Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Kapyong]

Gday Student and all,

Thanks for your informative comments.

If we are going to be super critical,

Oh, are we being super critical ?
I thought we were just discussing the evidence .

it should be noted that the councils of Hippo (393CE) and Carthage (397CE, 419CE) were regional councils and had a bearing on the determination of the canon in the Latin West only.

That's true.
Actually I was focussing on the Western church - because of it's dominance.
I consider the Orthodox to be a later off-shoot - even today they have a different canon.

And it would be a mistake to say that the canon was finally settled in all Western Christian communities by the beginning of the 5th century. Manuscripts still turned up including the epistle to the Laodiceans (e.g. Fuldensis, 546CE) or lacking Hebrews (e.g. Boernerianus, 9th century).

Good point.
These two examples do indeed show quite late variations.
But they are clearly out-liers to the main pattern.

A pattern which was clearly set by the time of the Vulgate.

The council of Trullan (Constantinople 691 - 692CE), was an attempt at closing the canon in the Eastern church. Its success (or lack of) might be measured by the fact that, according to Wescott (The Bible in The Church; p.227), in the 10th century there were no fewer than six different lists of the canonical books.

Interesting.
I should have been more clear about Western vs Eastern canons.

Finally, despite what those of the Roman persuasion might assert, the council of Rome 382 had nothing at all to do with the determination of the canon.

Hmmm...
I take it you disagree that the Gelasian Decree originates with Damasus ?

It is indeed hard to be sure, given the evidence.


Kapyong

[Student]

And it would be a mistake to say that the canon was finally settled in all Western Christian communities by the beginning of the 5th century. Manuscripts still turned up including the epistle to the Laodiceans (e.g. Fuldensis, 546CE) or lacking Hebrews (e.g. Boernerianus, 9th century).

Good point.
These two examples do indeed show quite late variations.
But they are clearly out-liers to the main pattern.

A pattern which was clearly set by the time of the Vulgate.

The evidence does not support your assertion.

Fuldensis is the oldest extant manuscript of the Latin Vulgate. And it's not an isolated case. More than 100 manuscripts of the Vulgate include the epistle to the Laodiceans.

A similar situation pertains in bibles produced in other languages. For example, all 18 German bibles printed before Luther's translation, contain Laodiceans.

Finally, despite what those of the Roman persuasion might assert, the council of Rome 382 had nothing at all to do with the determination of the canon.

Hmmm...
I take it you disagree that the Gelasian Decree originates with Damasus ?

It is indeed hard to be sure, given the evidence.

I consider the so called "Damasine list" to be nothing more than a sixth century forgery.

Consider, if such a list had been affirmed by Damasus in the form of a decretal, would Augustine have had the temerity to hold not just one, but three councils, all after the decretal was supposedly issued, to consider the canon?

The matter would have been done and dusted prior to the council of Hippo, which on the question of the canon, would simply have deferred to the Damasine list. That there wasn't any mention of any such decretal, in anything issued by any one of the three councils, is evidence that it didn't exist at that time.

[Student]

According to Paul's story, Jesus "appeared' to Peter, James, and the Apostles. But never to the Romans or Jewish clergy, or any others.

Why might that be the case? Jesus claimed that he came to minister to the Jews in general. Why didn't the risen Christ appear Jews who were not Christians?

I asked the self same question a while ago:here but to no avail.

One further point for consideration: when apparently the resurrected Jesus did appear to one non-believer i.e. Saul/Paul the effect was dramatic - Paul changed from opponent to being the biggest proponent of Christianity.

Why then didn't the resurrected Jesus do the same to all the other opponents, such as Pilate, the High Priest, the Sanhedrin or Antipas?

[rikuoamero]

According to Paul's story, Jesus "appeared' to Peter, James, and the Apostles. But never to the Romans or Jewish clergy, or any others.

Why might that be the case? Jesus claimed that he came to minister to the Jews in general. Why didn't the risen Christ appear Jews who were not Christians?

I asked the self same question a while ago:here but to no avail.

One further point for consideration: when apparently the resurrected Jesus did appear to one non-believer i.e. Saul/Paul the effect was dramatic - Paul changed from opponent to being the biggest proponent of Christianity.

Why then didn't the resurrected Jesus do the same to all the other opponents, such as Pilate, the High Priest, the Sanhedrin or Antipas?

