If you carefully consider the places where Matthew and Luke provide material that is not included in Mark (such as the birth narrative, the genealogy, the resurrection appearances, etc) you find that Matthew and Luke give entirely different accounts. In other words, where Matthew and Luke did not have Mark or Q to draw from they ALWAYS produce something that is inconsistent with the other. And as for the common Q material, which is also not in Mark, Matthew and Luke tend to place the sayings in utterly different contexts. Both suggest to me non-historical literary practices.

“As far as I can tell, your only issue here is personal incredulity at reports of supernatural experiences. The fact that these events contradict your own worldview (atheism) does inherently falsify them.”

Ezekiel is ridiculous and far, far from ‘miracles’, whether it is his god proclaiming His anger towards pillows, creatures that do not exist like the automatons or wheeled cherubim with eyes on the wheels or his rant about the adulterers who will have their house burnt, children killed, breasts torn off by themselves and then stoned to death. So no, once again not against ‘my worldview’ just flying in the face of objective reality. By the way does framing it as ‘my worldview’ somehow make the insanity or improbable suddenly credible as though it is just my opinion that says nay? Basically we have no evidence or reason to suppose that anything Ezekiel spouts is anything but fabrication or delusion much like Phlegon’s Marvels and similar work. If anyone wishes to claim otherwise then they must provide some credible evidence as to why and how these things exist; “god did it” does not suffice.

From your defence of these frankly significant aberrations you have demonstrated what appears — I stress appear, I may be misinterpreting — to be a dedicated adherence to the contents of the bible as you understand them, as though writing it down is evidence by itself. As is implied in your brief sentence on the Evolution difficulty, you have personally chosen to ignore the science in favour of faith based explanations. Or if you truly think that the “god did it”, is a valid response to every physical impossibility or absurdity, that the flood actually happened and that Ezekiel isn’t wacky (just because of ‘my world view’). Everything appears to begin with the a priori position, that you’re interpretation is right and then proceed to find any way to justify this. Effectively it seems highly improbable that you would ever be convinced by anything I mention, you are convinced and that is it; is this appraisal way outside the ballpark?

Dual Disagreeing Accounts

It matters not how it is diced the order clearly changes, Genesis 2:8 does not make it clear that it only refers to the creations of the garden, you have assumed that it pertains to that alone. Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that neither plants nor man existed and then Adam is created, in direct contradiction to Genesis 1:11-12 which put plants long before Adams arrival. There is a clear contradiction as far as the basic text illustrates.
Evolution

“That the Biblical account contradicts the origin premise of your worldview does not render it necessarily untrue.”

No, that is not ‘my’ worldview, but decades of scientific research that has created an extremely robust theory, one that explains our origins and that of all species on this planet, also the only one. It has such a wealth of evidence that it is as close to fact as one can get scientifically speaking and completely invalidates the biblical account. The fact that the creation story flies in the face of all the scientific evidence, that it is basically an impossible premise given our knowledge, renders it untrue.
Flood

“Clearly, the flood account requires intervention by God.”

The answer of “god did it” is easily the most ridiculous and useless of all possible answers, it brings us nothing if every time a violation of known reality is encountered a deity is invoked as a sticking plaster. Nor is the geological or archaeological evidence debateable, this global flood did not happen. As for Genesis 7:20, well it says every mountain is covered, that is quite explicit, Everest could only have been higher at the time. All our knowledge and evidence clearly points towards the flood being a work of fiction, invoking god to whitewash over every absurdity only reinforces this position.

Exodus

“Historical evidence is spotty at best.”

May not be as good? There is not any evidence to suggest that Israelites ever were held captive in Egypt at all, at least none I am currently aware of. Nor does absence of evidence suggest anything; there is no evidence for fire breathing dragons either, we certainly do not take this absence to suggest that they might have existed. What absence of evidence does suggest is that the Exodus account is problematic as it appears to have never taken place. I would also add that what whilst you attest that certain things are historic evidence I do not agree and have shown a reasonable case as to why they are not, you certainly do not agree but it seems to be a matter of personal interpretation. Oh I realise that you may think your answer is the only reasonable one, incontrovertible; however conviction does not make it so and others will draw their own conclusions. Seen as you brought Christ up, that is why I still think there is a good argument for saying that Jesus did not actually exist. What I think you have done is confuse absence of evidence with the silence by those who would reasonably have been expected to record the alleged events and folks of the gospels had they occurred.

