God is so quiet

[pocaracas]

You are aware that there were many more gospels than the ones that made it into the bible you have today, right?
What disqualified some?

Could the ones we do have nowadays have been cooked up from a similar social environment as the others, but they have the merit of conveying a similar enough message that they could be bound in one tome?

Every one would have its own reasons--which are not hard to understand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non...al_gospels). The first and second century Christians identified the four we have as authoritative. There was never any controversy over them from the beginning. Deciding on the canon was a formality--the list had been in use for hundreds of years already. 

You say that from the point of view of the "victor" account.
There were many competing gospels and writings and the people who believed in them would also be Christians.

Also, the list had regional variations.... Some places had a few more, some had others... the canon was the formality that combined the common core from all and did away with anything that wasn't in agreement.

The problems begin when the texts we have look more like tales, than eyewitness accounts... even if the author claims that he got those tales from real witnesses.
Combine this with the knack they had to make up whole gospels and the credibility factor lowers quite substantially.

I don't doubt that such messianic stories were floating around in the population.
I do doubt if they represented any actual witnessing of events, or if they were just fantastic tales mangled with bits and pieces from regular life.

I have used this before, so this is not directed at you, but is perhaps a helpful answer nevertheless. 

Here is an inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)

Agreed. Some person, possibly a teacher of the "law of god", likely preached in the region and went through all that.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry

If those characters existed, as disciples of the teacher, as students, yes.

c. They presided over the early church

Don't know... As far as I know, there are accounts of Peter going to Rome, but nothing trustworthy. There is the tale of the disagreement of James and Peter, which shows how non-unified those first witnesses were.

d. This early church instructed Paul (for a number of years before he started his own efforts)

On the road to Damascus... go on google maps, see how the road (that doesn't go through the mountains) from Jerusalem to Damascus passes extremely close to the Qumran site...
On the old texts found at that site, you have the description of a monastic society that follows closely some of the main precepts of Jesus' preaching - helping the poor, having no wealth for yourself... and is likely the very origin of John the Baptist... oh and all that seems to date from 2 centuries BC. The concept of the teacher is there. The teacher who battles a force of evil.
Leads one to wonder what did Paul find, but did not say explicitly.

e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)

Sure, if you claim that Paul was the early church.

f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels

This I'm curious... what themes?

g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day

And whoever wrote it got his info from?... Jesus' mom?

h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)

Unsure... the earliest dates we have go to the 60's, right?
That would be pushing the average life expectancy back then...

i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book

Could be...

j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.

The several early churches accepted the canon gospels and others. Each church accepting their own set, some acquiring copies from others and coming to accept those as well.

k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

I'm no expert, but I have read people claim that Paul was a somewhat drastic departure from the previous understanding of Christianity.

THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

I have no problem accepting that a teacher or a particular cult of Yahweh existed, a cult that preached a simple life, devoted to helping others, while providing a more inclusive interpretation of the old laws.
I do have a huge problem accepting that this person did any miracle... those are most likely, later additions to make the story more impressive.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

Haha! I jumped all over them! Now what?