The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

The thing is, Randy doesn't believe in any of Christianity for these reasons. He already assumes the bible is not just accurate but innerant. If you believe that, all of this history stuff is irrelevant. You can't get from historically accurate to innerant without another big reason to assume such a massive thing.

And you can hardly study a text objectively that you have already decided is word perfect, now can you? You are forced to always conclude it is correct, no matter what arguments you have to make to convince yourself.

So if even Randy doesn't believe for these reasons, I'm not sure why we are expected to. Sadly no one seems interested in discussing the real reasons. What we are given are the cover arguments, the rationalisations. And they simply don't work, as has been shown at length here. I handed over every single assumption that could possibly be conceded, and still the argument comes down to special pleading.

This is all my opinion, of course He is welcome to correct me.

It is irrelevant how or why I personally believe in Christianity.

What is relevant is that if the gospels are reliable, then Christianity is possibly true. 

Reading the NT has been the means by which many atheists have come to faith in Jesus, and while the converse is also true (I'm told), that fact alone should cause you to re-consider the constant drum-beat of your assertion that Christians are making assumptions about the Bible before they ever open it.

While that MAY be true in some cases, but it is clearly not in others. Thus, your objection is not particularly strong or important.