“I would not expect much archaeological evidence…”

But there is archaeological evidence present from others from far earlier such as in the Palaeolithic period of much smaller nomadic groups. So wandering groups, especially ones as big as Moses’ lot are detectable; if they were ever there that is. The oasis where they spent much of their time in the vicinity of also has much evidence of occupation before the Exodus period and even some after but no evidence for any bronze age occupation. The Sinai area has been extensively surveyed and there is evidence for much bar these wandering Israelites. Given that they also spent long periods in single spots we would expect to find evidence. There is none, hence they do not appear to have been there or were extremely conscientious environmentalists.

“The connection of the conquest account and history/archaeology seems to be primarily one of timing, which is debatable.”

Not sure what you mean there.

Only two mention the nativity

“If we were going to reject all historic documents…”

So why is it important for two to mention but not the others and why are the two stories different? There is only one reason this question could be considered absurd and I think that is obvious; this is actually a very pertinent question; especially given the salvation of your eternal soul aspect. If two stories of the same event are different, especially significantly different then we are entitled to ask why. Frankly the idea that we are to just accept that the gospels are useful historical documents of events and people(which they are not), that they tell different stories is what is really absurd; which version is the historical event and which is the fictional?

Matthew and Luke nativity accounts do not both mention Herod
Because Herod and what he commands is the reason they must evacuate Bethlehem in Matthew’s story to avoid the infant massacre, an event not recorded anywhere else including Luke I might add. This Herod is missing in Luke’s version of events though one might assume such a significant event to be recorded in both. He is also dead as Luke’s mentioning of Augustus’ taxation and census demonstrates, this also puts Luke’s story a good many years after Matthews, which is odd.
Genealogies

“While the genealogies given are clearly different…”

Then this should surely be stated though I think both claims to be through Joseph; guessing is a poor activity for inclusion in the path to salvation no? Honestly there is no reason to suppose that this is the case without good cause which is not forthcoming, therefore it remains a contradiction.

“The point of linking Jesus to the kingly line…”

Oh I know why it was done; my point is that in ensuring this prophecy was fulfilled the author overlooked something. That due to god being his father — and himself for that matter — this is not possible, fulfilment of prophecy fail. One might also wonder why the all knowing would have missed the issue of no blood relation with Himself impregnating in some fashion Mary.

Anticipation of the Resurrection

Three of the gospels reflect knowledge of the impending resurrection prior to when the tomb is found empty but John contains no such knowledge and they think the body moved, why?

Signs but no signs?

I think Mark 8:10-12 is quite unequivocal about there being no signs who then goes on to contradict himself in 16:20, Luke 11:29 along with Matthew 16:4 says only one sign for that generation which suggests that there are no others and John 20:30 has many signs. No signs, one and many, that is very contradictory to each other and plain wrong as far as the none or one is concerned, for what are all the miracles and healings if not signs?

Withering of the Fig Tree

“Matthew simply grouped the whole event topically…”

I am not sure how that makes a difference, there is nothing in Matthew that suggests any significant passage of time, and it appears to have happened rather rapidly.

“The tree's withering was apparent immediately…”

That requires too much inferring beyond what is written, we must put actions in that were not written. Jesus however never gave a message; it was the apostles that noted the change. In Matthew at the point of cursing and in Mark the following day; the explanations don’t cover this. I’d also not grant this as one of the better claimed, suggesting the trivial matter of a withering tree as one of the best implies that the rest are hardly of consequence. Oh and just why was Jesus bringing the wrath of god down on fig trees anyway?

Date of the crucifixion

There are two different dates given for the crucifixion, one on Passover as per all but John and one on Passover Eve as per John, why the difference as one would expect that there would be no ambiguity on such an important event?

First Resurrection Appearance

“The first recording is not necessarily the first appearance.”

