That is not the point of this discussion. Whether worshipping a man as God is buffoonery or not, Christians do it. By saying they do not, dejudge has fallen into error. Again.
That is not true!
They are worshiping a GOD who assumed the role of a man for a little while but still remaining a God.
They do not worship the man.
They worship the ACT OF SACRIFICE that the GOD made for them so as to help them become gods.
They do not worship the man... they worship the GOD and his SACRIFICE for which he needed to ASSUME THE ROLE of a man for a little while but still remaining a god in order to save humans and make them gods.
All manner of things are technically possible but some real evidence would be nice.
As far Jesus is concerned (and that is what we are actually talking about in these HJ threads), I have given you very direct and actually unarguable evidence, i.e. "evidence" which is as close to a "Fact" as it's possible ever to get, showing that what was said about Jesus was untrue and that the people who wrote about him in the bible were unreliable in the extreme.
What more evidence would it ever be humanely possible to give?
The first massive chunk of evidence showing how seriously unreliable the gospels all are, is that in relatively modern times, e.g. only from as recently as about 1850 to 1900, it gradually became clear from modern science that the supernatural claims of the gospels could not actually be true (because they are physically impossible).
The really important factor to understand in respect of that, is that for almost all of the last 2000 years since the biblical writing, people had no idea that supernatural claims were impossible. On the contrary, in biblical times almost everyone was absolutely certain that miracles and other supernatural events happened all the time. They thought it was indisputable fact (mainly because religious preachers told them it was indisputable fact).
But what that means is that the gospel writers who packed their tales of Jesus with supernatural claims about him, were very seriously unreliable to put it mildly. They are certainly not to be trusted as reliable "witnesses" for anything they said about Jesus. And that has been "proven" as an unarguable fact by the scientific discovery that such tales of the supernatural and miracle-working are certainly untrue.
You really don't need any more than that to completely discredit the proven fiction of the gospel writers.
But in addition to the science, it is now known that all four writers of the canonical gospels were creating their Jesus stories by a process called "fulfilment citation" using the ancient prophecies of the OT. That is - they were searching the OT for any sentences they could interpret as something to be claimed about Jesus. So that is really very direct and unarguable evidence for where the gospel writers were finding their Jesus beliefs.
Those two factors alone, and there are of course many others, are each very direct and unarguable evidence "proving" how totally unreliable the gospel writing was.
And just to pre-empt the usual objection that such indisputable evidence against the veracity of the biblical writers is not directly evidence about Jesus himself - you cannot of course ever have direct evidence of the non-existence of things that don't actually exist! That is - if Jesus never actually existed as a person, then you can't have direct evidence of him as a non-existent person ... you can only ever show evidence that the stories about such a person were seriously unreliable, or in the case of Jesus, eventually proved literally impossible.
