So why are you an athiest?

[Allie]

I have always wondered at people's stories, and I would like to hear yours. What would make a person so angry, sorrowful, or unconvinced as to not believe in God?

I come to you in the most humble of circumstances, I am still very young. I probably have less knowledge of the Bible than most people on this site do, but I would still like to contribute to these interesting conversations; Won't you please tell me your story?

[PC1]

Allie describes herself as being "very young." I don't think she deserves to be scolded for deciding to drop out of a thread.

People are born not believing in God. I want to know what would make a person so lonely, so desperate, so rejected, and so gullible that one would want to believe in a loving and divine parent figure that will never abandon you, and believe so without evidence?

That's one of the worst loaded questions I've seen in awhile.

The other being the nearly identical question in the opening post, which this question was based on and was a response to?

Wow, your absolutely right. I must have glanced over that, I apologize.

[daedalus 2.0]

That's the basis for almost every ancient historical figure--written words. What more could you ask for? Dozens of followers who were so certain they went to their deaths proclaiming this as true?

Are you talking about Jim Jones or the 9/11 hijackers?

(BTW, prove that they died without recanting. I suppose you will bring up Foxe?)

[PC1]

Are you talking about Jim Jones or the 9/11 hijackers?

Your insinuating that those people are crazy? The point is whether or not Jesus existed. That's a completely different story.

(BTW, prove that they died without recanting. I suppose you will bring up Foxe?)

I had to Wikipedia Foxe, I had no idea who you were talking about.

I assume we can agree Wikipedia is an unbiased source? The following first century saints are labeled as being martyred, without any mention of recanting, on their respective Wikipedia pages:

Paul, Peter, Thomas, Mark, James (son of Zebedee), Andrew, Philip, Batholomew, James (the other apostle), Thaddeus (AKA Jude), Simon the Zealot, Stephen, and Silas.

That's all 12 apostles minus Judas Iscariot, plus the other names I can remember being in the NT.

*Edit: I forget to include Luke in that list, and forget to mention that John the Apostle was never martyred.

[Goat]

Are you talking about Jim Jones or the 9/11 hijackers?

Your insinuating that those people are crazy? The point is whether or not Jesus existed. That's a completely different story.

Well,people follow religion for crazy reasons. What non-biblical evidence that predates the writing of the gospels do you have, (assuming that the GOM was
written after the Jewish revolt).

(BTW, prove that they died without recanting. I suppose you will bring up Foxe?)

I had to Wikipedia Foxe, I had no idea who you were talking about.

I assume we can agree Wikipedia is an unbiased source? The following first century saints are labeled as being martyred, without any mention of recanting, on their respective Wikipedia pages:

Paul, Peter, Thomas, Mark, James (son of Zebedee), Andrew, Philip, Batholomew, James (the other apostle), Thaddeus (AKA Jude), Simon the Zealot, Stephen, and Silas.

That's all 12 apostles minus Judas Iscariot, plus the other names I can remember being in the NT.

*Edit: I forget to include Luke in that list, and forget to mention that John the Apostle was never martyred.

[/quote]

Ok. Which of those apostles actually wrote down their experiences for us to read?

[PC1]

What non-biblical evidence that predates the writing of the gospels do you have, (assuming that the GOM was
written after the Jewish revolt).

That's too much homework. I simply came in this thread with the remark that written works are how we identify someone historically. The following ten non-Christian sources identify Jesus within 150 years of his life: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud. Over the same 150 years we have nine non-Christian sources who mention Tiberius Caesar, you know, the emperor of the known world. If you include Christian sources this ratio becomes 43:10.

Ok. Which of those apostles actually wrote down their experiences for us to read?

So since there's no evidence that they recanted we now move to the "it's impossible to know" stage. If there's even a rumor, Wikipedia typically includes it and there was no mention anywhere of them recanting.

[Goat]

What non-biblical evidence that predates the writing of the gospels do you have, (assuming that the GOM was
written after the Jewish revolt).

