Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

That's if you can trust that no one altered his writings after his death. The persona of Jesus is only mentioned by Josephus in one of his work "The Antiquity of the Jews". The oldest surviving copy of which is a Greek manuscript which dates to the 11th century and was originally held by Christian scholars. You can read the critical analysis here which indicates there is still much skeptecism about the authenticity of this passage and whether it really was Josephus who wrote this or more likely some early Christian writer later.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Peg said, "Josephus wrote about Jesus and his followers. Josephus 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."Josephus, of course, was not an eyewitness to Jesus' life and activities. If he wrote these lines about Jesus he would have based his comments on hearsay.Peg, please tell us what "fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy" did Josephus see and later write about?

I agree about Josephus not being an eyewitness. I may be wrong but I think what she is referring to is the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. supposedly predicted by Jesus in Mark 13:1-4. Sorry just playing the Devils Advocate.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Josephus NEVER wrote about Jesus' followers. There is only mention of Jesus once, and, as DA has already pointed out, there's good reason to doubt this was an original statement by Josephus. And so, not an eye witness. Jesus never made this prophecy. The gospel in which he makes it was written after the temple was destroyed. Or at least, the part in which he makes the prediction was. All true. Though I fail to see the relevance of this. Nobody around that time was "a Christian". They were all still Jews. If he did write it, perhaps. But as DA has said, there's a very reasonable doubt there. Ok, let's say for a moment this is true, and there did actually live a guy named Jesus at that time, and he was the inspiration for the bible story. Now answer me this question: What is the evidence that anything Jesus did according to the bible did actually happen?

---

I hunt for the truth

The problem is that it is Joseph whose bloodline goes back to Solomon and Joseph is not Jesus' father.And don't bother with the garbage about Jesus being adopted and thus descended from David through Solomon because it doesn't work.Although adopting a child is a very noble thing to do, it does not mean that an adopted child is a blood relative.I am going to bow out of this because I have limited time and I feel you are being deliberately obtuse.Nice chatting.

Hi, Peg. I'm not an expert, but I'd like to help Paul and Brian get their point across. Here's is my lineage, as recorded by ancient Hebrews, in three (pretend) books of ancient scripture:

​

Bluejay, son of Rodney, son of Michael, son of Charles
Bluejay, son of Robert, son of Robert, son of James
Bluejay, son of Maurice, son of Theone, son of Theone

​

Who is my father: Rodney, Robert or Maurice?

Who is my maternal grandfather: Rodney, Robert or Maurice?

Are any of the above genealogies fabricated?

​

-----

​

Here is another set of lineages provided by ancient Hebrews:

​

Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi (Luke 3)
Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar (Matthew 1)

​

Who is Joseph's father: Heli or Jacob?

Who is Joseph's maternal grandfather: Heli or Jacob?

Are any of the above fabricated?

​

-----

​

Do you agree that these two scenarios (color-coded for your convenience) are essentially the same problem?

​

Can you answer both correctly?
If you can answer one, but not the other, what makes the difference between the two?

​

I submit that the difference between the two is that one of them has an answer that resonates with your religious faith, and the other one doesn't matter to you, one way or the other.

​

If you really want to be honest, you should approach every question as if the answer doesn't matter to you. That's the only way to really separate what you want to be true from what you can show to be true. It's also the only way to realize when you don't know the answer.

​

---

I'm Bluejay.

​

Darwin loves you.

