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

[The Duke of Vandals]

What evidence do you have Peter existed?

Anicetus writes in the second century (over a hundred years after Jesus' alleged death) that Peter was beheaded by Nero.

The Clementines (also in the second century) allege Peter was bishop of Rome for 25 years... contradicting the beheaded by Nero allegation.

Origen writing in the third century is the one who tells us Peter was crucified upside down. Why anyone would think he had any knowledge or authority to state what Peter did is beyond me.

[PILGRIMSHOST]

Hi DUKE.

How you doin? Thanks for the reply, do you have any more info about any other founder christians that died for what they believed to be true (acording to the christians).

And by all means if anybody has anything to add please do so, cheers

[Nameless]

Unfortunately, up to the present moment, as far as I am aware, there has never been produced one shread of an independent eyewitness corroboration of any 'Jesus' of 'new testament' context.
No independent verification. None.
So, as far as I can see, there is, other than the one book, no reason to accept his 'actual' existence. 'Actual', I said, as I do understand that 'he' still 'exists' in art, literature, and in the hearts and minds of his 'believers', and 'his' followers.

Generally, people kill and die for their delusions. 'Truth' requires no such nonsense.

[AB]

Unfortunately, up to the present moment, as far as I am aware, there has never been produced one shread of an independent eyewitness corroboration of any 'Jesus' of 'new testament' context.
No independent verification. None.
So, as far as I can see, there is, other than the one book, no reason to accept his 'actual' existence. 'Actual', I said, as I do understand that 'he' still 'exists' in art, literature, and in the hearts and minds of his 'believers', and 'his' followers.

Generally, people kill and die for their delusions. 'Truth' requires no such nonsense.

Meanwhile, applying this same questioning you doubt the existence of Darius king of Persia? Your right. There was no king of Persia.. named Darius..

[The Duke of Vandals]

Meanwhile, applying this same questioning you doubt the existence of Darius king of Persia? Your right. There was no king of Persia.. named Darius..

What a disingenuous knee-jerk reply? As though the king of Persia was alleged to be a cosmic fatherless jew whose followers telepathically call him master... please.

The above quoted text is guilty of the double standard fallacy. Christians want non-Christians to ignore all the supernatural claims attached to Jesus and treat the gospels like a historic claim. It's very obviously not. When we see claims that involve grossly impossible things we conclude they're myths. We then look at what they actually claim to see if they're myths based on real people. Jesus allegedly lived at one of the most literate times / places in that historical era and commanded rock star attention... yet he goes completely off the radar.

It's very obvious to anyone not completely biased that Jesus is a myth based on folklore from pagans, Jewish prophecy, and first century (bce and ce) Jews.

Honestly... as though you'd assume Paul Bunyan existed. lol

[allansmith]

It's very obvious to anyone not completely biased that Jesus is a myth

If you assume miracles are impossible, the stories of Jesus are clearly bogus. On the other hand, the stories of Jesus provide us with clear testimony that miracles are not bogus.

You don't believe in miracles because you've decided to disbelieve. Simple as that. You've picked your assumptions and others have picked theirs. Don't bore us with protests of objectivity.

[Goose]

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

Hi PILGRIMSHOT,

You won't find the account of Peter being crucified upside down in the NT. Regarding Peter, there are accounts of persecutions, beatings, near deaths and such in the first half of Acts (see ch 5, 12 for an example) and elsewhere. The earliest account we have that probably refers to Peter's (and Paul's) martyrdom is found in 1 Clement 5, written around 95AD. The account of Peter being crucified upside down is first mentioned in the Acts of Peter ch 33 onwards, written around the middle of the second century. Stephen's death in Acts technically doesn't qualify as we don't know if he was a witness to Jesus' resurrection. We can speculate he was one of the 500 or apostles mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, but that would be pure conjecture on our part and not supportable by evidence. It is also likely that Josephus is refering to James' (the Lord's brother) martrydom in Antiquities 20, written in 96AD. James is listed as one of the witnesses to the risen Christ in 1 Cor 15. From the early evidence there is no doubt that the disciples and apostles were willing to suffer for their faith though. Key players such as Peter, Paul and James to the point of death. I think that is all we really need to argue in my opinion.

[TruthSeeker1]

If you assume miracles are impossible, the stories of Jesus are clearly bogus. On the other hand, the stories of Jesus provide us with clear testimony that miracles are not bogus.

You don't believe in miracles because you've decided to disbelieve. Simple as that. You've picked your assumptions and others have picked theirs. Don't bore us with protests of objectivity.

Do the stories of Mohammed from the Koran provide us with clear testimony of miracles? Is there any evidence besides the written words of anonymous writers from 2000 years ago that attest to actual miracles taking place? If not, then I really don't think you can call testimony from anonymous writers with no mention of sources as "clear" testimony of actual miracles.

[Goose]

If you assume miracles are impossible, the stories of Jesus are clearly bogus. On the other hand, the stories of Jesus provide us with clear testimony that miracles are not bogus.

You don't believe in miracles because you've decided to disbelieve. Simple as that. You've picked your assumptions and others have picked theirs. Don't bore us with protests of objectivity.

Do the stories of Mohammed from the Koran provide us with clear testimony of miracles?

I'm not aware of the Koran crediting Mohammed with any "miracles." Islam's biggest hurdle is lack of multiple and early attestation.

Is there any evidence besides the written words of anonymous writers from 2000 years ago that attest to actual miracles taking place?

"Besides" ? Translation: other than the evidence we DO have, do we have any OTHER evidence? How many times must an ancient event be attested to in order to be considered probable in your opinion? What methodology do you employ?

If not, then I really don't think you can call testimony from anonymous writers with no mention of sources as "clear" testimony of actual miracles.

Well that's an opinion. Maybe they didn't mention "sources" because they received their information directly from eyewitnesses as Luke tells in his first chapter. Or they were eyewitnesses themselves such as Matthew and John. Paul was apparently an eyewitness to a resurrected Jesus. Do you think his work is "anonymous" too?

Incidentally, what is the methodology you use to arrive at the conclusion they are anonymous? I've seen this accusation before on this forum many times. I have yet to see anyone (though I admit I may have missed it) provide their methodology. I'd like to take that methodology and apply it to other ancient works. Let's see if ancient works we rarely question, as far as authorship, are rendered anonymous as well. I think we'll find the Gospels and remaining NT are generally speaking no more "anonymous" than any other work from antiquity.