Do you believe that the eye-witness testimony of the Gospels is sufficient evidence of Christ's divinity? If not, what facts and evidence do you rely upon to determine that Christ is Lord and could you share them with me please?
I looked over the testimony and found the following:
Matthew 1:18-21 says an angel announced the immaculate conception to Joseph, but Luke 1:26-28 says the angel announced it to Mary.
Mark 15:25 says they crucified Jesus at 9am, but John 19:14 says it was about noon.
Matthew 28:1 says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went down to the tomb at dawn. Mark says in 16:2 it was just after sunrise. John said in 20:1 it was actually still dark.
Luke in 24:10 says it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the other Mary, and the others with them who told the Disciples. John says in 20:2 it was just Mary Magdalene.
Matthew 28:2 talks about a violent earthquake and an angel rolling back the stone and sitting on it. Mark 16:5 says nothing about the earthquake, but that an angel was sitting inside the tomb on the right side. Luke in 24:4 says it was actually two angels, and they were standing up. John in 20:11-12 says there were two angels, but they were both seated, one at the head and one at the feet of where Jesus laid.
Matthew says in 28:5-8 that the angel sitting outside on the rock told the two Mary's that Christ was risen and to head to Galilee to see him. Mark, however, says in 16:5-8 that the two women, upon seeing the tomb stone rolled away, went inside and it was the angel sitting in there that told them. Luke, however, says in 24:5-6 that it was the two angels who were standing up that told them. John disagrees with everyone and says in 20:14-17 that it was actually Jesus Christ who told Mary Magdalene, and she didn't go into the tomb, but just stooped to look in.
Matthew, in 28:16, says the eleven disciples went to the mountain in Galilee where Jesus told them to go to meet him. John, however, says in 20:19 that they locked themselves in a room in fear of the Jews. Luke, on the other hand, tells a completely different story in 24:13-33. Luke says that he kept Christ busy all day until the evening (which totally invalidates the account of going to the mountain in Galilee) going to a village called Emmaus (7.5 miles from Jerusalem) and that Christ, in disguise, went with them, stayed until evening, had dinner with them, and then vanished.
Now, if four men are eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses to a scene, they will, without any concert between them, agree as to time and place when and where that scene happened. Their individual knowledge of the thing, each one knowing it for himself, renders concert totally unnecessary; the one will not say it was in a mountain in the country, and the other at a house in town: the one will not say it was at sunrise, and the other that it was dark. For in whatever place it was, at whatever time it was, they know it equally alike if they are eye-witnesses.
And, on the other hand, if four men concert a story, they will make their separate relations of that story agree and corroborate with each other to support the whole. That concert supplies the want of fact in the one case, as the knowledge of the fact supersedes, in the other case, the necessity of a concert. The same contradictions, therefore, which prove that there has been no concert, prove also that the witnesses had no knowledge of the fact (or rather of that which they relate as a fact), and detect also the falsehood of their reports.
So based on this evidence - I'm left with a huge question - Why would God threaten eternal Hell upon people for not believing in Christ, but God doesn't provide us with a rock solid foundation of evidence by which to even make a proper determination?
If one critically examines the evidence like I have - they are left to conclude that the gospels (a) weren't written by eye-witnesses with first hand knowledge of the facts, and (b) it wasn't written by four people who conspired together to write the narrative. This forces more questions like;
Who actually wrote the gospels then?
Why were the gospels written in this way - where it leads any logical and rational person to doubt the story? If I'm on a jury and hear four "eye-witness" testimonies and they all contradict, I would be lead to believe that there is treachery afoot.
Why would God force us, under threat of eternal punishment and suffering, to make this decision without the proper evidence we need to do so correctly?
Would God really punish someone with eternal suffering for not believing in a story that doesn't add up when examined objectively? This would be incredibly unjust and unfair, right?
Is this Lord, the God of Israel, actually the Creator of the Universe (who is just, fair, and righteous)? Or is the Lord, the God of Israel, some sort of immortal powerful entity (maybe like a fallen angel) who is trying to get people to worship him under threat of eternal suffering?
If the Lord, the God of Israel, was this powerful immortal entity (like a fallen angel) - would he have to make sure that upon tricking people into worshiping him as God, he simultaneously put the evidence out proving he was not the Creator so the Creator wouldn't be able to convict the Lord for fraud? Would that reasonably explain why the Gospels are written the way they are - anonymously and contradictory?
Anyhow, I'd love to hear your thoughts. If you can elucidate this issue for me and provide the evidence so I clearly understand - I would love to hear it.