Exactly. With regards to the High Priest and the Sanhedrin, they were people who believed very strongly that following the Jewish laws was what God wanted. Apparently not, according to the Christians. So it raises the question of just why God didn't tell the Sanhedrin to knock it off.
Why go around incarnated/sent your son as a preacher talking to the common people on the street...but completely ignore the people in power? Yes, in this scenario, they're "wrong" for upholding Hebrew law so strictly, but can you blame them? That's what God wanted according to Hebrew scripture!

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 211 by Realworldjack]

It seems we agree on many issues, just not all : )

[Replying to post 174 by KenRU]

Then I am confused by your point. Do you agree that different interpretations of the bible is the direct cause for the many (but not all) varying sects of Christianity?

Yes I would agree with this and we will get to more on this as we move on. However, when I referred to those who were lazy, I was speaking of individuals, not whole denominations, who take a small portion of Scripture, such as "faith moving mountains" and coming to the conclusion that this means all Christians, should, could, and would, be moving mountains. You seemed to agree with this, so again I am not suggesting all other denominations which I am not a member have been, or are lazy, rather it is mostly individuals, where I can, and have demonstrated their interpretation is the result of laziness in their reading. Hope this is clear now.

Mostly, lol. People make up the denominations that vary in interpretation.

I agree in principle that many an average Joe might be lazy in their religious knowledge or effort, but I still maintain that the bible is not clear on many salient issues – and the difference in these interpretations is not borne of laziness.

-Differences on the Holy Ghost/the Trinity.
-Interpretations of just what Hell is.
-Hell's significance and necessity.
-Good works vs faith.

Shall I go on?

Thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for. I am not sure what you mean by the Holy Ghost so I will not comment on that one, but you are right there is a lot of confusion concerning the Trinity. I know the Church I grew up in taught the Trinity, however there were those in the Church who struggled with the teaching, simply because they could not wrap their mind around it. I certainly understand this, but the point is, these people who do not necessarily believe in the Trinity, still believe in Christ as Savior, and the other essentials taught in Scripture. The point is, not believing that God, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, are One and the same, would not constitute someone being completely outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy, and since it is such a hard concept to grasp, it is understandable.

We agree.

I want to be sure to reiterate, that I have stated "there are some things in the Bible that is difficult to understand, but this does not mean the whole of the Bible is to difficult to understand,"

Never thought this to be true. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.

and it is my position, that to take such a position would be lazy.

Agreed, there are some points in the bible that are quite clear. IE: god can be quite vengeful and jealous. : )

In other words, simply because you may run across something that is difficult to understand, and then from this simply take the position that the whole thing is to difficult, is lazy.

This is not my position.

Now lets talk about Hell. Again you are correct, and it is a perfect example. The Church I was raised in taught what is called, "conditional immortality," which means only those whom God has saved will be given eternal life. This means those that have not been saved will be destroyed in Hell. Of course most other denomination would disagree with this, and teach that Hell is a place of eternal punishment.

But you see even though we disagree over this, does not mean we consider one another outside the realm of orthodoxy. In fact as I have said many times before, there were women in our Church who were married to men who were members of Baptist Churches, and I can remember as a child, a group of these people gathering around someones kitchen table, as we kids played, and the adults would be discussing their differences. But when all was said and done, they parted peacefully, considering each other, brothers, and sisters, and I will go on to say, this was something they enjoyed doing, because it allowed them to explain their positions.

The main point here is, you are bringing up what are certainly divisions among Christians, but it is not as if these are major divisions.

We’ll disagree how “major� this division is. Burning in hell for eternity, or not, seems pretty major to me. In fact, I would argue that it doesn’t get any more major than that.

In other words, these divisions do not cause one sect, to accuse the other sect, of being outside the faith. So yes, there are somethings in the Bible, where it may be understandable that there could be more than one way to understand what is said, which may cause division, but it is not as though I would say, (concerning these minor divisions), "if you do not believe as I do, then you are not a Christian."

Whether or not different sects accuse another of not being a True Christian is irrelevant to me. The fact that different interpretations exist and result in different denominations is evidence to me that many important messages in the bible are very subjective.

