[metmom]

You don't understand: not "little," there is nothing extra biblical about any of them. I don;t deny everything about the Christians faith. Obviously there are some early references to Christians and their practices form non-Chritsian sources, indirectly more than directly.

But as far as the apostles are concerned there is zilch. If you can find factual extra-biblical, extra-Christian mention of any of them I would be much obliged if you shared them with all.

If you're not going to accept the veracity Scripture on its own merit as Scripture, then what's the point of going after non-Scriptural sources? At best, they'd be no more reliable than the books of the Bible. At worst, much less reliable.

Seems that you have it backwards if you're looking for non-Biblical sources to verify Scripture.

[boatbums]

If you're not going to accept the veracity Scripture on its own merit as Scripture, then what's the point of going after non-Scriptural sources? At best, they'd be no more reliable than the books of the Bible. At worst, much less reliable.

Completely agree. We all know how "history" is usually written by the victor - that is an old adage, even. We DO have eyewitness accounts and they have been preserved for thousand of years, but that is where faith comes in when it is in regards to things of God. I trust that God is the one who has ensured the survival of his written words. He used people AND miracles to do so. The evidence is there for those willing to look beyond what can be proved beyond a doubt - and God is NOT afraid of doubts.

[kosta50]

If you're not going to accept the veracity Scripture on its own merit as Scripture, then what's the point of going after non-Scriptural sources? At best, they'd be no more reliable than the books of the Bible. At worst, much less reliable.

One can accept the veracity of Scripture on its own merit, but that does not constitute  a proof, so it cannot be used as proof.