There's Not An Iota Of Evidence The Apostles Existed

[SeekingAllTruth]

Please. I'd love to be proved wrong. If anyone has any reference to a secular historian (non-churchman) circa 1st-2nd century who mentions ANY of the apostles please let me know.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

That clearly shows BE does indeed acknowledge oral tradition is evidence

Why do you think he doesn't?

I didn't read it that way.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't read it that way.

Then why would he write this book?

The book is about how the stories of Jesus were passed along by word of mouth for several decades before being written, and about how modern studies of both memory and oral cultures can help us understand what probably happened to the traditions as they circulated orally from one person to another over all those years


What do you think evidence actually is? Why do you believe Ehrman accepts there was a historical Jesus other than balance of probability based on oral traditions?

What physical evidence is there from his lifetime?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Then why would he write this book?

The book is about how the stories of Jesus were passed along by word of mouth for several decades before being written, and about how modern studies of both memory and oral cultures can help us understand what probably happened to the traditions as they circulated orally from one person to another over all those years


What do you think evidence actually is? Why do you believe Ehrman accepts there was a historical Jesus other than balance of probability based on oral traditions?

What physical evidence is there from his lifetime?

But that's a pretty neutral statement, isn't it? He's not saying oral traditions prove Jesus and the apostles existed. I'm looking for tangible written proof outside the NT. I'd love to be proved wrong. Show me some and I'll believe.

 

[Augustus]

But that's a pretty neutral statement, isn't it? He's not saying oral traditions prove Jesus and the apostles existed. I'm looking for tangible written proof outside the NT. I'd love to be proved wrong. Show me some and I'll believe.

You are confusing proof and evidence.

You said oral tradition is not accepted as evidence by historians.

As I've shown repeatedly, historians including Ehrman certainly treat it as evidence.

Why would you assume that no apostles existed given the evidence? (this is not to say the Bible is accurate)

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You are confusing proof and evidence.

You said oral tradition is not accepted as evidence by historians.

As I've shown repeatedly, historians including Ehrman certainly treat it as evidence.

Why would you assume that no apostles existed given the evidence? (this is not to say the Bible is accurate)

So let's say I'm looking for writings by secular historians that mention the apostles. Forget about the words, "Evidence" and "proof". Do you have any? Simple yes/no question.

 

[Augustus]

So let's say I'm looking for writings by secular historians that mention the apostles. Forget about the words, "Evidence" and "proof". Do you have any? Simple yes/no question.

I'm not sure "secular" historians existed then in any meaningful sense.

If you are asking whether or not there are contemporaneous "pagan" sources that discuss the apostles directly then I am not aware of any.

I think you are asking the wrong questions based on a naive understanding of historical methodology though.

We know some people spread Jesus' message across a wide geographical area (unless you are a mythicist).

We know that Paul, writing close to Jesus' lifetime, refers to apostles and seems to suggest some disagreement.

Based on what we know about the Roman world, it is likely some of them faced some persecution.

I doubt it went down like the Bible says, but its reasonable to accept it probable there were apostles and some were persecuted for their actions.

What is your opinion on the apostles?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I'm not sure "secular" historians existed then in any meaningful sense.

If you are asking whether or not there are contemporaneous "pagan" sources that discuss the apostles directly then I am not aware of any.

I think you are asking the wrong questions based on a naive understanding of historical methodology though.

We know some people spread Jesus' message across a wide geographical area (unless you are a mythicist).

We know that Paul, writing close to Jesus' lifetime, refers to apostles and seems to suggest some disagreement.

Based on what we know about the Roman world, it is likely some of them faced some persecution.

I doubt it went down like the Bible says, but its reasonable to accept it probable there were apostles and some were persecuted for their actions.

What is your opinion on the apostles?

Thoughtful reply. I appreciate that.

I'm not saying "It's impossible the apostles, if they existed, died as martyrs." I'm simply saying I have no reason to believe in Jesus because I cannot find any concrete proof he existed, and by extension neither did the apostles. I marvel how such an elaborate story started growing with nothing except writers' imaginations to perpetuate it. But what I most marvel at is the fact that God--in his infinite wisdom and desire to see us all saved--didn't leave a thimbleful worth of secular evidence for Jesus. You'd think that if he was really interested in saving the world through Jesus he'd have left a treasure trove of secular proof--the original gospels by all of the apostles, volumes of secular historians testifying to the crucifixion, the earthquake, the darkness and zombie saints rising out of their tombs to appear to Jerusalem residents, letters by residents telling of the saints that appeared to them. He'd have preserved the tomb with Jesus' blood still on the slab, testimonies by everyone at the crucifixion telling what they saw. He'd have left a trail of proof for Jesus a mile long--IF he really wanted us to believe in Jesus.

Instead Christianity is shrinking in American and Europe where education is extensive. People read the lack of evidence and shrug and say, "Sorry, not for me." I didn't understand God's reasons for his apathy--until I became a deist. Then it all made sense to me. God simply doesn't give a damn whether we believe in Jesus or not.

