Would They Die for a Lie?

[Jehanne]

Drich,

What's your historical sources for the crucifixion of Peter?

[The Grand Nudger]

 You are welcome to deny the consensus view, but that doesn't alter its status as the consensus view. 

The consensus view is that christians were persecuted (the roman empire didn't exactly stay the rod, lol) ..yes, but it's also the consensus view that the picture of christian persecution as told by christians is christian folklore.  That's why the statement "the consensus view" is so facile..as it is in almost any other conversation regarding christianity and historicity.

The long and short is that "the consensus view" doesn't match the folklore or Certain Christians™ idea of what the consensus view is. This is a common state of affairs in modern christianity. There are mounds and mounds of the faithful who take comfort in the idea that there is some critical mass of historical information regarding their faith..but, if they knew the contents of that mass, they'd be utterly disappointed.

[Drich]

Drich, if you don't mind, I'd like to actually see the documents you are referencing, not just a list of names.  A list of names tells us nothing.

those names where links to the wiki pages on ths guys on their pages are links to their works

but I found a compiled list here from the burning of rome wiki page this can be found at the bottom under references.:
Notes and references[edit]

1. ^ "Great Fire of Rome". National Geographic Society. 18 June 2014.
   
2. ^ Dando-Collins, Stephen (September 2010). The Great Fire of Rome. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81890-5.
   
3. ^ Cassius Dio,
   
4. ^ Suetonius. "Life of Nero". Lives of Twelve Caesars.
   
5. ^ Tacitus, Annal XV.38–44
   
6. ^ Jump up to:a  Tacitus, Annals XV.38–9
   
7. ^ Tacitus, Annals XV.44
   

Bibliography[edit]

• Cassius Dio, Roman History, Books 62 ( 229)
  
  
• Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, the Life of Nero, 38 ( 121)
  
  
• Tacitus, Annals, XV ( 117)
  

---

Drich,

What's your historical sources for the crucifixion of Peter?

[101] Margherita Guarducci, who led the research leading to the rediscovery of Peter's reputed tomb in its last stages (1963–1968), concludes Peter died on 13 October AD 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the "dies imperii" of Emperor Nero.[102] This took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor (Nero) wished to blame the Christians. This "dies imperii" (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly ten years after Nero ascended to the throne, and it was 'as usual' accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally, Roman authorities sentenced him to death by crucifixion. In accordance with the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down.[103] Tradition also locates his burial place where the  was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar.



The death of Peter is attested to by Tertullian at the end of the 2nd century, in his Prescription Against Heretics, noting that Peter endured a passion like his Lord's:[106] In his work Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion: "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross".[107]: Quintus Septimius Florens, Tertullian. . newadvent.org. Retrieved 6 June2015.

This took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor (Nero) wished to blame the Christians. This "dies imperii" (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly ten years after Nero ascended to the throne, and it was 'as usual' accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally, Roman authorities sentenced him to death by crucifixion. In accordance with the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down.[103] Tradition also locates his burial place where the  was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

[Jehanne]

And, so, you accept the Acts of Peter as being an historical source?

[Bucky Ball]

I can't help but giggle at transactional faiths.  "Hey...uh....do this thing for me, and I'll totally pay you, you know..tomorrow..or maybe the next day, you know..some day."

Seems like everyone's favorite divine debtor is constantly late on his payments.....I don't know why people still lend him anything.

show me an active one that isn't. show me one where the believer doesn't get anything for service and worship

Here's about 26 of them. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/texas-church-shooting


Actually the lie, was that they died. Persecution was invented. Dr. Moss is a Christian.
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecution-...0062104551

Dying for a lie, is nothing. Ask the 9/11 bombers.

[Amarok]

 You are welcome to deny the consensus view, but that doesn't alter its status as the consensus view. 

The consensus view is that christians were persecuted (the roman empire didn't exactly stay the rod, lol) ..yes, but it's also the consensus view that the picture of christian persecution as told by christians is christian folklore.  That's why the statement "the consensus view" is so facile..as it is in almost any other conversation regarding christianity and historicity.

The long and short is that "the consensus view" doesn't match the folklore or Certain Christians™ idea of what the consensus view is.  This is a common state of affairs in modern christianity.  There are mounds and mounds of the faithful who take comfort in the idea that there is some critical mass of historical information regarding their faith..but, if they knew the contents of that mass, they'd be utterly disappointed.

Considering that consensus view is the view of apologist not historians  it's worthless

[Angrboda]

Drich, if you don't mind, I'd like to actually see the documents you are referencing, not just a list of names.  A list of names tells us nothing.

those names where links to the wiki pages on ths guys on their pages are links to their works

but I found a compiled list here from the burning of rome wiki page this can be found at the bottom under references.:
Notes and references[edit]

1. ^ "Great Fire of Rome". National Geographic Society. 18 June 2014.
   
