TexasScientist said:
Not so fast. You're saying things I didn't say. I said he was likely executed, which could have been crucifixion. The problem for you is none of the writers of the Gospels, or even Paul were eyewitnesses. They are writing from what they have heard, decades later. We don't know the original authors of the Gospels. The names were added much later for theological convenience. Paul had no first hand knowledge, and he is the earliest writer we know of. Well extolled is a better more accurate term than well attested. There is no more reason to accept as fact the resurrection and ascension of Jesus than there is for any other ascension stories of the period. You have to remember, these accounts were written in the style of the times by writers with a specific theologic message they wanted to convey to the reader. That's why there are discrepancies, contradictions, and inconsistencies between the competing gospels and various manuscripts and fragments of writings of the gospels. Assigning miracles and divine status to heroes and rulers was commonplace. The writings of Christianity, years later, is all you have. Outside of a few minimal unaltered comments by the historian Josephus, and a handful of other Roman historians, there are is very little objective information about Jesus other than he was executed, and there were followers of him. There absolutely is no empirical objective evidence that Jesus or anyone else rose from the dead, and there is no empirical objective evidence that the laws of physics can be broken or have ever been broken, no matter how desirable that is to those who want to hold on to there religious beliefs - be it Islam, Christianity (including its multitude of competing sects), Judaism, Hellenistic, Eastern, or other ancient religions.
Wow! There's a lot wrong here.
First, to reject the Gospels as historical record is intellectually dishonest. Most Jewish, Atheistic, and Muslim scholars accept the Gospels as reliable historical information about a real person named Jesus.
With respect to eyewitnesses, please reject Hannibal's crossing of the Alps because it was recorded until 70-90 years after the event. At the latest, only one or two books of the NT are said to be written as late 70 years after the resurrection. Most, as you agree, were written only a few decades after.
We can look at three historical figures:
Julius Ceasar not written about until Suetonius and Plutarch wrote approximately 100 years later.
William Wallace in England written about 150 years after.
Plato the best biographical evidence for him was written by Diogenes Lartius 500 years later.
Alexandar the Great once again, our best knowledge of him comes between 260 to 370 years after his death.
With respect to the writers of the Gospels, the fact that we have two writers that were NOT eyewitnesses only lends itself to their credibility. If one wanted to create false narrative, one would have used the names of Peter, James, or Andrew to establish authenticity and reliability.
The writers each employ the criterion of embarrassment. They tell us that women were the first people to witness the empty tomb. Their testimony would have been worthless during that time. The authors chose to use it in spite of that because it's what happened.
You can attempt to blankly label your issues with the Gospel as "discrepancies, contradictions, and inconsistencies"; however, you'll need to cite specific examples for other to refute or your claim is simply a false accusation with little validity.
Finally, all of Jesus' closest friends (eyewitnesses) were either tortured and/or martyred for their witness of the events that they personally saw. I understand your potential rebuttal of this as many people are willing to die for their beliefs (i.e. radical Muslims, solders, etc.); however, the difference here is that these men SAW Jesus after the resurrection and were willing to die for that. Not many will die knowing something to be a lie.
(Lastly), PLEASE learn how to use the "RETURN" key on your keyboard. When I see long post in one paragraph, my mind instantly switches to "TL;DR" mode. Separate paragraphs will help you elucidate your points much more clearly.
Peace!
