CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

[PILGRIMSHOST]

Hi all, Im looking for a specific piece of evidence at this time and would like if anybody could point me in the right direction.

I have been involved in the christian evangelical field for some years now and have gained much insight into the subject.

In the last few days I have desided to look for historical evidence that PETER (from the new testament) was actually crucified. Im seeking this evidence to support the claim ''they didnt die for a lie!''

Thank you and I look forward to your replies

[Goat]

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." - Irenaeus (ca. 180AD)

Again, where does Irenaeus get this information 120 years after the fact? Does he cite any sources? I haven't found any that he used.

I would also like to see evidence that the book we know as 'the gospel of Matthew' was originally written in Aramaic. As far as I can see, the 'evidence' presented is pure speculation by very non-stream theologians.

[Cathar1950]

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." - Irenaeus (ca. 180AD)

Again, where does Irenaeus get this information 120 years after the fact? Does he cite any sources? I haven't found any that he used.

I would also like to see evidence that the book we know as 'the gospel of Matthew' was originally written in Aramaic. As far as I can see, the 'evidence' presented is pure speculation by very non-stream theologians.

TruthSeeker1 seems to be doing a good job of looking at the evidence as Goat and Zzyzx are pretty much in the same camp I happen to be in.
Just to add a little to Goat here. None of the descriptions that Papias gives according to Eusebius the father of the history, fiction, tradition or myth of Church history sounds like either Matthew or Mark. As one scholar puts it, you would think when the unknown author of "Luke" was using the writings of the unknown author of "Mark" he would have mentioned it as he was writing about john Mark of Jerusalem. But the author of Luke doesn't make the connection that bible-believing apologist often do. We can be pretty sure Luke used "Mark" and He/She wrote of John Mark the supposed author of "Mark" in Their work. Luke didn't know who wrote mark either but knew it needed fixing. At least in my opinion and most scholars. Granted there are always alternative ideas both on the conservative and not so conservative sides of the issues.

Even before the advent of the modern scholarship of writings the books were suspect by even many church fathers.
Matthew does not give any appearance of being first written in anything but Greek by most legit scholars.

[Easyrider]

Luke didn't know who wrote mark either...

This is based on what?

but knew it needed fixing.

What precisely needed "fixing"?

Matthew does not give any appearance of being first written in anything but Greek by most legit scholars.

Many scholars now believe that the Gospels were written before Paul's first imprisonment of 57-60 A.D., and that virtually all of the New Testament books were written before Jerusalem's destruction.2

There is no hint in the New Testament of Nero's persecutions after 64 A.D., nor of the execution of James, the Lord's brother, in 62 A.D. There is not the slightest mention of the Jewish revolt against the Romans which began in 66 A.D., nor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. These historic events would have been irresistible in making many of the arguments in the New Testament documents.

Textual evidence suggests that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew. In hundreds of places the Greek sentence structure betrays a Semitic influence and implies a translation from the Hebrew. It appears that within five years after the death and resurrection of Christ, most of His words and deeds had been committed to a simple written Hebrew form and Matthew is, of course, assumed to be part of this compilation.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/205/

[Goat]

Luke didn't know who wrote mark either...

This is based on what?

but knew it needed fixing.

What precisely needed "fixing"?

Matthew does not give any appearance of being first written in anything but Greek by most legit scholars.

Many scholars now believe that the Gospels were written before Paul's first imprisonment of 57-60 A.D., and that virtually all of the New Testament books were written before Jerusalem's destruction.2

There is no hint in the New Testament of Nero's persecutions after 64 A.D., nor of the execution of James, the Lord's brother, in 62 A.D. There is not the slightest mention of the Jewish revolt against the Romans which began in 66 A.D., nor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. These historic events would have been irresistible in making many of the arguments in the New Testament documents.

Textual evidence suggests that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew. In hundreds of places the Greek sentence structure betrays a Semitic influence and implies a translation from the Hebrew. It appears that within five years after the death and resurrection of Christ, most of His words and deeds had been committed to a simple written Hebrew form and Matthew is, of course, assumed to be part of this compilation.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/205/

Very challenging claims, and not particularly backed up with mainstream sources

[Rayosun]

."TruthSeeker,
Your arguments are compelling. I do not envy those who attempt to oppose you in debate."

My sentiments exactly. Well done, TruthSeeker, and I say that as a Christian clergyman (now retired).

[TruthSeeker1]

."TruthSeeker,
Your arguments are compelling. I do not envy those who attempt to oppose you in debate."

My sentiments exactly. Well done, TruthSeeker, and I say that as a Christian clergyman (now retired).

Thanks Rayosun, and welcome to the site.

[Cathar1950]

Luke didn't know who wrote mark either...

This is based on what?
When he wrote of John Mark he could have mentioned it. For all we know one of Matthew's sources was a copy of the fragment you mention. You have nothing.

but knew it needed fixing.

What precisely needed "fixing"?
You compare them and figure it out. We have been thru this.

Matthew does not give any appearance of being first written in anything but Greek by most legit scholars.

