Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Freddy Johns]

> I have plenty of rational basis for my belief.

Perhaps. But, if so, you haven't stated any. You brought up science which I didn't mention so I suppose you are looking for other ways to understand the world that are equally valid. I can only guess at what you are alluding to by your mention of the word "intuitions". Is THAT what you are using to be so confident that God spoke to Paul and told him exactly what happened to Jesus?? If so, interesting......

[jimwalton]

It's interesting that you keyed on my word "intuitions" with regard to investment brokers, but skipped over what I actually said about my position: "I have found Paul to be a source of reliable information on many fronts." Paul accurately describes some of the cultural and religious battlegrounds of his day (various philosophies, Gnosticism, and Judaizers). His analyses of the human condition are true to life (Romans 1, 3, 7.7-23, etc.). He deals with the realities of evil and suffering and how Christian theology speaks to those details. As I said, I have found him to be a source of reliable information on many fronts. I didn't at all say that I was confident God spoke to Paul because I used intuition.

[Freddy Johns]

> I actually said about my position: "I have found Paul to be a source of reliable information on many fronts."

Ok, you have so many logical fallacies. THIS particular is a non sequitur. No, it does NOT follow that simply because Paul has reasonable things to say about the human condition or he can accurately write about the culture and religious background of his day that his supernatural claims must be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and none is provided. I would say the same thing to a Hindu or Muslim or astrologer. Having visions or hallucinations are a dime a dozen. I can find plenty of people today who have them along with neurologists and psychologists who will explain what they experienced in purely natural terms.

[jimwalton]

It's not a *non sequitur* at all. We are seeking to establish if Paul is a logical mind (as opposed to haphazard), a rational thinker (as opposed to flimsy), a credible source of information (contrasting mythography), and an honest man (as opposed to a manipulative charlatan). He turns out to be all of the above (and none of the contrasts). There is reason to give him some realistic attention (as opposed to cavalierly blowing him off without a second thought) in consideration of his claims.

You are also wrong in postulating "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I know it's a mantra of skeptics in our era, but it's simply untrue. Instead, we weigh the veracity of a claim by the credibility of the source. If a homeless man were walking down the street claiming a space ship had just landed and zombies were coming out of it and eating people, you'd get a good laugh. But if a group of your friends came down the street saying the same thing, and you saw real fear in their eyes, you'd thinking differently. But then if a minute later your wife came down the street crying and very much afraid, saying exactly the same thing and describing them with the same details, you'd be believing (and pardon me for picking the very weirdest example possible), even without evidence. You would believe on the strength of the credibility of the anecdotal testimony from people you knew and respected.

You know, I hear stories all the time about people having seen ghosts in their homes and the effects of a spectral presence. Yeah, whatever, blah blah—I don't buy it. But one of my best friends, one of the most intelligent and level-heading people I have ever know (and not gullible in the least), told me a story that makes my spine tingle about how one night in a hotel she saw a "woman" sitting on the bed and talking. Gives me the creeps. I have no evidence, but I have so much respect for the source of information, I have much more reason to believe it than from others. It's the strength of the credibility of the source, not the extraordinary evidence, that we look for.

[1.62]

Jim, I promised to research the references you mentioned, and finally I can truthfully say there was nothing that comes close to credible evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome, or anywhere else for that matter. Part of the reason it has taken me so long (other than my computer going on the fritz) is my independent research for our conversation. I have discovered quite a few tidbits about our buddy, Peter, and his counterpoint (nemesis), Paul.

First, it seems like your logic lacks coherence when you use the fact that because the history for Alexander the Great is scarce, you say, that fact adds credibility to the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom. The historic Alexander the Great has its history and the biblical Peter has his. The history for these figures is independent and therefore, because the historical evidence for each is worlds apart, your conclusion is a non sequitur.

You were correct when you claimed there were only 5 non-contemporary accounts, but the fact is there is a multitude of independent corroborating evidence. The facts are generally undisputed and there is a world of physical evidence, such as coinage, documentation - 1st century onward, representations in art, architecture and building remnants, etc. The fact is, our history of Alexander the Great is not based on one view but it is corroborated independently by all the historiography. One of the significant victories of Alexander worth mentioning here was at the City of Tyre. Sources close to the time of Alexander back up this sequence of events and to this day Tyre is still attached to the mainland by what was once a mole laid by Alexander's army which has, over time, built up into a bridge across to the island which is visible today.

