God is so quiet

[SteveII]

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.

Okay, but for your point to carry any weight, the books that where denied canonization had to contradict the ones that did. As a group, they don't. They were mainly later, added things that probably were not true, and/or from sources that really had no standing to contribute. I am not aware of any serious candidates that contradicted the main themes of the chosen gospels.

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.

In the timeline I am describing, the early church was based in Israel. I would hope there to be some minor disagreements--evidence that these were real people, in real life, and not a sanitized or made up account. The disagreements were always about minor doctrinal points or people talking past each other--never about the main message of Christianity or the person of Jesus and the events surrounding his life. 

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.

Paul was pretty clear about who he was, what he believed and the centrality of Jesus described later in the Gospels. The only reason to propose another theory is to undermine the story--not because that is where the evidence lead anyone. 

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.

Paul was converted around 34 AD--four years after Jesus. Paul went to Antioch with Barnabas (a church leader) in 42 AD. He had 8 years to spend with the church leaders. His first solo missionary journey was in 48 AD. That is a lot of time to spend with the apostles and early church leaders. There is no indication that their beliefs about Jesus differed. 

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

This I'm curious... what themes?

They all preached that Jesus was God, died on the cross for man's redemption, God desires a relationship with us, and the Christian life that should be the result of those things. 

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?

Jesus' early life? Perhaps--if you believe the early dating of all the Gospels, or from Jesus' brothers. Or it was written down. Who knows. 

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 did not say during the life of Jesus (although that could have been). I said the editors that wrote the gospels would be alive during the life of an abundance of eyewitnesses--including the names on the books themselves. For example, a 25 year old could have written down everything that a 70 year old man related. There would also be an abundance of rebuttal witnesses available to come forward.

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.

A fringe theory accepted by almost no one. Nothing in Paul's letters contradicts anything Jesus taught. You have to actually change what Christians have historically understood Paul to be saying, and then point out the conflict. Manufactured contradictions. 

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. 

None of the events I listed above make ANY sense whatsoever if the divinity of Jesus and his miracles were not believed since the very first day. In another words, there is not a version of Christianity that simply lacks these beliefs and produces any of the effects we see in the first century. This is a typical compromise proposed by atheists--but it's never accompanied by a theory that explains the evidence we have or the effects that were present.

---

In philosophy, 'nothing' (along with nobody, nowhere, none, etc.) are terms of universal negation. All you are doing is playing games with a word that grammatically is a pronoun and making it into a noun. If I had nothing for lunch today, I do not mean that I ate something and it was nothing. If I saw nobody in the office, I do not mean I saw somebody called nobody.

No, no, no. Don't use these red herrings.

Focus on the phrase "nothing exists". Look at that word "exists". What does it mean to "exist"?

You are playing word games.  'Nothing' is a pronoun (not a noun as you need it to be) that denotes negation so your phrase means "not a single thing exists". This is a tired old game.