Micheal Nugent V WC

nozzferrahhtoo

So on Tuesday 21st March (19:30) UCC are hosting a "Does God Exist" debate between Nugent and Lane.

The likes of Richard Dawkins have refused to engage with Lane saying nothing can come of it other than to bolster Lane's CV. I guess the reverse is true when you (like Nugent) are relatively unknown on the international Atheist V Theist debate circuit and any CV benefits are likely to go Nugent's way on this one.

What do we think we can expect from the debate?

Firstly what I think Nugent can expect is to know all Lanes points before the day. Mainly because, unlike some actually deep thinking interlocutors, Lane's approach is to open and close (and much in the middle too) recite his arguments by rote. They are pretty much word for word identical from debate to debate and there is no excuse not to be ready for them.

Secondly, as Sam Harris noted DURING his debate with Lane..... it really does not matter what you say in the debate.... Lane's MO is consistently to summarize your point(s) in such a way as to entirely modify them from what they actually were. A move so familiar to me that I have on occasion found myself suspecting Lane posts on THIS forum under a fairly well known username.

Third, regardless of the title of the debate Lane's MO is to open and close with a monologue declare what "the atheist" has to do in order to "win" the debate. Lane uses a LOT of words during this monologue but it essentially boils down to "The atheist has the burden of proof, and must prove the negative, and has to actively prove there is no god". And he will make this monologue regardless of the title or subject of the debate. Be is "Is there any reason to think there is a god" "The house believes there is no god" or "What makes people think there is a god".

And finally Lane trots out the same number of points every time that all make the same erroneous assumptions. Those being that

"Nothing" is the default and therefore "something from nothing" has to be explained. He simply assumes that "something" requires explanation rather than his assertion that "nothing" is the natural state and therefore the existence of anything requires explanation.

Timeless systems require causal explanation even though causality without a temporal element has never been shown to exist or modeled. That is: The First cause argument and the "everything that happens has a cause, the universe happened, therefore it had a cause" monologue. Challenge this as causality based arguments applied to non-causal systems is a core failed assumption in his entire rhetoric.

He asserts objective morality exists and this needs a god to explain it. Two failed assumptions here. Even if it did exist, why does that automatically need a god to explain it? And on what does he base his assertion that it exists? The latter in previous debates he appears SOLELY to support by "Argument from implication" fallacies. That is he paints a picture where you EMOTIVELY do not like the implication of objective morality not existing..... therefore you (to his mind) are forced to concede it does. For example he will say things like "Without an objective morality you can not OBJECTIVELY say that anything Hitler or the Nazis did was wrong".

TLDR? What do you think we can expect, or Nugent should be ready for, in this debate?

Peregrinus

A Freudian slip, possibly, but I think you mean WL Craig, not WC Lane.

Despite the fact that I know his name better than you do, you clearly have a better mastery of his position and his arguments than I do, so I can't suggest how Nugent might prepare for this debate, beyond saying that he should read your post.

I'm not convinced that taking on Lane's arguments directly is the way to go. From what you say, Lane starts by trying to lay down what the atheist must do to "win". My instinct opposing someone who takes such a stance is to refuse to let them dictate the terms of the discussion in that way. But rather than take on Lane's decree about the terms of the debate and argue with that, I'd simply ignore it, and lay out my own account of my position, and how I arrived at it, and why I hold it.

Atheism is basically a negative position, and it's always hard to prove a negative, so I wouldn't be drawn in to attempt to "disprove" God. Obviously I can't speak for Michael, but for an awful lot of atheists, the basis of their atheism is simply that they have never been presented with a conception of god that they find coherent and appealing. If Lane insists that the phenomenon of existence requires explanation, rather than assert that it does not require explanation a better counter might be, whether or not it requires explanation, you don't find the conception of god an appealing or satisfactory explanation. This then opens up the possibility of an interrogation of conventional Christian conceptions of God.

From what you say, Lane's arguments veer from the abstract and metaphysical ("existence requires explanation") to the emotional ("Hitler!"). I think Michael could safely sidestep the metaphysical argument - it's one for the philosophers, but in a student debate environment I don't think it's going to be a clincher - and offer emotional arguments of his own (e.g. the problem of suffering).

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not sure that a long post written quickly while getting the kids out the door for school displays that you know any name better than I do but I certainly take the correction and perhaps the MOD would be kind enough to edit it accordingly?

But yes his position does generally appear to be to assert not only that "existence requires explanation" but that explanation must be intentional, intelligent, eternal and "personal".

A lot of his move, particularly the ones like summarizing a persons position blatantly incorrectly.... are designed to rile and troll the opponent. To bait an emotional reaction out of them and cloud their rationality. I have seen Nugent in debate though and one thing that tends not to happen is he lets himself get baited emotionally. So that is, at least, one concern we do not need to have in this event.

recedite

Dawkins on his refusal to debate William Lane Craig.

I would expect Nugent to win the UCC debate in terms of the arguments he makes, but I would expect Craig to act as if he has won it.

bnt

W L Craig is a practitioner of the Gish Gallop, which basically substitutes quantity for quality in debates. Is he coming to Ireland specifically for this, I wonder? Perhaps he thinks he's on safe ground in a "Catholic" country? The only good I could see coming out of this is if it raises money for some worthwhile charity.

J C

recedite wrote: »

Dawkins on his refusal to debate William Lane Craig.

I would expect Nugent to win the UCC debate in terms of the arguments he makes, but I would expect Craig to act as if he has won it.

I see Prof Dawkins, like many atheists, knows more of the Bible than many Christians.

Anyway, he seems to forget that Deuteronomy is describing a time when the world was strictly under law ... and not mercy or grace, like we are now.

The following verses of scripture are germaine and explicative of the Mosaic laws:-

Mark 10:1-5 New International Version (NIV)


10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

It is clear that the Mosaic Laws were drawn up by Moses (and not by God).
It is also clear that they were drawn up by Moses as pragmatic Laws for a hard-hearted people in hard-hearted 'dog eat dog' times under merciless law and not merciful grace.

The reciting of law in scripture doesn't make it inerrant ... it is like all law ... of its time and place ... and drawn up by fallible men.

