Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

Huntard, Please answer me these questions:When opening the New Testament to read why should distrust and skepticism be the default attitude?I mean why should I approach the account about Jesus Christ from the default assumption that a lie is being told or a that someone/s are trying to deceive me?Why should distrust and skepticism be the initial attitude from which one should analyze all that is being read in the Gospels?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thanks for your reply.Then according to your own advice we should also approach what you write here about Jesus Christ and the New Testament documents with skepticism.That's at least equally fair.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think trust is earned. Your mother and father probably told you at a young age that they were your parents. Now you really don't know that to be true. You didn't witness them conceiving you or giving you birth.But perhaps you percieved their love and care for you so that you eventually came to trust them.As a teen did you ask them to produce the birth certificate ? Did you verify that the doctors that signed it had not commiting fraud or a mistake? Did you go back to the hospital to verify that the document was really genuine?I wonder if you have asked them to have a DNA analysis done to prove that you are their offspring. If you have not done this, why not? You really don't know then that they are definitely your parents.I think you probably have chosen to trust them based on the treatment you have received from them. But I think you have to admit that this is a kind of "faith".You really don't know who your parents are with total certainty. You have to trust someone. Well, before I encountered Jesus Christ for myself, I met several people who talk about Jesus as if they knew Him. Not all of them seemed "arrogant" to me or flaunting anything in the face of reason. I coulldn't say that these were characteristics of every Christian I met.I did look intently into their eyes as thet spoke of Jesus. I did that to ascertain if they REALLY believed these things that they were telling me.After I accepted Christ into my spirit for myself, I asked God to lead me to Christians who would help my faith. God was faithful to lead me to people who helped me grow in faith.I did not make the error of searching for those who would hurt my faith. And I never looked for those who gave me reasons to disbelieve.Like learning to trust a loving parent, as I read through the Bible I learned that my better interest was always on the mind of God. I suppose that I learned to trust because of the manifestation of His love for me.By the way, that doesn't mean that I liked everything I read any more that I always liked everything my parents wanted me to do. But the perceived motive of love taught me trust God, the Bible, and Jesus. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

One of the things which convinces me that Jesus' words and deeds did occur is that He changed my life.For example I read of these words:"Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying,

​

If anyone thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes into Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water."Then the Gospel writer John adds his comment:"But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." (See John 7:37-39) Now when I read about this matter of rivers of living water flowing out of the innermost being and this being the Spirit given by Jesus, I can honestly say that confirms something I experienced.The night I called on the name of Jesus as if to contact a living Person, I felt like a flushed toilet. I felt exactly as if something negative was being flushed out of me and something sweet and thirst quenching was flowing into me.I could only discribe like my heart and soul were being flushed by some heavenly Drano and flooded with sweet drinkable water. There had been such a dry thirst deep within me for something for years.When I come to John 7:37-39 I can say that that passage sounds familiar to me experience. I know what that is talking about. From the time I called "Jesus, Jesus, I am tired. Jesus take me home" rivers of the Spirit of a living Person began to flow deep within my innermost being.And many other passages have come to be very familiar sounding to me to the point that I am convinced that I am on the right track to call Jesus the Lord and Savior.The changed lives of the gospel writers remind me of my own transformation from an unbeliever to a lover of Christ. I mean the disciples were hiding in the house for fear of persecution from the religiionists. They went from cowaring and timid hideouts to those willing to die for the testimony which they bore to the world.Something changed them. And something changed me when I called on the name of Jesus. And I have witnessed the change in life within others whom I have introduced to Jesus.So many of us believe that we are on the right track and that nothing sneaking or underhanded is going on in the account of the Son of God in the New Testament.I anticipate your response to perhaps be that devotees of UFOs or other phenomenon also could say that their lives were changed.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I will show you evidence which I think argues that the Gospel writers were more likely NOT spreading false propoganda. I will present evidence which argues that probably they WERE telling the truth.We are not without our reasons to suspect that more likely Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were faithful witnesses to what they wrote about. (Luke a companion of Paul was not one of the twelve disciples. And Mark, traditionally thought to be an assistant to Peter also was not one of the twelve disciples).I'll have to attend to this latter today.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I will present some reasons why I think the Gospel writers were not creating false propoganda.I do not necessarily agree on who the "burden of proof" should be on in this matter.This goes back to the question of why should mistrust be the initial attitude upon coming to the Bible?I don't accept necessarily that Disbelief is the Default proper attitude and that the "burden of proof" is on the believer. The skeptic will see to it that the goal post is moved so many times indefinitely that it will be impossible to satisfy this so-called "burden of proof".Evidence for my belief, I will present though, gladly.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

When you talk about touching someone, I have to say that perhaps in the case of Jesus your are not using the right organ to do the touching.There is something within you which as an organ can "touch" and substantiate God. You should consider that you have not yet discovered what is the organ with which you can touch God.You cannot use your eyes to see sound. Nor can you use your ears to hear light. (I speak typically. No need to speak of special exceptions). You use the proper organ to substantiate the matter which needs to be verified.There is an "organ" within you that is deeper than your physical hands, and eyes, and nose, and even your mind which can taste and touch God. You can excercise that organ and learn to use it through real genuine prayer.Some people "stumble" upon this organ and have some experience with God. They do not know how it happened. They cannot duplicate it without guidance.Then some learn by practice to use their spirit, their innermost praying organ to touch and taste God.You being is opened to three realms - the body towards the physical world, your soul towards the psychological world, and your spirit towards the spiritual world.To deny the spiritual realm is like being a three dimensional being who only lives on two dimensions. There is a third dimension of the spiritual.I have to go now. Talk latter.

