Curious reasons for the NT Gospels being non-fiction
I've already responded to the person posting these 7 reasons for believing the gospels are true. I'm curious how some of you would respond to these. Note - I think they come from JP Holding.
1) They're Greco-Roman bioi, which usually are not fictitious.
2) They do not claim to be fiction. Like it or not, that counts for something.
3) The authors of the New Testament left in embarrassing details about themselves, things they would be unlikely to invent if it were fiction. This criterion is called by historians "the principle of embarrassment." Not only that, but they left in the embarrassing details and difficult sayings of Jesus.
4) The authors carefully set apart Jesus's words from their own. In that day, it would have been easy to put words in his mouth. But whenever they mention that it's their own opinion, they clearly state it. Notice how Jesus doesn't mention important church issues like circumcision, which would have certainly been included if it was invented to solve to problem.
5) The Gospels and Acts include a whole lot of historically confirmed people and events.
6) The authors challenge their readers to examine the evidence themselves.
7) The disciples died for what they wrote, unlikely if it was fiction.
Thanks in advance for any and all responses to these "reasons"