Is St Peter's Basilica built over a pagan cemetery? Yes or No.
Have they found Peter's bones under the Basilica where that pagan cemetery was? Yes or No.
And how do you know that Justin Martyr was wrong about that statue? Did Irenaeus say that he was wrong? Did Origen or Hippolytus or anyone close to the ground at that time say that he was wrong?
You're claiming to be able to show conclusively that the vast majority of Christians are very wrong indeed about some basic and critical points of early church history. But, so far, very few of the assertions made with a bold certitude (and often a bold font) bear up under examination. What you present as conclusively shown turns out to be highly questionable -- not WRONG necessarily, but not at all as certain as you suggest.
I don't understand why I am faced with some "YES or NO" questions. I think if you look at my participation here you will find that mostly I have tried to clarify the propositions of my Church and show how a reasonable person MIGHT assent to them. You want to know what I think? Ask!
Okay, so you did ask -- your questions:
- Basilica over Cemetery -- As far as I know, which ain't far, yes.
- Peter's Bones --I don't know. What I hear is they've found some likely candidates (UNDER the menagerie where you inexplicably stopped your first account) and Paul VI (I think) was persuaded. My sun does not rise or set on such questions. So if it's good enough for the much maligned Paulus Sixtus, it's good enough for this Dawg.
(C) - Justin Martyr being mistaken about the Semo Sancto Statue -- I don't know. I didn't say I knew. The percentage of payability when I research stuff you guys present as certain is so low that I'm sure not going to check it out now.
If you want to persuade me that I am wrong, it seems to me you have the burden of answering how you know Justin is right. My recollection is I reported what others said when you changed the subject to Justin and the others, and I was struck by the repeated theme that "they" had found a statue or a plinth or base or whatever with an inscription along the lines of "SEMO SANCTO", and so forth.
I don't know and certainly am not going to go through all of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, or Origen to find out what they say about Justin's account of Simon Magus.
If the question is meant to suggest that Irenaeus, Origen, or Hippolytus, being "close to the ground at that time", would be more reliable as to matters of fact than later researchers, I would dispute the suggestion.
A repeated (and repeatedly ignored) theme of my question about what you two propose is that a collection of probabilities does not make a certainty. I say again: If there is a 90% chance that Adam knows Beth and a 90% chance that Beth knows Charlie there is only an 81% chance that both of those are true. And the probabilities decline exponentially. By the time there are only 7 90% probabilities you've reached the level of "less reliable than a coin toss." I'm not throwing over my Church on those odds.
0.90
0.81
0.73
0.66
0.59
0.53
0.48
I didn't start this saying you all were wrong. YOU ALL came in saying WE were wrong -- from Sunday worship on down. You're the ones saying that a myth has fallen, that proof has been presented. And it turns out that by "fallen" you only mean not scientifically verifiable and not without its detractors, and by "proof" you mean ... well it's not clear what you all think constitutes a proof.
In any event, I'm just saying you're not persuading me. A guy wants me to buy a car and makes a lot of statements about it with great firmness, essentially saying,"Trust me, I'm right on this." I do a little research and find that one of his statements is, at best, a serious misinterpretation of the facts. I say, "Hey, what about this? What's up with that?" He says,"Nice try. How do you know I'm wrong?" You think he's going to sell a lot of cars?
Hint: not to me.