If I wrote a text today in which I talked about a guy who died in the year 1980?

First of all, Paul probably wrote his earliest epistle around 49 A.D. and since Jesus was crucified around 33 A.D. that's a gap of about sixteen years. I would say its feasible someone could possibly just now decide to write a memoir on Jacques Chirac and him being elected president of France.

Perhaps a better analogy would be to say, what if you decided you wanted to start a new religion and invented a person out of your imagination and said there was a man in 1995 in your city (wherever you live) who became a sensation and drew large crowds with his preaching and miracles. He was arrested, tried, and executed for a crime he didn't commit, yet he came back from the dead and was seen by five hundred local individuals. For one thing, it would be very bone-headed to spread something like that in the very area you claim it happened because too many people would immediately know those events never happened. Another thing, if somehow your message began to disturb the local authorities, they could very easily prove you a hoax by showing from the record no such man existed, much less became any kind of sensation. In short, your new religion would go over like a lead balloon. That's not exactly what happened with Christianity. The extremely rapid spread was facilitated by the fact that Paul and the apostles spoke of events that the locals were aware had happened. In other words, the explosion of Christianity in the heart of where the supposed events happened is strong evidence that the basic details of Jesus' life and ministry was well known and corroborated.

I doubt it was your intention, but you have actually made an argument supporting Christianity because, as I believe you are insinuating, in the scenario you present, you would not be credible. No one would believe you...at least, not enough to start a widespread movement. In the instance of the birth of Christianity, thousands of people found Paul and the apostles credible for a reason.

ADDED: I suppose one could make that argument. I see no compelling evidence to take this stance unless you already start out from the perspective that the biblical account simply cannot be true. Your argument is also seriously weakened by the fact that there are reputable extrabiblical accounts of Jesus, his deeds, and His fate. Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117), for one, was a Roman senator and known as the greatest Roman historian. In his work "The Annals" he wrote this concerning Jesus:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

An interesting aside, Thallus, another historian wrote "A History of the Eastern Mediterranean" around 52 A.D. In it, he speaks of the darkness that covered the land at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Significantly, he didn't claim it to be a miracle but simply described it to be a solar eclipse. What he apparently didn't know was that during the passover feast when Christ was crucified, it was a full moon, and solar eclipsed cannot happen during full moons.

Would you be credible? I'd probably think so if there were no other motives than to tell of his life and how he went about doing good, loving others, showing compassion to the unlovely, always welcomed children to join him and his friends. That he willingly gave his life for others?. That your life was drastically changed for the good by knowing him?. That even though you were not always a faithful friend, he never stopped being yours.? That you ended up being willing to be persecuted for loving him? I'd have to weigh that kind of information, for starters.

Well in this age of hyper-digitalism I'd be suspicious if I didn't hear about it less than 3 hours after it happened.

But yeah, if you started writing in 1980 about a magician from the '50s who raised people from the dead and walked across Loch Ness I'd be pretty sceptical.

More so than usual, I mean.

...

I'd be highly suspicious of the accuracy of your quotations of things that he said, especially if there was no reason to think that you were taking notes all those years ago. I would also be highly suspicious of the accuracy of your information about the circumstances of his birth, which would be hearsay at best.

it depends on weather you cite outside sources to support you're claims, there is no bibliography in the bible.

You're wasting your time with this.

No.