... and getting back to the upcoming debate ... I look forward to seeing it.
Two excellent protagonists for their respective sides.

May the best arguments win !!!:)

magicbastarder

J C wrote: »

Anyway, he seems to forget that Deuteronomy is describing a time when the world was strictly under law ... and not mercy or grace, like we are now.

they should drop it from the bible so, if it's inaccurate. because too many people seem to think the bible is the word of god, which gives deuteronomy a little bit too much moral clout for them.

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

they should drop it from the bible so, if it's inaccurate. because too many people seem to think the bible is the word of god, which gives deuteronomy a little bit too much moral clout for them.

It's an accurate account of the Mosaic Laws.
I don't think it should be dropped ... it is a part of the historical record of western jurisprudence.

We shouldn't deny our history ... just accept it and ensure that we learn from it ... those who don't learn from history are destined to re-live it !!!:eek:

magicbastarder

ah, so the bible is a record of history, and not the actual word of god. i wonder why that is not made more clear.

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah, so the bible is a record of history, and not the actual word of god. i wonder why that is not made more clear.

It contains both historical accounts, and the Word of God i.e. Jesus Christ.:)

magicbastarder

the notion that the bits dating from 2800 years ago are dated and no longer relevant as they're history, but the bits which are *only* 2000 years old are current and relevant, is a curious one.

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

the notion that the bits dating from 2800 years ago are dated and no longer relevant as they're history, but the bits which are *only* 2000 years old are current and relevant, is a curious one.

... one is 2800 year old law ... and the other is the Word of Jesus Christ and His followers.

Anyway, now that we have established that God loves us all ... what is the actual format of the debate in UCC?

recedite

J C wrote: »

Anyway, now that we have established that God loves us all ... what is the actual format of the debate in UCC?

Not sure, I presume both will be given an uninterrupted period of time initially to speak their piece, followed by a debate. A lot will depend on having a good moderator sitting between them, one who understands what they are talking about.

Maybe we should have a whiparound to buy one of our mods a train ticket to Cork?

J C

recedite wrote: »

Not sure, I presume both will be given an uninterrupted period of time initially to speak their piece, followed by a debate. A lot will depend on having a good moderator sitting between them, one who understands what they are talking about.

Maybe we should have a whiparound to buy one of our mods a train ticket to Cork?

I nominate Robin for the trip to Cork ... if I get there myself, we might even have a pint !!!

recedite

Well the problem is, it'll have to be Beamish.
I hope this W.L. Craig chap doesn't get too upset when he finds out after the event that Cork people don't believe in Guinness.

J C

recedite wrote: »

Well the problem is, it'll have to be Beamish.
I hope this W.L. Craig chap doesn't get too upset when he finds out after the event that Cork people don't believe in Guinness.

... being an American ... he may be a believer in Bud, himself !!!:)

learn_more

recedite wrote: »

Dawkins on his refusal to debate William Lane Craig.

I would expect Nugent to win the UCC debate in terms of the arguments he makes, but I would expect Craig to act as if he has won it.

That's a strange article by Dawkins. He starts off by belittling Craig as some nobody but at the same time he feels the need to write a piece in The Guardian about him. If he's such a nobody then why bother? The reason he gives for not debating Craig is frankly unbelievable. Because Craig believes in genocide. Dawkins looks like he's running scared of Craig. I'm sure he's watched Craig vs Hitchens and Craig vs Krauss online and I bet he doesn't think he'd fare any better against him either, likely worse.

silverharp

Michael, try get this made into a T shirt

magicbastarder

but then someone would turn up in a similar shirt with 'punctuated change we can believe in', and there'd be fisticuffs.

Bristolscale7

How much is Craig charging UCC?

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

Anyway, he seems to forget that Deuteronomy is describing a time when the world was strictly under law ... and not mercy or grace, like we are now.

The following verses of scripture are germaine and explicative of the Mosaic laws:-

Mark 10:1-5 New International Version (NIV)


10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

It is clear that the Mosaic Laws were drawn up by Moses (and not by God).
It is also clear that they were drawn up by Moses as pragmatic Laws for a hard-hearted people in hard-hearted 'dog eat dog' times under merciless law and not merciful grace.

Well, you see JC, here's the problem with the multi self-refulting nature of the Bible. Your claim is that commandments like Deuteronomy 24:1-5 were authored by Moses and not God. As usual, you're wrong.

And here's why.

Within the context of the bible itself, the commandments in Deuteronomy were authored by God but announced to the people by Moses. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, Moses himself states that the law comes from God in Deuteronomy 6:1-2

"Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it, so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged."

Secondly, Jews of the time understood that the commandments given the them by Moses actually came from God. This is made clear in Proverbs 30. Earlier in Deuteronomy 4 and 12, Moses makes it clear that no-one should add or subtract from the law:

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy 4:2

"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it."
Deuteronomy 12:32

This is later repeated by Agur, son of Jakeh in Proverbs who makes it clear where the law comes from:

"Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."
Proverbs 30:5-6

Finally, the quote from Mark 10 makes it look like the law comes from Moses because when Jesus describes divorce he uses phrases like "What did Moses command you?" and "Moses permitted". However, Jesus uses the same language when he talks about the commandment to honour your father and mother in Mark 7:

"For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;"

Now clearly, Moses didn't author the commandment about honouring your father and mother given that Exodus 20 makes it plain that it is God speaking the commandments.

Back in the real world, it's clear that the author of Mark's gospel follows a Pauline anti-Jewish "ministry of death" approach and does what he can to weasel out of the more unpalatable Jewish commandments. But then a book written by someone 40 years after Jesus' death who is deeply unfamiliar with both the geography of the region and the customs and practices of the people there is perhaps not the best arbiter of what Jesus may or may not have said. Particularly when he makes Jesus reference a legendary figure as if they were a historical person when we know that's not the case.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, you see JC, here's the problem with the multi self-refulting nature of the Bible. Your claim is that commandments like Deuteronomy 24:1-5 were authored by Moses and not God. As usual, you're wrong.

And here's why.

