Resurrection Evidence

[cvanwey]

The topic is contemporary records for Peter, not for Jesus, and the fact of the matter is that they very much do exist. If you deny that, that would suggest that you do not know what a primary source is. Furthermore, the Gospel of John was not written 150 years after the death of Peter--you're completely out of step with modern scholarship if you think it's from the end of the 2nd century.

You again are, in a subtle-sorta-way, attempting to undermine my intelligence. I guess I will need to be more literal with you, moving forward.

Mark - 75AD?
Luke/Matthew - 80-85AD?
John - 80-110AD?

We don't have the originals. Some scholars agree that the further you trek backwards, the greater the discrepancies found. And since we DON'T have the originals, you are speculating.

 

[Silmarien]

You again are, in a subtle-sorta-way, attempting to undermine my intelligence. I guess I will need to be more literal with you, moving forward.

Mark - 75AD?
Luke/Matthew - 80-85AD?
John - 80-110AD?

We don't have the originals. Some scholars agree that the further you trek backwards, the greater the discrepancies found. And since we DON'T have the originals, you are speculating.

Congratulations, you just destroyed the entirety of ancient history.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't consider the idea that it's an early legend particularly credible, because I think it's too soon, the figure of Peter is too important for people to pretend he was executed when he wasn't, and what we see referenced in John is not particularly legendary in nature anyway. Later ideas like it taking place in Rome and specific grisly details about it are more likely to be legendary in nature.

One tidbit that I came across in "The Resurrection" by Vermes got me thinking about the obsession with martyrs in Christianity. Vermes said that the belief in life after death developed in Judaism around the time when Jews were killed for refusing to become Hellenized under Antiochus. Until then the Jews expected that God would reward piety in this life. Jews began to believe there was a special provision for martyrs who died for their piety so that God could reward them in an afterlife.

If early Christianity was influenced by this Jewish belief that martyrs and only martyrs could expect a reward after death then maybe there would be a need to invent tales of martyrdom about the early Christian leaders such as Peter. There was certainly an obsession with martyrs in the proto-orthodox variety of Christianity according to Ehrman. He said this was their main trait.

Take the example of Judas Iscariot. The gospels say he committed suicide immediately and other accounts say he died from some horrible disease years later. So there is an example where legends about key figures developed early.

If St. Peter died choking on a fish bone maybe there was a need for a better ending.

Look also at the Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. They differ and are obviously at least partially legend, and they apparently developed prior to 70 AD. That was pretty early.

 

[cvanwey]

Congratulations, you just destroyed the entirety of ancient history.

If you say so

 

[Silmarien]

One tidbit that I came across in "The Resurrection" by Vermes got me thinking about the obsession with martyrs in Christianity. Vermes said that the belief in life after death developed in Judaism around the time when Jews were killed for refusing to become Hellenized under Antiochus. Until then the Jews expected that God would reward piety in this life. So Jews began to believe there was a special provision for martyrs who died for their piety so that God could reward them in an afterlife.

So if early Christianity was influenced by this Jewish belief that martyrs and only martyrs could expect a reward after death then maybe there would be a need to invent tales of martyrdom about the early Christian leaders such as Peter. There was certainly an obsession with martyrs in the proto-orthodox variety of Christianity according to Ehrman. He said this was their main trait.

Well, I'd definitely agree that there was an obsession with martyrdom, but I don't see any reason to think that there was a belief that martyrdom was a requirement for salvation or anything along those lines. We also see a lot of persecution being referenced in the Pauline Epistles, we've got Josephus attesting to the execution of James, and we know that there was a serious conflict going on with the synogogue, so I don't really see any reason to be hyper-skeptical about Peter.

Take the example of Judas Iscariot. The gospels say he committed suicide immediately and other accounts say he died from some horrible disease years later. So there is an example where legends about key figures developed early.

If St. Peter died choking on a fish bone maybe there was a need for a better ending.

Look also at the Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. They differ and are obviously at least partially legend, and they apparently developed prior to 70 AD. That was pretty early.

