A straight answer about Paul please

2PhiloVoid · Dec 31, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
Christian apologetics are vacuous if Christ's resurrection becomes solely a faith issue and not a proposition supported by reason or evidence.

Your statement also, in and of itself, can be deconstructed on a conceptual as well as linguistic level, NV. The extent of its apparent substance depends on what we each think constitutes the meaning of “faith,” “support,” “reason,” and “evidence.” None of these terms are self-evident in meaning, and each is up for a separate debate within the realm of epistemic considerations and various epistemological frameworks.

It seems that the general consensus here is that the persecution of early Christians was insignificant and that many specifics are unknown. This casts doubt on the "Why die for a lie?" argument. Said argument was already deficient in facts and only supported by Catholic tradition.

Mmmmm....I didn't indicate that I think the persecution of early Christians is insignificant. I merely cited Candida Moss as a position we should consider, not as a last word by which to draw a final conclusion, at least not on my own part. So, let's not be hasty here.

Given that it is not reasonable to believe that the disciples wilfully died for their testimony, I consider their testimony, presuming it even exists, to carry little weight. I therefore see little to nothing to support the weight of the fantastic claim that a man rose from the dead. As Paul said, Christianity is worthless without the resurrection.

It's not “reasonable”? How so? I'm not seeing an argument demonstrating your position on all of this. I just see your assertion about your not perceiving a connection between early Christian martyrdom and the possibility of Christ's Resurrection.

Despite the fact that some evangelicals like brother Josh McDowell make a “case” out of the early, historical persecution some Christians experienced during the first few hundred years of the Christian Church, I personally think the whole argument gets yanked around and distorted through exaggeration by fundamentalists on one side of the debate and also underplayed by atheists like yourself on the other side. Even though I did cite Candida Moss, just to be fair and to be clear, I can't say I completely side with her. I'm more prone to take what she says and compare it with that of someone like Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge), Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. His perspective of early Christian Persecution is as follows:

On the whole, I think the effectiveness of the “why die for a lie?” argument is going to be different for each individual who considers its possible significance. The idea that early Christians were willing to spill their blood to further the Gospel of Jesus will likely hold different levels of emotional weight for each person who evaluates the evidences available, most particularly because there isn't any objective measure regarding “quantities of death” by which we can impute any necessary historical significance to those who died--or were tortured and/or imprisoned--for what they believed to be true.

I mean, how many people have to die and/or suffer for the Christian faith before the numbers become a historical social data set that “means something” to me or you? Is it going to require just the death of one individual? How about the demise of 12? Or, maybe 100 deaths will do it? When does a supposed historical calculus begin to make an impact on our emotions in such a way that we begin to think it “counts” toward the veracity of the Christian faith in the Resurrection? Is there some objective number we should all be aware of that will universally throw the gears of our neural pathways and push us to value the side of Christian faith? Does it really take a figure like “6 million deaths” to sock us in the gut and persuade us to conclude that something of spiritual and historical value may be seen from the lost lives? For me, it took only one death, that of innocent Jesus. And whatever I learned later about His disciples--such as Paul--having reportedly followed suite through legal misfortune in the book of Acts and martyrdom from later Church tradition has served as icing on the cake of faith.

In sum, it isn't a sheer number of apparently needless deaths of innocent people alone which establishes in my mind the veracity of Jesus' Resurrection, but the quality of each person's social circumstances as I weigh what I perceive to be their existential angst in holding to their testimony of faith in Jesus. In other words, it isn't the number of casualties that yanks my emotional cord, but rather the complexity level of the social and psychological data which contextualizes my understanding of each, individual martyr.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

rockytopva · Dec 31, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
Were Christians heavily persecuted in Paul's day or is that exaggerated? Was Paul imprisoned or was he merely placed under house arrest?

The conservative view is that Rome imprisoned Paul and fiercely tried to stamp out Christianity. This view is important to Christians because it is believed that during this time the apostles were martyred, and in fact it is generally argued that the apostles were given the chance to recant and go free but yet declined.

