Can't prove the supernatural God

[Mister Agenda]

So........let me break that down:

You don't believe the NT because the NT says so, you believe what it says was true because of various parts of the NT?

You're not helping yourself here Stevie.

I should just stop this now, because this is more circular than my wife's rather lovely arse.....however, would you care to share the "other historical context (that*)  are reliable?" please?

You really can't understand the difference between examining if a series of events happened and the 27 sources that describe these events? Answer the question I asked: then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject?

There's historical method. It involves primary sources, and principles of determining reliability. For example, any given source can be corrupted or forged, so original documents are considered more reliable than copies. How close the source is to the event (in time and space) is considered, whether the source is an eyewitness, whether credible independent sources support the same narrative, how likely it is that the source is motivated by bias (are they selling something?). That's a rough summary of what I found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...eliability