Be great to see some examples of this; which events and which epistle? It would make sense that the writers of the Gospels might have read the epistles.
Which conclusion is more “reasonable”?
I would contend that the more reasonable explanation is the one that follows known scientific principles, and does not rely on mysticism and the supernatural.
My observations on Christ's historicity are in no way based on faith, nor do I have to support a religious presupposition as you do. You on the other hand, have no reason to look for evidence that refutes your religious belief. This is called confirmation bias. You're not a subjective, impartial observer because you have been convinced that the fate of your everlasting soul is dependent on holding a certain thought, and that it's dangerous to play games with it. This is an effect of fear-based messaging that suppresses critical reflection, meaning that if you hear of some consequence that is adequately terrifying, you shut down critical thinking since the risk is too great. The secular equivalent of this is found in the global warming hysteria, where people think "Even if global warming isn't happening, we must act as if it is. Because the consequences are SO great..."
I don't have any fear of anything that I don't have evidence for, so while you try and equivocate my point of view with yours as "faith", it is not.
What's very clear is that you're claiming to be sure about things that you couldn't possibly be sure about. You're making statements about eternal life where you have no evidence, and asking me to consider repercussions as if you have proof. There is no humility, no skepticism, no evidentiary loyalty in making sweeping claims about the knowledge of afterlife, and no grown adult who has a respect for evidence makes these types of claims.
I don't rule out anything. But it isn't difficult to take a look at the facts objectively and ask what is more reasonable, without confirmation bias or presupposition. I know it's difficult, because I was in the same boat, mostly because of light but important cultural and familial pressures.
Psychoanalyzing somebody based on your guess of what they have or haven’t investigated is sort of the opposite of the scientific attitude you claim to possess.
Seems like you didn’t understand what I said about epistemology. Which sort of makes my point.
If you’re truly interested in the examples I alluded to, there’s a whole book full of them. “The Book of Luke in the Setting of Hellenistic History” by Colin Hemer. Way too much to put here.