I assume when you started this thread you took a look at other blogs and websites but didn’t reading any early Christian fathers or writers that lived at the times of the apostles, or referenced any Catholic encyclopedias.

Actually, as you'd know if you had bothered to read my original post, I specifically cited the New Advent encyclopedia multiple times. I also cited several early church fathers and apocryphal gospels.

The fact that theist commenters are objecting to my post without having read it is a good sign that it's time to close this thread.

I'm going to assume you're through with this thread, so a few final comments. There are religions older than Catholicism. Does that give them more credence?

Also, I noticed you keep standing by the Catholic church's claims of finding the bones of St. Peter in spite of the fact that two different Popes claimed two different sets of bones. If one of the Popes is correct, the other is wrong...which violates the Pope's rule of infallibility, does it not?

You see, you made the comment about revisionist history going against proven facts, yet you continue to not provide us the source of your proof, other than "Catholic tradition".

If you want to see how, even in today's modern age of science and overwhelming information and data, that long-held "truths" are in fact hogwash, go browse Snopes.com for a bit. The times of Christ were filled with stories of Messianic figures performing miracles before crowds, and religions and followers were springing up all around. What's to say that your church simply was the most successful of those new religions of that time at selling it's story?

Let me clarify,

I am not running away from the claims I made. They are not my claims, they are the claims of the Church, I am just the messenger and I stand by them.

I absolutely believe that St. Peter is buried under St. Peter’s in Rome. It has always been the Tradition of the Church, but when he was discovered in the 1930’s, the Tradition was proven true. Rome did not make the announcement for roughly 30 more years because, I assume, they wanted to be sure.

As for the other claim mentioned regarding St. Peter’s bones: I would rather trust the Church’s finding and its scientists then a priest who claims opposite (for what ever reason).

Revisionist history is not a good thing when it goes against proven facts. I assume when you started this thread you took a look at other blogs and websites but didn’t reading any early Christian fathers or writers that lived at the times of the apostles, or referenced any Catholic encyclopedias.

I say silly because if you would read these documents you could see, at the very least, that the Apostles were killed because they were Christian. I am not an expert by any means in the early Christian father’s, and I do not have time to photo copy and send you evidence of writings of the stories of all the Christian killings.

It is true that we have no records of the lives of some of the Apostles but we know that Peter was killed by crucifixion upside down and we have his body (with no feet), St. Andrew was martyred by crucifixion on an X-shaped cross, St. James the less was thrown of the Temple, lived, was stabbed and finally beheaded; these things you know. Combined with the Traditions that say they all died (besides John) by Martyrdom, a great percentage of the early followers being killed (many in the Roman Coliseum for Sport), and the fact that the Church Jesus started through St. Peter is still standing today, 2000 years after all the violence and inexcusable behavior it has gone through, is unbelievable. It’s unreasonable to deny the early Church. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I agree (The Church!).

Here’s something even more amazing. I have been blessed to have visited places all throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, and now Ethiopia, and when you enter a Catholic Church, no matter where you are, no matter the language, it’s the same (there obviously is human error; which only supports the fact that this human run Church has to be divine), unbelievable and unreasonable to think possible, if not seen with your own eyes. Every Church is filled with pictures and statues of the Apostles and how they died.

All of history leading up to day supports the Apostles. This alone should be substantial evidence. Reason says if X is taught, then Y happens.

The Apostles were taught about God, and about morals, faith, sacrifice, love, about divisions and how to overcome divisions, and about a Church. One can expect as a result that the Church teach the same way. And it does. Look at the Catechism.

At this time this is all I can add to the conversation. Besides pointing you in the right direction (Catholic encyclopedia, Peter’s bones, catechism), I am limited and have nothing else to add.

First of all, I am glad to see you sticking around to defend your POV. Believe me when I say that I am not writing my posts in response to you so I can say "Ha! I'm winning!", but rather I am doing it in the sense of "But how do you view that in light of the fact that..."

I'm not out to "defeat" you. I want to know what you think in response to replies on here.

You've mentioned "silly" a few times now. I'm glad you brought that up. Because when you hand a skeptic the Bible, and you tell him "Read all these stories! They're all true!" the skeptic will say "Hmm...talking donkeys? Sticks into snakes? Walking on water? God is mad at me if I don't bury my poop? Raising the dead? And you say this is true? That's *silly*!"

I made this point on another thread that Ebon Almighty (ha!) has since locked:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

You admit you believe in the extraordinary claims of the Bible, and in regard to this thread, the Apostles. All we ask is for your proof.

Other than that, Ebon pretty much said what I've been telling you. You wish to hang your hat on the idea that Xianity must be true, else people would not be willing to die for it, but people are willing to die for all kinds of ideas. This does not make those ideas true anymore than people willing to die for Xianity makes Xianity true.

But it's not why one should believe in Christianity, it's silly to talk about this.

