No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive. They must have told you in your theology classes that those four were promoted only by decree, in a rather arbitrary manner, and that others were either suppressed or destroyed. And that no scholars believe that the earliest, Mark, was written anything like as early as 55, as you claim. Add at least twenty or more years to that, and by then your eye-witnesses were getting very thin on the ground indeed. Apply the standard for historical veracity suggested by the likes of Keith and Teribus and I'm afraid you're well into the realms of hearsay and folk tales. All I ask you to do is acknowledge that. I could never say that the gospels are, in part at least, true. But, as historical documents, they have no validity. They were penned by men with a mission, they relied far too much for comfort on word of mouth rather than written sources, and they were conceived far too long after the alleged death of their hero. All that sits rather uncomfortably with the fact that your whole religion, with all its dogma and edicts and threats, is predicated entirely on them. A house built on sand, eh?