 

[blü 2]

If you believe the bible ,this is no problem.

I respectfully demur.

What am I to do when I find contradictions ─ eg was Jesus an ordinary Jew who became the son of God when, at his baptism, adopted by God (Mark); or was he born of a divinely-inseminated virgin (Matthew, Luke) and is that even credible? or did he pre-exist in heaven with God, make the material universe (regardless of what Genesis says) and arrive on earth, inferentially by being born into an ordinary Jewish family (Paul, John)? Was there ever a real Judas, and if there was, how come Paul had never heard of him, and the tales don't agree? Was Jesus born of the line of David (Paul, John, nonsensically Matthew and Luke) or not (Mark)?

 

[Dave Watchman]

"Sorry, not for me." I didn't understand God's reasons for his apathy--until I became a deist. Then it all made sense to me. God simply doesn't give a damn whether we believe in Jesus or not.

So now we reach the truth of the matter.

You're mad at God.

You know that there isn't any mainstream media writings referencing the apostles in the first century. They were not looking to be popularized in the press. They were not seeking worship. Heaven forbid. They were on the move. Probably trying to avoid the authorities. But their job was completed. They did become the Lord's Witnesses in Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth in the written words of their Gospels. God's power is made perfect in weakness. So His grace is sufficient to the believer.

I see that you're not an Atheist, but your note has the demeanor of the anger phase of the five stages of grief.

Did you know that I compare the Atheist with Elizabeth Kubler Ross's five stages of grief?

Five stages of grief.

• denial.
• anger.
• bargaining.
• depression.
• acceptance.

Denial. The Atheist says in their heart that there is no God.

Anger. If there is a God, I want to know why He lets little kids get leukemia.

Bargaining. Tell ya what, show us proof, and WE will be the deciders if God exists.

Depression. Quiet time, the Atheist goes on a break from posting.

Acceptance. When the Atheist reaches acceptance on a global scale, they will seek to kill God. Satan will gather them for that great battle in the valley that is symbolically called Megiddo. When the world is at war with God. Like it is right now.

I wouldn't worry about Christianity shrinking in America and Europe. There comes a time when God abandons a people, God gives them over to a reprobate mind.

There comes a time when everyone alive is either sealed or marked. This is the time when the night comes when no man can work. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.

It's just these guys are the wild card now, the elect infantry. Our brothers and our fellow servants:

 

[firedragon]

They were nobodies in their time. Who would write about some nobody heretics the empire killed?

If you read Josephus, he has written about so many "heretics the empire killed'. Many.

 

[Mister Emu]

Please. I'd love to be proved wrong. If anyone has any reference to a secular historian (non-churchman) circa 1st-2nd century who mentions ANY of the apostles please let me know.

Why?

I'd think multiple contemporaneous writers attesting to a mundane fact would satisfy all but the most ardent deniers.

But what I most marvel at is the fact that God--in his infinite wisdom and desire to see us all saved--didn't leave a thimbleful worth of secular evidence for Jesus

Wait, do you also reject Josephus as a, more or less, "secular" writer attesting to the existence of Jesus?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Why?

I'd think multiple contemporaneous writers attesting to a mundane fact would satisfy all but the most ardent deniers.


Wait, do you also reject Josephus as a, more or less, "secular" writer attesting to the existence of Jesus?

The topic is not Jesus; the topic is the 12 apostles.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

So now we reach the truth of the matter.

You're mad at God.

You know that there isn't any mainstream media writings referencing the apostles in the first century. They were not looking to be popularized in the press. They were not seeking worship. Heaven forbid. They were on the move. Probably trying to avoid the authorities. But their job was completed. They did become the Lord's Witnesses in Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth in the written words of their Gospels. God's power is made perfect in weakness. So His grace is sufficient to the believer.

I see that you're not an Atheist, but your note has the demeanor of the anger phase of the five stages of grief.

Did you know that I compare the Atheist with Elizabeth Kubler Ross's five stages of grief?

Five stages of grief.

• denial.
• anger.
• bargaining.
• depression.
• acceptance.

Denial. The Atheist says in their heart that there is no God.

Anger. If there is a God, I want to know why He lets little kids get leukemia.

Bargaining. Tell ya what, show us proof, and WE will be the deciders if God exists.

Depression. Quiet time, the Atheist goes on a break from posting.

Acceptance. When the Atheist reaches acceptance on a global scale, they will seek to kill God. Satan will gather them for that great battle in the valley that is symbolically called Megiddo. When the world is at war with God. Like it is right now.

I wouldn't worry about Christianity shrinking in America and Europe. There comes a time when God abandons a people, God gives them over to a reprobate mind.

There comes a time when everyone alive is either sealed or marked. This is the time when the night comes when no man can work. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.

It's just these guys are the wild card now, the elect infantry. Our brothers and our fellow servants:

I think you missed the sixth stage: total confusion. I explained why above. You read it. Does God want people to believe in Jesus or doesn't he? If he does why didn't he make sure so much secular evidence was left behind that it'd be impossible for any sane person to deny Jesus' existence? If he doesn't care then he'd do exactly what we see has happened: not a shred of credible evidence for Jesus OR the apostles left behind. The entire faith would have been jimmied out of bits and pieces of earlier dying/rising gods sprinkled with some new novel beliefs to set it apart from other religions.

