Can't prove the supernatural God

[Redbeard The Pink]

I will agree that the NT passes on the claim, but you are missing my point. People already believed that claim (as stated above) prior to any of the 27 books writing it down (beginning around 50AD). So, if there were never any books/letters written, there would have still been a claim. Why do I believe this, because there were already churches outside of Palestine for Paul to write to and established doctrine to discuss 20 years from Christ's death.

Pretty much all religions already existed by the time somebody decided to write something down about them. The claim already existing when somebody recorded it is not evidence that the claim in circulation was true. Why would you even think that?

This moves the 27 books from the claim column to the evidence column.

No, Steve. It does not. Those 27 books are a catalog of claims. They are only evidence of ancient scribes writing a book and what those scribes believed. The claims made in the book must be proven by something other than the book itself. It does not matter that the claims were already in circulation when the book was written; the book is merely documenting the claims, and therefore is effectively the claim.

 There seems to be two possibilities that this was not true:
1. The NT books misrepresented the claim
2. The NT books were all fabrications in pursuit of some other goal

Or maybe those people just believed wrong things...

I think the gospels and letters are not fiction because they were written within the lifetime of those who would have witnessed the actual events (and in some cases witnessed the actual events: John, Peter, James).

Why would that matter? Jumanji was written within lifetime of the characters in the story (the movie is set in the '90s, and it was written and released in the '90s). Does that mean Jumanji is true?

The authors and early church believed what they preached even if that meant adversity.

You mean like just about every religious person, ever? Sincerity of belief is not a measure of truth, my friend. If it were, suicide bombings would be evidence that the Muslim god is real.

The church grew between the time of Christ and the first appearances of the epistles. Alternatively, there was every reason to let things die down after Jesus' death if the events were not other than what was related.

Christianity is not the only nor the first religion to grow and thrive in the face of persecution. Is that evidence of those religions, too, or just yours?

If the events of the NT were not true, I do not think there is ground for positing an "honest mistake".

Why?

I think the only logical alternative is a conspiracy. No one has yet to give me good reasons why this might be the case.

Sooo...a false religion has to be a conspiracy? It can't be a mistake? Why? You think Buddhism and Islam are false, do you not? Are those conspiracies? If not, why would a false Christianity have to be?