This needs to be expanded? What Newton would do now, with what we have now? He was interested in alchemy
Last edited:
Keep the sabbath holy
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
- Status
Sure, but I was wondering about this: Newton's interest in alchemy, a practice that would have been condemned in the scripture you like to quote, @2ndpillar, had it been known at the time, how does it not disqualify Newton as a support for your views?
(Edit: clarify whom I was addressing with
my query)
Last edited:
As far as I know the sciences were not divided in Newton's time into chemistry biology, physics etc, as we know them now. It was all grouped together as natural history. Newton was the professor of mathematics at Cambridge, not of physics.
I don't think there was any difference at the time between chemistry and alchemy. It may have been a little offbeat for the time, but Newton's interest would not have been unusual, for him? He was a Protestant Christian.
Last edited:
Newton's investigation into the philosopher's stone, that which is able to change base metal into gold, winded up with him preparing a solution of Sophick (mercury solution). Today, mercury is used in the industrial process of removing gold from base metals. As for having the church condemn someone, that would be a badge of honor, although Galileo Galilei probably wished he hadn't crossed the backward church by writing a fictional book implying the earth was round. Newton thought knowledge and understanding came from God, and not the church of Babel, of which he condemned. Newton's understanding came from actually studying the Scriptures and giving them the weight as of coming from God.
https://crossref-it.info/articles/404/alchemy
"Historically, alchemy and what is thought of as modern science overlapped:
… Alchemy included spiritual aspects concerning the impact on individual alchemists of their study and experiments. Since alchemical knowledge was believed to be the gift of the gods, individuals who devoted themselves to its study could hope to achieve a spiritual or metaphysical transformation, just as their experiments were aimed at achieving physical transformations. In this sense, their experiments became metaphors for their own spiritual purification.
… The reputation of alchemy has varied since it was introduced into Europe in the Middle Ages. Alchemists might:
"Historically, alchemy and what is thought of as modern science overlapped:
- Robert Boyle (1627-91), known as ‘the father of chemistry', was critical of ancient science but maintained an interest in alchemy in both its experimental and metaphysical senses
- Isaac Newton (1642-1727), a scholar and theorist in mathematics, optics and physics (including the theory of gravity), also conducted alchemical experiments.
… Alchemy included spiritual aspects concerning the impact on individual alchemists of their study and experiments. Since alchemical knowledge was believed to be the gift of the gods, individuals who devoted themselves to its study could hope to achieve a spiritual or metaphysical transformation, just as their experiments were aimed at achieving physical transformations. In this sense, their experiments became metaphors for their own spiritual purification.
… The reputation of alchemy has varied since it was introduced into Europe in the Middle Ages. Alchemists might:
- Be respected or revered as genuine scientists and divines, endowed with special knowledge and insight
- Be seen as heretics, meddling with forbidden knowledge
- Be regarded as unscrupulous tricksters and frauds preying on the desires of greedy and gullible individuals.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Whether you are ready or not, it gets you; and there is nothing beyond it, other than being absorbed in the environment.
All men die for their own "iniquity" (Jeremiah 31:30). That is not the same as the day of judgment, known as Har-Magedon, in which the "wicked"/lawless, drink from the cup of the wrath of God (Revelation 14:10). People reap what they sow. Even king David, who was beloved of God, paid the price for his sin, and lost his concubines, his kingdom, and even his son over his indiscretion. People preaching lawlessness, the nailing of one's sins to a cross, the false gospel of grace, are generally living a life on the edge, are are on the path to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13).
Christ forgave sinners?
Sinners are cut off from God, which is punishment in itself. The the angels will gather the "wicked"/"lawless" at the "end of the age", and these "tares" shall be "burned" (Matthew 13:38-40). They can look to the "many" for their justification, but in the end, the "many" face "destruction" (Matthew 7:13). If you were without sin, then you would not have to die. Sin results in death, and all men die (Jeremiah 31:30), even your false prophet Paul and his contemporary followers are dead and buried, supposedly Paul is buried somewhere on the edge of Rome.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 9:1-8&version=KJV
Matthew 9:2-8
“And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.”
King David confessed of his sin, and did repentance, was forgiven/healed, yet he faced a harsh judgment, and he eventually died. And if you walk in the path of Yeshua, why is it that you are not able to forgive the sins of your brothers and heal them? Aren't you supposed to be able to do these things and more? Is your faith less than Matthew's, who Yeshua said to, "follow me", and Matthew followed (Matthew 9:9). Yeshua told the young rich man that in order to have life, he must "keep the commandments", and to become "perfect" he must sell his possessions and follow me. Have you kept the commandments as the young man was told, or sold your possessions so you could "follow me"? Is your faith greater than the demons, who "believe", yet knowingly "tremble" (James 2:19). If you were without sin, then you wouldn't tremble at the mention of a flu, and you could quit your insurance plan and save some money and be free.
