(July 29, 2019 at 4:29 pm)Drich Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 3:02 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If Drich can name all 12 apostles, I'll agree to his deal.

Boru

who's apostles?

the word apostles simply means a servant sent out under orders.

If you are referring to the apostles of Christ there are a few lists in whom is to be considered an apostle and who is not. one list is left in a gospel but out of the names given very little is known about everything these men did. A few consider them apostle by name only. and then there are men who in the book of acts where actually recorded in doing what Jesus commands. a promiate name to this list is Paul/saul of tarsus. at the time of Jesus' death he was a staunch Pharisee and hunted down christians to have them killed/stoned. Till Jesus himself intervened. while not apart of the original 12 disciples (which included judas iscariot) who hanged himself for betraying Jesus and did not become an apostle, the 11 elected another of the disciples (christ had many not just the 12 at the end of his ministry there were 120 disciples.) how ever in luke 6 the original names are listed which include judas iscariot who again betrayed jesus and died by his own hand.

 then two men were nominated in to replace judas from the 120 close/serious disciples (men who sold everything and follow jesus out of faith and was there at the baptism and witnessed the resurrection)  those two where Matthias and  Joseph called Barsabbas and according to acts 1. Matthias won this right to be identified as Judas' replacement. Again however little is known about these twelve out side of church lore. the bible seems to take a different direction in naming the Apstoles of Christ which begins with paul and follows his lot as identified by luke. in the book of acts.

So again who's Apostles.. 

then if Christ which list?

Jesus compiled a list at the beginning of his ministry found in all of the gospels which includes judas..

The remaining 11 had a list of names in acts one after the ascension and the death of judas..

and again by deed there is yet another list of Paul luke timothy in conjunction with some of the original church all who worked to establish the lords Church as it is today.

So before I assume, I would like more info to clear up any confusion as per my new mandate.

So, you can't name the twelve Apostles.  Thought as much. Fair enough.  If makes it easier for you, I'll settle for the twelve named Disciples of Jesus of Nazareth.

Boru

Larry, Mo, Curly.

John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Dave, Dee, Dozy, Mick and Tich.

(July 29, 2019 at 7:51 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Larry, Mo, Curly.

John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Dave, Dee, Dozy, Mick and Tich.

I thought they were Spanky, Gurkin,  Embele, Jeremy, Lenny, George, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, Dopey, and Doc, plus Rumpelbold who betrayed jebus according to the gospels of spanky, sneezy, dopey and lenny?

(July 29, 2019 at 6:02 pm)Drich Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 4:23 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: I am an engineer since the mid 90s and understood thermodynamic laws since the mid 80s. You didn't even know it's not 'thermal dynamics' since a few posts ago.

So who do you think you are fooling with your cheap bluffs?
But by all means, please continue to demonstrate that you have earned the title of village idiot.

So please tell me how what I said violates the 2nd law..

You are the village idiot. Mathilda has already made a nice summary of what has happened here and the lunacy you are engaged in here. 

I do not have the time nor the interest of engaging erratic village idiots in serious conversation. You are no threat, teacher or challenge, you are a punching ball. I punch the ball when i feel i want to, i do not argue with it.

You arent happy with not being taken serious? Stop being erratic, stop lying, stop strwamanning, stop your oh-so-transparent over inflation of yourself. You know, smart people can pretend to be stupid, you are trying it the other way around. Stop being a dick, start being a (somewhat) decent poster. I do not have to like the people i am engaging in discourse, but i have to respect them. You have done pretty much nothing to warrant my respect, its quite the other way around. I dont even have a problem with the ignorant, but with those who like to stay ignorant.

Sweet baby Jesus, how many threads are you going to make about this?

I've talked it over with everyone and we agree to your deal. :-)

(July 29, 2019 at 6:06 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 5:27 pm)Drich Wrote: I was an atheist..

[snip]

... then went into atheism for a long long time. Then I heard that christians had direct access to God, so I demanded a meeting to every christian that went to my high school via my fists and boots. I wanted to spit in his eye.. maybe take a poke at him..

How could you have wanted to spit in God's eye and take a poke at something that if you didn't believe he existed?

You do not have to believe in the christian God to tell a christian he is being beaten because the things he says God will do hasn't been done. nor do you have to believe in God to tell that christian he will continue to get those beatings till God answers your request. I was not about my belief it was about making the christian change his.

Quote:This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You weren't an atheist.You just weren't following any particular religion.

Unlike most of you I under went some seriously traumatic events that convinced me there could not be a God. Or rather not a God I was ever told about. as a result it enraged me to hear about a god of love to the point where I wanted to fight anyone who claimed other wise.

Quote:Either you did not believe a god existed, or you did but were angry at it. You can't have both.

kinda can. getting corn holed as a kid at a public spring kinda sets up proof that a all loving God who is all powerful would allow something so bad to happen to someone who's biggest sin was being in the wrong place at the wrong time unsupervised. This simply separates me from my idea of what God was. knew nothing like what i understood could exist. what pissed me off was the preacher types who would not shut up about this all loving all powerful God.

Look at some of my first posts here this theme has been with me from the beginning. in that God does not love you a least in the way you understand love. I though then like most of you now God's love should be all encompassing. and when what happened happened I was shown no such God exists I still know this to be true.. My mistake like yours was to assume my understand of God as a child is the only possible version of God there could be. That is why a taunted and beat those other kids. My anger was with them so I took what was sacred and taunted them with it. I wanted them to feel the pain of knowing there is no God of all love and power coming to save you.
So yeah I could know there was no god and I could hate the very mentioning of that idea.

---

(July 29, 2019 at 6:02 pm)Drich Wrote: So please tell me how what I said violates the 2nd law..

Quote:What you have said has changed so many times, you need to be specific about what you described. First you say you invented a perpetual motion machine, then you try to redefine what a perpetual motion machine is, and then you claim it was a ruse yet still refer to it as a perpetual motion machine.

No. nothing was ever changed. this shows you where confused. I said I have an idea for a perpetual motion machine or (PMM). I first looked up the definition of Perpetual motion or PM this is the definition from google:
Dictionary
Search for a word
per·pet·u·al mo·tion
/pərˈpeCH(əw)əl ˈmōSHən/
noun
a state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing.
"the planet is in perpetual motion"
the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear.
"the age-old quest for the secret of perpetual motion".

my machine fits this broad defination for PM

it how ever does not fit the defination for a PMM a PMM does not have a fuel source. when I orginally look up the word to build out my arguement I just looked up PM which is posted above. then in defence of my arguement I went to post the defination a day later and I looked up PMM and saw where my machine fails as a PMM.

But here's the thing NOT ONE of you even looked up the defination for a PMM.

rather I got 4 days of personal insult and faux science and badly explained references to the 2nd law of TD. Not because any of you truly understand it as it is obvious in your efforts to try and apply the law to the known tech my machine currently uses in other applications which DO NOT violate such law.

Then my reveal was to show what I had said in the OP was 100% true and every last one of you fell for it. every last one of you defaulted to this mean spirited facts and truth be damned I am just going to argue for the sake of argument, and not one of you ever researched any of this. you just took what you thought you knew and was throwing crap against the wall to see what would stick. Everything I said was well researched and my citations describe known science and technology.. so again what where any of your trying to argue with the second law of TD? again everything is already working in one way or another in the energy production industry. none of what I said was theoretical not even the hole, the heat exchanger not the closed loop coolant capture system I took how a typical geothermal plant works and married with with a nuclear power plant works to save water/coolant but took the heat source of the earth rather than nuclear fission to boil the water that turns the turbines. Again all of this exists I was just putting this idea together with the hole russia dug. that potentially puts a geothermal plant any where on the planet. That is how my idea is different.

Quote:A perpetual motion machine violates the second law of thermodynamics as has been stated already in this thread.

but again if my machine was not a PMM by definition then your argument that points to the 2nd law is moot is it not?
But again not one of you after 5 days of personal insult was smart enough to look up the proper defination like I did.

So how do I know you guys are almost always wrong and me right? because of what was demonstrated here. you all rely on how smart you are and look nothing up. I know I know nothing and look everything up in triplicate. So as not to bee fooled by old data or someone's personal thoughts.

Quote:What you described was not a perpetual motion machine and therefore does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

... right and why did you not know this before my big reveal in post 207 of the first thread?

Quote:If you are claiming that your idea is a perpetual motion machine then you are then one claiming that it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

At the moment you're just trying to make a huge strawman argument and fooling nobody.

this is you trying to be on the smart side of my little experiment. However all you posts especially the ones after 207 show how deeply invested you where in your original 2nd law argument and had no idea that you where being set up to fail.

