Hello Ben, thanks for taking the time to respond.

You said:

"If the biblical Jesus actually performed the miracles attributed to him, you'd think there would be far more recorded about him by contemporary sources."

Remember, my friend, that 2,000 years have intervened between the events and now.

Consider this: Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D., only a few decades after the time of Jesus. It killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and blanketed the entire Roman Empire in ash, affecting the climate for years afterwards.

Everyone knew the event occurred. Everyone would be writing about it.

How many accounts have survived down to today?

1000?

100?

Nope. Only one account survives -- that of Pliny the Younger. Every other account written down about the eruption has been lost to history.

Sometimes people forget how readily paper degrades over time and how seldom it is for documents to be preserved.

Compared to Vesuvius, Jesus has a wealth of documents surviving to the present day.

We have four biographies in the form of the four Gospels, plus numerous quotations and applications of Jesus' teaching in a large series of letters between church leaders in the Epistles, plus a history of Jesus' followers spreading His message in Acts.

Additionally, we have surviving Roman records, Jewish Sanhedrin records, earthquake records, astronomical records, and Roman census records, all of which corroborate the claims in the Bible perfectly.

By all accounts for anything from ancient history, we have a wealth of information for Jesus surviving down to the present.

You said:

"The references you state constitute "staggering" proof are really a little light on detail and specificity. Nowhere in these references does it suggest he was the "Son of God" nor that he was born of a virgin mother."

Actually, they do.

That's why I selected several of the pieces I quoted in the article.

Sanhedrin 43a testifies to Jesus performing miracles while alive. Note the specificity of the account: it does not say that Jesus claimed to perform miracles, or that accounts rose up after the fact. Rather, it says that Jesus genuinely performed miraculous works. The Sanhedrin did not deny them, but rather changed the source, deeming them "sorcery" instead of miracle. They then used this as part of their justification for condemning Jesus to death.

This indicates that the miracle stories did not develop later. While Jesus was still alive, He was known to perform miracles, so much so that the Sanhedrin could use it as evidence against Him.

Likewise, the earthquake and astronomical accounts corroborate some of the seemingly legendary details in the text -- namely, that there was a massive earthquake when Jesus died, and there was a three-hour darkness that covered the entire Empire right when Jesus hung on the Cross.

You said:

"As has been pointed out endlessly in every investigation into the existence of Jesus Christ, the writings directly referencing him, now parts of the Bible, were not actually authored until some time after his death. Why were these things not written as eye-witness accounts by his apostles?"

All of the historical evidence indicates the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses (Matthew, John) or their scribes (Mark, Luke).

Every single manuscript we have that contains an intact title page (and even some that don't) attribute the authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Every mention in the church fathers and historians attribute the authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

There is no hint of an anonymous period where the authors were not known. There is no talk of such a thing between church fathers, nor is there any indication that the authorships were ever in doubt.

If there were, you'd expect argument and disagreement over who wrote what. Various sects would try to claim their own favorite Apostle as the author.

Instead, no one argues, and no one questions, and no one mentions any other authors than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

We even have multiple accounts recording precisely where, when, why, and how each author wrote their respective Gospels.

I know this flies in the face of what you've been told. So my challenge to you is simple: look for the evidence. Try to find any anonymous Gospel manuscript -- any manuscript at all that includes the title page but doesn't list an author. Try to find any mention in the church fathers or historians where people don't know who authored one of the Gospels.

Spoiler: such things don't exist.

You said:

"I have always maintained that if Jesus Christ did actually exist, he was an earthly prophet who simply challenged the authority of the Roman empire. With enough support from citizens, he would have represented a threat to Roman authority and as such, would have been singled out for removal. I'm sure a similar fate befell any other individual who represented this type of disturbance to the Roman hierarchy."

Such an account would not give rise to the evidence we have.

Sanhedrin 43a would not record that Jesus practiced miracles/sorcery. Nor would they single Him out for a Sanhedrin-decided death, if Rome was the active agent putting Jesus down.

If your account was true, Tacitus would not have linked Jesus to a "superstition." Rather, he would have recorded that Jesus led a political revolt as a revolutionary.

If your account was true, there would be no earthquake or three-hour darkness to record.

You said:

"Following his death, his activities became folklore and his followers embellished his reputation by adding the miraculous details which would elevate his image to that of some sort of deity. Let us not forget the likely audience for this sort of sensationalized figure, they would have been largely uneducated and simple individuals who would likely be swept up in the excitement of hearing about a supernatural being who visited earth to save humanity."

Let us not forget that most of Jesus' followers in the first few decades were persecuted heavily, to the point of having their belongings seized, being jailed, being whipped, being stoned, and being killed after refusing to recant.

Let us not forget that all of Jesus' Apostles were put to death for their belief in Jesus. They did not gain power or wealth or fame by claiming Jesus rose from the dead. They got killed for it, and yet they persisted in their claims.

Let us not forget than an audience shallow enough to be be swept up in supernatural claims would also disperse in a heartbeat when they saw their leaders arrested, jailed, and killed.

And yet this never happened.

Instead, the followers of Jesus only grew in number as their leaders were killed.

Let us not forget that Christianity grew first in the region where the events happened, meaning that armies of eye-witnesses would exist to put down any claims of things that didn't happen. And yet there isn't a single account of anything like that happening, nor of anyone challenging the accuracy of the Gospel accounts.

Rather, we have records like Sanhedrin 43a, which corroborate the Gospels' claims that Jesus performed miracles while alive.