Yet Christ did forgive sin? All men are sinners. No man is perfect. Only the Christ. Every Catholic Mass begins with confessing that we have sinned, and asking Christ's forgiveness.
But I hear what you're saying: forgiveness does not entitle me to walk around believing that I am sinless and perfect. Because I don't believe that I am. I always want to be a better person.
I guess like so much it is a mystery. It is humility and prayer? I can do nothing of myself.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Till they are alive. You cannot reap after you are dead. Can you?
With death, you are obliterated except for your bodily remains, which as I mentioned above dissolve in the environment.
That is where religions, those who established them, the so-called sons and messengers of God or Allah and the so-called scriptures deceive you.
Until a person has a personal contact with the divine. Then the religions and scriptures and rituals become seen as the shell of the nut that protects wisdom down the ages. Humans like to analyse and reduce everything to binary logic. The scriptures prevent that, because they cannot easily be changed and altered by humans as the centuries go by.
Spirit is what is creating nature, all the time. The touch of God cannot be explained or proven to those who have never experienced it. But once known, it cannot be made unknown. Imo
Last edited:
Thanks, but I still don't quite see where you draw the line. Earlier, you pretty much lumped all Christian churches, as well as Judaism, and pagan Antiquity under the umbrella term of Babel.
So where does that put Newton for you, since he was both a Christian and a practitioner of Alchemy? You seem to be putting him into the "good guys" camp because he studied the Bible? Would that put me into that camp, since I have read it?
Where do you stand, in other words?
And what is wrong with alchemy, except that the "church" condemned it? They also condemned the notion that the world is round. Alchemist attempted to turn base metals into gold, in which Newton actually studied and of which now todays industry emulates in the form of using mercury as a solvent in precuring gold. As with modern medicine, it also tries to find a cure for disease. As with modern chemistry, it tried to develop a universal solvent. As for "studying the bible", I think Newton's search for the building blocks of creation, were mainly focused on the OT, something most "Christians", as followers of the false prophet Paul, feel has been made "obsolete" (Hebrews). As for you reading the "bible", well, that would consist of the tare seed as well as the good seed. If you cannot differentiate, it has questionable value. You have apparently read it. What value has it been to you? The tares, the product of the tare seed (Matthew 13) wind up being burned. As for Jews, they also followed the gods of Babylon, such as for the god Baal (Judges 3:7) one of many gods. Bel/Marduk, related to Baal was simply the god of the city of Babylon related to the sun god. The "Christians" simply honor the sun god under a different name, such as in the form of Constantine's sun god, Sol Invictus/Apollo. Newton simply said the "Christians" need to come out of Babylon, which is parallel to what is said in Revelation 18:4.
Wikipedia
Alchemy (from Arabic: al-kīmiyā)[1] is an ancient branch of natural philosophy, a philosophical and protoscientific tradition[2] practiced throughout Europe, Africa, China and throughout Asia,[2] observable in Chinese text from around 73–49 BCE and Greco-Roman Egypt in the first few centuries CE.[3]
Alchemists attempted to purify, mature, and perfect certain materials.[2][4][5][n 1] Common aims were chrysopoeia, the transmutation of "base metals" (e.g., lead) into "noble metals" (particularly gold);[2] the creation of an elixir of immortality;[2] the creation of panaceas able to cure any disease; and the development of an alkahest, a universal solvent.[6] The perfection of the human body and soul was thought to permit or result from the alchemical magnum opus[2] and, in the Hellenistic and Western mystery tradition, the achievement of gnosis.[5] In Europe, the creation of a philosopher's stone was variously connected with all of these projects.
Wikipedia
Alchemy (from Arabic: al-kīmiyā)[1] is an ancient branch of natural philosophy, a philosophical and protoscientific tradition[2] practiced throughout Europe, Africa, China and throughout Asia,[2] observable in Chinese text from around 73–49 BCE and Greco-Roman Egypt in the first few centuries CE.[3]
Alchemists attempted to purify, mature, and perfect certain materials.[2][4][5][n 1] Common aims were chrysopoeia, the transmutation of "base metals" (e.g., lead) into "noble metals" (particularly gold);[2] the creation of an elixir of immortality;[2] the creation of panaceas able to cure any disease; and the development of an alkahest, a universal solvent.[6] The perfection of the human body and soul was thought to permit or result from the alchemical magnum opus[2] and, in the Hellenistic and Western mystery tradition, the achievement of gnosis.[5] In Europe, the creation of a philosopher's stone was variously connected with all of these projects.
@2ndpillar
Where does the Gospel of Matthew come into it from your point of view? You seem to accept the Gospel of Matthew as mostly authentic, but are there are parts of it that you reject? Christ's authority to forgive sin might be an example?
Where does the Gospel of Matthew come into it from your point of view? You seem to accept the Gospel of Matthew as mostly authentic, but are there are parts of it that you reject? Christ's authority to forgive sin might be an example?