---

(July 29, 2019 at 7:42 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 4:29 pm)Drich Wrote: who's apostles?

the word apostles simply means a servant sent out under orders.

If you are referring to the apostles of Christ there are a few lists in whom is to be considered an apostle and who is not. one list is left in a gospel but out of the names given very little is known about everything these men did. A few consider them apostle by name only. and then there are men who in the book of acts where actually recorded in doing what Jesus commands. a promiate name to this list is Paul/saul of tarsus. at the time of Jesus' death he was a staunch Pharisee and hunted down christians to have them killed/stoned. Till Jesus himself intervened. while not apart of the original 12 disciples (which included judas iscariot) who hanged himself for betraying Jesus and did not become an apostle, the 11 elected another of the disciples (christ had many not just the 12 at the end of his ministry there were 120 disciples.) how ever in luke 6 the original names are listed which include judas iscariot who again betrayed jesus and died by his own hand.

 then two men were nominated in to replace judas from the 120 close/serious disciples (men who sold everything and follow jesus out of faith and was there at the baptism and witnessed the resurrection)  those two where Matthias and  Joseph called Barsabbas and according to acts 1. Matthias won this right to be identified as Judas' replacement. Again however little is known about these twelve out side of church lore. the bible seems to take a different direction in naming the Apstoles of Christ which begins with paul and follows his lot as identified by luke. in the book of acts.

So again who's Apostles.. 

then if Christ which list?

Jesus compiled a list at the beginning of his ministry found in all of the gospels which includes judas..

The remaining 11 had a list of names in acts one after the ascension and the death of judas..

and again by deed there is yet another list of Paul luke timothy in conjunction with some of the original church all who worked to establish the lords Church as it is today.

So before I assume, I would like more info to clear up any confusion as per my new mandate.

So, you can't name the twelve Apostles.  Thought as much. Fair enough.  If makes it easier for you, I'll settle for the twelve named Disciples of Jesus of Nazareth.

Boru

again just wanting clarity because there is more than one list. how ever the popular list of disciples can be found in luke 6,  mat 10 mark 3

mat 10
First there were Simon Peter and his brother Andrew.
Then came James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John.
3 Next were Philip and Bartholomew,
and also Thomas and Matthew the tax collector.
Two more were James, son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus.

luke 6:
14 Simon, whom Jesus named Peter, and his brother Andrew

James

John

Philip

Bartholomew

15 Matthew

Thomas

James, son of Alphaeus

Simon who was called the Zealot

16 Judas, son of James
and Judas Iscariot who would later hand Jesus over to his enemies
4 The last were Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. Judas was the one who was later going to hand Jesus over to his enemies.

mark3
16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

So why do the names appear differently?
it depended on who wrote them. a Jew would refer to the jews by their Jewish name a roman by their common names. So who where the twelve? again depends on what source because both are right. Why does it sound wrong? because your whole identity is wrapped up in a single or a et of names that do not change. to them names where titles and a way to tell a person who you where. and depending on the culture you would adopt different names because that culture saw or identified with different points of strength and weakness. Think of GOT. who was daenerys targaryen? who was dani targaryen who was khaleesi, who was the mother of dragons who was the breaker of chains who was the one true queen of westerose? they got this chain of names from antiquity Jesus himself had servral different names
in fact there are at least 50 names given to Christ. all of them to them in that time as legit as the name his mother gave if not more so because they described who and what he was.

So who where the twelve? out of these lists comes a common or understood list of twelve is shared by Mathew chapter 10 He was a jew and referred to them by the names any jew would identify them as.

(July 30, 2019 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 6:06 pm)Mathilda Wrote: How could you have wanted to spit in God's eye and take a poke at something that if you didn't believe he existed?

You do not have to believe in the christian God to tell a christian he is being beaten because the things he says God will do hasn't been done. nor do you have to believe in God to tell that christian he will continue to get those beatings till God answers your request. I was not about my belief it was about making the christian change his.

Quote:This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You weren't an atheist.You just weren't following any particular religion.

Unlike most of you I under went some seriously traumatic events that convinced me there could not be a God. Or rather not a God I was ever told about. as a result it enraged me to hear about a god of love to the point where I wanted to fight anyone who claimed other wise.

