One is that there is no archaelogical evidence contrary to what is spoken of in the Gospels
One is the proximity of the first copies to the original events (significantly less than 100 years, and far closer than the writings of Homer or Aristotle or Caesar), meaning that the eyewitnesses were still alive when the verifiable manuscripts were written.
One is the number of manuscripts that are available, and their fidelity to one another.
One is that the Gospels are quoted by other authors of the period.
If the same demands were made to prove the authenticity of other ancient texts that are made to prove the Gospels, no one would believe Plato, Aristotle, or Caesar.
It may not be adequate to prove anything to a skeptic like you, but when you judge on the objective evidence, the authenticity of the Gospels is provable.
Now of course if you want to believe the apostle Paul, Matthew, Mark, Dr. Luke and John are all liars, that's quite another matter....
I'll be back with more later.........but probably not until tomorrow.
You are right on this one. It is well documented how a group of religious leaders got together and voted on what to put in and what to take out of the Bible along with documented notes where "new" information was added during translations.