Why believe the bible?

[Angrboda]

These where not witnesses to these events, but they do confirm (from a non-friendly) point of view a number of things that where known about Jesus fairly early.  They confirm the Gospel and that Jesus was known as a healer and miracle worker.

And the existence of folklore proves that green M&M's are aphrodisiac and the world is populated by dangerous hitchhikers.

---

That you accept hearsay claims from decades after the purported events as evidence of said events says more to your credulity than anything else.

Hearsay is not evidence Steve-o. No matter how much you deperately want it to be.

Except Bastard-o...there is actually a term called 'hearsay evidence'...you should write someone about getting that corrected. Start here

And to remind you, my inductive line of reasoning does not rely on hearsay evidence:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
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)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
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.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

No, if it did, I think that would be an improvement. Your "inductive line of reasoning" appears to depend on loose logic and dubious assumptions.