There's Not An Iota Of Evidence The Apostles Existed

[Rival]

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

He's just one guy though. Most folks were simply not interested in that kind of thing. I doubt most folks were really all that bothered about some men from a small Jewish cult being killed by Rome. It seems to me to be the case, given we have many Christian oral traditions about such deaths and few to no writings about those deaths. I believe the oral traditions must count for something and aren't wholly baseless, given how strong and prevalent they are. We know that Rome did persecute Christian communities, so the stories don't strike as totally fictional to me.

 

[firedragon]

He's just one guy though. Most folks were simply not interested in that kind of thing. I doubt most folks were really all that bothered about some men from a small Jewish cult being killed by Rome.

I dont know which cult you are referring to.

But I can give you some names.

• Hezekiah the bandit chief
• Simon of Peraea
• Judas the Galilean
• His grandson Menahem
• Simon son of Giora
• Simon son of Kochba

They were killed for "messianic Agenda's" by Rome. The Roman Empire was very concerned.

 

[Rival]

I dont know which cult you are referring to.

But I can give you some names.

• Hezekiah the bandit chief
• Simon of Peraea
• Judas the Galilean
• His grandson Menahem
• Simon son of Giora
• Simon son of Kochba

They were killed for "messianic Agenda's" by Rome. The Roman Empire was very concerned.

Yes, but we're talking about their followers. Nobodies.

I was talking about Christianity, obviously.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

And as you can see, that kind of evidence is good enough for some but not for all people. The people who really want to believe are going to believe even if there is no good evidence. It is all about wanting to believe, not about evidence.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, but we're talking about their followers. Nobodies.

I was talking about Christianity, obviously.

Ah. I was just showing you that Rome was very interested in these kind of "cults" as you referred to. We can't really say "nobodies" because we just dont know about some people. But you should acknowledge that if there indeed was a group of people who claimed there was a Messiah and they were his adherents, it is only probable that they will be hunted down. Especially with Pilates track record in the region.

Since Josephus says "tu legomenos kristu" in reference James the brother of Jesus, the one they called Messiah, he must have been known to have been called Messiah. Thus him and his followers probably were in danger of the Roman sword.

So it is A-historical to say "they wouldn't care".

Peace.

 

[oldbadger]

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?

Feel better now?

Of course, you're quite wrong about your post title. The disciples, Jesus and the apostles did exist, some historians did mention them, and clearly you haven't investigated all this for yourself.

Enough said.

 

[John1.12]

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)?

Yes ,if i believed what you believe ,I wouldn't believe either.

 

[blü 2]

Yes ,if i believed what you believe ,I wouldn't believe either.

So you just say, Oh yes, they contradict each other on matters of important fact quite often, but don't let that worry you ... ?

 

[PruePhillip]

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?

Who cares. There's not one iota of evidence that Hannibal existed either.
But the bible comes to you as a 'take it or leave it' book. Plenty of Jews
'back then' first century didn't believe in Jesus even when he was in
their midst. The bible isn't into CORPORATE PROOF, ie proving some
thing for everyone, it's into PRIVATE PROOF, ie proving something for
yourself, cos if you don't prove it for yourself then your service to God
is in vain.

 

[John1.12]

So you just say, Oh yes, they contradict each other on matters of important fact quite often, but don't let that worry you ... ?

Actually these alleged ' contradictions ' Just deepen the study . They always reveal more to the narrative.Ive always learned more from them by looking into the claims from skeptics. Of course most are just going through a list theve come across on the Internet. I ve had anyone say they were genuinely reading the bible and stumbled upon them .

 

[blü 2]

Actually these alleged ' contradictions ' Just deepen the study . They always reveal more to the narrative.Ive always learned more from them by looking into the claims from skeptics.

Well, the risk is that the opposite of 'skeptic' is 'gullible'.

Of course most are just going through a list theve come across on the Internet. I ve had anyone say they were genuinely reading the bible and stumbled upon them .

First, I make my own lists. Second, I use the net at times.

