[jimt]

Eusebius of Caesarea (Church Historian), "The miraculous resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ having become famous and it being an ancient custom that the governors of provinces should send to the Emperor an account of anything new that turned up in their administration, so that he might be fully informed of everything that came to pass, Pontius Pilate acquainted Tiberius with the resurrection of the Saviour, which was known to everyone in Palestine.

Eusebius was not there. Tiberius was not there. Pontius Pilate was not there. None of these folks were witnesses to the resurrection, so their commentary is hearsay. Second order hearsay, mind you. Is Pontius Pilate recorded anywhere to have claimed to have witnessed (not heard about) the resurrection or ascension?

Apostles saw Jesus after the resurrection. Their statements are witness. The Bible does not contain their direct writings, so we hear of them through the writers of the Gospels.

What am I missing?

[thinktwice]

What am I missing?

Writings from Christ Jesus, himself.

[Catholicguy]

What am I missing?

Among other things, my plummeting interest in pursuing an exchange with you.

Have a nice day

[Antoninus]

The Bible does not contain their direct writings, so we hear of them through the writers of the Gospels.

John was a witness. Matthew may have been a witness as he was a disciple, though not one of the 12.

And don't be so quick to jump on the lit-crit bandwagon saying that the Gospels were derivative works. Such theories are propagated by nominal Christians and anti-Christians with the implicit intention to undermine the accuracy and veracity of the Gospel accounts. There's no real evidence backing up this theory, other than the opinions of various "biblical scholars" of questionable intent.