Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

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.

Actually, Galatians 6:12 makes clear that early Christians were persecuted because they had relaxed the rules on circumcision and the law--not because of the Resurrection--and that some early Christians actually compromised their beliefs in the face of persecution.(from here) Being sure it happened and it actually having happened are two different things entirely. How are the others to know if these twelve made the story up? Look, all I'm asking for is real observable evidence that jesus did as he is said to have done in the bible. Saying so many people believed it doesn't cut it. Then we would also have to believe in every other religion, because their founders were equally sure of what they witnessed.

---

I hunt for the truth

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.

Tacitus is considered one of the ancient worlds greatest historians. He wrote about the christians in his Annals, he also mentions how Pilate had jesus executed. this in itself proves that it was common knowledge and the people of the time accepted that Jesus was a real person. Do you really think that he would have wrote about jesus if no one else believed he even existed?? I dont think so. The same goes for all the other historians who make mention of Jesus or the christians. Josephus was born in 37CE... thats 4 years after Jesus death. Hence he was alive when the apostles were alive, that makes him a contemporary. bible critics Could you elaborate on these contradictions between sources
&
the torturous ways the OT is ripped out of context where prophecy is said to be fulfilled by JC. I never claimed that Josephus said Jesus was the messiah. We were talking about secular writers who wrote about Jesus and the christians and Josephus certainly did that. It shows that Jesus was a historical person, there is no doubt about that.Its no good saying 'tacitus 'may' have been forged' You will need to provide evidence if you are going to make such a claim?

Not true. He mentions "Christus", which is a title, not a name. Since Jesus isn't mentioned, it's kinda hard to see how this follows. But he never mentions Jesus. Well he doesn't, so this would be correct. Christians existed, no question there, Jesus might even have existed as a historical person, but this doesn't mean he is anything the bible makes him out to be. Oh, and the ONLY mention of Jesus that is even close to his time, is Josephus, and the votes are still out on that matter. First of all, Josephus was not secular, he was an aphasic Jew. Second, even if Jesus was a historical figure, that doesn't mean the bible is telling the truth about him, that would require supporting evidence, and none exists. It doesn't matter if it's forged or not, he doesn't mention Jesus.

---

I hunt for the truth

the fact that they rejected him is a fulfillment of prophecy.

quote:

---

Isiah 53:2'And he will come up like a twig before one, and like a root out of waterless land. No stately form does he have, nor any splendor; and when we shall see him, there is not the appearance so that we should desire him.3He was despised and was avoided by men, a man meant for pains and for having acquaintance with sickness. And there was as if the concealing of one’s face from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account.'

---

he did fulfill them
Messianic prophecies made it clear that the Messiah had to die. For instance, the very prophecy that foretold when the Messiah would arrive foretold in the next verse: “After the sixty-two weeks [which followed the seven weeks] Messiah will be cut off.” (Daniel 9:26) The Hebrew word ka·rath” used here for “cut off” is the same word used for the death sentence under the Mosaic Law.here are a few more:
Isaiah 9:7 Descendant of David Matthew 2:16-18
Jeremiah 31:15 Babes killed after his birth Matthew 2:16-18
Hosea 11:1 Called out of Egypt (refuge) Matthew 2:14, 15
Psalm 40:9 Boldly preaches “good news” Matthew 4:17, 23
Isaiah 53:1, 2 Jews do not put faith in him John 12:37, 38
Psalm 78:2 Speaks in illustrations Matthew 13:34, 35
Psalm 69:4 Hated without a cause John 15:24, 25
Psalm 41:9 Unfaithful apostle betrays John 13:18, 21-30
Zechariah 11:12 For 30 pieces of silver Matthew 26:14-16
Psalm 2:1, 2 Rulers act against him Matthew 27:1, 2
Psalm 27:12 False witnesses against him Matthew 26:59-61
Isaiah 53:7 Silent before his accusers Matthew 27:11-14
Psalm 22:16 Impaled by hands and feet John 20:25
Isaiah 53:12 Impaled with transgressors Luke 22:36, 37
Psalm 22:7, 8 Is reviled while on stake Matthew 27:39-43
Psalm 69:21 Given wine drugged with myrrh Mark 15:23, 36
Zechariah 12:10 Pierced while on stake John 19:34
Psalm 22:18 Lots cast for his garments Matthew 27:35
Psalm 34:20 None of his bones broken John 19:33, 36
Zechariah 13:7 Shepherd struck, flock scattered Matthew 26:31,56 if its a fabrication provide evidence for why you believe it is.

Tacitus mentioned the Christians in his Annals in the account about the great fire of Rome in 64C.E. and how Nero had blamed the fire on the Christians..... he wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”its pretty obvious he's talking about the founder of the christians as a real person who really was put to death. Why would he talk about such a person if that person did not exist and why would he mention Pontius putting the man to death if it was not a historical fact?Josephus certainly is secular. He wasnt a christian, that makes him secular. There does not require evidence for truth to be truth. Truth is truth with or without it.

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?

But he doesn't say it's Jesus, it could've been anyone else. Further, there has been some debate over whether or not he wrote Christans, and not Chrestians, which would be something different, wouldn't it? Do you even know what secular means? It doesn't mean non-Christian, it means that someone isn't particularly religious. Wrong. The only way to determine if something is true is through evidence. While something might be true even thought there is no evidence for it, there's no way we can tell. If there's no way we can tell, we can just as easily treat it as false.I'll state this again: "Even if Jesus was a historical figure, there is absolutely no evidence he said or did anything the bible said he did. Therefore, there is no reason to treat the bible as accurate on this point."

---

I hunt for the truth

after the birth of Jesus, King Herod sought to kill him because he was proclaimed to be the King of Isreal. Herod did not want any competition because he was the King at that time.So, in an attempt to have the child killed, he sent soldiers into the city of Bethleham and ordered them to kill all baby boys under 2 years of age.Mary and Joseph had earlier fled to Egypt to keep Jesus safe.

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.

he would have written in that in latin which is why its a bit different. The same way a name in english is said differntly in Greece for instance. If thats what you mean by secular, you are asking for the impossible. Everyone was religious in those days. You wont find a non religious writer.
He wasnt a christian, he was a historian for Rome. That makes him secular thru disassociation the eyewitness testimony of the bible writers is evidence. The fact that the followers of Jesus were willing to die for their belief is evidence of a strong conviction that they obviously believed it to be true.

You do realise that that is almost certainly a legend ?It's not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, not even by Luke (who gives a quite different story).It's not mentioned in any independant sources at all.An attempt to kill a destined child IS a common motif in legend (to name a famous few, Romulus and Remus, Krishna, Moses). There was even a related story about Augustus, itself almost certainly invented.And if you read Jeremiah 31 you will see that it says that the children will return home. Obviously it does not refer to the children supposedly killed by Herod.Still, if you have any good examples of prophecies where we can confirm that they really are about Jesus then you could start a new thread where they can seriously be examined.

ah no problemim sorry, i should have expanded on it a bit more myself.It was actually the apostles who related the prophecy to Jesus ... Notice Vs 17 (bolded)Mathew 2:16"Then Herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in Beth”le·hem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers. 17Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 18“A voice was heard in Ra”mah, weeping and much wailing; it was Rachel weeping for her children, and she was unwilling to take comfort, because they are no more.”

In Latin Christian is still written with an I not an E. Ok, not Christian. Still leaves the problem of the authenticity. And it's still not evidence Jesus acted as reported. The writers of the gospels weren't eyewitnesses. So when Islamic terrorists believe they get 72 virgins when they fly a plane into a building, that's true?

---

I hunt for the truth