Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

DA, I'm wearing of trying to get it in your head that to make my point we're not looking for close proximities of other literature to debunk the Bible. What I need to support the Bible is to show that other accepted literature like Aristotle is accepted regardless of the gap from copies to original. Get it?Nobody, including me are trying to discredit the accuracy of the Quran, but it is a strawman for the reasons I've given. We need older stuff to be relative to the Bible which you and others are trying to debunk as to accuracy. Aristotle and Plato are examples more fitting to ancient manuscripts.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Accepted how and in what way? Aristotle and Plato's writings are not considered the infallible, innerent, divinely inspired, Word of God, so what does it matter whether they really existed or not? Scholars only assume they are real people because we don't have any evidence saying the contrary and there is a lot of contemporary corrobotive evidence supporting their existence. If they did have evidence saying that they were not real people it would not really make any difference anyways, other than for historical reasons. You cannot say the same for the Bible. Again distance between original composition dates to earliest extant manuscripts in themselves do not prove authenticity. Authenticity also has to take into account internal and external consistency of the text and corroborating contemporary evidence (other manuscripts, artifacts, etc). How can it be a strawman. You are making the case that the Bible is divinely inspired and we should trust it's authenticity because of the proximity of existing manuscripts are to its supposed original composition dates in comparison to other books whose composition to extant manuscript date is very wide i.e. Aristotle and Plato. This is a strawman argument because no Biblical scholar would disagree with the statement that the NT original composition dates are closer to original composition dates than the writings of Aristotle and Plato.You are not understanding what a strawman argument is. Look it up and see if I am right and show me how MY argument is a strawman argument. That is right. You NEED stuff to be older to substantiate your strawman argument. I debunk the accuracy of the Bible not because of the age of the extant manuscripts but because there is no corroborating contemporary evidence supporting any of these stories.And how is Aristotle and Plato any closer to the NT dates than the Quran, they are about equidistant chronologically? How are they "more fitting"??? They aren't. All of these: Aristotle, Plato, the NT and the Quran could be considered 'ancient' (which really is a subjective term, there is no set criteria for something being 'ancient').Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

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 was a prominent Jewish historian, he reports on James the half brother of Jesus getting arrested in these words: “[The high priest Ananus] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others.”Roman historian Tacitus tells of Nero’s cruel persecution of the Christians and adds: “Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital of Rome itself.Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus and to his miracles “That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”
So according to Justin Martyr, a record was made by Pontius Pilate and even though these records dont exist today, they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said.According to these 3 historians “Jesus, who was called the Christ” was a real, historical person. Now, are we to use some of their writings to piece together Roman history, but discard their writings when they refer to Jesus???

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?

Hey Peg, nice to see you again. There are doubts among scholars if this is a genuine quote from Josephus himself, or added later. Regardless, it's not contemporary. This only mentions "Christus" and since that is a title and not a name, there's no way to tell if it is Jesus he is mentioning. Regardless, it's not contemporary. He was a christian, so not likely to question the dogma. Also, Pontius Pilate is known to have been a cruel ruler, yet according to the bible, he didn't want to kill Jesus, where his other actions indicate that he wouldn't even have given this act a second thought. Regardless, it's not contemporary. But we have contemporary and archeaological sources that support the Roman history, we don't for Jesus, being metioned by other people doesn't mean he existed at the time he is said to have existed. Nor is it evidence for anything he is said to have done according to the bible, that's the point we've been trying to make.

---

I hunt for the truth

yes i do know what contemporary means, and although Josephus lived after jesus, he was a contemporary of the early christian church ...some of those older christians who would have been contemporaries of Jesus, making Josephus a contemporary of Jesus contemporaries.Its well known that references to Jesus by early secular historians are meager, such references do exist. Cornelius Tacitus was a 1st century Roman historian. He was certainly a contemporaryThe New Encyclopædia Britannica states “in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

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?

heyJoseph ben Matthias, or Josephus, was born in 37C.E. Jesus died in 33CE. As a young man, Josephus was obviously privy to the goings on of jesus apostles. We know the Apostle John lived on for at least another 60 odd years after Jesus died. So Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus immediate family and followers. he is refering to Jesus Christ as can be seen by the rest of his statement.The point about Justyn Martyre is that by his mention of the 'Acts of Pontius Pilate' he shows that there were written records that could be looked at in his day. Pontius Pilate's writings must have been available and Pilate was certainly a contemporary of Jesus. but it is evidence that historical people and writers believed in him and were willing to stake their reputations on him...even those who hated the idea of christianity made reference to him...not to mention large numbers of people who actually followed him and formed a church around him

hi, Because evidence, important as it is to genuine faith, does not guarantee faith. When it came to the Messiah, most Jews had very definite ideas about what they wanted. They wanted a political messiah, one who would end Roman oppression and restore Israel. That was pretty much all they wanted and they wanted it then and their. REmember the prophecies they had about the messiah was that he would redeem Isreal and they would become a nation again with him as their kingly ruler.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. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

He's still not a contemporary of Jesus. As Bian pointed out, ther are severe doubts about the athenticit of the Josephus piece you mention. No it can't. There were so many who claimed to be the crhist in thatm period, that you can't be certain thaqt he is talking about jesus. That his records were available is an assumption. Not a fact, just because someone mentions them doesn't mean they existed. They also could've been forgeries. Nobody "staked his reputation" on him. the mentions are only brief, and not contemporary, they were recording hearsay. And not one source of an author who hated christianity mentions jesus.But fine, say a man named jesus did exist around that time, what is your evidence he did anything that the bible said he did? That's the evidence I'd love to see.

---

I hunt for the truth

and yet we use his writings to glean much of the history of 1st century rome.but i wont keep arguing over these points. its fair enough if you dont believe them, but the claim that there are no secular historical writings about Jesus is incorrect. Ok i'll concede that Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus himself...but he certainly was of jesus apostles and the early church.Pontius Pilate was nothing more then a biblical 'character' for a long time and many claimed he existed only in the bible because there was no secular records of him anywhere to be found. Now he was a Roman Ruler!...it just shows that the archeological record has many gaps in it and perhaps one day they will find something that does prove Jesus was a real person. Until then, all we have to go on is1. Josephus
2. Tacitus
3. Justyn Martyre
4. bible manuscripts and their age & uniformity
5. age old church buildings testifying to early christian activity
6. the history of the founding of the catholic church
7. bible prophecythis in itself is enough evidence for some (me included) Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

What in any of this is evidence Jesus acted as he is said to have acted in the bible?

---

I hunt for the truth

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.

Jesus was a threat to the jewish system of worship and of the authority of the priests. He publicly condemned their form of worship. He did not follow their 'oral' laws and told the people not to follow them either. He denounced the religious leaders...this is why they campaigned against him and sent him to the romans to be executed.He showed them where they were going wrong in their application of the scriptures and this enraged them so much that they put him on trial. They saw his miracles but because they were so proud and corrupt they refused to submit to him.If you read the gospel accounts, you'll get a clear picture of how the jews reacted to Jesus and why they reacted in such a way.

the fact is, the people who followed Jesus and formed the early christian church, must have been convinced of the things they had witnessed because they were willing to die for the accounts they gave.No one who is unsure of something is willing to be tortured and killed for it. If the persona of Jesus was just something a group of 12 men fabricated, why on earth would they be willing to die for a fictional story?no sane person would create a fictional story and then stick by it when threatened with torture or death would they?