), then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers. For upon seeing that none of the apostles were living any longer, they at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching “knowledge falsely so called.”

The Gnostics also dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity, and much effort was spent defending the doctrine from heretical attacks. But the doctrine also proved to be a stumbling block to the Hellenistic world in general, despite the fact that many modern philosophers and historians believe the Trinity to be a product of Hellenistic thinking. Philo, the Neo-Platonic Jewish historian, seems to make the case for a Triune Godhead while examining Genesis 18:2:

...the one in the middle is the Father of the Universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord, for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature. Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guards, presents to the mind, which is endowed with the faculty of sight, a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three..."

The case can be made however that the doctrine of the Trinity had as its origin the Jewish principle of hypostasis (a kind of anthropomorphism in which attributes belonging to God occupy a position between personalities and abstract beings). The Wisdom of God is described in this way in Proverbs 8, Psalms 58 and 107, and Job 11, and also in extra biblical works like the Wisdom of Sirach. Note the similarity between the following passages:

Matthew 11:29-30 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Sirach 6:19-31 Come to (Wisdom) like one who plows and sows. Put your neck into her collar. Bind your shoulders and carry her...Come unto her with all your soul, and keep her ways with all your might...For at last you will find the rest she gives...Then her fetters will become for you a strong defense, and her collar a glorious robe. Her yoke is a golden ornament, and her bonds a purple cord.


The same way in which Wisdom is addressed in these passages is the way John addresses Jesus as Logos in John 1:1-18. Irenaeus seems to be defending this position when he wrote:

I have largely demonstrated that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father. Now, that Wisdom also, who is the Spirit, was present with Him before all creation. He declares by Solomon: “God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding He has established the heaven. By His knowledge, the depths burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew.” And again: “The Lord created me the beginning of His ways in His work. He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth.” …There is therefore one God, who by His Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things.

And Athenagoras wrote:

We acknowledge a God, and a Son (His Logos), and a Holy Spirit. These are united in essence--the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Now the Son is the Intelligence, Reason and Wisdom of the Father. And the Spirit is an emanation, as light from a fire.

Later Church Fathers adapted Greek philosophical arguments to explain the Trinity, and by the time of Augustine had all but given up explaining the concept in anything but Hellenist terms. But as these quotes show, the doctrine originates with Jewish thought and theology, and was defended as such against philosophical and theological rivals.

Not all of the Church Fathers saw philosophy as rivals for the souls of men. A few saw Greek philosophy as being emanated from God as a precursor to the revelation of Christ to the Greeks and Romans. Justin Martyr wrote:

Do not the philosophers turn every discourse on God? Is this not truly the duty of philosophy, to investigate the Deity?

And Clement of Alexandria wrote:

Before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conductive to piety. It is a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. …Perhaps, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, until the Lord would call the Greeks. For this was a pedagogue to bring “the Hellenic mind” to Christ, as the Law did to the Hebrews.

The beginnings of the attempts to explain Christian doctrines in Hellenistic terms then dates from very early in Church history. This began as simply pointing out places of agreement between the philosophers and Christian theology; Dionysius of Alexandria writes:

Is the universe one coherent whole? It seems to be in our own judgment, as well as in that of the wisest of the Greek philosophers--such as Plato, Pythagoras, the Stoics and Heraclitus.

Even those Church Fathers who were most hostile to philosophy appealed to philosophical teachings and personalities in a positive light when appropriate. Tertullian writes of Plato:

I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he declares, “Every soul is immortal.”


In later Church Fathers, the appeal to use Greek and Roman philosophical ideas may have been motivated by evangelistic concerns. Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 to be all things to all people in order to best present the Gospel surely would have motivated the more philosophically minded Church Fathers to explore philosophical arguments as a means of evangelism. That this later grew into a whole new intellectual tradition, providing the framework by which most of Western civilization is based, surely would have amazed them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=text&offset=3282579&textreg=0&query=reason+together

Neyrey, Jerome H., Ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers 1998)25-66

Pilch, John J. & Bruce J. Malina, Ed., The Handbook of Biblical Social Values, (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers 1998) 54

Hinson, E. Glenn, The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages, Nashville, TN, Abingdon Press 1996) 71

Bercot, David W., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers 1998) 560

http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.htm 6

http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/philo.html (On Abraham, XXIV, 121-122).

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=text&offset=3282579&textreg=0&query=yolk

http://wyllie.lib.virginia.edu:8086/perl/toccer-new?id=KjvSira.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=7&division=div1

Running The DaVinci Code through the Virus Detector - The origin of the conspiracy revealed.

Our story begins in France.

Francois Béranger Saunière was the parrish Priest at Rennes-le-Château from 1885 until 1912. He was, by all accounts, a man of modest means when he first took the post, but shortly after his appointment the Priest began spending money freely to refurbish the church and build many structures in the area, such as the Tower of the Magdalene (Tour Magdala).

Speculation was rife on the source of the parish priest's money. Was it the lost treasure of the Templars or the Cathars in the area? Might it have been buried Visigothic gold? Or was he blackmailing the Church with some terrible secret?

