Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?
8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 1 of 306 (492400)
12-30-2008 9:29 PM


I follow these posts and haven't seen this discussed. To my knowledge, the only people who actually claimed they met Jesus were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Synoptic Gospels. And because they were long dead when the gospels were written, are we to understand that there were no authors of the New Testament who actually met Jesus?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 12-31-2008 3:00 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2008 3:09 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied
 Message 5 by iano, posted 12-31-2008 9:01 AM 8upwidit2 has replied
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 12-31-2008 9:50 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 4:38 AM 8upwidit2 has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 306 (492404)
12-30-2008 10:00 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 306 (492414)
12-31-2008 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 8upwidit2
12-30-2008 9:29 PM


8upwidit2 writes:
I follow these posts and haven't seen this discussed. To my knowledge, the only people who actually claimed they met Jesus were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Synoptic Gospels. And because they were long dead when the gospels were written, are we to understand that there were no authors of the New Testament who actually met Jesus?
As far as I know, yes, that's exactly the case.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 8upwidit2, posted 12-30-2008 9:29 PM 8upwidit2 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 306 (492416)
12-31-2008 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 8upwidit2
12-30-2008 9:29 PM


Probably not, but...
While it is quite likely that none of the NT books were written by anyone who knew Jesus we don't know for sure.
John (which is not one of the synoptic Gospel - perhaps you meant "canonical" ?) may have been at least partly written by the disciple John (although the version we have includes later additions and there's no solid evidence one way or the other).
There are good reasons to doubt that the authors of any of the synoptic Gospels knew Jesus, although it is often claimed that Matthew and Mark were disciples, too. (In fact it is often claimed that all four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses until it is pointed out that pretty much everyone agrees that Luke wasn't).
As I understand it the Epistles attributed to Peter are generally accepted as pseudonymous by scholars. 1 John may have the same author as the Gospel, 2 & 3 John are less likely to be the same person. The Revelation is sometimes attributed to John the disciple but this is generally rejected by scholars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 8upwidit2, posted 12-30-2008 9:29 PM 8upwidit2 has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 5 of 306 (492427)
12-31-2008 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 8upwidit2
12-30-2008 9:29 PM


8upwidit2 writes:
To my knowledge, the only people who actually claimed they met Jesus were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Synoptic Gospels.
What about Paul? On the road to Damascus?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 8upwidit2, posted 12-30-2008 9:29 PM 8upwidit2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by 8upwidit2, posted 12-31-2008 9:17 AM iano has replied

8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 6 of 306 (492429)
12-31-2008 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by iano
12-31-2008 9:01 AM


Did Paul meet Jesus on the road to Damascus?
Wasn't that a vision if it happened at all? I think we're talking about actually meeting/knowing Jesus. If you're talking about visions, there would be trillions of those...with all forms of deities and demons. Funny thing about visions, anybody can claim they have them and nobody can prove them wrong...or right. Did Paul exist? Did he write what he is credited with writing?
Edited by 8upwidit2, : Typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by iano, posted 12-31-2008 9:01 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by iano, posted 12-31-2008 9:18 PM 8upwidit2 has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 306 (492435)
12-31-2008 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 8upwidit2
12-30-2008 9:29 PM


To my knowledge, the only people who actually claimed they met Jesus were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Synoptic Gospels.
All of the Gospels are anonymous works.
The Synoptic Gospels are only Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John is NOT a Synoptic.
Mark and Luke do not claim to have met Jesus, in fact Luke was a companion of Paul who never met Jesus during his time as a God in human form.
Being honest about the ENTIRE Bible, from a historian's point of view, we do not know for sure who wrote ANY of the books in the Old or New testaments.
The Gospels, for example, were named long after anyone who knew Jesus had died. gMat was named by Bishop Papias in 169 CE, and there is a possibility that the gospel he named is not the same one that we have now.
Edited by Brian, : added the word 'named'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 8upwidit2, posted 12-30-2008 9:29 PM 8upwidit2 has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 8 of 306 (492488)
12-31-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by 8upwidit2
12-31-2008 9:17 AM


Re: Did Paul meet Jesus on the road to Damascus?
8upwidit2 writes:
Wasn't that a vision if it happened at all?
There's no way to demonstrate that any of the claims about meeting Jesus happened. What your left with is claims. Pauls gets included thus.
Others witnessed the event - it's just that they didn't perceive Jesus
I think we're talking about actually meeting/knowing Jesus...
..which is what Paul did.
If you're talking about visions, there would be trillions of those...with all forms of deities and demons. Funny thing about visions, anybody can claim they have them and nobody can prove them wrong...or right.
Thus the account includes witnesses. Of course you don't have to believe the account.
Did Paul exist? Did he write what he is credited with writing?
Some believe one way, others the other way.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by 8upwidit2, posted 12-31-2008 9:17 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 9 of 306 (492516)
01-01-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 8upwidit2
12-30-2008 9:29 PM


Luke was not a disciple of Jesus and had never personally met him prior to becoming a christian
he was in fact a jewish doctor who became a believer some time after jesus death. His account/gospel was based on eye witnessed testimonies. He researched extensively the genealogy of Jesus, using the public records available at the time, for a certain official by the name of Theophilus who may have commissioned him to provide a report on the newly formed religion.
we know that the apostle Paul penned many of his own letters, as he says in one that he was writing in large letters because of his bad eyesight.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 8upwidit2, posted 12-30-2008 9:29 PM 8upwidit2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-01-2009 8:38 AM Peg has replied

8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 10 of 306 (492539)
01-01-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peg
01-01-2009 4:38 AM


