(May 26, 2016 at 11:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: You might consider that Paul never encountered any 'historical Jesus', so nothing he wrote (discounting that some of 'his' letters were likely not written by him) counts as an eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus; and the identity of the Gospel authors is unknown (but almost certainly not the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John), so it is difficult to claim they are reliable. Also, Matthew, Luke, and John seem to be largely copied from Mark, with additional miracles that grow the farther in time from the supposed events the books were written.
I lean about 51% toward there having actually been a Yeshua who came to a bad end at the hands of the Romans for sedition whose sayings were collected and referred to by Mark, but almost nothing about him in the Bible can be considered reliable using normal historical methodology to determine such.
If you want to know more, there are books on the topic.
As I have pointed out, Paul gives evidence of the belief being held by the early church (and how widespread it had become in 20 years) within the same generation as Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and John writers are probably editors who followed the disciple the book was named for. Luke was a well-educated man who was sent to find out what happened and wrote Luke and Acts. They all had differing audiences so you get some things emphasized as important to the audience. There is evidence that any writings were copied and disseminated to the various pockets of Christianity. It is easy to see why one editor of a gospel would have in his library any earlier writings. That does not mean that "his" apostle didn't remember some things the same and other things differently. There is no contradictions on main theological points.
I am curious why you do not think that Jesus' life (notice I do not say resurrection) is not the most attested series of events in ancient history. What event has more sources and more evidence that the people of that day believed at least the basic facts of Jesus?