1> There are no original texts to ascertain the reliability of the much later texts. For instance the earliest fragment of “Mark” (certainly not an eyewitness account, and anonymous like ALL the synoptics) dates to 160CE. Mark of course being the copied basis for both Mathew (with additions) for a Jewish audience and Luke with contrasting additions and for a Greek audience. The most adjacent in time fragment we have of any gospel is the the fragment of “John” dated between 125CE and 250CE. John was written by 4 or more authors and certainly not an eyewitness account.
2> We can be sure that the original “followers of the way” in Jerusalem had copies of Matthew , but it did not contain the birth narrative and in their copy of Luke the wording fostered their belief that the Jesus figure was entirely human (see my writings on the Ebionites on this forum)
3> The 1st to 5th centuries was a hotbed of contrasting beliefs, texts, cults and sects (see my various writings in More on Christian sects in the second to 5th centuries - #3 by Old_man_shouts_at_cl) the wording of many texts was interpolated, edited, altered to accommodate the leading cult’s opinions until Constantine’s takeover in the 4th Century CE.
Several texts were invented during the 2-4th Centuries including 2 Peter, Titus and 2 Timothy to satisfy local mores.
4> The Roman Church did not even have a canon of texts until the competition from the Marcionites with their gospel made the Early Church try to cobble together a set from the myriad of texts available.
5>All 4 of the “gospels” are anonymous and all 4 show signs of multiple revisions
There is not one contemporary reference to his alleged life of the gospel inspired Jesus figure.
There is not one independent contemporary witness to the resurrection. The “500” CLAIMED witnesses to the resurrection are all anonymous.
The fact that a very human “jesus” may have inspired the magical stories found much much later in the ramblings of “Paul”, an admitted visionary, and they in turn inspired the even later creator of “Mark” is a much more likely scenario than the semi divine, magical zombie jesus described in the modern bible.
I could write so much more on this subject but you will find your arguments eviscerated elsewhere on these pages. Feel free to write me if you need clarification or citations for any of my points.