Within the context of the bible itself, the commandments in Deuteronomy were authored by God but announced to the people by Moses. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, Moses himself states that the law comes from God in Deuteronomy 6:1-2

"Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it, so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged."

Deut 6:1-2 is clearly referring to the 10 commandments in Deut 5.

Deut 5:22 confirms that "These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, Jews of the time understood that the commandments given the them by Moses actually came from God. This is made clear in Proverbs 30. Earlier in Deuteronomy 4 and 12, Moses makes it clear that no-one should add or subtract from the law:

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

The 10 Commandments came directly from God and are eternal ... all the rest was Moses by-laws for the Jews to live by.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Finally, the quote from Mark 10 makes it look like the law comes from Moses because when Jesus describes divorce he uses phrases like "What did Moses command you?" and "Moses permitted". However, Jesus uses the same language when he talks about the commandment to honour your father and mother in Mark 7:

"For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;"

Now clearly, Moses didn't author the commandment about honouring your father and mother given that Exodus 20 makes it plain that it is God speaking the commandments.

... God said in Deut 5:16 to “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
Moses added the rider that ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;" ... which was part of the Mosaic law (and not the ten commandments) ... and was more observed in the breach than the observance.

Peregrinus

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

How much is Craig charging UCC?

The same amount as Michael is, I imagine!

oldrnwisr

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this JC.

J C wrote: »

Deut 6:1-2 is clearly referring to the 10 commandments in Deut 5.

Well, no. Deuteronomy 6:1 opens with the phrase "now this is the command". Even in English it is clear that the author is prefacing comments he is about to make, i.e. he is referring to something he is going to talk about not something he already has.

Secondly, when we look at the phrase in Hebrew we see this even more clearly. The hebrew word rendered as "now this is" in Deuteronomy 6:1 is:

וְ֠זֹאת

which is translated as regarding, in, is a etc. but in most passages rendered as likewise showing that the correct reading of the passage is to link the commands in Deuteronomy 5 with those in Chapter 6 i.e. just as those commands came from god, likewise these are too. The clear intent of the passage is that the commands in Deuteronomy 6 come from God, not Moses.

J C wrote: »

Deut 5:22 confirms that "These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

The 10 Commandments came directly from God and are eternal ... all the rest was Moses by-laws for the Jews to live by.

Well, you see this is what I alluded to the real world in my last post. Ultimately the Christian interpretation of the OT runs smack into the reality that is the composite nature of the Pentateuch.

You see, the Ten Commandments list in Deuteronomy 5 is merely a restatement of those in Exodus 20 as I've shown below:

Commandment | Exodus 20 | Deuteronomy 5
1 | 2-6 | 6-10
2 | 7 | 11
3 | 8-11 | 12-15
4 | 12 | 16
5 | 13 | 17
6 | 14 | 18
7 | 15 | 19
8 | 16 | 20
9 | 17 | 21
10| 17 | 21


In Exodus 20, God does add more than just the 10 commandments as demonstrated below:

"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘You yourselves have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven. You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves. You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you. If you make an altar of stone for Me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it. And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it.’"
Exodus 20:22-26.

Further, God continues to personally issue commands in Exodus 21, 22 and 23 as demonstrated by the opening of Chapter 21:

"Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:"

Here we see God speaking to Moses directly. This is further reinforced by the opening line of Exodus 24:

"Then He said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and you shall worship at a distance."

Note the capitalisation on He, indicating that it is God who is and has been speaking.

The reality is that the Pentateuch is a pastiche, a composite work with at least 5 major contributors (Deuteronomist, Elohist, Priestly, Yahwhist authors and a later redactor). This is evidenced by the many internal and external contradictions in the Pentateuch as well as the inclusion of a number of duplicate stories.

For example, in Exodus 20:8-10, God issues the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Then in verse 11, he explains the reason for the commandment as a commemoration of the creation of the Earth (referencing the Priestly creation story in Genesis 2:3):

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

However, in Deuteronomy 5 we see a duplicate rendition of the ten commandments, however now the reason for the sabbath commandment has changed to a remembrance of the slavery in Egypt:

"You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day."

It's not just the ten commandments which gets duplicated but also the creation myth (Genesis 1, 2), the flood (Genesis 6-8), the genealogy of Adam (Genesis 4:17-26, 5:1-28). There are also some stories which are told three times such as Abraham's wife/sister (Genesis 12, 20, 26) the story of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen 16:1-14, 16:3,15-16 and 21:8-19) and of course the 10 commandments (Exodus 20, 34 and Deuteronomy 5). All told there are over 30 stories in the Pentateuch which appear twice or more across the five books. Each story is either subtly or massively different replete with contradictions and non-sequiturs.
One prominent example of this is the 10 commandments themselves. The Ten Commandments are first outlined in Exodus 20 and duplicated in Deuteronomy 5. However, as much as Christians would like to pretend they don't exist there is a third set of 10 commandments outlined in Exodus 34:

1. Be sure to observe what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite. Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim —for you shall not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God— otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice, and you might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods.
2. You shall make for yourself no molten gods.
3. “You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt.
4. “The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle and sheep. You shall redeem with a lamb the first offspring from a donkey; and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons. None shall appear before Me empty-handed.
5. “You shall work six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during plowing time and harvest you shall rest.
6. You shall celebrate the Feast of Weeks, that is, the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
7. Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel. For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders, and no man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the Lord your God.
8. “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread, nor is the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover to be left over until morning.
9. “You shall bring the very first of the first fruits of your soil into the house of the Lord your God.
10. “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

This is then followed by the passage below:



"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."

While there are some points of commonality (belief in god, sabbath, graven images) the two lists are radically different. However, the list above is exclusively and repeatedly described as the Ten Commandments being referred to as the Ten Commandments here as well as in Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4.

However, as much fun as it's been showing the OT and the Ten Commandments to be a self-contradictory, stitched together mess, I think we're getting away from the point. You may interpret the OT laws as authored by Moses but that is not what either the original authors intended nor is it what Jews of the time (or of Jesus' time) believed.
Firstly, as I posted last time Proverbs 30 shows that Jews believed all the law was handed down from God.
Secondly, Jesus makes it clear that this is the prevailing view of his time too. In Matthew 5 Jesus makes clear the entry requirements for heaven:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus points out that not only do you have to keep the commandments but you have to be better at keeping them than the scribes and pharisees. He even goes to the trouble of explaining what he means with examples:

"“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus doesn't use the term the Ten Commandments nor does he add any other qualifier to indicate that he is talking about a restricted set of commandments, thus indicating that he is talking about all 613 of them.

