":Instead of asking me personal questions about what I believe, the same question can be put to you in reverse:  Do you seek to exclude these ancient accounts of Miracles of Jesus based on your personal belief that certain ancient accounts are ""valid"" sources, and others are not?  Do you claim to know which sources people are allowed to read about in the article, based on which ones are considered ""canonical""?  Does it really matter who ""historians deem"" any of sources - whether the ones you personally approve of being mentioned, or the ones you don't - to have genuinely been written by?  They are all definitely ancient sources, and they were all definitely written by somebody - whether it was the person they were ascribed to, or someone else.  The only possible basis you have for mentioning some and not mentioning others, would be based on certain of them having been declared ""frauds that must bve suppressed"" by various councils of Bishops.  Wikipedia is not bound to avoid mentioning them at all, just because some council of Bishops wants them to be suppressed.  Bringing up what historians say is a red herring, because as you well know, plenty of historians can be found who say they are ALL frauds, hence there is nothing alongside historians to differentiate one set from the other set.  The only differentiation comes from your personal beliefs, or from the declaration of some council.  And please note, we are just mentioning them in the article as existing  not stating which ones are ""true"" or ""untrue"".  We've clearly stated that they aren't part of the canon. It's wrong to pretend they don't exist, and to suppress all mention of them, based on which ones you, bishops, or even historians personally might feel are ""untrue"".  They are noteworthy simply because they are ancient.   (ውይይት) 

"