Of course you don't see how you're out of line... that's the entire point!
I also love, as has been pointed out, that whilst coming high and mighty you haven't contributed anything tangible to the discussion at hand.
If you have a case regarding the authenticity or otherwise of the gospels, state it. Otherwise you are all talk and no trousers. An implied argument from authority ("have you read x type of writers") simply implies they somehow know better, without actually demonstrating it like what people do in conversation. It's no different to saying "well, x says otherwise" and not actually engaging in a debate but using fallacious argumentation to make it look as though you have a point.
"The Seahawks suck, this guy says so".
Dull. Stupid. Boring. Undiscussable. Unreasoned. Dismissive.
"The Seahawks suck because x, y,z etc..
Reasoned. Engaging. Intellectually challenging. Debatable."
I am sure you are a nice guy who treat animals well etc., but you're really missing the point here...