By the way writings about Julius Caesar were done 800 years after he was around yet these writing are excepted. Witnesses for the Holocaust were up to 50 years after the events but they were accepted by the war trials. The people remembered like it was yesterday. It seems when it comes to Jesus people suddenly change all the criteria and make it 10 times as strict. It seems there maybe a bit of bias because some are letting their atheism get in the way.
The example of Caesar and the holocaust are not analogous because they do not make claims that are contrary to massive bodies of scientific research and daily experience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a friend tells me that the supermarket has bread on sale, I'll believe him at his word. If he tells me that dragons are breathing fire while riding unicorns around the parking lot of the supermarket, his word is no longer sufficient evidence.
That is an epistemic standard that is practiced by every one of us almost every single day of our lives. That's not a bias, that's being a good epistemic agent. Even if the scriptures we have really were written by witnesses to the events, it is far more likely that they were either mistaken or delusional than that Jesus actually performed the miracles claimed.
Upvote
0