Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

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?

quote:

---

Acts 2:29“Men, brothers, it is allowable to speak with freeness of speech to YOU concerning the family head David, that he both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day. 30Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne, 31he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in Ha”des nor did his flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses.

---

These are peters words as penned by Luke. Peter was most certainly an eye witness

So? That still means the authors of the gospels weren't eyewitnesses. What's your evidence Peter is telling the truth? If I tell you God appeared to me and told me Jesus was not his son, would you believe me if I offered you no evidence whatsoever for that statement? You wouldn't, and rightfully so. So, why should we believe Peter when he says that?

---

I hunt for the truth

i dont think it was overlooked by everybody at allThe christian congregation were organized and the teachings were not just ramblings by individuals. the teachings were unified. they had a governing body made up of apostles and older men who would discussed these matters..mathews account was accepted by the other apostles therefore it must be assumed that they agreed with the prophecies application.

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.

But where is your evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew.
Where is the original manuscript in Matthew's handwriting and some other sample of his handwriting, ie a tax document since he was alleged to have been a tax collector, for handwriting comparison?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Gday, It's not "common knowledge" that was "accepted" at all.
It's simply a common BELIEF.
We know there were Christian BELIEVERS in early 2nd Century - so what?
Tacitus repeats Christian beliefs, not from any Roman records.
2nd century Christian belief is not evidence. Sure, they BELIEVED Jesus existed - so what?
2nd century Christian belief is not evidence. What other historians?
Josephus was at best tampered with, at worst completely forged.
Pliny mentions Christian beliefs in the 2nd Century.
Sure, there is evidence of Christian BELIEF Peg - so what?
2nd century Christian belief is not evidence. Not a contemporary of Jesus, and there is no evidence he met any apostles.
And why did you bring up his BIRTH date? Was Josephus discussing religion and history from his day of birth? Hmmm? Josephus' writing was from the 90s - long long after the alleged events. Peg, you were asked to NAME one person who thought Pilate only existed in the bible. Why can't you name one?
Because no such person exists, it's just a Christian urban legend. Christian believers are not "secular writers".
Josephus is a corrupt passage. Actually it shows that in early 2nd century, or perhaps as early as late 1st century, some believers believed in Jesus Christ.
But belief is not evidence.TacitusRoughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian beliefs about Jesus.Kapyong

Gday, There is no evidence this ever happened, and there WOULD be if it did. Historians agree it never happened.It's a legend found in ONE Christian Gospel.Kapyong

Gday, Not one of the NT books was written by anyone who met any historical Jesus - that's the view of modern scholars. So what?
People die for false beliefs all the time - suicide bombers, Heaven's Gate cult, 9/11 bombers etc.
Does that make their beliefs true, Peg ?And there is no actual evidence for the early martyrs - just later legends supporting earlier legends.Kapyong

Gday, Acts is a late and anonymous work - we do not know who wrote it (Christians BELIEVE it was Luke of course.)And there is no actual historical evidence for Peter (Peter's letters are quite late, and not by 'Peter'.)So all you have is a late and anonymous work claiming an unknown person was a witness to something.No evidence at all.Kapyong

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.

[qs-8upwidit2]You are confusing eye witness and what somebody wrote about an eye witness. [/qs]how can you say Peter was not an eye witness? he was one of Jesus 12 apostles.Luke wrote his gospel directly from the word of Peter who was most certainly an eye witness.By what you are saying, all media that reports on any event is heresay and not to be trusted. Thank goodness we have television hey.

But he didn't write the gospel. This doesn't mean he was telling the truth when he related the story to Luke. Yes. Without supporting evidence, any statement should be doubted. Fortunately, the media DO have supporting evidence for the claims they make, or, if they don't, it will be pointed out pretty quickly they were wrong.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

8upwidit2 writes:

​

You are confusing eye witness and what somebody wrote about an eye witness.

how can you say Peter was not an eye witness? he was one of Jesus 12 apostles.

​

Luke wrote his gospel directly from the word of Peter who was most certainly an eye witness.

---

But there is no reason to suppose that Luke wrote down Peter's words directly. There is certainly no reason to believe that Luke was there - or even a Christian at the time - since he is usually identified as a gentile companion of Paul, even by conservative Christians. And there is no reason to assume that Luke got his account directly from Peter - he does not identify his sources.So, in all probability this section of Acts is a third-hand report at best. Hardly eye-witness testimony.

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.