It is claimed that while renovating his church, Saunière discovered parchments, and started showing his display of sudden wealth. There are no indications as to exactly what the parchments contained but speculations range from biblical treasure once owned by the Knights Templar to proof supporting claims to the throne by various royalist factions. Whatever it was, it supposedly allowed Saunière to spend a huge amount of money for the times and for his official income.

Father Riviere, Saunière’s confessor, denied Saunière last rites when he went to his death bed in 1917. He allegedly left the secret of where he got his fabulous wealth to his housekeeper, Marie Dernaud, who promised to reveal it on her deathbed -- but sadly she had a stroke which left her paralyzed and unable to speak before her death in 1953. Rumors nonetheless persisted.

A mysterious secret society brought itself to light in 1956, and this same group claimed to be the cabal behind many of the events that occurred at Rennes-le-Château in 1981. At that time the Prieure du Notre Dame du Sion, or Priory of Sion (Zion), released "prieure documents" which suggest Sauniere was loosely connected to a type of Freemasonry known as the Hieron du Val d'Or. There were also hints that the Hieron was the "guise" of the "PoS" during that time period. The documents were released by a man named Pierre Plantard de St.-Clair, who claims that he was made Grand Master of the Priory of Sion on January 17th, 1981. Coincidentally this was around the time in which the book “Holy Blood Holy Grail” was published, which purports to disclose the documents Saunière discovered, and the role the Priory of Sion had in protecting the secrets there. What Saunière discovered was:

* Jesus did not die on the Cross.

* Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children. These children were secreted out of Jerusalem after Jesus’ (natural) death to France, where a large Jewish population sheltered their descendents.

* Peter and the Apostles drove Mary Magdalene and the children to flee in a power grab for the leadership of the early Church..

* Jesus’ original teachings concerned Shekinah, the female deity counterpart of Yahweh.

* Jesus was a goddess worshiper.

* Jesus was merely a man, not God Incarnate.

* Jesus was first described as God by Constantine in a means of consolidating power.

* Jesus’ descendents later became the Merovingian dynasty of European monarchy. Charles Martel and his grandson Charlemagne treacherously overthrew the Merovingian dynasty.

* Merovingian line was preserved by the secret society of the Priory of Sion (which gave rise to the Knights Templar) and were assigned by the Catholic Church to keep the secret safe.

* Members of the Priory of Sion included Italian artist/scientist Leonardo da Vinci, novelist Victor Hugo, painter Botticelli, composer Claude Debussy, and scientist (and Protestant) Sir Issac Newton. In modern times the leadership included a who’s who of French politics and arts: General Charles deGaulle, Marcel Lefebvre, Francois Ducaud-Bourget, Andre Malraux, film director Jean Cocteau and Alain Poher.

According to the Prieure's documents, its history is 900-year-old . Its earliest roots are in a Gnostic society led by a man named Ormus, who is said to have reconciled paganism and Christianity using the information listed above. In 1070, a group of monks from Calabria, Italy, led by Prince Ursus, founded the Abbey of Orval in France near Stenay, in the Ardennes. These monks are said to have formed the basis for the Order de Sion, into which they were "folded" in 1099 by Godfroi de Bouillion. For about one hundred years, the Order of the Temple (Knights Templar) and Sion were apparently unified under one leadership, though they are said to have separated at the "cutting of the elm" at Gisors in 1188. (The Templar order was then destroyed by King Phillipe Le Bel of France, in 1307.) It appears that there are vast connections between Sion and numerous sociocultural strata in European thought -- Roscicrucianism, Freemasonry, Arthurian and Grail legends, "Arcadianism," Catharism, etc.

In 1956 the PoS listed with the French directory of organizations under the subtitle "Chivalry of Catholic Rules and Institutions of the Independent and Traditionalist Union," which in French abbreviates to CIRCUIT -- the name of the magazine distributed internally among members. Depending on what statutes one considers, PoS either has 9,841 members in nine grades, or 1,093 members in seven, with the supreme member, the "Nautonnier" or Grand Master of the Order being, till 1963, famed film director Jean Cocteau.

Pierre Plantard de St.-Clair claims to have been Cocteau’s successor, but left the post in 1984. In 1984, in an interview published in Messianic Legacy, he told the authors Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) that political "maneouvres" by "Anglo-American" members could no longer be tolerated, and that he was resigning.

During the late 1930s and 1940s, during the Vichy Occupation of France, a young man known as "Pierre de France," aka Pierre Plantard, aka Plantard de St.-Clair, began publishing a journal called Vaincre, which was the arm of a group calling itself Alpha Galates. The stated purpose of Alpha Galates was to form a European federation centered on French leadership.

Vaincre carried stories that were both anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic. Plantard, speaking to Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh, said that he had to run stories of that type in order to get it past the Gestapo - really, he and Poirer Murat were sending coded messages to the Underground Resistance. He claimed that in 1943 he was arrested and detained for Resistance activity. The Resistance seems to have appreciated Plantard's efforts, because he was named by General deGaulle to the Paris Committee of Public Safety.



