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?

[daedalus 2.0]

So you disagree with this guy and 1 Peter 3:15?

Paul wrote to Titus that overseers (pastors and elders) in the church are required to be especially adept at refuting those who oppose the truth of God (Titus 1:9). However this is not merely the assigned task of ordained men. All believers are commanded to engage in it as well. Addressing himself to all members of the congregation, Peter penned the following command: "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to anyone who asks from you a reason for the hope that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). It is God Himself, speaking through Peter's inspired words, who calls upon us as believers -- each and every one of us -- to be prepared to defend the faith in the face of challenges and questions which come from unbelievers -- any one of them.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA098.htm

In 1 Peter 3:15 Peter uses the expression "always ready." This is significant for those who wish to honor the Biblical necessity of engaging in apologetics. What the Lord asks of us is that we be prepared to offer an answer in defense of our faith, whenever anybody asks us for a reason. We are to be "ready" to do this -- indeed, "always ready." And that means that it is imperative that we reflect on the questions that unbelievers are likely to ask and challenges which are commonly laid down to Christianity. We should study and prepare to give reasons for our faith when the faithless ask.

I wish you would be ready to reason, and do some research into what you claim to believe.

[PC1]

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.

Well, I could start with the canonized works. With all the speculation and different arguments being made over these texts, it's hard to find something that is universally agreed upon that would fit all of your requirements. I believe the below more or less accomplish this.

To begin there's the Pauline epistles, the majority of which are widely accepted (as far as I know) to be penned by Paul and Paul self-identifies in all of them. The majority of scholar's date Galatians to the same time Romans was written, believed to be around the years 57-58. In Galatians Paul makes several references to Peter. In 1:18 he says he "went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days." In verses 2:11 and 2:14 Paul records his discourse with Peter: "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong." And "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" Additionally, in Galatians Paul mentions interaction with James and John (2:9), "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." So Galatians meets your requirements as far as I can tell as a primary source from Paul, in which he writes about his interactions with Peter, James, and John.

The consensus on 1 Corinthians is that it dates to around 55-57. 1 Corinthians 15:5 makes mention of Peter and the Twelve (which as you know refers to all 12 of the apostles): "and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." So we have an early reference to all 12 apostles collectively.

Apparently there's no established date for 1st and 2nd Peter and the estimates range from 60-130. However the author self-identifies as Simon Peter the apostle.

Then there's the 3 epistles attributed to John. According to Wikipedia, "The epistle is traditionally held to have been written by John the Evangelist, and probably also at Ephesus, and when the writer was in advanced age. The Epistle's content, language and conceptual style is an indication that a common authorship existed between this letter, the two other letters attributed to the Apostle John, as well as the Gospel of John. Whether the author was the Apostle John himself, someone who wrote under his name and spoke "for him", or whether a body of authors contributed to the writing of all four Johannine texts is an open question. However, "The three Epistles and the Gospel of John are so closely allied in diction, style, and general outlook that the burden of proof lies with the person who would deny their common authorship" The date estimates range from 85-90.

The Book of Acts is purportedly written within the vicinity of 60-100, with dates depending on the scholar. I believe there's decent enough evidence to believe Luke, who is identified by Paul as someone he worked with, composed the Book of Acts. I'm not going into it here because I don't want to make this post any bigger than it has to be, but if you'd like to debate the authorship let me know. To begin, in acts chapter 1 all 12 of the apostles are mentioned by name (Acts 1:13): "13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James." Acts 1 and 2 describe an account of all the 12 apostles together minus Judas Iscariot. The next several chapters describe the acts of Peter and John vividly. Acts 8 describes an alleged encounter Philip had. Acts 12:2 records James the Apostle being killed.


That's a once-over of Acts and the epistles. I'm guessing you wouldn't allow me to use the Gospels as a source? I haven't yet started to look into the church fathers or any other sources. That's something I'll do if I have a lot of time on my hands.

So you disagree with this guy and 1 Peter 3:15?

