Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[outhouse]

It seems to be considered true by many people in the biblical fields but there is no actual non-biblical historical evidence of it.

Its not actually accurate.

The current state of academia is that we don't know what happened to the body after crucifixion.


Scholars claim it was typical for bodies to be thrown in a pit for crucified victims like this, or left to hang.

Because the books were all written by people far removed from the events, and who were paralleling the emperors divinity giving him a respectable burial in rhetorical prose is the most plausible.

 

[outhouse]

what I have researched

You need to look for scholars, not apologetic websites.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Its not actually accurate.

The current state of academia is that we don't know what happened to the body after crucifixion.


Scholars claim it was typical for bodies to be thrown in a pit for crucified victims like this, or left to hang.

Because the books were all written by people far removed from the events, and who were paralleling the emperors divinity giving him a respectable burial in rhetorical prose is the most plausible.

You need to look for scholars, not apologetic websites.

I am somewhat confused by your response. Did you mistake my post as supporting the belief that the tomb of Jesus was empty?

 

[outhouse]

what I have researched over a very short period of time it does not seem to be widespread held truth that the tomb was empty.

This is where I was possibly confused bud,

There is no consensus on a tomb one way or the other.

Do you think a tomb had a body in it?

 

[Yorutenchi]

This is where I was possibly confused bud,

There is no consensus on a tomb one way or the other.

Do you think a tomb had a body in it?

There doesn't seem to be any evidence other than religious anecdotal evidence in the bible that there ever was a Tomb for Jesus, much less if it had a body in it or not.

 

[outhouse]

There doesn't seem to be any evidence other than religious anecdotal evidence in the bible that there ever was a Tomb for Jesus, much less if it had a body in it or not.

That is true.

Your earlier missed that part and just inferred a tomb was not empty, meaning it could have had a body in it.


I was just stating a tomb is not historical empty or full.

Its all good, I understand your position now.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

As I've noted elsewhere ...

The First Cause argument does not (or, at least, should not) claim that everything requires a cause. Rather, it posits that all natural phenomenon are caused. If this is accepted as true, either (a) there is no first cause, or (b) the first cause must be preternatural.​

Indeed. No version of the cosmological argument, from any reputable theist thinker, ever asserts everything had a cause. Rather, they argue, depending on the version, that all beings that change, whose essence is separate from existence, which are contingent, which are complex, and so on, require a cause. It is no objection to proper versions of the argument to say who caused the first cause. Indeed, it simply shows a gross ignorance of the actual arguments of theists, although one common even amongst sceptical philosophers, going back to J. S. Mill and perhaps even Hume.

But this thread seems to be more about Intelligent Design. My understanding is that, although most Intelligent Design proponents will use it as an argument for God, when it comes to their theory per se, they tend to just argue that it only shows that purely physical processes on earth cannot account for life on earth. They leave aside who the designer is and so on. So, it who designed the designer is not an objection to ID.

 

[outhouse]

. So, it who designed the designer is not an objection to ID.

There are no objections when people just redefine what is and is not at will, what many claim are along the lines of imagination.

But this thread seems to be more about Intelligent Design.

Ya the title was a dead give away !

 

[1robin]

I am not an expert on the Bible or even Christianity. But from what I know and from what I have researched over a very short period of time it does not seem to be widespread held truth that the tomb was empty. It seems to be considered true by many people in the biblical fields but there is no actual non-biblical historical evidence of it. That is just what I have found in a short period of time. If you know of evidence of the existence of the tomb or millions of historical accounts of Jesus's miracles can you cite them?

4 independent sources reordered the tomb was empty. All were written by contemporaries of the time frame. Do you have any idea how rare that is in ancient historical texts? Even a bitter enemy of Christ reported meeting Christ after he was placed in the tomb. Now lets look at what we don't find. We do not find a body. It was in Rome's greatest possible interest that that body stay in that tomb to keep the apostles from stealing it and claiming he rose. They sealed it and guarded it around the clock. With the threat of death the centurions were to let no one near it. All Rome had to do was go show the seal intact and then slide the rock out of the way and show the body. They couldn't, then they could not turn it up after searching everywhere possible. They could not find enough evidence or ability of the apostles to have stolen body to even charge them with having done so. What we find are people who knew the absolute truth of falsehood of whether that tomb was empty, all of them risked everything worldly they had to claim he had risen. They were beaten, imprisoned, even killed yet theses men who actually knew the fact and gained nothing for telling a lie never waivered that it was in fact true. Historians have said the empty tomb is one of the best attested facts in ancient history and was as certain as Rome's burning of Jerusalem approx. 67 years later. Find me an event in ancient history that can match it in textual evidence. The most powerful empire on earth admitted the tomb was empty and body missing, Jesus greatest enemy agreed, exactly what are we lacking here?