That's too much homework. I simply came in this thread with the remark that written works are how we identify someone historically. The following ten non-Christian sources identify Jesus within 150 years of his life: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud. Over the same 150 years we have nine non-Christian sources who mention Tiberius Caesar, you know, the emperor of the known world. If you include Christian sources this ratio becomes 43:10.

Ok. Which of those apostles actually wrote down their experiences for us to read?

So since there's no evidence that they recanted we now move to the "it's impossible to know" stage. If there's even a rumor, Wikipedia typically includes it and there was no mention anywhere of them recanting.

Have you ever read any o fthose sources? You do know that the TF from josephus is a forgery, right??? And, the Jewish Talmud is like 300 years after the event, not sooner than that.

If you read the 'secular' sources, all are either forgeries , or unknown sources, or they got their source from Christians.

Now, when it comes to the apostles, I would like to see what they actually thought and said, not what is attributed to them decades after they died. That would be a start. And, for that matter, I would like some actual evidence they even existed from sources outside the Bible, or from early Christian sources.

[PC1]

Have you ever read any o fthose sources? You do know that the TF from josephus is a forgery, right??? And, the Jewish Talmud is like 300 years after the event, not sooner than that.

I admit TF is most likely forged. I was referring to the other mention, "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..."

Wikipedia claims this is "considered authentic by the majority of scholars."

As far as the Jewish Talmud goes, I could be wrong on the date, a book I have claimed it was in 150 years, but I'll look into that.

If you read the 'secular' sources, all are either forgeries , or unknown sources, or they got their source from Christians.

I'd like to see if there is any evidence for this beyond speculation.

Now, when it comes to the apostles, I would like to see what they actually thought and said, not what is attributed to them decades after they died. That would be a start. And, for that matter, I would like some actual evidence they even existed from sources outside the Bible, or from early Christian sources.

By "what they actually thought and said" do you mean their writings? We have Paul's. But we're talking about whether or not they recanted prior to dying, right? If they didn't then they wouldn't be able to record it since they would be dead.

As far as actual evidence of whether the apostles existed? To be honest, I just don't feel like spending all that much time on it. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't call their existence into question satisfies me, personally. Wikipedia doesn't shy away from criticizing when it has the opportunity.

[Goat]

Have you ever read any o fthose sources? You do know that the TF from josephus is a forgery, right??? And, the Jewish Talmud is like 300 years after the event, not sooner than that.

I admit TF is most likely forged. I was referring to the other mention, "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..."

Wikipedia claims this is "considered authentic by the majority of scholars."

However, a good case can be made for that reference to be what is known as a
'copiers gloss'. A good enough case can be made to have it strongly in doubt
as 'secular evidence'.

As far as the Jewish Talmud goes, I could be wrong on the date, a book I have claimed it was in 150 years, but I'll look into that.

Depends on which Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud was started to be written down around 150 C.E, but that consists of nothing but writing down the temple rituals so they would not be forgotten. The Babylonian Talmud was written down later. The Mishna section was started to be written down around 200 c.e. and continued for over 200 years.


In any case,that is certainly enough time for rumors, counter stories, and such to develop because of the ongoing fight between Christians and Jews.
[/quote]

If you read the 'secular' sources, all are either forgeries , or unknown sources, or they got their source from Christians.

I'd like to see if there is any evidence for this beyond speculation.

Now, when it comes to the apostles, I would like to see what they actually thought and said, not what is attributed to them decades after they died. That would be a start. And, for that matter, I would like some actual evidence they even existed from sources outside the Bible, or from early Christian sources.

By "what they actually thought and said" do you mean their writings? We have Paul's. But we're talking about whether or not they recanted prior to dying, right? If they didn't then they wouldn't be able to record it since they would be dead.

As far as actual evidence of whether the apostles existed? To be honest, I just don't feel like spending all that much time on it. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't call their existence into question satisfies me, personally. Wikipedia doesn't shy away from criticizing when it has the opportunity.[/quote]

Well, tradition has it they existed. Now, demonstrate that tradition is correct. What is the evidence they existed? Is there any primary sources for them? What books do we have that they wrote? What books do we have that say "My teacher was xxxx', or were those books attributed to that apostles student decades later?