Quote:Either you did not believe a god existed, or you did but were angry at it. You can't have both.

kinda can. getting corn holed as a kid at a public spring kinda sets up proof that a all loving God who is all powerful would allow something so bad to happen to someone who's biggest sin was being in the wrong place at the wrong time unsupervised. This simply separates me from my idea of what God was. knew nothing like what i understood could exist. what pissed me off was the preacher types who would not shut up about this all loving all powerful God.

Look at some of my first posts here this theme has been with me from the beginning. in that God does not love you a least in the way you understand love. I though then like most of you now God's love should be all encompassing. and when what happened happened I was shown no such God exists I still know this to be true.. My mistake like yours was to assume my understand of God as a child is the only possible version of God there could be. That is why a taunted and beat those other kids. My anger was with them so I took what was sacred and taunted them with it. I wanted them to feel the pain of knowing there is no God of all love and power coming to save you.
So yeah I could know there was no god and I could hate the very mentioning of that idea.

---

(July 29, 2019 at 6:02 pm)Drich Wrote: So please tell me how what I said violates the 2nd law..

Quote:What you have said has changed so many times, you need to be specific about what you described. First you say you invented a perpetual motion machine, then you try to redefine what a perpetual motion machine is, and then you claim it was a ruse yet still refer to it as a perpetual motion machine.

No. nothing was ever changed. this shows you where confused. I said I have an idea for a perpetual motion machine or (PMM). I first looked up the definition of Perpetual motion or PM this is the definition from google:
Dictionary
Search for a word
per·pet·u·al mo·tion
/pərˈpeCH(əw)əl ˈmōSHən/
noun
a state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing.
"the planet is in perpetual motion"
the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear.
"the age-old quest for the secret of perpetual motion".

my machine fits this broad defination for PM

it how ever does not fit the defination for a PMM a PMM does not have a fuel source. when I orginally look up the word to build out my arguement I just looked up PM which is posted above. then in defence of my arguement I went to post the defination a day later and I looked up PMM and saw where my machine fails as a PMM.

But here's the thing NOT ONE of you even looked up the defination for a PMM.

rather I got 4 days of personal insult and faux science and badly explained references to the 2nd law of TD. Not because any of you truly understand it as it is obvious in your efforts to try and apply the law to the known tech my machine currently uses in other applications which DO NOT violate such law.

Then my reveal was to show what I had said in the OP was 100% true and every last one of you fell for it. every last one of you defaulted to this mean spirited facts and truth be damned I am just going to argue for the sake of argument, and not one of you ever researched any of this. you just took what you thought you knew and was throwing crap against the wall to see what would stick. Everything I said was well researched and my citations describe known science and technology.. so again what where any of your trying to argue with the second law of TD? again everything is already working in one way or another in the energy production industry. none of what I said was theoretical not even the hole, the heat exchanger not the closed loop coolant capture system I took how a typical geothermal plant works and married with with a nuclear power plant works to save water/coolant but took the heat source of the earth rather than nuclear fission to boil the water that turns the turbines. Again all of this exists I was just putting this idea together with the hole russia dug. that potentially puts a geothermal plant any where on the planet. That is how my idea is different.

Quote:A perpetual motion machine violates the second law of thermodynamics as has been stated already in this thread.

but again if my machine was not a PMM by definition then your argument that points to the 2nd law is moot is it not?
But again not one of you after 5 days of personal insult was smart enough to look up the proper defination like I did.

So how do I know you guys are almost always wrong and me right? because of what was demonstrated here. you all rely on how smart you are and look nothing up. I know I know nothing and look everything up in triplicate. So as not to bee fooled by old data or someone's personal thoughts.

Quote:What you described was not a perpetual motion machine and therefore does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

... right and why did you not know this before my big reveal in post 207 of the first thread?

Quote:If you are claiming that your idea is a perpetual motion machine then you are then one claiming that it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

At the moment you're just trying to make a huge strawman argument and fooling nobody.

this is you trying to be on the smart side of my little experiment. However all you posts especially the ones after 207 show how deeply invested you where in your original 2nd law argument and had no idea that you where being set up to fail.

---

(July 29, 2019 at 7:42 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: So, you can't name the twelve Apostles.  Thought as much. Fair enough.  If makes it easier for you, I'll settle for the twelve named Disciples of Jesus of Nazareth.