Again the only non-christian sources that even mention Jesus do not mention an empty tomb nor do they mention miracles. This seems strange to me. And if there were millions of people who had witnessed miracles and told about them it would have been a significant historical account. However there is no such significant historical account outside of the Christian version of events. Why is that?

There are over 40 extra biblical sources that mention Christ, and a few mention miracles. Actually the Gospels were also non biblical as no bible existed at the time. To say it is only found in Christian circles is like my saying why is abiogenesis considered possible in evolutionary circles. It does nothing to credit or discredit abiogenesis or the empty tomb. There were only a few dozen people at the tomb. All of them that recorded anything that survives agreed it was empty. How are you in a better position to judge from 5000 miles and 2000 years away that those at the tomb on that morning? And why do you insist that we must only use testimony if it denies Christianity even when it is in no category what so ever better information but in fact far removed from the actual events in time and space. It's like saying creation is true because we must through out anything an evolutionist has ever claimed.

 

[outhouse]

4 independent sources reordered the tomb was empty.

By people far removed from any event writing in a different part of the world, with their own agenda

All were written by contemporaries of the time frame.

They were not there and came later from a long way away from the events.

It was in Rome's greatest possible interest that that body stay in that tomb to keep the apostles from stealing it and claiming he rose.

False.

Romans threw bodies in pits for animals to eat.


There is factually no historicity to the resurrection at all. Stop your proselytizing it is against the rules.

 

[Yorutenchi]

4 independent sources reordered the tomb was empty. All were written by contemporaries of the time frame. Do you have any idea how rare that is in ancient historical texts? Even a bitter enemy of Christ reported meeting Christ after he was placed in the tomb. Now lets look at what we don't find. We do not find a body. It was in Rome's greatest possible interest that that body stay in that tomb to keep the apostles from stealing it and claiming he rose. They sealed it and guarded it around the clock. With the threat of death the centurions were to let no one near it. All Rome had to do was go show the seal intact and then slide the rock out of the way and show the body. They couldn't, then they could not turn it up after searching everywhere possible. They could not find enough evidence or ability of the apostles to have stolen body to even charge them with having done so. What we find are people who knew the absolute truth of falsehood of whether that tomb was empty, all of them risked everything worldly they had to claim he had risen. They were beaten, imprisoned, even killed yet theses men who actually knew the fact and gained nothing for telling a lie never waivered that it was in fact true. Historians have said the empty tomb is one of the best attested facts in ancient history and was as certain as Rome's burning of Jerusalem approx. 67 years later. Find me an event in ancient history that can match it in textual evidence. The most powerful empire on earth admitted the tomb was empty and body missing, Jesus greatest enemy agreed, exactly what are we lacking here?

What are the 4 sources?

There are over 40 extra biblical sources that mention Christ, and a few mention miracles. Actually the Gospels were also non biblical as no bible existed at the time. To say it is only found in Christian circles is like my saying why is abiogenesis considered possible in evolutionary circles. It does nothing to credit or discredit abiogenesis or the empty tomb. There were only a few dozen people at the tomb. All of them that recorded anything that survives agreed it was empty. How are you in a better position to judge from 5000 miles and 2000 years away that those at the tomb on that morning? And why do you insist that we must only use testimony if it denies Christianity even when it is in no category what so ever better information but in fact far removed from the actual events in time and space. It's like saying creation is true because we must through out anything an evolutionist has ever claimed.

I have only found 2 non-Christian sources for Jesus. Neither mentioned miracles. What are these 40 that you speak of?

 

[Skwim]

Almost all the old sources talk

What are the 4 sources?

I have only found 2 non-Christian sources for Jesus. Neither mentioned miracles. What are these 40 that you speak of?

