Mill Ave. RESISTANCE to the Big Bang Theory & Its Implications for the Universe

Last night on Mill Ave., an atheist named Joe and I were talking on the mic. We went from the resurrection, to miracles, and then on to the existence of God. Around this point, an atheist named Rocco took over. Our conversation started out fine enough. Then I made the point that the Big Bang Theory forced most cosmologists to recognize that there was a beginning of the universe. I also noted that this theory is the one most folks today accept even though it has met with great resistance because of it cosmological implications.

Furthermore, I stated that when the theory was first being developed it was widely fought against – only a few were willing to recognize the Big Bang Theory as fact. I explained the main reason many did not like it then (and do not like it now) is that it eliminates the possibility of an eternal universe. By this time, Rocco (who does have a BA in physics from ASU) was extremely upset – close to fuming. He yelled very loudly into the mic that I was a liar and that I was lying. He was very, very angry.

Was the Big Bang Theory met with open arms by most cosmologists, astrophysicists and mathematicians? Was it split down the middle? Or were most opposed to it and only accepted it begrudgingly? This is really a history of science question, not a science question proper. Let me see if I can answer it and hopefully deflect the charge of being a straight up liar.

When Willem de Sitter showed that General Relativity demanded an expanding universe and therefore a universe that was not eternal, Albert Einstein disliked this use of his math. Einstein wrote a letter to the Dutchman and said this of an expanding universe: “One cannot take such possibilities seriously”. [1]

In 1922, when a Russian meteorologist/mathematician named Alexander Friedmann “discovered the solutions to Einstein’s equations that described an expanding universe filled with matter. … Einstein did not believe Friedmann’s result and published a proof that it was wrong”. [2] Later, of course – in 1930 - Einstein admitted he was wrong and that Friedmann was right.

Even though Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment which confirmed that General Relativity was true, the British cosmologist initially felt the same way as Einstein had: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning is of the present order of nature is repugnant to me … I should like to find a genuine loophole … the expanding Universe is preposterous … incredible … it leaves me cold”. [3] Nonetheless, Eddington did admit that “the beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural”. [4]

It seems odd that mathematical equations can induce the shivers, but I digress. Even worse, Walter Nernst, a German physicist, wrote that “to deny the infinite duration of time would be to betray the very foundations of science”. [5] Some may not appreciate the forthcoming remark but I wonder if the so-called “foundation of science” Nernst was worried about was the sacred cow of philosophical naturalism? Remember, Eddington specifically used the word philosophically.

If denying an infinite universe is scientific betrayal, then Einstein must be cast in the role of Judas Iscariot when he once again removed the cosmological constant from his equation and confirmed that “new observations by Hubble and Humason concerning the red shifts of distant nebulae make it appear likely that the general structure of the Universe is not static”. [6]

Einstein had initially inserted the cosmological constant – a fudge factor of sorts – in order to get rid the “irritating” (his words, not mine) conclusion of his own work: that the universe is not eternal. This great but humble man later called this fudge factor the “greatest blunder” of his life. Apparently, this great blunder consisted in part of an elementary algebraic error: he divided by zero! His once majestic – almost poetic - equation became clunky and incorrect when he did this.

Contrary to the claims of some on Mill Ave. last night, there was general resistance to the idea of universe with a beginning. Cosmologist Andrei Linde wrote “The nonstationary character of the Big Bang theory [based on the] Friedmann cosmological models seemed very unpleasant to many scientists in the 1950’s”. [7]

For further proof of this outright aversion/reluctant acceptance, all one needs to do is check out a 1959 survey of top US astronomers and physicists in which 2/3 still believed the universe had no beginning! [8] Remember, this was 30 years after Hubble and Hanson’s astounding “red shift” results on this matter! Even earlier still – in 1914 - US astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher announced that all of the galaxies he had studied were “receding from the earth at fantastic speeds”. [8]

I appreciate the honesty of Fred Hoyle here: “I philosophically liked the Steady State” … (this makes sense since he was its main proponent up till the time) but he still said, “clearly I’ve had to give that up”. [9]

Things became more difficult for the new brand of those who wanted to deny that the universe had a beginning - Steady-State theorists - in 1965 when two of their own – Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson – accidentally detected cosmic background radiation.

