[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser Evidence [the disciples never existed]?

Actually the burden is on Christians to prove these individuals existed. The evidence they were invented is glaring & obvious. Let's take Peter for a moment:

1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas)).
"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.

2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate – which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."

3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' – crucifixion upside down!

The 12 Apostles – Fabricated followers of a fabricated Saviour – Ken Humphreys

We both know there's zero counter evidence. Apologist arguments here rely on special pleadings and other fallacies.

So, using this reasoning, we should expect to see a lot of mention of the Seven Great Wonders of the Ancient World. Can you direct me to sources where Philo or other writers of that period are mentioning these great accomplishments. Thanks.

Horrible...horrible reasoning.

A hellenized Jew has motivation to write about an incarnate Jewish messiah who raises Jews from the dead. The above quoted text is evidence of a special pleading; a desire to equate rare natural events with impossible / unevidenced supernatural events.

Finally, Jesus allegedly died around 33 ce. Philo of Alexandria died in the 4th decade of the first century making him a contemporary of Jesus (he would have been had their been a gospel Jesus). The "newest" of the 7 wonders was completed shortly after 290 bce in Alexandria.

Congratulations: from the perspective of Philo and the allegations in the gospel, you've just compared a two century old landmark with magical events happening in Philo's lifetime.

Moving on.

You're going to have to prove that.

See above. We know when the temple was sacked. We know Mark was the first gospel written. We know Mark mentions the temple's fall. The gospels demonstrate things that Paul knew, but Paul demonstrates almost no knowledge of the gospels. Logically, which came first?

So, then, does this mean that Pilate wasn't actually a real person (since Paul fails to mention him)?

Pilate is a real person because Philo of Alexandria mentions him. Funny how Philo, who wrote about Jesus' executioner and hung out with the early Essenes managed to miss the incarnate godman who was doing rock star level miracles. It's almost as though *gasp* he wasn't real.

The evidence points to the Gospel of Luke being written about AD 60.

What evidence? I sincerely hope you have something more solid than "internal evidence".

His second book, Acts, was written about AD 62. Mark was probably written somewhere around AD 55 and Matthew around AD 50. John is purported to be written in the 80's or 90's but I suppose a much earlier date, possibly AD 65-69. His later book Revelation was also most likely written pre AD 70.

Thank you for making claims. Now back them up or concede that you are unable to.