[__ Science __ ] A Hill to Die On

[hawkman]

God doesn't have nostrils or fingernails.

Have you seen God ?

What would He have them for?

It pleases him to . We are told of God's nostrils in the bible .

Exodus 15:8 And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.

2 Samuel 22:9 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

2 Samuel 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

Job 4:9 By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed.

Psalms 18:8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

Psalms 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

It makes sense that God, if He manifested himself to man, might take on man's appearance

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Image and likeness of God and we get the very same wording when Adam has a son !

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

 

[Barbarian]

That study is a non sequitur because synechocystis already have photorecptive cells.

They are single-celled organisms. As I told you, all cells are light-sensitive to some degree. Your skin cells, for example.

Again, Behe's challenge was showing the machinery inside photoreceptive cells are irreducibly complex.

So far, he's failed the challenge. As you see, the bacterial flagellum isn't irreducibly complex. Neither is the clotting cascade Behe cited. Would you like to see how we know that?

Since you mentioned skin cells that sounds like a good place to start:

1. Skin cell. Ion channels that react to heat.
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. Photoreceptor cell. Rhodopsin based structure capable of converting light into electrical signals.

0. Proton pumps become more light-sensitive.

2. Cells with more pigment. More sensitive to light at all wavelengths.
3. Pigments become more light-sensitive:
By contrast, simpler retinal-based light-harvesting systems such as the haloarchaeal purple membrane protein bacteriorhodopsin show a strong well-defined peak of absorbance centred at 568 nm, which is complementary to that of chlorophyll pigments. We propose a scenario where simple retinal-based light-harvesting systems like that of the purple chromoprotein bacteriorhodopsin, originally discovered in halophilic Archaea,

Early evolution of purple retinal pigments on Earth and implications for exoplanet biosignatures | International Journal of Astrobiology | Cambridge Core

Early evolution of purple retinal pigments on Earth and implications for exoplanet biosignatures - Volume 20 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

4 and 5 "Rhodopsins are light-sensitive proteins which universally exist in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Type I rhodopsins exist in microbes and are known as microbial rhodopsins, which include various kinds such as bacteriorhodopsins (BR), halorhodopsins (HR), and sensory rhodopsins (SR)."

Structure-based insights into evolution of rhodopsins - Communications Biology

Zabelskii et al. present a structural and functional analysis of the lightdriven proton pump LR (Mac) from the fungus Leptosphaeria maculans. Their findings indicate that the archaeal ancestry of eukaryotic type 1 rhodopsins, and that the archaeal host of the proto-mitochondrial endosymbiont was...

www.nature.com

It's worth noting that genetic analysis indicates that the archea are the ancestors of eukaryotes, so this evidence is consistent with existing phylogenies.

Proton pumps are electrically-driven and many of them (such as opsins) use light as a power source.

 

[Barbarian]

Have you seen God ?

It pleases him to . We are told of God's nostrils in the bible .

Exodus 15:8 And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.

2 Samuel 22:9 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

2 Samuel 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

Job 4:9 By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed.

Psalms 18:8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

Psalms 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Image and likeness of God and we get the very same wording when Adam has a son !

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

I doubt if God moves water by blowing His nose. This kind of thing is like the statement that the windows of the sky opened to let water fall down during the Flood. The sky isn't really a dome with windows; the transcriber did the best he could to write down what he was inspired to write. If you focus on sky windows and God nostrils, you miss the message He's giving you.

 

[Barbarian]

Do you believe that God parted a sea? A deep sea where water stood on both the right hand and the left hand of the Israelites as they walked through the chasm on dry land. And of course, this all happened within a day.

Can God do miracles and set aside natural laws? Sure. And science can't deny it. So maybe. If it turned out that the crossing was accomplished otherwise, would that damage your faith? Not mine. It's not about separating water; it's about God protecting His people.

Do you believe that God turned back the sun to cause a shadow cast by the sun to go backwards a distance of 10 steps?

