The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Xavier]

If they - Saints Peter, Paul, James, John etc - were not killed for their beliefs, they would not have been honored as Martyrs. Martyrs are those who die for confessing the Christian Faith, or heroic virtue, and not just any plain old death.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  Prior authors attributed their deaths as martyrdoms, but you don't know what evidence, if any, they considered as they didn't record it.  Your claim that they wouldn't have been honored as martyrs if they hadn't died as martyrs is mere assertion as there are plenty of motives for claiming they were martyred which have nothing to do with any facts.  You seem to think that if some religious person wrote it, then it must be true.  That's not how it works.

Just seeing this. Pope St. Clement, a contemporary of the Apostles mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistles, speaks of St. Peter's martyrdom in the 1st Century thus: "Pope Clement I (d. 99), in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80–98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom in the following terms: "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death. …Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."[141]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pete...and_burial

It is confirmed by numerous other writers, in vastly different places, like Tertullian in Africa: "The death of Peter is attested to by Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240) at the end of the 2nd century in his Prescription Against Heretics, noting that Peter endured a passion like his Lord's: "How happy is that church ... where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's".[143] The statement implies that Peter was killed like Jesus (by crucifixion) and Paul was killed like John (by beheading). It gives the impression that Peter also died in Rome since Paul also died there.[144] In his work Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion: "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross."[145] If you want to keep denying history, you can deny almost anything. 

But the historical facts are clear. Saint Peter and the other Apostles, after writing Epistles or Gospels, and after many long labors, including persecution and martyrdom, gave their lives for Jesus, and so were honored by other Christians as Martyrs.

[Dānu]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  Prior authors attributed their deaths as martyrdoms, but you don't know what evidence, if any, they considered as they didn't record it.  Your claim that they wouldn't have been honored as martyrs if they hadn't died as martyrs is mere assertion as there are plenty of motives for claiming they were martyred which have nothing to do with any facts.  You seem to think that if some religious person wrote it, then it must be true.  That's not how it works.

Just seeing this. Pope St. Clement, a contemporary of the Apostles mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistles, speaks of St. Peter's martyrdom in the 1st Century thus: "Pope Clement I (d. 99), in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80–98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom in the following terms: "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death. …Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."[141]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pete...and_burial

It is confirmed by numerous other writers, in vastly different places, like Tertullian in Africa: "The death of Peter is attested to by Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240) at the end of the 2nd century in his Prescription Against Heretics, noting that Peter endured a passion like his Lord's: "How happy is that church ... where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's".[143] The statement implies that Peter was killed like Jesus (by crucifixion) and Paul was killed like John (by beheading). It gives the impression that Peter also died in Rome since Paul also died there.[144] In his work Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion: "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross."[145] If you want to keep denying history, you can deny almost anything. 

But the historical facts are clear. Saint Peter and the other Apostles, after writing Epistles or Gospels, and after many long labors, including persecution and martyrdom, gave their lives for Jesus, and so were honored by other Christians as Martyrs.

Tertullian didn't "attest" anything. He repeated things. His evidence is second hand and thus worthless. He's just repeating a tradition which like many tales, had plenty of time to grow independent of the facts. And Clement offers no actual details about the matter aside from the assertion and is writing a full generation after the event. So what I wrote stands. Do you have any contemporaneous evidence from an author who didn't have motives to embellish or uncritically repeat? You really have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. You're a prime cherry for bullshit and lies as your brain cannot discriminate between them and truth.

[Xavier]

As I said, and as Descartes did before me, if you really want to, you can doubt or deny anything you want. But that doesn't make it history, and that's not how history works. History works by consulting historical sources and the internal and external evidence for them. There has been detailed archaeological confirmation of the Gospels and of Early Christian writings. I'm sorry if you want to believe St. Peter wasn't really martyred or whatever. You can believe what you want. No matter how many sources I give, you'll say the same thing. And insulting your opponent isn't an argument. I know how to distinguish lies and Truth. It's why I reject Marx and embrace Christ. Do as you wish.

Here is more on St. Peter and the Apostles: "The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Paul and Luke (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24.34), the appearance to the Twelve by Paul, Luke, and John (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24:36-43; Jn. 20.19-20), the appearance to the women disciples by Matthew and John (Mt. 28.9-10; Jn. 20.11-17), and appearances to the disciples in Galilee by Mark, Matthew, and John (Mk. 16.7; Mt. 28. 16-17; Jn. 21). Taken sequentially, the appearances follow the pattern of Jerusalem-Galilee-Jerusalem, matching the festival pilgrimages of the disciples as they returned to Galilee following the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread and traveled again to Jerusalem two months later for Pentecost.