Now, lets move on to faith, vs. works. Again, I am certainly glad you brought this one up as well, and you are correct, this has brought about serious divisions, while the other two we have discussed not so much. I will also say, it is something I struggled with, over for years, and I was not willing to simply side, on one side or the other, simply because I was expected to.

As far as I know, I am completely outside the box on this issue. In other words, as far as I know, no one else has ever put forth this position. I am not the type of person to simply settle on explanation that does not make sense to my mind.

At any rate if you are interested, I will supply you with a link where I have expounded my position out to another member of this site. This member, must have been a Christian who seemed to be in disagreement with Paul's theology, and believed Paul had hi-jacked Christianity with his own teaching.

I have no need to debate Faith vs Works with you. That we agree the subject can be interpreted differently and not due to laziness is the important point here.

Just to let you know up front, I acknowledge there is a contradiction between Paul, and James in the Bible. However, I go on to demonstrate, how I believe this contradiction is rectified, by utilizing what is said throughout numerous passages. My hope is, you will see that I have not twisted any meanings, or attempted to put a spin on anything, unless of course I have overlooked something. If you read it, I would greatly appreciate your input, and if you have heard this argument in the past I would also appreciate you letting me know where. At any rate, if you read it you can start at the second quote, which begins, "As for the apostles embracing Paul" because what is said earlier would not pertain to, "faith vs. works."

ref:Re: The foundations of Christianity

I’ve been very busy lately (as you can see I have not responded in a while), but I will try to read this. Thanks!

However here again, even though I would side more on the, "faith" side of things, and I believe those who end up on the "work" side of things are in error, I would not consider them to be outside the faith, because I can at least understand where they are coming from.

My main point to all the above is this. There are many who continue to point to the number of different denominations as if this proves that they all are teaching, and believing a completely, and totally different faith, when this is far from the truth.

I don’t believe the answer is quite that simple. Some denominations are quite divergent from each other. Again, the fact that intelligent and non-lazy interpretations are a natural outcome of the bible was my main point. I’m glad we agree.

While there are a few sects that would be considered outside the realm of orthodoxy, the overwhelming majority of the divisions are not in any way major, and although there may be certain disagreements, these disagreements would not constitute believing the other sect was outside the faith. The way I see it is, "in the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty."

Well, you do have some denominations saying if you aren’t “born again� (or other such stipulations) then you will not get into heaven. That is another major disagreement. And it is by no means a minor one. One’s eternal soul is a pretty important subject, wouldn’t you agree?

Now let us begin to talk about Catholicism. We have already discussed the "Reformation," which is when the reformers called out the Catholic Church for it's many abuses. In fact Martin Luther nailed 95 of these things he saw as abuses to the door of the Church in Wittenberg.

Luther, nor any of the other reformers intended to split form the Church, rather their goal was to reform what they saw as abuses. It was not until after a long debate, and struggle with the Church that Luther was excommunicated. If you have not read the book, "Bondage of the Will" it may be good to do so, because it is Luther's response to Erasmus, whom himself believed the Church needed reforming, but believed Luther had taken things to far.

The point is, I am not saying the Catholic Church was lazy, but rather the reformers pointed out abuses of the Church, where the Church was taking on to much power, not only over not only individuals, but also over government as well. The reformers believed there are two Kingdoms, which is the Kingdom of Man, and the Kingdom of God, and the jurisdiction of the Church is over the latter, and not the former, but the reformers also believed there were abuses in the latter.

So then, as I have said, "there are certain sects that would be considered outside the realm of orthodoxy, which means they go against the clear teaching of Scripture, and I believe the Catholic Church would fall into this category.

We can agree to disagree here.

When human beings are involved, it is common for there to be abuses in power, and I believe this is what happened in the Catholic Church. But lets think about the, "National Association of Evangelicals." This Association began by incorporating many of the different denominations, that are pointed to as completely differing sects. One of the goals was to demonstrate that while there may be divisions over some of the non-essentials, where there is liberty, these Churches were united over the essentials which is the main message of the Christian Faith. This I believe demonstrates that while there may be certain things that may divide, this does not in any way mean, all of these different sects, are totally divided, and are teaching a completely and totally different Faith, and I believe it is certainly dishonest to attempt to make this argument.

And I am not making that argument, I hope that is clear.