Paul wrote to Titus that overseers (pastors and elders) in the church are required to be especially adept at refuting those who oppose the truth of God (Titus 1:9). However this is not merely the assigned task of ordained men. All believers are commanded to engage in it as well. Addressing himself to all members of the congregation, Peter penned the following command: "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to anyone who asks from you a reason for the hope that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). It is God Himself, speaking through Peter's inspired words, who calls upon us as believers -- each and every one of us -- to be prepared to defend the faith in the face of challenges and questions which come from unbelievers -- any one of them.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA098.htm

In 1 Peter 3:15 Peter uses the expression "always ready." This is significant for those who wish to honor the Biblical necessity of engaging in apologetics. What the Lord asks of us is that we be prepared to offer an answer in defense of our faith, whenever anybody asks us for a reason. We are to be "ready" to do this -- indeed, "always ready." And that means that it is imperative that we reflect on the questions that unbelievers are likely to ask and challenges which are commonly laid down to Christianity. We should study and prepare to give reasons for our faith when the faithless ask.

I wish you would be ready to reason, and do some research into what you claim to believe.

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Goat]

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.

Well, I could start with the canonized works. With all the speculation and different arguments being made over these texts, it's hard to find something that is universally agreed upon that would fit all of your requirements. I believe the below more or less accomplish this.

To begin there's the Pauline epistles, the majority of which are widely accepted (as far as I know) to be penned by Paul and Paul self-identifies in all of them. The majority of scholar's date Galatians to the same time Romans was written, believed to be around the years 57-58. In Galatians Paul makes several references to Peter. In 1:18 he says he "went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days." In verses 2:11 and 2:14 Paul records his discourse with Peter: "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong." And "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" Additionally, in Galatians Paul mentions interaction with James and John (2:9), "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." So Galatians meets your requirements as far as I can tell as a primary source from Paul, in which he writes about his interactions with Peter, James, and John.

The consensus on 1 Corinthians is that it dates to around 55-57. 1 Corinthians 15:5 makes mention of Peter and the Twelve (which as you know refers to all 12 of the apostles): "and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." So we have an early reference to all 12 apostles collectively.

Apparently there's no established date for 1st and 2nd Peter and the estimates range from 60-130. However the author self-identifies as Simon Peter the apostle.

Then there's the 3 epistles attributed to John. According to Wikipedia, "The epistle is traditionally held to have been written by John the Evangelist, and probably also at Ephesus, and when the writer was in advanced age. The Epistle's content, language and conceptual style is an indication that a common authorship existed between this letter, the two other letters attributed to the Apostle John, as well as the Gospel of John. Whether the author was the Apostle John himself, someone who wrote under his name and spoke "for him", or whether a body of authors contributed to the writing of all four Johannine texts is an open question. However, "The three Epistles and the Gospel of John are so closely allied in diction, style, and general outlook that the burden of proof lies with the person who would deny their common authorship" The date estimates range from 85-90.

The Book of Acts is purportedly written within the vicinity of 60-100, with dates depending on the scholar. I believe there's decent enough evidence to believe Luke, who is identified by Paul as someone he worked with, composed the Book of Acts. I'm not going into it here because I don't want to make this post any bigger than it has to be, but if you'd like to debate the authorship let me know. To begin, in acts chapter 1 all 12 of the apostles are mentioned by name (Acts 1:13): "13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James." Acts 1 and 2 describe an account of all the 12 apostles together minus Judas Iscariot. The next several chapters describe the acts of Peter and John vividly. Acts 8 describes an alleged encounter Philip had. Acts 12:2 records James the Apostle being killed.


That's a once-over of Acts and the epistles. I'm guessing you wouldn't allow me to use the Gospels as a source? I haven't yet started to look into the church fathers or any other sources. That's something I'll do if I have a lot of time on my hands.

So you disagree with this guy and 1 Peter 3:15?

