>you still run into the problem with the story of Crucifixion not being documented until 20 years after Paul said it happened
Even if that were true, why would that be a "problem"? We're almost 30 years from the Gulf War, if someone wrote a book about it now would you call it too late?
Plus, this isn't true, we have letters that discuss it that were written almost immediately afterwards. It is discussed in letters between the Roman Emperor Tiberius and the king of Osroene, Abgar. The Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi transcribed letters between them from the official archives of Osroene, as can be read here: newadvent.org/fathers/0859.htm
One of Abgar's letters reports that “The Jews who dwell in the cantons of Palestine have crucified Jesus...During the time that they were crucifying Him, the sun was darkened, the earth was moved, shaken".
Tiberius Caesar died in 37 AD, so these letters were written before that.
>and that it was not formally published until almost 3 centuries later
What are you referring to here, exactly?
>I am not saying that they did not occur. or that they did not occur at the same time. i am saying that the story was written around these events decades after they would've taken place.
I'm not quite following. If a supernatural darkness with a simultaneous earthquake take place right as the man who says he is the Son of God is dying, is that not strong evidence for his claim?
>that does not mean that the Vietnam war did not happen. it means that rambo was written around the historical event.
Is your argument that the Gospels were meant as works of fiction? For all of their early history, everyone talks about the Gospels and the events in them as if they're literal, factual reports. Everyone from the disciples of the men who wrote the Gospels to their harshest ancient critics all discuss the works as if they are intended to be reporting factual events.