If this is all true, why did the Romans allow Paul to write letters from prison and direct the churches? Why not confiscate his letters and/or send out fake epistles to the churches? The way the situation is described, Rome is made out to be utterly incompetent. Please lay out an explanation that is sensible and (preferably) supported by facts. Thanks.

I believe in the seven churches congregations that came down as ages... And according to the first three chapters of Revelation...

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. - Galatians 2:7-9

I believe that Paul was Apostle to the second church - The early church of the Gentiles. And to that church the Lord says...

Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. - Revelation 2:10

ye shall have tribulation ten days....

Time Persecutor Description
67 AD Nero The Smyrna Church Age begins with Nero setting fire to Rome, and then blaming the Christians
81 AD Domitian Declaration that no Christian should be exempt from punishment, Paul’s Timothy died in 97 AD.
108 AD Trajan and Adrian Severe persecution against Christians from 108 to 138 AD during the time of the Bishop Ignatius
162 AD Marcos Aurelius Marcos Aurelius, commendable in study of philosophy, sharp and fierce towards Christians.
192 AD Severus This persecution was carried out by the will and prejudice of the people and extended into Africa.
235 AD Maximus Numberless Christians were slain without trial and burned indiscriminately in heaps
249 AD Decius Began because of the amazing increase in Christianity, and with the heathen temples forsaken.
257 AD Valerian The martyrs that fell during this persecution were innumerable, their tortures and deaths painful.
274 AD Aurelian A brief persecution that ended with the emperor’s assassination.
303 AD Diocletian The last persecution ended with Constantine’s triumph against Rome in 313 AD

I believe that the Apostle Paul appeared before the emperor Nero twice.

Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar. - Acts 26:32

First appearance - When Paul was to have his appeal before Caesar I believe that Nero was too much into other things to care about his case, so he put him up for room and board and probably just forgot about him.

And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, - Acts 28:30

When the Apostle Paul's case was finally heard I believe that Nero just let him go, he may have been unconcerned about his case and was eager to go on to other things. From there the Apostle Paul may have traveled to Spain and to Great Britain. The Apostle Paul was brought to Nero the second time, and at that time he was not that lucky. With the popularity of the Christian faith, Nero the second time was eager to have him done away with.

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:- 2 Timothy 4:5-9

At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. - 2 Timothy 4:16

In reading into the book of 2 Timothy it appears that the second trial did not go well and Paul was awaiting his sentencing. Not only the Apostle Paul, but this first general persecution was to have wide effects throughout the entire Roman Empire.

I believe that the second general persecution, under the emperor Domitian, was to have seen the Apostle John suffer the same fate. According to Tertullian (in The Prescription of Heretics) John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it. It is said that all in the audience of Colosseum were converted to Christianity upon witnessing this miracle.

Quid est Veritas? · Dec 31, 2016

vinsight4u said:
Why do you think then so many people know John the Baptist came and yet reject Jesus Christ as our Saviour?

Obviously people weave their own interpretations and opinions. Often we see Jesus treated merely as a great moral teacher or somesuch, which obviously misses the whole point of the Incarnation.
To Mandaeans John the Baptist brought divine knowledge to help man ascend and to Josephus he was a respected holy man. To us Christians this obviously misses the whole point of John's ministry.

anonymous person · Dec 31, 2016

Quid est Veritas? said:
There is a distinct misapprehension at play in this entire argument. Historical evidence does not require as much hard evidence as scientific evidence nor is it reasonable to expect it.

For instance: How do we know Pompey was killed by Ptolemy XIII? Because Roman historians tell us so. Obviously they are biased and we have no other sources, but it is reasonable to think this and the unanimous verdict of contemporary historians interested in the matter. Therefore no one doubts it.

Similarly we know Roman officials could execute troublesome locals when and if required. We see this in Tacitus's Annals and Agricola, Caesar's Gallic Wars or Josephus when he reports Pilate himself doing so to suppress other revolts. Thus to have local Roman magistrates putting to death non-citizen locals for fomenting trouble amongst the religious establishment is highly reasonable, as we have examples of exactly this occuring, for instance in Pliny's letters to Trajan. Likewise subject peoples could execute their own if it didn't interfere with the Pax Romana and they weren't citizens, such as the Jewish right to stone their brethren for blasphemy. So the earlier deaths of some apostles within the empire fit the historic mileau and are supported by early Christian writings.