Since the Sun relative to the Earth does not move, and the Earth moves around the Sun, that didn't happen. Could God stop the Earth, and reverse it's rotation? Yes, He could. He would also have to make sure that everything on Earth didn't continue moving at 25,000 mph (at the equator, proportionally slower at higher latitudes) and he could have done that. Or he could have refracted the light to move the shadow, which seems like a more sensible way to go. Or any of many other things. The advantage to just changing the light would include no inertial problems, no disturbance of diurnal rhythms in living things, tidal rhythmites and so on. Since God seems to normally go with the most elegant solutions in nature, I'd go with changing the light.

 

[Barbarian]

The governing goals of ID, by IDers:
Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Yep. The whole point of ID is to show that nature and people are created by God. Which is true. It's just not science and it's dishonest to pretend that ID is not about showing that the "designer" is God.

People who base their opinion of ID theory only on what it's detractors say aren't any different than conspiracy theorists who deny climate change.

The Wedge Document was written by IDers and published (for members only) by the Discovery Institute. I thought you knew.

Are you saying Wedge strategy lays out creationism? Or Wedge strategy lays out ID theory?

It lays out the purpose of ID. To establish belief in God. Since ID includes Deists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and deists, they can't get any more specific than that. As DI fellow Philip Johnson wrote, for ID the designer might be a "space alien."

Since the Dover decision, there's been a sort of split in ID, with the creationists digging in and doubling down on their interpretation of the Bible, and others like Michael Denton explicitly rejecting creationism. In Nature's Destiny, he writes that the more evidence there is for design in nature, the less evidence there is for special creation.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

That's not what He says in Matthew 25.

Mt.25 shows the difference between those who obeyed vs. those who didn't and our Lord taught,

Jesus began to preach, and to say,Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mt.4:17

-Not a physical image, because as Jesus says God is a spirit. And Jesus said that a spirit has no body.

His disciples saw him walking on water and were afraid because they though he was a ghost. He didn't mean God has no body.

That's what Jesus said. I believe Him.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Accusing or excusing.

Jesus says that when He separates the sheep from the goats, some will come to him and ask what they did to deserve salvation. They will be those who do not have the law, but did by nature the things contained in the law.


Yes. That is the word of God. I believe Him.

Right. That's why Paul says that they are justified by natural law which God gives every person so they are without excuse.

Pauls'point is, whether a Jew by law or a gentile by nature,

we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; Rom.3:9

the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Rom.3:21

The Jews and gentiles were able to inflict savage cruelty on our Savior because "the righteousness of God (Jesus) without the law (without using the law to condemn) was foretold.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

I don't see how they could have built anything 4,000 years before they existed. If Jericho is 10,000 years old that pretty much rules out the Earth being 6,000 years old.

It would also rule out the geneology of Jesus.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Yes . That is what we are told here . After our "likeness" is also mentioned I might add .

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Man could have been formed in a likeness of a manifested image of our Creator . Physical not necessary .

Moses did see the hind parts of God .

And your citation from Genesis shoud be used to interpret,

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 1Cor.15:27

Most think Paul is comparing Jesus to our Father, but he's really comparing Adam to Jesus, our Creator.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't see how they could have built anything 4,000 years before they existed. If Jericho is 10,000 years old that pretty much rules out the Earth being 6,000 years old.

It would also rule out the geneology of Jesus.

Which one? There are two genealogies of Jesus in the Bible, which are contradictory, if you take them as literal. Which tells us that these are figurative, not literal. God does not contradict Himself.

 

[miamited]

Hi Barbarian

And science can't deny it.

Right! So you don't think the creation of this realm as God has explained it would be a miracle?

If it turned out that the crossing was accomplished otherwise, would that damage your faith?

Absolutely!!!! That would mean that God's word is not the truth. I mean, it's really pretty clear about that event and both Moses and Miriam sang songs to the people about it. An entire army died in that sea. Was that some metaphor? It wouldn't shake your faith to find out that God's word is not true? Yes, it absolutely would mine.

