Question:

How do we know that the Bible consists of real-life events and is not just a story put together by some bloke in the first century using characters based off people around that time. For example we do not know that Jesus actually said any of the words that he is recorded as saying in the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is unreliable as the disciples could have made it all up. There is not enough evidence that the apostle even existed, let alone were persecuted and killed for their faith. The only source that mention other than Peter and John is Eusebius who was himself a Christian historian. Therefore, even if the historical facts clashed with those portrayed in the New Testament, he would have still written down things that agree with the New Testament so as to not counteract his faith. Therefore, the only mention of the majority of the majority of the disciples and their persecution and deaths is an unreliable biased Christian historian. Therefore we cannot be sure of the resurrection as the most reasonable conclusion as we do not know whether they even existed, let alone suffered. Therefore, someone may have stolen the body of Jesus as we do not know if they were persecuted for their beliefs. It means one may savely say that they may have been lying about the stealing of Jesus’ body.

Answer:

We know this for many reasons.  First of all, we know where Jesus was born, where he was raised and where he died.  We know the names of his mother, his father, his aunt and uncle, three of his brothers and more than two dozen of his friends.  Some of these people are identified by Roman and Jewish writers who have no reason to support a fictional account.  For example, Josephus mentions the death of the apostle James and the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus.  Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and other Roman authors mention the person Jesus and his followers.  It is utter nonsense to propose the creation of the Christian religion unless we allow for the fact that this religion was begun by Jesus and by those who knew him intimately.  It is not even rational to propose that the entire story of the person Jesus is a myth.  One can reasonably argue that some particular single incident in the life of Jesus recorded in the gospels is fictional.  This is not likely, as the writers had little reason to lie, because this would have lost credibility for their books.  But this can be proposed without violating all laws of reason and evidence. but to propose that the entire story of Jesus–his miraculous ministry, his basic teaching and so forth is complete fabrication is utter nonsense.
You say that there is not enough evidence that the apostles existed.  This statement is evidence that the person who said this has not done his or her homework.  I once listened to a podcast by one of the most notorious atheists out there, Bart Ehrman.  When a person in a call-in show proposed that Paul never existed, Ehrman rebuked his for making such a foolish proposal because it makes the atheist cause look foolish.  Anyone who proposes that Paul never existed might as well say that Julius Caesar or Augustine or Cicero never existed.  This is ludicrous and Ehrman rebuked his atheist friend for making such a proposal. Anyone who says that there is not enough evidence that Paul or Peter existed is showing their ignorance of the facts, not making a believable proposal.  Eusebius might have exaggerated or even recorded some erronious information, but to propose that he is wrong about the fact that Peter of Paul or John lived and were persecuted is so wrong, it is hard to know how to respond to this claim.  Dozens of people in the second century wrote about these three apostles. I can provide names if you like, and some of them actually met John.  To  say that these people are lying is to violate all common sense. 

You say that “the only mention” of the other apostles is Eusebius.  This is so untrue I hardly know how to respond to this.  I could list more than thirty authors from the second and third century who mention these men, giving specific details of their lives and so forth.  Have you even read Eusebius?  I have read all he wrote.  He quotes sources and acknowledges the things he is sure about from the things he is not quite as sure about.  He is a good, well-trained historian. 

You do not have to believe in the resurrection if you do not want.  That is your business.  However, we should make reasonable statements.  I have always said that the most reasonable interpretation of the facts we know is that Jesus was raised from the dead.  If you do not agree, that is fine.  That is your choice.  However, I suggest you not make obviously wrong statements to support your conclusion.  Might we have some of the facts wrong?  Possibly.  Could we be wrong that Jesus was a real person who really had twelve apostles, who died by crucifixion in Jerusalem and who was the inspiration behind what we call the Christian religion?  Definitely no.

The proposal that the apostles stole the body and then lived the rest of their life based on a massive conspiracy and lie is not reasonable in my opinion. And this conspiracy would have had to have been really big, as all of the apostles and dozens of other eyewitnesses to the resurrection would also have been in on the lie. No, I do not agree that this proposal is reasonable. It is not reasonable to conclude that the apostles and other early disciples were not persecuted, as we know this is true, including from Josephus and several other authors.
John Oakes