And while I'm at it, I had already raised some of these points earlier:

There is very little evidence to even give any credence to what has been written. Then we had another possibility offered - that they in fact recanted their position and were killed anyway, something that oppressors have done throughout history, so that is a perfectly plausible scenario worthy of consideration.

This whole thing was ignored, and I lost track of it because other points I had raised in the same post were responded to. The above points are really more important, though, and I do want a response.

"This assumes two points that ought not to be assumed."

Fair enough.

"First, where is the indisputable evidence that the apostles were in a position to know that the resurrection was a lie?"

OMG.  Indisputable?  That's rich.   What constitutes 'indisputable' to you?  I'd be glad to discuss evidence that I think is worthy and compelling.  I will not even dignify trying to reach a silly standard like that.

"It's entirely possible that the apostles themselves were mistaken or deceived. In fact, if they sincerely believed that Jesus was resurrected, it's even likely that they were."

Sure, it is possible.  As you have agreed elsewhere, this presumes an underlying set of events that led them to be mistaken or deceived.  I won't touch your notion of 'likelihood,' because it is being discussed elsewhere as mere question begging.

"Since most of the apostles never claimed to have witnessed a resurrection in the first place, it's impossible that they died for the belief that a resurrection that they witnessed occurred."

There are two parts to this.  The latter part is your asinine criteria for a 'witnessed resurrection.'   I don't think the criteria reasonable, as you can clearly tell.  However, as to the first part, it only shows ignorance on your part.  You have read the New Testament, haven't you?

I suppose here I'm supposed to produce evidence of their claims- I suppose if I was back teaching my 7th graders that would be very reasonable for me to do.  However, they wouldn't know better, but wouldn't be making claims from ignorance, either.  You should know not to make claims that you either can't substantiate or haven't even investigated.

"Second, where is the indisputable evidence that the apostles died for their beliefs?"

There's that word 'indisputable' again.  Sorry, Ragnar, as much as I want to address these issues I think it beyond reasonable to erect such absurd standards.  I do not even have indisputable' evidence of my own existence, and I am asked to produce 'indisputable evidence' on these matters?

"We know next to nothing about the circumstances that surround their deaths."

Oh?  You show me 'indisputable evidence' that they died and I'll discuss the subject of the circumstances of their deaths.

"If the apostles actually were tortured and then executed by their Roman masters, for instance, why would the Romans have confided that the apostles never recanted their beliefs before dying? Would it not be in the Romans self interests to lie and to say that, yes, the apostles actually did recant before they died?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  It seems to be arguing for my position rather than for yours.  If there were such reports, it would be worth considering.  I am not aware of such reports.  

"Since clearly the apostles themselves were in no position to write about the circumstances that surrounded their deaths and since the people who killed them"

Yes, you're right.  The Romans would have taken the Christians into their closet very hush hush and slaughtered them in secret.  That's the Roman way.

"who then were the people who wrote those accounts, from where does their information come, and why should it be regarded as in the least bit reliable?"

Naturally, we can't believe the people who wrote the accounts, because they actually believe the accounts.  Instead, we have to find accounts written by people who do not believe the accounts:  those we'll trust.

 

So you have established that Peter was a Christian and that Peter was killed. I'll admit I skimmed some of this, but does anyone in there quote Peter's words or his executioner's words about the crucifixtion? Is it said anywhere that Peter was offered his life in exchange for recanting?

Clement, c. 95 AD wrote:

"Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles. Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."

This fails for one very important reason - Clement is not speaking from first-hand experience. He was not on hand to hear any exchange there might have been between Peter and the Romans. At least, in this passage he doesn't explicitly state that he was. If he was an actual witness but didn't decide to write about it until 30 years later, wouldn't he want to make it clear that he was actually there?

"This fails for one very important reason - Clement is not speaking from first-hand experience.  He was not on hand to hear any exchange there might have been between Peter and the Romans."

The passage I submitted from Irenaeus says the opposite.  Here it is again:

"Clement .... might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes."

"At least, in this passage he doesn't explicitly state that he was."

That's true.

"If he was an actual witness but didn't decide to write about it until 30 years later, wouldn't he want to make it clear that he was actually there?"

Why?  Because he forsaw that 1950 years later someone would want to hear him say that?  Must every writer anticipate every wish of every person that follows him for thousands and thousands of years?  You might be the exception, but I am confident that if such a reference were there, most skeptics would immediately denounce the passage as a 'Christian interpolation.'  Perhaps it is to Clement's credit that he did not state that in this letter.

He had a purpose for writing, and it wasn't to puff himself up.  You can gather his purpose from the rest of the letter.

Anyway, Iranaeus gave us that piece of evidence.  Do we have any reason to think that Iranaeus was trying to inflate or exaggerate Clement?  I've never heard any.  I doubt either of them had in mind skeptics to follow thousands of years later.  That innocence I think helps their credibility.  We are looking over their shoulder, as it were, and they don't know we are there.

Somehow Clement knew Peter gave his testimony and then departed.  He doesn't say how he knows.  Iraneous tells us how he knew:  he was 'there.'  

I'm not going to say that this 'proves indisputably' that Clement was in fact 'there' at the very trial (for one thing, it'd be pretty dangerous) but I think its about the strongest sort of case that could even be hoped for, and I'm surprised it can be made.

