Remember, he only did so for 3 1/2 years or so. So those people referenced as in Josephus and so on, would have had to come across his path during that time, and felt he was worthy of recognition. Was this true or was all the historical data supporting his existence written by someone that did not even live till after Jesus was crucified?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkjopzLXIjPAtlcGL8Q_9uTzy6IX?qid=20060925093026AAXE8oe
2006-09-25 05:41:17 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Paul (Saul of Tarsus) never met Jesus and knew nothing about him, yet the Catholic church & King James both based the majority of their Bibles on his teachings.
Kind of like relying on Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to tell us what Jesus really meant.
Josephus has been so discredited it's surprising anyone still cites him. The Catholic church forged those passages.
Josephus was a known liar and self promoter, but he was also a Jew who remained a Jew. If he was so taken with Jesus, why didn't he become a Christian?
NONE of those people ever met Jesus. And the secular references were to a "christ" or "messiah," NOT, I repeat, NOT to "Jesus."
And there were hundreds of "messiahs" running around 1st Century Palestine.
2006-09-25 05:43:32 · answer #1 · answered by Left the building 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Outside of the NT, I've never heard of any. Well, I've heard there are a few statements from Josephus, but that he remained a Jew and wrote of JC after JC had died (which leaves a great deal of doubt as to whether it's credible)
I've read very solid articles on the invalidity of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John...
I'm reading a book called 'The Jesus Mysteries' (which the title is NOT a derogatory remark on the Christian faith) the book does show how early Christianity came from a misinterpretation of Gnosticism (the Jesus mysteries-refers to a jewish translation) and how the Gnostic religion had similarities to paganism
I don't find the book offensive or angry...and I have read books from very angry atheistic authors
2006-09-25 06:16:12 · answer #2 · answered by strpenta 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For those who answered this question saying "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John"
It can not be proven that any of the gospel were written by these individuals.
The consensus is that the gospels were written:
Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110
Imagine a game of telephone lasting 35 - 80 years....
2006-09-25 06:03:01 · answer #3 · answered by JerseyRick 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You forget that the evidence written about Jesus was written within a generation of His lifetime. Two of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, one other was the scribe of an eyewitness, and one other performed the role of interviewer and compiler of data. (Matthew & John were eyewitnesses, Mark was Peter's scribe, and Luke was the historian.)
While there are extra-biblical accounts as well, why dismiss the original accounts? We know that the dates (especially for John's Gospel) were within a generation of Jesus' ascension.
There is an ancient papyrus fragment with a portion of John 18, that was discovered in the Nile region, and is dated at about the turn of the first century. Since we know that John was in Ephesus at the time of the writing of the Gospel, this copy of John 18 being discovered so far away from Ephesus is significant.
Simon Greenleaf, who was the founder of the Harvard Law School attempted to discredit the Gospel accounts, and after doing much research in to the matter, determined that the evidence stands on its own merit, and would stand scrutiny in a court of law.
2006-09-25 05:51:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
there were some prophets in the Old Testament that were told by God of Jesus Christ's coming but then there were the apostles. Apostle means a person that actually lived while Jesus lived and saw Him. And a lot of the writers of the New Testament were apostles. Hope this answers your question.
2006-09-25 05:48:53 · answer #5 · answered by chocolatelovergirl 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Again, there is lots of historical data to support the existance of Jesus as a man, but that does not mean he was the son of god.
2006-09-25 05:43:56 · answer #6 · answered by trouthunter 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
His 12 disciples were around when He was teaching.
Check out the New Testament for the proof you are seeking.
2006-09-25 05:44:14 · answer #7 · answered by Salvation is a gift, Eph 2:8-9 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sometimes, we don't have to know all the answers to have a relationship with Jesus, we just need faith.. and He is real. and that is why His Words , in the Bible say . "we are in the world, but not of the world.. (we refer to Christians) .. and the world will hate us.... " BE BLESSED my friend >> May God open your eyes and ears, so you will be able to see and hear His voice and love for you. God bless you ..
2006-09-25 05:51:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Luke, a pysician, not an apostle was there. Matthew, Mark and John were all there, and Paul, who was called personally by the Savior after His crucifixion and inspired by God was there. There were plenty of witnesses who saw and heard Him.
2006-09-25 05:47:24 · answer #9 · answered by stullerrl 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Matthew and John were definitely with Jesus.They wrote a great deal about him.They had first hand experience with his exsistance,so the answer is YES!
2006-09-25 05:43:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