Sorry, I forgot to reply.
What's to explain? Not every author of the New Testament was present to observe the events that they recount. Some of them are writing from second, third, or fourth-hand sources. Historically, we don't give too much credence to second (or worse) -hand accounts.
Here is the original post:
quote:
But the fact is that the Gospels were written well after his death, sometimes by people who weren't even there.
First off, the Gospels were written by people that were there (assuming they are written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Now, the authors of the Gospels may have recorded a few things which they did not actually witness (e.g. Matthew was not present for the Transfiguration but includes it in his gospel), but all four were followers (in the literal sense) of Christ.
The rest of the New Testament is written by Luke, Paul, James, Peter, John, Jude, and Timothy and Silas, in part (again, assuming they have been credited correctly). Luke, James, Peter, and John were all followers of Christ. It is arguable whether or not Jude, Timothy, and Silas actually followed Christ at any time, and we know Paul persecuted Christians at that time. These books are not really documenting anything historical, though, anyway (except for Acts).
My point is that the Gospels are for the most part first-hand accounts (the exceptions being Jesus' birth, the transfiguration as told by Matthew, etc.), and the majority of the rest of the New Testament books are as well.
™ Version 4.2
