The Historical Jesus

[Sheldon]

Here is my first question for all of you, when did people start to point out that Jesus wasn't a real person? Or that all of the miracles were made up? How long did it take the ancient world to produce this account?

Why would I care, assuming you could demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt he was real, there would still be no objective reason to believe he was anything but human. 

As far as I know, Luke is actually a highly regarded historian. As the author of his gospel as well as Acts;

The gospel myths are all anonymous, no one knows who wrote them, did you not know this? The names Mathew Mark Luke and John were assigned arbitrarily over 3 centuries later, at the first council of Nicaea, in order to lend the gospel myths some gravitas. 

 I have heard that so far every single name of a person, place or a thing that can be accounted for by modern archaeology has been confirmed to be true. 

You have heard very wrong, laughably so. Though again it would be irrelevant, one might accurately list every name in a Harry Potter novel, this would not make wizards real, obviously.

A quote from New Testament scholar Greg Bloomberg, "A historian who has been found trustworthy where he or she can be tested should be given the benefit of the doubt in cases where no tests are available." 

Why should I care about the subjective religious beliefs of someone, just because they also happen to be biblical scholar, do you lend credence to the religious beliefs of koranic scholars? 

So far we have more than 70 confirmed tests of Luke's historical accuracy which means that Luke is, by any standard, a trustworthy historian.

If you're talking about the gospel, then the name Luke is fictitious, no one knows who wrote it, but again I can only point out that the Spiderman movies accurately depict New York, this doesn't make Spiderman real. 

Beyond this we have the over-abundance of copies of the New Testament, every-single book and letter has more than 1,000 early copies for us to compare against one another. Yes, scholars will make mistakes, but they won't make the same mistakes in the same places. 

I can only hope this is an attempt at levity, either way I set a higher bar for credulity than the anonymous unevidenced hearsay of the gospel myths, derived as they are from an epoch of extreme ignorance and superstition, and the earliest written decades after the events they purport to describe, if I were to accept the claim they make, I'd have no objective reason to disbelieve identical claims from other religions and their superstitious religious tomes. 

With 4 biographies, all of which containing a compatible story,

 
You would need to objectively demonstrate they are accurate biographies, you don't get to just assert it, and they certainly are not compatible, even though it is accepted by pretty much all scholars that three have plagiarised the others, they still contain contradictions. For example:
1) Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
2) Luke places the date of Jesus' birth ten years later than Matthew.
3) Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke says they were living in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem for a census.
4) Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised.
5) Luke knows nothing of Herod's slaughter of the innocents or of a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke's chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.
So not compatible at all...NB, I refer to the gospels those names were arbitrarily assigned to, over 3 centuries later, since the original texts of all 4 canonical gospels were unauthored, no one can know who wrote them.

 I think we have every reason to believe in the Historical Jesus, but beyond that we have the witness of the apostles, men who were willing to die for their risen King.

I don't agree, the evidence he existed at all is scant at best, and there are no witnesses, only claims by anonymous authors, made decades after the events they purport to describe? Not one word was written about Jesus until decades after he was alleged to have died. The fact a man is willing to die for a belief tells us absolutely nothing about the truth of that belief, that is axiomatic, or you would have to accept all the claims by adherents of other religions who willingly died for them.