Johnny Skeptic

Message to freetrader: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Item #1

A good deal of evidence shows that he "was" largely forgotten in the first century, which is the century that should have had the "fastest" growth because of the presence of thousands of supposed still living eyewitnesses, but that did not happen. If Jesus did not perform any miracles, it would obviously have been much easier in the second century to get away with claiming that he performed miracles since most of the eyewitnesses would have been dead.

Item #2

Better stated, if you entertain the hypothesis that Jesus did not perform miracles, that easily explains why the Christian church was barely noticeable in the first century, and why the Romans apparently did not pay any attention to the miracles. Of course, if there weren’t any miracles, there would not have been anything for the Romans to pay attention to.
freetrader

Item #3

Evidence please. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread about independent sources.

Item #4

Not according the the Bible. Consider the following Scriptures from the KJV:

Matthew 4:23-25

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan."

John 20:30-31

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Consider the following Scriptures from the NIV:

Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.

The texts say that his fame went throughout all of Syria, and that he also performed miracles in many other places, and yet you said "within his life he had no wide reputation or status or recognition." Doesn't fame imply status and recognition?

Item #5

If he did do unusual things, wouldn't doing unusual things have made him famous and given him wide reputation, status, and recognition?

Item #6

If Jesus did not perform any miracles, then there couldn't have been much of a market for his miracles among Greeks, Romans, or anyone else. It appears that that is what happened, reference, for example, Rodney Stark's estimate in "The Rise of Christianity" that there were approximately 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D.

Where did you get the notion that "there had to already be a tradition about Jesus, spreading among Greeks and Romans by word of mouth, which provided an audience or market for the gospel accounts......."?

If the body of Jesus was not put in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb, obviously there was not a stolen body tradition until the tradition was made up years after Jesus died. Do you believe that a stolen body tradition existed soonafter Jesus died? If so, based upon what evidence?

Item #7

"A miracle-worker who did cures on a uniquely-grand scale" contradicts "within his life he had no wide reputation or status or recognition." Please clarify what your position actually is.