Micheal Nugent V WC

That is totally fascinating Oldrnwisr, thank you for that.

pauldla

Oldrnwisr, please write a book.

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/

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.
The introduction of Nathanael by John, not mentioned by any other source.
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:

Peter (Simon Peter)
Andrew
James, son of Zebedee
John, brother of James
Philip
Bartholomew/Nathanael, son of Talemai
Matthew
Thomas
James (James the Less, James the Just), son of Alphaeus
Thaddeus/Lebbaeus/Jude
Simon the Zealot/Cananean (Simeon of Jerusalem)
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:

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

rc3b6mermuseum_osterburken_derhexer_2012-09-30_038-castores.jpg?w=300&h=243

rc3b6mermuseum_osterburken_derhexer_2012-09-30_038-castores.jpg?w=300&h=243

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:

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)
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)
The author does not place himself in the story.
The gospels are written for the common man rather than the social and literary elite audience of Greek and Roman histories/biographies.
The gospels contain far too many hagiographical elements to be historically reliable.
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.
The interdependence of the gospels makes them unlike the historical writings of the time.
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.

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.

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

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 !

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/

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.:)

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) !!!!

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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 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.:)

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.

robindch

J C wrote: »

What would convince you, Robin?

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

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 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.

robindch

^^^ Not a convincing reply, JC.

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.