Jeffrey Gibson

He does?? Where exactly? And what exactly does he say?

Jeffrey

Raguel

Sorry I didn't read the whole thread, but I have a (stupid?) question: what difference does it make if Peter made it to Rome or not? Surely papal authority exists as long as there is still an unbroken chain of succession, starting with Peter, and Jesus himself essentially declared Peter the first pope (I was raised as a Protestant, so if I got any of the terminology/basic beliefs wrong, please be kind. :grin.

Jeffrey Gibson

If the figure of Peter is fictitious, as you claim he is, how could this Peter ever (or never) have been in (i.e., existing in space and time) Rome at any time, let alone in the first century?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I think it should be noted that this mantra of yours contains an extremely question begging assumption (along with the fallacy of bifurcation) -- namely, that by their very nature "apologies" cannot and do not contain anything historically reliable and cannot/should not be regarded/used by historians as evidence of the historicity of the figure whose reputation they defend (that's what Apologetic literature does) or as sources for determining what that figure did and said.

I wonder, then, what you have to say to Classical historians who think that The Apology of Plato and The Apology of Xenophon stand not only as excellent testimony to the historicity of Socrates (and who think would do so even in the absence of any non apologetic contemporary corroborative evidence), but also as extremely good sources for determining what went on at the trial of Socrates (the historicity of which is, to my knowledge, attested only in apologetic and non contemporaneous sources) and for what Socrates taught about the duties of a philosopher.

What do you know about ancient Apologetic literature that they don't?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

When you said this:

Jeffrey

Toto

Here's the Catholic take on the issue of Apostolic Succession. It doesn't actually depend on St. Peter making it to Rome, but the idea that Peter and Paul were in Rome is enshrined in the early proofs that the church in Rome should lead all others:

It is for that reason a contentious issue between Catholics and Protestants. If Peter was never in Rome, perhaps other parts of this story are also in error, and who knows where that kind of thinking leads. . .

mountainman

The historicity of "christian apologists" and the historicity of their literature is utterly and completely reliant and fully and totally dependent upon Eusebius.

We have only the one (perhaps true?) side of the christian vs nonchristian (ie: "pagan") coin of history well recorded by the church christian historians after the cult was sponsored by an emperor in the fourth century.

If we are wise in our assessments as historians, we will expect there to be undercurrents of polemics visible between the christian authors and the pagan authors which change after Nicaea 325 CE, before which time the history that is available to us regarding the NT is descendant only from the christian "ecclesiastical historian" Eusebius.


What's this the fallacy of bifurcation? Is that when you continually attempt to switch the chronology of the citation-base to the period BCE Jeffrey? Every single time almost? Would you kindly please cease bifurcating the chronology, and attempt to stay in the relevant epoch of the first 4-5 centuries, where most agree all the NT action is focussed?

The appearance of christianity for a start.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

So you say (ad naseaum). But there's absolutely no reason to accept your claim.

So you say. But given how much you cook the evidence to get it to say what you want it to say, there's absolutely no reason to accept your claim.

Why? On what grounds are we compelled to expect to see what you say we will expect to see?

So there are Christian authors who wrote before 325 CE?

No, it's not. I suggest you look this fallacy up.

Jeffrey

2-J

I'd like to concentrate on this point for a moment. My question would be, is it really necessary to know all those details to establish the existence of a person? Surely if we had (and this is a big 'if') good evidence that he existed at a certain time and place, or good evidence that he really did some things, then that would be proof enough that he existed? I think sometimes you are setting the bar unreasonably high.

As for the Eusebius issue, I know my reply will seem short compared to what you wrote (sorry), isn't it the case that we have other texts preserved, talking about Peter, independently of Eusebius? Such as Iraneus, the gospels, gospel of Peter, etc, Tertullian, etc which bear witness that Peter was in Rome and was martyred or was in Rome, or was martyred.

Huon

The circumstances of the death of Peter are not very well known, despite the rather late story of the crucifixion (crucifiction?) upside down (Tertullian, "Liber de praescriptione haereticorum" Prescriptions about heretics, Chapter 36, written about 200 CE).
When the author tells you that St John was immersed in a caldron of boiling oil, and received no harm from thence...

Tertullian shows only one thing : about 200 CE, the legend was fixed.