Without any reason to suppose that the first recorded is not the first appearance this explanation does not hold, this is wishful thinking. Besides surely these 'eyewitnesses' would have had the same experience and recorded the same event? One version has Mary and Mary Magdalene encountering him, another in Luke has Jesus appear first to the terrified apostles — they think he is a ghost — at Jerusalem where he instructs them to stay. This is at odds with Mark and Matthew story, which make mention of an instruction to go to Galilee where Jesus awaits on a mountain top. Of course they were not eyewitnesses and with the authors filling in the gaps of the material they had we get these incongruous narratives.

"Whatever the authenticity, one must conclude that all the explicit historic evidence affirms a historic Christ." – Arthenor

“I am not suggesting that authenticity is irrelevant to historic analysis…”

I disagree, authenticity is of huge importance, and certainly not irrelevant even to your conclusion. If a source is not authentic then it is fake or fictitious, a fake or fictitious source will only pollute any conclusion. You cannot declare that the evidence universally affirms Christ by pretending that the authenticity does not matter to buck up the numbers. The pieces may be historic in origin but that is not the same thing as historic evidence. The sentence you typed as above reads to me as:

“Regardless of where, when, why or written by who, the only conclusion anyone should reach after carefully interpreting the available evidence with an a priori assumption of an historic Christ is that there was an historic Christ.”

There is very much an interpretation by you whether you like it or not, you have chosen to interpret available evidence with an eye towards an historic Christ; no amount of claiming otherwise will make what you cite explicit and unambiguous. From what I have read so far you would appear to be a believer of some branch of Christianity and hence inherently biased in some degree towards finding for your faith. I believe that I am free from such a clouding bias, I may be atheistic but as an historical Christ presents no issues to this I do not think it creates an inherent bias; I do realise of course that this is a self assessment and I may be completely wrong, I don’t think I am though. Also as it happens there is no historic source that explicitly contradicts Cthulhu either, yet he does not exist for any Christian? There are however some sources that do contradict an historic Christ; Theophilus and Athenagoras in the mid second century go to great lengths describing their faith and yet make not one reference to a mortal man, even when challenged to produce one resurrected man Theophilus fails to point out what should have been obvious in Jesus’ own miracles. Minucius in his literary defence of Christianity as a discussion between Christian and unbeliever also makes no mention of Jesus or resurrection but he goes even further, by refuting Christ’s most important act of salvation. After his opponent gives a string of allegations including worshiping a criminal on a cross the Christian utters “For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God." Now the Christian does not go on to qualify the statement by reminding us that the man nailed to the cross was not a criminal, he simply denies this central pillar of faith and moves on to refuting other allegations. Why are early Christian apologists failing to note their most important figure and worse, apparently combating a notion that they do not recognise as Christianity, that they see as a false doctrine to tarnish them?

“Any theory that denies the historic Christ…”

Stated as anyone intent on reassuring their own belief would contend, the reality is a little different. Any theory which suggests that the assumption of Jesus' existence is perhaps a little presumptuous to begin with, is not a denial. 1) It proposes a critical appraisal of what is touted as the historic evidence, which does not include the gospels which are not historical documents of events regardless of how much anyone wishes them to be such. 2) There are no contemporary accounts of JC's amazing activities or even of his existence, the accounts come decades after the fact. There are accounts of other messianic claimants and apologist defences that leave the central man out. This does present an issue and a part of a credible argument to suggest that JC may not have existed in the flesh.

“Even with some legitimate questions about the evidence, the evidence for a historic Christ…”

But seen as there is so little historic evidence for a historic Christ, it all being false is not a huge problem. It is though, a little more complicated though than just fakes, much of what exists is fuzzy and calls for a particular interpretation to achieve an affirmative aspect. The gospels as pointed out do not constitute a credible, impartial historical document whatever anyone wishes they were and seen as Paul pretty much never refers to an existing person or any acts this alleged historical person perpetrated; his work does not really add to an historical argument. That is not saying that Paul's work is erroneous but that he was talking about something else than is currently assumed, his work can be understood very well with a cosmic, non-corporeal version of Christ. I certainly agree that an historic Christ is not the only conclusion and that was partially my point.