What do you think that part I highlighted in red was all about then?
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
- Thread starter Whatsisface
- Start date
What do you think that part I highlighted in red was all about then?
The resurrection. No mention of a tomb, empty or otherwise.
Wow -- just wow.
Read the rest of the chapter; it is about Jesus getting a new body.
1 Cor 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of mankind, another flesh of animals, another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [p]a perishable body, it is raised [q]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Paul understood Jesus' physical body to be buried. But then Jesus was raised in a spiritual body. The tomb (even supposing there was one) would not be empty - the physical body would still have been there.
John 20:11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
Bodily resurrection.
Right. Decades later when John was written, Christian beliefs had changed. They believed in an Empty Tomb, Jesus resurrected in his original body, all those sighting around Jerusalem, Joseph of Arimathea being a Christian, the honourable burial. But these are all later embellishments. We have nothing to suggest Paul believed any of that.
The original belief was that Jesus was resurrected in a new spiritual body - think about what Paul describes seeing in Acts. The original sightings were in Galilee, as Mark tells. No empty tomb, because, apart from anything else, there was no tomb - it makes no sense for the Roman's to allow an honourable burial for a man accused of sedition. What we see in each account is a story become more fantastic in each re-telling.
Nice application of sensus plenior here.
As usual, when it goes against the Bible, people will employ sensus plenior and the scientific method.
But when it supports the Bible, it's a different story.
Sensus plenior and the scientific method can take a hike.
I take "sensus plenior" to mean you get to impose your own beliefs on the text.
I am not sure how the scientific method can be used in this case.
I am going by what the Bible says, allowing for how the story has been modified. The earliest account of the passion is at the start of 1 Cor 15, believed by many to be a creed Paul was reciting that dated to just a few years after the crucifixion. This is the original story.
What we read in Mark was the result of about forty years of legend-building... But at least there were witnesses still around to keep that under control to some degree, The later gospels, not so much, so we see all sorts of fanciful ideas, like the guards on the tomb, the dead saints walking around, the spear in the side, the ludicrous amounts of spices, the appearances of the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem.
I get you have no interest in reality, as you say "Science Can Take A Hike", but this is the most likely scenario given the facts.
No offense, but it's better than yours.
Where is God in all this "legend building"?
Just watching it happen?
And if He did, why did He preserve it for His translation sequences?
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Nowhere?
Maybe the legend has no real-life basis...
Martin23233
Active member
The Pixie has a real problem with facts.
ID does not claim to know who or what the designer is. as shown over ....and over and over to the Pix... but the Pix just likes to stay stuck in a mental rut.
this might help the pix out once the Pix can admit to what ID is about ...then we can progress with questions the Pix has.... otherwise it is just a lost cause when someone (the Pixie ) can't understand the premise of ID... I won't allow the false agenda of the pixie to drive the conversaion...she/he can cry all she/he wants but until they shape up and attempt some level of an honest answer to ID it serves no purpose to answer an ill formed question.
Martin23233
Active member
What the Pix fails to show is anything that shows ID is not science. the Pixie even tries to claim SETI is not science... and most folks laugh at that claim. Each and every one of the 100s of scientists that are working on SETI would likely just ignore the silly Pixie's claim that SETI is not science.. the Pixie can't even define what science is. Sad. SETI is a scientific endeavor to detect life outside our Earthly existence... it uses massive and cutting edge technologies and methods... but the Pixie claims it is not science.. (and keep in mind the Pixie claims to be a PhD... lol)
You are saying it is your opinion that your opinion is better than mine.
My opinion is that that it is not.
God does not exist.
Not sure what "translation sequences" is referring to, but it was people who preserved and translated the gospel stories.
Reduced To Two Topics...
What we see in Martin's posts over the last few weeks is the two topics he feels he has still has a leg to stand on.One is the claim that ID is not about religion, the other is his claim that SETI is science. What is telling is what he no longer wants to discuss:
- Nothing about whether ID is true.
- Nothing about ID research.
- Nothing about the science IDists use.
- Nothing about any of the claims that ID makes.
- Nothing about why evolution is supposedly wrong.
So he is left with those two topics...
ID Avoids Saying Who The Designer Is
Martin says this after quoting nearly all of post #2557. But of course he snipped pretty much everything from post #2556, where this is addressed. Why is that? Because he making it up again. This is just Martin pretending.
I have no problem with facts. I have no problem with this particular fact that ID does not claim to know who or what the designer is. I agree with Martin here, and have stated several times that ID does not claim to know who or what the designer is. I quoted several instances of that in post #2556 (from posts #2469, #2479, #2512 and #2549), but they are plenty of other examples.
Martin wants to pretend I have a problem with this fact because it suits his agenda. But, once again, reality is not on his said. I have no problem with this at all.
It turns out it is Martin who has a problem with facts. One fact he has a problem with is that I agree with him that ID does not claim to know who or what the designer is.
ID Avoids Saying Who The Designer Is And Is Therefore Pseudo-Science
Archaeology and forensic science do it right. They detect design, but also - as part of that process - try to learn about the designer. And it has to be that way to be science, because of the prediction part - perhaps that is why the DI want to re-define the scientific method to skip that part. If the murderer was this guy, we would expect to see this pattern of injuries. If the potsherd was Minoan, we would expect this pattern of decoration.Speculating about the designer is necessarily part of the process. In science, anyway.
In the pseudo-science that is ID, the identity of the design is deliberately kept secret.
ID Is About Religion - But Pretends It is Not
Can Martin give an honest answer to this question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
No. We all know he believes the designer is the Christian God - he has never denied it. But he cannot come out and just admit.
His demand for an honest answer is laughable when his own position is based on deceit.
Detecting Design Is Not Necessarily Pseudo-Science
I have not showed that because it is not the case.
As I said above - and in several other posts - archaeology and forensic science do it right. They detect design, but also - as part of that process - try to learn about the designer.
There is nothing inherently non-science about detecting design.
What makes ID pseudo-science is the deceit in hiding who they believe the designer is.
That SETI Obsession
So here is his other topic - the only other topic he thinks he still has a chance with.I presented my argue for why SETI is not science here:
Is SETI Science
This is prompted by comments by another poster; a creationist. To be honest, I am not sure quite what his position is, so I will not bother to link to it. I take the position that SETI uses science, but is not itself science. However, while looking at other views, I came across this blog post...
forums.carm.org
Martin has yet to offer a counter argument - despite posting on that thread. He asserts "most folks laugh at that claim", but why would anyone think that is true? It is just his own wishful thinking, taking the place of reason and evidence.
Like so much of Martin's posts, this is simply not true. It is something Martin wants to be true, and in his world wishful thinking trumps evidence. We have seen that so many times!
Can Martin tell us what science is?
In Martin's world, using "massive and cutting edge technologies and methods" makes something science. I am not sure what massive methods are, or what cutting edge methods are, but I feel confident saying they do not magically make something science.
Martin is using technology to post to CARM but no one is ever going to mistake that for science! Using technology - even "massive and cutting edge technologies" does not make something science.
What Is It With SETI And Martin Anyway?
Why is Martin so obsessed with SETI?The thing about SETI is that - like ID - it appears to be science and it is looking for design. But what about archaeology and forensic science? They appear to be science, and they are looking for design. Why not focus on them?
Because archaeology and forensic science do it right. They are not just looking to detect design, they are looking to learn all they can about the designer.
ID cannot do that because it is built on deceit. Pretending not to know who the designer is is foundational to ID. Hence, Martin can never answer this question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
Translation Sequence:
1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible
Martin23233
Active member
The Pixie Still Flounders with Logic
Sad that our 'self-proclaimed' Phd gets so tangled up in reason and logic. The Pix likes to conflate and dodge. For example the Pixie keeps 'purporting' to know that ID is really just religion... Too funny... and sad that she (or he) can't read actual ID sites and understand that ID only is about the science behind detecting design that is due to intelligence - it says nothing about who or what the intelligence is behind the evidence.
Lets see if the Pixie can read a post from the main ID site (not like some of the few religious sites that Pix tries to use to explain ID)..this is an actual ID site that explains it. :
https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.”
Yeah Pixie...why do you keep trying to conflate ID and creationism? I guess your trainer taught you to just stick to the darwinist script. ... Then you are free to make false statements like you continue to do and therefore ask questions that you likely know are ill-formed...mostly since your understanding is false - therefore you are more likely to formulate questions based on your false premise.
