Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

I don't know which of your feeble defenses is suppose to overwhelm us - your foul language or your cavalier argumentless dismissal.You apparently have neither the enthusiasm or the skill to refute me. All I see is a few hollow jeers and an ascertian of a "fairytale" and a quip that "I'm really not interested anyway."Wow.Nothing to learn here. Let's see what Huntard has to say. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's what you were told and which you cannot prove. You don't know it to be a fact. You're groundless claim to possess "the fact" that the disciples didn't write the Gospels is weak.Besides it is obvious that "disciples" wrote the Gospels. If not Matthew was the author of Matthew, it should be obvious that a DISCIPLE wrote it. Who else would be interested in passing it on, a non-disciple?Maybe you don't know the difference between disciple and apostle. Maybe what you mean to say is that the Apostle Matthew, for example, did not write Matthew.Well scholars a whole lot closer to the writing of Matthew than you here, 2000 plus years latter, believed that Matthew wrote Matthew.One of the indications that Matthew wrote Matthew is found in Matt. 10:2-5. This is Matthew's list of the twelve apostles. And why do I say it evidences Matthew as the author? Because if you compare the list of apostles to how they are mentioned in Mark and Luke you find the order changed to list Matthew before Thomas -(Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). The writer of Matthew in humility listed himself second rather than first.Jesus sent the apostles out in teams. Probably each team had a senior and a junior member. Matthew, in his humility, put his own name AFTER his junior partner Thomas. Jesus had taught them to avoid ambition for position and rivalry. The effect of that teaching is seen in the way the author of Matthew listed himself among the apostles.The other listings recognize that Matthew was the senior team member between Matthew and Thomas. No problem. I am neither disappointed that you reject it. Hey, that's part of the business. We're use to stubborness.Maybe someone reading along did get some benefit from my labors. Just on your say so ?While you're at it learn that apostles are disciples and followers who are not apostles are also disciples. Should I expect that someone apparently loose or sloppy about the terms can be trusted to offer a more accurate reconstruction of the NT document authorship? Plausible but more impressive to me as a paranoid conspiracy theory.And your addition "We'll all have a good life when we die" tells me more about your own superfiscial concepts about a heavenly afterlife rather than the biblical resurrection which Jesus taught.Are you reading your own concepts into the Bible and taking them for the attitude of the disciples? "We'll have a good life WHEN WE DIE."They were not expecting to have a good life when they died. They were expecting live until Jesus returned or to be resurrected should He delay His return until after their lifetime. There is nothing suggesting that Jesus wanted the disciples to BE inept. He told them to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. Where's His teaching for them to be or remain inept?I think you are so paranoid that someone has out to pull the wool over your eyes that regard all the evidence I presented as purposeful conspiracy.Bluntly speaking, I think that is stupid. With a fertile imagination and commitment to paranoia, sure, I expect you could concoct some alternative plausible explanation.For example: So they concocted a not so perfect Man who was a perfect sinless sacrifice?Peter said that He "committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). Where's the less than perfect God-man there ?John records that Pilate could find no fault in Him (John 18:38). Where's the less than perfect God-man there ? If John wanted to portray Him as less than perfect why did he record that Pontius Pilate knew that he was condemning a perfectly innocent man?"Maybe he wanted to envoke our sympathy" will be your next conspiratorial rational?I would suggest that you actually read the Gospels for yourself rather than pour over skeptical books and websites ABOUT the Gospel.
You do give me that impression that you are gullible and running on second and third hand skeptical oopinions of the Gospels. It is doubtful that imperfect people such as the disciples, would convincingly make up an absolutely perfect person?It is more ridiculous of you to assume that they started with a perfect person and concocted errors and faults to attribute Him to make Him more believable."Hey, John this is too perfect. Let's make up a weakness here and there so that this character doesn't come off as too perfect. Do you have some good bloopers we can put into His mouth?" On your say so, with no submitted evidence?Seems to me that you are the one commiting all the phony authoritative pronouncements that you want to accuse the Gospel writers of."As face answers to face in water, so the mind of a man reflects the man." I think you are telling me more about your own suspicious mistrust of God's word. Are you suggesting that they all had a collective group hallucination at the same time? They all at the same time had a group hallucination of a resurrected Jesus?Peter writes: The Apostle Peter says that he and others were eyewitness. He says that they were not following cleverly devised myths.You are saying that they did follow clevery devised myths and that the writers were not eyewitnesses. But I don't find your reasons to state this more credible than the Gospel record. But they are cleverly devised rationals and excuses.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It doesn't PROVE Matthew as the author. We know that.It is reasonable evidence to the liturary critic that Matthew WAS the author.Now old Jolly fellow Brian gets a belly laugh from this and quite predictably says in essence "Well then, ha ha, why didn't he list himself LAST? ha ha."They were sent out in teams of two. He may not have had the freedom of conscience to list his team as last. He may have had the freedom of conscience to say in essencse "Me, Matthew a tax collector, by the way, was teamed up with Thomas."Proof of authorship, no. Evidence for authorship? I think so.Iccidently, one of the original twelve apostles, John, had a disciple Polycarp (c. 110 - 150 AD) and Polycarp a disciple of John had a pupil Irenaues (c 130 - 202 AD).Both of those men named the Apostle Matthew as the author of Matthew. They were a heck of a lot closer to its composition then some Johnny Come Lately Skepic selling his sensational book saying that Matthew was not the author of Matthew some 2000 plus years afterwards.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's nice. Now QUOTE me where I said I had proof of Matthew as the author of the book Matthew.Please point out where I said I have proof.
I think I said I had reason to believe or evidence.Ah yes. Here is what I wrote: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Have you forgotten so soon, You're not INTERESTED ANYWAY. Remember?We heard your argument by Boredom. We've heard your argument by Laughter. We've heard your argument by Non-interest.What's next?Oh, an anonyomous book MAY indeed have an indication of who its author was.Yes? No?And if it is anonymous how can you be so cock sure that Matthew was NOT the author of the book named after him? Anonymous does not insist on who did NOT write something.And particularly so if the book bears the title of a personal NAME.Now go back to sleep and don't roll off the bed laughing.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Early church "fathers" recognized that there were pseudo named noncanical writings.The skeptics on this site seem to want to suggest there was NOTHING BUT such.The integrity and careful scholarship of second and third century scholars realized that there was apochyphal writings, but not all ciculated books were in this catagory.It serves the skeptic of the Christian faith to attempt to lead people to believe that there were ONLY pseudo authentic books falsely named after their authors.