I don't suppose it hasn't occurred to anyone that these trials would have been recorded at the time and available later in the Roman archives?

The passage I submitted from Irenaeus says the opposite...

Irenaeus was essentially the "father" of the New Testament.  He promoted the "fourfold gospel", which included Luke, Matthew, and Mark--fairly popular versions of the many competing and conflicting gospels that existed at the time.  He added John to the mix, apparently because of his mentor was Polycarp, who doted on John.  These four gospels became the basis of the "orthodox" version of Christianity that later became standardized under imperial rule.  Was Irenaeus an unbiased observer?  Hardly.  He was a well-know Christian apologist.

Here it is again:

"Clement .... might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes."

What does the meaning of "might" contribute to the sentence?  Hmmm.  

"If he was an actual witness but didn't decide to write about it until 30 years later, wouldn't he want to make it clear that he was actually there?"

Why?  Because he forsaw that 1950 years later someone would want to hear him say that?  Must every writer anticipate every wish of every person that follows him for thousands and thousands of years?  You might be the exception, but I am confident that if such a reference were there, most skeptics would immediately denounce the passage as a 'Christian interpolation.'  Perhaps it is to Clement's credit that he did not state that in this letter.

It is not to your credit, however, that you try to pass this off as reasonable evidence that someone witnessed the resurrection.  It is true that skeptics will dismiss this "evidence" as nothing of the sort.  (I see no reason to consider it an interpolation, but I understand what you are trying to do.  You are just trying to point out a bias.) It is also true that faithful folks such as yourself will exercise their own bias in taking it at face value.

Anyway, Iranaeus gave us that piece of evidence...

Hearsay evidence.  The same kind you get from modern day preachers.  It is not based on any events he witnessed.  He was just claiming to pass on what he had heard someone else tell him.

Somehow Clement knew Peter gave his testimony and then departed.  He doesn't say how he knows.  Iraneous tells us how he knew:  he was 'there.'

And how would Irenaeus really have known this?  Because Clement said so?  This does not mean that Clement "knew" anything of the sort.  He believed that Peter gave his "testimony", but irenaeus does not clarify to whom or what was in the testimony.  It could just mean that his time had come after he had delivered his testimony to the faithful over a period of years, not Roman authorities.  The passage was extremely vague on details.

I'm not going to say that this 'proves indisputably' that Clement was in fact there, but I think its about the strongest sort of case that could even be hoped for, and I'm surprised it can be made.

Clement was where--at the resurrection?  Nope.  What you are saying is that Clement MIGHT have talked directly with people who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection.  But we don't really know what "witnessed" means, do we?  Cogito expressed that point very nicely.  So we are talking about very indirect "evidence" here--a chain of communications that Irenaeus had no way to verify.

"Was Irenaeus an unbiased observer? Hardly. He was a well-know Christian apologist."

On CLEMENT.  Did he have any motive to inflate CLEMENT?  Besides, your facts are off.  The Gospels were already done and assembled as The Gospel by the time he was around.

"It is not to your credit, however, that you try to pass this off as reasonable evidence that someone witnessed the resurrection."

OMG please someone save me.

"And how would Irenaeus really have known this?"

What's it to you?  Unless you have some good reason to doubt it, it can be taken on its face.  A good reason is not "This destroys my argument, so it can't be true."

"Because Clement said so?"

But Clement did not say so, which you should have noticed.

"He believed that Peter gave his "testimony""

and departed.

Left for a long trip, I reckon.

"but irenaeus does not clarify to whom or what was in the testimony."

No, but the 'whom' is not hard to guess, and the 'what' I've already provided by way of the Acts passage, which was just a small sampling.

So, we've got the nature of Peter's testimony:  Acts.
We've got a connection between his testimony and his departing:  Clement.
We've got an assertion that there was an eyewitness (to Peter and Paul at least):  Irenaeus.

There are plenty of good reasons to conclude that Clement was in fact in Rome at the time, even apart from the Irenaeus passage.  If he was not present at the trial, when the danger had passed, it would be an obvious step to take to go to the Roman records to check the transcript.  However, I would be stunned to learn that he was not either present at the trial itself or very close to it, given his place in the church.

"Clement was where--at the resurrection? Nope."

I wish someone would just come and shoot me in the head.  I can't believe I have to continue to endure crap like this.

I was not producing Clement as a witness to the resurrection, as even a cursory reading of this thread would reveal.

Well, the thing is I don't much care about Ceaser. At this moment, yes, I would have to say that strictly speaking I am agnostic on the matter of Ceaser's assassination because I have never cared to look into it. All Ceaser means to me is it is a very good story by a very dead writer. I have never looked into the historical aspects of it. I remember asking someone once if Shakespeare's "Julius Ceaser" was based on actual events and they said yes. I had no reason to doubt them. If you'd like, simply as a mental exercise I'd be happy to look into the historical accounts of Ceaser's death. Although I remember someone on this board doing that once, so I guess I would search this board first and see what's there.

On the other hand, I have lots of reasons to doubt the reports of the resurrection of Jesus.

Cop--

If you applied the standards that you are requesting in this specific instance to the rest of recorded history, you wouldn't believe anything ever happened.  Just a thought :)