Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

I am not interested in Jesus, that much is obvious, and I find the New testament the most boring collection of texts of all time.However, what I AM interested in is the personal integrity of so-called Christians.I am interested in finding a Christian who challenges my opinion of Christians. Now I think that the majority of Christians are ignorant, moronic, gullible, lying, deluded, hatred-filled, unfortunate, self-centred people.So far, you are not doing much to change my opinion.I await your 'yes' or 'no' answer, which is a test that you have failed so far.

Thanks for the post DA.Buz, like so many other fundies, will accept any old garbage that he thinks supports the Bible, even if it contradicts an earlier claim that he has made for some other Bible error.It makes me very sad that so many people have wasted their life away in a pool of ignorance that keeps this myth of Christ alive.These people claim to love the Bible yet they insult it every day of their lives with the embarrassing grabage they serve up as 'evidence' to support its veracity.If you think citing Callaghan and Theide's 'NT' texts at Qumran is willful ignorance, you should have a look at the tripe served up by Buz in the Exodus threads! Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

Buz, over the years I have seen you sing the praises and accept as true many claims made by people whose works you cite are not peer reviewed, or are not specialists in the area they are writing about.Ron Wyatt was a nurse who had no archaeological training at all, yet you swallowed everything he claimed. The same with Moller, who basically stole Wyatt's nonsense.Then we now have Josh Macdowell, whose work is essentially high school level, he makes so many errors and so many unsupported claims that I don't know if he is thick or is very clever.The market that these people aim at are those people who are very keen on finding 'evidence' to support the Bible. Josh MacDowell's books sell very well, but I can gaurantee you that the quality of his work would not pass that required by a university undergraduate course.Seriously Buz, have you every read academic books or journals that would give you a far better idea of the Bible and the world it was created in, or are you happy reading this 'pulp' crap that has no substance to it?

How could anyone ever prove that Jesus was not real, or should I say how could anyone convince a Christian that Jesus wasn't real?I'd really like to know because no matter the evidence that may come to light in the future, if it is negative towards jesus then it isnt accepted.

Buz,I am sure you are a lovely guy, but I have no idea how your mind works!

Do you know what the word 'contemporary' means?You do know that Josephus was forged don't you?You do know what 'Chrestus' means don't you?Have you ever read the Acts of Pontius Pilate?

I don't believe that this has ever been an argument. The argument that I am aware of is that there are no secular contemporary writings about Jesus, which is a fact. And your evidence fo rthis is what exactly? [qs] Pontius Pilate was nothing more then a biblical 'character' for a long time and many claimed he existed only in the bible [/wqs]Name one person who though that Pilate existed only in the Bible. Except in Josephus and Tacitus? Of course it does, but we can only make conclusions on the evidence we have. There's very few people who claim that Jesus didn't exist. However, the argument is normally between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. History is about plausibility, and it is completely plausible that a preacher named Jesus taught in first century Palestine. However, the miraculous events are not historically plausible. Plus we have to add to this the huge number of contradictions in the sources, and the torturous way that the Old testament is ripped out of context almost everytime an author wants Jesus to have fulfilled a messianic prophecy.As far as Josephus goes, you really should read the testimonium and find out what it actually says, then put it into the context of the surrounding text and what Josephus (a Pharasaic Jew) would be expecting, would he really have said that Jesus was the Messiah AND continued to be a Pharasaic Jew?The mention of Jesus in Tacitus may also have been forged.The rest of your 'evidence' applies to all faiths. If we apply them to Islam then that is true as well.

You see this is another huge mistake you make, believing without criticism that the Gospel accounts are true accurate recollections.What about thinking outside the box for a little while.What about the fact that Jesus was nothing like the Messiah that the Jews were expecting, why can that not be a good reason for rejecting Him?What about the fact that Jesus did not fulfil any messianic prophecies, isn't that a good reason to reject Him?Look at the Hebrew Bible, find out what the Jews were expecting, apply it to Jesus and it is obvious that He was not the Messiah that the Jews are still waiting on.Also, if we look at the Gospel accounts of the events surrounding the trial and execution of Jesus we really need to reject then as historically implausible. The incident with Jesus and Barabas for example, is a complete fabrication, it simply never happened. If we add in the fabrication of other events, then the Gospels are unreliable.