Interestingly enough, “as early as 1948, three scientists predicted that this radiation would be out there if the Big Bang did really occur. But for some reason no one attempted to detect it before Penzias and Wilson stumbled upon it by accident nearly twenty years later. When the discovery was confirmed, it laid to rest any lingering suggestion that the universe is in an eternal steady state”. [10]

All of this lead one modern physicist who dislikes the Big Bang Theory to complain “it is astounding that the Big Bang hypothesis is the only cosmological model that physicists have taken seriously”. [11] I am not totally unaware of alternate theories. I do not claim to comprehend the math involved like Rocco can. All I am saying is that last night, I was not lying.


VOCAB


PS - You may have noticed that I cite Jastrow’s book several times. Well, just to clear the air, it should be noted that he is a self-professed agnostic. On page 11 of the aforementioned book, Jastrow wrote this: “When an astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters”.

I found this factoid interesting because when I met Paul C. Davies after the Daniel Dennet lecture at ASU, I asked Davies about a quote from Jastrow and Davies claimed that Jastrow was an evangelical Christian! Unless something has changed with Jastrow, this was not correct. Plus, Jastrow has impeccable credentials: he served as the director of Mt. Wilson and is the founder of Goddard’s Institute of Space Studies at NASA. So he should be viewed as a reputable source.


NOTES:
[1] quoted in Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (NY: Norton, 1992), 21
[2] Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006), 43.
[3] quoted in Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1995), 57.
[4] Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (NY: Macmillan, 1933), 178.
[5] Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (NY: Norton, 1992), 104
[6] Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (NY: Norton, 1992), 32.
[7] A. Linde, D. Linde, A. Mezhlumian “From the Big Bang to the Theory of a Stationary Universe” Physical Review D49 (1994): 1783.
[8] Stephen G. Brush, “How Cosmology Became a Science” Scientific American (08/92), 62-70.
[9] quoted in Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Daystar, 2000), 157.
[10] Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 81.
[11] R. Oldershaw, What’s Wrong with the New Physics?, New Scientist, 22/29 (Dec. 1990), 56-59.

DOCETIC USE of the NEW TESTAMENT

Many of the extant Gnostic texts do have Docetic elements in them but the Docetists did not stop there; they also misread Scripture to suit their own theological purposes. For example, a favorite verse of theirs was Phillipians 2:7, which says that Christ “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men”.

It helps to look at the Greek text of this verse to get at its root meaning, which deals with the reality of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. Greek scholar A.T. Robertson is helpful here:

Form of a servant (μορφην δουλου [morphēn doulou]) means he took the characteristic attributes (morphen as in Phillipans 2:6) of a slave. His humanity was as real as his deity and in the likeness of men (ἐν ὁμοιωματι ἀνθρωπων [en homoiōmati anthrōpōn]) means it was a likeness, but a real likeness … no mere phantom humanity as the Docetic Gnostics held. Note the difference in tense between huparchon (eternal existence in the morphe of God) and genomenos (second aorist middle participle of ginomai, becoming, definite entrance in time upon his humanity).


[SOURCE: A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention; Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Php 2:7.]

Even though the Docetists twisted the truth of the text terribly to tout their trendy teaching, it seems as if once Ignatius possibly went outisde of the text in order to counter them. This very interesting response by Ignatius can be found in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3.2. Here, Ignatius quotes Jesus as saying “I am not a bodiless spirit”.

This agrapha (agrapha are statements attributed to Jesus but are not found anywhere in the New Testament itself; the word literally means “unwritten things”.) bears a small resemblance to Luke 24:39 but F.F. Bruce thinks Ignatius may be quoting from a work called The Teaching of Peter. [SOURCE: F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame: The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the Conversion of the English, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s, 1970), 246.] The evidence for this is inconclusive at this point.

