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

[Goose]

Don't bother with the "thanks" Goose. When you spend an entire post mixing childish digs and jabs with your responses it doesn't mean much to say "thanks" at the end. To reduce so much of my arguments to merely whining and questioning my abilities to understand logic doesn't do much to garner respect from someone attempting to have an intelligent dialogue.

Let's not get carried away. It's a little friendly digging and humour. You did notice the little smilies each time I mentioned your whining, didn't you? BTW, you first used a So, I thought that meant smilies were fair game.

The rest of your post is a rehash combined with appeals to personal experience. You haven't offered anything new and still not provided textural evidence to support your positions.


I will briefly address the following as you feel it is the most damaging point against my arguments. But as we will see it is really just a debate tactic on your part.

At the end of the day though, the most damaging point against your argument is this: You believe the Gospels are divinely inspired by a perfect, all powerful, and all knowing God. Yet, your main argument is that we shouldn't expect the Gospels to display any more credibility in regards to authorship than other works of antiquity written by mere humans. I find it odd that on one hand you would put forth that the Gospels are divinely inspired by a perfect being, and then turn around and belittle and rail against a person who (at the very most) asks for some evidence for the authorship of the Gospels that goes beyond the words of Church leaders decades and centuries after the fact. It seems strange that a perfect being wouldn't anticipate the future examination of his divinely inspired works and make an effort to have the Gospels rise above the little evidence for authorship that yourself and other Christian apologists are able to provide. Even more curious is why you would have such low expectations of evidence from a perfect and all knowing God which would then lead you to argue that the credibility of Gospel authorship should only be compared with mere human works from antiquity, and to expect anything more from divinely inspired works in somehow unreasonable.

You are now trying to move from a historical argument to a philosophical or theological one. Whether or not I believe the Bible to be the inerrant and inspired word of God is irrelevant to historical enquiry. You've built another strawman. At NO point in this debate have I asserted the bible to be inspired, nor am I assuming it while interacting with you. I'm looking at the Bible like any work from history written by men. You are invoking this tactic because the historical evidence in favour of traditional authorship when placed on a level playing field is clearly against you. The main mistake you're making is that you believe the Bible need to be inerrant and inspired and therefore be perfect in order for Christianity to be true or for one to becaome a Christian. This is a fallacy. One does NOT need accept inerrancy/inspiration to base one's faith soundly in Christianity. Nor does the Bible nedd be inerrant for CHristianity to be true. Your fan Rayson is an example this. Clearly he is a liberal, but still a Christian. And most likely a good one.

Truthseeker,
I'm sure that by now you appreciate the fact that your outstanding reasoning is lost on Goose,...

Nice ad hominem from a "clergy man" no less. I take back my statement to TruthSeeker1 that you are a good Christian.

...and that you have been aiming your comments on others who are hopefully reading this thread.

Ray, I'm still waiting for you to actually contribute something constructive to this thread. So far it's basically been backslapping and dissing sources.

Goose really let the cat out of the bag when he/she let slip: Goose wrote:
"if you didn't want to play my little game

Let what cat out of the bag, Ray? I also called it an "exercise." You're opposed to games/exercises that help us learn are you? This is a forum, we're allowed to have a little fun.

I have tried to live all of my 70 long life by the gospels, but I could care less what the actual names of the authors were.

How cavalier of you. I do care.


I'll let Ray's cat out of the bag

"Ray is now retired, after working in the computer field for 20 years, and now finds web publishing a great way to spread the word that the "Religious Right" are friends not of Christ (who was one of the greatest "Liberals" of all time), but the very kind of people who were the mortal foes of Jesus of Nazareth all his life."

Taken from here:
http://www.catholicarrogance.org/
http://www.catholicarrogance.org/ Who is Ray (or David) Dubuque ?


Ray's real agenda appears to be to take the fight to fellow Christians (more specifically Roman Catholics), that do not hold the liberal views he does. Am I pretty close?

I don't know if this you or not, but if it is, it seems you're more interested in taking the fight to the conservatives than anything else. That, more than anything, you've demonstrated in this thread.



P.S. If this isn't you please correct me and my deepest apologies.

[TruthSeeker1]

Quite sad to see the pettiness on the part of Goose. To take the time to research a person on this site simply because he can't handle the fact that a fellow Christian finds his arguments lacking is pretty sad.

To then question the quality of another person's faith is another sad thing to see. I would venture to guess that in his 70 years Ray has gained much wisdom, at some point maybe Goose will be able to understand that he/she doesn't know everything and maybe, just maybe, he/she could learn something from a person who doesn't line up in matters of faith exactly the same.

