Vlad,
As has been pointed out to you by me the epistles, which were written within living memory point to a community who believed in the key events of the Gospel. Paul exhorts those communities to seek out witnesses.
No doubt, as indeed do the chronicles from different religious traditions you believe to be wrong. How do the witness accounts of Mohammed on his winged horse sound to your ears? The point though is not the reporting of events so much as the explanatory narratives that were subsequently woven around them: “Fred says that Bill told him that decades ago Harry saw a bloke killed and walking around a few days later, therefore a resurrection” etc.
As has been pointed out there was no form of the Novel at time and some of the writing does read like reportage all found things fall on the side of these not being complete works of fiction.
There were (and are) lots or narratives from many predecessor civilisations (Greek, Egyptian etc), many of which were co-opted by the early Christians, a process called syncretisation. The resurrection story in particular appears frequently in many earlier stories.
The thesis people believed anything in those days is also not true and Paul acknowledges the same disbelief that miracles happen as now.
Lots of peoples believed lots of things in those days, and in earlier days, and in other places etc. Pretty much any civilisation with a long lineage has myths and miracle stories of its own.
I'm afraid though that argument from disbelief is unsatisfactory.
There is no such argument. The only arguments necessary are those that falsify the arguments attempted by theists.
That God could do these things makes things more likely.
Circular reasoning: “God is real because God could do these things.”
But at the heart of the Gospels is not the miracles so it is invalid to focus on them. It is not the teaching. It is the question of who Jesus is and what he does for us.
It’s valid when people cite “the Gospels” as evidence for their religious beliefs. They’re no more evidence than the chronicles from other faiths are evidence for their factual claims.
As one minister has put it the only piece of Gospel information that would have been needed for Christianity and I would add your response to it is that all need saving and Jesus is that saviour.
That’s just a claim – you can’t retro-fit a claim you find appealing to its truthfulness or otherwise. You make this mistake a lot I’ve noticed – if you big up the claim enough, somehow that reaches back into its epistemic value.
It doesn’t.
