New Testament as Historical Reporting...

It is of note that in the Gospels we see that the apostles responded like any group of modern people—some believed their eyes and some didn’t. All the apostles ended up as great leaders in the church, but initially, some had difficulty believing.  In Matthew 28:17 we are told the apostles met the risen Jesus on a mountainside in Galilee. “When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.”  Clearly the apostles were not any more or less gullible than moderns.

In conclusion, here are at least three solid justifications for taking the New Testament as “gospel.”  Three sound rationale to consider these writings as legitimately documenting the life of Christ, his teachings, and establishment of the church he founded.

One, the New Testament is founded on appeals to eyewitness accounts.

Two, the style is factual, not fictional and based on sound oral tradition.

And three, the content itself argues against being simply made up.

Here is a final, crucial point. Recall the concept from science of critical rationality, where you evaluate various theories and determine which of them best describes what we know. Which is the more reasonable conclusion?  That the apostles fabricated, endorsed and spread what they knew to be an elaborate hoax that they were each willing to die for?  Or that they knew first hand that Christ was who he said he was and that was well worth dying for?