However, I do believe there have been abuses of late inside the, NAE. One of these abuses is when certain leaders inside this association attempted to incorporate the Catholic Church, with a document entitled, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together." I am convinced this was done simply to increase the numbers in the fight against such things as abortions, gay rights, etc. etc. In other words, these leaders who founded the document, could not believe Catholics, and Evangelicals are united in doctrine, but were rather united in some political views.

At any rate, I am convinced the Scripture is clear, the jurisdiction of the Church is inside the walls of the Church, and if the Church would pay more attention to it's own jurisdiction, there would be less to be concerned about, outside the Church.

I’m failing to see the distinction you make between the NAE and the Catholic Church. I think both have treaded upon kingdoms they should not (to use your analogy).

As a run down, I am convinced there are certain sects that are clearly outside the clear teachings of Scripture, along with the historic teachings of the Christian Faith, and even if you are not a believer, it is not that difficult to determine this.

I conditionally agree, lol.

However, by in large the many different denominations does not in any way entail, they are all teaching and believing a totally different Faith, but exactly the same, and it is either being dishonest, or lazy to continue to point to the many different sects, as if this somehow proves, complete division between the sects.

I never stated nor implied that these differences result in a “complete division between sects�.

I also believe there are many individuals who are lazy in their interpretations, by taking one passage out of it's context, and believing they can understand what is said simply by doing this.

I also agree, this would be lazy.

I think our disagreement lies more in what constitutes the important distinctions between the sects. I am not at all concerned about what each denomination considers a real Christian is.

To me, the actual differences between the many denominations speaks much louder than labels. And it shows how subjective the messages rec’d from the bible actually are.

All the best

[Kapyong]

Gday Student and all

The evidence does not support your assertion.

Fuldensis is the oldest extant manuscript of the Latin Vulgate. And it's not an isolated case. More than 100 manuscripts of the Vulgate include the epistle to the Laodiceans.

A similar situation pertains in bibles produced in other languages. For example, all 18 German bibles printed before Luther's translation, contain Laodiceans.

Thanks for that information - you are completely correct.
I was mistaken and totally overlooked Laodiceans.

I consider the so called "Damasine list" to be nothing more than a sixth century forgery.

Consider, if such a list had been affirmed by Damasus in the form of a decretal, would Augustine have had the temerity to hold not just one, but three councils, all after the decretal was supposedly issued, to consider the canon?

The matter would have been done and dusted prior to the council of Hippo, which on the question of the canon, would simply have deferred to the Damasine list. That there wasn't any mention of any such decretal, in anything issued by any one of the three councils, is evidence that it didn't exist at that time.

Hmm, yes, that seems like a reasonable analysis.


Kapyong

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 691 by Claire Evans]

I have to reiterate what Tired of the Nonsense pointed out.
In your exchanges with him, he pointed out that nothing that Jesus is claimed to have said can actually be truthfully determined as such. We have nothing written by Jesus himself.
In response to this, you quote Acts of the Apostles, written by the same author of Gospel Luke, who never met Jesus (or if he did, we have no indication that he did). TotN points out that Luke was a follower of Paul, who never knew Jesus while alive (by Paul's own words, the only kind of contact he had with Jesus was several years after his death, which raises eyebrows among skeptics).
To try and salvage Luke's credibility, you say that he knew Peter.
To which I point out...how does this help the situation any? In my eyes, you've just substituted Peter for Paul. So you trust what is written in Acts because the author knew Peter. Well...this raises the question of why you trust Peter. Why is whatever is written in Acts trustworthy simply because the author knew Peter? Is Peter's credibility above reproach? I think not - especially since the Gospels themselves show him to thrice deny Jesus. So even where I to once again be a Christian and to trust in Scripture...I can't trust what the scripture says because going by your logic, the credibility of one author (Luke) is buttressed by another person, who is according to Scripture a thrice damned liar!

The long and the short of this comment is that it's not enough when trying to save Luke's credibility that he knew Peter. Now you have to establish credibility for Peter as well - you've just made your job that much harder by a factor of two.

So you really think that the early Christians would not have exposed people lying about the gospel? The gospels from the start were fixed by oral tradition.

"Written records define our culture. We are, for the most part, a literate people and have come to rely heavily on written material for our own personal record keeping. We have newspapers and books and the internet to inform us. We do not need to do a lot of memorization. As a culture we depend much on the written word to learn and remember things in which we are interested and which are important to us. But this was not so in the first century world.

