Dear Banjo,

An easy check will show you that the phrase “scientific explanation” was not used by anybody in this thread. I can explain to you why I did this or that, or what is the meaning of this or that sentence in German, etc. These are explanations but not scientific explanations that usually involve reference to some law of e.g. physics.

>>Rightly or wrongly, I must confess I tend to associate reality (with or without a capital “R”) with “physical/material”. <<

That is your prerogative. It is a belief that I do not share, so I am one of those with a "lack of belief" that all that there is can be investigated by natural science.

As to a definition of that which I believe is beyond scientific investigation, it is the same as in the following example: I can say that I believe that there is more known about e.g. rocket technology than what is explained in this particular textbook, without having to define explicitly what it is that is not dealt with in this book.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You asked :

« Do you know what historical science is? Or are you confusing it with empirical experimentation of repeatability? Seems so »
.

I understand that historical science is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology.

However, I understand that the creationists claim that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence but interpret it within a different framework. Evolutionists deny the role of a god in the universe, and creationists accept their god’s eyewitness account — the Bible — as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe.

You commented :

« Your presuppositions are thundering, ‘I have my own anti-Christian axe to grind and I’ll use this forum to my advantage’ »
.

No, I'm watching the minds at work, moving fluidly between ideas that I scrutinise critically before weaving those I consider valid into a cohesive world view. My participation on this forum sometimes helps me reassess it.

You also asked :

« Could you replicate Captain James Cook’s voyage up the East Coast of Australia in 1770 using your definition of science? »

I couldn’t but based on Thor Heyerdahl’s epic 101 day trip in 1947 of 4,300 nautical miles on the Kon-Tiki to prove his theory of migration of ancient civilisations from Peru to Polynesia in 500 AD, I think Captain Cook’s voyage could , indeed, be “replicated” (but, naturally, not “repeated”).
.

Thank you for introducing me to the retired Anglican Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright. I took the time to wade through a couple of hundred pages of his magnum opus, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” which you kindly recommended.

He has a good analytical mind but, in my humble opinion, failed to achieve what you seem to consider he did. The following critical review explains it better than I could :

http://web.archive.org/web/20040509014535/http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/reviews/wright%20res.htm

.

Dear OzSpen,

«First Corinthians 15 does NOT teach that a physical body lasts forever because ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God'.»

There are numerous reasons why a physical body cannot last forever. The reason provided in Corinthians is just one of them, yet other reasons pertain to all bodies, not just gross-physical.

«There is a radical difference between the two.»

Granted, Jesus is God, but it is not an either-or: nothing precludes Jesus from being both God AND a Yogi.

Yuyutsu,

<<Granted, Jesus is God, but it is not an either-or: nothing precludes Jesus from being both God AND a Yogi.>>

Would you please supply New Testament evidence where Jesus stated he was a Yogi or used the thinking of a Yogi?

Banjo,

<<Thank you for introducing me to the retired Anglican Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright. I took the time to wade through a couple of hundred pages of his magnum opus, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” which you kindly recommended.

He has a good analytical mind but, in my humble opinion, failed to achieve what you seem to consider he did. The following critical review explains it better than I could :

http://web.archive.org/web/20040509014535/http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/reviews/wright%20res.htm>>

Banjo,

You read 200 of 817 pages of Prof N T Wright's research on the resurrection and then have the audacity to claim that he <<failed to achieve what you seem to consider he did.>>

If I read 25% of your posts in any thread and then claimed you failed to achieve what you stated, you'd have every right to call me irresponsible - even an ignoramus.

But you say you read 25% of Wright's research on Jesus' resurrection and say he failed to achieve his aim.

Do you want me to take you seriously? I don't.

Dear OzSpen,

«Would you please supply New Testament evidence where Jesus stated he was a Yogi or used the thinking of a Yogi?»

First I don't understand what you mean by "the thinking of a Yogi". Being a Yogi does not imply any particular pattern of thought, but rather the freedom from thoughts. A Yogi controls his thoughts rather than having wandering thoughts control him/her.

Now why would Jesus tell his Jewish disciples that he is a Yogi? If he did then they wouldn't understand it anyway! He also didn't tell them that E=mc² as they wouldn't understand it either because their grasp of both physical and metaphysical sciences was quite primitive, nor was it necessary for them to understand it.