Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

I have just finished scan reading the thread. Perhaps relative to topic we need to compare the Biblical record with other ancient historical knowledge related manuscripts.Among all of he authors, let's assume that just one, Matthew, who was a disciple of Jesus and knew him well, was the only writer of the New Testament, not to mention all the others.What other ancient literature relative to historical knowledge do we have that surpasses Matthew so far as close to the fact? http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/ntmss.html?200916

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Perhaps there was some confusion about my question.1. I cited some examples of acclaimed relatively early existing
manuscripts pertaining to the events applicable to the life and times of Jesus.2. Not being apprised enough to assess the citations, assuming that a significant percentage of them would serve the purpose for which I cited them.3. I then asked what other ancient literature (meaning copy manuscripts} exist relative to historical knowledge (meaning any historical knowledge on any topic) which are as close to the earliest copy manuscripts of Matthew which exist.In other words, DA, what I was after, i.e. other ancient historical knowledge was manuscripts on any topic not related to Matthew but acclaimed as acceptable manuscripts. By literature, I meant scrolls or what we would refer to as books and not just brief architectural plaques on buildings and tombs, etc.I'm more so questioning than acclaiming.Regardless of whether you, Nightrain and Brian understood my question, I appreciate the responses of all. I'm a slow thinker, having no college degree so articulating things like this in order to make sense is often difficult and time consuming. I've been over a half hour on just this one, rephrasing etc, and still not sure I'm making good sense to the reader. OTOH, thankfully, there are other messages I can type off quickly and move on.BTW, on the side, for what it's worth, I requested prayer for The Devils Advocate, whoever he is, in our Sabbath day class today at the Sabbath day Baptist church were I attend. I referred to you as an angel/messenger from Heaven to EvC, even tough I'm becoming of the opinion that you're a bonafide agnostic.At any rate your obvious intelligence, wisdom, and articulate manner of posting reminds me of somewhat of my friend Nemmessiss Jaugernaut who is also out to sea with the Coast Guard. You and he would make interesting and formidible counterparts in a one on one Great Debate. We miss his participation here. Perhaps we can win you back on the same good team he advocated for some day. Check him out in the archives via his profile sometime if you haven't yet.NOTE TO ADMINS: I'll not make a habit of asides such as this. If it is unacceptable, I understand if you hide it and will take that as an admonition.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I don't know how you arrived at that but my proposal was to cite the earliest known manuscripts of scripture. Admittedly, I took them at face value as valid examples of early acclaimed scripture manuscripts. I believe the earliest manuscripts known of Aristotle have a gap of around 1500 years whereas the gap for the earliest NT manuscripts are around 200 and some claim earlier, yet nobody questions the accuracy of the Aristotle manuscripts that I'm aware of.I understand that the gap for Caesar is around a millennium. What verification do we have relative to acclaimed history for the times of Aristotle, Caesar and other ancients?As well, the volume of ancient and early manuscripts of the New Testament is huge compared to any other major ancient writers according to some of the cites which I have searched.One should consider also that given the animosity and persecution of the Roman pagan government against Christianity up until about 300AD, given the number of manuscripts that survived, likely there were originally thousands of manuscripts in the early centuries, given the amount of scrolls which were purposely destroyed by Roman emperors up until Constantine.

For the purpose of this discussion, the content of the manuscripts is not as important as the accuracy of them to the originals. My argument is that the closer you get to the originals, the more likely the copies are compatible with the originals.I am of the opinion that though the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to write, the HS did not dictate word for word, letter by letter how the writer was to state the message. However, once the inspired writer wrote, it was important to keep the message pure that the writer wrote.What Aristotle and others wrote and what the Biblical authors wrote all have information which has been considered significant to mankind. What Aristotle wrote about was of great interest to the world at large. That's what made him famous. I haven't read him other than excerpts but I believe he wrote about history, science, etc and philosophized on a lot of interesting and important topics.Whether or not Jesus was/is the son of God should not excuse critics of the Bible from the way they try to discredit it's accuracy.Even if your point is significant, the Bible manuscript's close proximity to the event gives Aristotle's far removed ones plenty of leeway since they are generally accepted as accurate. In other words, if the world accepts Aristotle's as accurate, surely the Biblical ones should be allowed at least as much respect given the vast number of early manuscripts and the close proximity of the early ones to the event compared to Aristotle's and a number of other ancient literature which the world regards as significant and important.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