Mantis wrote: "I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you."Maybe a bit off topic, Bluejay, but I have a Darwin Fish (you know the Christian Fish only with the word Darwin inside and it has legs) on the back of my car and I have had numerous Christians (with the Christian Fish on their cars)shoot me the bird as they passed. So much for love and kindness. Now back to the discussion.

the destruction of jerusalem of 70CE

quote:

---

' Departing now, Jesus was on his way from the temple, but his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2In response he said to them: “Do YOU not behold all these things? Truly I say to YOU, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.
  —Mathew24

---

quote:

---

“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her; because these are days for meting out justice, that all the things written may be fulfilled. Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations.”
  —Luke21:20-21

---

Wars of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, Book 5, Chap.12
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/war-5.htm

not really,because we happen to know that Joseph was married to mary, thereby making at least one of the names in the 2nd list a father in lawthe difference between the two is that the green list names 3 possible fathers for a start

Hi, Peg. I suppose I deserved this for my sarcastic response to you in the "What I can't understand about evolution..." thread?Still, despite my mistaken use of relationships, can you not see the point that is being made?You have two pedigrees provided for Jesus, and, since they disagree, you have decided that one of them must be the paternal pedigree, and the other must be traced through the father-in-law. In doing this, you dismiss outright the possibility that one of the pedigrees is mistaken or fabricated.Did you know that Hebrew lineages can be traced through brothers, too? Surely you remember this memorable tale from Genesis 38:

quote:

---

8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

---

What if the historian hadn't got the memo about how Onan's seed was supposed to be counted as Er's?-----Mormons keep pedigrees, too. I know my paternal line back 11 generations, and my other lines back at least five. But, in putting together the pedigree, my family had to wade through a lot of conflicting records and decide which was the best. I had one great-great-(and some more greats)-grandfather named Launcelot (true story), but he turned out to not have been my direct ancestor at all. We had a few generations traced through him, and, in the end, they had to all be removed, because, as it turns out, he was just the second husband of the woman who had previously been married to my bunchofgreats-grandfather.Do you think the Hebrews were immune to this sort of error?
Do you have any indication, other than that Joseph is connected to two fathers, that Mary's genealogy is presented in the Bible?Edited by Mantis, : "adn" is the wrong spelling of "and"

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

no females genology is preserved in the biblethere is the odd occassion of a mother being mentioned if she was in the line to produce the messiah, such as Abrahams wife Sarah, or Jacobs wife for instancebut this is the thing....the Jews did not keep records of female birthsso there is no geneology for mary Except by following her father's line.If there was a direct genology for Mary mentioned in the bible, then it would be very sus indeedEdited by Peg, : No reason given.

Huntard, Please answer me these questions:When opening the New Testament to read why should distrust and skepticism be the default attitude?I mean why should I approach the account about Jesus Christ from the default assumption that a lie is being told or a that someone/s are trying to deceive me?Why should distrust and skepticism be the initial attitude from which one should analyze all that is being read in the Gospels?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

With pleasure. Perhaps not distrust, but ANY historical document (or any other claim for that matter) should be examined with scepticism. Why? because if we don't, then how are we to determine which of these is correct? If we accept them at face value, why do we accept the Bible, yet not the Koran, for example. Not that they are trying to deceive you as such, more that when no supporting evidence is existing for the claims made, how reliable are those claims? Again, why then accept the Bible's claims as true while rejecting the Edda (norse mythology) as false? Scepticism should be the default position when reading ANYTHING. Let's say you have two claims. In one text it says someone was a worshipper of god, in the other it says he only worshipped satan. Now, without evidence, and accepting them both to be true, how do we proceed form here? Now, say we find a church built by this person, and he has dedicated it to god, then we can begin to assume that he probably didn't worship satan, but god instead, and the one text becomes more credible on this point.I hope I made it clear. If not, feel free to ask some more.

---

I hunt for the truth

Jaywill wrote: "When opening the New Testament to read why should distrust and skepticism be the default attitude?"One's devotion to "faith" that something supernatural is true with absolutely no proof it ever happened would be considered lunacy almost anywhere thought processes occur unless it is religious faith. Herein lies the problem with non-cultists attitudes.Therefore there is resentment, skepticism and distrust. The participants in this faith cult are not only "blind devotees" they also arrogantly flaunt their baseless belief in the face of reason...and evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for your reply.Then according to your own advice we should also approach what you write here about Jesus Christ and the New Testament documents with skepticism.That's at least equally fair.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.