Can't prove the supernatural God

[SteveII]

So in one sentence you ask for "various different sources" and in the very next sentence you say "it makes no difference as to whether you split it up into 27 sources". You win. I can't argue with that logic.

You can't possibly be that stupid.

You asked how we get to know that anything is the truth, I told you that usually we get to the the truth (or as close as we can manage) by corroborating evidence from varying different sources.

I then, being generous, asked you for just one other source than the Bible.  Just one.  Those 27 sources, constitute the Bible dickhead, so you, luckily, as I am so generous, are now being asked to find one other source please.  Just one.

Or will you avoid the challenge in a pathetic attempt at being clever?

There are a couple of references of Jesus elsewhere (Tacitus, Josephus), but really, what would you expect to see from Jesus' time or shortly thereafter? 99.9% of documents are lost to history. The Christian movement was not especially noteworthy outside of Palestine for at least several decades. Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews scattered in 70 AD. Also, why wouldn't your skepticism apply to the next document? Why stop? 

Do you disagree that there were churches in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome by AD 50-60? It is clear there was "an effect" so, the debate is what was "the cause". There is not sufficient reasons to dismiss "the cause" as the life of Jesus (as claimed in 27 separate documents). 

The discussion in this link shows the early non-NT people and writings:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...0.93325.29