Work a bit on humbleness Goose, it will serve you well.

[Zzyzx]

.

Quite sad to see the pettiness on the part of Goose. To take the time to research a person on this site simply because he can't handle the fact that a fellow Christian finds his arguments lacking is pretty sad.

To then question the quality of another person's faith is another sad thing to see.

Anti-Christianity is well served when fundamentalists attack more liberal Christians and demean their faith. The "Condemning Christians" consider themselves empowered to decide and declare who is a "Real" Christian and who is not. Their ankle biting attacks demean the entire religion by exposing the extent of its hypocrisy and its intolerance.

The intolerant Christians consider themselves so superior that they are obligated to denigrate even fellow Christians to demonstrate that superiority. Of course, they also condemn <shudder> "Atheists" and "Infidels" (all who do not believe properly). When they are done condemning there is no one left but their own sect (perhaps a few thousand people in the midst of billions who disagree with "the one true path to salvation").

It is easy to encourage them to make fools of themselves and their religion with their typical sweeping condemnations of everyone except themselves. Perhaps they cannot comprehend that their haughty intolerance drives people away from Christianity and makes enemies of many who were not active opponents until attacked.

Those same Condemning Christians made an enemy for their cause, in my case, from one who was neutral.

[Vanguard]

Quite sad to see the pettiness on the part of Goose. To take the time to research a person on this site simply because he can't handle the fact that a fellow Christian finds his arguments lacking is pretty sad.

To then question the quality of another person's faith is another sad thing to see. I would venture to guess that in his 70 years Ray has gained much wisdom, at some point maybe Goose will be able to understand that he/she doesn't know everything and maybe, just maybe, he/she could learn something from a person who doesn't line up in matters of faith exactly the same.

Work a bit on humbleness Goose, it will serve you well.

I don't see it that way. Where did Goose denigrate Rayosun's beliefs? Why is it petty for Goose to research the background of a person on this site? Have you read Rayosun's website? R hardly offers a up a fair representation of our brothers in the RCC. In fact, it reads like any typical "black heliocopter" world conspiracy story perpetrated by the Roman Catholics!

Judging from some of the posts lately it seems a new forum "Rayosun apologetics" should be opened. Come on guys, Ray has a right to express his beliefs but we don't need to fawn all over him as though he did walk on water!

Hmmm, let's see how much more of a pass we'll give this elder statesman before the bloom fades even for the non-theists...

[Easyrider]

"I think the point you missed is the complete absence of any historical accounts from circa 62 AD on in the Gospels."

Easyrider, don't change the subject. The only point that I was addressing was a long quotation of yours from ONE source. I pointed out to the forum that this source is discredited. An honest response on your part might have been "I didn't know that. I'll have to look for better sources."
Sadly, all that your saying that I missed some other irrelevant point of yours does is show that YOU are missing my point (intentionally, I would guess).

Well, it's a matter of professional analysis and opinion on the researcher's part. You can produce your "experts" and say it's discredited but that's just one side of the argument.

FYI, there's more than a few scholars who give Matthew a pre-70's authorship date. Here's a very short list to start with.

M. G. Easton M. A., D. D. Probably between AD 60 or 65
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 50 to 55, yet 40 to 60 is possible.
Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable.
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 63-66
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by AD 62
Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Prior to the mid 60s Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
J. Wenham, Ph.D. AD 40

[Goat]

"I think the point you missed is the complete absence of any historical accounts from circa 62 AD on in the Gospels."

Easyrider, don't change the subject. The only point that I was addressing was a long quotation of yours from ONE source. I pointed out to the forum that this source is discredited. An honest response on your part might have been "I didn't know that. I'll have to look for better sources."
Sadly, all that your saying that I missed some other irrelevant point of yours does is show that YOU are missing my point (intentionally, I would guess).

Well, it's a matter of professional analysis and opinion on the researcher's part. You can produce your "experts" and say it's discredited but that's just one side of the argument.

FYI, there's more than a few scholars who give Matthew a pre-70's authorship date. Here's a very short list to start with.

M. G. Easton M. A., D. D. Probably between AD 60 or 65
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 50 to 55, yet 40 to 60 is possible.
Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable.
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 63-66
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by AD 62
Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Prior to the mid 60s Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
J. Wenham, Ph.D. AD 40

You and the cut and pastes of your lists.

So, when do we get to see the evidence and arguements of each of these 'scholars' that give lead them to their 'conclusion'?

I mean, Thiede is the guy that concluded that a fragment of scripture that could have been any one of a dozen old testament parts was the Gospel of Mark, and he argued that a piece of wood was part of the True Cross. He doesn't seem to be a rather reliable person from a scholarship standpoint to me..

