Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

Like all the dead Taliban and Islamic millitant elders who knew full well that by taking on a leadership role that every living second of every living hour involved a huge degree of risk.

Risk is not the same thing. Osama Bin Laden was killed, but he didn't choose to strap a bomb to himself and personally go and die blowing something up. It's also not the same thing, since those are examples of obscene violence (suicide bombings).

Also my other question to you, and i'd like you to be as honest as possible please with this one > If we are to assume that Jesus was a historical person, and that the biblical accounts, despite their disagreements and contradictions here and there, are 100% accurate in that when they say Jesus rose from the dead that he absolutely must have etc..........If all your convictions rely purely on these narratives, and your absolute devotion and certainty rests on what a handful of blokes wrote down (and if we ignore the wealth of evidence available showing that the many modern editions of the bible underwent heavy modification throughout the last 1000 years by various bodies). If all of this...........then why don't you accept Mohammed as the final prophet and Islam as the sugar-daddy sexy man that he evidently is?

Start again, and this time phrase your question properly.

"If we are to assume that Jesus was a historical person"?

It's not an 'assumption'.

"If all your convictions rely purely on these narratives, and your absolute devotion and certainty rests on what a handful of blokes wrote down"

As I've already pointed out to you, we have contemporary writings of Jesus - and that's something we do not have for most other historical persons outside of the New Testament. So you're making an assumption that what we have is bad evidence, when it's not and it's very good evidence.

"if we ignore the wealth of evidence available showing that the many modern editions of the bible underwent heavy modification throughout the last 1000 years by various bodies"

Please, by all means why don't you school me on this?

What we had at the time of the reformation was the Novum Instrumentum omne (3rd edition) 1522. It was based on just 7 Greek manuscripts (and mostly just on one), and he used the Vulgate as well (the last six verses of Revelation 22 were back-translated from Latin). The Greek manuscripts were 12th-15th century! Editio Regia is another edition by Robert Estienne.

What we have now is Novum Testamentum Graece (the 1st edition was way back in 1520, the current edition is the 28th edition published in 2012), and The New Testament in the Original Greek by Westcott and Hort, which has also been updated with improvements to the text since its inception. And there are over 5,800 manuscripts in Greek now, totalling 2.6 million pages.