Lüdemann himself concludes, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." [39] Thus, we are in basic agreement that following Jesus's crucifixion various individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Christ alive from the dead. The real bone of contention will be how these experiences are best to be explained."

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...ation-hypo

[Xavier]

Here is Sir William Ramsay, the Oxford-Educated Archaeologist, Former Skeptic, and Renowned Authority in his field on St. Luke's Historical Reliability: https://mountainviewchristian.ca/2016/03...historian/

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 222.

“I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in Luke-Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice.”

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 89.

[Dānu]

As I said, and as Descartes did before me, if you really want to, you can doubt or deny anything you want. But that doesn't make it history, and that's not how history works. History works by consulting historical sources and the internal and external evidence for them. There has been detailed archaeological confirmation of the Gospels and of Early Christian writings. I'm sorry if you want to believe St. Peter wasn't really martyred or whatever. You can believe what you want. No matter how many sources I give, you'll say the same thing. And insulting your opponent isn't an argument. I know how to distinguish lies and Truth. It's why I reject Marx and embrace Christ. Do as you wish.

Here is more on St. Peter and the Apostles: "The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Paul and Luke (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24.34), the appearance to the Twelve by Paul, Luke, and John (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24:36-43; Jn. 20.19-20), the appearance to the women disciples by Matthew and John (Mt. 28.9-10; Jn. 20.11-17), and appearances to the disciples in Galilee by Mark, Matthew, and John (Mk. 16.7; Mt. 28. 16-17; Jn. 21). Taken sequentially, the appearances follow the pattern of Jerusalem-Galilee-Jerusalem, matching the festival pilgrimages of the disciples as they returned to Galilee following the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread and traveled again to Jerusalem two months later for Pentecost.

Lüdemann himself concludes, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." [39] Thus, we are in basic agreement that following Jesus's crucifixion various individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Christ alive from the dead. The real bone of contention will be how these experiences are best to be explained."

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...ation-hypo

There is reasonable doubt and radical skepticism. You don't dismiss reasonable doubt on account of radical skepticism being possible. You're just another person sticking their fingers in their ears. And no, you've shown no ability to distinguish truth. You keep citing the assertion of martyrdom as evidence of martyrdom. The two are not at all the same unless the person is an eyewitness. You have ZERO eyewitnesses.

Let's see if you can dispel reasonable doubt. Name the people involved in carrying the information about his martyrdom to Clement and why they are reliable.

Do you have any clue how unreliable accounts of this era are?

[SaxonX]

 Sir William Ramsay, the Oxford-Educated Archaeologist, Former Skeptic, and Renowned Authority in his field on St. Luke's Historical Reliability

A man who died almost 80 freaking years ago and being an ex skeptic doesn't make him credible. I love when apologist try and hype up someone who switches to their side but ignore the large number of highly successful qualified people who disagree with them.

[brewerb]

Here is Sir William Ramsay, the Oxford-Educated Archaeologist, Former Skeptic, and Renowned Authority in his field on St. Luke's Historical Reliability: https://mountainviewchristian.ca/2016/03...historian/

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 222.

“I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in Luke-Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice.”

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 89.

I don't care about this.

Are you still in the closet?

[Dānu]

...History works by consulting historical sources and the internal and external evidence for them....

These aren't historical sources per se. They're primarily propaganda.

Let me ask you a question. You come upon a car accident as you're walking down the street. There are two drivers arguing over what happened. In order to calm one of them down, you draw him off to the side and ask him what happened. Is it reasonable to conclude what actually happened based upon that one person's account without bothering to find out what the other driver has to say? Yes or no?

[Dānu]

Even in Acts, we get an idea of just how gullible people could be. Surviving a snake bite was evidently enough for the inhabitants of Malta to believe that Paul himself was a god (28:6). And Paul and his comrade Barnabas had to go to some lengths to convince the Lycaonians of Lystra that they were not deities. For the locals immediately sought to sacrifice to them as manifestations of Hermes and Zeus, simply because a man with bad feet stood up (14:8-18). These stories show how ready people were to believe that gods can take on human form and walk among them, and that a simple show was sufficient to convince them that mere men were such divine beings. And this evidence is in the bible itself.

Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with “cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration” (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these “tricksters” appears to be “the Egyptian” who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another “trickster” who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had “the power of god” at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

Miracles were also a dime a dozen in this era.