Paul wrote to Titus that overseers (pastors and elders) in the church are required to be especially adept at refuting those who oppose the truth of God (Titus 1:9). However this is not merely the assigned task of ordained men. All believers are commanded to engage in it as well. Addressing himself to all members of the congregation, Peter penned the following command: "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to anyone who asks from you a reason for the hope that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). It is God Himself, speaking through Peter's inspired words, who calls upon us as believers -- each and every one of us -- to be prepared to defend the faith in the face of challenges and questions which come from unbelievers -- any one of them.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA098.htm

In 1 Peter 3:15 Peter uses the expression "always ready." This is significant for those who wish to honor the Biblical necessity of engaging in apologetics. What the Lord asks of us is that we be prepared to offer an answer in defense of our faith, whenever anybody asks us for a reason. We are to be "ready" to do this -- indeed, "always ready." And that means that it is imperative that we reflect on the questions that unbelievers are likely to ask and challenges which are commonly laid down to Christianity. We should study and prepare to give reasons for our faith when the faithless ask.

I wish you would be ready to reason, and do some research into what you claim to believe.

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, I specificed 'Secular'. Your 'evidence' for the bible is 'gasp' the bible.
The bible is evidence the bible is true. Uh huh.. that is really good evidence there.

Did you even begin to read what my criteria is ?

Have you ever heard of 'circular evidence'?

Now, in a couple of them , you have Paul relaying a story.. prove his story is anything but a story.

[PC1]

Well, I specificed 'Secular'. Did you even begin to read what my criteria is ?

Ummm... your post of criteria states:

"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."

No where do I get the impression it had to be secular.

Your 'evidence' for the bible is 'gasp' the bible.
The bible is evidence the bible is true. Uh huh.. that is really good evidence there.

You're forgetting what we are discussing. We're not discussing the Bible, we're discussing the historicity of the apostles. I figured a good place to start would be the canonized works of the NT, because they are from the time period and make reference to said apostles, and are even purported to be written by said apostles.

Now, in a couple of them , you have Paul relaying a story.. prove his story is anything but a story.

This is getting ridiculous. Do you know what it feels like on my end to be challenged to prove every tiny little detail about everything after providing your initial demands? You wanted an early reference to the apostles, I provided it. You just ask a question and then I have to run off and bring back the answers. I do, and then get a new assignment.

[Goat]

Well, I specificed 'Secular'. Did you even begin to read what my criteria is ?

Ummm... your post of criteria states:

"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."

No where do I get the impression it had to be secular.

Your 'evidence' for the bible is 'gasp' the bible.
The bible is evidence the bible is true. Uh huh.. that is really good evidence there.

You're forgetting what we are discussing. We're not discussing the Bible, we're discussing the historicity of the apostles. I figured a good place to start would be the canonized works of the NT, because they are from the time period and make reference to said apostles, and are even purported to be written by said apostles.

Now, in a couple of them , you have Paul relaying a story.. prove his story is anything but a story.

This is getting ridiculous. Do you know what it feels like on my end to be challenged to prove every tiny little detail about everything after providing your initial demands? You wanted an early reference to the apostles, I provided it. You just ask a question and then I have to run off and bring back the answers. I do, and then get a new assignment.

Yes, but Paul isn't one of the apostles, nor does he say he met any of them directly.

Now, if you had a gospel that could be verfied by one of the apostles, well, that would be something.. but you have silence there.

Paul mentions names.. but he never met anybody, and confirmed that he believed in 'remaking' himself to gain converts.

Paul is not a primary source. Let's either see something secular, or actually written by an apostle (and not a pseudographical work)

[PC1]

Yes, but Paul isn't one of the apostles, nor does he say he met any of them directly.

Yes he does, re-read my post:

In 1:18 he says he "went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days." In verses 2:11 and 2:14 Paul records his discourse with Peter: "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong." And "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" Additionally, in Galatians Paul mentions interaction with James and John (2:9), "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." So Galatians meets your requirements as far as I can tell as a primary source from Paul, in which he writes about his interactions with Peter, James, and John.

Paul mentions names.. but he never met anybody,

See the above. Acts also describes Paul meeting the other apostles. If Acts was written by Luke, which I believe there's a very good chance of, then we can be almost certain this account can be trusted since Paul references Luke by name as being one of his companions.

and confirmed that he believed in 'remaking' himself to gain converts.

How is that relevant to this discussion?

Paul is not a primary source. Let's either see something secular, or actually written by an apostle (and not a pseudographical work)

I'll work on those. However, I don't expect to find a secular source referencing the apostles, especially pre-Jewish revolt. We have epistles tributed to the apostles, now if you want to dismiss them as pseduographical please make the case. Other than the canonized works, I have no idea whether or not there are primary sources out there, as I haven't been able to find anything confirming or denying this. I'll try to search some more.

