"that Peter was allegedly killed because of his belief in the resurrection. I don't know why you needed me to point that out again, because Cog and Cop just said that."

No, they said we are talking about the resurrection.  You asked me about Peter's death.  I noticed you didn't quite keep it on that either.  Now, are we talking about Peter's death or not?  It sure seems like it.

"I asked if there was a first-hand account of the exchange between Peter and his murderers/tormentors, and so far you have not provided one. The best thing you provided was this from Clement, who is writing 30 years after the fact:"

So, if someone is writing a first hand account thirty years later, it is no longer a first hand account?

"He does not use the first person singular anywhere in this quote. This is not an unreasonable expectation, as I think even some of the scriptures are written first person singular (correct me if I'm wrong about that)."

What is not an unreasonable expectation?  You wanted evidence from someone who was in a position to know.  Clement was.

"So Clement had "the preaching of the apostles... [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes." Wonderful, so did hundreds of other people who listened to them. Who cares?"

What traditions do you think Iraneous is talking about?

"Nowhere does it say that he heard any of the apostles' last words."

You need to put the two pieces together.  Clement said that Peter gave his testimony and departed.  Clement, I'm afraid, wasn't writing to satisfy the curiosity of Ragnar.  So, you are being unreasonable if you expect to be handed information in the exact formula that you desire.  Do we have any reason to think that Clement would have been in a position to know the sequence of events regarding Peter's death?

Yes.  For one thing, Clements speaks of it.  For another, Irenaeus tells us that Clement was an eye-witness to 'the traditions' of Peter and the apostles.  What would be 'traditions' to Irenaeus that Clement would have seen with his own eyes?  This is a very innocent inference- innocent in most contexts, anyway.  We know, too, that Clement was in Rome.

There are two other factors you left out that are important.  1.  Peter's testimony- Clement says Peter gave it and then 'departed.'  I provided for you an example of Peter's testimony.  There are many more such examples.  What evidence do you have that when Clement says Peter gave his testimony it was other than what we already have Peter on record saying?  You need to have actual evidence.  2.  Clement's motives:  Clement, the fourth 'pope,' would have been very interested in Peter's fate.  Do you deny it?  If he wasn't actually a witness to the trial- and I think it reasonable to imagine why he wouldn't, but not unreasonable to think he was, either, would the Romans have kept a record of the trial?  Yes, most likely.  Would Clement have access to that record.  Yes, most likely.

"And I just realized how the comparison to Ceaser also fails. We are really discussing the motive of Peter's killing,"

No, actually the comparison does not fail, because what we were really talking about that prompted the discussion about Caesar was this idea of having first hand witness accounts.   The motive is irrelevant to whether or not we can be reasonably sure of something if we do not have first hand accounts from history.

In otherwords, it may be reasonable that we are applying a different level of scrutiny to Peter's death, in that it has a bearing apparently on the veracity of the resurrection (although that has hardly been admitted), but it shouldn't be a different standard.  See that?  More scrutiny is ok- but not a different standard.

"The reason I threw that in is because that is what we are trying to lead up to. If Peter or anyone else was killed because they claimed to witness the resurrection,"

If you read the link that I posted to my essay, you will see that I anticipated this question.  In fact, the likes of Cogito has yet to provide any argument that I didn't already anticipate in my essay.  No one is arguing that the apostles were sought out specifically because they were yammering about a resurrection:

"You there- are you a resurrection believer?  Die, dog!"

What is being argued is that the apostles did not die for a belief, but rather an account of events, and this led them into a situation where to recant meant to deny their own eyes.   Thus, when Clement says that Peter gave his testimony and 'departed,' we can look at examples of Peter's 'testimony' to see exactly what Clement was talking about.

In order to continue on this conversation, its important that you play by the same rules.  I was asked to provide evidence.  It is not enough to propose other possibilities.  You must substantiate them.  Ie, if you don't think that Clement was an eye witness to the 'traditions,' and these traditions were not in fact the accounts of Peter's death, then provide sources that show that 'traditions' means something else, or that Clement was not in fact in Rome, or that Clement was not the fourth leader of the church in Rome, or that Peter's 'testimony' did not include "I was a witness to these things."

If I provide evidence for my view, you ought only think about overthrowing my view if you have actual evidence of your own to produce.