'All of the writers of the New Testament were witness to the life, death and resurrection (not resuscitation) of Jesus' - some evidence, please. All the scholarship I've read suggests much was written decades after Christ's death by people (men) who had never met Jesus so relied on notoriously unreliable hand-me-down accounts

Paul was not Jesus but rather a Jewish Rabbi who was a latter day convert who had his road to Damascus conversion post the crucifixion and ascension? And like Constantine, may have been a pretender that merely espoused religious fervor as a means to an end and power?

Inside every man is the god given ring of truth and Paul's words strictly reflected the cultural norms for him, of the day! And not necessarily either the truth or the teachings of a far more inclusive J.C. Who suffered little children (of either sex) to come unto him!

And appropriately stern, if still comparatively gentle, to correct some of the misplaced cultural norms of his erroneous disciples/apostles. And highly placed Rabbis, like Nicodemus!

Paul was a Rabbi and a religious scholar and much of what he taught remained true to his, inculcated from birth, religious/cultural norms! Much of which J.C. was at some pains to correct!

As we should directed by that small still voice or ring of truth within!

Let God chose his bishops rather than misguided men/politicians, regardless of their gender!

And then we wonder why fewer and fewer are turning up at any church at all or for any reason!

[Homophobes, bigots, paedophiles and politicians plainly serving mannon!?]
Alan B

Duncan,
Your are, of course correct, none of the writers of the NT actually met Jesus. The letters attributed to Peter were not by the Peter who denied Jesus three times. When I say that the writers were witnesses to the life, death etc of Jesus I should have said that they were involved in the early traditions regarding him. These witnesses do differ in orientation according to their context. It is out of these differing witnesses that the central thrust of Christianity has evolved. All of the writers were involved in a theological task. They were not just recording angels. This means that, the theology of Mark, being the earliest gospel writer differs substantially from that of John, the last. This difference is a difference of evolution and context. Modern historiography has a problem with this because it has inherited the Enlightenment obsession with "what actually happened." The gospel writers did involved themselves in historical events but they did not stop there, their central role was the interpretation of these events so that they came close to saying who this Jesus is.

So what youre saying sells is that the writers of the bible just made it up as they "wanted" it to be and not as it really was and that we should read into it what we "want" to see and forget about finding about what really happened?
How dishonest and pointless could you possibly be?
Do you care about the truth?
Do you know what the word "witness" means?

This essay clarifies the situation re the religion ABOUT "Jesus" created by Paul. http://www.dabase.org/up-5-2.htm
And thus over time, the religion ABOUT "Jesus" created by the institutionalized church "fathers", who won the "religious" culture wars of their time and place, which thus gave them the POLITICAL power to define the "official" church doctrine.

The dudes who (perhaps) wrote the various gospel texts as consolidated in the "new" testament could only have participated in an already institutionalized version of the life and teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee.

And of course the "resurrection" never happened.

Sometimes I just love ideology with its minimal thinking involved. It's very suitable for the intellectually lazy!