You see Pix....this is why it is important for you to have a working understanding of ID instead of an agenda against it.... you really are not gaining any ground here with your silly attempts and 'PhD-like' attempts to look like you understand things you keep answering with less than factual responses.
SETI
Well the Pix is in quite the Pickle with this one..... they can't accept that SETI is science....though the Pix tries to then pivot and say it is not.... and tries to use some anonymous poster on a forum to prove it... all the while just ignoring the 100s of actual scientists in SETI. Just can't make that silly stuff up
Sad that our 'self-proclaimed' Phd gets so tangled up in reason and logic. The Pix likes to conflate and dodge. For example the Pixie keeps 'purporting' to know that ID is really just religion... Too funny... and sad that she (or he) can't read actual ID sites and understand that ID only is about the science behind detecting design that is due to intelligence - it says nothing about who or what the intelligence is behind the evidence.
Shaking my head at the Pix's latest (and now weakest) attempt to conflate. Please Pixie do tell all of us reading your silly words just what does 'archaeology and forensic science ' tell us about the designer of what they study? I think you probably meant 'process' instead of designer...simple rookie mistake.
Lets see if the Pixie can read a post from the main ID site (not like some of the few religious sites that Pix tries to use to explain ID)..this is an actual ID site that explains it. :
https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.”
Yeah Pixie...why do you keep trying to conflate ID and creationism? I guess your trainer taught you to just stick to the darwinist script. ... Then you are free to make false statements like you continue to do and therefore ask questions that you likely know are ill-formed...mostly since your understanding is false - therefore you are more likely to formulate questions based on your false premise.
You see Pix....this is why it is important for you to have a working understanding of ID instead of an agenda against it.... you really are not gaining any ground here with your silly attempts and 'PhD-like' attempts to look like you understand things you keep answering with less than factual responses.
SETI
Well the Pix is in quite the Pickle with this one..... they can't accept that SETI is science....though the Pix tries to then pivot and say it is not.... and tries to use some anonymous poster on a forum to prove it... all the while just ignoring the 100s of actual scientists in SETI. Just can't make that silly stuff up
Still Yes. Proof: "cdesign proponentsists"
Statistics
So my last post was 5222 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted 182 characters. Yes, he quoted just two sentences, or about 3.4%, ignoring over 96%. Here is the trend over the last few exchanges; the percentage of my posts that Martin ignored in each exchange:94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94, 100, 100, 98, 88 and now 96.
Over the last eleven exchanges, there has only been one time he has quoted more than 20% of what I said. Bear these figures in mind when he accuses he of dodging questions.
More False accusations
Why can Marin not give us any examples of that?
Because he made it up.
Remember, in his last eleven posts, Martin has only once quoted more that 20% of what I posted. Ten times out of eleven he just ignored 80% to 100% of what I said.
And yet he accuses me of dodging! He might like to address the beam in his eye, but, of course, we know he never will.
So what is his supposed evidence for these false accusations...
Turns out Martin thinks I am "tangled up in reason and logic" because I can see through the façade ID presents. Turns out Martin thinks I like to "conflate and dodge" because I can see through the façade ID presents.
Where is the bad reasoning, Martin?
Where is the bad logic, Martin?
What I am supposedly conflating, Martin? Do you even know what that word means?
Exactly what am I supposed to be dodging, Martin? Refusing to fall for someone's lies is not dodging, Martin.
Archaeology And Forensic Science
These are very relevant because both show that "design" can be part of legitimate science, if it is done right, and highlight that ID does not do it right.Again, I have to wonder if Martin knows what "conflate" means. I am guessing "no".
He is apparently also ignorant of what forensic science and archaeology actually do. In both cases, they seek to learn all they can about the designer.
In forensic science, the designer is the guy who committed the crime, and from evidence at the crime scene a forensic scientist will attempt to determine if the designer was left or right handed, how tall he was. If there is a DNA sample or finger prints, the forensic scientist can even tell you exactly who did the crime. They will also try to learn as much as possible about how the designer did it.
I guess Martin has never seen CSI, or indeed countless other crime shows that use forensics to find the killer.