No it isn't. It is 8-10 years after Jesus' death. How can he be a contemporary of someone who died 8-10 years before he was born? So, you cannot name a single 'bible critic' that claims that Pilate only existed in the Bible?Where do you keep digging up all this garbage you keep spouting? Do you never check your sources before you post something?I know why you cannot name a single 'Bible critic' that makes this claim, and it is because this is not true.There is ample evidence of Pilate outside of the Bible, there's even a contemporary source, so NO historians have made the claim that you have presented. So, either you have been lied to or you are lying to us, I believe it is the former. Yes, I could. But Josephus did! Have you even read what Josephus was supposed to have said about Jesus?He is supposed to have called Jesus the Christ, yet Josephus died a Pharasaic Jew. Josephus wrote chapter after chapter of information about fairly nondescript people, yet we are supposed to believe that his Messiah arrived and he writes a few short sentences about him? Use your common sense. No he certainly didn't. The quotes are in serious doubt, I don't think there is a single historian that accepts the references as completely reliable. You really do not have a clue about what history is do you? How does this even follow? So you do know that claims need support. Tell you what, you provide one name for your bible critics claim and I will provide pages of evidence for my claim. I'm not going to waste my time typing up references only for a fundy to ignore.

If Jesus was the Messiah, we wouldn't need a few lines in Josephus to inform us, it would be abundantly evidenced. Israel would have been set free from her enemies and the Throne of God set up in Jerusalem. Not only did this not happen in Jesus' time, but shortly after His death Israel was even more suppressed by her enemies!Jesus was probably a decent guy, but His followers have tried to make Him in to spmething He was not, the Messiah.

So why would Josephus say that Jesus was The Christ if he didn't believe it?Surely he would have said something like 'Jesus, the false Christ', or 'the imposter Jesus'?You really do need to develop some critical thinking skills Peg if you are genuinely interested in history.The thing about history is that it isn't what happened in the past, it is what the author tells you that happened in the past. History is entirely a construct of the human mind, and as such it is subject to the bias and worldview of the author. When you realise this you have to approach historical texts with an open mind and look at as many possible angles as you can. For example, who was the author and what reasons does that person have for writing down this history? If we look at the Gospel of Matthew it is obvious that he was not writing an unbiased critical record of Jesus' life. The author of Matthew's Gospel was writing for a specific purpose, to convince his readers that Jesus was the promised Messiah. It is exactly the same as you writing a persuasive essay at school or college, you include as much positive points as you can, you would tend to leave out info that weakens your argument, you may even throw in a little 'out of context' information as well for extra effect.The biblical texts must be treated the same as any other texts, they have to be scrutinised if we are to arrive at a conclusion that is going to be anywhere near accurate.The Bible authors were as likely to present a skewed version of events as any other ancient author. The Bible authors were no different to the countless other ancient writers who exaggerated events and recorded what they wanted to have happened and not what actually did happen.The history that is recorded in the Bible is the same as any other history, it only happened in the minds of the people that wrote it down. Thus we have to be critical of all texts and present plausible and reasonable conclusions about the authors' intentions.Now if you look at the Josephus quote and try to be objective there are huge problems. He allegedly said that Jesus was The Christ, now think carefully about this, what would be his motivation for doing this?Did Josephus call Jesus The Christ because he believed it?
Did he call him The Christ because he didn't believe it?
Why call him The Christ at all?If he believed that Jesus was The Christ then surely he would have converted to Christianity. That is the only sensible conclusion.If he didn't believe that Jesus was The Christ then why wouldn't he record that Jesus was an imposter? If he didn't believe that Jesus was The Christ then why bother mentioning Him at all?There's a lot more to textual criticism than this of course, but you need to ask yourself if you are genuinely interested in what happened in the past, or if your mind is closed.

Since all 4 Gospels were originally anonymous, who decided that this particular anonymous work was the work of St. Matthew, and when was this Gospel named?

Every single Bible Dictionary, every single theologian, every single academic writing will all say the same, all four Gospels are anonymous works.Doesn't matter about internal clues, they are all anonymous. Scholars may use internal clues to guess who wrote them, but when all is said and done the Gospels are all anonymous works. I don't see what the problen is with accepting this fact.My mode of operation is to be impartial and try my best to present the facts of any situation, it is a poor scholar who doesn't criticise their sources.Any luck with identifying who it was that named the Goepel of Matthew and in which year it was named?

So who named the Gospel and what was the date when it was named?Are you having trouble finding this basic information Jay?Edited by Brian, : grammaaaa

The anonymous text now called the Gospel of Matthew was not named until 169 CE by Bishop Papias. If it was obvious who wrote it, or if it wasn't anonymous, then why was it nearly a century later before the text was named?There's a bit of a problem there too because the text that Papias named was said to be in Hebrew and what we have is in Greek and shows no signs of translation. (Lutterworth Bible Dictionary, page 558).So the text is still under dispute, its authorship has never been proven, and what we have now may not even be the original text. What an utter mess.