I know it's a logical fallacy to think that a lack of evidence makes something true or false. What I'm asking you for is some kind of substantiation of your claim. The evidence we have weighs in favor of the existence of the 12.

* We have biblical and plausible extrabiblical evidence of the existence of people like Peter, Paul, James, and John.
* We have widespread exgrabiblical traditions of at least some evidence of Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James, Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot.
* We have biblical evidence of the 12.

As far as I know, there is no evidence to dispute their existence, and that's what I'm asking you for. If you think they didn't exist, please substantiate your claim. If you are unable to make a case, then the weight of evidence favors their historicity.

I know you're challenging their motives. I have shown you that the notion of a grand and longitudinal conspiracy is implausible. Then you questioned whether these guys even existed. I have shown you that the weight of evidence is in favor of their historicity, unless you can show otherwise.

If conspiracy is implausible, and you don't like the idea that they were sincere men motivated by a historical Jesus who experienced a physical resurrection, then we need to discuss other theories that come to your mind.

Logical fallacy. Having a lack of evidence doesn't make something true or false. I'm challenging the motives of people who started a very successful church.

Since we have good evidence for the 3, what evidence would make you question the existence of the other 9? What's your case to claim they possibly or even plausibly didn't exist?

Yeah, and the historicity of all 12 apostles is sketchy. It looks like 3 probably existed.

The probability (not proof) that no conspiracy existed was elaborated in previous posts that the dynamics of a successful conspiracy are implausible in this situation. When we look at the attributes of a successful conspiracy, the factors in this case don't qualify. A successful conspiracy by the 11 apostles is implausible to impossible.

My evidence about Peter and the other apostles was in response to your query calling into question the historicity of the apostles themselves, not pertaining to the implausibility of a conspiracy.

There is enough evidence here to conclude that Peter existed and likely was executed. I'm going to take your word that the this is correctly transcribed from the sources. How does this prove that no conspiracy could have existed?

I actually study more out of books than I do on the Internet. I gave you some of the references, but only a few. Let's see, at least the first set:

Clement of Rome, on the execution of Peter (chapter V: The martyrdom of Peter and Paul): "Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him."

Clement of Alexandria (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1) puts Peter in Rome: "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed."

Ignatius, allusion to the execution of Peter (Letter to the Romans, chapter 4, a chapter about his own partyrdom): "I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did."

Dionysius of Corinth (Fragments from a letter to the Roman church, section 3): "Therefore you also have by such admonition joined in close union the churches that were planted by Peter and Paul, that of the Romans and that of the Corinthians: for both of them went to our Corinth, and taught us in the same way as they taught you when they went to Italy; and having taught you, they suffered martyrdom at the same time."

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3, section 2) wrote that Peter was one of the founders of the church of Rome: "...by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul..."

Tertullian (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]): "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, ie. by being beheaded)."

I hope those help.

So I'm seeing a lot of stuff here, but when I looked some of it up, I found different stuff. Maybe you could provide some links to something where I could actually follow along? I realize that you've posted a lot of stuff. To save you time, can you just lead with whatever you think is your best evidence?

Thanks for the discussion.

> What is the evidence btw? (about the apostles)

* There is extrabiblical evidence for the execution of James in Clement of Rome.
* The evidence for Peter's martyrdom is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more.
* The evidence for John is Polycrates (end of 2nd c.), Irenaeus (AD 180), and possibly Papias.
* The evidence for the others is, as I said, a small amount of tradition, varying in its reliability.

> Strawman. I never said they put a pseudonym on them.

I never claimed you said that, nor was my argument a straw man. It wasn't even an argument. It was a tidbit of information that was interesting, but not part of my case.

> Well first, 2-5 years is plenty of time to make up a story

You were arguing that such stories could have been made up much much later. My argument was that they were established within the first 5 years. Of course 2-5 years is plenty of time to make up a story; so is 2-5 minutes. But the fact is that there was a widespread narrative of Jesus physically rising from the dead within 2-5 years of the resurrection, arguing against your point that such things were part of a later-century conspiracy.

> Second, I'd love to hear who those scholars are and do more research. Where did you find these opinions?