[TruthSeeker1]

Quite sad to see the pettiness on the part of Goose. To take the time to research a person on this site simply because he can't handle the fact that a fellow Christian finds his arguments lacking is pretty sad.

To then question the quality of another person's faith is another sad thing to see. I would venture to guess that in his 70 years Ray has gained much wisdom, at some point maybe Goose will be able to understand that he/she doesn't know everything and maybe, just maybe, he/she could learn something from a person who doesn't line up in matters of faith exactly the same.

Work a bit on humbleness Goose, it will serve you well.

I don't see it that way. Where did Goose denigrate Rayosun's beliefs? Why is it petty for Goose to research the background of a person on this site? Have you read Rayosun's website? R hardly offers a up a fair representation of our brothers in the RCC. In fact, it reads like any typical "black heliocopter" world conspiracy story perpetrated by the Roman Catholics!

Judging from some of the posts lately it seems a new forum "Rayosun apologetics" should be opened. Come on guys, Ray has a right to express his beliefs but we don't need to fawn all over him as though he did walk on water!

Hmmm, let's see how much more of a pass we'll give this elder statesman before the bloom fades even for the non-theists...

This is what bothered me:

Nice ad hominem from a "clergy man" no less. I take back my statement to TruthSeeker1 that you are a good Christian.

Do you find this constructive Vanguard? Does a statement like Goose's advance an argument in an intelligent and respectful way?

Disagree all you want with someone, I actually think it is healthy. However, in my opinion people should attempt to disagree with respect.

[McCulloch]

You and the cut and pastes of your lists.

So, when do we get to see the evidence and arguments of each of these 'scholars' that give lead them to their 'conclusion'?

Goat, we cannot all be experts in all of the fields we debate here. It is quite relevant to the debate where the various scholars stand on particular issues. An argument which might seem sound and reasonable to me who is not an expert in dating ancient documents, might very well be shot down by an expert with more knowledge and experience than me.

For instance, I have some mathematical knowledge. I would have been convinced by Kempe's proof of the four-color problem proposed in 1879. It was not until 1890 that Kempe's proof was shown to be incorrect by Percy Heawood. The final proof was completed in 2004 Georges Gonthier and Benjamin Werner using a computer process. I do not understand their proof.

In the case of the dating of New Testament writings, where scholarly opinion is divided, we must look deeper. What are the biases of the particular scholars? What is the evidence?

Since I am a prophet, I will predict that one side will be accused of having a bias against miraculous divine revelation and the other side will be accused of having an a priori assumption of biblical inerrancy.

[Goat]

You and the cut and pastes of your lists.

So, when do we get to see the evidence and arguments of each of these 'scholars' that give lead them to their 'conclusion'?

Goat, we cannot all be experts in all of the fields we debate here. It is quite relevant to the debate where the various scholars stand on particular issues. An argument which might seem sound and reasonable to me who is not an expert in dating ancient documents, might very well be shot down by an expert with more knowledge and experience than me.

For instance, I have some mathematical knowledge. I would have been convinced by Kempe's proof of the four-color problem proposed in 1879. It was not until 1890 that Kempe's proof was shown to be incorrect by Percy Heawood. The final proof was completed in 2004 Georges Gonthier and Benjamin Werner using a computer process. I do not understand their proof.

In the case of the dating of New Testament writings, where scholarly opinion is divided, we must look deeper. What are the biases of the particular scholars? What is the evidence?

Since I am a prophet, I will predict that one side will be accused of having a bias against miraculous divine revelation and the other side will be accused of having an a priori assumption of biblical inerrancy.

Yet, just creating a short list of a few minority scholars doesn't make the case at all. It also is ignoring the many hundreds of scholars that disagree.

Just saying "xxxx dates the book at this date", when hundreds of scholars disagree with that assessment is just the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Easyrider has made the claim he has a TH.d. Surely, someone with a TH.D can give an arguement with substance, rather than just a list of people, without any substance behind it that take a minority view.

I am more than willing to look at the evidence of why the Gospel of Mark is dated earlier. A list of people who claim the Gospel of mark was written earlier is just a claim without substance.

[Vanguard]

This is what bothered me:

Nice ad hominem from a "clergy man" no less. I take back my statement to TruthSeeker1 that you are a good Christian.

Do you find this constructive Vanguard? Does a statement like Goose's advance an argument in an intelligent and respectful way?

Fair enough, I see your point. Goose should be careful not to call into question another's Christianity in this way and especially in the heat of such an exchange.