The real religion?

[SteveII]

Begging the question.... LMAO.  Guys, you need to establish that the NT and other documents were written by credible witnesses, and that such testimony regarding Jesus' magic was accurate.  The questions raised about them is, and has always been, about corroboration.  Is there anything credible that can back these stories up?  Things provided by unbiased sources that don't have a vested interest in it being true?

Instead, we keep getting deflections.

"The apostles were there!" - Okay
"They witnessed Jesus' death..." - Okay, since death by crucifixion was a known means of punishment
"...and resurrection!" - Given that such a resurrection violates everything we know about the universe, we're going to need more evidence before we accept that it happened [1]
"Why would they lie?" - Why are you assuming they're telling the truth?  These people had a motive for lying, namely a burgeoning religious/political revolution.  And, again, it doesn't conform to what we know about the universe [2]
"Why would they risk torture and death?" - Because that's what zealous revolutionaries/cultists do? [3]
"How could the church gain such popularity so quickly?" - Popularity has nothing to do with veracity.  See: anti-vaxxers [4]
"You cannot provide any evidence that this is false!" - I don't need to.  I'm not the one claiming the documents and testimony are true.  I'm raising objections that must be sufficiently addressed before I believe it's true, while giving plausible alternatives [5]
"Evolution!" - Oh, fuck off [6]

So, with the bullshit out of the way, please provide actual corroborating evidence that supports the magical aspects of the NT.  Or accept that you've simply made a leap of faith without such evidence because the thought of a magic zombie savior gives you warm fuzzies.  Either way works for me. [7]

1. All you have pointed out is that you need more evidence. Billions of others have found what evidence we do have sufficient. Fine. 
2. Most people assume people are not lying until presented with a reason to think otherwise. Your 'motive' for lying is nonsense. You obviously are unfamiliar with the message of the NT: namely changing peoples hearts and providing a way to have a relationship with God and specifically NOT a political revolution. So, keeping the obvious message of the NT writers in mind, what smidgen of evidence to you have to support your theory? None. 
3. You are referring to something not proposed here, but the simple fact is that these people had nothing to gain by lying about what they saw. 
4. You confuse the point. We can infer from the existence of multiple churches across the Roman Empire that the source of the belief in the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus was NOT the documents that later became the NT. 
5. No one has asked you to produce evidence to disprove the NT. Just asking you to provide a basis for your objections or get off the "no evidence" train.
6. RR mention of Evolution was in the context of questioning what is evidence.
7. No matter how you characterize it, we do have evidence for Christianity. The fact you don't find it compelling does not equal no evidence.  EDITED TO ADD: You seem to view the evidence presupposing there is no God therefore finding it unconvincing. A majority of people do not approach it that way. They are open to the idea there is a God, consider the evidence, consider the message, and consider their internal needs and come to a decision.