J C wrote: »

... God said in Deut 5:16 to “your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
Moses added the rider that ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;" ... which was part of the Mosaic law (and not the ten commandments) ... and was more observed in the breach than the observance.

Nice try except that, as I've pointed out above, Deuteronomy 5 is simply a restatement of the commandments in Exodus 20. Consequently we can see that God himself institutes the death penalty for breaking the 4th commandment (or 5th commandment if you're a Reformed Christian) in Exodus 21:15 and 21:17.

What kind of god would issue a set of rules to somebody without also communicating the punishments for breaking those rules. That seems like a remarkable oversight for a being which is described as perfect throughout the bible.

You know I did think that maybe your biblical arguments would better stand up to scrutiny than your creationist ones. Pity.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this JC.
Well, no. Deuteronomy 6:1 opens with the phrase "now this is the command". Even in English it is clear that the author is prefacing comments he is about to make, i.e. he is referring to something he is going to talk about not something he already has.

No issue there ... Moses is going to restate the 10 Commandments as well as promulgating other laws.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What kind of god would issue a set of rules to somebody without also communicating the punishments for breaking those rules. That seems like a remarkable oversight for a being which is described as perfect throughout the bible.

These are eternal laws and respect for God should be sufficient for people to obey these laws.

robindch

^^^ Not a convincing reply, JC.

J C

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Not a convincing reply, JC.

What would convince you, Robin?

The 10 commandments are eternal moral laws ... that are self-evident.
The 'punishment' for not obeying them is a great deal of unhappiness.

The actual punishment meted out by society for breaking various laws (including the 10 commandments) has varied enormously ... sometimes something that has been illegal becomes legal ... and vice versa.

looksee

The first four of the 10 relate directly to honouring the author of the laws. Not really a great deal to do with morality - we currently have a 'leader of the free world' whose primary concern is ensuring he is honoured, It doesn't prove that he is worthy of honour.

robindch

J C wrote: »

What would convince you, Robin?

A reply which combined facts with reason to produce a conclusion.

J C

robindch wrote: »

A reply which combined facts with reason to produce a conclusion.

I have found that it all depends on how facts are combined with reason ... and whether the conclusion produced fits in with the person's worldview, whether they are convinced or not.

J C

looksee wrote: »

The first four of the 10 relate directly to honouring the author of the laws. Not really a great deal to do with morality - we currently have a 'leader of the free world' whose primary concern is ensuring he is honoured, It doesn't prove that he is worthy of honour.

It doesn't prove that he isn't worthy of honour either ... and about half of all Americans who care seem to think that he should be honoured with the US Presidency.

Honouring God and your fellow man is a good way to go IMO.:)

looksee

I have found that it all depends on how facts are combined with reason ... and whether the conclusion produced fits in with the person's worldview, whether they are convinced or not.

That is of course true, JC. One does wonder how the worldview is reached that allows for conclusions that have no foundation in -anything really - to be accepted as fact.

looksee

J C wrote: »

It doesn't prove that he isn't worthy of honour either ... and about half of all Americans who care seem to think that he should be honoured with the US Presidency.

Honouring God and your fellow man is a good way to go IMO.:)

A leader whose primary concern is that he personally should be given honour is therefore worthy of honour? Really?

J C

looksee wrote: »

A leader whose primary concern is that he personally should be given honour is therefore worthy of honour? Really?

I think that he was honoured by being elected POTUS for many reasons other than the one you cite.

looksee

J C wrote: »

I think that he was honoured by being elected POTUS for many reasons other than the one you cite.

Which fails to answer my question.

PopePalpatine

looksee wrote: »

A leader whose primary concern is that he personally should be given honour is therefore worthy of honour? Really?

Well, that's the North Korean regime, the Saudi theocracy, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Omar Bashir of Sudan sorted if that's J C's pathetic reasoning.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, that's the North Korean regime, the Saudi theocracy, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Omar Bashir of Sudan sorted if that's J C's pathetic reasoning.

Have they been conferred with the honour of government by popular democratic vote of the governed, like President Trump?

I think not.

I'll let others decide where the 'pathetic reasoning' resides on this one.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Which fails to answer my question.

I don't believe that President Trump is primarily concerned that he personally should be given honour. Having said that, name me a POTUS that didn't expect the gravity of his office to be respected and honoured. Its one of the perks of the job!!

President Trump has many other much more important issues that he wants addressed - and is getting addressed, despite 'the wailing and gnashing of teeth' evident amongst sections of the pseudo-liberal establishment and the MSM.

The very same people who were asking that Trump supporters should fall into line behind Hilary when she was expected to be elected ... are out protesting and generally making a nusiance of themselves, now that Trump is elected.

If they are the 'Democrats' that they claim to be, they should accept the expressed will of the American people ... or else change their name to the 'Dictats' !!!:D

They need to 'build a bridge and get over it' !!:eek:

When he has finishes his wall, President Trump might even build the bridge for them ... (and get the pseudo-liberals to pay for it) !!!!

J C

looksee wrote: »

That is of course true, JC. One does wonder how the worldview is reached that allows for conclusions that have no foundation in -anything really - to be accepted as fact.

I wouldn't know, as I don't reach conclusions that are unfounded evidentially or logically.:)

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't know, as I don't reach conclusions that are unfounded evidentially or logically.:)

Well, you do. You're a Christian so you believe in the resurrection of Jesus which is unfounded evidentially and of course you're also a creationist, the evidentiality of which has been discussed and refuted at length here.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, you do. You're a Christian so you believe in the resurrection of Jesus which is unfounded evidentially and of course you're also a creationist, the evidentiality of which has been discussed and refuted at length here.

