Perhaps it's because...

...I can rarely figure out what your point is. =)

My first paragraph exactly addressed the point I am making: if you are going to say you do not believe what the Bible says, that's fine. If you are going to state emphatically what is or what is not in the text of the Bible, you should probably know what it actually says, and be familiar with the text.

The second paragraph is what is known as an "example" or an "illustration" of that point.
http://www.wju.edu/arc/handouts/examp_illustr.pdf
I am not Hindu.
I am not familiar with their sacred writings.
It would not be reasonable for me to emphatically state what is or what is not in their sacred writings since I haven't actually studied them.
Likewise, someone who is not a Christian and who hasn't actually read the Bible, only excerpts, should not claim emphatically what is or what is not in the text. Logically, it makes more sense for them to claim something IS in the text if they've read that specific excerpt, rather than to declare something is NOT in a text they haven't even read.

The third paragraph addresses your statement:
Several narratives even involve Jesus by himself, i.e., without any witnesses present ~8^\

Given your use of bold text and the odd face after the sentence (shock? Surprise? Confused? Not sure where you were going with that...), I am assuming this was surprising to you? But most world religions have things recorded in their sacred texts that the author did not personally witness, and could not have known through their own experience. Whether or not you believe it to be a valid experience or information, it is believed by the adherents of that faith that the author received divine revelation. This is not something unique to Christianity; it is an element found in the sacred writings of religions all over the world. It is a key element of every creation myth ever written, because who was there to witness creation except God?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation#section_2