We might. The concept of "seconds before the Big Bang" seems nonsensical, but it's what physicists are going with. I suspect that this is because they have at one point set the Big Bang to a certain point on their clock and are sticking with that terminologically, though I can't pretend I understand the issue well enough to say for sure. A friend of mine does, however, and wrote her doctoral thesis on this more than ten years ago. Peebles, Englert, and Higgs are all Nobel prize winners which she cites.
I do not understand how that can be the case for any of those. Unless as you say, you define "Big Bang" to be the period of cosmic inflation, perhaps - meaning that the Planck Epoch (for example) is "before the big bang". But that doesn't seem to be the way the term is generally used.
String Theory is running into quite a lot of difficulty. It isn't mutually exclusive with the Big Bang model anyway.
Anyway. I'm still trying to figure out the difference between Christianity and Scientology. (Other than a few thousand years, as @Tuckerfan already pointed out.)
To add to the list: There is only one Church of Scientology. (Distinguishing Catholicism and Scientology would be harder.)
Okay, this is going to be long. Sorry about that. I spent several hours yesterday going through old books that I haven't opened in 20 or 30 years, and doing research in other places, in order to respond to the accusation that I am merely “saying” that baptism is of Greek origin but can't give any source for it. The tl;dr version is: yes, baptism is of Greek origin. The Greeks and other cultures influenced by Greek thinking practiced it, without borrowing it from the Jews, and there is nothing in Jewish purification rituals that corresponds to baptism, either in form or intention. But it is not in the practice of baptism that John the Baptist is thumbing his nose the most at the Jewish religion, it is in his refusal to practice all those rituals that priests are supposed to practice. 1) On the origin of baptism There is abundant evidence that a number of mystery religions practiced true baptism well before John the Baptist. Kenneth Scott Latourette mentions this in the first volume of “A History of The Expansion of Christianity”, and a Google search on baptism in the mystery religions will bring up ample information on the subject. There is no possible doubt that the mysteries practiced baptism (immersion in a liquid) as an initiation ritual. There is nothing in the law of Moses that even comes close to baptism. Purification rituals are not at all of the same nature as once-for-all initiation rituals. Their form is not the same (they are repeated as often as necessary, rather that being done only once) and their goal is not the same (they cleanse from impurity rather than symbolizing the person's total immersion into a particular spiritual outlook). It may be that some Pharisees practiced baptism as an initiation ritual for proselytes (I have heard this, but never found a good source for it), but even if true, they didn't get that practice from the law of Moses, either. That would only indicate that John the Baptist was not the only person who found the symbolism of baptism interesting and useful. That John wasn't simply practicing some kind of Jewish purification ritual is seen in John 3:25. He and the Jews didn't agree on it, and the Jews criticized him for what he was doing. That is why they belittled him by pointing out that the upstart Jesus was having more success than John. Conclusion: it is incomparably more reasonable to conclude that John got baptism from the Greeks than from the Jews, and very unreasonable to imagine that the Greeks got baptism from the Jews. As the word itself indicates, baptism (“βάπτισμα”, the practice of immersion in a liquid) is of Greek origin. 2) Did the mystery religions influence Christianity? This pagan origin of baptism is widely and regularly refuted by Christians. Just as there are numerous sources stating clearly that the mysteries practices baptism, many of them claiming that Christianity borrowed the practice from them (and some going as far as saying that Christianity was itself one more mystery religion, the only difference being its Jewish roots), there are also numerous sources which try to refute the pagan origin of baptism. Most do this, not by denying the practice of baptism among the mysteries (that cannot seriously be doubted), but by claiming that Jewish purification rituals somehow “evolved” into baptism. As has been shown above, that is not the case. Purification rituals are not at all the same thing, either in their form or in their role, as baptism. Nevertheless, it is true that Christianity did not simply “borrow” baptism from the mystery religions, in the same way that it borrowed so many things from so many other pagan religions, over the course of the centuries. Baptism was a part of Christianity from the outset, at Jesus' directive, and Jesus took over the practice from John the Baptist. Furthermore, John the Baptist, and Jesus after him, did not practice baptism in a way that was at all similar to the practice of the mystery religions. In the mysteries, baptism was a secret seance for initiates who had undergone a long period of preparation, and it was considered to have some sort of spiritual power in and of itself. The ritual actually accomplished something spiritual. To John, baptism was a public practice, open to everyone, with the only condition being that the person wanted to repent of their sin. There is no indication that any “time of preparation” preceded it. In addition to that, it is deeply rooted in New Testament teaching that rituals do not convey spiritual life or power. Salvation is a gift of God's grace alone, received by a simple act of faith (confidence in the sufficiency of God's promise and work), and not based in any way on man's actions or merits. In Christianity, rituals have only an illustrative value: they symbolize something, the way wearing a wedding ring symbolizes something. But they do not produce the thing by themselves, any more than the wearing of a wedding ring makes one married. John the Baptist thus gave a distinctly Jewish symbolism (the principle that rituals do not communicate spiritual life in themselves is already attested in Judaism, long before John the Baptist) to a ritual that had originally been practiced by pagans. So no, Christianity was not simply another mystery religion, and it did not borrow its rituals directly