There were several hundred eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ ... which is evidence for His resurretion.
... and I am precluded from discussing Creation Science on this thread.

pauldla

J C wrote: »

There were several hundred eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ ... which is evidence for His resurretion.
... and I am precluded from discussing Creation Science on this thread.

There is no evidence for that claim.

J C

pauldla wrote: »

There is no evidence for that claim.

1 Corinthians 15:3-7New International Version (NIV)

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

robindch

J C wrote: »

1 Corinthians 15:3-7New International Version (NIV)

Eyewitness evidence gets less convincing, not more convincing, as you add more people to the chain of eyewitnesses.

So, one guy claiming to have met five hundred people who claim to have seen a dead guy walking around - well, that's the evidence of one guy. Not five hundred.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

There were several hundred eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ ... which is evidence for His resurretion.
... and I am precluded from discussing Creation Science on this thread.

1 Corinthians 15:6, that's your answer? Really?

When I said evidence I meant reliable eyewitness testimony, not a dubious second-hand claim.

There are several reasons why 1 Corinthians 15:6 is not evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

1. Hearsay

The account is hearsay. It is a second-hand claim made by Paul to a group of people 800 miles from Jerusalem with no means to verify the account. Hearsay isn't something we consider reliable today nor was it something which would have been accepted at the time either. Witness testimony in the Halakhah is only permitted from people who saw or witnessed the event themselves.


2. On the criteria for being a witness

The account is contradicted by Acts 10:40-41:

"God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead."

Acts states that the only people Jesus made himself visible to were those he ate and drank with like the story of Cleopas and his companion in Luke 24:13-32.


3. On the ascension

The account is contradicted by the ascension accounts in Acts 1 and Luke 24. In Acts 1:15 we are told:

" In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)"

So there were 120 believers present at the ascension. This means that since the appearance to "over 500" brethren must have taken place before this point then at least 380 of them would have had to have buggered off in the meantime for the two stories to be compatible. However, Jesus makes it clear in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4 that the believers he appeared to were commanded to remain in Jerusalem until the ascension.

" I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Luke 24:49

"On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about."
Acts 1:4


4. The untrustworthiness of Paul

Paul is an untrustworthy witness. He is someone who will lie when it suits him as shown in Acts 21-22. Despite having condemned specific parts of the Jewish law in Romans 14:14, Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 6:15 as well as condemning the whole law as a curse in Galatians 3:13 and as a ministry of death in 2 Corinthians 3:7-9 and also writing some pretty anti-semitic stuff about the Jews themselves with passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and Titus 1:10-14, Paul bizarrely agrees to undergo Jewish purification rituals in Acts 21:21-26. When Paul eventually gets found out in Acts 21:28 and arrested he then goes on to claim that he is a Jew when speaking to the Roman commander in Acts 21:39. Paul then asks to speak to the crowd and begins by stating that he is a Jew. When his speech doesn't exactly win the crowd over and they cry "Rid the Earth of him. He's not fit to live!", Paul turns tail once again and claims to be a Roman citizen in Acts 22:27. Paul even acknowledges this kind of open dishonesty in 1 Corinthians 9:20 when he says:

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews."


5. Paul and the apostles

Paul is a man who never met Jesus. His conversion comes from a vision of Jesus during an incident which bears all the symptoms of stroke or temporal lobe epilepsy. More importantly, however Paul's conception of Jesus doesn't agree with those who supposedly knew the pre-crucifixion Jesus. Paul only meets two of the apostles in his travels, Peter and James and ends up disagreeing with both of them as well as the leaders of the early church.
Let's take James for example. There is a substantial row played out in the New Testament between James who promotes obedience to the law and Paul's sole fide approach. In Romans 4, Paul credits Abraham's salvation solely to his faith in God (Romans 4:2-3). However, James points out that it was Abraham's actions in combination with his faith which saved him in James 2:21-24. Indeed, the reference to the foolish man in the preceding verse is often seen as a dig at Paul by James. James, however is the one with the OT and Jesus on his side, with both Jeremiah 7:10 and Matthew 5:17-19 supporting James view.
Similarly with Peter, Paul is no fan. In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul criticises the hypocrisy of Peter for only eating with Gentiles when Jews were not around. Firstly, Paul is not exactly in any position to criticise anyone for hypocrisy, a) because of his remarkable anti-Jewish sentiments outlined above already and b) because he himself makes some deeply misogynistic statements in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 with the intention of lessening the culture shock for the Jews he's trying to convert. Secondly, the idea that Paul would call Peter out for hypocrisy at all is in itself hypocritical given Jesus' clear teaching against it in Matthew 7:1-5.
Similarly the early Church leaders get contradicted by Paul. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas go to the council of Apostles and Elders to discuss how to preach against those who claimed that only those who were circumcised could be saved. The council meets and agrees a few things and then sends Paul and Barnabas (and some others) on the road with a letter proclaiming their decision in particular this in verse 20:

"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

It soon becomes clear from Paul's writings that Paul puts very little stock in what the Church leaders decide either. Despite the proclamation above, Paul twice contradicts it:

"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'"
1 Corinthians 10:25-27

"I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." -
Romans 14:14


Paul is clearly a man who dances to his own tune and only his own tune. The idea that Paul is a man who actually knew the real Jesus and can reliably offer testimony about Jesus is laughable. What we have in 1 Corinthians 15:6 is a second-hand account from an unreliable witness about an event not recorded anywhere else either within the New Testament or any extrabiblical source.
However, since there are no other eyewitness accounts for Jesus' resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:6 is the best you've got. So like I said before you've reached a conclusion which is unfounded evidentially.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

1 Corinthians 15:6, that's your answer? Really?

When I said evidence I meant reliable eyewitness testimony, not a dubious second-hand claim.

This link answers your objections to the veracity of the resurrection:-

http://strangenotions.com/debunking-the-conspiracy-theory-7-arguments-why-jesus-disciples-did-not-lie/


http://strangenotions.com/real-encounter-13-reasons-jesus-disciples-did-not-hallucinate/

marienbad

J C wrote: »

This link answers your objections to the veracity of the resurrection:-

http://strangenotions.com/debunking-the-conspiracy-theory-7-arguments-why-jesus-disciples-did-not-lie/


http://strangenotions.com/real-encounter-13-reasons-jesus-disciples-did-not-hallucinate/

This thread really is the best reading on boards !

