>> Which has more contemporary backup in the form of testimonies from numerous others?
> No, it's the Gospels.
Sorry, wrong. Quite a few other individuals wrote of Julius Caesar.
>> Which had statues made from life? Caesar.
> How about shrouds :-)
In that case, none.
> The first books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses to the events possibly less that two decades after the crucifixion.
Maybe.
> Why discount miracles?
Consider:
1) "I drove to work today."
2) "I teleported to work today."
Both could be wrong. One could easily be right. Why assume equal validity?
You want me to believe miracles, you're going to have to do better than hearsay and decades-old memories of cult leaders.
But when writing of Caesar's feats in Gaul, they based it on what Caesar claimed.
Further, while nobody argues the existance of Caesar or claims that Commentaries is not valuable history, the Bible is far, far more authenticated. We have thousands of fragments from New Testament dating to early 2nd Century, 50 years after it was written. The oldest copy of Commentaries comes from 900 AD, a thousand years after it was written.
1) "I drove to work today."
2) "I teleported to work today."
Both could be wrong. One could easily be right. Why assume equal validity?
That's the point, you don't. You assume he drove, until you have dozens of witnesses come forth to say he said he was going to teleport to work today, and we were watching him eat his breakfast at 8:59 and then bing, he was gone and his car's still in the driveway. Then dozens of other witnesses come forth and say we were wondering why he hadn't checked in then bing we saw him at his desk at 9 a.m.
It should make you go hmmmm.