Since the Sun relative to the Earth does not move, and the Earth moves around the Sun, that didn't happen.

So you don't believe that God can do miracles. You really need to get your ideas in order, brother.

Could God stop the Earth, and reverse it's rotation? Yes, He could. He would also have to make sure that everything on Earth didn't continue moving at 25,000 mph (at the equator, proportionally slower at higher latitudes) and he could have done that.

So while you do comment that God could have done each one of your explanations, you know for a fact that He didn't do it one way or another. OK.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Barbarian]

Mt.25 shows the difference between those who obeyed vs. those who didn't and our Lord taught,

Jesus began to preach, and to say,Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mt.4:17

Yes. He clearly says that your salvation depends on what you did or did not do.

His disciples saw him walking on water and were afraid because they though he was a ghost. He didn't mean God has no body.

The key is that the Father is a spirit and has no body:

John 4:24 God is Spirit, and it behooves those worshiping Him to worship in spirit and truth."

Luke 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Meand see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Accusing or excusing.

Romans 2:14-15. For when the Gentiles — That is, any of them who have not the law — Not a written revelation of the divine will; do by nature — That is, by the light of nature, without an outward rule, or by the untaught dictates of their own minds, influenced, however, by the preventing grace of God, which hath appeared to all men, Titus 2:11; or, the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: the things contained in the law — The moral duties required by the precepts of the law, the ten commandments being only the substance of the law of nature. These, not having the written law, are a law unto themselves — That is, what the law was to the Jews, they are by the light and grace of God to themselves, namely, a rule of life. All the ancient Greek commentators, as Whitby has shown, interpreted this passage not of the Gentiles who had been converted to Christianity, but of those Gentiles who had not been favoured with a revealed law, and therefore were neither proselytes to Judaism nor Christianity. Who show — To themselves and others, and, in a sense, to God himself, the work of the law — In its most important moral precepts, in the substance, though not in the letter of them; written in their hearts — By the same divine hand which wrote the commandments on the tables of stone; their conscience also bearing witness — For or against them, or testifying how far they have complied with their light or law. There is not one of all its faculties which the soul has less in its power than this. And their thoughts — Or their reasonings or reflections upon their own conduct; the meanwhile — Or, as the expression, μεταξυ αλληλων, is translated in the margin, between themselves, or by turns, according as they do well or ill; accusing — Checking and condemning them when they have acted contrary to their light; or else excusing — Approving and justifying them when they have conformed to it. Hence the apostle meant it to be inferred, that it was not the having, or knowing the law, (Romans 2:13,) nor the condemning others for the transgression of it, could avail a man, but the doing of it, or walking according to it.

Romans 2:14 Commentaries: For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

 

[Barbarian]

Right! So you don't think the creation of this realm as God has explained it would be a miracle?

It absolutely is. St. Augustine commented on how odd it is that curing an illness miraculously amazes people but the function of the universe which was miraculously made by God doesn't impress them.
If it turned out that the crossing (of the Red Sea) was accomplished otherwise, would that damage your faith?

Absolutely!!!!

Wouldn't do that for me. I'd just realize that God had provided a natural cause for the water level to drop. He is the Lord of Creation, after all, and it would be entirely in His control. If you recognize that nature itself is a miracle, wouldn't God be using a miracle to effect the crossing?

It wouldn't shake your faith to find out that God's word is not true?

It wouldn't shake my faith to know that people had misunderstood the account.

So you don't believe that God can do miracles.

I just mentioned some of them. I do know that since the Sun does not go around the Earth, there is no way for a miracle to stop something that wasn't happening to begin with. God is not a god of confusion.

There would be all sorts of other things He would do, but His own nature rules out doing something logically absurd like stopping something that wasn't happening to begin with. This is a good example. The person transcribing the account assumed that the sun moves around the Earth, and described things from his mistaken perspective. Thing is, exactly what motion there was, is not what God is telling us. If we focus on such things, we miss the message.

So while you do comment that God could have done each one of your explanations, you know for a fact that He didn't do it one way or another.

