Board index ‹ Jesus

[Lucky]

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?

[jimwalton]

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.

[Lucky]

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?

[jimwalton]

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.

[Lucky]

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

[jimwalton]

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?

[Lucky]

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.

[jimwalton]

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.