A general persecution ensued with Nero, confirmed by both Roman and Christian sources, so to doubt the deaths of Paul and Peter during this persecution is unsound historically. We have this persecution firmly proven as historical with an early record of their deaths and cult in Rome, making this highly plausible.

Based on the historical-critical method, the deaths of the Apostles for their faith is highly plausible and should thus be accepted as historical events, if fancifully retold. History generally agrees Peter and Paul died in Rome under Nero or Andrew in Greece, James in Judaea etc. as it fits the historical narrative.

So the absence of a general persecution before Nero is largely irrelevant and a specious argument to dismiss fairly plausible martyrdoms. We see similar religious figures executed like Mani or even men like Socrates for similar offences, but this is conveniently forgotten when the Apostles' martyrdoms are at play. Thus if you want to argue that the Apostles dying for their faith is a partial proof of the Resurrection, then the former is highly likely and there is no historically valid reason to doubt at least the broad outline of most of the accounts.

That being said, there are more and less likely accounts. Peter, Paul, Thomas and James are very secure, while Simon, Thaddeus, Matthew etc. are less so. Andrew being in Greece is more plausible than the tradition of Scythia as another example. Regardless, if you would discount their testimony based on doubt of their martyrdoms, then you are on very shaky historical grounds indeed, at about Ancient Astronaut or Aryan Master Race levels.

Excellent response!

Paul Yohannan · Dec 31, 2016

2PhiloVoid said:
That depends on who we ask. If we ask this little lass from from the Ivy Leagues, then the answer is no, Christians weren't persecuted all that much during the 1st century. [Two minute video] I guess we'll have to consider how much of the history she indeed "got right"...

Personally, I don't think Christianity was showing up too heavily on the Roman's social radar, at least not as a major force to be reckoned with (unlike in Palestine, where Jewish zealots were antagonizing Roman forces.)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

She is quite wrong, as the epistles of St. Ignatius attest. She is also contradicted by Emperor Trajan, who wrote a letter to a regional governor urging restraint in persecuting Christians, as it was "against the spirit of our age," which of course imploes that it had not been against the spirit of the age of some of his predeccessors.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 31, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
On the question of whether it was plausible that Paul was able to write letters while imprisoned prior to his martyrdom, I have a few thoughts.

(1) St. Ignatius supposedly wrote letters on his way to being martyred.

(2) Many of the letters of Paul were probably forgeries written in later decades. Did the undisputed letters of Paul mention that he was writing while imprisoned?

(3) Even the suspected forgery letters might provide evidence that the tradition of Paul's imprisonment and martyrdom existed early in Christianity. That might make the tradition more credible.

(4) Do any of the church fathers mention these traditions of martyrdom in their letters?

(5) Persecution of Christians might have required a sizeable concentration of Christians such as existed in Rome. In the early stages, Christians in cities might have been persecuted while Christians in smaller communities were ignored.

I am aware that roughly half of Paul's epistles are forgeries. If my faith was a castle, then that bomb merely bounced the rubble because I was already an atheist when I learned it. I do not entertain the idea in debate with Christians because they generally reject all external criticism of the Bible. As for the other questions you ask, I don't have the answers but they are good questions.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 31, 2016

2PhiloVoid said:
Your statement also, in and of itself, can be deconstructed on a conceptual as well as linguistic level, NV. The extent of its apparent substance depends on what we each think constitutes the meaning of “faith,” “support,” “reason,” and “evidence.” None of these terms are self-evident in meaning, and each is up for a separate debate within the realm of epistemic considerations and various epistemological frameworks.

Mmmmm....I didn't indicate that I think the persecution of early Christians is insignificant. I merely cited Candida Moss as a position we should consider, not as a last word by which to draw a final conclusion, at least not on my own part. So, let's not be hasty here.

It's not “reasonable”? How so? I'm not seeing an argument demonstrating your position on all of this. I just see your assertion about your not perceiving a connection between early Christian martyrdom and the possibility of Christ's Resurrection.