And third, were I using a list I'd derived entirely from the net, what difference would that make to the correct answers?

 

[MatthewA]

He's just one guy though. Most folks were simply not interested in that kind of thing. I doubt most folks were really all that bothered about some men from a small Jewish cult being killed by Rome. It seems to me to be the case, given we have many Christian oral traditions about such deaths and few to no writings about those deaths. I believe the oral traditions must count for something and aren't wholly baseless, given how strong and prevalent they are. We know that Rome did persecute Christian communities, so the stories don't strike as totally fictional to me.

Extremely insightful.

 

[John1.12]

Well, the risk is that the opposite of 'skeptic' is 'gullible'.
First, I make my own lists. Second, I use the net at times.

And third, were I using a list I'd derived entirely from the net, what difference would that make to the correct answers?

Have you tried the websites that answer the' ' contradictions ' lists?

 

[John1.12]

Well, the risk is that the opposite of 'skeptic' is 'gullible'.
First, I make my own lists. Second, I use the net at times.

And third, were I using a list I'd derived entirely from the net, what difference would that make to the correct answers?

113 "Contradictions" in the Bible - Answers | ReformedWiki
There are hundreds of these on the net .

 

[Colt]

But billions of people do not believe they were sent by God...

Oh, every person throughout history who made religious claims about themselves was automatically assigned a team of credentialed historians to follow them around????

6000 years of Old Testament history has NO credible Historian!

Historicity of Muhammad
Wiki

"While the existence of the Islamic prophet Muhammad is established by contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous historical records,[1][2] attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the ahistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful. Hence the historicity of Muhammad, aside from his existence, is debated. How much reliable history there is about Muhammad is disputed, with some Muslim sources maintaining that "everything he did and said was recorded",[3] while other academic sources claim that almost all of the available information about Muhammad's life, apart from the fact of his existence, is not historically credible.[4]

The earliest Muslim source of information for the life of Muhammad, the Quran, gives very little personal information and its historicity is debated.[5][6] Prophetic biography, known as sīra, along with records of the words, actions, and the silent approval of Muhammad, known as hadith, survive in the historical works of writers from the third and fourth centuries of the Muslim era (c. 800−1000 CE),[7][8] and give a great deal of information on Muhammad, but the reliability of this information is very much debated. In addition there are a relatively small number of contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous non-Muslim sources which confirm the existence of Muhammad and are valuable both in themselves and for comparison with Muslim sources.[6]

 

[Aupmanyav]

And as you can see, that kind of evidence is good enough for some but not for all people. The people who really want to believe are going to believe even if there is no good evidence. It is all about wanting to believe, not about evidence.

Yeah, Abrahamic religions are not about any truth, they are just about belief. Evidence is immaterial. Whatever x believes or whatever y believes or whatever z believes. No one ever provided any evidence. Neither Jesus, nor Mohammad nor the Iranian, nor the Indian Iranian (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas).

 

[Quagmire]

A tradition that says people existed is at least one iota of evidence in the historical record

Not if you really really don't want it to be.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah, Abrahamic religions are not about any truth, they are just about belief. Evidence is immaterial. Whatever x believes or whatever y believes or whatever z believes. No one ever provided any evidence. Neither Jesus, nor Mohammad nor the Iranian, nor the Indian Iranian (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas).

From the time the Jews returned to Israel in the last Bronze Age there exists a fair
amount of evidence for:
the city of Jerusalem
many of the kings, ie David, Omri etc
some of the prophets, ie Isaiah
the conflicts Israel faced, ie Egypt, Assyria
the Babylonian captivity
the Jewish temples

as well there were the Messianic prophecies and predictions of what the
fate of the Jewish people and Israel would be.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Billions and billions of humans have lived with no documentation of their existence.

And we don’t go around telling people that we know who they are and what they did.

 

[blü 2]

Have you tried the websites that answer the' ' contradictions ' lists?

No. My approach is historical, and those sites tend to apologetics, where the writer has the role of defense counsel and not seeker after truth.

But don't let me deter you if that's your choice.