Yeah, but the thing is that a reference to Peter's crucifixion would have to be a fullblown fabrication rather than a later legend to fill in things that people didn't necessarily have information on. Peter was present in the early Christian community in a way that Judas obviously was not. What we have in John is also very subtle, whereas I'd say that intentional fabrications usually are not. (Look at 2 Peter, for example, where we've got someone claiming to be Peter and yet directly referencing the Pauline Epistles that Peter would have had no access to. That is not subtle.)

Also, given that there are no allusions to Peter's death in the other Gospels, at least that I've noticed, I think it's harder to view it as a legend that evolved.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, I'd definitely agree that there was an obsession with martyrdom, but I don't see any reason to think that there was a belief that martyrdom was a requirement for salvation or anything along those lines. We also see a lot of persecution being referenced in the Pauline Epistles, we've got Josephus attesting to the execution of James, and we know that there was a serious conflict going on with the synogogue, so I don't really see any reason to be hyper-skeptical about Peter.

Peter might have been a martyr, but there was definitely a strong incentive to invent a legend where he died as a martyr. Vermes said the initial Jewish ideas on the afterlife were restricted to extremely pious people like Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, etc. Later the Jewish martyrs were believed to enjoy rewards in an afterlife. Finally the afterlife became a more universal expectation for pious Jews. The unknown is what percentage of Jews held these different views in the first century. Assuming that the early Jewish Christians believed that only martyrs could expect an afterlife there would be a need for any early Christian leader to be a martyr one way or another. St. Ignatious seemed to be overly eager to die a martyr, and that is suggestive IMO.

But I agree that Peter might have truly been crucified.

BTW, how is this relevant to the claimed resurrection of Jesus? I haven't been reading every post, so I didn't see how we got on this topic. It's interesting of course, and I don't care either way.

 

[Silmarien]

Peter might have been a martyr, but there was definitely a strong incentive to invent a legend where he died as a martyr. Vermes said the initial Jewish ideas on the afterlife were restricted to extremely pious people like Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, etc. Later the Jewish martyrs were believed to enjoy rewards in an afterlife. Finally the afterlife became a more universal expectation for pious Jews. The unknown is what percentage of Jews held these different views in the first century. Assuming that the early Jewish Christians believed that only martyrs could expect an afterlife there would be a need for any early Christian leader to be a martyr one way or another. St. Ignatious seemed to be overly eager to die a martyr, and that is suggestive IMO.

I'd agree that it's suggestive of the fact that the early Christians were utterly obsessed with martyrdom--Origen is another one who was pretty keen on getting himself killed. If I remember right from some of my Patristics readings, people being too eager to be martyred was a bit of a problem, but I don't see any indication that anyone ever thought it was necessary. I mean, speaking of Origen, he wanted to be martyred, but he was also a universalist, so it wouldn't make much sense for him to think that only martyrs were saved.

But I agree that Peter might have truly been crucified.

BTW, how is this relevant to the claimed resurrection of Jesus? I haven't been reading every post, so I didn't see how we got on this topic. It's interesting of course, and I don't care either way.

Someone else was arguing that the apostles would not have died for a lie. The response was that there was no genuine evidence that they were martyred at all, which I think is wrong. There's definitely evidence for Peter. (And James and Paul. Maybe for some of the others in Acts also, though I find that a bit more on the nose than the reference to Peter in John. I think subtle allusions are much more likely to be true.)

 

[cloudyday2]

..., but I don't see any indication that anyone ever thought it was necessary. I mean, speaking of Origen, he wanted to be martyred, but he was also a universalist, so it wouldn't make much sense for him to think that only martyrs were saved.

We have 1 Thessalonians 4:13 -18 where Paul comforts those who have lost a loved one with the promise that they will rise at the Second Coming. Of course the fact that Paul must explain this to fellow Christians indicates that it was not the default belief at 50 AD. Also, we know that Paul was not part of the inner circle of Christianity based in Jerusalem. Maybe the Palestinian core of Christianity believed that martyrdom was the only sure ticket to a good afterlife.

The Rabbinic branch of Judaism seems to have also been obsessed with martyrdom with stories of people being rolled up in Torah scrolls to be burned that sound suspiciously like pious embellishments. That was after the Jewish revolts in the early second century.