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels

So there were law and order reasons for putting down kooks. So what makes you think Peter wasn't martyred for such reasons?

[Deesse23]

Resurrections have everything to do with the argument. Did you read it carefully? 

(1) Buddhist Monks, nor the Islamist Jihadists of 9/11 HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE EYEWITNESSES TO A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION.

You really are too dumb to argue even with yourself.

For the second, (or third?) time, here is YOUR argument, VERBA-fucking-tim, and NOWHERE were you talking about witnessing resurrections.

In 1963, a Buddhist monk doused himself in gasoline and burned himself alive to protest the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam.[15] In 2001, Muslim extremists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, believing that paradise awaited them. .....

None of this demonstrates whether these beliefs are true, but it does demonstrate that the person truly believed them. To put this another way, martyrdom doesn’t show the veracity of our beliefs, but it does show the sincerity of our beliefs! Beyond painful martyrdom, what greater evidence could we ask for? These men signed their testimony in their own blood, and it’s safe to say that liars make poor martyrs!

I ask again: Why arent you Muslim or Buddhist? Muslims and Buddhists were dying for their sincere beliefs, being martyrs, and what greater evidence could YOU ask for?... ACCORDING TO YOU.

[Minimalist]

W. M. Ramsay

At the end of his career he became involved in Christian apologetics, which combined with his argumentative and caustic tendencies ultimately harmed his reputation among scholars

Sounds as if the poor old man had a stroke!

[Paleophyte]

But the historical facts are clear.

Let's check that.

 - Clement never indicates that he observed Peter's martyrdom, so we have no way of knowing if he's relating an event that he witnessed, relating church oral tradition, or making things up to bolster his authority within the church. Given that his mention of Peter comes in a letter where he's affirming his authority as passed down from Peter, that latter is a reasonable option.

 - Tertullian lived and died more than a century after Peter, so he's hardly a primary source and wouldn't have even spoken to secondary sources.

So yes, the historical record is clear. The only sources for the apostles are hearsay and oral tradition.

[SaxonX]

Xavier Wrote:

But the historical facts are clear.

Anything  but

[SaxonX]

W. M. Ramsay

At the end of his career he became involved in Christian apologetics, which combined with his argumentative and caustic tendencies ultimately harmed his reputation among scholars

Sounds as if the poor old man had a stroke!

Also more broadly

However, his later work suffered in scholarly reputation. Persuaded by William Robertson Nicoll, he worked as a popular apologist and his writings from that period has been dismissed by scholars for their speculative content. He also had a reputation as a controversialist, remaining argumentative even into old age.[

 

Why is it every expert this guy cites turns out to be biased or a quack

[Minimalist]

That's all the religitards have.

[jerry mcmasters]

But you made a point of saying "Liberal" should not be in front of "Jesus Seminar" implying some sneakiness or rhetorical trick on X's part.  My point, and it is a very minor one indeed, is that "liberal" is a very accurate adjective of the group and was commonly applied to them by both friends and detractors at the time of their heyday.  (Remember the media excitement?  "Put one bean in the jar if you believe the Virgin Birth was maybe true.  Put two beans in the jar if you believe the Virgin Birth was definitely true.  Put three beans in the jar if you like putting beans in jars.")

I have amended my complaint to focus only on the capital letter "L" in Liberal which implies it's literally part of their name instead of a mere adjective.  If that was intended that would be sneaky.  But honestly I don't think X is aware of any of this because it seems he's just frenetically cutting and pasting stuff from apologetics websites.

Having come out of the conservative wing of the Anglican Church of Australia (NOT the Sydney Diocese I might add) I can tell you what “Liberal” is used for by clergy and laypeople - it's effectively a label to discredit a theologian, clergy person, lay person, or academic based on a perception that their interpretation of scripture is wildly incompatible with the tenets of Christianity. Sola scripture is not a core tenet/dogma except in the conservative wing of Protestant denominations.

The idea that you can define Scripture the way that you want it defined by your present denomination's view is presentism. Mark knew that he was not writing literal history, he wasn't an idiot. He was using his pen to express his theological truth through spiritual storytelling - something that happens in a great many other religions and traditional belief systems.

The Jesus Seminar simply brought the academic discussions out of the closed-door institutions, and nothing they've proposed is wildly inconsistent with what SBL scholars today are talking about. As I've pointed out elsewhere, there are only around 6,000 SBL scholars anyway - they are outnumbered by Christian clergy by more than 1,000 to 1. Add in the non-SBL Eastern bible scholars and add in Islamic leaders and that looks modest.