It may be subjective. But that in and of itself does not mean that it must be false.You do not have to believe it. But the "subjective" experience is confirmed by many passages in the Bible and by biographies of Christians for many centries. There is such a thing as someone knowing what they are talking about in the spiritual realm."He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)The Apostle teaches that the man who is joined to Jesus Christ has his innermost kernel of his being united with the Holy Spirit to become "one spirit".The new birth takes place in the human spirit:"That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6)Regeneration Witness Lee & Watchman Nee teach regeneration occurs in the innermost nucleus of a person's being - the human spirit.After being born again the Holy Spirit bears witness with the human spirit to which it is now joined that there is an "organic" relationship between God the believer's Father and the believer:"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." (Rom 8:16)We make no apologies for the fact that there is a spiritual dimension to human life. There is this realm of human life and that fact that it is rather mysterious does not mean that it is not real.The radio antenea can substantiate the reality of Radio Waves. Without the use of the working antenea the marvelously designed radio cannot pick up the radio waves that are real and are in the air. And without the use of the regenerated human spirit one cannot touch God.It is divine. It is mystical. And it is spiritual. And we offer you no apologies for proclaiming that the expience is real. I accept your testimony. However tears and groveling are not necessary. In fact they could be a destraction. God is not interested always in you groveling on the ground. Stand up like a man and use your praying spirit to touch God.This account is by far not enough for me to assume that it is vain to excercise the praying spirit of man under the cleansing blood of Christ redemption to touch and substantiate that the resurrected Christ is a reality. That is not important to me, to provide evidence with some kind of mathematical certainty of something which requires our faith to begin with.Rather, I would advise someone who says that his experience with prayer was frustrating, not to give up. That is if he is indeed serious.You quote CS Lewis below. I have not yet read the quote. But C.S. Lewis also said that to speak of him searching for God as an athiest when he was one, was like speaking of a mouse searching for a cat.Do you want God? Or do you want to get rid of God? CS Lewis went from the former to the latter like many of us also.You know if you are a seeker for God. You know if you are seeker to rid yourself of and get away from any such experience. But if I did assume that you were eager to experience God I would not advize you to give up based on your above discribed disappointing time.Sometimes I also did not receive the answer from God in the manner in which I wanted. I do not spend the rest of my life licking my wounds or feeling that I well never again pray.I would seek to find what is the blockage. What is the stoppage. What is the sin that I cling to. Or what may be the thing I am unwilling to confess. Or maybe I have not trusted that the blood of Jesus has removed all sin. There is some difficulty. It is not the end of the road. And I would not feel sorry for myself that "Well, I prayed and nothing happened. So now I am bitter and will never again humble myself before any God."Bluntly speaking, stuff like that is not necessary and is not effective."There is a spirit in man. And the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding."There is a part of man which is designed to give man a taste of God and an understanding of God. The fact that it is very subjective does not mean that it cannot be real.Nor do we who have experienced the "life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) go to the other extreme of counting ALL such subjective feelings as necessarily spiritual.We do not intend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I sure would like to know from what source you read this quote of CS Lewis.If this came from some website or skeptical book I would like to see HOW the user of this quotation was USING it. What was he or she trying to prove.Just quoting CS Lewis does not impress me that much. I would like to see the context in which this quotation was used:1.) By Lewis himself2.) By the referer who quoted Lewis (what point was he trying to make?)I don't get the relevance of this quote at all. Is this your attempt to say "See, Christian apologist CS Lewis even said it is not reliable to speak of Spirit or the spiritual."?Hey, I mean if you want a point for quoting C.S. Lewis, I don't care. Take one. And where was I speaking of dread or fear ??? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Okay, here we go. "The book is TOO Old."But if the New Testament had been written 200 years ago then the skeptic's excuse would be:" Well, the book is TOO RECENT. It hasn't been around long enough to be really tested by time."You see, with many it is one excuse or another. It's TOO old. But niether should it be fadish and too recent.How many years then do you think are the proper number of years that the New Testament should be in existence to be credibly considered? