The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[DeistPaladin]

Wow. You truly are prescient. Or is it simply that the arguments in favor of Christianity are stock because they have no need of change? Let's go with that.

Third possibility: These arguments have no ability to change because there isn't any new evidence or discoveries that have been unearthed since their formulation and already the greatest Christian minds have spent 2,000 years and all the resources at their disposal so this is the best they can come up with.
Such as it is, this is all you can offer. 
I'm sure if Paul's handkerchief ever did turn up, Christian apologists everywhere would dump these arguments in favor of the hard evidence they now possess. 

Prove that God is a contradiction and you will have proved that God does not exist.

It depends on which god. The abstract notion of "God" as a creator of the cosmos is too much of an undefined being to disprove. Your god is another matter, precisely because of the paradoxes of its defined nature. If you wish to discuss the resurrection, which is the topic of our discussion, it is impossible to prove that it did NOT happen. That is not my job. You need to prove that it did happen.

the person claiming that X does not exist has the equal burden of proving his claim

You are not correct, especially with regard to extraordinary claims that fall outside our understanding of the natural universe.
If I say, "faeries don't exist", "Muhammad did not speak with the angel Gabriel", "9/11 was not an inside job", "aliens do not travel across the galaxy just to abduct people for sex experiments and make crop circles", I do not inherit the burden of proof. The lack of evidence and the extraordinary nature of the claims I'm denying put me well within the bounds of rational skepticism, even if I am making a positive claim of their non-existence or falsity. 
Which is not to say that's what I'm doing anyway. I'm simply telling you that you have not met the burden of proof. If Jesus did rise from the dead and fly up into the sky to be with his father god, he left behind no rational reason for anyone to think it really happened. 

"No, John, I'm not picking anything up on my scanners, either.", we're into philosophy.

Wrong again. You're making claims about history and the way our universe operates. 
If we were merely discussing the possibility that God (of some kind, not necessarily your idea of God) exists, this would be philosophy. 
If we're discussing "the historical reliability of the New Testament", that's a claim about history.

Thanks. Now explain how I have done this specifically. And we can get to your science-of-the-gaps later.

The filling in part is the crux of your arguments from incredulity. You ascribed "swoon theory" to skeptics, for example. You seem to think I'm responsible for explaining to you how Christianity began or how people might have been convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. I am not. Real skeptics don't get as far as discussing "swoon theory" or any other straw skeptic argument that theists like to bat with their wooden swords. We hear you tell a story and await evidence to believe it to be true. 

because miracles don't happen ...presupposition much?

And once again, you confuse "skepticism" with "denial". 
I've never seen any reason to believe miracles happen. From the moment I wake to the moment I sleep, the natural universe is all I have ever experienced. All claims of the existence of the supernatural have either been proven not to be true or not proven to be true. Things once explained by the supernatural have since been replaced with natural explanations. Never has a natural explanation been replaced with a proven supernatural one. 
It is therefore within the bounds of rational skepticism to assume we live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws and best understood with science and reason. When you present evidence for miracles, I will consider them. 
Now YOU also operate by these same rules or else you couldn't possibly function for all the fretting you would do over all the invisible, undetectable dangers all around you that might exist. 
My three lunchtime scenarios should provide you with an explanation of how the burden of proof scales in accordance with probability and how mundane or extraordinary the claims are. Please take a moment to think about how much evidence you would require to believe each of these three scenarios:
1. I had lunch with my wife.
2. I had lunch with President Obama.
3. I had lunch with my deceased father who has been brought back to life.
How much evidence would you require to accept each of the above claims and why would the standards be different for each one? 
Seriously, think about that and give me your answers for each. 

Well, I'm starting to understand how your pre-suppositions stack the deck, if that's what you mean. 

No, these aren't MY presuppositions. These are the same rules YOU operate by in every area outside your favorite religious beliefs. 
This is how logic works. I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear.

If there is a coherent thought in there, I can't find it. An editing problem, perhaps? Try again.

Sir, I don't know how to go any slower for you. I literally mapped it all out in a step-by-step format for you. To repeat:
1. You made an extraordinary claim (Jesus is resurrected from the dead)
2. You presented as evidence, alleged eye-witness accounts and philosophical arguments.
3. Eye-witness accounts are weak evidence and I explained why.
4. Philosophical arguments aren't evidence at all.
So, to sum up:
Extraordinary claims + Weak evidence = You fail to meet the burden of proof before I even begin my rebuttal because extraordinary claims require more than weak evidence.
I'm sorry if you're still not getting it. I don't know how to go any slower.