Thanks for all the elaboration. I didn't do my studies in the USA, and SAT/ACT is only for American universities (so you're an American Muslim). You are STILL repeating the same points!! I told you I agree the earliest records are non-existent or poorly preserved. I told you I agree we can't "assess the historical reliability" of NT because the absence of original scripts today. So basically, all the so-called 'evidence' is the absence of evidence?
For Acts, I told you I knew the manuscripts "contain the most variations." You don't need to repeat it again. As I said, all historical events that have many eye-witnesses will produce sources that contain a lot of variations. Not only it's normal, it's also healthy. As a historian, I am suspicious of any event that has sources of no variation! Can you give example of verses in Acts (the one christians use today) that was fabricated in a way that fundamentally changed the core christian doctrine? (This is what I was asking for the first time I replied you. Do you understand my question or not?)
OK..... I think both of us need to come up with an agreed definition of 'fabrication'. You mentioned "numerous evdiences that christian scribes fabricated sayings and deeds of Jesus." Yes of course there were numerous different accounts, just like any major event in history. So it's important we define "evidence of fabrication." I define "evidence of fabrication" as a comparison of the current version with an earlier version which is proven to have more historical reliability than the current version, and the comparison shows something that is fundamentally different. By "fundamentally different," I mean something that changed the Christian core beliefs, NOT just "one accounts says 3000 people, another account says 3500 people". You mentioned the number 666. This is not any part of the core christian beliefs, whether if it's 123 or 456 or if the verse doesn't exist in the NT. If a scholar thinks it should be 616, that's great! It's great scholars come up with different conclusions that help us understand better!
So basically, you will win this debate if you present to me a version of NT which is: 1)earlier than the current version, 2)more historically reliable than the current version, and 3)has something fundamentally different to say about the core Christian beliefs (e.g. Jesus died for our sins, rose again etc).... You'll easily find examples of #3, but you'll need to prove #1 and #2 too. To prove #2, you'll also need to prove that it's accepted by at least some eye-witnesses from 1st century too because the current NT version can be traced back to 2nd century.
You mentioned about conservative christians... I personally can't stand American conservative christians. So if you're dealing with them, you have my sympathy.
When I say 'community of witnesses', I am referring to thousands of people who heard first hand what Jesus said directly from Jesus (he was always surrounded by large crowds) and therefore could verify the accuracy of the teachings after they were written and circulated. Yes, as both of us agree, there were different accounts, but only one was accepted by majority of the thousands of eye-witnesses. I'm not just referring to one person seeing "sweat on the forehead". Did Aisha hear first hand directly from Gabriel the revelations and be able to verify the accuracy of what was recited later? And I hope this Aisha was not his 9-year-old "wife".
Thanks for reminding me that hadiths can be 'strong'/'weak' (Please forgive me for forgetting. I heard it before. I didn't mean to make up lies). Now this makes me very curious. Do Muslims today possess the original manuscript of Sahih Bakhari? I just googled the compilation of Sahih Bakhari and the Quran and what I saw is quite.... interesting...... So Mohammad chose 4 able men e.g. Abdulla Ibn Masud, Ubai ibn Kaab to recite the Quran and later they all produced different versions, and none of their 4 different versions were used? And Bakhari Vol.6, Bk.61, #527 says Ubai was the best reciter but his version was rejected?