Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

Well, I dunno, there`s that little matter of STEALING a herd of pigs, and DROWNING them in a lake. Maybe the Gerasene/Gadarene/Gergesan lawyers told the owners to drop the case when they heard of the crucifixion of Jesus?

The only thing stupid around here is the inability of some folk to read.Who disturbed the demons? Where were they permitted to go? What happened next? At the end of the day who were minus a herd? Possibly families starving as a result.Funny that archaeology has never turned up any bone collection in the Sea of Galilee. But then they have never turned up anything relating to Jesus and gang anyway.

Ah, Buz, the old 'I`ve-got-more-MS-than-you-so-I-have-to-be-right ploy. Unfortunately, Carsten Peter Theide and-gasp-Josh Mcdowell aren`t great places to start. Try reading Metzger-Text of the New Testament-instead of pot-boilers like Evidence that Demands a VerdictPap--- yours--- mine
P1---- c.100--- 3C.
P4---- 66--- 3C.
P32--- 175--- c.2C.
P45--- 150--- early 3C.
P46--- 85--- c.200
P52--- 100-125---c.2C.
P64--- pre-66--- c.200
P66--- 125--- c.200
P67--- pre-66--- c.200
P77--- 150--- 2-3C.
P87--- 125--- 3C.
P90--- 150--- 2C.Sourced from Metzger and here:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/Papyri-list.htmlWell, you did get close with 4/12I think Carsten Theide has resiled from those early dates and many scholars dismiss his claims to correlation between the DSS and the NT.Admittedly, paleography isn`t an exact science, more an art. With a wide margin. But not that wide.Dunno what you are trying to prove with the codices as they contradict each other. (see Metzger and others)

Speaking of surviving manuscripts, Buz, like to look at this site and tell me what was so different once Christians came to power? Apart from a active manufacturing industry that couldn`t even produce texts that agreed, a witch-hunt against pagan, Gnostic or alternative Christianities literature meant that we are lucky to have any contrasting material today. Who knows what numbers of contra-orthodox manuscrips were burned? Maybe they even outnumbered official literature.CHRISTIAN PERSECUTIONS AGAINST THE HELLENES

Ah, Buz, I bet you played a lot of basketball in your time, as you are a master of the dodge.:-)If we restrict the 'thousands of manuscripts' to contemporary times of Jesus and Co.,explain how a thousand scrolls (or parts thereof) managed to survive the book-burning of the Romans, while zero remained of early Christian literature. Were they sloppy house-keepers? Couldn`t see the writing on the wall? No warnings from Prophet-Man to secret a few MS away for posterity? And don`t bother going along the lines of the DSS belonging only to the Essenes. The scrolls came from a eclectic collection across the Jewish community. IOW, a library. Or several. But, surprise, surprise, naught of any Christian community. Why do you think that might be, Buz?

Well, we could say 'proofs' of Jesus exist in the 36 (or is it 38?)pieces of the Holy Prepuce exhibited as sacred relics in assorted Catholic churches throughout France and Italy. :-p

When quoting early Christian writers, posters act like we have the autographs or originals. Many of these quotations come from supposed copies centuries later. For example, Eusebius quoting Papias. Wouldn`t it be a better plan to actually quote the document author rather than ASSUME that Papias, Justin Martyr, etc. said this or that?Would anyone know of a site listing all of the EXTANT writings of these early Christian writers? Peter Kirby`s?

That`s Peter Kirby`s site, Peg. On it you get items like: Which don`t fill me with confidence. Bear in mind, apart from ASSUMING these are genuine, afaik, none have been carbon-dated, and most rely on paleography to date them. Lots of possiblys, maybes, could-bes. Did Justin actually write something, or have later copyists ASSUMED it was authentic? Y`know, that bit about 'tickling the ears'. In matters of this kind with a lot of forging going on, I find it better to start off with a blank sheet, and go with confirmed evidence.

We certainly can, Peg, if it can`t be authenticated. And when you have a body who are known forgers, you have to be doubly careful. Narratives, even fictional, are at the mercy of the author. Historians are only people, not some impeccable source whose word is (pardon )gospel. Unless you approach their work with reserve, how will you know if they are telling some, all, none of the truth?

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.

O.k., Jay, three questions for you.1. Roughly what year did Paul die?2. Was 'Luke' the author of Luke and Acts?3. When were Luke and Acts written?Make it four.4. Was 'Luke' the companion of Paul AND the writer of Luke and Acts?

On Kapyong`s post: Hey, that was around the time Christians stopped torturing, hanging and roasting unbelievers.
Wonder if there`s a connection?