No, I'm pointing out things that God could have done without doing anything logically absurd. But my observation of His miracle of nature shows me that He tends to do things in the most simple and elegant ways. Which suggests that changing the light would be the most elegant way to such a miracle.

I could be wrong, and he could have reversed the Earth's rotation, carefully countering all the violent consequences that would ordinarily ensue in the solar system. But one can't stop the Sun from moving around the Earth, because it never has moved around the Earth. If God was some kind of chaotic being who would violate truth itself, maybe so. But that's not the kind of God we have.

 

[Barbarian]

Right! So you don't think the creation of this realm as God has explained it would be a miracle?

It absolutely is. St. Augustine commented on how odd it is that curing an illness miraculously amazes people but the function of the universe which was miraculously made by God doesn't impress them.
If it turned out that the crossing (of the Red Sea) was accomplished otherwise, would that damage your faith?

Absolutely!!!!

Wouldn't do that for me. I'd just realize that God had provided a natural cause for the water level to drop. He is the Lord of Creation, after all, and it would be entirely in His control.

It wouldn't shake your faith to find out that God's word is not true?

It wouldn't shake my faith to know that people had misunderstood the account.

So you don't believe that God can do miracles.

I just mentioned some of them. I do know that since the Sun does not go around the Earth, there is no way for a miracle to stop something that wasn't happening to begin with. God is not a god of confusion.

There would be all sorts of other things He would do, but His own nature rules out doing something logically absurd like stopping something that wasn't happening to begin with. This is a good example. The person transcribing the account assumed that the sun moves around the Earth, and described things from his mistaken perspective. Thing is, exactly what motion there was, is not what God is telling us. If we focus on such things, we miss the message.

So while you do comment that God could have done each one of your explanations, you know for a fact that He didn't do it one way or another.

No, I'm pointing out things that God could have done without doing anything logically absurd. But my observation of His miracle of natrure shows me that He tends to do things in the most simple and elegant ways. Which suggests that changing the light would be the most elegant way to such a miracle.

I could be wrong,and he could have reversed the Earth's rotation, carefully countering all the violent consequences that would ordinarily ensue in the solar system. But one can't stop the Sun from moving around the Earth, because it never has moved around the Earth. If God was some kind of chaotic being who could violate truth itself, maybe so. But that's not the kind of God we have.

 

[miamited]

Hi Barbarian

It absolutely is. St. Augustine commented on how odd it is that curing an illness miraculously amazes people but the function of the universe which was miraculously made by God doesn't impress them.

So, if science can't deny a miracle, and you believe that the creation event was a miracle, how is that science can deny it?

Can God do miracles and set aside natural laws? Sure. And science can't deny it.

God is not a god of confusion.

So, your understanding is that if God does something that goes against the natural laws as we know them...then He becomes a God of confusion?

I just mentioned some of them. I do know that since the Sun does not go around the Earth, there is no way for a miracle to stop something that wasn't happening to begin with.

but His own nature rules out doing something logically absurd like stopping something that wasn't happening to begin with.

I don't understand what you're referring to as 'God stopping something that wasn't happening to begin with'. According to the account the shadow cast by the sun moved back 10 steps.

Hezekiah had asked Isaiah, “What will be the sign that the LORD will heal me and that I will go up to the temple of the LORD on the third day from now?”
Isaiah answered, “This is the LORD’s sign to you that the LORD will do what he has promised: Shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or shall it go back ten steps?"
"It is a simple matter for the shadow to go forward ten steps,” said Hezekiah. “Rather, have it go back ten steps.”
Then the prophet Isaiah called on the LORD, and the LORD made the shadow go back the ten steps it had gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.

