Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

According to the information I have (yes across the room on the shelf) the Gospel of Matthew was cited in Pseudo Barnabus (c. 70-130).So that is why I said it was sited sometime within that timespan.However the column in the chart does say "Citation or allusion".Can you provide me with an indication that during those same years the authenticity of Matthew was questioned ? That might help your case some.

Pseudo Barnabus (c. 70 - 130) makes either a citation or an allusion to the Gospel of Matthew according to my sources.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Conspiracy theory. If you're paranoid enough you can see a conpsiracy everywhere.Now you have to explain why an author who exults such a high level of morality as taught by Jesus would also conspire to deceive his audience.The central figure of his writing is a pristine example of honesty and integrity. In fact Jesus in Matthew exemplifies and also teaches the highest human morality on earth. Yet you imagine that to persuade us of this Matthew injects a deceptive tactic.Maybe, maybe, maybe ...Maybe when Jesus said, "the last shall be first and the first shall be last" it made a lasting impression on one who was naturally proud and competitive. It sunk in and was subtly manifested in his own writing.As a Christian working in teamwork occasionally with other Christians, it is completely understandable to me. Paul also reminded the Philippian to consider not just your own qualification but those of others.You can think what you wish. I think this little detail reveals the humility of the author. That would make Matthew the most likely author.My imagination is also able to surmise various alternative conspiratorial explanations. But I think the simple interpretation is the most likely.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It is relevant because the more time that passes the easier it is for some skeptic to raise doubts.People wait until the survivors of the Holocost have all long died out before they begin suggesting that it did not happen.In the future scholars will be much more impressed with people who deny that 6,000,000 Jews were slaughter by Germany around the late 1940s than for those who proclaim it in the 2000s.I bet your first questioners of the authenticity of the book of Matthew could not be located until 15 or 16 centries after its writing.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The debate will be closed soon. It is time to think about concluding your current discussion and posting any closing statements you want.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

The anonymous text now called the Gospel of Matthew was not named until 169 CE by Bishop Papias. If it was obvious who wrote it, or if it wasn't anonymous, then why was it nearly a century later before the text was named?There's a bit of a problem there too because the text that Papias named was said to be in Hebrew and what we have is in Greek and shows no signs of translation. (Lutterworth Bible Dictionary, page 558).So the text is still under dispute, its authorship has never been proven, and what we have now may not even be the original text. What an utter mess.

Why close any discussion thread that has at least 3-6 posts a day since being opened?

All threads are normally closed at around 300 posts. Some are kept open a bit longer, but 400 is usually the absolute max.This discussion can be continued by proposing a new thread and picking an element out of this discussion you want to continue on.

---

I hunt for the truth

Let's see how I do in this, my first summation.Initially the thread was about if any author of the new testament actually knew Jesus. Some points were raised for and against, but it quickly became clear that in order to know if any of the authors knew him, we'd have to be able to determine who wrote the gospels.Of the many points raised by those claiming that the authors were indeed the ones the gospels are named after, it has become clear to me that no such evidence exists.It's certainly possible that the gospels were written by the apostles whose names they bear. However, given the fact that they are named one and a half century after they were supposedly written doesn't strengthen that case.So, with all evidence available to me, I come to this final statement:It is highly unlikely that the writers of the gospels ever knew Jesus, there is in any case, no evidence they did.

---

I hunt for the truth

What I find astonishing is the widespread assumption amongst Christians that the Gospels were authored by Jesus' disciples (or for that matter that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, etc.) when in fact the matter is highly debatable at best.I haven't seen a shred of evidence presented here, or anywhere else, that the New Testament was written by contemporaries of Christ. The best that anyone has done is to provide the odd hint that certain texts might have been. That just isn't enough evidence to convince me, especially given the contradictions between different Gospels.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

That Jesus even existed as a historical figure is open for serious debate. If there was a historical Jesus and the first gospels were written in 70 C.E. or later shows that none of the writers could have likely known a figure that was supposedly crucified around the year 30 C.E.
There is no contemporary historical evidence for the existence of a Jesus Christ. The new testament itself isn't contemporary to the time period this person supposedly existed. Also, to all of you that say the bible proves his existence, you can't use something to prove its own validity.Then again I suppose this is a topic for another thread.

I opened this thread with the question as whether anyone who wrote the texts in the New Testament actually knew Jesus. Your responses have been informative and well-presented by all. Will be following your posts as I have for several years. Great forums.

I agree. in nearly 300 posts there is still no sustaining evidence that any of the writings were by anyone who knew Jesus , even if he did exist.Edited by bluescat48, : typo

---

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, Oh dear,
another failed walk across the room.Barnabas does NOT cite the Gospel of Matthew.
It does not even MENTION Matthew, or refer to a written Gospel.
Not once.Which is why you failed to actually provide a citation. Oh, so now it's a citation OR AN ALLUSION ?!
Which?
Why don't you QUOTE it ?
Hmmm? There was no authenticity AT ALL until late 2nd century.
The Gospels were originally ANONYMOUS.Kapyong

Gday, So you say,
but you fail to provide any cite,
you fail to give your source,
you aren't sure if it's a cite or an allusion.In fact, it all boils down to this ONE TINY phrase :
"...of whom it is written
many are called but few are chosen"There is no mention of a Gospel, no mention of Matthew. It is not at all clear where this came from. It MAY have been G.Matthew, or some other document that Christians were passing around.The Anchor Bible dictionary says :Although Barnabas 4:14 appears to quote Matt 22:14, it must remain an open question whether the Barnabas circle knew written gospels. Based on Koester's analysis (1957: 125-27, 157), it appears more likely that Barnabas stood in the living oral tradition used by the written gospels. For example, the reference to gall and vinegar in Barnabas 7:3, 5 seems to preserve an early stage of tradition that influenced the formation of the passion narratives in the Gospel of Peter and the synoptic gospels.
Epistle of BarnabasKapyong