Despite the fact that some evangelicals like brother Josh McDowell make a “case” out of the early, historical persecution some Christians experienced during the first few hundred years of the Christian Church, I personally think the whole argument gets yanked around and distorted through exaggeration by fundamentalists on one side of the debate and also underplayed by atheists like yourself on the other side. Even though I did cite Candida Moss, just to be fair and to be clear, I can't say I completely side with her. I'm more prone to take what she says and compare it with that of someone like Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge), Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. His perspective of early Christian Persecution is as follows:

On the whole, I think the effectiveness of the “why die for a lie?” argument is going to be different for each individual who considers its possible significance. The idea that early Christians were willing to spill their blood to further the Gospel of Jesus will likely hold different levels of emotional weight for each person who evaluates the evidences available, most particularly because there isn't any objective measure regarding “quantities of death” by which we can impute any necessary historical significance to those who died--or were tortured and/or imprisoned--for what they believed to be true.

I mean, how many people have to die and/or suffer for the Christian faith before the numbers become a historical social data set that “means something” to me or you? Is it going to require just the death of one individual? How about the demise of 12? Or, maybe 100 deaths will do it? When does a supposed historical calculus begin to make an impact on our emotions in such a way that we begin to think it “counts” toward the veracity of the Resurrection? Is there some objective number we should all be aware of that will universally throw the gears of our neural pathways and push us to value the side of Christian faith? Does it really take a figure like “6 million deaths” to sock us in the gut and persuade us to conclude that something of spiritual and historical value may be seen from the lost lives? For me, it took only one death, that of innocent Jesus. And whatever I learned later about His disciples--such as Paul--having reportedly followed suite through legal misfortune and martyrdom in the book of Acts and from later Church tradition has served as icing on the cake of faith.

In sum, it isn't a sheer number of apparently needless deaths of innocent people alone which establishes in my mind the veracity of Jesus' Resurrection, but the quality of each person's social circumstances as I weigh what I perceive to be their existential angst in holding to their testimony of faith in Jesus. In other words, it isn't the number of casualties that yanks my emotional cord, but rather the complexity level of the social and psychological data which contextualizes my understanding of each, individual martyr.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

As a Christian I contrasted the martyrs of the apostles with, say, the death of a terrorist. A terrorist gained his divine information second hand. The disciples, however, are alleged to have gained their knowledge first hand. Why, then, would they die for their beliefs if they know it's all a lie?

My time here has shown me that there is literally zero evidence that any of the 11 died as a martyr. Only Peter is known to have actually been executed but it is not known why. It cannot just be assumed that he was given the opportunity to recant.

Paul Yohannan · Jan 1, 2017

cloudyday2 said:
Do any of the church fathers mention these traditions of martyrdom in their letters?

Yes

Paul Yohannan · Jan 1, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
My time here has shown me that there is literally zero evidence that any of the 11 died as a martyr.

Acts 12:1-2 records the martyrdom of St. James the Great. Unless your contention is that St. Luke made it all up.

vinsight4u · Jan 1, 2017

cloudyday2 · Jan 1, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Only Peter is known to have actually been executed but it is not known why.

What is the evidence for Peter's martyrdom that makes it superior? Is it mentioned in a non-Christian source? (I have been puzzling about this and I haven't been able to find anything through google to explain why Peter's was more historical.) The martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus is mentioned in Josephus and most historians think it is basically authentic. Of course James the brother of Jesus was not one of the Twelve, but it seems to be the most historical to me.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 1, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
As a Christian I contrasted the martyrs of the apostles with, say, the death of a terrorist. A terrorist gained his divine information second hand. The disciples, however, are alleged to have gained their knowledge first hand. Why, then, would they die for their beliefs if they know it's all a lie?

My time here has shown me that there is literally zero evidence that any of the 11 died as a martyr. Only Peter is known to have actually been executed but it is not known why. It cannot just be assumed that he was given the opportunity to recant.