Another oft-cited verse by the Docetists was John 3:13, where Jesus said to Nicodemus: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man”.

DOCETISM in the NEW TESTAMENT

Many New Testament commentators from earlier generations tended to see proto-Gnosticism lurking in every little town in Asia Minor and hence engaged too often in “mirror reading”. Mirror reading is when we think we know the background problem(s) in a given situation in one of the New Testament churches and subsequently see many of the statements in the Epistle to that church as having directly to do with said situation(s). Hence, many have been all too quick to label the heresy at Colossae as Gnosticism when in all likelihood it appears to be more of a yet unknown form of local syncretism.

One basic issue with seeing Gnostisim in the background of the New Testament Epistles is that Gnosticism as a movement proper within the church must be dated much later than most of the New Testament epistles. The very knowledgeable Edwin Yamauchi concluded his extensive analysis of the pre-Christian Gnosticism theory with this sentence: “In the case of the New Testament texts we have no Gnostic texts which are older, and the evidences which have been adduced to prove the priority of Gnosticism over Christianity have been weighed in this study and found wanting”. From my limited studies on this, I – despite the cacophony of cries coming from certain community college critics - wholeheartedly agree.

With this fact in mind, it appears that an early form of Gnosticism (sometimes called proto-gnosticim or incipient Gnosticism) truly was at work in some of the churches toward the close of the first century. This means that John the Beloved was the only New Testament author to actually address this issue head on; it is almost certain this is part of what he is doing in his Gospel account and especially in his three Epistles.

Harvard Professor Helmut Koester - even though his views on the Gospel of John are quite nuanced and complicated - does point out that that even the Gospel of John runs rife with “anti-Gnostic Christology” and that “John’s ‘the Word became flesh’ (1:14) is pointedly anti-docetic”. Koester does not think Ignatius – who dealt with a more rampant version of Docetism in his seven letters - was aware of the fourth gospel. Nonetheless, Koester still cannot help but take note of the similar theological language between the Gospel of John and the writings of Ignatius. A great example can be seen by comparing John 3:6-8 and Ignatius’ Philadelphians 7.1. Koester speculates that the similarity was derived from “a traditional theological maxim” … “perhaps deriving from a liturgical context”.

However, I would like the reader to consider the following: John’s Gospel originated from Ephesus and Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch – both cities were in Asia Minor. Moreover, the earliest copy of John’s Gospel is P52, which dates from approximately125 AD and was discovered in Egypt. If John’s Gospel was composed between 90-100 AD, it is significant that a copy had already made its way to North Africa within such a short time frame.

Granted, Ignatius was writing circa 107 AD but given the closer geographical proximity, it seems reasonable to propose that Ignatius was at least aware of some of the contents of John’s Gospel. If he was not, though, that fact would only seem to strengthen the case for an early orthodox Christology because we can see Ignatius basically making the same kind of statements about the hypostatic union that John made in his work.

In short, if Ignatius was not familiar with John’s gospel, it is all the more striking he was so clear and strident in his condemnation of the Docetic heresy which John apparently had already dealt with in his corpus. Although I am arguing here from the standpoint of John the Beloved being the author of the fourth Gospel, the argument still works if one holds to a Johnannine communal authorship or some variation thereof.

Further, it is possible the sort of “eucharistic hyper-realism” in John 6:51-58 may have been purposefully anti-docetic. If not, there is no question that John 19:34, with its specific mention of “blood and water” flowing from Jesus’ chest wound, lets the reader know in no uncertain terms that Jesus was truly human – and truly dead.

On a side note, we should keep in mind that polemical pericopes should not dull our senses to the often larger and grander aims of early Christian authors. For example, some scholars from generations past have (incorrectly) argued that one of Luke’s main purposes in writing his gospel was to combat Gnosticism.

I concur here with another scholar from yesteryear, Joachim Jeremias; he pointed out that that we should view the post-Resurrection meal Jesus shared with his disciples primarily in terms of forgiveness, as the disciples were restored to their master as they fellowshipped together. Any anti-Docetic element – such as Jesus digesting fish - should be seen as secondary or we lose sight of the main point – forgiveness and restoration. In my next post, I will transition to how the Docetists distorted the New Testament.