So what are we trying to say with “Liberal” in 2024? Are we happy with source, form, and literary criticism or are they “Liberal” enquiries into the bible? If those are not liberal why should redaction or memisis criticism be any different? The textual interconnectivity of the texts has also been well known and acknowledged now regardless of the different opinions upon how exactly they are connected.

Similarly, implanting your own beliefs onto the texts could well be described as liberal. With the Pauline epistles you have written phenomena. With the canonical gospels you have written phenomena. The idea that scholars once had that the gospel authors were “scissor and paste editors” has not been credible since redaction criticism was taken seriously. Redaction criticism is not a liberal idea, far from it actually as its core premise is that these men were intelligent and writing with purpose, not mindless scribes copying down some “oral tradition” word-for-word.

Christians have gone through two millennia of having flexible beliefs around different dogmas, doctrines, and traditions. In the first century and the early-mid second century, which is when most of the New Testament was written, they had no dogmas or creeds at that stage. They were practising their religion through religious practise - which built traditions. Worship, Song, Eucharist, Baptism, the Passion tradition, Christophanies, Prayer, Prophecy, Speaking in Tongues, Poems, Spiritual Storytelling, gathering together for meals in each other's houses etc. All of that stuff I've just mentioned is the “oral tradition” - it's religious practise, and it's all reflected in the gospels. When I say the Passion Tradition I don't mean Mark 14-16 - that's an adaptation of the death of Hector in the Iliad to conform to the Passion tradition, the actual Passion tradition that Mark knew is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (or at least it's one of them - I think there was more than one version). The so-called “Empty Tomb” is a straightforward translation fable (Miller 2010).

Really it's the Evangelicals today that are the radicals. They've taken a spiritual text and stripped it of its original meaning, and then reapplied to it their own meaning. They've done this not just with the New Testament, but also with the Hebrew Bible by converting it into the “Old Testament” and reading it through the Pauline lens of the New Testament. That's radical for two reasons: firstly the Jews reject Paul's “reinterpretations” and he had no authority to reinterpret their Scriptures anyway, and secondly Paul himself was not that important in his lifetime. He was only one Apostle of many. The only reason we talk about him now is because he left behind 7 epistles (letters), but if you read then you can see his views are not aligned with the Jerusalem Apostles and he's really a self-proclaimed Apostle - so it's hard to even know to what extent the other Apostles at the time even recognised him as being one of them!!

I’m not going to pretend I understood all of that but I think your point is that “liberal” is only used as a derogatory term in describing positions and that’s just not so.  I remember the JS in its heyday with publicity all over the place, the adjective “liberal” was often used and the context was simply something like “These scholars aren’t literalists, they’re smarter, more enlightened, they challenge the conservative literal norms.”  Where “conservative” religious thinkers see literalism, liberal scholars see metaphor or purposeful lying or some other secular explanation, that kind of thing. It’s actually similar to the use of “liberal” in political context, it can certainly be an insult (Goddamn liberals!) but it can also be Goddamn right I’m liberal!
 
And again I think Xavier just lifted it from whatever source he was getting his argument from and who knows maybe he can explain what his intention was.

[Minimalist]

This entire thread is a mis-nomer.  There is NO "historical evidence" for any of this happy horseshit.

What is "historical evidence?"

https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/source-ty...%20sources.

Defining Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources

Primary sources provide first-hand observations or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders at or near the time of the event. They have not been filtered through further interpretation or evaluation.


Secondary sources are works that analyze, assess or interpret a historical event, era or phenomenon.  They may use primary sources to to write a review, critique or interpretation often well after the event.

Tertiary Sources are those used to identify and locate primary and secondary sources.

 

We have no primary sources for this shit AT ALL.  Without primary sources we cannot classify the gospels as secondary sources since for all we know the authors pulled those stories out of their asses.  By definition we cannot look for tertiary sources.

The gospels were written much later by non witnesses to the events in question.  In a court of law, they would be dismissed as hearsay.  As far as history is concerned all they are is a pile of unsourced opinions by people re-telling stories they heard.  They are fucking worthless.


Now, if Xavier had any honesty at all he would have titled the Trhead "Shit I Desperately Wish To Be True."

[SYZ]

Here is Sir William Ramsay, the Oxford-Educated Archaeologist, Former Skeptic, and Renowned Authority in his field on St. Luke's Historical Reliability: https://mountainviewchristian.ca/2016/03...historian/

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 222.

“I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in Luke-Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice.”

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 89.