And you've given me literally zero evidence that you've considered ANY of the ideas, arguments, perspectives, and/or video material that I've so far presented in this thread. I'm speechless ... :dontcare:

...but your position does do one thing--it confirms for me just how relative this whole thing is for everyone.

vinsight4u · Jan 1, 2017

cloudyday2 · Jan 1, 2017

vinsight4u said:
Didn't Josephus call Jude the brother of Jesus Christ?

Here is the wikipedia article describing the references Josephus makes to Jesus and his followers. I didn't see any mention of Jude - only James.
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

vinsight4u · Jan 1, 2017

vinsight4u · Jan 1, 2017

SolomonVII · Jan 1, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Christian apologetics are vacuous if Christ's resurrection becomes solely a faith issue and not a proposition supported by reason or evidence.

It seems that the general consensus here is that the persecution of early Christians was insignificant and that many specifics are unknown. This casts doubt on the "Why die for a lie?" argument. Said argument was already deficient in facts and only supported by Catholic tradition.

Given that it is not reasonable to believe that the disciples wilfully died for their testimony, I consider their testimony, presuming it even exists, to carry little weight. I therefore see little to nothing to support the weight of the fantastic claim that a man rose from the dead. As Paul said, Christianity is worthless without the resurrection.

There are non sequitur in your reasoning.
Statements that persecution of Christians in early years was not (politically) significant do not lead to the conclusion that it is not reasonable to believe that disciples (who personally knew him) did go to their deaths on account of their testimony for him.
Whether you personally find it reasonable or not that disciples died for their beliefs, there is no relationship between the scope of the persecution of early Christians and whether or not individuals who personally knew Christ chose to die rather than deny what they experientially knew to be true about Jesus.

Quid est Veritas? · Jan 2, 2017

cloudyday2 said:
What is the evidence for Peter's martyrdom that makes it superior? Is it mentioned in a non-Christian source? (I have been puzzling about this and I haven't been able to find anything through google to explain why Peter's was more historical.) The martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus is mentioned in Josephus and most historians think it is basically authentic. Of course James the brother of Jesus was not one of the Twelve, but it seems to be the most historical to me.

Why the emphasis on a non-Christian source to ascertain historicity? This is a flawed perspective. If we excluded Roman sources on Roman figures as biased, which they of course are, then we wouldn't even have any evidence for major figures like Marius or Cicero. This is not how historical criticism works.

Besides we wouldn't expect any non-Christian sources. First century Christendom was a minor sect of a minor Religion of a backwater province of the Empire. It is unreasonable to expect other people to record this information when to their perspectives it is so infinitesimally unimportant. Therefore only those who care about it would have done so and subsequently would be our best source on them.
Think of it another way: Would the British have recorded the deaths of a specific subgroup of tribal shaman in their African colonies? Of course not.

As to Peter: Tertullian refers to him dying in the Neronian persecution (roughly 200 AD), but Clement (90s AD) and Ignatius of Antioch (110s AD) strongly implied he did long before Tertullian.
To back up this early tradition, we have epigraphic evidence and iconography from the Roman Catacombs and the Vatican hill substructure dating from the late first century that indicate a cult of Peter.

The Vatican hill evidence is especcially compelling as it is centred around a first century tomb complex.
When Archaeologists dug up the remains of a pagan necropolis they found a series of Christian tombs adjacent to it, clustered around but careful not to disturb a number of shallow graves. These had evidence of having been carefully attended and based on coins and tiles, dates from the reign of Vespasian (thus just after the Neronian persecution). This along with Roman sources describing the Neronian persecution and the Roman tendency to execute the leaders of groups, with epigraphic evidence of Peter-based martyr cult here, makes it highly probable that Peter the Apostle is one of the men interred in the shallow graves. In 1968 Pope Paul VI declared a set of bones belonging to a 70 year old man amongst these to be Peter, based on best archaeological evidence available.

So based on Tacitus, knowledge of Roman practices, Christian sources and Archaeological evidence, it is extremely likely Peter was executed during the Neronian persecution in Rome and buried in the Vatican Necropolis during Vespasian's reign.