There is a difference of evidence that must be considered when you use the historic comparison of Alexander to that of St. Peter. First, mankind’s survival into the eternal is in no way dependent on Alexander the Great. However, for many Christians, Peter and his rule in Rome is paramount. (See the Catholics; the largest body of Christian believers). One needs a much higher standard of evidence to support salvation. Basically, the trustworthiness of the hearsay we have for the martyrdom of Peter happens to also be a typical example of the trustworthiness for the ever so familiar, Christian “tradition.”

You, as a protestant, do not fight for the martyrdom of Peter for the sake of the Roman Catholic Church, or the legacy of Peter as the head of the Church and the legitimate power over the devoted. No, the axe you grind is all about upholding “traditional” history. Traditional history is nothing more than hearsay. Because “tradition” (hearsay) is the only evidence Christians can offer for the most important event of all, the resurrection of Jesus. Just like Paul said, if he didn’t get up out of the grave then your faith is all in vain. (That’s such a sad, small way of thinking, in my opinion. For example, resurrection doesn’t even rule out Jesus as an alien.)

And what about Peter in Rome? I have found that the catholic encyclopedia even says there is no “biblical evidence” for Peter ever going to Rome. I found many scholars agreeing with that sentiment. One of the most recent and thorough experts in ancient history is Otto Zwierlein.
https://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/personal/zwierlein/st_peter_in_rome.pdf

You really must become acquainted with him because he has upended and upset the establishment, i.e., the Catholic Church. Even though they refute him (they have to) his counter evidence is enormously compelling to biblical scholars as well as other historians. Below is a summary.

“Rome is not mentioned in connection with Peter in the New Testament anywhere. Based on Paul’s epistle to the Romans and the end of Acts one may conclude that neither of the authors knew anything about a presumed stay of Peter in the city of Rome; moreover, Romans 15:20 and 2Cor 10:16 actually exclude such a possibility.

When Peter and Paul divided among themselves the areas of their missionary activities (Gal. 2:7), Paul was charged with evangelizing the uncircumcised heathens, and Peter the circumcised Jews (in Palestine). His last appearance in the NT shows him on a temporary visit to Antioch (Gal. 2:11), otherwise his activities are restricted to Palestine. In Jerusalem he plays an important role next to the Lord’s brother Jacob, from where the mission of the “diaspora” is organized. Around the year 50 or 54 at the latest (1Cor 9:5) we lose track of the apostle Peter in the Bible.

Exegetes who interpret the passage in John 21:18–19 as an anticipatory reference to Peter’s crucifixion have to take into account the fact that the (spurious) additional chapter 21 of the gospel of John is attested at the earliest around 180/185 (in Irenaeus) and is not likely to have been written before 160. The scene is Lake Tiberius, Rome is not mentioned at all.”

The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples.
The Church admits: "The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407). http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm

I apologize for the shuffled rebuttal. I just read it back to myself and think it could use a little work. The problem is that I'm too sleepy to fix it up right now. Anyway, thanks for the read and hopefully your reply.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your reply. I have so many comments on so many levels, but I'll try to behave.

I never claimed any connection between Peter and Rome in the NT, as you spent half your post refuting. It's actually one of the arguments that the book of Acts was written in the 50s, placing the Gospel of Luke prior to that, and Mark prior to that—much closer to the life of Jesus than scoffers would like to consider.

As far as John 21, you must realize that the debates go round and round about the authorship and dating of it. The problem with your liberal "6th-century" perspective is that there is no evidence that the Gospel was ever circulated without chapter 21. So all the evidence we have from early sources unanimously puts the Gospel together LONG before the 500s AD. Such an epilogue is also fully consistent with John's writing style of illustrating and reinforcing a principle by referring to a historic event.

