Strange, that no disinterested, independent, contemporary corroboration exists from any of the many thousands of alleged witnesses to the signs and wonders that Yahweh supposedly used to attest the man Jesus of Nazareth--very strange. So strange in fact, someone who is honestly searching for the truth just might be led to believe that none of these "attesting" miraculous signs and wonders ever happened.
One would think that if Yahweh truly doesn't want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) that he would have providentially given this type of supporting documentation. Instead, all we have is the biased testimony from the anonymous authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.
From the Errancy discussion list, June 14, 1998:
Commonplace, ordinary events of the past were often corroborated
by records left by various sources, but in the case of extraordinary or
miraculous events, with which claims the Bible is filled, not a single
disinterested, independent, contemporary source ever corroborated
any of them. Biblicists rave about the fact that Luke knew geography,
topography, social customs, historical persons, etc., etc., etc., all of
which can be considered only commonplace information. Miracles,
however, would have been so extraordinary that they would have
received wide attention.
In Acts 2:22, Luke had Peter saying to an audience that numbered
into the thousands that "Jesus of Nazareth [was] a man attested to you
by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through
him among you, as you yourselves know," so the claim was that such
deeds as these were done in the open and were witnessed by many
people. If that is so, then why is there no disinterested, independent
corroboration of them?