Stump the Christian?

[SteveII]

I was writing in summary bullets. Is this better?

I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that Jesus existed.
I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that the first century Christians recorded what they believed to be true.
I believe that there is not sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that it was all a conspiracy.

Sure, though the way you've configured it now is no proof for your god at all. Which I think is the point; indirect, weak arguments are all that can be proposed for christianity, if one concerns themselves with factual accuracy when they make them.

Although I am not conceding that the arguments for Christianity are all weak, wouldn't a serious of even weak arguments, that are not scientifically refuted, serve as the basis for a reasonable belief system.