> So there's only an initial 200 year gap to consider

This is like saying "It's only been 200 years since Waterloo, so a modern writer could make a worthy account based on hearsay". 200 years is ten generations.

> Not all christian's hold blind faith - many of us are hard-nosed skeptics who examined the facts and still believe in it.

"A nice bloke called Jesus" isn't much of a fact to examine. "Transubstantiation" is, as is any of the extranormal stuff.

As an atheist, I don't understand why people have to look to something two-thousand years old to use as their moral guide. Major religions are so complex that you can pick and choose pretty much whatever you want to support your arguments - before the US civil war, both pro- and anti-slavery arguments were able to reference the bible, for example.

Ultimately, most people pick and choose what they want from a religion to use it as their moral guide... which is putting the cart before the horse. They already have a moral compass, and choose the bits that suit them from a religion. You hear similar when you talk to a christian moving town and they talk about going church-shopping to find one that suits them.

A clear example from my own recent experience is that a very close friend of the family was diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer only two weeks ago, and is in enough pain that two hours sleep a night is considered 'good'. When her father found out, he was abusing her about satan's influences and read her the riot act. Most people (including most christians) would be revolted by his behaviour, but his selected parts of christianity suited his chosen morality.

> I mean we're normal people right, we don't want to waste our lives believing a lie!

We do it all the time. I do it frequently when I purchase an electronic gizmo and avoid thinking about the sweatshop labour and conflict minerals involved. "Being okay with a lie" is a normal state of being, particularly if it masks an uncomfortable truth.