It looks like you are accepting the tradition because it fits your theology, and it is comfortable to do so for you. Going to 'wiki' is 'appeal to authority'. I am challenging you to actually LOOK at the evidence you claim is the evidence, for not only the apostles, but for Jesus. For example, if you read Pilny the younger, you will see he is writing about Christians, and all his information he got was from the torture of slaves. That is good evidence for the existence of CHristians, and Christian belief, but not evidence for Jesus.

[PC1]

However, a good case can be made for that reference to be what is known as a
'copiers gloss'. A good enough case can be made to have it strongly in doubt
as 'secular evidence'.

Please make the case then.

Well, tradition has it they existed. Now, demonstrate that tradition is correct. What is the evidence they existed? Is there any primary sources for them? What books do we have that they wrote? What books do we have that say "My teacher was xxxx', or were those books attributed to that apostles student decades later?

It looks like you are accepting the tradition because it fits your theology, and it is comfortable to do so for you. Going to 'wiki' is 'appeal to authority'. I am challenging you to actually LOOK at the evidence you claim is the evidence, for not only the apostles, but for Jesus. For example, if you read Pilny the younger, you will see he is writing about Christians, and all his information he got was from the torture of slaves. That is good evidence for the existence of CHristians, and Christian belief, but not evidence for Jesus.

I'm not going on a massive evidence hunt. Firstly, what type of evidence is it you demand, specifically, and is such a demand reasonable for people who existed 2000-1900 years ago? If you specify that, then I'll make an effort. I didn't register on this forum so I could provide rigorous answers on demand.

I'm appealing to Wiki because it's a non-biased source, typically edited by scholars, and it's far easier than randomly trying to scour the internet for the same material. I have better, pro-Christian sources, but I don't use them because I know I'll just get told that they don't count due to bias or whatever.

Tradition is unreliable as to small details, but it very rarely contains outright inventions.

It looks like you are accepting the tradition because it fits your theology, and it is comfortable to do so for you.

No more so then you choosing to deny every reference, tradition, etc. a priori due to your beliefs.

[Goat]

However, a good case can be made for that reference to be what is known as a
'copiers gloss'. A good enough case can be made to have it strongly in doubt
as 'secular evidence'.

Please make the case then.

Well, tradition has it they existed. Now, demonstrate that tradition is correct. What is the evidence they existed? Is there any primary sources for them? What books do we have that they wrote? What books do we have that say "My teacher was xxxx', or were those books attributed to that apostles student decades later?

It looks like you are accepting the tradition because it fits your theology, and it is comfortable to do so for you. Going to 'wiki' is 'appeal to authority'. I am challenging you to actually LOOK at the evidence you claim is the evidence, for not only the apostles, but for Jesus. For example, if you read Pilny the younger, you will see he is writing about Christians, and all his information he got was from the torture of slaves. That is good evidence for the existence of CHristians, and Christian belief, but not evidence for Jesus.

I'm not going on a massive evidence hunt. Firstly, what type of evidence is it you demand, specifically, and is such a demand reasonable for people who existed 2000-1900 years ago? If you specify that, then I'll make an effort. I didn't register on this forum so I could provide rigorous answers on demand.

I'm appealing to Wiki because it's a non-biased source, typically edited by scholars, and it's far easier than randomly trying to scour the internet for the same material. I have better, pro-Christian sources, but I don't use them because I know I'll just get told that they don't count due to bias or whatever.

Tradition is unreliable as to small details, but it very rarely contains outright inventions.

It looks like you are accepting the tradition because it fits your theology, and it is comfortable to do so for you.

No more so then you choosing to deny every reference, tradition, etc. a priori due to your beliefs.

I will put together information about Antiquities 20, and start a new thread. But, I will give you my criteria that I would consider a good enough source to the existence of the apostles. First, it has to be from before the second century... preferable before the Jewish revolt. Anything after the Jewish revolt has to not be influenced by the Gospels. If it is a reference to something before the Jewish revolt, it has to be a primary source, not an early church father making a quote from someone whose writings are long lost.

That leaves a good 40 years of time frame where one of the apostlles can actually write something down.