Boru

again just wanting clarity because there is more than one list. how ever the popular list of disciples can be found in luke 6,  mat 10 mark 3

mat 10
First there were Simon Peter and his brother Andrew.
Then came James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John.
3 Next were Philip and Bartholomew,
and also Thomas and Matthew the tax collector.
Two more were James, son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus.

luke 6:
14 Simon, whom Jesus named Peter, and his brother Andrew

James

John

Philip

Bartholomew

15 Matthew

Thomas

James, son of Alphaeus

Simon who was called the Zealot

16 Judas, son of James
and Judas Iscariot who would later hand Jesus over to his enemies
4 The last were Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. Judas was the one who was later going to hand Jesus over to his enemies.

mark3
16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

So why do the names appear differently?
it depended on who wrote them. a Jew would refer to the jews by their Jewish name a roman by their common names. So who where the twelve? again depends on what source because both are right. Why does it sound wrong? because your whole identity is wrapped up in a single or a et of names that do not change. to them names where titles and a way to tell a person who you where. and depending on the culture you would adopt different names because that culture saw or identified with different points of strength and weakness. Think of GOT. who was daenerys targaryen? who was dani targaryen who was khaleesi, who was the mother of dragons who was the breaker of chains who was the one true queen of westerose? they got this chain of names from antiquity Jesus himself had servral different names
in fact there are at least 50 names given to Christ. all of them to them in that time as legit as the name his mother gave if not more so because they described who and what he was.

So who where the twelve? out of these lists comes a common or understood list of twelve is shared by Mathew chapter 10 He was a jew and referred to them by the names any jew would identify them as.

None of those are correct.  Would you like to have another go?

Boru

(July 30, 2019 at 2:54 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 6:02 pm)Drich Wrote: So please tell me how what I said violates the 2nd law..

You are the village idiot. Mathilda has already made a nice summary of what has happened here and the lunacy you are engaged in here. 

I do not have the time nor the interest of engaging erratic village idiots in serious conversation. You are no threat, teacher or challenge, you are a punching ball. I punch the ball when i feel i want to, i do not argue with it.

You arent happy with not being taken serious? Stop being erratic, stop lying, stop strwamanning, stop your oh-so-transparent over inflation of yourself. You know, smart people can pretend to be stupid, you are trying it the other way around. Stop being a dick, start being a (somewhat) decent poster. I do not have to like the people i am engaging in discourse, but i have to respect them. You have done pretty much nothing to warrant my respect, its quite the other way around. I dont even have a problem with the ignorant, but with those who like to stay ignorant.

again you are still proving me correct. I asked you twice for your personal expert analysis as an engineer and you have failed both time rather defaulting to name calling and ad hoc personal attacks. Even after I showed you how predictable you all where here you are the only one who still does not understand how you were just outed by me. i can not believe non of your peers has trying to help you yet. them must also think very poorly of you if they let you just keep going on and on about a subject they have all left 3 threads back.

---

(July 30, 2019 at 11:09 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 30, 2019 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: You do not have to believe in the christian God to tell a christian he is being beaten because the things he says God will do hasn't been done. nor do you have to believe in God to tell that christian he will continue to get those beatings till God answers your request. I was not about my belief it was about making the christian change his.
Unlike most of you I under went some seriously traumatic events that convinced me there could not be a God. Or rather not a God I was ever told about. as a result it enraged me to hear about a god of love to the point where I wanted to fight anyone who claimed other wise.

kinda can. getting corn holed as a kid at a public spring kinda sets up proof that a all loving God who is all powerful would allow something so bad to happen to someone who's biggest sin was being in the wrong place at the wrong time unsupervised. This simply separates me from my idea of what God was. knew nothing like what i understood could exist. what pissed me off was the preacher types who would not shut up about this all loving all powerful God.

Look at some of my first posts here this theme has been with me from the beginning. in that God does not love you a least in the way you understand love. I though then like most of you now God's love should be all encompassing. and when what happened happened I was shown no such God exists I still know this to be true.. My mistake like yours was to assume my understand of God as a child is the only possible version of God there could be. That is why a taunted and beat those other kids. My anger was with them so I took what was sacred and taunted them with it. I wanted them to feel the pain of knowing there is no God of all love and power coming to save you.
So yeah I could know there was no god and I could hate the very mentioning of that idea.