2. ^ Dando-Collins, Stephen (September 2010). The Great Fire of Rome. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81890-5.
   
3. ^ Cassius Dio,
   
4. ^ Suetonius. "Life of Nero". Lives of Twelve Caesars.
   
5. ^ Tacitus, Annal XV.38–44
   
6. ^ Jump up to:a  Tacitus, Annals XV.38–9
   
7. ^ Tacitus, Annals XV.44
   

Bibliography[edit]

• Cassius Dio, Roman History, Books 62 ( 229)
  
  
• Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, the Life of Nero, 38 ( 121)
  
  
• Tacitus, Annals, XV ( 117)
  

Well, thank you for the additional information, Drich. Unfortunately the only thing which leads to something specific is the National Geographic link, which provides little useful information. I think you have misunderstood me. I am looking for links to actual documents from the authors you cite, and preferably relevant quotes from those documents, specifically regarding persecution of Christians in the first century, including Nero, if relevant. I'll have to reread the Pliny letter, but you and Jehanne appear to be talking past one another. As far as I can see, the Pliny letter documents a limited pogrom against Christians, and doesn't document how widespread the actual oppression was or how many were killed or whatever as a result. I understand that you think that the exception proves the rule here, in that this specific advice implies a greater widespread norm of persecution of Christians, but I'm not sure that holds, specifically in the absence of documentation of such. It is the question of whether there was widespread persecution of Christians throughout the first century, and on into the following centuries, or whether there weren't pockets of persecution such as the Pliny letter alludes to. Both claims can be correct. Pliny can document specific persecutions, but not secure the conclusion of widespread persecution. Again, I'll have to reread the letter, but if you could provide additional quotes and documents citing persecution of Christians in the early centuries, that would go a long way toward establishing your claim. It's worthy of note that the only alleged example of persecution in the bible is that of Saint Stephen, and that wasn't for refusal to deny his beliefs. At the very least, given that bible documents cover a substantial portion of the first century, it's odd that more examples of persecution aren't present. (Jesus, himself, is arguably another example, but I'm not sure that helps consolidate the case.)

(Note: The Cassius Dio and Seutonius references are dead links, and the Tacitus link is just a general link to his Roman Histories.)

[Bucky Ball]

Whoever the "Peter" is, ..... who may or may not have been one of the "twelve"
(which is already suspicious, as Mithraism included :
Virgin birth
Twelve followers
Killing and resurrection
Miracles
Birthdate on December 25
Morality
Mankind's savior
Known as the Light of the world

... he could not have been the Galilean fisherman.
All you have to do is read read the letters of "Peter". As early as the 3rd Century, their authorship was in question.
They contain highly developed theological concepts which (obviously) had not yet developed and a very fluent articulate Greek,
which no peasant Galilean would have the education to produce. Then there is the preposterous notion that suddenly Galilean peasants who never were further from home than Jerusalem,
who always met in Jerusalem, suddenly became world travelers, hopping all over the Mediterranean. Yeah... no.

[Drich]

And, so, you accept the Acts of Peter as being an historical source?

is that all you got out my post? what about the lady [101] Margherita Guarducci who found his estuary/tomb with the inscription having been crucified by nero and giving the date? what about that?how did you miss that? With that as our anchor source then we can build with other material that would not typically stand on their own but in this case in this detail can be used to corroborate the narrative.

Why are you arguing 2000 years of known vetted history? don't you understand that the anti god propaganda is something new? I provided 5 1st century historians that point to nero in 64 AD wide spread persecution in Rome of Christians for the destruction or burning of Rome. You are ignoring 1st century sources for your own personal belief in modern anti god propagandists.

[Vicki Q]

Er.............ilk is not an insult. It means 'the same sort of thing'.

The Wemstroms: How words turn from innocent to negative

There are mounds and mounds of the faithful who take comfort in the idea that there is some critical mass of historical information regarding their faith..but, if they knew the contents of that mass, they'd be utterly disappointed.

I half agree with this. A lot of Christians know little about things like redaction criticism or who didn't write the pseudepigrapha etc. But go below the problems with the NT as a collection of sources, and apply historical methods, and I honestly do believe it strengthens the case for Xianity immeasurably.

This is what writers like N.T. Wright and J.P. Meier are doing- proper historical process applied to NT history. When you do this, you see things in a totally different light; you understand why it makes sense to believe.

And as I said, following proper historical method, with all the different sources and types of reference in the NT, tells us that those disciples paid a heavy price for their beliefs. Whatever else might have been the case, the reality is that those disciples believed in Jesus strongly enough to pay whatever price it took.

And other thoughts of that ilk.

Have a good Xmas, everybody!