Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

All the NT documents were written within the life of eyewitnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses.

This doesn't mean that the accounts purely relied on first-hand testimonies of these eyewitnesses, or that the eyewitnesses altogether witnessed everything that is mentioned in the accounts from Jesus' birth to ministry to death and resurrection. It also doesn't mean that these "possible rebuttal witnesses" could have had access to, or awareness of, these documents at the time.

No but having 27 documents that carry the same basic message and churches the believe that same basic message BEFORE the documents adds to the probability of the reliability of the accounts--as they would in any series of ancient documents for any events. 

The resurrection was certainly believed from day one because there were churches throughout the Roman empire that were receiving letters 20 years later describing their common belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

No, that's a non-sequitur. There is no reason to suggest it was certainly believed from day one. It may have been a decade later (or whatever) when this doctrine of the resurrection started to emerge.

That theory would contradict Acts. We have no reason to believe Acts is not as it claims to be: a history of the early church. You can't just throw out theories without thinking about how you are going to deal with this or that evidence. More below on Acts.

Additionally, you have to dismiss the entire book of Acts--which chronicled the events of the early church.  What reasons do you give for that?

The authenticity of Acts has been called into question by many biblical scholars, and for a combination of good reasons.

From Wikipedia:

Acts agrees with Paul's letters on the major outline of Paul's career: as Saul he is converted and becomes Paul the Christian missionary and apostle, establishing new churches in Asia Minor and the Aegean and struggling to free Gentile Christians from the Jewish Law. There are also agreements on many incidents, such as Paul's escape from Damascus, where he is lowered down the walls in a basket. But details of these same incidents are frequently seen as contradictory: for example, according to Paul it was a pagan king who was trying to arrest him in Damascus, but according to Luke it was the Jews (2 Corinthians 11:33 and Acts 9:24). Acts speaks of "Christians" and "disciples", but Paul never uses either term, and it is striking that Acts never brings Paul into conflict with the Jerusalem church and places Paul under the authority of the Jerusalem church and its leaders, especially James and Peter (Acts 15 vs. Galatians 2). Acts omits much from the letters, notably Paul's problems with his congregations (internal difficulties are said to be the fault of the Jews instead), and his apparent final rejection by the church leaders in Jerusalem (Acts has Paul and Barnabas deliver an offering that is accepted, a trip that has no mention in the letters). There are also alleged major differences between Acts and Paul on Christology (the understanding of Christ's nature), eschatology (understanding of the "last things"), and apostleship.

So it seems like the Book of Acts was revisionist work that aimed to provide a more positive image of the early Christian church, one of unity as opposed to conflict among the church leaders.

What are you talking about? You did not get any "authenticity" problems from what you just quoted. You cataloged a couple of interesting points if you were really really into church history and the life of Paul. You are taking leaps because you actually don't understand the references being made. Read it again, no one thinks that Acts was revisionist. In fact, minor differences are evidence of authenticity. A revisionist account would have cleaned up the little discrepancies or questions that you would expect an investigative reporter (Luke) would write down a few years later.