You were the one who insisted that the actual remains of St. Peter had been found. It seems to me that you backed off that claim rather swiftly when you heard about the multiple skeletons and other relics contending for that designation.

If you do not believe that the apostles died for their faith, then you must believe that they, and every Christian there after who have died have died for a lie.

Essentially, yes. Similarly, you believe that every Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and Mormon who's died for their faith has died for a lie, do you not? I doubt you find that position "unreasonable and impossible". We atheists think the same way; we just add Christianity to the list of false religions whose sincere but misguided followers have died for incorrect beliefs.

Thinking the Apostles did not died for the faith is revisionist history.

Yes, it is. Our understanding of history should be revised when the evidence dictates; to do otherwise is just vain clinging to false dogma. As I pointed out, and as you have not contested, there is zero reliable textual evidence indicating how any of the apostles died, only unsourced rumors and late-invented medieval legends. Therefore, it is the inescapable conclusion that the orthodox Christian understanding of the apostles' historicity is without foundation, and should be revised so that it is in accord with the facts.

If we are going to talk about something, lets talk about something more substantial, like the meaning of life...something like that

This thread is to address the issue of how the twelve apostles died, as discussed in the original post. Please keep your comments on-topic.

You can look around this website for more info on St. Peter

http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/JW/TheBonesofStPeter-1.htm

spaceman spif,

As for your other comments, many churches are named St. Peter's. I found the website you were looking at and I am not surprised to see something that tries to contradict what was found under St. Peter's in Rome. I would have to say that it is false, but I am no expert.

But it's not why one should believe in Christianity, it's silly to talk about this. If you do not believe that the apostles died for their faith, then you must believe that they, and every Christian there after who have died have died for a lie. This goes against all reason. 2000 years of brain washing is unreasonable and impossible. The Church is standing today because it is founding on the Truth of life. How else can you explain an institution like the Church who is run by Sinners, some of the greatest and more notorious sinners the world has seen, yet her message, her teachings, have never waivered, thats unbelieveable and impossible, yet it's fact.

it's why I believe in God. When I look at it's teachings it made me a believer.

Thinking the Apostles did not died for the faith is revisionist history. For example, in Rome, these same ideas are being passed on by the people who run the tour guide at the Coliseum in Rome and tell people that there is no evidence that Christians died there for sport. A complete lie.

If we are going to talk about something, lets talk about something more substantial, like the meaning of life...something like that

Your response inspired me to do a little research of my own. It seems that (surprise!) there's a bit of twisting and stretching one must do to accept your story on the bones of Peter.

First of all, are you referring to the bones that Pope Pius XII claimed in 1950 were the bones of St. Peter? Or are you referring to the other set of bones that Pope Paul VI claimed in 1968 were the bones of St. Peter?

Second, you claimed the skeleton was missing it's hands. Which is interesting because Catholic tradition states Peter was removed from the cross by having his feet severed. Which is it?

Third, which skull really belongs to Peter? One of the ones dug up from under the Vatican, or the one that has been in St. John's Lateran since the 9th century?

Also, how do you respond to other research and evidence that shows Peter was actually buried in Jerusalem? Have you ever heard of the ossuary found in Jerusalem that bears St. Peters name?

The Apostles were martyred. Radical muslims murder. There is a big difference between the beliefs.

Whatever the difference in their beliefs, if one dies for one's beliefs it does not make those beliefs true. You previously asserted that they died for truth, but that is simply not necessarily true. They died for their beliefs, and simply because they died for their beliefs doesn't make it any more true than when a Muslim dies for her beliefs or a Jew or a Hindu, etc etc etc.

Truthfully I think this topic is kind of silly. To believe the apostles did not die because they were christians is 100% false.

Why should I believe without evidence? If you wish me to believe that it is 100% false, then you have to provide evidence that they all died simply because they were Xians and they were persecuted. The whole point of the OP is that people like you say that they were killed for being Xian (100% certainty according to you) but the historical records are actually very spotty.

Traditions says that The first Pope, Peter, was killed by crucifiction upside down.

If you had read the OP, you'd notice that Adam already talked about Simon Peter and allowed that it was possible. How do you know that the grave was really his and not someone else's? The grave that was labeled as his didn't have his hands cut off. Finding another grave with the hands cut off doesn't prove that that grave was actually Peter's. Nor does carbon dating, which only shows the time period, not the identity of the person.

PS. It is true though that there are some apostles that we don't really know what happened to them. We only know through Tradition what happened to some.

And, that's the whole point, isn't it? You only have stories and tradition to draw on, not facts. Yet, there's this whole school of thought in apologetics that Xianity must be true because the apostles would not have died for a lie (William Lane Craig is a prominent proponent of this idea). Yet, how can you make that argument if you can't prove that they did die for being Xian or that they died for truth?

PS I hope your trip to Ethiopia was fun and rewarding.