Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

Luke was not a disciple of Jesus and had never personally met him prior to becoming a christianhe was in fact a jewish doctor who became a believer some time after jesus death. His account/gospel was based on eye witnessed testimonies. He researched extensively the genealogy of Jesus, using the public records available at the time, for a certain official by the name of Theophilus who may have commissioned him to provide a report on the newly formed religion.we know that the apostle Paul penned many of his own letters, as he says in one that he was writing in large letters because of his bad eyesight. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

no he wasnt related by blood, but he was still considered to be the father of Jesus so Josephs lineage was important in being able to trace back to King David. Ancestry of a man was customarily traced back through the father, not through the mother. Thus, whereas there seems to be sound reason for believing that Luke presents Jesus’ genealogy through his mother (an exception to the general rule), Luke does not list her. He lists Joseph as the son of Heli, evidently Mary’s father. This would not be improper in the least, since Joseph would be Heli’s son-in-law. No, because the prophecies regarding the Messiah said that he would be born of a virgin, and the disciples were aware of the immaculate conception, as was John the Baptist and Zechariah the priest (johns father) So the whole nation expected the messiah to be born of a virgin.there is also the fact that both writers were writing for two different audiences
Matthew was writing to persuade faithful Jews that Jesus was the long-promised Messiah, whereas Luke presents Jesus as the Savior of all mankind. Thus Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy back only to Abraham through David, whereas Luke traces it back to ”Adam the son of God.’this is why they present a different geneology... and together they gave a strong evidence of Jesus linage as coming from the line of King David, because both Mary's family, and Josephs, could be traced to the kingly line. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : broke up the questions

as i said, a father in law was considered the father the groom anyway, so it makes no differencein patriarchal societies, the patriarch was considered the father of all his children hence why we see the jewish nation being called 'the nation of 'Isreal' ' Isreal being the patriarch Jacob... or we hear the jews being called 'the children of Abraham'in any case, if the accounts were inaccurate in any way whatsoever, the jewish religious leaders of the day would have made known the inaccuracy in a heartbeat... but the birth of Jesus and his genealogy was on public record available for anyone to view and there were no objections at the time to either luke or mathews accoutns.

Jesus birth records. As the romans were ruling at the time, Caesar Augsutus decreed that all Jews must be registered in the city of their births, both Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to register."He revived the office of the Censor which had long been disused and whose duty it had formerly been to take an account of the number of people."
Seutonius Roman Historian - Augustus 23 - Lives of the Twelve Caesars Page 81."This contained the number of citizens, subject kingdoms and taxes. All these details Augustus had written with his own hand"
Tacitus Annals - Book 1 Roman HistorianSo like to today, they registered their births, they paid taxs, they conducted businesses...they kept records of all these things and those records were obviously used by Luke to trace the geneology of Jesus as he says in his writing.

it really doesnt matter that they differ... both show that both Joseph & Mary came from the kingly line. Actually, if anything it adds weight to the geneology because both parents have been traced back.but here is another source in case my simple answer is not scholarly enough So in that culture, what would have been the point of using Mary alone as the source of the geneology. Do you really think the Jews would have taken the account seriously? It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the “son of Heli.”You just have to look at Genesis and Numbers to see that female children were not recorded in the births...only the male children.

why would they be exactly the same? If one follows the fathers line and the other the mothers (thru her father heli) how can they possibly be exactly the same?

its quite simple really and its posted aboveonly the male births were recorded therefore only Josephs line could be traced genealogicallyIt has been traced for us using Joseph, thru his own father AND Mary's father Heli (Josephs father in law)And both lead to the line of David

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.To prove this, Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. He evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.this wasnt a point they tried to hide either, they both signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.Luke even says: “Jesus ... being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.” Lu 3:23.I'm not sure what you see the problem as being, perhaps you could re phrase your concern???

Yes, and he was thru the family line of Solomon...so whats the problem?

i dont know what your gettting at seriouslyLuke's geneology goes thru Heli who was Mary's father...father by blood... he WAS marys family lineand this is not a problem because Joseph was the 'ADOPTIVE FATHER' of Jesus anyway... this gave jesus the legal status is as a son joseph and vise versa.Mathew traces the family line of Joseph back to David.Both families, Mary and Joseph, were of the kingly line. What is so hard to accept about this???Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Ok so basically you are against the idea that one can take any part of the biblical record on face value.its interesting that our understanding of the lives, cultures and histories of ancient nations are taken from their historical documents and historians, but its not acceptable to do this with the bible.Both parents lines have been given in the gospels, so obviously both parents were traced to the Davidic line and there are no records of any historian writing anything about these genealogies being challenged by opposes. If Jesus family line could be challenged, the Jewish scribes and pharisees would have challenged them in a flash seeing they held the recordsEdited by Peg, : No reason given.

thanks to Granny Magda, i see where you are coming from nowyou could have made this easier for me simply by saying that just because its written in the bible, doesn mean its true, therefore Mary could have been anyones daughter etc etcthats fair enough if thats the way you look at there is no point in me going further.

Josephus wrote about Jesus and his followersJosephus was Born just four years after the death of Christ, he was an eyewitness to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy about the first-century Jewish nation. He was a military commander, a diplomat, a Pharisee, and a scholar.He was not a christian, therefore he was completely unbiased external source. Obviously Jesus was a real historical person.

Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): “In constructing their genealogical tables,
it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males,rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself,and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather'Do you see what this is saying??? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

im sorry, i still fail to see your pointthe way im reading this is that each gospel gave the family line, thru mary aka joseph via his father inlaw heliand thru Josephs family in mathewWhy Luke would do this is obvious. The jews didnt record females in their geneologies, only males. Joseph became the 'son in law' of Heli when he married Mary, therefore, he logically traced Mary's line thru Joseph and Heli, because Joseph would have been on public record now as a son of Heli.At the same time Joseph's biological father's family could also be traced back to the kingly line.