I didn't see anything about Jesus stealing pigs.That's stupid. Maybe you want to also say that when He stopped the storm on the lake He stole the rain water from the farmers on shore.Or when He healed the lepers He stole some patients from the local medical doctors.Or when He fed the crowd of 5000 with a few bread and fishes He stole the revenue from the fish markets and bread sellers in town.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

They didn't ask to be paid for the pigs. They did ask Him to go away. And He did. And as far as I know He is never seen going in that region again.Their loss turned out to be much greater than a herd of swine.

There are a few criminals behind bars that might beg to differ with you.

Do you hold that no traditions are likely to be true?

I already discussed one piece of evidence which leads me to believe that Matthew was the author. That was the difference in the listing of the twelve apostles in Matthew as opposed to the other gospels.In Matthew his name is mentioned after Thomas as opposed to before. I already explained that this difference probably indicated the humility of the writer.Chances are that if the early Christian congregations had doubts that the book of Matthew was authored by Matthew the apostle they would not have recognizied it for inclusion in the New Testament canon.I don't believe that canonization was bestowed upon any books. They rather recognized the authority of books rather than assigned authority to them. That is in terms of inclusion in the canon.The canon was not an authoritative list of books but rather a list of authoritative books. Apostolic authorship was one of the criteria for canonization. If they had known that Matthew was not the author of the book after his name they would not have included it in the New Testament canon.Also Sir Fredrick Kenyon writes:"The interval then between the dates of original composition an the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have comde down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the AUTHENTICITY and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." ( F. Kenyon, The Bible and Archeology, my emphasis, pp 288 )Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Luke's Gospel is not really altogether anonymous by any means (Luke 1:1-3 comp Acts 1:1).John's Gospel seems to have the writer virtually identify himself (John 20:20,31; 21:20-25)Mark's Gospel has a indication that he put his humble signature on it when it spoke somewhat arbitrarily of the young man who ran away naked. That is when the guards grabbed Jesus and they also laid hold of a youth who slipped out of his cloths and escaped into the night.Matthew's indication is in the manner in which he listed the pairs of the original twelve disciples.I think you are hung up on always looking for a reasonable doubt. I think your mode of operation is to always pursue the skeptical scholarship of destructive higher criticism.i.e. "To whatever the Christian church has said, the opposite posed by the skeptics and unbelievers is the prefered belief."Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I said it furnished evidence which is convincing. I didn't say it proved it.And nothing is more self righteous than people like you standing around pointing your finger at Christians as if no one else ever cared to know whether a Gospel was authentically the product of an apostle.Hint: I bet they cared a lot more about authenticity then you did.
I bet they had more reason to want to be sure of authenticity than you have.Already in the first century the Christians were in the process of:1.) Selecting and sorting (Luke 1:1-4; I Thess. 2:13) 2.) Reading (1 Thess. 5:27)3.) Circulating (Col. 4:16)4.) Collecting (2 Peter 3:15-16)5.) Quoting (1 Tim. 5:8)apostolic liturature.What perculiar self righteous arrogance assumes that only you skeptics 20 centuries latter gave serious thought to the authorship of the four Gospels? I quoted you above where some read and publically the apostolic liturature.What is this "We're the only pebbles on the beach" attitude that no one could read in the first century?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yea right Brian. And Snow White was Nigerian.

Other evidence of Matthew's authorship of the book of Matthew besides the reliable early tradition that he was.Matthew, also called Levi, formerly a tax collector, later and apostle (Matt. 9:9; Luke 5:27).There is a special mention of him as the tax collector in Matt. 10:3.This may have been his testament as to his beginnings as such a person, unlikely to be a disciple. Yet he probably purposely omitted reference to himself as the host of the reception in 9:10.The time of the writing of the book of Matthew does seem to be shortly after the Lord's resurrection (28:15) and prior to the destruction of the temple (24:2).I would not be surprised at all if there was some teamwork about the authorship in terms of personal confirming witness to some of the details.He may have had help. He may have had another Gospel at his disposal to help him.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.