Rennes-le-Château Debunked


Saunière was just an ordinary Roman Catholic French priest --- who happened to hit the jackpot when he SOLD MASSES during the conflict between Church and State in France 1885-1905. Advertising in religious newspapers, magazines and journals around the world, Saunière reaped a financial bonanza both for himself and the Church he helped renovate. He built a villa on the grounds of the Church where he entertained the rich and famous, including the international opera star Emma Calvé. He built a gothic tower on the grounds and planted gardens filled with exotic plants and birds.

Saunière refused to account for his massive expenditure to his Bishop, who threatened to bring him up on formal charges. When Saunière continued to keep the source of his income secret, the case went to the Vatican, who would not render a verdict until the Bishop could look at the books. The case was deadlocked for several years, until finally Saunière ran out of stalling tactics and released the books for examination.

Saunière was defrocked by the Catholic Church in 1912, and died in 1917. He continued to act as a Priest although his authority was stripped, and he died on eve of signing contracts for new, vaster building schemes for the grounds of the Church. According to his will, all money transferred to his housekeeper upon Saunière‘s death. Father Riviere denied him last rites due to Saunière‘s refusal to confess the sin of selling masses.





Priory of Sion Debunked

1.The original Priory of Sion was founded in 1956 as a social group of friends by two people – André Bonhomme and Pierre Plantard. The original Priory of Sion had nothing to do with Bérenger Saunière, Rennes-le-Château, politics or secret societes – the story goes that one day, when someone commented on the bad state of the lodgings – it was decided to form a society devoted to the cause of Low-Cost Housing: and so the Priory of Sion was created! It was actually named after the hill of Mont Sion located outside the town of St-Julien-en-Genevoise. They produced an amateur journal called "Circuit" devoted to the cause of Low-Cost Housing, that simply comprised of A4 pages stapled together, and containing a crude text that was both stencilled and printed.

2. Pierre Plantard had a shadowy background – he was a supporter of the Vichy regime in Wartime France – and his past involved anti-semitic politics within an esoteric framework – in 1942 he founded an Order of Knighthood called the Alpha Galates, and was sentenced to four months in Fresnes prison for not registering it with the authorities (Secret Service Report, dated 13 February 1945). (It is known that the Gestapo, such as the units under Klaus Barbie in Lyon, were infiltrating, dissolving, and murdering members of leftist esoteric organizations (like Alpha Galates alleged to be) during the Vichy Occupation.) He was also imprisoned during the 1950s (a letter by the Mayor of Annemasse to the Sub-Prefect of St Julien-en-Genevois dated 1956 notes that Plantard received a prison sentence in 1953 over allegations relating to fraud, embezzlement, and child corruption.)

3.During the mid-1980s a conflict erupted between Pierre Plantard and a French researcher, Jean-Luc Chaumeil, who conducted investigations on Pierre Plantard that yielded the above-mentioned information. By the 1980s Plantard had acquired quite a name for himself by reviving the Priory of Sion from 1962 onwards, and creating a mystique involving the legends of Gisors, Bérenger Saunière and Rennes-le-Château, secret societies, his claim to be from a French Line of Kings, the keeper of secrets and possessor of secret parchments – he also claimed that the Priory of Sion was founded during the Crusades by Godfrey de Bouillon, was linked with the Knights Templar, and produced a List of Grand Masters spanning centuries. All of this was bogus and fraudulent and Jean-Luc Chaumeil had all the evidence to prove it.

3. That the Priory of Sion did not exist before 1956 can easily be proved. Its 1956 Registration Documents and 1956 Statutes, deposited in the Police Station at St Julien-en-Genevois, can be found at http://documents.priory-of-sion.com.posd .

4. Plantard claims that in 1946, he left Alpha Galates and was inducted into the PoS by the Abbe Francois Ducaud-Bourget. However, there are similarities between Alpha Galates and the PoS, one also finds a strange semblance between the PoS "statutes" and the degrees and principles of the Rectified Scottish Rite in France (an outgrowth of the Templar Strict Observance) and the Memphis-Misraim branch of Masonry.

5. The "prieure documents" suggest there was a "schism" within the PoS in 1956. Whatever this "schism" was, it led the schismatics to register the group and its statutes with the French bureau of organizations, giving the first traceable existence of the group in this year. In 1956 Plantard was first accused of actually being an active Vichy collaborator, and part of the Vichy's "educational movement" meant to indoctrinate the youth of France against modernity and Americanization. During this time (1961-1978), his associates began depositing the mysterious "prieure documents" (all having to do with treasure, Rennes-les-Chateau, Merovingians, white queens, and hidden secrets) in the Biblioteque Nationnale, under pseudonyms like "Anthony the Hermit".

6. Plantard died in February of 2000. Since that time no one has stepped forward to give any more interviews. Despite its registry with the French directory of organizations, the PoS remains untraceable, its given address and number leading to dead ends. .

CONCLUSION:

In short, the documentation used by many books, like “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, “The Bible Fraud”, and lately “The DaVinci Code” - which claim to refute traditional Christian doctrines and claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had kids - were concocted by a man TRYING TO KEEP HIS NAZI-COLLABORATING BOHUNKAS OUT OF THE HANGMAN’S NOOSE!!!