Of course you are probably correct that Peter was crucified as claimed.

Someone else was arguing that the apostles would not have died for a lie. The response was that there was no genuine evidence that they were martyred at all, which I think is wrong. There's definitely evidence for Peter. (And James and Paul. Maybe for some of the others in Acts also, though I find that a bit more on the nose than the reference to Peter in John. I think subtle allusions are much more likely to be true.)

I suppose the fact that a subtle allusion can be made indicates that the concept is already widely understood and presumably founded on multiple sources that existed at that time?

 

[Silmarien]

We have 1 Thessalonians 4:13 -18 where Paul comforts those who have lost a loved one with the promise that they will rise at the Second Coming. Of course the fact that Paul must explain this to fellow Christians indicates that it was not the default belief at 50 AD. Also, we know that Paul was not part of the inner circle of Christianity based in Jerusalem. Maybe the Palestinian core of Christianity believed that martyrdom was the only sure ticket to a good afterlife.

I think that would have been a far more spectacular point of disagreement between Paul and Jerusalem than the conflict over circumcision was, so probably would have shown up in some of Paul's angrier letters. I also don't see the passage in 1 Thessalonians as referring in anyway to a belief that only martyrs would be saved--if anything, it might imply that people thought that only those who survived to see the Second Coming would be granted eternal life, but I don't see any hint of a belief in an afterlife reserved only for martyrs.

I suppose the fact that a subtle allusion can be made indicates that the concept is already widely understood and presumably founded on multiple sources that existed at that time?

Well, I don't understand referring to Peter himself as the sort of figure that's merely a concept founded upon sources, given that he was one of the leaders of the early church. But yes, if John had fabricated the story, he would have likely been less subtle about it. Peter's death seems to have been public knowledge at the time the Gospel of John was written, presumably because it actually happened and the news was circulated.

We know from the Epistles that a considerable amount of written communication was going on between the various communities, so the idea that this sprung up as a legend instead of being based in genuine news is odd to me. I think authenticity fits much better with the documentation, especially since Rome was not particularly shy about executing people considered dangerous.

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, which ones have you heard?

I've heard the swoon theory, abduction theory, Jesus never existed, etc. I've heard people say the disciples were on hallucinogenic drugs and all had the same hallucination. As with flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers, people will go great lengths to deny something they find unacceptable.

 

[Chesterton]

We have 1 Thessalonians 4:13 -18 where Paul comforts those who have lost a loved one with the promise that they will rise at the Second Coming. Of course the fact that Paul must explain this to fellow Christians indicates that it was not the default belief at 50 AD.

You realize he was writing to churches? Already established Christian churches. You think they said "let's form an assembly of people sharing common beliefs, and we'll just wait around till someone in the future tells us what we should believe." No, my priest recently comforted a family who lost a loved one with the same promise. It is already the default belief. He was just comforting them.

Also, we know that Paul was not part of the inner circle of Christianity based in Jerusalem.

I sent you that video awhile back about Paul meeting Peter. He certainly was in the inner circle, if by that we mean they shared common beliefs, and Paul had access to whatever information Peter had.

 

[Resha Caner]

Battles, architecture, etc., are mundane claims.

All that says is that you don't understand what those people did - weren't around when the idea of Polynesians sailing the Pacific was thought extraordinary and ridiculous - weren't around to hear the scoffers and naysayers calling Heyerdahl a nut. When was the last time you crossed the Pacific in a small, open boat?

Your position is special pleading. Show me the formal logical system we can both use to distinguish "mundane" events from "extraordinary" events and we'll talk. If you want to hold me accountable, you must also submit yourself to some accountability. It goes both ways.

 

[Tone]

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.' You've heard it before I presume.

The world, as it was known then, has been completely discoed...and you don't think that this is extra-ordinary evidence?

Acts 17
"5 The Jews, however, became jealous. So they brought in some troublemakers from the marketplace, formed a mob, and sent the city into an uproar. They raided Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas, hoping to bring them out to the people. 6 But when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have now come here, 7 and Jason has welcomed them into his home. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying there is another king, named Jesus!”