SOURCES/NOTES:

Edwin M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973), 186.
Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press, 1990), 271.
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 246.
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 258.
Grudem defines the hypostatric union as “the union of Christ’s human and divine natures in one person”. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1244.
Cf. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 72. and also U. Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johnnine School (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 228.
Interestingly enough, Ignatius later claimed that the Docetists neglected the Eucharist in Smyrneans 7.1
John MacArthur on this phenomenon: “The watery fluid was probably excess serum that had collected in the pericardium (the membrane that encloses the heart). The blood was an indicator that the spear pierced the heart or aorta as well as the pericardium. The fact that blood and water came out separately from the same wound seems to indicate that death had occurred some period of time before the wound was inflicted, so that Christ’s blood—even in the area of the heart—had already begun the process of coagulation”. John MacArthur, The Murder of Jesus: A Study of How Jesus Died (Nashville, TN: Word Pub., 2000), 241.
Charles H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1966).
Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: ET, 1966), 204 n.3.

DOCETISM DEFINED

The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity defines Docetism as the “view that Christ’s humanity was only an appearance (from Greek dokesis) or disguise worn by the heavenly Redeeemer”.[1] Docetism was a belief held by most Gnostics who called themselves Christians. Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary describes Docetism as “heretical theological beliefs held by some, called Docetae, in the early church that Christ did not have a real physical body and that his humanity and suffering as well as his crucifixion and Resurrection were illusory and not real. The Docetae shared with the Gnostics the idea that all matter was inherently evil”.^[2] Docetism flows naturally out of the spirit versus matter dualistic tendency in middle Platonism that influenced much of Greek thought in the second and third centuries. Historian Henry Chadwick explains the degree to which these ideas had penetrated many Gentile minds of the era:

The Gnostic attitude to matter as alien to the supreme God required the rejection of any genuine incarnation. The divine Christ (they held) might have appeared to blinded worldlings as if he were tangible flesh and blood, but those with higher insight perceived that he was pure spirit and that the physical appearance was an optical illusion and mere semblance. It was inconceivable that the divine Christ could have come ‘in the flesh’ in any ultimately true sense. What people would have seen if they had been there at the time would have differed according to their spiritual capacity.[3]

Translator Edgar J. Goodspeed has suggested that Docetism could be translated as Seemism.[4] This is helpful because Docetism is based upon the Greek word dokéō (δοκέω), which means, “to seem”, as in, “it seems to me” or “I think”. Biblical uses of dokéō include Luke 1:3 and Acts 15:22. Another way to translate dokéō is “to be of the opinion” or even “to suppose”. Other connotations of dokéō include “to be accounted as”, “reputed”, “to be judged as such” (as in “I determined thus”).^[5] Key among all these definitions, for our purposes, is “to appear,” and especially “to have the appearance”, as in Acts 17:18. The way dokéō would manifest itself in Docetic parlance would go something like this: “Jesus had the appearance of flesh” or “it only seemed as if Jesus had flesh”. The entry for dokéō in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says, “dokeín is contrasted with eínai in Greek thought”.^[6] εἰμί , by way of contrast, has to do with “to be” or “exist”.[7]

---

[1] Everett Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), 272.

^[2] George Thomas Kurian, Nelson's New Christian Dictionary: The Authoritative Resource on the Christian World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001).

[3] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1967), 37-38.

[4] William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible Series: The Letters of John and Jude, Revised Edition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 7.

^[5] James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. (electronic ed.; Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1996), G1380.

^[6] Gerhard Kittel et al., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 178.

[7] A clear example of this use is in John 8:58, when Jesus said, “before Abraham was born, I am” (πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγὼ εἰμί).

ATHEISTS TALKING ABOUT ME BEHIND MY BACK?!?!