Another very strong candidate is Thomas in India. The Christian sources speak of him dying during the reign of Gondophares or its later form Caspar, which is a very specific set of Indo-Parthian kings. This name was not common later nor found much outside of India. As the legend records a real regnal name that indisputably dates from the right area and time and is uncommon elsewhere, this is strong circumstantial evidence for historicity. For either it records a real event or the later redactors somehow plucked obscure Indian kings from nowhere. They would more likely have used names they were familiar with, famous figures or invented names if it was a later fanciful creation. Thus a mid first century date for Thomas's martyrdom narrative is highly probable.

cloudyday2 · Jan 2, 2017

Thanks, I was not aware of the archaeological evidence for a cult of Peter in Rome. But wouldn't you agree that the reference of Josephus to the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus combined with the reference in Acts is still stronger than the case for Peter?

Also, why does the book of Acts not mention the martyrdom of Peter or Paul when it does mention the martyrdom of others? Isn't that a bit odd?

EDIT: Thanks especially for the information on Thomas. That was very interesting.

Quid est Veritas? said:
In 1968 Pope Paul VI declared a set of bones belonging to a 70 year old man amongst these to be Peter, based on best archaeological evidence available.

I wonder if they have considered using Strontium isotopes? This would not prove it to be Peter, but it could prove it to NOT be Peter. Of course a not-Peter result would not be a not-martyrdom-of-Peter result, but it would be interesting to know.

The Sr isotope composition measured in human teeth will reflect the average Sr isotope composition that was ingested as a child, due to the immobile nature of Sr and Ca in teeth after formation, whereas the Sr isotope composition of bone will reflect the average isotopic composition over the last 10 years of life, due to continuous biological processing of Sr and Ca in bone.

Chewing the very teeth because it bites: An anthropological forensics by stable isotope profiling

Quid est Veritas? · Jan 2, 2017

cloudyday2 said:
Thanks, I was not aware of the archaeological evidence for a cult of Peter in Rome. But wouldn't you agree that the reference of Josephus to the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus combined with the reference in Acts is still stronger than the case for Peter?

Just to be clear: The martyrdom mentioned in Acts is of James, son of Zebedee (the Apostle and disciple) by Herod Agrippa. Josephus mentions the martyrdom of James, brother of the Lord (not a disciple or Apostle).
In my opinion, the evidence for Peter's martyrdom is both textual, traditional, Archaeological and supportable historically. These other two also have very strong historicity, with earlier textual support, but I wouldn't necessarily say they have a stronger case for historicity therefore.

Also, why does the book of Acts not mention the martyrdom of Peter or Paul when it does mention the martyrdom of others? Isn't that a bit odd?

EDIT: Thanks especially for the information on Thomas. That was very interesting.

Acts is usually dated to about 80-90 AD by secular scholars. This is due to the fact that it seems to reference the gospel of Mark which is also given this date and this date is assigned to Mark because it mentions the destruction of the temple. This is because secular scholarship automatically discounts prophecy, so thus Jesus's pronouncements had to have been written after the Temple's destruction in 70 AD. If we allow for prophecy, then Mark's dates can be shifted to the 50-60s AD as well, thus allowing Acts to have been written before the deaths of these two Apostles in the 60s AD.

Regardless, even if we accept the assumption of Jesus's prophecies having to have been written after the fact, the last recorded event in Acts is set in 63 AD. This is thus the earliest date for its composition, but it also means that it WOULD NOT record events after this, such as the Martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in roughly 68 AD. This would be like expecting a history of WWII to give information on what occurred in 1950.

Perhaps there were other texts in use for this information such as 1 Clement or Acts of Peter or it was just generally known, but it is not reasonable to expect a history text written in annal form to mention later events outside its scope.

I wonder if they have considered using Strontium isotopes? This would not prove it to be Peter, but it could prove it to NOT be Peter. Of course a not-Peter result would not be a not-martyrdom-of-Peter result, but it would be interesting to know.

Chewing the very teeth because it bites: An anthropological forensics by stable isotope profiling

In my understanding this would not be done as many in the Catholic Church consider this disrespectful to the possible remains of Peter or at least an early martyr.

A straight answer about Paul please

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Love to pray! :)

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Generic Theist

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Contributor

Generic Theist

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Generic Theist

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Similar threads