Firstly the gospels are anonymous, but even if one held the unevidenced subjective belief that the names assigned were genuine, the claims are still unsubstantiated hearsay. Just because an author makes a claim to have spoken to an eyewitness, doesn't mean we can reliably assume there was an eyewitness, and beyond that what they claim this alleged eyewitness(es) saw, is even less reliable if there is no evidence to verify or substantiate what is being claimed, and worse still if the claims defy or are contradicted by natural and scientific facts.
Finally people were obviously ignorant of a great deal of natural and scientific facts we now understand, and highly superstitious as a result. So unevidenced appeals to mystery or the supernatural, or assumptions that defy or are contradicted by natural or scientific laws speak for themselves. I wouldn't accept such hearsay claims in any other context, so why would I accept these?