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

This link answers your objections to the veracity of the resurrection:-

http://strangenotions.com/debunking-the-conspiracy-theory-7-arguments-why-jesus-disciples-did-not-lie/


http://strangenotions.com/real-encounter-13-reasons-jesus-disciples-did-not-hallucinate/

LOL.

MrP

looksee

J C wrote: »

This link answers your objections to the veracity of the resurrection:-

http://strangenotions.com/debunking-the-conspiracy-theory-7-arguments-why-jesus-disciples-did-not-lie/


http://strangenotions.com/real-encounter-13-reasons-jesus-disciples-did-not-hallucinate/

Really, JC, those links prove absolutely nothing, and I suspect you are intelligent enough to know this.

However:

Mod: please do not drop in links with no attempt to interpret them or give an outline of what they are saying.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

This link answers your objections to the veracity of the resurrection:-

http://strangenotions.com/debunking-the-conspiracy-theory-7-arguments-why-jesus-disciples-did-not-lie/


http://strangenotions.com/real-encounter-13-reasons-jesus-disciples-did-not-hallucinate/

Is this your fallback argument? The disciples wouldn't die for a lie? If proper apologists like Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell or even a paragon of the church like Cardinal Avery Dulles can't turn this into a legitimate argument, you haven't got much hope. There are multiple problems with the idea that the disciples wouldn't die for a lie. I will go through each of them in turn.

For those unfamiliar with this apologetic chestnut or haven't read JC's link, the basic idea is that the 12 disciples were close companions of Jesus who would have been right by his side throughout his ministry, death and resurrection. Therefore, if Jesus had been resurrected then these men would have to know it for a fact and not simply believe it. Therefore, the "fact" that these men all died martyr's deaths for their beliefs show that Jesus really was resurrected because someone would not die for a lie.


1. Which 12 disciples?

The first point is that the list of the 12 disciples is not consistent across all books where they are enumerated. To illustrate this I have arranged them in table below:

Mark | Matthew | Luke| John | Acts
Peter | Peter | Peter | Peter | Peter
James, son of Zebedee | James, son of Zebedee | James | The sons of Zebedee | James
John, brother of James | John, brother of James | John | | John
Andrew | Andrew | Andrew | Andrew | Andrew
Philip | Philip | Philip | Philip | Philip
Bartholomew | Bartholomew | Bartholomew | Bartholomew | Nathanael
Matthew | Matthew | Matthew | | Matthew
Thomas | Thomas | Thomas | Thomas | Thomas
James, son of Alphaeus | James, son of Alphaeus | James, son of Alphaeus | | James, son of Alphaeus
Thaddeus | Thaddeus | Judas, son of James | Judas "not Iscariot" | Judas, son of James
Simon | Simon | Simon | | Simon
Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot

So, already we see there are discrepancies.

1. The introduction of a second Judas, the son of James by the author of Luke-Acts, not mentioned by either Mark or Matthew but mentioned by John.
2. The introduction of Nathanael by John, not mentioned by any other source.
3. The omission of Matthew, James, son of Alphaeus and Simon by John.

If the biographical sources for Jesus and the apostles can't even agree on a coherent list of twelve, this doesn't bode well for the "died for a lie" argument.


In the interests of moving this debate forward, however, I propose the following composite list:

1. Peter (Simon Peter)
2. Andrew
3. James, son of Zebedee
4. John, brother of James
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew/Nathanael, son of Talemai
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James (James the Less, James the Just), son of Alphaeus
10. Thaddeus/Lebbaeus/Jude
11. Simon the Zealot/Cananean (Simeon of Jerusalem)
12. Judas Iscariot (replaced by Matthias)

So, now that we have established a list of apostles, the question becomes what really happened to them?




2. The fate of the apostles


So now that we know who we're talking about, the question is what happened to them? Can we actually be sure that any of them died martyr's deaths? To be clear, according to the apologetic argument the criterion for a martyr's death is to willingly die for their beliefs even when presented with the opportunity to recant.


Peter
Peter according to tradition was crucified in Rome. He was also crucified upside-down so as not to die in the same manner of Jesus. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that prisoners were rarely, if ever, accorded the privelege of choosing their method of execution, let's examine the textual evidence. The bulk of the traditional account of the martyrdom of St. Peter comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter, an account dismissed as unreliable by historian Eusebius (who isn't exactly reliable himself). Other than that we have early Christian scholars such as Origen and Tertullian describing the method of Peter's death but not the origins. These accounts, however, are a century after the fact and not entirely reliable.

Andrew
According to tradition, Andrew was crucified on a saltire (an x-shaped cross) so as not to die in the same manner as Jesus. However, the source for this tradition is the Acts of Andrew (a work authored sometime between 150 and 200 CE). However, even early Biblical scholars such as Eusebius considered the Acts of Andrew to be unreliable. Modern Biblical scholars such as Francis Dvornik have also questioned the authenticity of Acts of Andrew. We, therefore, don't have any reliable information as to how Andrew died and cannot suggest that he was a martyr.

James, son of Zebedee
James is one of the few apostles who is listed as being killed in the Bible. According to Acts 12:1-3, Herod killed James with a sword. There is nothing in Acts to suggest that this death is anything other than a murder. Clement of Alexandria wrote that James was tried and executed as a martyr but since he was born 106 years after James' death, this account is unreliable.

John
John, even according to Christian tradition, is not considered to be a martyr. He is reported to have died in 100CE of old age.

Philip
Like Andrew, the only suggestion of the martyrdom of Philip is in a later work called the Acts of Philip (dated to the mid-to-late 4th century). However, like John, Catholic tradition holds that Philip was not martyred (or at least that his fate was unknown). The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Acts of Philip as a "tissue of fables".

Bartholomew
One of the more interesting apostle stories out there. There are many different stories surrounding Bartholomew's fate. One account suggests that he was crucified in Armenia, while another suggests he was beheaded in India. No writings of Bartholomew's fate exist prior to Eusebius and thus there is no reliable account of Bartholomew's death.