Many scholars now believe that the Gospels were written before Paul's first imprisonment of 57-60 A.D., and that virtually all of the New Testament books were written before Jerusalem's destruction.2

There is no hint in the New Testament of Nero's persecutions after 64 A.D., nor of the execution of James, the Lord's brother, in 62 A.D. There is not the slightest mention of the Jewish revolt against the Romans which began in 66 A.D., nor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. These historic events would have been irresistible in making many of the arguments in the New Testament documents.

Textual evidence suggests that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew. In hundreds of places the Greek sentence structure betrays a Semitic influence and implies a translation from the Hebrew. It appears that within five years after the death and resurrection of Christ, most of His words and deeds had been committed to a simple written Hebrew form and Matthew is, of course, assumed to be part of this compilation.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/205/

That by all means is a controversy and I think the page you gave us has issues that are not as simple as they make it out to be.
But they show little or poor arguments but like you make giant unfounded claims.
I hope to get back to it.

I don't often disagree with Goat but here I have to draw the line and I hope we don't come to blows.
Goat wrote:

Very challenging claims, and not particularly backed up with mainstream I sources

I agree it is not "mainstream".
I got this from a site which should be read as Easyrider would want us to read his proof when he was supporting what ever he was supporting in opposition to what ever I wrote.

http://answering-christianity.com/abdul ... apyrus.htm
A little background on who exactly was Carsten Thiede:

"Thiede has no credentials, has never held an academic post, is self-appointed, and has no credibility in scholarly circles, who dismiss his claims as groundless. Buyers of his books should demand their money back on the grounds that they were defrauded into buying fiction." Quote of Dr M D Magee link article:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/210Thiede.html

So we can see he is not mainstream or as your;
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/205/

Many scholars now believe that the Gospels were written before Paul's first imprisonment of 57-60 A.D., and that virtually all of the New Testament books were written before Jerusalem's destruction.2
2. Risto Santala, The Messiah in the New Testament, p.47-48.

Based on this issue of dating claimed by one suspect "scholar" that "Many scholars" believe it is written before 57-60, how can they say virtually "all" of the NT writings are also dated early?
Who is Risto Santala to decide?

Ok back to my disagreement with Goat.
Yes, it is an opinion but it is not "Very challenging".

[Rayosun]

" http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/205/ "

Easy, quoting someone as a source is only worthwhile if your source is respectable enough to give you some credibility. If anything quoting businessman self-appointed bible scholar Chuck Missler destroys the credibility of anyone who relies on him. But don't take my word for it, check out these links:

* http://www.sarangworld.com/biblefuc.php3
* http://withchrist.org/missler.htm (Christian)
* http://cultlink.com/plagiarism/plgchart.htm
* http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/post/davem.htm
* http://answers.org/issues/y2k.html[/url]

[Easyrider]

" http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/205/ "

Easy, quoting someone as a source is only worthwhile if your source is respectable enough to give you some credibility. If anything quoting businessman self-appointed bible scholar Chuck Missler destroys the credibility of anyone who relies on him. But don't take my word for it, check out these links:

* http://www.sarangworld.com/biblefuc.php3
* http://withchrist.org/missler.htm (Christian)
* http://cultlink.com/plagiarism/plgchart.htm
* http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/post/davem.htm
* http://answers.org/issues/y2k.html[/url]

I think the point you missed is the complete absence of any historical accounts from circa 62 AD on in the Gospels. There is no hint of Nero's persecutions after 64 A.D., nor of the execution of James, the Lord's brother, in 62 A.D. There is not the slightest mention of the Jewish revolt against the Romans which began in 66 A.D., nor any mention at all of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (save for a prophecy of that future event). These historic events would have been irresistible in making many of the arguments in the Gospel accounts.

Why do you suppose that is?

[Cathar1950]

" http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/205/ "

Easy, quoting someone as a source is only worthwhile if your source is respectable enough to give you some credibility. If anything quoting businessman self-appointed bible scholar Chuck Missler destroys the credibility of anyone who relies on him. But don't take my word for it, check out these links:

* http://www.sarangworld.com/biblefuc.php3
* http://withchrist.org/missler.htm (Christian)
* http://cultlink.com/plagiarism/plgchart.htm
* http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/post/davem.htm
* http://answers.org/issues/y2k.html[/url]

I think the point you missed is the complete absence of any historical accounts from circa 62 AD on in the Gospels. There is no hint of Nero's persecutions after 64 A.D., nor of the execution of James, the Lord's brother, in 62 A.D. There is not the slightest mention of the Jewish revolt against the Romans which began in 66 A.D., nor any mention at all of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (save for a prophecy of that future event). These historic events would have been irresistible in making many of the arguments in the Gospel accounts.

Why do you suppose that is?

I am guessing it wasn't needed to tell the story.
When it says they will be tossed out of the Synaguage we can guess that is what was going on when they wrote.
Why is it no one wrote about those things between the gospels accounts?
We have silence. There is no compelling reason to think they were written early.
All evidence points to a later date written by non-witnesses.
I can imagine they didn't want to point out that they were anti-Roman from their roots. Jesus get executed by Rome yet the gospels want us to believe the Jews did it. Given all the editing the gospels have gone thru you would wonder why they didn't mention even the death of James, Peter or Paul in other writings.
I take it you don't understand the concept of fiction.