There are non-Christian sources that attest to the existence of these people. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus supports the NT story that Jesus’ brother, James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem.
Why put a different name on the mythical god? Why not just believe in Horus?
According to the historical criteria of embarrassment, what is embarrassing is related to what is being attested. So, for example, if Jesus and his disciples are attested to be self-consistent pacifists who didn’t carry weapons, the story that in the garden of Gethsemane they had swords is an embarrassment to that claim.
I was referring to the criteria of embarrassment in the technical sense that historians use it. You seem to be talking about it in a colloquial sense.
Mom is a fundamentalist and when I was a kid, we’d patronize Pentecostal churches exclusively. I’ve witnessed a lot of wild stuff and thought it was normal. No snakes or drinking poison, but not far from it. Anyway, the Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists and pretty much all bible-belt churches teach the trinity where the Father, Jesus, and Holy Ghost are all God, but separate persons (whatever sense you can make from that). They cite John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. So they say Jesus was the Word who became man while God (Father) stayed in heaven. They are two separate persons, but also the same God. They also point to the fact that Jesus had to be God because no man could have accomplished what Jesus did (defeat death). A few years ago it became increasingly a problem to me that Jesus and Father were not the same personality and I couldn’t make sense of why the Father seemed to pass judgement and kill while Jesus forgave and revived who the Father had killed (or allowed to die). How could the same God be polar opposite to itself? The Father says vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord. But Jesus says forgive 70 x 7 and turn the other cheek because the meek will inherit the earth. The Father causes the earth to open and swallow people for making a golden cow, but Jesus forgives those nailing him to a cross by simply pointing out that they’re confused and don’t realize what they are doing. Well aren’t the people with the golden cow also confused? So is the Father not as smart/perceptive as Jesus or is he less divine? Ultimately I decided the Father is just a natural aspect of the universe that cannot be reasoned with (a non-person force like gravity).What the supernatural/divine had represented to me was that which is not natural, such as turning the other cheek instead of fighting back or desiring vengeance. I consider that a divine principle exceeding displays of power to defeat enemies because, ultimately, all displays of power are evidence of fear/insecurity and not divine at all! What Jesus preached was exceedingly wise, to the point of being divine, and a quantum leap beyond what evolution had instilled in the animal; above natural = supernatural. But I’ve not seen anything by the Father worth writing home about, nevermind being divine/supernatural, but more animalistic and representative of what an ancient, uneducated, animal-like people would do/say. And here I agree with Christopher Hitchens that if a God were to reveal himself, why pick some of the dumbest people in ancient history? If he had waited 100,000 years, then why not wait another 2000 until now when we have the capability to substantiate with evidence? Or why not appear to the chinese who were more intelligent than the desert people? The Father was created by a weak and stupid people who wished they were powerful, but Jesus is something else and whoever created his words was clearly genius.
You’ve got some valid existential questions in there, but did Hitchens really say that? If so, it seems like he went out of his way to be antisemitic.