There is no written testimony from eyewitnesses.  The gospels were originally spread by oral tradition, which was recorded in writing much later.  What survives of the gospels today are copies of copies.  There is no "eyewitness testimony" in the conventional meaning of that expression, and it is disingenuous to suggest that there is.

I see.  We are now into word games.

What does "document" mean?  The Bible is a document that has been compiled from other documents. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you do not know what the synoptic problem is and do not understand the reasons why most scholars do not take similarities between the gospels to be corroborative evidence of the sort that you imply here.

I can only repeat what I said.  You appear not to know anything about how historical claims are validated.  The "gospels" are just religious texts, like any other myriad such texts, oral and written, that have existed all over the planet throughout recorded history.  What distinguishes them from all others is that you were brought up to revere the Bible over all other religious texts.

I have bolded the part of your reply that begins to make sense.  And what you see bolded there--that is a conclusion, not a premise.  In your case, however, it is clearly a premise.  And you are back to confusing premises with conclusions.  You do not build any case for us to come to that conclusion, because you have started out believing that the stories are true and that there were eyewitnesses.  The fact remains that all stories have their "eyewitness" accounts, even the false ones. 

So we need something more than a bare assertion.  We need evidence to suggest that the gospels are anything but apocryphal. 

Well, gosh, you really do know how to use Google, don't you?

Unfortunately, you did not bother to google JP Holding, the author of that essay.  He is far from being a recognized scholar.  In fact, his real name used to be Robert Turkel, and he has been exposed as something of an internet fraud and a notorious troll.  (He apparently changed his name legally to James Patrick Holding in 2007, after having been unsuccessful in getting people to use his online pseudonym.)  He has engaged in lots of online debates over the years, and Farrell Till has an interesting essay on his background.

But we can quibble over sources of information.  There are better scholars than Holding whom you might draw on to try to support your position, and I hope that you explore the matter further.  I would suggest that you go beyond Holding's internet screeds.

"Actually broke out a sharpie and some papyus? No, I didn't mean that and I think you know it."

No, I didn't know it and I think if you didn't want to mean that then you shouldn't have said that.  I see no other way of interpreting what you said.  But if you didn't mean it, fine.

"Christianity claims God inspired/guided/had something to do with it's contents. Yes?"

A far different thing than 'written by a supernatural deity.' 

Just because Christians believe that God has something to do with the Scriptures does not mean that they can't be taken on their own terms, and as a number of the books within the collection put themselves forward on historical terms, there is no reason why we can't receive them as such.

Take the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts for example.  Luke says he sat down to compile a trustworthy account, having investigated matters for himself.  There is nothing in Luke and Acts where Luke says, implicitly or explicitly, that he is writing anything God inspired.  Who cares if Christians nonetheless believe God did?  Here I am, one particular Christian, willing to set aside the inspiration point altogether and deal with the document on its face.  I should be commended for my openness and my willingness to face the truth, whatever comes out of it.  This doesn't seem to be happening.  Instead, we see a relentless attempt (see Cop's posts for evidence) to make sure we pigeonhole the entire Bible into a special category.