from the mystery religions (at least, not at first—later on, Christianity borrowed a lot of practices and beliefs from pagan religions). The Christian writers are correct on this point. But they are wrong in thinking that by showing that Christians did not simply copy baptism directly from the mystery religions, they have somehow demonstrated that it was not a practice that found its way into Judaism from Greek culture. It should also be noted that, even though baptism was not borrowed directly from the mysteries (and even less the sacred bread-and-wine ceremony called by different terms among Christians, though that is a separate issue), the mystery religions did have a great and deleterious impact on Christianity. When one reads the New Testament seriously, from one end to the other, one sees clearly that the primary message of Jesus and of all the New Testament writers (including Paul, despite what some claim) is a message of holy living. Salvation is about a changed heart. Christianity at its outset was first and foremost a message of piety. The mystery religions, however, had little to no focus on piety. They were all about attaining blissful immortality. The means varied from one to the other, but the goal was pretty much that. And one only has to look at the evolution of Christianity, already in the first couple of centuries, to see that very rapidly that became the central goal of Christianity as well. It is still the case to this day. To the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians, becoming holy as God is holy is really not a major preoccupation. Going to heaven and enjoying the pleasures of paradise for all eternity, however, is so present that in many circles it pretty much sums up what Christianity is all about. So the mystery religions “won” in the end, not by eliminating Christianity but by having their adepts incorporated into Christianity in mass conversions, and thus modifying fundamentally the nature of Christianity for most people. 3) Is the practice of a ritual of pagan origin forbidden by God's law? RyanKCR wrote that if John the Baptist was practicing a ritual that he borrowed from pagans, then he “violated God's command that said it is forbidden to add to God's law”. That is not at all the case. First of all, it should be noted that the law of Moses does not forbid practicing anything that is not explicitly forbidden by that law. Such a provision simply isn't there. If it isn't forbidden, then you are free to do it if you want. That does not in any way constitute “adding to God's law”. And the law of Moses, though it never once describes anything that is even close to baptism in either form or symbolism, never forbids it, either. The rule that one must not “add to the law” does not refer to doing something not covered by the law, but to teaching as “God's law” that which is not in the law. John the Baptist did not do that, since he nowhere taught that all Jews must practice baptism. The Pharisees, however, did violate this principle of not “adding to God's law”, many times. They did it, for example, in teaching that Jews must not eat with Gentiles. That provision is nowhere to be found in the law of Moses. But practicing things that are not included in the law of Moses, or things that have their origin among pagans, is not contrary to the law. It is in fact widespread in Judaism: Fasting is nowhere mandated in the law of Moses, yet was widely practiced in Israel (and even mandated by some, thus violating the principle of not adding to God's law—which did not prevent Jesus himself from fasting, though he never made it a requirement to anyone). Tithing was a common tax system in the ancient world, long before Moses. The Jews thus inherited that from pagans. Burnt offerings, too, were widespread long before the time of Abraham. Many Jewish festivals were added to the list of those described in the law, some even after the completion of the Old Testament. The list of practices among the Israelites that have their origins outside the law of Moses is very long. That is not, in itself, contrary to God's law. Nevertheless, it is not possible to pretend that John the Baptist was not in flagrant violation of a “letter-of-the-law” application of the law of Moses. This flows not so much from what he did (using baptism to symbolize total commitment to God), but from what he did not do. He did not wear what priests were supposed to wear, he did not eat what priests were supposed to eat, he did not practice, even once, the many rituals mandated to priests in Leviticus. There can be no doubt that he was a rebel, a revolutionary, deliberately thumbing his nose at the religious establishment. Furthermore, it is not possible to pretend that Jesus himself did not violate the “letter-of-the-law” approach to the Old Testament. He explicitly rescinded the rules of Leviticus 11 concerning the consumption of meat from pure and impure animals (Mark 7:19). If you go by the “spirit of the law” (just as there are foods that can cause health problems, so the “consumption” of certain things can make you “ill” spiritually), he is merely applying the same principle in a different context, since by his time the list of meats known to be without risk (mostly due to being raised and fed in controlled circumstances) was vastly different from what it had been to a simple, nomadic people. But if you take a “letter-of-the-law” approach, he clearly “took something away” from God's law, which is just as much forbidden as adding to it. Both John the Baptist and Jesus change the rituals of Judaism, because they had degenerated into simple rituals, with too many people thinking they had a a spiritual effect in and of themselves. It was only by replacing those rituals with other rituals that people could be “shocked out of their complacency” and see something of the actual symbolism of the rituals. (That is why it is ridiculous for Christians today to fight about the “right” way to practice baptism, as if its “effect” or “validity” depended on the precise way in which it is done, or the formula used in administering it—that falls into the very trap that the introduction of baptism was intended to refute.) The bottom line is that the only way to maintain that practicing rituals that are not mandated in the law of Moses, and thus come from other origins, is a violation of the spirit of God's law is to side with the Pharisees and condemn both John the Baptist and Jesus as sinners who do not obey God.