- First Clement mentions him dying for his faith, but nothing more.
- Ignatius puts Peter in Rome (Ignatius' letter to the Romans, where he says Peter and Paul had also spoken to them, 4:3)
- Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 1 section 1; chapter 3 section 2) puts Peter in Rome.
- Clement of Rome, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, mentions Peter's martyrdom (Chapter 5)
- Tertullian, in Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 36, says Peter endured a passion like his Lord's.
- Origen says Peter was crucified in Rome

What makes all of this conclusively unreliable?

[1.62]

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to continue this conversation with you. Openly discussing our differences is by far the most important thing we can do in order to develop an understanding of each other’s reasons for our beliefs.

In my previous response I tried to show my understanding of your position by stating why, for example, that the story of Peter’s martyrdom was an important ingredient of why you believe. In other words, you believe it because it was a tradition, which is defined as the passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication. Was I correct in making the connection that you hold tradition as a method of preserving historical facts? The very same line of “tradition” that is the only support for the veracity of any of the Gospels, including all the miracle stories, and even the resurrection of Jesus?

Notice too that I brought the 21st chapter of John because it is the primary source, i.e., the only plausible source, for Clement’s claims. I had assumed you were aware of its connection to the Clementine story. If John 21 is in doubt then so is the foundation of Clement’s story.

> Ignatius puts Peter in Rome (Ignatius' letter to the Romans, where he says Peter and Paul had also spoken to them, 4:3)

Ignatius: The Epistles of Ignatius are noted to contain later interpolations or are the product of the late second century which makes them unreliable evidence for the subject at hand. This is just one of many refutations for the entire corpus of writings: http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm

> Clement of Rome, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, mentions Peter's martyrdom (Chapter 5)

Clement: Written from Rome, 1 Clement mentions Peter's “many labors” and makes a general comment about Peter's death, without mentioning Rome: "There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory." The legend that Peter visited Rome appears in the non-canonical Acts of Peter, composed in about 185 CE.

> Tertullian, in Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 36, says Peter endured a passion like his Lord's.

Tertullian: “It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory of martyrdom.” Where is Rome? Where is Tertullian’s source? It’s only tradition or invention.

> Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 1 section 1; chapter 3 section 2)

One of the best responses I could give would largely reflect this:http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx%3Fid%3D18200

> Origen says Peter was crucified in Rome

Origen: You say, “Origen says Peter was crucified in Rome.” But this is learned only through Eusebius and is not uncontroversial at all. What do we know about where Eusebius gets his information centuries after the fact?

Eusebius: Where does Eusebius get his information about Peter ever being in Rome? He embellishes the non-canonical Acts of Peter, two centuries later, by adding that both Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during Nero's persecutions, but he cites no sources and gives an erroneous date, casting doubt on his research. Rex Weyler, “The Jesus Sayings: The Quest for His Authentic Message.”

Now let me offer this from Francis A. Sullivan, who says, in From Apostles to Bishops, page 15, that there is a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that the Church of Rome was most probably led by a college of presbyters until well into the second century. He says there is no evidence of a ruling bishop in the first century. Now, it seems inconceivable that Peter would lead the church in Rome, as its first bishop, and appoint a successor as bishop, only for the Christian community of Rome to ignore this precedent for up to a century after the death of Linus.

Basically, I understand you to be saying that if there is nothing in early history that directly contradicts the early traditions, then, the traditions must stand as historically viable, truthful and historic. That's your base level form of an argument from ignorance. Even though I did not present any historical figure directly contradicting Peter's martyrdom in Rome there is plenty of evaluation of the history that definitely contradicts all the claims.

To further our conversation into something of a productive nature we need to agree on how tradition is able to be transformed into factual evidence, don't we?

Did I provide reasonable controversial evidence against the "traditional" claims?

[jimwalton]

> I tried to show my understanding of your position by stating why, for example, that the story of Peter’s martyrdom was an important ingredient of why you believe.

I'm not sure I'm getting this. All I was trying to show, in response to the original post, is that we know about the deaths of some of the apostles, and from what we know, those apostles were martyred because of their faith, viz., their belief in the resurrection. Peter's martyrdom is only important to verify that Peter was martyred, not in anything doctrinal we believe as Christians.

> In other words, you believe it because it was a tradition, which is defined as the passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.

