spin

:rolling:


spin

justsumner

Xians have a vested interest in keeping their idea of history alive. It is the basis for not only their belief system, but their entire way of life.

As an historian, I have sifted through many ancient texts, and found many to be "loose" with facts. However, the different lies in that those who study ancient texts, be it Egyptian or Ionian, will be the first to state that "That is how the ancients saw their world."

Not so for the Xians. They MUST keep their delussions alive, and if that means they must repress true history, they will. I know, I have seen it time and again.

andrewcriddle

I happen to agree that it is an odd position but
it follows from Hume's general skepticism.

In order to disprove something one has actually
witnessed on the basis of other contradictory
evidence one needs a stronger belief in uniformity
than Hume is prepared to accept.

However a piece of circumstantial evidence without
parallels in one's own experience can always be
rendered improbable by the weight of contrary
evidence.

It is a strange position but it allows Hume consistently
to disbelieve apriori in reported miracles without having
to hold any dogmatic position about the uniformity of
nature.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

If you are going to use an argument from martydom, you need to establish the martydoms of the conspirators. Positing hypothetical matrydoms does not rebut anything.

If , say, Joseph of Arimathea switched the body so he would be the first to witness the resurrected Jesus and so have a high position in the kingdom (apparently the disciples squabbled about pecking orders), then after 3 days realised how foolish he had been, how does making up legends of Thomas being martyred rebut that theory?

andrewcriddle

According to Paul, Peter claimed the risen Christ appeared to him.
It is highly likely Peter was executed for being a Christian.
This is good evidence that Peter believed he had encountered
the risen Christ, although as Victor said irrelevant to whether
Peter's belief was based on reality or hallucination.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

What does that mean? 'For being a Christian'?? Being a Christian , as such, was not a capital crime , until about 250 AD, if I understand correctly.

If you would care to produce any document from the 1st century after this martyrdom which states that Peter was murdered by the state, in Rome.....

justsumner

And...we have only Paul's statement. It is not backed up by anyone.

andrewcriddle

FWIW being a Christian appears to have been sufficient grounds for execution in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan c 110 CE.
(The safeguards meant that if you were discreet you were at rather low risk but that is another matter.)

The letter from Rome to Corinth usually called 1 Clement is usually dated to around 97 CE. IMO this may be a little too early but it is unlikely to be later than 110 CE which is well within your stipulation.

In Chapter 5 of 1 Clement we have
"Because of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted and brought to the death.....There was Peter who because of unrighteous jealousy endured not one or two but many trials and thus having given his testimony went to his appointed place of glory."

I think this is almost certainly a claim that Peter died a Christian martyr.
The passage in context probably implies Peter died in Rome but the place of Peter's martydom is peripheral to the point at issue.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Paul had by his own statements met Peter.
There is at least as strong evidence for Paul's martydom as for Peter's.
(Passage in 1 Clement 5 similar to that for Peter and 2 Timothy which is probably not by Paul but is probably very late 1st century or very early 2nd century and witnesses to a generally accepted tradition of Paul's martydom.)
Hence Paul has a good claim to be regarded as in good faith.

Andrew Criddle

spin

Galatians 2 has been interfered with. Paul knew a Cephas, as seen in 1 Corinthians, and that name is a transliteration of KYP', which has also been transliterated as Caiaphas, as seen in the tomb of Caiaphas in Jerusalem. Suddenly in a passage dealing with Cephas we get two verses mentioning Peter.

Now you'll assume, what's the problem, in that Peter and Cephas were the same name, so there's no big deal but this is by no means clear. If Caiaphas is a transliteration of KYP' then there is no necessary equivalence between Peter and Cephas. The early xian work known as the Epistle of the Apostles has a list of apostles which includes both Peter and Cephas, so that text saw the two names as separate people.

There is only one reference to Cephas in the gospels, in John 1:42, so it is not in the synoptic tradition at all. In fact 5 of the six uses are by Paul, which should tell you that the usage of Peter in Galatians 2 is suspect.

If Paul uses "Cephas" in the passage in Galatians until we come to the part of the roles of Paul and Peter and goes back to it later, we have a fair case for an interpolation regarding Peter sometime after the writing of the Epistle of the Apostles, when the two names have been equated.


spin