I have studied it extensively. Much more than most ordinary Christians and Ministers. I have read many books from both Christian and non-Christian perspectives. What have you read from the non-Christian perspective?
The problem, as you seem unaware, is that the historical life of Jesus and Jesus as an historical figure is not agreed upon. Most scholars (Christian and non-Christian) who have studied the Bible agree that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible is at least partly non-historical. However, there is no general agreement who the real Jesus was. The problem is that we virtually have no evidence outside the Bible, (Paul, NT letters and gospels) of who Jesus was. There is no way to verify the historical accuracy of any view of the historical Jesus if there is not evidence of his life outside the Bible from 4 B.C. (when he was probably born) to about A.D. 30. The gospels don't portray a unified view of Jesus, the gospels don't agree amongst themselves even though Matthew and Luke obviously were mostly derived from Mark and they don't agree with the portrayal by Paul. This has been known for a long time.
Particular views of Jesus are derived from unjustified assumptions. For example, the Bible is exactly as written or this theory of higher criticism of the Bible is best. These assertions are either not supported by facts and evidence or only by literary and cultural assumption (so either can't count as facts or are at best second hand facts) in justifying a particular position. This is one of the reasons there are so many different "Christianities" around the world.
The Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme.
And keep in mind—many of the writers of Scripture didn't even know each other.
Approximately 40 men were inspired to record the Word of God. They had no e-mail, no faxes, no phones. Imagine trying to pull together a project like this over a 1500-year period.
Coincidence?
The gospels don't portray a unified view of Jesus, the gospels don't agree amongst themselves even though Matthew and Luke obviously were mostly derived from Mark and they don't agree with the portrayal by Paul. This has been known for a long time.
I would disagree ... Matthew, Mark & Luke should be studied together. They are 3 different people giving their account ... they are not exactly the same however cover many of the same stories .... if they were exactly the same ... then it would indeed be suspicious. They don't contradict one another .... more or less details are given by each author. Same with the writings of Paul.
The message is cohesive throughout .... Jesus is God ... Jesus is the Messiah .... where is/are the contradiction(s) in that regard?
When facing possible contradictions, it is important to remember that two statements may differ from each other without being contradictory. Some fail to make a distinction between contradiction and difference.
If an event happens and say several people eye witness the event .... will they all tell the exact same story the same way? .... will their "accounts" be exactly the same? If one states something happened and another does not .... does that mean one of them is lying? or ... that none of it is true? No, but their accounts will be different (vary) ... does that mean they are contradictory? No it does not.