Matthew
The accounts of Matthew's fate are even more varied and unreliable than Bartholomew's. Most Christian scholars agree that the fate of Matthew is unknown. The Christian History Institute concludes that "we have nothing but legend about Matthew's death" while Catholic Online states that "nothing definite is known about his later life". Some sources in fact suggest that Matthew died a natural death.

Thomas
Some accounts including the apocryphal Acts of Thomas describe Thomas as having preached in India where he was stabbed to death with a spear. However, Eusebius dismisses the Acts of Thomas as unreliable. Furthermore, modern Catholic consensus holds that "it is difficult to discover any adequate support" to support the death of Thomas in India.

James the Less
The question to answer here is which James are we talking about. James is mentioned differently in different texts. James is identified by some sources with James, brother of Jesus, a tradition not held by Eastern Orthodox churches. This is unlikely since, according to John 7:5



"Even his own brothers didn't believe him."



Some accounts place his death in Egypt as a result of crucifixion while Josephus mentions that James was stoned by Pharisees (more on that later). There are numerous conflicting stories with no evidence to tip the balance in favour of any of them.

Thaddeus
Again it is difficult to know to what real person any of the stories refer. This apostle is named differently in Luke's Gospel than he is in Matthew's. Some accounts report that he was crucified in Armenia with Simon while others describe him being clubbed to death and others still say that he died of natural causes. However, none of these accounts have any corroborating textual evidence to support them and hence we know nothing of the fate of Thaddeus.

Simon the Zealot
No detail of the many conflicting reports of Simon's death seem to agree. His place of death has been reported as Persia, Edessa, Samria, Iberia, Colchis or even Britain. Some reports describe him being crucified while others say he was sawn in half. The source of this uncertainty is again an identity issue with Simon the Zealot being identified with other early Christian figures including Simeon of Jerusalem.

Judas Iscariot
It's nice to finish on an easy one. Judas' death is told twice in the New Testament such that both cannot be true or compatible. In Matthew 27:3-8 we are told that Judas, filled with remorse, gave back the 30 pieces of silver to the Pharisees whereupon he hanged himself. In Acts 1:18-19 Judas, takes the 30 pieces of silver and buys a potter's field and while walking across it:


"and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out"

So, even if we were able to resolve the contradiction in favour of Matthew's account or the one in Acts, neither story would count as a martyr's death.


As far as the apostles go, the only apostle that could even charitably be described as a martyr is Peter. The rest of the apostles were not deemed important enough to merit anything other than passing mentions in history. Even so, if we accept that Peter was crucified (and I'm not suggesting that we do) we only have descriptions of Peter's death. There are a multitude of questions remaining. In particular one question stands out: Did the authorities offer Peter a chance to recant? If Peter, or any of the other apostles for that matter died in circumstances where recanting would have saved them then that would speak to martyrdom but we have no evidence of any such incident.

In conclusion, we don't know how any of the apostles died, and as such cannot say that they died for their beliefs. Without martyrdom, we don't know how the apostles viewed their beliefs, false or otherwise.




3. On the historicity of the apostles.

So we've seen above that the evidence for the deaths of any of the apostles is weak, at best. However, the bigger question which more people are beginning to ask is, were the apostles even real people? In some cases there are apostles named in Paul's authentic writings, leading us to conclude that they were real people such as Peter and John. However, in other cases, there is fairly good evidence that the character is a fictional creation.


3a Judas
Judas is the most prominent fictional character of the twelve. Judas is introduced by Mark, who mentions him by name on just four occasions. His backstory is added to by Matthew who introduces a death story, lifted from the Old Testament in a botched attempt to portray it as a fulfilled prophecy (Matthew quotes from Zechariah 11 while attributing the quote to Jeremiah). However, when we look at the overall story of Judas as a disciple who betrays his leader and is punished, we find that this too is borrowed from the Old Testament. Throughout the New Testament Jesus is portrayed as the spiritual successor to and parallel of Elisha. In the synoptics and John, Jesus and Elisha share numerous biographical details including:

1. Inheriting his ministry from a previous prophet (Jesus from John the Baptist, Elisha from Elijah); John 1:22-28, 2 Kings 2:7-15
2. Healing a leper; Mark 1:40-45, 2 Kings 5
3. Makes something float on water (Jesus makes himself float, Elisha makes an axehead float); Matthew 14:22-33, 2 Kings 6:6
4. Performs a miracle of feeding the multitude; John 6:5-15, 2 Kings 4:42-44
5. Raises a child from the dead; Mark 5:22-42, 2 Kings 4:8-37

In the context of the Judas story we find the parallel story in 2 Kings 5:20-27, where Gehazi, a disciple of Elisha, motivated by greed, betrays Elisha by chasing after someone Elisha had commanded to be spared. When his betrayal is discovered he is punished (with leprosy).


Of course, it's not just the Old Testament that provides material for the story of Judas. There is a strange dichotomy in Mark's gospel surrounding Jesus' ministry and his subsequent arrest and betrayal. Right from the outset of Mark's gospel we are told that Jesus began preaching publicly in the synagogues:

" And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons."
Mark 1:39


Jesus attracts large crowds through his preaching and even publicly debates the Pharisees, answering questions designed to trap him. So it's strange, therefore, that the Pharisees need someone to identify Jesus for them. This is where Mark's overall plot comes into play. Throughout Mark's gospel Jesus is portrayed as a hidden hero, someone who has a series of adventures where only the reader knows who Jesus truly is. Even when people (or demons) recognise Jesus they are commanded to be silent. So Mark sets up a dramatic irony leading up to Jesus' eventual fate. The framework of this story is borrowed by Mark from the story of Odysseus as found in The Odyssey. Here too, Odysseus has a series of adventures and upon returning home, disguises himself as a beggar to infiltrate his home. Unlike Jesus, Odysseus is disguised and has been away for 10 years, so the suitors who have thought him dead really do need someone to identify him for them. Although Jesus doesn't really need to be identified, Mark keeps the identification of Jesus by Judas as a tip of the hat to his source material.


