The Center of the Universe

[TCassidy]

Do you think Paul had a correct understanding of Genesis, if his cosmology was like that pictured in the post above?

It wasn't. The picture is a visual representation of the description found in the book of Enoch, which is non-canon and reflects the superstition of some cabalistic Jews.

 

[Aaron]

Do you think Paul subscribed to a heliocentric model as you do?

 

[TCassidy]

Do you think Paul subscribed to a heliocentric model as you do?

What makes you think I do? I don't.

I don't believe the universe has a center. Or every point in space is the center.

The problem lies with the inability of most people to comprehend exactly what the creation of the universe entailed.

The "big bang" (or "Let there be light") was not the explosion of matter into an empty universe, but the creation and expansion of the universe (space/time/matter-energy) itself. And as every point in the universe is expanding away from every other point there can be no center.

 

[Aaron]

I don't believe the universe has a center. Or every point in space is the center.

The problem lies with the inability of most people to comprehend exactly what the creation of the universe entailed.

The "big bang" (or "Let there be light") was not the explosion of matter into an empty universe, but the creation and expansion of the universe (space/time/matter-energy) itself. And as every point in the universe is expanding away from every other point there can be no center.

You realize that an unbounded universe (no edge or center) is only an assumption.

The observations can be explained as well assuming a model that has an edge and center.

According to John Hartnett, even better, because dark matter and energy need not be invoked.

 

[Aaron]

But you're avoiding my question. What if Paul's cosmology were geocentric? Or, do you think that his authority is directly linked to his cosmology. Do you think he could hold an errant view of the cosmos while at the same time receiving direct revelation from God?

 

[percho]

I'm saying—well, the Scriptures, actually—that the Cross is central to His identity. It's the very foundation of it. The name given Him that is above all names in Heaven and in earth and under the earth, is because of the work He accomplished here, on the cross, for the sinners here. The angels in Heaven confess that name. It is the ultimate reality, not merely one possible reality.

I would agree with the cross being central in that it was the means through which Jesus's obedience unto death, was carried out. In other words what I truly believe, is central, was even though Jesus was Son, he learned, the obedience and was obedient unto death. Even death of the cross.

Was the Son born/made of woman obedient because he was Son or did he, actually through sufferings, learn the obedience and suffer through obedience unto death?

I cannot remember where it is but I believe it is stated somewhere in the OT of some being gathered from let's say outside the earth's atmosphere.
Are there currently any bodies dead in space?

 

[TCassidy]

What if Paul's cosmology were geocentric?

What if pigs could whistle? What if dogs could fly? What if up were down? What if red was yellow? What if? As we don't know, and have no way of knowing, the question is moot.

 

[Aaron]

I'm not asking what was Paul's cosmology. We know that the Scriptures are written in geocentric terms. I found no Scripture suggesting that the earth was in motion in space. There is no heliocentric rabbinical tradition before Copernicus.

So either the prophets and apostles inserted their erroneous notions into the Scriptures, or the Spirit was speaking in relative terms.

Though we might allow the prophets and the apostles to entertain fallacious notions about the cosmos, can we allow the same in Christ? He said His father maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good. Christ either knows that in reality His Father maketh the earth to move around the sun and rotate on its axis and carry the evil and the good to the light of the sun, but prefers to speak from the point of view of earth, or Christ entertained fallacious notions about the heavens.

Or is there a third option I haven't thought of?

 

[TCassidy]

We know that the Scriptures are written in geocentric terms.

Only insofar as the Earth is the focus of God's dealing with mankind. There is no hint of any astronomical centricity in the bible.

 

[Rolfe]

I have a Golden Retriever who thinks that she is the center of the universe.

*laugh*

 

[TCassidy]

I have a Golden Retriever who thinks that she is the center of the universe.

*laugh*

That's odd. I have a black lab who thinks the same thing. We better keep them apart. The dog fight may end the universe as we know it!

Her best side.

 

[Rolfe]

Labs are great.

My Pup loves everybody. Any doggie-war could be avoided with a piece of tomato as a distraction. *laugh*

 

[TCassidy]

Sadie does too. When I take her for a walk and people see her they ask me if she is friendly. I usually tell them to be careful or she might lick their hand off.

 

[Aaron]

Only insofar as the Earth is the focus of God's dealing with mankind.

And is the stage on which Christ merited his name above all names in Heaven.

There is no hint of any astronomical centricity in the bible.

The firmament is in the midst of the waters, and it divides the waters that are above the firmament from the waters which are below it, and the waters below it are on earth, and those waters became seas on earth.

That strongly hints at astronomical centricity.

But you're avoiding the question again. If the reality is that the earth carries the evil and the good into the light of the sun, why not say it that way?

 

[righteousdude2]

What if pigs could whistle? What if dogs could fly? What if up were down? What if red was yellow? What if? As we don't know, and have no way of knowing, the question is moot.

Now that is a good response. "Moot?" The next time you demand an answer from me, I'll utilize your line, " the question is moot!" Thanks for teaching me something of value, Ted.

 

[righteousdude2]

I still contend that a few Baptist brothers believe they're the CENTER of this, and any other, universe. That is sad, because while they mean well, they hurt those who rotate around their fixed position in the universe.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Though we might allow the prophets and the apostles to entertain fallacious notions about the cosmos, can we allow the same in Christ? He said His father maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good. Christ either knows that in reality His Father maketh the earth to move around the sun and rotate on its axis and carry the evil and the good to the light of the sun, but prefers to speak from the point of view of earth, or Christ entertained fallacious notions about the heavens.

Or is there a third option I haven't thought of?

Yup. "Sunrise" and related terms are merely the generic, nontechnical terms for the phenomenon of the nearest star becoming visible above the horizon. Its use is ubiquitous, ranging from Christ's words recorded in scripture to daily newspapers to atheists. Attaching any deeper connotation of truth or fallacy seems (to me) like overthinking things.

 

[Aaron]

So, your answer is that Christ, understaning the reality of the motion of the earth, spoke in relative terms, and you know that because of science.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

So, your answer is that Christ, understaning the reality of the motion of the earth, spoke in relative terms, and you know that because of science.

No, my supposition (because I cannot claim to know for sure why Christ chose the exact words He did, other than that He always did the will of the Father) is that, wanting to be understood, He used the vernacular of the day.

 

[Aaron]

So, it was the will of the Father to speak of the sun moving relative to the earth, though the reality is that it is the earth that moves.

And you know this because of science.

Not disputing, just clarifying.