 

[Mister Emu]

The topic is not Jesus; the topic is the 12 apostles.

I saw that you brought Him up and responded.

You didn't answer the question. Why is five separate attestations, more if you question the authorship of some of the Paulines, not enough for the mundane fact of their existence. I don't think anyone is saying you ought to believe they performed miracles and whatnot based on the Biblical record. But, the Gospels have more divergence talking about Jesus, the central figure, than they do about the Apostles.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I saw that you brought Him up and responded.

You didn't answer the question. Why is five separate attestations, more if you question the authorship of some of the Paulines, not enough for the mundane fact of their existence. I don't think anyone is saying you ought to believe they performed miracles and whatnot based on the Biblical record. But, the Gospels have more divergence talking about Jesus, the central figure, than they do about the Apostles.

Somebody else brought Jesus up. For most secular Bible scholars the NT is a faith manifesto. It is NOT a genuine historical account. The Greeks writing the gospels were biased Christians with an obvious agenda. That's why secular scholars do not consider the NT a reliable historical source for evidence of Jesus.

 

[Mister Emu]

For most secular Bible scholars the NT is a faith manifesto. It is NOT a genuine historical account.

I think you'll find that for most scholars it's a mix of both. Trying to say it is one or the other is a bit of a simplistic take. The question, for historicity, isn't whether it is a faith manifesto(it is) or a historical account(most of the books aren't even purportedly about history); it is where in this faith manifesto can we find genuine historical accounting.

That's why secular scholars do not consider the NT a reliable historical source for evidence of Jesus.

The Apostles. (But, I'd love to see support for secular scholars(as a whole? most?) not believing that the NT is evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Did you poll them?)

If I wrote about how awesome my boss Larry was, and how me and my co-workers Curly and Moe loved him, and then Curly wrote about it, and then Moe's friend Frank wrote about how much Moe loved Larry, and then some other guy Jack came in and wrote about how we all loved Larry, (whatever you might believe about Larry) you'd probably not doubt Curly, Moe, or my existence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Somebody else brought Jesus up. For most secular Bible scholars the NT is a faith manifesto. It is NOT a genuine historical account. The Greeks writing the gospels were biased Christians with an obvious agenda. That's why secular scholars do not consider the NT a reliable historical source for evidence of Jesus.

Most historians, especially those of the classical era, were biased with an agenda. Julius Caesar wrote histories of the Civil War and the Gallic Wars. They both were exercises in self mythologising, but they most certainly are not dismissed by historians on that basis.

I think the point you are missing is that modern historians know they are often working from unreliable texts and records; they do not dismiss their sources, they interrogate them. And yes, they certainly doubt them, but they don’t reject them out of hand.

 

[74x12]

I bristle when I hear Christians say, "All the apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus." It has become such a cliche like the other one, "There's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar" and my favorite--"Jesus Christ is the most well-attested figure in history." Do these people read anything beside the Bible?

I watched a debate between Sean MacDowell and Paulogia the other day. Paulogia is a former Christian who saw the light and left Christianity. He now runs a popular skeptic website on YouTube. Sean, son of infamous apologist, Josh MacDowell wrote a book on the fate of the apostles which is the go-to source in the Christian community to prove the apostles all were martyred. I was floored when MacDowell said and this is a quote at 17:31 of the video below:

MacDowell: "For my case it doesn't even matter that any of them died actually as martyrs. I had this conversation with William lane Craig and he said, 'You don't have to prove any of them died as martyrs'.

Huh?

The question is "Did the apostles die as martyrs" and MacDowell and Craig are saying they don't have to prove the apostles died as martyrs--all they have to do is demonstrate that it's plausible that the apostles could have died as martyrs given the fact that they were apostles of Jesus and believed in him. Did we just warp to another universe where up is down and black is white?????????

Back to reality. Let's start with this:

There not an iota of evidence in the historical record for the apostles even existing.

Nine of them are not even mentioned by name in the Bible post-gospels. Not a single historian mentions them.

Justine Martyr doesn't even mention the nine (excluding Peter, John, and James). For all intents and purposes the apostles were never real--just figments of the gospel writers' imaginations.

And yet here's MacDowell writing a book making a case they died as martyrs for their faith but then saying, "I don't have to prove they died as martyrs for their faith."

Does 2 + 2 equal 22 in the world of Christianity?

How do we know you exist? You could be a bot someone programmed that just aggregates data on the web.

Maybe there is more evidence that the apostles existed than that you exist.

 

[1213]

...
There not an iota of evidence in the historical record for the apostles even existing.
...

Bible is also a historical record, you apparently just don’t believe it is correct. But, if it is true they didn’t exist, why do you think we have the Bible? If they didn’t exist, why did Rome turn into the Christianity?