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Textural critics like Bruce Metzger miticulously catalogue and record differences between the thousands of extant copies and fragments of copies of the New Testament. They do statistics on these known differences. The people who really care have done the hard work for us. They are not all skeptics. But they CARED enough to want to track these things.I read about this is Norm Gielser's book A General Introduction to the Bible. You should get the book.There have been thousands upon thousands of either whole or portions of the New Testament found. Aside from these there exists a huge body of references in sermons and writings of the so-called church fathers.Through careful study of references to and copies of the New Testament textural critics do a very good job, if not perfect, of ascertaining what copyist errors or changes have taken place and probable times of alterations in the text.Having said all that my point is this. If you are looking to textural differences in the thousands of sources of New Testament writings to seriously effect any major tenet of the Christian faith, you are going to be disappointed.As far as the New Testament document is concerned:
No, you won't find a copy that says Jesus was not Diety made flesh. No, you won't find a none redemptive death of Jesus.
No, you won't find a "no resurrection" copy of the NT.
No, you won't find a "Jesus is not Lord and Son of God" NT.The things which you hope to find to give you reason to hold to a "tampered with" Gospel that altered a "demythosized" Jesus Christ, you will not find.Hear me again Brian. There is NO ancient "Jesus was just a non extraordinary regular guy that the disciples blew up into a mythological legend" Gospel. You're hoping for something that simply does not exist.I am no expert on NT Textural Criticism. But I do have some stats on how much major Christian tenets are effected because of copyist's errors or textural differences in the transmission of the NT through the centries.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.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Which editing seriously challenges the central theme of the Christian faith concerning the incarnation of God as a man, His miraculous life, redemptive death, His resurrection, His coming again as Lord?Produce the editing which call any of these major tenets of my faith into question.Anonymity may be mostly a problem of suspicion and mistrust on your side.The book of Hebrews tells us of no author. So what? Probably Paul wrote it. It refers to Timothy as a few other of his letters did. But if not, the book always says that the Spirit said something (refering to the Hebrew Bible). The point being that it is the Holy Spirit of God speaking to us. That is what is important.A Greek professor and translator told me that Peter's Greek is deemed too sophisticated for a fisherman. Well, that doesn't mean much. They coordinated together and he could have had someone HELP him write his thoughts down in high sounding Greek. They worked in teams harmoniously ( for the most part ) as we might expect people to do with a tremendous sense of collective mission.I don't know why some people find it unusual that a group of people would be so impressed with a sense of mission to the rest of mankind that they would not cooperatively work together to write Gospels and letters to the existing churches - checking and confirming facts with one another, editing one another's writing style.This was big. They were godly people and wanted to do a good job worthy of the God they served.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.

This is what I am talking about:We can compare the Iliad as an ancient book which holds much in common with the New Testament. Both books were considered sacred. Next to the New Testament there are more extant manuscripts of the Iliad - (643) as recorded by the late 60s. Perhaps more have been found by now. The point is that the New Testament and the Iliad are two ancient sacred books with the most discovered extant manuscripts.Both the NT and the Iliad underwent textual changes and criticism in their Greek manuscipts. The New Testament has about 20,000 lines. The Iliad has about 15,600.Only about 40 lines of the New Testament are in doubt. About 764 lines in the Iliad are questioned. That is a 5% textual corruption of the Iliad compared to a 1/2 of 1% of similiar emendations in the New Testament.Another ancient sacred book could be compared to the Greek New Testament. That is the national epic of India, the Mahabjarata. This ancient book is eight times the size of the Iliad and the Odyssey together. It contains about 250,000 lines. The estimated corruption rate of the text is about 10%. There are 26,000 lines which are questioned as probable latter amendations.The New Testament has survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity. It also has a purer form than any other great book. It is 99.5% pure in terms of textual corruption.There are about 200,000 "errors" in about 10,000 places in which these typos crept into the NT text by scribal mistakes. That sounds very large. But the significance of these 200,000 errors is very low.Estcott and Hort estimated that only about 1/8 of all variants had any weight. The majority of other variants are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. About 1/60th of these rise above "trivialities." One sixtieth could be classify as "substantial variations." Mathematically this would compute to a New Testament text which is 98.33% pure.Exra Abbot has similar figures estimating that 19/20 (95 percent) of the readings should be classified as "various" rather than "rival." The major percentage of lines undergo no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage based on the adoption or rejection of variant readings.Philip