Actually, there are millions of them, which date right up to the present; the earliest having no more veracity than the latest.

 

[Etritonakin]

I have recently been considering the significance of God calling himself (or themselves, at that point) I AM.

God also calls himself the first (and the last).

If we can derive from the above that God was the first I AM -and we know that we are also I AM's -and then consider when physical life first contemplated "I"...
we might begin to understand the nature of God.

To say I AM requires awareness that you exist in some state -and is a bit of a house of mirrors from there -and perhaps leading to there.

The human mind receives an image of its surroundings through its body -sight, touch, smell, etc -and projects itself onto its surroundings by its body.

Between receiving and projecting is processing.

"I" is a processor. "I AM" is the processor being aware of itself -sensing itself.

(We did not process our own processor -we only employ it -first without awareness -then with awareness. Then we self-program to a degree.)

If "I AM" is without beginning, then "I AM" has always been aware of "I AM" to some degree -but to what degree that is irreducible, I do not know.

The essence of "I AM" would be signal and report.

If "I AM" is a creator, then "I AM" has made more of himself of which to be aware.

Signal and report have compounded -having always been able to do so.
(In other words...
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.)

We see from some forms of life that awareness is possible without self-awareness -so the question then becomes whether or not God was aware before self-awareness.

To say one is eternal -and has always been -is not necessarily the same as saying one has always known that one has always been.

Exo 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

So -either "I AM" was always able to declare that to himself before declaring it to others -or was always aware (signal, report, process/compound) to some degree before becoming self-aware.

I do not know the point at which "I AM" was irreducible -but it is apparent that "I AM" increases (or subdivides the infinite -or the "One").

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

 

[`mud]

How does one argue with that ???
~
'mud

 

[viole]

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Question: was Jesus around when The Father drowned the whole world,... and pets?

I wonder what He thought about that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Question: was Jesus around when The Father drowned the whole world,... and pets?

I wonder what He thought about that.

Ciao

- viole

Yes -though he was not then in the body called Jesus -which willingly suffered a fate worse than drowning.

God kills everyone.

It's a great way to separate the spirit from the body -in preparation for resurrection.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.........

 

[1robin]

What are the 4 sources?

I have only found 2 non-Christian sources for Jesus. Neither mentioned miracles. What are these 40 that you speak of?

I will answer your post in a minute in it's own post.

Here I wanted to say that again the site has erased all responses to my posts except the last 4 that still required a response from me. This is some new thing they started doing a few months back and I will write them and find out why if anyone wants a response to a response to any of my posts please post # and I will get to it.

 

[1robin]

What are the 4 sources?

I have only found 2 non-Christian sources for Jesus. Neither mentioned miracles. What are these 40 that you speak of?

Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, plus Paul concerning a postmortem appearance.

Led me head off the mistaken objection that these do not count because they are in the bible.
1. Paul was a hostile witness, how was on his way to kill and imprison Christians but arrived at his destination as a Christian having met his mortal enemy of the trip to Damascus.
2. There was no bible at the time of the other 4s writing, no one has ever found a Q-gospels and each contain so much unique language that they ARE consider 4 independent sources.
3. Notice I said contemporary instead of eyewitness. Because Luke existed at the time but did not witness the tomb, etc... but some recorded eyewitnesses of the empty tomb.

I can add volumes more suggesting theses sources are reliable but I just got my lunch and I am hungry.

There are over 40 extra biblical records containing Christ. At least includes a miracle. However there is absolutely no reason (except bias) to restrict yourself no non biblical sources. Again I can add a lot more here. Let me eat and then we can really tear into this.

 

[outhouse]

Because Luke existed at the time

Not substantiated outside mythology and faith. That is factually not a historical event.

but some recorded eyewitnesses of the empty tomb.

To date there is not one word of the NT that can be attributed to an eyewitness.

He was not that important while alive. He did not catch any attention from the many historians that lives at that tine and place.

John was more famous while alive.

 

[outhouse]

Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, plus Paul concerning a postmortem appearance.

Not one is considered historically as an eyewitness. That is just your apologetic unsubstantiated rhetoric.

And Pauls accounts differ greatly from those that describe him in Acts, so the NT is FACTUALLY not without error .