The real religion?

[SteveII]

If you want to know the dates of 27 different documents, look them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

So, your reason why my belief is 'laughable' is...what? There would have been more surviving Roman literature on what happened in Palestine during the life of Jesus? That is the criteria for laughable??? You're sure the evidence of the NT is not solid, yet...nothing of substance has been forthcoming.

Why are you quoting me, and then straw-manning the word "laughable"?

See, here's the thing you don't get.  We aren't Christian.  If you want us to believe what you believe, then you'll have to demonstrate that it's worth adopting your beliefs.  Quoting fantastical tales from 2000 years ago won't do this, unless you can provide a great deal of convergent evidence.  You really have none at all, so far as I know.

What is the world is 'convergent evidence'? Seem like a term you use when you keep moving the bar. You still have not told me why these are not evidence (I numbered them so you can reply more easily):

1. 27 documents of the NT that survived. 
2. The fact there were churches across the Roman empire with 20 years of Jesus' death
3. The fact that the gospel writers (still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses) seemed to have even earlier writings available to them (putting those writings even closer to the actual dates.) 
4. The fact that we have late first century and second century writers who believed and referred to both the earlier documents, people, and events. 

What about the fantastical tales of ancient Babylonians, Egyptions or Romans?  They are MUCH better documented, and by many more sources, than the Bible.  Should I demand that you disprove the existence of Ra, or Zeus, or whatever?

The life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. How do these compare exactly? Actually, you are making things up because you couldn't possible make  a case for anything you said in that paragraph. 

See, literally whatever you say, whatever historical or logical argument, requires special pleading.   You must allow very liberal (i.e. low) standards of evidence to stand as meaningful, but deny the same (or even better) standard of evidence for many other world views and belief systems.

The problem is, non-Christians will not entertain your special pleading.  They will, instead, ask you for evidence compelling enough TO THEM to make it worth adopting your ideas.  Which, in this case, they know you cannot.  Thus the word salad.

We are back to the life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So by what stretch of imagination do you think anyone applies 'special pleading' to the events that the NT describes?