Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Tonus]

Then you should be a historical skeptic with regards to every piece of ancient literature, not just the Bible.

I would expect that most people are. We take many historical claims at face value because we would be willing to accept changes to the narrative that would follow from new discoveries or knowledge. I doubt that many people, theists included, believe many of the fantastic claims in ancient literature. It's one thing to find an ancient parchment that tells us that there was a king and his nation waged war against another and conquered it because his war strategy worked very well. Without corroboration the story may be exaggerated or even completely false, but it doesn't describe anything we would believe to be impossible or highly improbable.

An ancient text that tells of a king who slew the fire-breathing dragon that threatened his people will be met with skepticism, even if there are other scrolls that tell the same or similar story. It describes something that people today would consider impossible or highly improbable (the existence of fire-breathing dragons).

We know of many religious tales and legends from the past, but even theists do not accept all of them. Even if they refer to a person that could reasonably have existed, the claims are met with doubt. We cannot prove that Vespasian did not perform miracles, or that Alexander the Great's army was not led to an oasis by ravens (at least one writer attributed it to snakes, perhaps this is their version of the purple/red issue). This is not reason enough to accept those claims.