No, I don't. I believe it's historiography, written by people who had access to eyewitnesses or documentation that is no longer extant for our examination, passed on by written record.

> Was I correct in making the connection that you hold tradition as a method of preserving historical facts?

No, I hold historiography as a method of preserving historical facts.

> The very same line of “tradition” that is the only support for the veracity of any of the Gospels, including all the miracle stories, and even the resurrection of Jesus?

No, we have the written records of the Gospel writers, set to paper within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, to give veracity to the Gospels.

> If John 21 is in doubt then so is the foundation of Clement’s story.

First of all, John 21 is not as much in doubt as the minimalists paint it. Secondly, Clement was contemporaneous with the apostles and the growth of the church, having been born in about AD 30. There is good reason to believe that Clement may have personally known a number of the apostles, perhaps even Peter or Paul, as I said. He doesn't have to have gotten his information from John 21. He could easily have gotten it from Peter.

> Ignatius

I know there are many theories about Ignatius and detractors of anything original or historical. I know that Christianity is very much under attack by people and scholars determined to show it all to be fictional, but I find their work unconvincing. Almost all of what we know of Iggy comes from his writings. There are just as many, if not more, scholars who regard his writings as authentic as those who deride them as interpolations and forgeries. Your link doesn't have more weight than the analysis of other scholars. Ignatius was from the first century. He may have known John and Peter, and there's reason to believe he did. I give the epistles of Ignatius far more credibility than you do, obviously.

> Clement

I never said Clement mentioned Rome, but only that Peter had died for his faith.

> The legend that Peter visited Rome appears in the non-canonical Acts of Peter, composed in about 185 CE.

Not so. Ignatius and Irenaeus both put Peter in Rome, both written in about AD 90-110, long before AD 185. Origen also puts Peter in Rome.

> Tertullian... Where is Rome?

I never said Tertullian mentioned Rome, but only that Peter died for his preaching of the resurrection, which is what the original post was about.

> Eusebius

Eusebius is one of the only sources we have for these matters, just as Josephus is the only source we have about Masada. It stinks that we have only one card in our hand, but we're glad to have one. Eusebius's *Ecclesiastical History* is by far our best source of historical information about the church int he 2nd and 3rd centuries. His sources are documents and people he had access to that are now lost. It doesn't make his writing unreliable or fictional, only unable to be corroborated.

> Peter would lead the church in Rome, as its first bishop, and appoint a successor as bishop, only for the Christian community of Rome to ignore this precedent for up to a century after the death of Linus.

I don't believe Peter led the church in Rome. I don't believe Peter was its first bishop. I think the evidence for such is scant, at best, more realistically non-existent except in the minds of the people who wish it to be so.

> I understand you to be saying that if there is nothing in early history that directly contradicts the early traditions, then, the traditions must stand as historically viable, truthful and historic.

No, that's not what I'm saying, either. I'm saying that the information and evidence we have is what tells us these things, and by examination of the full documents we have reason to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the information is reliable.

> we need to agree on how tradition is able to be transformed into factual evidence, don't we?

No, I don't agree with this either. We need to find out why you believe the minimalists who only seek to discredit, and you so quickly believe them. Is it because you also want to discredit? If we approach historiography with an a priori bias, then our conclusions will subsequently reflect that bias.

[1.62]

> But Peter and Paul both zealously preached the crucifixion and resurrection, and they died for their faith, so by reason they died for preaching the resurrection.

You are missing the very thing that connects their death to some fact that they died "because they were preaching the resurrection." Because this is the very thing that Christians try to claim about the apostles and disciples, that the cause of their death was what they believed. It's not even clear that Jesus died for what others thought he believed.

[jimwalton]

But I'm not. It's earlier in the thread. "What they preached was the resurrection. Acts 2.14-35; 3.26; 4.8-12; 5.30-32, and on for dozens of references. ... They were killed for preaching the resurrection itself: Acts 17.32; Romans 4.25; 1 Cor. 15.3-5. And so many more."

> It's not even clear that Jesus died for what others thought he believed.

Jesus died because he claimed to be equal with God. Matthew 26.63-66; Mark 14.61-64; Lk. 22.66-71; Jn. 18.35-19.7.