Thought you might find this interesting ...
A while ago I debated/dialogued with some local atheists on one of their podcasts.
Apparently, the local atheists had a conversation on their forum about me during this time.
I found it enlightening and for the most part, found their comments to be fair and respectful.
Read the thread and tell me what you think!
Here is the link for all those so inclined:

http://www.meetup.com/phoenix-atheists/boards/thread/5359401/0/

PS - the title is just to grab your attention.

DOCETISM REDUX

Docetism is making a come back of sorts. There is a trend among the new atheist movement – primarily on the Internet – to recast Docetism as evidence that the earliest Christians never even believed in an actual historical Jesus. Proponents of this position misunderstand Docetism’s misunderstandings about the humanity of Jesus. They claim that Docetism was the (correct!) understanding that the story of Jesus was mythical.

I first became aware of this while witnessing to some local atheist activists from Arizona State University. One of them claimed there was evidence within the New Testament itself that the first version of Jesus was not a historical person but rather a mythical and strictly heavenly Christ-figure divorced from all time and space reality. This individual spouted some lines from I and II John as his evidence.

The leaders of this modern-day historical revisionism - such as Canadian atheist Earl Doherty, amatuer filmmaker Brian Fleming, and former fundamentalist Robert M. Price - would have us believe that the original version of Christianity held to a purely mythological Christ over and above the belief of an actual Jesus of history.

An element of this theory – that Jesus never even existed – hinges upon on a misapplication certain docetic claims. Therefore, in my future posts, I will explore Docetism’s appearance in the early church in some detail: its doctrine, its documents and its detractors. This should help us better understand the actual nature of the error.

NOTES:
Cf. Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus (Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Humanist Publications, 2001).
Cf. The God Who Wasn’t There DVD
Cf. Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition? (Minneapolis, MN: Prometheus Books, 2003).

QUESTIONS from a ONENESS PENTECOSTAL

I received a letter from a Oneness Pentecostal. They sent me a list of questions; most of which I found to be poorly worded or just confused. Maybe you can help? Read over this list and maybe give a few responses and I will include them in my response to him. Any help is appreciated.

Isaiah 7:14; St. Mathew 1:23 - If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, then who is Immanuel?
Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:14-17 - If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, who created the heavens, and earth? Jesus or God?
Genesis 49:10; Hebrews 7:14 - If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, when will our Lord spring out of the Tribe of Judah?
I Kings 22:19; Revelations 4:2 - If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, how many is setting on the throne?
Psalms 45:6; Philippians 2:11.Numbers 24:16-17- If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, when will Balaam's prophecy come to pass?
Isaiah 45:23; Philippians 2:11 - If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, then who shall we bow to? Jesus or God?
Isaiah 45:15-21; Titus 2:13 - If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, then who is our savior?
Isaiah 9:6 - If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, then when will Isaiah's prophecy come to pass?
If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, why when the Devil was tempting Jesus, "Jesus said unto him, 'Thou Shalt not tempt the Lord Thy God'"?
St. Matthew 4:7.-If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, when will the Lord God of Israel visit his people to redeem them?
St. Luke 1:68.-If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, why did Steven call God by his name and said, "Lord Jesus"?
Acts 7:59.-If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, then who is the True God? I John 5:20.
Deuteronomy 32:4; I Corinthians 10:4 - If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, then who is The Rock? God or Christ?
If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, then Thomas must of told a lie in St. John 20:28, when he said to Jesus, "My Lord and My God". Did Thomas lie?
I Timothy 3:16 - If Jesus Christ is not God, when did God come in the flesh?
I John 3:16 - If Jesus Christ is not God, when did God lay down his life?
St. John 3:16; I Peter 3:18.
St. John 14:9 - If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, why did He say to Philip, "When you see me, you see The Father", and there is only one Father? Malachi 2:10.
Did God tell a lie when he told Saul that He is Jesus in, Acts 9:5.
If Jesus Christ is not God, then we must say the He's not Good. -St. Mark 10:18; St. John 10:14.
Psalms 90:2; Revelations 1:18 - If Jesus Christ is not God, then who is He that liveth, and was dead; and is alive evermore (everlasting)?