Gary Habermas, Gerd Theissen, Gert Ludemann, Annette Merz, Charles Koester, Richard Burridge and Graham Gould, James Dunn, Michael Goulder, Hays, Herschel Shanks and Witherington, Alexander Wedderburn, Norman Geisler, Mike Licona, Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide, and the Jesus Seminar.

> I mean... less people make for a better conspiracy right?

It's not fewer people. It's still 11 people, just that 4 of them are related (though James was executed in AD 44). The point is that none of them ever recanted the story, from the first death in AD 44 until the last (possibly in the 90s).

> Where are the sources behind this stuff?

See above.

> Nero

The extent of Christian persecution under Nero is debated. It is Tacitus who wrote that Nero engaged in wholesale persecution of Christians to blame them for the fire of Rome.

* Clement of Rome (AD 96): Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 5
* Ignatius (AD 100): Epistle to the Romans, indicates Peter's presence in Rome at the time
* Dionysius of Corinth (171): "You (Pope Soter) have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."
* Irenaeus (180): writes that Peter served the church in Rome
* Tertullian (195): "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, ie. by being beheaded)."

Doesn't sound like legend to me.

> There were actually 4 Gospel writers, and 11 surviving apostles after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The corroborating evidence is mixed.

> James, John, and Peter are fairly certain. Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James, Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot there is a small amount of tradition about them, varying in its reliability. Little to nothing is known about Matthew

Neat. What is the evidence btw?

> It's intriguing that no one would really think to attribute Gospels to Matthew, Mark, and Luke if they were going to put a pseudonym on them. There would be no value in that.

Straw man. I never said they put a pseudonym on them.

> History tells the story differently. The text of 1 Cor. 15.3-5 has been examined by scholars of all stripes, cynical and believer, atheist and Christian, skeptical and apologist. It has been deemed to have been written no more than 2-5 years after Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection, proving that the teaching of Jesus's resurrection ("the conspiracy" in your vernacular) was well formed and public very early on.

Well first, 2-5 years is plenty of time to make up a story... Second, I'd love to hear who those scholars are and do more research. Where did you find these opinions?

> I mentioned that a few of them were. James and John were brothers, as were Andrew and Peter. That's all.

I mean... less people make for a better conspiracy right? I feel like that's not necessarily true btw. I feel like if you have a good enough cause, then people are willing to lie for it.

> James is recorded in the Bible as having been executed by Herod Agrippa in AD 44, long before Christians gain any significant power (his death is mentioned by Clement of Rome, AD 30-100). Peter was verifiable martyred by Nero in the mid-60s, again long before Christians had gained any significant power. We just don't have enough information about any of the other apostles to know reliably when they were martyred, so claims can't be made in one direction or the other.

Where are the sources behind this stuff? I have heard that a lot of this may actually just be legend. A lot of cities wanted to be associated with a saint, so they came up with a story about one of the apostles.

> Christians were deemed to be enemies of the state and a dangerous element in the empire. The works of Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius give us that information, as well as the acts of Claudius (who persecuted Druids, Jews, and Christians) and Nero (extensive persecution of Christians).

You know, from what I'm seeing, there wasn't very serious persecution of Christians until much later. Nero was the first, but I don't see what he did, other than supposedly killing killing peter and paul. Here's the wiki page on it.

Martyrdoms of Peter and Paul The first text to suggest that Nero ordered the execution of an apostle is a letter by Clement to the Corinthians traditionally dated to around 96 A.D.[124]:123– The apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, a Christian writing from the 2nd century, says, "the slayer of his mother, who himself (even) this king, will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands"; this is interpreted as referring to Nero.[125]

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275–339) was the first to write explicitly that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero.[126] He states that Nero's persecution led to Peter and Paul's deaths, but that Nero did not give any specific orders. However, several other accounts going back to the 1st century have Paul surviving his two years in Rome and travelling to Hispania, before facing trial in Rome again prior to his death.[127]

Peter is first said to have been crucified upside-down in Rome during Nero's reign (but not by Nero) in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (c. 200).[128] The account ends with Paul still alive and Nero abiding by God's command not to persecute any more Christians.

By the 4th century, a number of writers were stating that Nero killed Peter and Paul.[129]

So going by this... Clement of Rome sounds super Christian and cryptic on purpose (to avoid persecution?), and in reality it looks like someone just came up with the legend, then it spread into rumor, and by the 4th century they were basically "confirming" it... but it looks like a legend to me.