Can't prove the supernatural God

[SteveII]

In Palestine around 27-30AD. We find out about the claim, as I said, first in Paul's letters, then in other epistles, and then someone figured they should write all this down--so then we have the gospels. It is reasonable to conclude from this and the very existence of the church in 50AD (evidenced by Paul's letters) that people believed the claim in an unbroken chain from the time the events occurred. 

I understand the point you are trying to make. However a more careful understanding of the timing and contents of what we call the NT undercuts the charge of circular reasoning.

No, it really doesn't.  Whether you call them Paul's letters, the Gospels or group them and call it the bible, it's irrelevant.

The claim is not evidence for the claim.  It's the claim.

You seem to think I am arguing that the NT is true because the NT says so. I am not. I am arguing the events the Gospels describe actually happened because I believe the different components of the NT (which are not all Gospels) and other historical context are reliable. 

If you still think you are right, then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject.