Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[xpastor]

While I wouldn't pretend to be able to speak for all Atheists, I am one that would like a chance to reconcile your objections. I just need you to specify a few things so that I know how to proceed. Whether or not a man named Jesus Christ actually existed is one thing, and I will grant it for the sake of simplifying our exchange. What I don't believe is (A) He did the things he did, and-(B) The things he claimed were true.

Are you saying that there is evidence for A and B and that Atheists are irrationally ignoring it?

In a word, yes I am saying that. Critical scholars tell us that 1 & 2 Peter can't have been written by Peter because he was dead by c. 65 AD, and they were probably written later in the 1st century. You can check that fact if you like. Peter was illiterate, and the only way in which he could have written his two epistles was through a scribe anyway.

What on earth does the date of 1 & 2 Peter have to do with the question posed by Texas Sailor???

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to accept the history of the church fathers as for the death of Peter, then you should also accept that he was an early Christian priest and of course would have made use of scribes, it goes without saying. Or, you're forced to reject them both together which then puts you in the position that you have no option but to admit that even written later in the 1st century, Peter could well have written/dictated the letters.

It ain't necessarily so. First I will note that Ehrman, who is certainly a critical scholar, leaves the authorship of 1 Peter as an open question. He agrees that, if Peter is responsible for the content, it would have been written by a scribe, but he also considers there is a strong possibility that it is a forgery as there are a number of works falsely claiming Peter's authorship, e.g., Gospel of Peter. The argument against authenticity does not depend on denying that Peter could have used a scribe or that he was an early Christian priest. It depends on the fact that systematic persecution of Christians did not begin until 30 years after Peter's supposed death. However, Ehrman allows that there may have been local persecutions in Peter's lifetime. You are trying to smuggle in 2 Peter on the coattails of 1 Peter. Almost all non-fundamentalist scholars reject it because of "its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[10] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2)." (Wikipedia)

Now let me address your question. That is best answered by what I've consistently said. 1. Jesus dies crucified on a cross. If he was insincere he would not die for a hoax. 2. early Christian leaders were also martyred, and again, it simply does not make sense that they would die for a hoax. Think about contemporary cults - usually the cult leader expects others to die for him, or to otherwise profit him.

I know you will not agree, but I think there is good evidence that where the gospels have Jesus speak of his sacrificial death (mainly around the Last Supper) we have later writers putting words in his mouth. Jesus teaching (Sermon on the Mount and parables) was all organized around his sincere belief that the world was going to end within the lifetime of his contemporaries, Matthew 24:36.

In any case you are positing a false dichotomy when you claim that the doctrine must be true because early Christians would not die for a hoax. What about dying for a sincerely mistaken belief? As far as that goes many people have been willing to risk death for causes that did not promise immortal life, for example in wars to protect one's country, and this includes the atheists you will find in foxholes. Muslims have been willing to die for their faith from the time of Mohammed to the present. Does that prove that Mohammed got it right?