How do you, as @Silmarien said, "...destroy the entirety of ancient history."? Do you presume to say that The Story played no role in shaping the culture (among other things) in which you currently reside?

 

[BigV]

Congratulations, you just destroyed the entirety of ancient history.

Was Lazarus a historical person? He was remarkably transformed from a fictional character in Luke’s Gospel to Jesus’ friend in “John’s” Gospel. Even Evangelical scholars consider Lazarus to be the “disciple whom Jesus loved”.

interesting note. In Luke’s Gospel, Luke 16, rich man asks that Lazarus be resurrected so that he could preach to rich man’s brothers whereas in John’s Gospel, Lazarus is actually resurrected!

in Luke’s Gospel, there is no resurrection of Lazarus because it’s not going to accomplish anything, since the rich man’s brothers already have Moses’ writings. In John’s Gospel resurrection of Lazarus has a great effect where many people believe in Jesus due to him raising Lazarus from the dead!

historical accounts???

 

[BigV]

How do you, as @Silmarien said, "...destroy the entirety of ancient history."? Do you presume to say that The Story played no role in shaping the culture (among other things) in which you currently reside?

Okay, let’s play history. According to the book of Acts, the first Christian church was in Jerusalem! James was their leader. So what happened to that church? Why is there a record of Peter being the first Pope and record of Peter’s disciples whereas no record of the church in Jerusalem except what is written in Acts? How could they just vanish without a historical trace? And how plausible is it that we have a Roman Catholic Church but not Jerusalem Catholic Church?

It may have been easier to take Christian “history” seriously if there weren’t so many forgeries. I mean, we have a letter written by Jesus to king Abgar.

 

[BigV]

Your position is special pleading. Show me the formal logical system we can both use to distinguish "mundane" events from "extraordinary" events and we'll talk. If you want to hold me accountable, you must also submit yourself to some accountability. It goes both ways.

let me understand your claim. If I claim teleportation powers, you won’t be able to refute me because highly unlikely events happen all the time?

All that says is that you don't understand what those people did - weren't around when the idea of Polynesians sailing the Pacific was thought extraordinary and ridiculous - weren't around to hear the scoffers and naysayers calling Heyerdahl a nut. When was the last time you crossed the Pacific in a small, open boat?

there is a world of difference between crossing a Pacific Ocean on a small boat and raising dead people to life!

 

[Resha Caner]

let me understand your claim. If I claim teleportation powers, you won’t be able to refute me because highly unlikely events happen all the time?

I believe you've missed my point.

Situation 1:
John: Last night I did a free solo up El Capitan.
Jane: Cool. Congratulations.

Situation 2:
John: Last night I teleported to the top of El Capitan.
Jane. I don't believe you. Provide evidence.

Both are extraordinary feats. Why did Jane accept #1 without evidence and demand evidence for #2? Was it because one person in the history of the world is known to have free soloed El Capitan, but no one is known to have teleported? That's what I believe is the case.

But what does the fact that one amazing person managed to free solo El Capitan have to do with John? I maintain Jane should be just as skeptical and just as demanding of evidence for both situations. Just because #1 has been shown to be possible doesn't mean John is capable of doing it.

I further maintain that while it's reasonable to be skeptical about #2, Jane should not set ridiculous standards of evidence for that situation that exceed situation #1. She should not base her demands for evidence on her belief that teleportation is impossible. The demand for evidence can be exactly the same in both situations. John claimed to do it. OK, John. Show me.

there is a world of difference between crossing a Pacific Ocean on a small boat and raising dead people to life!

Now you've made a claim that different situations do require different standards of evidence. Defend that claim in such a way that I can hold you accountable to it. Lay out some type of logical framework for setting levels of evidence for specific situations such that if both of us use that system, both of us will obtain the same standard of evidence.

Or are you going to be like @cvanwey where in one case you agree to accept the documentation of ancient history:

I will tenatively accept the claims for the existence of Alexander the Great, Jesus, Confucius, etc...

and in another case you reject it all:

Congratulations, you just destroyed the entirety of ancient history.

