Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

I think Night Train was referring to Matthew 8:28-34 where the devil was cast out of this guy and into a nearby herd of pigs..and they all ran and jumped into a lake. Is that technically Jesus stealing? After all, the devil really did it. And the pigs should have known better than to feed near a possessed lunatic.I do agree that Jesus showed no concern for the pigs and probably could have been found guilty of conspiracy to drown the pigs. He should have paid for the pigs..but he had no money. If he could bring a man back to life...a herd of pigs should have been a piece of cake.

Buzz wrote: "I believe the earliest manuscripts known of Aristotle have a gap of around 1500 years whereas the gap for the earliest NT manuscripts are around 200 and some claim earlier, yet nobody questions the accuracy of the Aristotle manuscripts that I'm aware of."Aristotle did not hold himself up as the Son of God with records that were supposed to be the inerrant word of God. There are not enormous numbers of people (billions) that worship Aristotle. And who really cares what Aristotle thought/said compared to Jesus?

Hasn't this been the case forever? People worldwide are so tied up in a belief system with nothing but ignorance, fear and blind devotion to support it. They seek even an infinitesimal point on which to hang. Their lives are such that for some reason anything is better than their lives without it. They're like a deer in the proverbial head lights.And there are billions of them. What does this say about us as the supreme thinkers in the animal kingdom? Is it insecurity, inbred fear?After all, the non-believers in any religious persuasion are in the minority. Are we non-believers missing something? When we drive by churches filled to the rafters with often scary devotees, do we ask ourselves this question? Have we missed something others have found like some of our posters? Because I just don't get it.

Hi Peg,One of the many questions we non-believers ask is why? If Jesus of legend did indeed exist, then why did those Jews (true contemporaries) who actually experienced the great work and miracles of Jesus and all the hoopla surrounding Him not believe He was the real messiah and have rejected Him as the messiah since that time?If you or I had seen all this stuff, we would be impressed..right? Or did they not see anything that was so supernatural or special in Him? Or were there so many people running the streets that raised people from the dead and rose from the dead themselves that Jesus just didn't turn any heads?

Peg wrote: "but could they accept this humble son of a carpenter, a poor man who showed no interest in politics or riches? And they also didnt understand that he would be killed, let alone be a blashphemer (as he was charged by the jews) and die on a torture stake... a punishment set aside for criminals. Thats why they didnt accept him. They wanted a 'great' man... a wealthy strong man who would topple roman authority and restore them to Jerusalem."So, He was performing miracles and doing incredible stunts AND rising from the dead, but that was simply not good enough for the Jewish powers that be? This guy may be good at this miracle stuff but not exactly what we need right now. We'll pass on the messiah thingy and wait for Mr. Right. You gentiles can go ahead and take Him if you are that impressed.Think about what you are saying.

Jeremiah 31:15 (King James Version)15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.Matthew 2:16-18 (King James Version)16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.Am I missing something here? How are these two related without a serious real stretch?

Hi Peg, I meant to ask how the Jeremiah quote had anything to do with prophecy of the Herod issue as mentioned in Matthew? I thought it was a bit of a stretch that they were related. Sorry I did not make myself more clear.

Peg wrote: "It was actually the apostles who related the prophecy to Jesus".So Matthew actually decided the Jeremiah thing was related as a prophecy to the Herod murder of the innocents?If the Herod thing actually happened, how was it overlooked by everybody on the planet but Matthew?

Peg wrote: "These are peters words as penned by Luke. Peter was most certainly an eye witness."I think we are having a problem with the concept of evidence and eye witnesses and who wrote it all down. If the first penning of the New Testament occurred in the late 1st century, that would make the "eye witnesses" DEAD, Peg, if they even were eye witnesses. So anyone who writes about the experiences of the apostles/disciples/pals/buddies after they die would NOT BE eye witnesses...just writing down what they heard actually happened.You are confusing eye witness and what somebody wrote about an eye witness. Called hearsay in our courts. Not admissible.

This whole discussion by Peg is based on that fact that she actually believes what she is saying and in order to justify it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, she assumes things like people actually existing and giving accurate evidence about other people who probably did not exist. "Well, Peter certainly witnessed Jesus...". Here we have two people who may not have even existed certifying the existence of each other.

Let's assume that the earliest church historians were unanimous in believing the Matthew docs were authentic. When did they believe that to be true..what year(s)? When were historians such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen and Tertulian all testifying to this fact? Any of them contemporaries of Matthew or Jesus?

Peg wrote to Huntard: "you do realise that if anything that was writen in the gospels was infactual, the followers of christ...who were eyewitnesses to many of jesus miracles... would be able to refute it"What if none of this happened? What if none of Jesus' contemporaries saw anything at all that would make them believe Jesus was the Messiah?Then there would be no reason to write refutations..right? If all this story was made up starting 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus, his contemporaries would have been out of the loop...nothing to refute. Hey that rhymes! Must be a sign. If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!

In your own dating system, Peg, you show the labored point that NONE of these historians lived before the 2nd or 3rd centuries current era. So if they were supporting any documents or occurrences prior to that, it would be hearsay based on something somebody else wrote or said. How would anything they would say have any value in this conversation?

Peg wrote: "there is too much evidence that it all did happen."Peg, what evidence are you talking about? That's why these folks keep hammering you. Give us the evidence. Don't give us people who never knew Jesus or his followers. Who wrote down "I saw Jesus". Not who wrote down that somebody said they saw Jesus.

Peg wrote: "one problem with that is that myths go away after time"Peg, I think this one (Christianity)would have gone the way of earlier supernatural myths had it not been for Constantine making Christianity the official Roman state religion. And the Romans spreading it all around Europe by the sword. Take Constantine out of the formula and Christianity would have been history like the other myths before it.Peg again wrote: "another problem is that people dont lay their life down for something they know to be a myth."I agree but there have been gillions who have given their lives for what they THOUGHT were truths but in reality were myths.