As a historical document, the New Testament is unreliable

Thank you for your contribution. I look forward to continuing this dialogue.My opponent seems to want to have a back and forth dialogue about specific issues, rather than dealing with the issue conceptually. This is not the debate I wish to have, if he insists I guess I have no other choice.Let's get to it.A) Mark's Geographical IssuesBethany and BethphageMy opponent claims that the text is presenting an inaccurate geographical situation because Mark presents Jesus riding to Jerusalem from Jericho through Bethany then Bethphage and points out that Bethphage is directly between Jersualem and Jericho, so it is illogical to think that one would ride through Bethany. This, my opponent claims, is compounded by the fact that Matthew reverses the order. To further "complicate" issues, Matthew also refers to this journey by simply saying they went through Bethphage however, my opponent is attempting to force the text to say what it doesn't say.Here is what the text saysMark: They went to Jerusalem from Jericho, they passed through Bethphage and Bethany on the way.Matthew: They went to Jerusalem from Jericho, they passed through Bethany and Bethphage on the wayMatthew: They went to Jersalem and and then went to Bethphage.Here is what it does not sayMark does not say they first went to Bethphage and then to BethanyMatthew does not say they first went to Bethany and then to BethphageMatthew does not say that they only went to BethphageNone of the above statements of what they did say are contradictory with each other. Mark and Matthew simply reverse the order (without implying chronological difference, just as I always say Minneapolis-St. Paul regardless of the order that I actually traveled through them). Matthew simply comments that they came through Bethphage, without excluding that they went to Bethany (just as in my previous scenario I may say "I drove through Minneapolis on my way to Wisconsin" regardless of the fact that I also drove through several other cities, including St. Paul).Tyre and SidonNo where does Mark say that Jesus took the most direct route to the Sea of Galilee. Perhaps Jesus stopped in Sidon to pick up some bread, or to visit a friend. Perhaps the road from Tyre to Sidon had fallen into disrepair, or was known for banditry. If I was driving from point A to point B, there are many reasons that I may go through point C, even though it is out of my way. If there was road construction and I had to go around I could legitimately say "I drove to point A to point B through point C?" Similarly if I had to drive through a dangerous part of the city I may chose a route that is out of the way. When I arrive at my destination someone may say "Why would you go that far out of your way, that's completely the opposite direction?" To which I would respond with a reason, we simply do not have the reason in this case. Unless the text positions Sidon between Tyre and the Sea of Galilee, which is does not, this is a non-issue.B) Pilate's CharacterJosephus and PhiloMy opponent has missed the point entirely. Simply put, my opponent is using historical documents that would not pass his own tests of reliability to disprove the New Testament. So if he dismisses the New Testament, he must also dismiss these texts, therefore undermining his own argument.I am not proposing that we dismiss Josephus, nor am I proposing that we dismiss Philo. Rather, I am saying that my opponent cannot use them to discredit the New Testament without also discrediting his sources.InterpolationsDoes my opponent wish to argue that three interpolations in a document that is several hundred pages long invalidates the entire document? This would be like saying that since George Washington is historically recorded saying "I cannot tell a lie" after chopping down a cherry tree, an incident that American Historians acknowledge never happened, that George Washington was not a general in the Revolutinoary War or the first President of the United States of America. This kind of standard leaves us with essentially no reliable documents earlier than the advent of audio and video recordings. This kind of argument might be able to make a successful argument that the New Testament is less reliable than another source, but not that it is utterly unreliable.Ending of MarkAgain, a small portion of the text may be unhistorical. At best you can prove that this means that that portion of the text is unreliable, but a small portion does not prove the entire document unreliable.C) AnachronismsMy opponent wishes me to address this point, so I will.The text of Acts does not say that the murderers of Stephen were acting according to Roman law. The picture that is presented is a group of angry Jews who were infuriated by Stephen's teaching, in a moment of anger cast him out of the city and murdered him. This is no more a scene of legal state ordained execution than a mob of angry KKK members stringing up a black man. Furthermore, the text does not state that the Roman courts sanctioned this execution, or were even aware of it.In regards to the inscription warning Gentiles of capital punishment if they enter the Jewish only section of the Temple, my opponent has not provided a source for this evidence so it is impossible to know what to do with it. However, in order for this argument to hold force my opponent must show the following: A) This inscription was present during the time period in question, B) It wasn't an idle threat (meaning that the Jews intended to carry it out), and C) This inscription and the fulfillment of the threat was sanctioned by the Roman authorities.Consider this: If I put up a sign on three tree in front of my house that says "All tresspassers will captured and made into private slaves," does that mean that the government has sanctioned my ability to capture and make slaves of anyone on my land?" Of course not. However, the government also would not force me to take it down either. However, according to my opponent's assertion, if they found this sign 1000 years from now it means that the government allowed me to make slaves of anyone I captured on my property.D) OT ReliabilityMy opponent is correct that the Old Testament is irrelevant to this debate. However, what is not irrelevant to this debate is how my opponent's critera are applied. If my opponent discredits the New Testament according to the various critera he has presented (specifically Time span between the authorship and the event, and the attribution or lack of attribution of the author), then he also discredits the Old Testament, Plato's Republic, and almost any historical document older than 1000 years. If my opponent is willing to acknowledge that he is dismissing all of these sources then this point can be discarded.For clarification, I'll simply ask: Is the book of Exodus historically reliable? Knowing this will help me to further understand my opponent's position.