Last edited:
I don't think there is anything wrong with alchemy (provided one exercises due care when experimenting with heavy metals - lead poisoning is nasty, I hear). I am interested how you sort it into your worldview, which comes across as highly dualistic. To my understanding, alchemy is part of the western mystery tradition, which you seem to be rejecting as too Babylonian.
Just trying to understand out what makes your world view tick, as part of the interfaith vibe of this place.
"Babylon the Great", per the book of Revelation, is nothing but the mystery religion which was prevalent in Nimrod's Babel, and was characterized by the worship of gods which was passed down through Greece and Rome to the Roman Catholic church. The leaders of the pagan church were the Pontiff Maximus, which title was usurped by Julius Caesar, and passed thru Constantine, to the pope of the Catholic Church, who would constitute the leader of the church which mothered harlot daughters. The alchemy of yesterday is the science of today. The science of today appears to be dead, and has risen as a zombie political point of view. Alchemy was looking for an elixir of immortality. The way to "enter into life" is simple and was expressed by Yeshua in Matthew 19:17. The followers of the serpent (Genesis 3:4) simply believe that they "surely shall not die", if they believe the message of the false prophet Paul. Paul is dead and so are his contemporary followers in spite of Paul's promise of "we" will not taste death. For the most part, Paul's followers are required to believe that there is a Trinity of gods, whereas there are around 38,000 different sects, and none agree on what that exactly means. The divergent goes further when you look into each sect. My world view is that you keep the commandments, such don't lie, steal, murder, or covet your neighbors goods, or covet your neighbor's wife and you surely shall still die, but you will enter into life now and after judgment day (Har-Magedo). People who think they are "saved" from death will surely die, for everyone shall die (Jeremiah 31:30). Those who sin are cut off from God, and are among the walking dead (zombies), much like the state of our present science culture.
Miken
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 110
- Points
- 43
The church never held any position other than that the world was round. In the early centuries there was simply no official opinion about it. Later after ancient Greek literature became available in Europe (ironically because of the Crusades) Aristotle’s metaphysics involving a round Earth lying at the center of concentric crystalline spheres was integrated into Christian theological thought. Mundane things were heavy and fell to the center. Spiritual things rose up. Heaven and God were the ultimate upper reaches.
The Greeks were aware the world was round long before Christianity. Eratosthenes even measured the size by comparing angles of sunlight at different distances north and south. Church scholars were aware of those measurements and advised the King and Queen of Spain not to finance Columbus because the circumference of the Earth he claimed was much smaller than Eratosthenes calculated and that Columbus would never be able to reach India. But greed for finding a quick tariff free path to the spice and silk trade was too tempting.
Galileo got in trouble by presenting the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun. This would blow away the Aristotelian cosmological model. Not only would this impair the nice neat theological imagery of the geocentric model, it would mean Aristotle was wrong about something major. Since Aquinas had used Aristotle’s Prime Mover logic in formulating his proofs of God those proofs would be in danger.
When other thinkers started to notice those implications, the Roman Inquisition (nowhere near as blood thirsty as the state-run Spanish Inquisition) told Galileo to stop holding and talking about his ideas. Rather than bring up those implications in public, the Inquisition used some rather weak Biblical quotes as the reason for censuring Galileo.
Some year later, the new Pope Urban VIII was curious about Galileo’s ideas. After discussions with him the Pope allowed Galileo to publish on the matter as long as it gave equal weight to both sides of the argument. However, when Galileo wrote his book (A Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems) the Aristotelian side of the argument is given by a character named Simplicio (‘simple minded’) who gives weak and ponderous arguments. Worse, the Simplicio character is depicted as quite foolish and even worse his arguments are exact quotes from the Pope during Galileo’s discussions with him. I first read Galileo’s book almost fifty years ago and it is a hatchet job with no pretense of being fair.
End result: A pissed off Pope and another collision with the Inquisition. Galileo somehow got the idea that this was going to be a debate about his ideas. It was of course about his disobedience to the Inquisition order. Papal permission to publish was disregarded because the book was not considered a fair presentation as the Pope had ordered. Galileo was lucky in that he got convicted of ‘vehement suspicion of heresy’ which meant indefinite house arrest and not heresy itself which would have carried the death penalty.
In any case, Galileo totally ignored another theory of the day, the Tychonian model. In this model the planets revolved around the Sun, but the Sun (and the Moon) revolved around the Earth. This was embraced by the Jesuit College of Rome. It had the potential to explain all the observations made by Galileo without abandoning the geocentric model. It also had the potential to explain the retrograde motion problem where sometimes planets appear to move backwards. This element is in fact due to the orbits of the planets being ellipses and not circles as everyone thought. In time Kepler would realize this and develop his Three Laws of planetary motion pointing very squarely at the Sun being at the center and not the Earth. Using that as a starting point, Newton came up with his gravitational theory for which he first had to formulate his Three Laws of Motion and his early form of Calculus.
- Status