[Goat]

Yes, but Paul isn't one of the apostles, nor does he say he met any of them directly.

Yes he does, re-read my post:

In 1:18 he says he "went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days." In verses 2:11 and 2:14 Paul records his discourse with Peter: "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong." And "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" Additionally, in Galatians Paul mentions interaction with James and John (2:9), "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." So Galatians meets your requirements as far as I can tell as a primary source from Paul, in which he writes about his interactions with Peter, James, and John.

Paul mentions names.. but he never met anybody,

See the above. Acts also describes Paul meeting the other apostles. If Acts was written by Luke, which I believe there's a very good chance of, then we can be almost certain this account can be trusted since Paul references Luke by name as being one of his companions.

and confirmed that he believed in 'remaking' himself to gain converts.

How is that relevant to this discussion?

Paul is not a primary source. Let's either see something secular, or actually written by an apostle (and not a pseudographical work)

I'll work on those. However, I don't expect to find a secular source referencing the apostles, especially pre-Jewish revolt. We have epistles tributed to the apostles, now if you want to dismiss them as pseduographical please make the case. Other than the canonized works, I have no idea whether or not there are primary sources out there, as I haven't been able to find anything confirming or denying this. I'll try to search some more.

The esplisles that are attributed to the apostles, what do the mainstream blbilical scholars think? Not me, but the mainstream scholars think?.

Oh, as far as I can see, acts to a large extent was written well after 80 c.e. .. and is just stories about paul, written long after he was dead

[PC1]

goat, I'll have to respond to that post later.

Here's some stuff I collected that validates the existence of Thomas. It's not secular or a primary source, but the fact that there's so many lines of evidence I thought I'd include it anyways:

The evidence is of Thomas’ first century missionary work in India. This is a strong tradition amongst the early church. The proof can also be seen in the pudding. It was claimed that Thomas established 7 churches around the Malabar coast of India. To this day, there exist what are known as the “Saint Thomas Christians� in the same area of India, who strongly affirm that their ancestors were converted by Saint Thomas. Their records state that Thomas was the founder of their church. In 325, when the Council of Nicaea was held, we have a historical record that one of the represents there was Mar John, who signed himself as “John the Persian [presiding over] the Churches in the whole of Persia and Great India.� When the Persian church was persecuted, several Christians sought refuge in Malabar. This establishes the fact that there was a well established, early Christian community in this area of India. There are many, many Christian writings affirming this from the second century onward. We also have a apocryphal, likely Gnostic text known as the Acts of Thomas. What’s typical of Gnostic texts is to heavily embellish but root their sources in things accepted as factual. As far as I can tell, the Acts of Thomas give a somewhat vivid description of Thomas’ supposed missionary work to India. It seems unlikely that it’s completely fabricated, based on the corroborating evidence and what is known of how the Gnostics conducted business.

Wikipedia states, “If the tradition be critically discussed it must be admitted that several ancient writers mention India as the scene of St. Thomas’ labours.� And “Numerous other passages could be cited from various old liturgies and martyroligies which refer to the work of St. Thomas in India, and these passages at least show that the tradition that St. Thomas died in India was widespread among the early churches.�

A Catholic encyclopedia says the following, “St. Gregory of Tours (Glor. Mart.), before 590, reports that Theodore, a pilgrim who had gone to Gaul, told him that in that part of India where the corpus (bones) of Thomas the Apostle had first rested (Mylapur on the east or the Coromandel Coast of India) there stood a monastery and a church of striking dimensions and elaboratedly adorned, adding: "After a long interval of time these remains had been removed thence to the city of Edessa." The location of the first tomb of the Apostle in India is proof both of his martyrdom and of its Apostolate in India. The evidence of Theodore is that of an eyewitness who had visited both tombs -- the first in India, while the second was at Edessa. The primitive Christians, therefore, found on both coasts, east and west, witness to and locate the tomb at Mylapur, "St. Thomas", a little to the south of Madras; no other place in India lays any claim to possess the tomb, nor does any other country. On these facts is based their claim to be known as St. Thomas Christians.�

And “Further proof may be adduced to justify this claim. A Syrian ecclesiastical calender of an early date confirms the above. In the quotation given below two points are to be noted which support its antiquity -- the fact of the name given to Edessa and the fact the memory of the translation of the Apostle's relics was so fresh to the writer that the name of the individual who had brought them was yet remembered. The entry reads: "3 July, St. Thomas who was pierced with a lance in India. His body is at Urhai [the ancient name of Edessa] having been brought there by the merchant Khabin. A great festival." It is only natural to expect that we should receive from Edessa first-hand evidence of the removal of the relics to that city; and we are not disappointed, for St. Ephraem, the great doctor of the Syrian Church, has left us ample details in his writings. Ephraem came to Edessa on the surrender of Nisibis to the Persians, and he lived there from 363 to 373, when he died. This proof is found mostly in his rhythmical compositions. In the forty-second of his "Carmina Nisibina" he tells us the Apostle was put to death in India, and that his remains were subsequently buried in Edessa, brought there by a merchant. But his name is never given; at that date the name had dropped out of popular memory. The same is repeated in varying form in several of his hymns edited by Lamy (Ephr. Hymni et Sermones, IV). "It was to a land of dark people he was sent, to clothe them by Baptism in white robes. His grateful dawn dispelled India's painful darkness. It was his mission to espouse India to the One-Begotten. The merchant is blessed for having so great a treasure. Edessa thus became the blessed city by possessing the greatest pearl India could yield. Thomas works miracles in India, and at Edessa Thomas is destined to baptize peoples perverse and steeped in darkness, and that in the land of India."

It also describes a Jesuit missionary, writing in the early 1600’s, who recorded the traditions of these people in detail which match the accounts of the early church and largely the account in the Acts of Thomas.

[Goat]

goat, I'll have to respond to that post later.

Here's some stuff I collected that validates the existence of Thomas. It's not secular or a primary source, but the fact that there's so many lines of evidence I thought I'd include it anyways:

The evidence is of Thomas’ first century missionary work in India. This is a strong tradition amongst the early church. The proof can also be seen in the pudding. It was claimed that Thomas established 7 churches around the Malabar coast of India. To this day, there exist what are known as the “Saint Thomas Christians� in the same area of India, who strongly affirm that their ancestors were converted by Saint Thomas. Their records state that Thomas was the founder of their church. In 325, when the Council of Nicaea was held, we have a historical record that one of the represents there was Mar John, who signed himself as “John the Persian [presiding over] the Churches in the whole of Persia and Great India.� When the Persian church was persecuted, several Christians sought refuge in Malabar. This establishes the fact that there was a well established, early Christian community in this area of India. There are many, many Christian writings affirming this from the second century onward. We also have a apocryphal, likely Gnostic text known as the Acts of Thomas. What’s typical of Gnostic texts is to heavily embellish but root their sources in things accepted as factual. As far as I can tell, the Acts of Thomas give a somewhat vivid description of Thomas’ supposed missionary work to India. It seems unlikely that it’s completely fabricated, based on the corroborating evidence and what is known of how the Gnostics conducted business.

Wikipedia states, “If the tradition be critically discussed it must be admitted that several ancient writers mention India as the scene of St. Thomas’ labours.� And “Numerous other passages could be cited from various old liturgies and martyroligies which refer to the work of St. Thomas in India, and these passages at least show that the tradition that St. Thomas died in India was widespread among the early churches.�

A Catholic encyclopedia says the following, “St. Gregory of Tours (Glor. Mart.), before 590, reports that Theodore, a pilgrim who had gone to Gaul, told him that in that part of India where the corpus (bones) of Thomas the Apostle had first rested (Mylapur on the east or the Coromandel Coast of India) there stood a monastery and a church of striking dimensions and elaboratedly adorned, adding: "After a long interval of time these remains had been removed thence to the city of Edessa." The location of the first tomb of the Apostle in India is proof both of his martyrdom and of its Apostolate in India. The evidence of Theodore is that of an eyewitness who had visited both tombs -- the first in India, while the second was at Edessa. The primitive Christians, therefore, found on both coasts, east and west, witness to and locate the tomb at Mylapur, "St. Thomas", a little to the south of Madras; no other place in India lays any claim to possess the tomb, nor does any other country. On these facts is based their claim to be known as St. Thomas Christians.�

And “Further proof may be adduced to justify this claim. A Syrian ecclesiastical calender of an early date confirms the above. In the quotation given below two points are to be noted which support its antiquity -- the fact of the name given to Edessa and the fact the memory of the translation of the Apostle's relics was so fresh to the writer that the name of the individual who had brought them was yet remembered. The entry reads: "3 July, St. Thomas who was pierced with a lance in India. His body is at Urhai [the ancient name of Edessa] having been brought there by the merchant Khabin. A great festival." It is only natural to expect that we should receive from Edessa first-hand evidence of the removal of the relics to that city; and we are not disappointed, for St. Ephraem, the great doctor of the Syrian Church, has left us ample details in his writings. Ephraem came to Edessa on the surrender of Nisibis to the Persians, and he lived there from 363 to 373, when he died. This proof is found mostly in his rhythmical compositions. In the forty-second of his "Carmina Nisibina" he tells us the Apostle was put to death in India, and that his remains were subsequently buried in Edessa, brought there by a merchant. But his name is never given; at that date the name had dropped out of popular memory. The same is repeated in varying form in several of his hymns edited by Lamy (Ephr. Hymni et Sermones, IV). "It was to a land of dark people he was sent, to clothe them by Baptism in white robes. His grateful dawn dispelled India's painful darkness. It was his mission to espouse India to the One-Begotten. The merchant is blessed for having so great a treasure. Edessa thus became the blessed city by possessing the greatest pearl India could yield. Thomas works miracles in India, and at Edessa Thomas is destined to baptize peoples perverse and steeped in darkness, and that in the land of India."

It also describes a Jesuit missionary, writing in the early 1600’s, who recorded the traditions of these people in detail which match the accounts of the early church and largely the account in the Acts of Thomas.

So, basically you have a tradition 100's of years later than one of the apostles started some churches. Isn't india the same place that there is the big claim that Jesus went there after he got raised from the dead and had a missionary there too?


So you got some vague traditions.. which might or might not be true. Where is the physical evidence of it? Where is the evidence this was not later claimed for 'mystical' reasons?

[PC1]

Isn't india the same place that there is the big claim that Jesus went there after he got raised from the dead and had a missionary there too?

I've never heard of that.

So you got some vague traditions.. which might or might not be true. Where is the physical evidence of it? Where is the evidence this was not later claimed for 'mystical' reasons?

You really need to read my posts. Firstly, tradition was a line of evidence, but it was anywhere from vague. The tradition, in fact, is extremely detailed to a tee. The significance is the tradition of the Malabar Christians almost directly matched the tradition back in the Roman area. The 1600's Jesuits recorded the detailed account right from the source and it matches all the other accounts. The Gnostic book "Acts of Thomas" confirms these events, as do many many early church writings. Furthermore, the Malabar area churches in India call themselves the "Saint Thomas Christians" and were established very early on. We know for a fact that they were well established by at least 325, and early church sources can attest to this as early as 180 if I'm not mistaken. The only reason anyone would deny that wealth of evidence is if they had an agenda. If you comparatively look at evidence for something like this from that era, this is more than enough.

The esplisles that are attributed to the apostles, what do the mainstream blbilical scholars think? Not me, but the mainstream scholars think?.

The only epistle I used that's regarded as pseudepigraphal by the majority is 1st and 2nd Peter. According to Wiki, the reasoning is:

1) Peter was a fisherman but the epistle is written in cultured Greek
2) Lack of personal detail
3) It quotes from the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible

Those are all absolutely possible, but hardly conclusive.

Oh, as far as I can see, acts to a large extent was written well after 80 c.e.

Well after 80? Apparently most scholars pin it anywhere within the radius of 70-100, and some argue a case for early 60's.

and is just stories about paul,

Paul's the feature of the latter half, the first half focuses on the apostles, mainly Peter and John.