I mean, if this is an actual truthful account of an event that happened as the prophet Isaiah was talking to King Hezekiah, what wasn't happening to begin with? Even the king knew that for the shadow to go forward was a simple thing to do. You just had to wait. I mean God could have taken Isaiah off to the side and had a little sidebar with him and 30 minutes later Isaiah comes back and says, "Aha! See the shadow moved forward just as God said it would." But no, God's word tells us that King Hezekiah understood how easy that would be and asked that the shadow go backwards. God's word says that it did. How did that happen? Or is it you contention that this is some imagined conversation filled with metaphorical meaning for us to figure out?

No, I'm pointing out things that God could have done without doing anything logically absurd.

How 'logically absurd' was it for God to destroy the whole earth by a flood. BTW did you find time to work up an answer to my question about the 'when' of the people of Jericho? Did the great flood happen within the last 10,000 years? If so, when do you believe it happened? Or is that another metaphorical lesson for us to figure out?

I don't think God much considers you thinking that something He does as being 'logically absurd' if it's His will to do a thing.

Oh, and BTW. God would not have had to stop the earth from rotating to affect the change. He also could have moved the sun from its relative position to the earth. The earth keeps spinning and God literally turns our entire solar system like a corkscrew, except for the earth sitting there rotating as it always has and the sun moves to a position a degree or two back. He also could have refracted the light, and that's a sound argument. But it still agrees that He did do it. After all, the Revelation tells us that He can shake the stars out of the universe. Job tells us that it is by God's power that the universe stays its course. So it could also be by God's power that it changes said course for a moment.

But either way, the event did happen...right? What about the flood? When was the flood that we read about in Genesis? Or was there not really a flood where Noah built an ark and carried his small family and all of the land creatures of the earth to safety? Did the flood waters not really rise to cover the whole earth and it didn't really rain for 40 days and nights and the springs of the deep weren't really opened? Is that entire scenario just one really, really long metaphorical account of how the sin of man 'could' ruin the whole earth?

I'm still a bit flummoxed as to 'how' science can't deny a miracle, yet you're assuring me that it can deny the one of the creation event. I'm curious. Why do you think the heavens and the earth exist?

God bless,
Ted

 

[hawkman]

I doubt if God moves water by blowing His nose. This kind of thing is like the statement that the windows of the sky opened to let water fall down during the Flood. The sky isn't really a dome with windows; the transcriber did the best he could to write down what he was inspired to write. If you focus on sky windows and God nostrils, you miss the message He's giving you.

You know I did remember as I searched about God's nostrils being mentioned but I did not know it was this often , it surprised me . Maybe there is some Hebrew importance to the nose we don't grasp .

I wonder what it was like for Moses to see the back side of God . Afterwards The Israelites could not look at Moses it was so bright and glowing , Moses had to wear a veil .

 

[Barbarian]

You know I did remember as I searched about God's nostrils being mentioned but I did not know it was this often , it surprised me . Maybe there is some Hebrew importance to the nose we don't grasp .

Hebrews believed that when one died, the spirit was breathed out through the nose. Maybe that's what it's symbolizing. Hard to say. The back side of God seems to be figurative, since God, if He had assumed a body to show Moses, could easily have produced one that he could see without harm.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Which one? There are two genealogies of Jesus in the Bible, which are contradictory, if you take them as literal. Which tells us that these are figurative, not literal. God does not contradict Himself.

Mathew wrote Josephs' ancestry and Luke wrote Marys', but there is no contradiction of thousands of years between them.

 

[Barbarian]

So, if science can't deny a miracle, and you believe that the creation event was a miracle, how is that science can deny it?

It can't. Indeed, the Big Bang theory was proposed by a priest, and assailed by an atheist (Fred Hoyle) because it implied a creation. If the universe was produced by a miracle, it doesn't harm anything science does.

So, your understanding is that if God does something that goes against the natural laws as we know them...then He becomes a God of confusion?

No. If He should do something logically absurd, (like stopping the Sun when rotating around the Earth, when it never did such a thing) then He would be a god of confusion.

How 'logically absurd' was it for God to destroy the whole earth by a flood.

