Littlefoot

An inconsistancy seems to have come up in some christian argumentations regarding the historicity of the New Testiment. In order to preserve the chain of information regarding the ressurection the apostles would have had to live to be what, accounting for the time period, was extreme old age.

Yet how does that hold up with the idea that the ressurection must be true because of what these people went through afterwards? If all three of the eyewitnesses can manage to survive to a ripe old age then how bad could the persecution have been just after the ressurection? Latter persecution was, at times, pretty bad, but that seems to have been of second third or fourth hand acconts. While being willing to be tortured to death for your beleifs is in some cases admirable, it is by itself no indication that your beleif is true, only that you beleive it is. There seems to have been a difference between the people who supposedly saw the ressurection and those who died for its beleif.

Does anyone have a list of who in christianity died when, to either provide citation or reffuctation for this idea?


thanks.

Epictetus

This assumes several things. 1) That the disciples were eyewitnesses, 2) That the events surrounding the resurrection in the gospels were accurate, 3) That it was important for said "eyewitness" to live a long time to pass on their valuable information.

Why assume any of this? It is much more likely that the accounts were entirely mythological and not based on any historical occurences.

Every bit of information that we have on the deaths of the disciples is legendary and unfounded, except for perhaps James. So, not only are we chasing proverbial geese, but we are also assuming that that if they were killed where legend says, who is to say that they were killed for their beliefs in Jesus and not because they were lawbreakers and rabble-rousers, much like Paul? It is much more probable that if they were violently killed, that they were killed for causing civil disturbances than for some ethereal belief that they had.

You are correct, by the way, in the assertion that the "persecutions" that Christians love to point to to justify how they were being killed en masse for hundreds of years by various Roman emperors, is just foolishness. There were no widespread persecutions of Christians until the rule of Diocletian, at the end of the third century. All other "persecutions" were local phenomena and affected very small numbers of people.

offa

Jesus was crucified in 33 a. But, he did not die then. He lived another thirty-some years. Paul was made an apostle (disciple) after the crucifixion. Luke did not meet Jesus until after the crucifixion. Peter died long before Nero so his being crucified upside down is false.


Offa

Chuck Rightmire

Could you cite a source for these figures? I understood that jesus was crucified when he was 33 years old. This would have made the date about 29 or 30 ce since there seems to be evidence that he would have been born about 4 bce rather than the year 1.

As for the question of the age of the apostles when they died, we have to keep in mind that averages do not always tell the truth about individuals. For instance, in 1900, according to the census figures, the average age expectancy of an individual at birth was about 46 years old. But by age 1 the expectancy had increased to about 70, just a few years short of where it is now.

Strangeways

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. For your sake I hope not.

Toto

Start with this essay: Martyrs (by Stephen Carr, who posts here.)

Chili

How could he if they crucified his bare naked ego!