I want to know why the gospel accounts and the epistles should not be believed. What is your reasoning for denying the credibility other than your presupposition that miracles cannot occur?
What does this have to do with the subject matter at hand? You are becoming increasingly transparent.
I'm sorry - I assumed you were hip to the arguments and I didn't give any background. To answer your question, the dating of the gospels and epistles are very important because if the dating is late, say 2nd to 3rd century, then legend could develop (i.e. myth). However, there is not one historical example of a legend developing within 30 years or less, and this is the timeframe that the gospels and epistles were written. This means that the mere sustenance of the Resurrection story is credible -- those involved were all still alive (friend and foe)-- and if the story was not true, The Resurrection story could have been easily discredited, the body could have been produced, and the whole movement would have died. But we know it thrived and grew like wildfire didn't it? Why wasn't the body produced by the Jews - it would have killed the movement. Why didn't the Christ-haters produce it?
George Washington chopping down the cherry tree?