In archaeology, you will not identify the individual, but you are aiming to learn about the culture he belonged to. What technology did they have? What religion and other beliefs? When were they around? How far did they trade? Again, they will also try to learn as much as possible about how the designer did it.
This is basic stuff that, frankly, I would expect a kid to know. Note, I am not suggesting Martin is stupid or ignorant; the issue here is that he is pretending. He is pretending ID is not creationism, and that forces him to further pretend that archaeology and forensic science tell us nothing about the designer of what they study.
This, of course, s why he is obliged to ignore this simple question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"
By this, Martin says we should be reading about ID specifically on the Discovery Institute web site that maintains the façade that ID is not religion, and we should ignore the Discovery Institute web site that is promoting conferences on faith and science and is very clearly appealing to creationist Christians.
It is like that scene in the Wizard of Oz, where Toto has pulled back the curtain, and the real wizard is revealed.
Martin is desperate for us to see the façade and to believe it, and he gets upset when we dare to peek behind the curtain. What Martin presents here is the smoke and mirrors, the deceit the Discovery Institute want us to believe. I will not quote it, he trots it out enough times as it is.
The fact is that we can see behind the curtain. Martin's shrill cries of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" are not going to convince anyone.
Especially when he continues to ignore this simple question.
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
ID Is Creationism In Disguise
I think the real question is why Martin continues to pretend they are separate.
Here is that question again:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
The reason Martin cannot answer it is that the answer is "yes". We all know he believes the designer is actually the Christian God, so why can he not admit that? Because to do so would be to admit that actually ID is creationism.
The comment about "just stick to the darwinist script" is especially funny given Martin is reduced to just quoting two paragraphs from the DI web site.
These same paragraphs he has trotted out in, for example, posts #2476, #2506, #2509, #2553 and just now in #2577. This is the script Martin is working to, and it makes up nearly half of his last post!
Martin And Facts
Can anyone think of a time Martin presented any facts? Certainly not his latest post, which is just the stock paragraphs from the ID web site copy-and-pasted, padded out with unsupported opinions and false accusations.
That SETI Obsession
A great example of Martin's relationship with facts.
Far from being in a pickle, I started a thread to make my position clear. No one on CARM presented an argument saying I was wrong, and Martin's only post on that thread had nothing to do with SETI.
Is SETI Science
This is prompted by comments by another poster; a creationist. To be honest, I am not sure quite what his position is, so I will not bother to link to it. I take the position that SETI uses science, but is not itself science. However, while looking at other views, I came across this blog post...
forums.carm.org
I bet Martin just wishes he was in that kind of pickle!
So in Martin's fantasy world first I reject the claim that SETI is science, but then I "pivot" and... still eject the claim that SETI is science.
I guess "pivot" is another word Martin does not understand.
I do not accept that SETI is science, and I have presented my case for that.
Martin continues to assert that it is, but consistently fails to support his opinion? Why does his only post on a thread about whether SETI is science not mention SETI at all? Why does he present no argument here? Simply, he has no argument. Just wishful thinking.
Martin23233
Active member
How funny it is that our resident 'self-proclaimed' PhD makes such silly blunders..... the pixie can't even grasp simple science. SETI is science , it uses science and is armed with 100s of real scientist... yet is sad fashion ... the pix holds a lone position that SETI is not science.... silly and sad all at once but we see all the other blunders made by this poster...so it is expected. funny how pixie thinks an anonymous poster on some forum with no real scientific grounding is somehow presenting anything but a farce of an imbalance agenda. Good thing courts don't allow silly weak agenda driven rumors to count as evidence. but the Pix likes doing such.
The Pixie Still Flounders with Logic
Sad that our 'self-proclaimed' Phd gets so tangled up in reason and logic. The Pix likes to conflate and dodge. For example the Pixie keeps 'purporting' to know that ID is really just religion... Too funny... and sad that she (or he) can't read actual ID sites and understand that ID only is about the science behind detecting design that is due to intelligence - it says nothing about who or what the intelligence is behind the evidence.
IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
One has to wonder about all the attempts to hide and spin and conflate.... maybe since they have zero credibility. but it is always fun to read the comical posts of our threads self-proclaimed PhD.... maybe in comedy.