"Plato once suggested that people should record their thoughts in written form only to “store up reminders for [themselves] when [they] come to the forgetfulness of old age.�
In that time, the written record was secondary to spoken narratives. Paper and writing materials were hard to come by. Copying written records was time-consuming and difficult work. The literacy rate in the first century world was much less than what it is today in our own nation, though certainly among the Jews the literacy rate would have been higher than that of many of their contemporaries. Their sons were instructed in synagogue schools. But still, though literate to a large degree, with writing materials being such a precious commodity, it was common to memorize histories and traditions taught orally. This is not to say that these things were never written down by anyone, only that the primary method of passing them along was oral repetition. Certainly anyone could have used written notes who had the means to do so.

There were procedures, for example, among the Jews for the passing along of important histories and traditions. Important teachings would be passed along orally using rhythmic patterns and repetition enabling the learner to memorize what to us would be a great amount of material.

After the exile and captivity of God’s people centuries before, Jewish communities across the known world with ten or more adult males formed synagogues. Each synagogue would elect one of its members to be the “teacher� or “rabbi�. These were to be well versed in the Torah. The teachings of early and respected rabbis became oral traditions passed on from generation to generation. These traditions were finally collected into an organization of these oral thoughts known as the Mishna (Hebrew, “repetition�) in about 5 B.C."

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-gosp ... n-text.htm

Peter would never have been allowed to get away with making things up. Say someone today lies about an historical event. People would certainly refute it and shoot it down. Say someone said Russia was behind 9-11 on TV. No one is just going to keep quiet and let him spread the story unchallenged.

So because Peter denied Jesus out of fear suddenly that makes him an unreliable witness? I wonder what you'd do at the thought of dying an agonizing death on the cross. You may even agree to convert to Islam if ISIS had a sword to your throat ready to behead you.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 691 by Claire Evans]

Paul was executed under Nero.

Okay, my first question is...why isn't this mentioned in Acts? Or anywhere else in the New Testament? Surely the execution of arguably the most influential person on Christian scripture should have merited a mention somewhere?
Second, I had a brief look at Paul's page on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_ ... _execution

One thing I noticed is that all of these historians (for now, I'm not going to comment on their credibility) are writing multiple centuries after the 'fact'. Nowhere in that list is there mention of someone writing about Paul's execution close to the date. The earliest person there is Tertullian in 200AD.
Now of course Wikipedia isn't the beginning and end of historical research. So if you could show us some historian writing closer to the date please? Someone who wrote abotu Paul's execution before 200AD? As close as possible to the claimed date please.

I'm not saying that there definitely was no execution. I'm just pointing out how it's odd that we have nothing about this execution from the time it actually happened, only multiple decades or even centuries later.

We don't why Luke stopped writing Acts just before Paul's execution for sure. Acts does not record the death of James, a very important figure in the early church who was martyred around A.D. 62. It may have something to do with the purpose of writing Acts:

"Luke wrote to convince Theophilus of the “certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed� (Luke 1:4). Theophilus was probably a Gentile official who had been won to Christ, and Luke desires that he may understand more clearly the historical events that underlie his Christian faith and practice.

Second, Luke’s purpose is not to write the history of the early church. Nothing is recorded for large segments of time (e.g., A.D. 35-44). Luke is not a chronicler seeking to record every event. But he does write a history that shows the beginning and spread of the church. He focuses on the important initial events and those that give meaning to the epistles of Paul by tracing Paul’s ministry. Chronologically, the book divides into three periods:

(1) Luke concentrates on the several years involved in the beginnings of the church among the Jews (chapter 2), the Samaritans (chapter 8), and the Gentiles at Caesarea (chapter 10), from 1:1 to 11:18.

(2) A period of virtual silence covering about 10 years follows. Glimpses of these times can be caught in 9:3 and 11:19-21.

(3) The period A.D. 44-62 focuses around the ministry of Paul, and so might be designated the Pauline period.