You still have the rest to reckon with. Regardless of Josh's lack of elite credentials, you still have what he stated and cited that is factual to reckon with. Much if not most of what he claims relative to the manuscripts is factual. No? LOL. Mohammed's writings are not nearly as ancient and subject to as much loss, destruction, both deliberate, time related, disasters such as the destruction of Jerusalem, and weather elements, etc.The Jewish leaders who hated and had Jesus killed had a vested interest in destroying anything that would advance his religion which they considered cultish and false.
The Pagan Roman emperors persecuted the Christians and burned their scrolls.
It's a wonder that as much as we have still exists; perhaps and likely providential since writers of scripture themselves prophesied that they would never be and Jesus prophesied one or more times in the Olivet discourse gospels that before the end of the age his gospel would be published world wide. Thus the Bible became the world's all time best seller, last I heard. If you want to get into early corroborating stuff, there's an impressive amount of it for the NT as well. No? That was not his job description. That's why he had 12 disciples. Jesus busily went about doing miracles and lecturing while others observed what would be proclaimed and written about him.
After all, certainly the mighty and amazing works that Jesus did would not go unpublished and unrecorded. LOL. We could cite multitudes of notable ancients (Aristotle?) who's existence is not validated by original manuscripts contemporaneous to the time which he lived.
As well, if the quantity of corroborating literature is important relative Caesar, so be it with Jesus. LOL. Gautama Buddha had no corroborating evidence for himself or his Buddhism such as the Biblical record which has many prophecies in the OT relative to Jesus, verified as prophetic via the Dead Sea Scrolls. As well the Biblical record has all of the prophetic and archaeological etc corroborating evidence for it's credibility. Buddhism has nada.My friend, you're and intelligent man. Man, it's time you get apprised on the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. Without looking now, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think you said much, if anything on my Middle East prophecy thread. If not, how about that?Man, it's no wonder you slid into agnosticism! Without the prophecies and all of the good corroborating Biblical record stuff, likely I'd be agnostic as well. The ball's in the air, heading your way, my friend. Grab it when it gets to you and see if you can make a little more yardage than you made here. I've listened occasionally to good brother Josh. I'm not with him on some pre-trib rapture, and other stuff, so I don't take him at face value. Nevertheless at least I give him the due respect when he's right. Edited by Buzsaw, : fix quotes

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi Nighttrain. This does not pertain to the topic in that the persecution and manuscript burning applicable to the times of Jesus was cited only to explain why the earliest NT manuscripts were not abundant relative to the times of Jesus and shortly after his death.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

DA, you appear to be raising the bar way up from what anyone is claiming. Neither Jeremiah or anyone here is claiming that there are contemporary sources. The claim is that nothing compares to the proximity of the existing copies to the original ancient historians etc. You go at length to discredit 200 AD copies when that is remarkably close compared to Aristotle, Plato, etc who's literature is not questioned.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. And I responded with reasons why the Quran was a poor example in itself. I'm not repeating over and over for you; too busy for that.
2. You and many scholars have done no such thing. I and many scholars have refuted you and many scholars. Case not closed by a long shot.
3. Aristotle and Plato are not strawmen for the reasons I have stated. 1. You're not making a lick of sense here, DA. I used Aristotle and Plato to show that manuscripts far removed from the times they were written are accepted as accurate by academia. I WANT examples farther removed from the time of their writing to the time of the the earliest manuscripts observable than those of the NT to support my argument. There are many more than just Aristotle and Plato that could be cited.If anything is a strawman it's your Quran argument. Imo, that is too recent to apply to the ancient era of Jesus and Aristotle who's time was relatively close enough to each other to make a comparison. LOL. Substantial internal and external literary consistancy also exists relative to the NT determining that Jesus was a real person. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If that's what supports the existing manuscripts of Aristotle as reliable, so be it with the NT. How so? I told you why that's a strawman. 1. It's not as blatant as your communication, when aroused.
2. You have yet to prove it false.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. The corroborating evidence relative to the NT is enough for logical and reasonable folks who search out those corroborating evidences and corroborate them to come to the conclusion that the NT is at least as reliable as the the works of Aristotle and others.2. The Bible has always been not only the most loved book on the planet, but the most hated. More have feverishly worked to eradicate the Bible from existence than any other literary work existing while more others have loved it than any other.That's significant, in that it is indicative that there exists good and evil; God and Satan as the Bible claims; an ongoing war between good and evil, truth and false, etc.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

DA, I'm wearing of trying to get it in your head that to make my point we're not looking for close proximities of other literature to debunk the Bible. What I need to support the Bible is to show that other accepted literature like Aristotle is accepted regardless of the gap from copies to original. Get it?Nobody, including me are trying to discredit the accuracy of the Quran, but it is a strawman for the reasons I've given. We need older stuff to be relative to the Bible which you and others are trying to debunk as to accuracy. Aristotle and Plato are examples more fitting to ancient manuscripts.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.