If you say so

[edit] Or, if you want to forego all that and acknowledge my original point, we can do that. The point was: It's not that you believe the Resurrection is possible, but just don't believe the historical claim that Jesus did it. Rather, you simply don't believe Resurrection is possible.​

 

[BigV]

I believe you've missed my point.

Situation 1:
John: Last night I did a free solo up El Capitan.
Jane: Cool. Congratulations.

Situation 2:
John: Last night I teleported to the top of El Capitan.
Jane. I don't believe you. Provide evidence.

Both are extraordinary feats. Why did Jane accept #1 without evidence and demand evidence for #2? Was it because one person in the history of the world is known to have free soloed El Capitan, but no one is known to have teleported? That's what I believe is the case.

But what does the fact that one amazing person managed to free solo El Capitan have to do with John? I maintain Jane should be just as skeptical and just as demanding of evidence for both situations. Just because #1 has been shown to be possible doesn't mean John is capable of doing it.

I further maintain that while it's reasonable to be skeptical about #2, Jane should not set ridiculous standards of evidence for that situation that exceed situation #1. She should not base her demands for evidence on her belief that teleportation is impossible. The demand for evidence can be exactly the same in both situations. John claimed to do it. OK, John. Show me.

In a Situation 1, we could be talking about someone weighing 600lbs and requiring a wheelchair to get to the bathroom. In their case, both situations are equally not plausible.

However, if the situation 1 is about a rock climber who has a solid record of similar feats, then their claim alone of going to the top of El Capitan is sufficient to most reasonable people. Although you are right, the rock climber could have lied about getting to the top of El Capitan.

But here is something that you seem to be missing in the context of religious discussions. By arguing that skepticism in both of your situations is warranted, you are arguing in FAVOR of skepticism, not against it.

As you've pointed out, even a world class climber can lie about scaling El Capitan. And there is no way to know for sure. All of history is about probabilities.

If I read a book that says person X climbed El Capitan, I can erroneously conclude they have spoken the truth, even if they lied. But if the book says person X teleported to the top of El Capitan, I would be a fool to consider that claim as being even remotely possible.

Now you've made a claim that different situations do require different standards of evidence.

Hold one, weren't you the one who presented two situations and said that they require different standards of evidence?

 

[Resha Caner]

But here is something that you seem to be missing in the context of religious discussions. By arguing that skepticism in both of your situations is warranted, you are arguing in FAVOR of skepticism, not against it.

As you've pointed out, even a world class climber can lie about scaling El Capitan. And there is no way to know for sure. All of history is about probabilities.

If I read a book that says person X climbed El Capitan, I can erroneously conclude they have spoken the truth, even if they lied. But if the book says person X teleported to the top of El Capitan, I would be a fool to consider that claim as being even remotely possible.

I'm not missing that. I'm fully aware of it. I have an M.A. in history, and this was a major topic of my program. Did you think Christians are never skeptical?

Hold one, weren't you the one who presented two situations and said that they require different standards of evidence?

Did I? I don't recall doing that. To which post do you refer? If I did, then we can work on developing the standard together. But you did make the claim, so you would still need to participate.

Did you see my edit? I realize you might have missed it. It would be good to check it.

 

[cvanwey]

I've heard the swoon theory, abduction theory, Jesus never existed, etc. I've heard people say the disciples were on hallucinogenic drugs and all had the same hallucination. As with flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers, people will go great lengths to deny something they find unacceptable.

Well, I doubt it was any of those you have heard. Here's what I think... I think Jesus was a homeless charismatic Jewish preacher, who lived at a specific time in history. The 4 Gospels were written many decades after His death. I can maybe speculate many differing reasons. But regardless, what I find, for myself, is that the claims of a man rising from the grave, 'proving' He is the Messiah, looks to be the least likely culprit.

Again, I cannot say, with 100% certainty, as to all the details pertaining to what did happen. I have my own hunche(s). But because I don't know, does not mean I cannot confidently rule out another option.

Example:

A person was abducted and never found. The least likely option floating around in the ether, or even later written about, might be 'this person was abducted by aliens, probed, and eventually made leader of the planet in which this person was taken.'