Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

While very little you believe and repeat to us makes much logical sense nor does it have much basis in fact, I admire your devotion to what you believe is true. These guys are eating your lunch and yet you are determined to find SOMEPLACE you can agree. Good luck on that one.Try to see why these posters don't believe what you and other fundys hold so dear and it will really set you free. Trying to defend the impossible to defend has to be a lot of hard work.

Do you hold that no traditions are likely to be true?

I don't. But what's your evidence that this one IS true?

---

I hunt for the truth

Only when there is corroborating physical evidence.

---

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

The more I study the Gospels, individually and collectively, the more I become convinced they were compiled by committees. Whether of the faithful, or a power play, I haven`t decided. Different details, different versions, different names, as if bystanders were throwing in their suggestions. Now, apologists say the Gospels differ (and how) in that they were written FOR different audiences. I say they were written BY different audiences. There seems to be an element of oneupmanship going on. Like they were competing for market share. Since we know there were various splinter groups in the early years of this religion which later became known as Christianity, it seems likely they would develop their own teachings, and, consequently, their own 'gospel'. How else can we explain the long delay in canonisation?
It`s not until the might of the Roman Empire aligned itself with a certain strand that we see one collection becoming 'official'. Not before.

I already discussed one piece of evidence which leads me to believe that Matthew was the author. That was the difference in the listing of the twelve apostles in Matthew as opposed to the other gospels.In Matthew his name is mentioned after Thomas as opposed to before. I already explained that this difference probably indicated the humility of the writer.Chances are that if the early Christian congregations had doubts that the book of Matthew was authored by Matthew the apostle they would not have recognizied it for inclusion in the New Testament canon.I don't believe that canonization was bestowed upon any books. They rather recognized the authority of books rather than assigned authority to them. That is in terms of inclusion in the canon.The canon was not an authoritative list of books but rather a list of authoritative books. Apostolic authorship was one of the criteria for canonization. If they had known that Matthew was not the author of the book after his name they would not have included it in the New Testament canon.Also Sir Fredrick Kenyon writes:"The interval then between the dates of original composition an the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have comde down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the AUTHENTICITY and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." ( F. Kenyon, The Bible and Archeology, my emphasis, pp 288 )Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jaywill wrote: "In Matthew his name is mentioned after Thomas as opposed to before. I already explained that this difference probably indicated the humility of the writer."So this is your evidence that Matthew was indeed the real author? That the order of the listed names proves it's true? Sounds like something out of the morning sermon at the First Self-Righteous Church of Got No Clue.Jaywill also wrote: "Chances are that if the early Christian congregations had doubts that the book of Matthew was authored by Matthew the apostle they would not have recognizied it for inclusion in the New Testament canon."What would they have known about anything? Could they read or write? Probably had not one minute of school and yet they were a discerning group?

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?

Luke's Gospel is not really altogether anonymous by any means (Luke 1:1-3 comp Acts 1:1).John's Gospel seems to have the writer virtually identify himself (John 20:20,31; 21:20-25)Mark's Gospel has a indication that he put his humble signature on it when it spoke somewhat arbitrarily of the young man who ran away naked. That is when the guards grabbed Jesus and they also laid hold of a youth who slipped out of his cloths and escaped into the night.Matthew's indication is in the manner in which he listed the pairs of the original twelve disciples.I think you are hung up on always looking for a reasonable doubt. I think your mode of operation is to always pursue the skeptical scholarship of destructive higher criticism.i.e. "To whatever the Christian church has said, the opposite posed by the skeptics and unbelievers is the prefered belief."Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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?

I said it furnished evidence which is convincing. I didn't say it proved it.And nothing is more self righteous than people like you standing around pointing your finger at Christians as if no one else ever cared to know whether a Gospel was authentically the product of an apostle.Hint: I bet they cared a lot more about authenticity then you did.
I bet they had more reason to want to be sure of authenticity than you have.Already in the first century the Christians were in the process of:1.) Selecting and sorting (Luke 1:1-4; I Thess. 2:13) 2.) Reading (1 Thess. 5:27)3.) Circulating (Col. 4:16)4.) Collecting (2 Peter 3:15-16)5.) Quoting (1 Tim. 5:8)apostolic liturature.What perculiar self righteous arrogance assumes that only you skeptics 20 centuries latter gave serious thought to the authorship of the four Gospels? I quoted you above where some read and publically the apostolic liturature.What is this "We're the only pebbles on the beach" attitude that no one could read in the first century?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yea right Brian. And Snow White was Nigerian.

Jaywill responded: "And nothing is more self righteous than people like you standing around pointing your finger at Christians as if no one else ever cared to know whether a Gospel was authentically the product of an apostle."As a self-righteous, inclined to point, heathen, I always look...mostly stare...at the Christian hoard suffering through their "vow to remain ignorant" all the while they are wondering why people think they lack thinking skills. Jaywill, we can look at todays Christians and just imagine about those 2000 years ago. Amoebas come to mind.And thanks for responding..

Other evidence of Matthew's authorship of the book of Matthew besides the reliable early tradition that he was.Matthew, also called Levi, formerly a tax collector, later and apostle (Matt. 9:9; Luke 5:27).There is a special mention of him as the tax collector in Matt. 10:3.This may have been his testament as to his beginnings as such a person, unlikely to be a disciple. Yet he probably purposely omitted reference to himself as the host of the reception in 9:10.The time of the writing of the book of Matthew does seem to be shortly after the Lord's resurrection (28:15) and prior to the destruction of the temple (24:2).I would not be surprised at all if there was some teamwork about the authorship in terms of personal confirming witness to some of the details.He may have had help. He may have had another Gospel at his disposal to help him.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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