Ultimately, Judas is a tool, a plot device borrowed from the Old Testament and Greek literature to have Jesus set up as an innocent wrongfully executed.



3b James & John, The Sons of Zebedee
James and John are brothers, sons of Zebedee, fishermen who are recruited by Jesus to be disciples. However, James & John aren't just brothers, they seem to be completely inseparable. In the synoptic gospels (they only receive one mention in John as the sons of Zebedee), James and John are mentioned together 18 times. In the overwhelming majority of these references (16 out of 18), they are referenced as James and John, not the other way around. Further, in only one place in the New Testament (Luke 22:8) is one mentioned without the other. In any story in the gospels where James & John are mentioned as characters, they are always portrayed as a single character.
So what I hear you ask? Well, the portrait of James and John becomes clear in an interaction between them and Jesus:

"James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory."

Given the prominence of the right hand being the favoured position in places like Matthew 26:64

"Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

it's very odd that neither brother seems to be clamouring to be placed at the right hand side. They seem to be happy with either side. However, when we consider Mark's propensity to borrow material from Greek literature and mythology to construct his gospel, the answer becomes clearer.
In Greek mythology we encounter the story of Castor and Polydeuces (Pollux in Latin) the twin sons of Zeus. As twins, Castor and Pollux rarely feature in stories by themselves. They are known by many names including the Tyndaridae (since Castor was the son of Tyndareus) and the Dioscuri (literally God's boys). Castor and Pollux are born in two eggs by Leda, one egg containing Castor and Clytemnestra fathered by the mortal Tyndareus and the other Pollux and Helen fathered by Zeus. Thus we have a mortal and an immortal brother (like Elrond and Elros in LOTR). Eventually Castor is killed and Pollux decides to share his immortality with his brother. From then on, the brothers really are inseparable (being transformed in Roman myth into the constellation Gemini). In Greek and Roman art, Castor and Pollux are frequently depicted either side of a God as in this depiction of them with Juno:



Similar depictions exist of Castor and Pollux flanking other gods and immortals including Helen, Zeus, Astarte, Serapis, Saturn and Jupiter. The depiction is identical to the request from James and John above in Mark 10:35-37. Mark, as in many other of his borrowed stories can't resist eventually giving his readers a hint as to where the story is borrowed from. In Mark 3:17 Mark makes the following comment:

"and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, “Sons of Thunder”);"

As mentioned earlier, one of the names given to Castor and Pollux was the Dioscuri which is literally translated as God's boys but in context is best translated as sons of Zeus or, since Zeus was the God of Thunder, sons of Thunder.

James and John are a tip of the hat to Greek mythology to flesh out the cast of the gospel about whom nothing much seems to have been known.


4. On the unreliability of the gospels

As I have outlined in previous posts on various threads the gospels are not reliable historical accounts for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, internal contradictions, external contradictions, factual errors, anonymity, later additions/changes and the gap between their composition and the events they depict.
However, it bears repeating here that the gospels aren't even intended to be historical or eyewitness accounts. Among the many reasons for this are:

1. The gospels make little or no attempt to identify the sources they draw upon in writing their stories. (e.g. Luke mentions that he draws on sources but does not name them)
2. The later gospel authors make no attempt to resolve contradictions with earlier works (e.g. Luke makes no attempt to reconcile his nativity narrative with Matthew's)
3. The author does not place himself in the story.
4. The gospels are written for the common man rather than the social and literary elite audience of Greek and Roman histories/biographies.
5. The gospels contain far too many hagiographical elements to be historically reliable.
6. There is no attempt to warn the reader that certain events or words may not be recorded clearly. None of the gospel authors make any attempt to identify where they speculate on content.
7. The interdependence of the gospels makes them unlike the historical writings of the time.
8. Unusual events disappear from the wider narrative. The aftermath of the graves opening in Matthew is not discussed in any other text.

Moreover, the layout of the gospels themselves align better with fictional novels that of historical accounts. Mark, for example, employs dramatic irony and an omniscient narrator, uncharacteristic of a historical retelling. The gospels also employ dialogue at a much higher level than historical accounts of the day. Acts reports the highest usage with 51% of the overall text being made up of direct speech. The gospels have a slightly lower but similar proportion. This aligns well with Jewish novels of the day (Judith 50%, Susanna 46%) but stands in marked contrast to historical accounts and biographies: (Josephus’ Jewish War I: 8.8%, Plutarch’s Alexander: 12.1%; Tacitus’ Agricola: 11.5%).

All of this has lead a number of scholars to conclude that the gospels are intended to be theological fictional novels rather than reliable histories:

Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (Ronald Hock)
Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (Jo-Ann Brant)
The Ancient Novel and Early Christian and Jewish Narrative: Fictional Intersections (Marilia Pinheiro)
Profit With Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Richard Pervo)
The Problem of Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel (Michael Vines)
What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Richard Burridge)
The Homeric Epics and the gospel of Mark (Dennis MacDonald)
Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre


5. The real answer?

So, if Jesus wasn't resurrected then what motivated the apostles at all? The real answer is we don't know. It's more than just we don't know what motivated the apostles it's that we don't know what actually happened either before or after the crucifixion.
If Jesus really existed and really was crucified then the best explanation for the apostles remaining faith is cognitive dissonance management. This topic has been discussed in detail by psychologist Lorne L. Dawson here:

When prophecy fails and faith persists

However, given how little of the gospels contain actual verifiable biographical information about Jesus, the alternate idea, that Jesus was a solely mythical persona, someone who people believed was a celestial being but would eventually be incarnated in the flesh must be considered. This portrays the apostles and their preaching in a different light entirely. Originally a fringe theory, the work of people like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Earl Doherty and to a lesser extent J.D. Crossan, Mark Goodacre and Denis MacDonald, the theory has started to gain credibility. Don't get me wrong, for every piece of persuasive evidence the theory offers it throws up an unanswered question, but it is at least plausible.


The TLDR is this, we don't really know how any of the apostles died and if many of them existed in the first place. The only accounts of their lives are either anonymous fictional creations or books written hundreds of years after their deaths. The idea that their exploits and lives offer any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is pure fantasy.

pauldla

Oldrnwisr, please write a book.