Someone stole the body!

[Jehanne]

Your point is generally valid with one nitpick. The bible is not one source. There are 4 Gospel accounts and these are four sources. Even if the synoptics are grouped together John is still an independent tradition. That makes it a minimum of 2 sources. But like I said. Atheist have no other reason to reject the gospels than the fact that they record miracles. If they had no miracles they would be accepted without question.

This is just absolutely false.  Unlike the Gospels, good historical sources from antiquity are NOT anonymous.  But, just having a known historical source written by a known historical person does not automatically guarantee its acceptance by modern historians.  The Roman historian Livy, for instance, is accepted by modern historians, because Livy researched his sources carefully and was a good fact checker; in addition, scholars have been able to collaborate Livy's accounts with other sources, both historical and archeological.

While in college, I took a course in US history ("US History until 1877", with '1877' being the year when Reconstruction ended).  The professor, who had a PhD in history and was an expert in US mid-western Civil War studies, during a lecture told my class that (paraphrase, of course), "Civil war historians consider diaries to be nearly worthless...."  I was shocked and remember sitting in the lecture hall (in a class of about 300 students), thinking, "How could that be???"  The good Prof went on to explain those reasons, and after that, it made perfect sense to me.

He said that people write diaries with the intent that someone, someday, will read that diary!!  He said that diaries are not dispassionate, disinterested sources of history!  Rather, people who write diaries often have an "axe to grind"; as such, diaries are always suspect and not good sources of historical information, even if they were "1st hand" accounts.  And, diaries often contain blatant falsehoods and distortions, even if the author is known and even if the author was present at "such and such" event.  Just because someone was an eyewitness to an event does NOT automatically make their account true.  Rather, it is the job of the historian to sift the wheat from the chafe, and to adjudicate trustworthy sources over less trustworthy sources.

The author of the Gospel of Luke is not a trustworthy source.  For starters, historians do not know who he was, when he wrote his Gospel and where he wrote it from.  More importantly, the author of Luke gets some of his historical facts wrong, blatant errors; as such, historians do not take his Gospel at face value.  Rather, historians use form and higher criticism to sift the Gospel of Luke for what may be historical nuggets, but clearly, the author of the Gospel had a theological axe to grind and his portrayal of Jesus is fundamentally different from the Jesus portrayed in Mark, Matthew and John.