In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
Peg wrote: (of Luke)"he was in fact a jewish doctor who became a believer some time after jesus death. His account/gospel was based on eye witnessed testimonies. He researched extensively the genealogy of Jesus, using the public records available at the time, for a certain official by the name of Theophilus who may have commissioned him to provide a report on the newly formed religion."
There are two entries in the New Testament(Matthew and Luke)showing the genealogy of Jesus beginning with David and continuing through Jesus. The lists are completely different except for 3 entries; David is on each list as is Joseph and Jesus. Why is Joseph on the lists? How did Joseph contribute to Jesus' bloodline connection to David? After all, Joseph is not even related to Jesus. Does this confirm that at the time of the penning of these writings, the virgin birth thing with Mary had not evolved and was not yet a part of the later accepted Christian lore? When these were written, did everybody think Joseph was the real father?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 4:38 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 9:06 AM 8upwidit2 has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 11 of 306 (492543)
01-01-2009 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by 8upwidit2
01-01-2009 8:38 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
8upwildit2 writes:
Why is Joseph on the lists? How did Joseph contribute to Jesus' bloodline connection to David? After all, Joseph is not even related to Jesus.
no he wasnt related by blood, but he was still considered to be the father of Jesus so Josephs lineage was important in being able to trace back to King David. Ancestry of a man was customarily traced back through the father, not through the mother. Thus, whereas there seems to be sound reason for believing that Luke presents Jesus’ genealogy through his mother (an exception to the general rule), Luke does not list her. He lists Joseph as the son of Heli, evidently Mary’s father. This would not be improper in the least, since Joseph would be Heli’s son-in-law.
8upwildit2 writes:
Does this confirm that at the time of the penning of these writings, the virgin birth thing with Mary had not evolved and was not yet a part of the later accepted Christian lore?
No, because the prophecies regarding the Messiah said that he would be born of a virgin, and the disciples were aware of the immaculate conception, as was John the Baptist and Zechariah the priest (johns father) So the whole nation expected the messiah to be born of a virgin.
there is also the fact that both writers were writing for two different audiences
Matthew was writing to persuade faithful Jews that Jesus was the long-promised Messiah, whereas Luke presents Jesus as the Savior of all mankind. Thus Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy back only to Abraham through David, whereas Luke traces it back to ”Adam the son of God.’
this is why they present a different geneology... and together they gave a strong evidence of Jesus linage as coming from the line of King David, because both Mary's family, and Josephs, could be traced to the kingly line.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : broke up the questions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-01-2009 8:38 AM 8upwidit2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-01-2009 12:40 PM Peg has replied
 Message 13 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-01-2009 1:10 PM Peg has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 12 of 306 (492570)
01-01-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
01-01-2009 9:06 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
quote:
Ancestry of a man was customarily traced back through the father, not through the mother. Thus, whereas there seems to be sound reason for believing that Luke presents Jesus’ genealogy through his mother (an exception to the general rule), Luke does not list her. He lists Joseph as the son of Heli, evidently Mary’s father. This would not be improper in the least, since Joseph would be Heli’s son-in-law
If ancestry is traced through the father as you say then it would be very improper to list the father-in-law instead of the father. Can you give any examples of a genealogy where this has been done ? I would also like to know what this "sound reason"" for assuming that Luke did it happens to be. So far as I know the only real reason for doing so is to deny the obvious contradiction between Luke and Matthew. And believe me, I've seen this argument trotted out many times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 9:06 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Bailey, posted 01-01-2009 4:04 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 16 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:51 AM PaulK has replied

8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 13 of 306 (492573)
01-01-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
01-01-2009 9:06 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
Peg, sounds as though you have accepted the fact that many things simply do not add up in the Biblical record and in order to continue to "believe" you must come up with theoretical reasons why...which in turn do not add up.
When Jesus said to the disciples they would not taste death before He returns, and they have indeed died, the enthusiasts believe Jesus was talking in some in depth, thought provoking terms. He didn't mean "really" dying. These guys were not rocket scientists..proabably having ZERO schooling at all..and surely not trained in abstract thinking. You can't read the Biblical record and take it literally? PALEASE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 9:06 AM Peg has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 14 of 306 (492589)
01-01-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
01-01-2009 12:40 PM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
Thank you for the exchange.
Ancestry of a man was customarily traced back through the father, not through the mother. Thus, whereas there seems to be sound reason for believing that Luke presents Jesus’ genealogy through his mother (an exception to the general rule), Luke does not list her. He lists Joseph as the son of Heli, evidently Mary’s father. This would not be improper in the least, since Joseph would be Heli’s son-in-law
If ancestry is traced through the father as you say then it would be very improper to list the father-in-law instead of the father. Can you give any examples of a genealogy where this has been done ? I would also like to know what this "sound reason"" for assuming that Luke did it happens to be. So far as I know the only real reason for doing so is to deny the obvious contradiction between Luke and Matthew. And believe me, I've seen this argument trotted out many times.
From an outside perspective, each of the available assertions appear equally baseless and unfounded. In all fairness, one seems faith-based in nature, while another seems vague, if even stated. One who takes no stand can continually and valiantly debate another's assertion. Supporting no actual position is the easiest way to defend one; unfortunately, as the position as no basis, it is also the least effective - lol
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-01-2009 12:40 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-01-2009 6:32 PM Bailey has not replied

8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 15 of 306 (492606)
01-01-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Bailey
01-01-2009 4:04 PM


Re: In regards to thinking for yourselves as per Bailey
Are you really Bailey or are you a famous philosopher? Come on..tell us.
You're really Hu Shih aren't you!
"And remember, no matter where you go, there you are" Confucius

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Bailey, posted 01-01-2009 4:04 PM Bailey has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024