Of course, I do believe there are good reasons to trust what the Bible says, as outlined in my ebook “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament”:
http://www.whyfaith.com/nt/

Interestingly, even if a person doesn’t consider the Bible to be God’s word or even generally accurate, if we study the gospels and other biblical texts seriously as merely ancient writings, a tenable (IMHO) case can still be built for the truthfulness of the Christian faith, as per Habermas’ “minimal facts argument” here:
http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/1the-facts-concerning-the-resurrection-815.php

Read scholarly, nonsectarian textbooks about the gospels and you’ll see that scholars consider them to be contradictory and based on secondhand information, useful as evidence about the historical Jesus but not conclusive. Only Christians consider them reliable in all their particulars, and not even all Christians at that.

No evidence is given to back up this claim, and in fact there is much against it. The earliest historical documents that we have concerning Jesus are found in the New Testament. As per my previous post here:
http://www.whyfaith.com/2007/07/10/the-new-testament-when-and-who/
We know that all of the NT documents were written in the first century. We also have very good reasons to believe they were written by eyewitnesses:
http://www.whyfaith.com/2007/03/17/eyewitness-testimony-in-the-new-testament/
Further discussion of the general reliability of the NT is available here (among many other sources):
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r14ac.html
http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.784441/k.C6BC/Accuracy/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068

So clearly the assertion that Jesus was only claimed to be God centuries later is false. Even the notion that these ideas only appeared “decades” later is also false, since the creed found in 1 Cor 15:3-5 is dated to 3-7 years after Christ’s death:
http://www.carm.org/evidence/1Cor15_3-4.htm

“While Jesus was on earth he did not claim to be the creator or ask us to revere him as God.”

Again, this is plainly false from the NT texts, where Jesus is the creator (ex: John 1:3, Colossians 1:16) and accepts worship (ex: Matthew 14:33, John 9:38), after He Himself noted that it is only appropriate to worship God (Matthew 4:10). So again, based on the earliest historical texts, these arguments do not stand.

Attempting to build a historical case based on the Qur’an (which was recorded hundreds of years after Jesus’ crucifixion) is only effective if a person already believes the Qur’an is the word of God, which is of course circular.

Here’s a quote from that page:
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying, “Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).

Hmm, that sounds like a rather odd thing for the Catholic Church to say! Let’s look it up online (the Catholic Encyclopedia is online, after all) and see the context for this quote:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

Scroll down to the “Colletions” section. The “Nexus Magazine” page claims this quote refers to the letters of Paul but clearly it does not. The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to a collection of letters supposedly written by St Ignatius which were collected by Eusebius. The text has been quoted carefully to hide what it really says, and the author (or whoever he got his information from) has deliberately lied.

A similar example occurs when the author of this article claims the Catholic Encyclopedia “admits that the Gospels “do not go back to the first century of the Christian era” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).” Read for yourself what it really says:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm
It ACTUALLY says that the titles on the gospels don’t go back to the first century; ie, when the author originally wrote the Gospel of Matthew, he didn’t write “Gospel of Matthew” at the top of the page. Again, the quote has been dishonestly misrepresented.

Another example of the dishonesty of this article: Here’s a quote that supposedly applies to the Council of Nicea: “As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter… For one year and five months the balloting lasted…” Wow! That would be quite interesting if it were true. Now, let’s look up their source (which they are using as proof for their views on the Council of Nicea). The citation is “(God’s Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire’s translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41)”.

Hmmm, “God’s Book of Eskra”? Perhaps an ancient history text composed around the time of the council? Actually, no, it was written by “a 19th century dentist named John Ballou Newbrough”. It’s described as “a hallucinogenic reworking of cosmology and ancient history”. Read it for yourself here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/oah/oah/oah531.htm
So it’s really a writing composed in 1882 by some dentist, probably while high. Again, trying to use this quote as evidence is devious in the extreme.

I looked up 3 quotes from the page, and all three were totally misrepresented!

Now, I don’t have the time to check all the references, but I don’t really need to. The thesis of the page is that the New Testament was composed by Constantine in the 4th century is ridiculous because we have literally thousands of copies of the New Testament texts from the second and third centuries, along with lists of canons from the second and third centuries that match extremely closely with the ones agreed upon at the council (though the canon was not the main concern at the original council). Further, no scholar (be it Christian, Jew, atheist, liberal, conservative …) would ever give credit to this theory.

Sorry, but I just don’t believe it. I don’t go around calling people liars very often (and I am not calling you a liar) … but that Nexus Magazine page contains at least three (and I’m willing to bet a lot more than that) blatant, verifiable lies. Just because someone puts a lot of fancy citations in an article doesn’t mean it’s true.

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html

Then try to open your mind and rethink your statements