Schaff wrote in his day of 150,000 variations known of which only 400 affected the sense of a passage. And of these only 50 caused any real significance in an alternative or rival interpretation. He further stated that not one of these variations affected "an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching."A.T. Robertson suggested that the real concern of textual criticism is of a "thousandth part of the entire text." This would result in the reconstructed text of the New Testament 99.9% free from "substantial" or consequential errors. Benjamen Warfield says "the great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no variations."At first glance the number of variants would seem to put the integrity of the New Testament into question. But the contrary is true. Ironically, the larger number of variants supplies at the same time the means of checking on those variants. Ironically, the corruption of the text provides the means for its own correction.We are on firm ground in believing that the New Testament we have today is virtually identical to what was written by the ancient writers. If "virtually identical" is too strong a phrase I would say that compared to other ancient writings it is by far more adaquate for our trust. One comparison which is important is the nmber of Greek manuscripts found. The Greek manuscripts of the NT total over 5,000. Add to this about 9,000 versions and 2,000 lectionaries. In comparison some of the great writings of antiquity have survived in only modest few manuscripts.The ones who I question know what they are talking about are the ones who assume that transmission of the NT has altered in any substantial and meaningful sense what was originally penned by the authors.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.

I would say that for a unbeliever enfluenced by skeptical opposition to the Christian Gospel, that probably shows some modest progress towards acceptance of its message.Congradulations.Probably I can comment more latter. Some of these things I have been through with Brian in the past. If I could locate the post I would simply link you to it.That is evidence that strongly suggests that the Gospel writers were candid and not peddling false propoganda.I'll return.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Historians can tell whether an author is truthful by testing by a "principle of embarressment." That is inclusion of details protentially embasessing to the author are probably true. The false propogandist is far more likely to omit deatils which make them look bad.Let's see some potentially embarressing details mentioned by the Gospel writers:1.) They indicate that the disciples were dim witted at numersous times. They failed to understand what Jesus was saying [b](Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16).A false propogandist would be more likely to present themselves as so sharp that nothing Jesus taught was not perfectly clear to them. What profit would it be to their cause to let people know that they may have misunderstood their own Master's teaching? Think about it.2.) The disciples were recorded as uncaring. The fell asleep twice at Jesus' most needful hour in which He urged them to pray. (Mark 14:32-41)What profit would it be to them to have their opposers grasp the fact that they didn't care enough to stay awake for their own Master?3.) The discples recorded the embaressment that they didn't even provide a place of burial for their esteemed teacher. One certainly not in the inner circle of disciples had to step forward to care for this need, Joseph of Arimathea.They risked the scandel of having people argue "What do you know about Jesus anyway? You didn't even have the decency to give Him a proper burial. Why should we believe you as reliable witnesses?"4.) The Gospel writers record that Jesus rebuked the leading disciple and called him Satan (Mark 8:33). What confusion in the ranks that could have caused. This embaressing detail is recorded without mercy. It argues that they are probably telling the truth.Can't you hear people say - "Why should we believe Peter's sermons? Jesus called him Satan! Who can trust Peter then ?"5.) Not only Jesus rebuked Peter but we read of Paul, his junior apostle also scolding Peter publically (Gal.2:11).Peter was arguably the leader of the original twelve. Why would they rather conceal that this disciple had a tendency to in need of strong rebukes not only by Jesus but by his younger colleague in the Gospel preaching?6.) The disciples are recorded as acting as cowards. Peter denies his Master with cursing, and that before a powerless little servant girl. Three times Peter told that lie that he was NOT a follower of Jesus (Matt. 26:33-35).Wouldn't you expect a false propogandist to have this scandel concealed from all future readers of the history of Jesus and His disciples. The candid inclusion of this embaressing information argues for the probable truth telling of the evangelists.7.) The disciples are latter seen hiding in fear after the crucifixion of Jesus, a very embaressing detail.8.) The Gospel writers indicate that some of Jesus own disciples were in doubt about His forwarned death and resurrection -(John 2:18-22; 3:14-18; Matt. 12:39-41; 17:9, 22-23). Though He told them so many times some were still in doubt. And even after His resurrection some were in doubt (Matt.28:17)This scandelous unconvincability of some of the disciples we would expect to be swept under the rug. Can't you hear in a court of law an attorney argue - "Is it not true that neither before nor after His alledged resurrection some of you disciples