---

No. nothing was ever changed. this shows you where confused. I said I have an idea for a perpetual motion machine or (PMM). I first looked up the definition of Perpetual motion or PM this is the definition from google:
Dictionary
Search for a word
per·pet·u·al mo·tion
/pərˈpeCH(əw)əl ˈmōSHən/
noun
a state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing.
"the planet is in perpetual motion"
the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear.
"the age-old quest for the secret of perpetual motion".

my machine fits this broad defination for PM

it how ever does not fit the defination for a PMM a PMM does not have a fuel source. when I orginally look up the word to build out my arguement I just looked up PM which is posted above. then in defence of my arguement I went to post the defination a day later and I looked up PMM and saw where my machine fails as a PMM.

But here's the thing NOT ONE of you even looked up the defination for a PMM.

rather I got 4 days of personal insult and faux science and badly explained references to the 2nd law of TD. Not because any of you truly understand it as it is obvious in your efforts to try and apply the law to the known tech my machine currently uses in other applications which DO NOT violate such law.

Then my reveal was to show what I had said in the OP was 100% true and every last one of you fell for it. every last one of you defaulted to this mean spirited facts and truth be damned I am just going to argue for the sake of argument, and not one of you ever researched any of this. you just took what you thought you knew and was throwing crap against the wall to see what would stick. Everything I said was well researched and my citations describe known science and technology.. so again what where any of your trying to argue with the second law of TD? again everything is already working in one way or another in the energy production industry. none of what I said was theoretical not even the hole, the heat exchanger not the closed loop coolant capture system I took how a typical geothermal plant works and married with with a nuclear power plant works to save water/coolant but took the heat source of the earth rather than nuclear fission to boil the water that turns the turbines. Again all of this exists I was just putting this idea together with the hole russia dug. that potentially puts a geothermal plant any where on the planet. That is how my idea is different.

but again if my machine was not a PMM by definition then your argument that points to the 2nd law is moot is it not?
But again not one of you after 5 days of personal insult was smart enough to look up the proper defination like I did.

So how do I know you guys are almost always wrong and me right? because of what was demonstrated here. you all rely on how smart you are and look nothing up. I know I know nothing and look everything up in triplicate. So as not to bee fooled by old data or someone's personal thoughts.
... right and why did you not know this before my big reveal in post 207 of the first thread?

this is you trying to be on the smart side of my little experiment. However all you posts especially the ones after 207 show how deeply invested you where in your original 2nd law argument and had no idea that you where being set up to fail.

---

again just wanting clarity because there is more than one list. how ever the popular list of disciples can be found in luke 6,  mat 10 mark 3

mat 10
First there were Simon Peter and his brother Andrew.
Then came James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John.
3 Next were Philip and Bartholomew,
and also Thomas and Matthew the tax collector.
Two more were James, son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus.

luke 6:
14 Simon, whom Jesus named Peter, and his brother Andrew

James

John

Philip

Bartholomew

15 Matthew

Thomas

James, son of Alphaeus

Simon who was called the Zealot

16 Judas, son of James
and Judas Iscariot who would later hand Jesus over to his enemies
4 The last were Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. Judas was the one who was later going to hand Jesus over to his enemies.

mark3
16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

So why do the names appear differently?
it depended on who wrote them. a Jew would refer to the jews by their Jewish name a roman by their common names. So who where the twelve? again depends on what source because both are right. Why does it sound wrong? because your whole identity is wrapped up in a single or a et of names that do not change. to them names where titles and a way to tell a person who you where. and depending on the culture you would adopt different names because that culture saw or identified with different points of strength and weakness. Think of GOT. who was daenerys targaryen? who was dani targaryen who was khaleesi, who was the mother of dragons who was the breaker of chains who was the one true queen of westerose? they got this chain of names from antiquity Jesus himself had servral different names
in fact there are at least 50 names given to Christ. all of them to them in that time as legit as the name his mother gave if not more so because they described who and what he was.

So who where the twelve? out of these lists comes a common or understood list of twelve is shared by Mathew chapter 10 He was a jew and referred to them by the names any jew would identify them as.

None of those are correct.  Would you like to have another go?

Boru

If you have any exegetical knowledge then please do share with proper references. otherwise final answer.

This is hilarious.