Third, Luke wrote to provide a unity between Christ’s works in the gospels and the apostles’ labors after His ascension. That which Theophilus experienced in his church in A.D. 60 was vastly different from all he had read in Luke’s gospel. Acts explains those changes. It shows the transition from Christ’s message of a coming kingdom to the apostles’ message of one new body of Jew and Gentile in Christ, called the church (Eph. 2:11 – 3:12). Often the experiences of Acts reveal a transitional event rather than advocate a doctrinal truth. The apostles in their epistles explain the doctrinal truths that are intended to be normative for God’s people today. Thus, Luke’s purpose in Acts is more to provide a bridge for understanding these changes than to provide a basis for universal doctrinal truth.

Finally, Luke wrote to show to the Roman world that Christianity is not a subversive political movement. Unlike some of the Jews of Judea, Christians were not seeking to overthrow Rome. Though they spoke of another King and rejected the emperor as “lord,� they submitted to political authority. Though the apostles were often imprisoned, they were always exonerated. Sometimes God Himself intervened (5:18-20; 9:1-5; 12:5-10; 16:24-26; 28:3-6); other times the governmental authority did (16:35-39; 18:12-17; 19:37-41; 23:29; 26:32). But each time they were vindicated."

Would it be relevant to mention Paul's death?

http://www.bible-studys.org/Bible%20Boo ... 0Acts.html.

We have something from Paul's and Peter's contemporary, Clement 1, one of the first apostolic fathers.

"Working closely with Saints Peter and Paul, the two founding fathers of the Christian church who preached alongside Jesus prior to Christ's crucifixion in 33 A.D., he was likely a follower of the apostle Paul and was schooled by Paul in Rome. Accepting the Christian faith as a young man and working as a missionary preaching the word of the crucified Jesus, Clement I was eventually ordained a bishop by the apostle Peter and served a leadership role in the Roman church before being exiled to the Crimea, where he died in 101 A.D."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404708178.html

Clement's letter to Corinth states:

"CHAPTER 5:

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience."

I suppose the claim that Paul was beheaded by Nero isn't an irrefutable fact.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

So because Peter denied Jesus out of fear suddenly that makes him an unreliable witness?

Even in scripture we can see that Peter WAS NOT A NICE MAN. THAT makes him an unreliable witness.

Peter would never have been allowed to get away with making things up.

Do you believe that the Bible is true and accurate? Then you are stuck with "The Day The Earth Stood Still" tall tale in Joshua, and Matthew's "Night of the Living Dead" fantasy. Not to mention, yet again, the fact that you fully embrace the story of the corpse of Jesus coming back to life and flying away. And on top of all of this you claim that "Peter would never have been allowed to get away with making things up?" Convincing true believers that their true beliefs are not true is next to impossible, no matter HOW ridiculous their claims appear to be to others.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 724 by Claire Evans]

We have something from Paul's and Peter's contemporary, Clement 1, one of the first apostolic fathers.

"Working closely with Saints Peter and Paul, the two founding fathers of the Christian church who preached alongside Jesus prior to Christ's crucifixion in 33 A.D., he was likely a follower of the apostle Paul and was schooled by Paul in Rome. Accepting the Christian faith as a young man and working as a missionary preaching the word of the crucified Jesus, Clement I was eventually ordained a bishop by the apostle Peter and served a leadership role in the Roman church before being exiled to the Crimea, where he died in 101 A.D."

Paul "preached alongside Jesus prior to Christ's crucifixion?" Paul Never even MET the living Jesus, and was present for NONE of the events detailed in the Gospels. When first we meet Paul, some few years AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus, Paul is an ADAMANT OPPONENT of Christianity, which he considered a vile heresy. The shockingly poor and misleading statement you posted above is nothing more then an example of appallingly poor scholarship and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the NT actually says. It is totally, in a word, BOGUS.

I suppose the claim that Paul was beheaded by Nero isn't an irrefutable fact.

No one knows what became of Paul and THAT is an irrefutable fact. What IS known is that Rome was nearly destroyed by a fire in 64 AD. In their anguish the Roman population came to believe that the fire was a judgement on them by their gods for allowing the worship of so many "false gods" by the "pagan's" in their midst. As a result they fell on non Roman believers and slaughtered them. Jew were particularly despised as haters of humankind. If Peter and Paul were in Rome during the time of the great fire, and escaped the conflagration, they could easily have been murdered by the crowds. But you see, know one really knows BECAUSE NO ONE RECORDED THEIR DEATHS.