What is your source for this? The gospel writers never identify themselves and do not claim to be eye witnesses. They are anonymous and educated Greek speakers.
Things like sentence structure, "personality", etc. Compare Revelation with the Gospel of John and also 1 John and 2 John. You'll find that they use similar styles and personalities. Revelation outright says it was written by John while he was on the isle of Patmos.
In fact, that's the very method that they used to determine that Paul did not write Hebrews.
Correct. Paul is writing about 20 years after the alleged events. His "special invitation" is in the form of a vision. I don't consider a vision convincing. The troubling thing about Paul is that he is writing at least a decade before the Gospels are written down but he never talks about Jesus' life, ministry, miracles, etc. It's as if he is unaware. This is supposed to be a recent event (Within 2 decades), yet nobody tells Paul.
His "special invitation" was in the form of a vision, followed by 3 days of blindness, followed by a healing in front of other apostles and people close to the apostles.
Blindness is rather hard to fake and do it right. Anybody can tell you're faking blindness just by waving a hand in front of your face while you're not expecting it. There's certain reflexes that are incredibly difficult to suppress.
What is your source for this claim? The gospel writers are entirely anonymous and don't claim to be eye witnesses. These are also highly educated Greek speaking writers. It is unlikely they are getting 2nd hand information from Aramaic speaking peasants.
Just as I said above, John names himself in the Book of Revelation, and it is written in the same style. Also, John 21:21-24 tells you who wrote the book of John. "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things..."
Wouldn't you know it, the same style is used in the Book of Revelation. Revelation 1:1, Revelation 1:4, and Revelation 1:9 tells you who wrote it.
I don't believe any of the stories were inspired by a divine being. The stories are exactly what I would expect from uneducated peasants who had no idea about how the natural world worked.
I could bring up a number of things, like very intricate codes hidden in the text, or the fact that Daniel made a 500+ year prophecy that came true down to the very day (which can be verified by secular sources)... did an "uneducated peasant" do that, too?
I don't find them to be consistent at all. It makes no difference to me what the message is, I care about if it's true or not. I doubt that it is. I'll give one example and then turn it over to Bart Ehrman. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod (Matthew 2:1) and Luke says that Jesus was born during the first census, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4BC and the census took place in 6&7 AD, 10 years after Herod's death. This is an irreconcilable contradiction.
It seems to me, that nations who do census for tax purposes normally does them every 10 or 12 years, and does them consistently. Is there any evidence that Rome only did
one census? Or did they do a census in 6-7 AD, and also do a census 12 years prior to that in 4-5 BC? 4 BC is the agreed date by many scholars as to when Jesus was born and it would fit. It also fits with the prophecy in Daniel 9 and the account that Jesus was in his "early thirties" when He began his ministry (it would have made Him ~33-34).
Also, there is a mistranslated "prophecy" in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew translation of Almah is "A young woman of childbearing age". Further, Jesus is never referred to as Immanuel. This verse has nothing to do with Jesus.
The word in question, Strong's Hebrew:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/haalmah_5959.htm
It can be used as "Virgin", or "young woman" or "maiden". Blue Letter Bible also adds this:
"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)
So.... trying to say that Almah can mean "non-virgin... there's
no proof that word has ever been used in that way.
As for the video, I haven't had time to check it.
But so far... you haven't proved anything "irreconcilable". Now if you want, I could go through the whole thing about Daniel Chapter 9 and why it is smack on the money, down to the very day, some 500 years later and dispel the ludicrous jump-roping that people try to do to get around it.
EDIT: I forgot to reply about the name Emmanuel. When I'm online, I'm called Xalith. I use other names in other places. There's a person who calls me "hon" sometimes. There was another person who called me "handsome" two days ago (I'm like "eh... if you say so", lol). None of these are my actual given birth name, though.
Jesus is called a lot of things:
Jesus
Jesus Christ
Christ
The Lion of the Tribe of Judah
The Alpha and Omega
Emmanuel
Lord
Lord of Lords
King of Kings
I could go on and on.
Isaiah said that one of these titles would be "Emmanuel". It just so happened that Gabriel told Joseph and Mary to name the child Jesus (or, in Aramaic, "Yahshua" or "Yeshua" depending on who you ask). In Latin that would probably be "IESVS" or something similar. We transliterate that to "Jesus" in English.