continued in unbelief?" This would be damaging testimony to the veracity of their witness.Other recorded information which put Jesus in a bad light:1.) He was considered "out of His mind" by His own mother and brothers. And they came to seize Him and take Him home (Mark 3:21,31).You would expect this damning embarressing detail to be hidden as it does not add to a sense of His credibility as a teacher. Those closest to Him as family once doubted His sanity.2.) His own brothers once doubted His claims (John 7:5).A false propogandist would be expected to conceal this information as it puts Jesus in a bad light among even the closest of His relatives. It could be argued "Why then should anyone else believe Him if His own brothers didn't?"3.) Jesus was recorded to have a reputation among some people as a deceiver (John 7:`12) This is a damning detail which we would expect the false propogandist to conceal. It doesn't help his propoganda to remind us that Jesus had a reputation as a trickster. Think about it.4.) The Gospel writers recorded that some of His own followers deserted Him (John 6:66). The inclusion of this detail certainly has to potential of persuading the reader that neither should he bother following Jesus either. If His own disciples decided to turn away how much more those who did not walk with Him?The inclusion of the detail argues for the truthfulness of the account rather than its fabrication by a false propogandist.5.) Jesus was recorded to have "turned off" some of the Jews who had made a decision to believe Him! (John 8:30-31). You mean, Gospel writer, that He bit the hand that was feeding Him? Once deciding He was truthful He stepped on their toes?This detail would be so embaressing to false propoganda that it should be expected to be concealed and not recorded.6.) What profit to the false propogandist would it be to record that Jesus was called an alcholic or a "drunkard" (Matt.11:19). Any presidential candidate and his promoters would only be expected to have to admit this reputation with the greatest amount of reluctance."Sirs, we have heard that some of the people said that your Master Jesus was a drunkard ?? Hmmm ??".Wouldn't you expect a false propogandist interested in putting Jesus only in the best light, to conceal such a fact? I would. That's tabloid embaressing stuff.7.) He was also recorded as being accused of being "demon possessed" (Mark 3:22; John 7:20, 8:48). A false propogandist would be expected to put miles between this Master and any appearance of being involved with the occult or enfluence of evil spirits. Why would they volunteer such information? Maybe they are just being candid about the history.8.) Jesus was called a "madman" (John 10:20).Why would the false propogandist volunteer that the sanity of thier Master was questioned? It msut have been true - not that He was a madman but that some people thought so. The very fact that they did would be counterproductive to the false propogandist.9.) Jesus had his feet washed by the hair of a prostitute (Luke 7:36-39) Talking about a potential tabloid scandel? This had the appearance of promiscuity and could well be taken as thier Master succumbing to the sexual advance of a professional sex worker.The inclusion of the account argues for candidness and reliability of the witness.10.) "Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse." (Duet 21:23). The evangelists therefore included an account of Christ's crucifixion which, to any informed Jew, would have immediately disqualified Jesus from possibly being the Messiah.We might expect a false propogandist for a Jewish Messiah to exclude or modify this detail. It was not hidden or revized by the Gospel writers.We can go on from these to DIFFICULT sayings which had the potential of causing the job of the disciples to be more difficult. We would expect false propogandist to eliminate from his account troublesome teachings of Jesus:For example:1.) "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). This is recorded as being said by Jesus by the man who wishes to portray Jesus as God Himself. Why would John say that the Word was God (John 1:1) and turn around and include such a problematic saying of Jesus which potentially undermined John's central thesis of God becomming a man?2.) The prediction of Jesus concerning the time of His return present problems to many readers (Matt.24:34) Surely Matthew could have seen the difficulties that would be caused by recording these troublesome saying of Jesus about His second coming.Thier inclusion argues for the Gospel writer's candidness and faithfulness.3.) Jesus was recorded as not knowing the time of His own return. Neither was it known by the angels but by His Father only. This difficult saying was not excluded from the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 24:36).4.) Luke includes a saying which potentially could call into question the Deity of Jesus - "Why do you call Me good? ... No one is good - except God alone." (Luke 18:19)Of course Luke could have avoided controversy and difficulty by excluding from his account that Jesus said this seemingly contradictory saying.5.) The account of Jesus curing the fig tree had the potential of showing Jesus to be fickle (Matt. 21:18). It was not excluded bu included inspite of its potential cause of putting Jesus in a bad light.6.) Jesus seems unable to do miracles in His own home town ( except to heal a few sick people) (Mark 6:5). That is difficult and potentially embarressing information about His mission.That is enough for the length of this post. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.