Wait a minute. That argument is indeed about Jesus starting to baptize people; the group of Jews thinks John is going to have a dispute with Jesus, they are not having a dispute with him. Moreover, the word here is NOT baptism, but purification (katharismos), so if we are all agreed that what they are talking about here is John's baptisms, that would be some evidence that the baptism is not strictly separate from the Jewish purification rituals.
That's not at all how I read it. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it certainly is not how I understand the passage. My point exactly. We are not in agreement about that. Furthermore, that seems to contradict what you just wrote, that this is NOT about baptism, but about purification.
No, it's not a contradiction. The word is 'purification', and as they're talking about it, they're pointing across the Jordan at what Jesus is doing, which they then go on to call 'baptism'. That is, they're using both words for the same practice. I'm trying to wrap my head around your reading. Do you take verse 25 to be about something completely separate from 26ff?
^ The way I read it, they disagreed with John about Jewish purification rituals (which he almost certainly didn't practice, either -- the discussion may have originated in someone pointing out that baptizing is not the way Jews do purification), which led them to belittle John's practices by pointing out that Jesus is having more success than John. If the start of the discussion had been about baptism, I do not see any reason the word would be "purification" rather than baptism. I am very much aware that the Apostle John's Greek is very limited, and you often have to "read between the lines" because he sticks to simple words and phrases even to express ideas which are much more subtle and complex, but John (the apostle) knew well and used regularly the word "baptism". There would be no reason for him to use the word "purification" if he was talking about baptism. And if there was any connection between the purification rituals they were talking about here and John's practice of baptizing, the most likely explanation would be the hypothesis I proposed above: they started out by pointing out that John's practice of baptism was not correct Jewish usage. In any case, to pretend that baptism is of Jewish origin, rather than Greek, you also have to say that the mystery religions borrowed the practice from the Jews rather than the other way around. As widespread as baptism was among the mysteries, and as little spiritual influence as the Jews had on other religions in the Roman Empire, that seems to me like a very unlikely hypothesis. (Or, possibly, you could pretend that both cultures developped baptism independantly, the Greeks before the Jews, but that the widespread usage of baptism among the Greeks had no influence whatsoever on the Jews modifying their purification rituals into a once-for-all initiation ritual — which also strikes me a a very unlikely hypothesis.)
I have difficulty picturing how this would lead them from one to the other. "What you are doing is heresy! Haha, that guy over there is committing the same heresy as you, with even more success!" Those two statements hardly go together. If you think baptism or the omittance of purification is heresy, it isn't a win for your side if there are two heretics rather than one, and the more recent one is expanding the creed. It would make much more sense to me to read it as: "Hey, something is up with your baptism ritual!" -- "Oh? What is it?" -- "That guy over there has copied it!" Of course, that works only if 'katharism' and 'baptism' refer to the same thing, at least in this one context. But the passage seems to make much more sense that way than if we try to assume that not only are the two terms different, but the passage is about that difference. I am not an expert on this, I'm just having trouble following your reading of this one passage in John. I do know that both katharism, as katharsis, and baptism were wide-spread in Greek antiquity. It would be easiest in my view to assume that both practices were shared around the Mediterranean, which might point either to a Jewish, a Greek, or any even older origin, but that John's contemporaries recognized that similarity, as opposed to assuming that baptism and katharism were at complete odds with one another in John's context. If I understand correctly, your interpretation assumes that purification/mikvah and purification/katharsis existed either as a shared or independent practice in Jewish and Greek culture for centuries, but that baptism was purely Greek and recognized as foreign in Palestine in the first century. That is certainly possible, but it is not the easiest explanation.
You need to read Wordforge more. When you want to belittle someone, any ad hominem attack is good. "You aren't doing it right" and "You aren't very successful" are not logically related, but just about any thread here should show you how you can go from one to the other. Taking into account that John the Apostle writes very simple Greek, it would not be surprising that he omitted the details, especially since they have nothing to do with his actual point, which is to show that John (the Baptist) was in no way jealous of Jesus' success. But it wouldn't be heresy for Jesus to do it. Jesus is not a priest (in the eyes of the Jews, anyway, the opinion of the writer of the letter to the Hebrews notwithstanding). Since the law of Moses does not forbid baptism (even though it has no support in the law of Moses) any more than it forbids fasting (which also is not at all mandated in the law of Moses), there is nothing wrong in itself with Jesus doing it. But John the Baptist is supposed to be practicing purification rituals (among other things), because he is a priest. And he isn't doing it. On this we agree. I think most of the rest of your post flows from the failure to take into account the fact that John the Baptist, as a priest, should be practicing rituals which are described in detail and is not doing it. The problem is not baptism in itself (which, as I said, I have heard that some Pharisees practiced even before John, as an initiation ritual for proselytes — though I would love to see a documented source for that, and have not found one so far), but a priest who uses this foreign ritual instead of those prescribed for priests in extensive detail in the law of Moses.
This entire thread, while fascinating to read, has far exceeded my poor knowledge of the topic. IOW, I learned something today.
Yes, I know, I meant a source that specifically said John the Baptist wasn't doing it, as opposed to also doing other stuff.