Wouldn't be logically absurd. However the Bible doesn't say that the flood was global. It says the "eretz" was covered and "eretz" can means "my land", "this nation", "hereabouts", "land as far as the eye can see" etc. But if it covered the whole Earth, He would have used "tebel" (world).

Oh, and BTW. God would not have had to stop the earth from rotating to affect the change. He also could have moved the sun from its relative position to the earth. The earth keeps spinning and God literally turns our entire solar system like a corkscrew, except for the earth sitting there rotating as it always has and the sun moves to a position a degree or two back. He also could have refracted the light, and that's a sound argument.

Yes. Which would have required degrees of magnitude more miracles. Which He could do. My observation is that in this world, He does things as simply as possible.

Or was there not really a flood where Noah built an ark and carried his small family and all of the land creatures of the earth to safety?

We don't know for sure if it's figurative or literal. A clue is that there was a huge flood in the Middle East about the right time, when the Black Sea formed suddenly by the intrusion of the Mediterranean.

Did the flood waters not really rise to cover the whole earth and it didn't really rain for 40 days and nights and the springs of the deep weren't really opened? Is that entire scenario just one really, really long metaphorical account of how the sin of man 'could' ruin the whole earth?

It doesn't say the whole Earth (tebel).
But it is an allegory about man's sin and God's forgiveness. It was a common story in Mesopotamia, and in areas with unpredictable rivers. It's in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh actually meets Noah in that story. There are all sorts of interpretations. I think the Black Sea flood is a good candidate.

 

[Barbarian]

Which one? There are two genealogies of Jesus in the Bible, which are contradictory, if you take them as literal. Which tells us that these are figurative, not literal. God does not contradict Himself.

Mathew wrote Josephs' ancestry and Luke wrote Marys', but there is no contradiction of thousands of years between them.

But there are numerous contradictions as to the genealogies themselves. That being so, they cannot be literally true. They are figurative. And it seems rather unnecessary, since it was known that Joseph was of the House of David.

It seems that Matthew and Luke were familiar with two different traditions for establishing Jesus' ancestry as required by prophesy.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

The key is that the Father is a spirit and has no body:

John 4:24 God is Spirit, and it behooves those worshiping Him to worship in spirit and truth."

Luke 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Meand see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

And I explained the apostles thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus is God, regardless of his form.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Romans 2:14-15. For when the Gentiles — That is, any of them who have not the law — Not a written revelation of the divine will; do by nature — That is, by the light of nature, without an outward rule, or by the untaught dictates of their own minds, influenced, however, by the preventing grace of God, which hath appeared to all men, Titus 2:11; or, the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: the things contained in the law — The moral duties required by the precepts of the law, the ten commandments being only the substance of the law of nature. These, not having the written law, are a law unto themselves — That is, what the law was to the Jews, they are by the light and grace of God to themselves, namely, a rule of life. All the ancient Greek commentators, as Whitby has shown, interpreted this passage not of the Gentiles who had been converted to Christianity, but of those Gentiles who had not been favoured with a revealed law, and therefore were neither proselytes to Judaism nor Christianity. Who show — To themselves and others, and, in a sense, to God himself, the work of the law — In its most important moral precepts, in the substance, though not in the letter of them; written in their hearts — By the same divine hand which wrote the commandments on the tables of stone; their conscience also bearing witness — For or against them, or testifying how far they have complied with their light or law. There is not one of all its faculties which the soul has less in its power than this. And their thoughts — Or their reasonings or reflections upon their own conduct; the meanwhile — Or, as the expression, μεταξυ αλληλων, is translated in the margin, between themselves, or by turns, according as they do well or ill; accusing — Checking and condemning them when they have acted contrary to their light; or else excusing — Approving and justifying them when they have conformed to it. Hence the apostle meant it to be inferred, that it was not the having, or knowing the law, (Romans 2:13,) nor the condemning others for the transgression of it, could avail a man, but the doing of it, or walking according to it.

Romans 2:14 Commentaries: For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

And the law is simply the knowledge of good and evil defined. So there's no difference between Jew and gentile being guilty of sin against the only God there is.