Then prove they are legends, and that the witnesses were liars.<quoted text>
The Gospels are legends made to lay down a religion. They're no more historical than the accounts of Muhammad talking to Allah or Joseph Smith meeting an angel or Buddha achieving Nirvana.
Completely untrue. People believe ridiculous things without evidence all the time. You don't apply this standard to any other religion.
It should be simple, if true.
Not so with Islam, sorry. Muhammad had no witnesses at all, and was illiterate. No apostles at all, and therefore, no peer-reviewed evidence. The Bible is a written account of the events themselves, and correlates with events from outside sources.
Not even the Jews deny Jesus, who above all had the motive and the opportunity to do so, since they regarded him as a sorcerer. Had Christians been lying, they would have been the FIRST to note that in the historical records, or not noted it at all, which would have been enough to suggest it never happened.
Every bit of ancient evidence shows us that something very unusually happened on the fringe of the Roman Empire, where the Empire fought against one uprising after another, leading after the Third Jewish War to its demise and withdrawal from the Indian Ocean for which it briefly reached.
No, neither Muhammad, nor Joseph Smith, have witnesses, or good arguments. But that has never been the problem of Christianity, which merged from nowhere, a full-blown church with it's rituals intact, as if everything they knew was taught by someone directly. We have heaps upon heaps of evidence.
But let me guess, the Bible does count for you, or the records of the Church, right? Too biased?
Sorry, that won't fly either. You don't get to pick and choose which evidence is valid. If you suspect bias, then show where it lies. The burden is on you, not any Christian.