Maybe you won't accept the evidence because "heart is too heavy" or some other such nonsense. But here is a little bit more from where I recall having heard these things.
I will accept any valid evidence in support of factual assertions. I'm more than happy to grant supported facts as valid.
1. Most historians don't believe in the supernatural parts of the Bible.
For #1, a podcast I listened to had mentioned the book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus by Richard Carrier. Right on the sleeve of the book is written, "Almost all experts agree that the Jesus of the Bible is a composite of myth, legend, and some historical evidence," and as you get further into the book he actually cites other historians who have come to the same consensus: "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend." He provides his sources of field studies done on this by Bart Ehrman in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know about Them), Burton Mack in The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy, and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz in The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide.
Your evidence does seem to clearly suggest that there are an ample number of historians who don't believe in the supernatural parts of the Bible.
There are also a good number of historians who do believe in the supernatural parts of the Bible (Michael J Wilkins, Gary Habermas, Graham H. Twelftree...)
So, I suppose that both of us can agree that at least some historians do believe in the supernatural parts of the gospels, and at least some historians do not believe in the supernatural parts of the gospels.
2. Authorship of the gospels is unknown and was only attributed to disciples by the church's founding fathers.
For #2, I gave the evidence and you said it isn't contested, so I'm not sure what more to say here.
For the part about the authorship, I've heard and read that in several places that the authorship of the Bible was anonymous and that only the church fathers attributed the names to the writings in the 2nd century.
Here you've changed the wording of your claim slightly. I do agree that the gospels were not originally published along with the names of the authors and that the formal attributions were made by the early church fathers around the 2nd century. I do not agree that the authors of the gospels were unknown.
And I didn't make a decision to disbelieve exorcism based on ancient history or what people believe.
I read on about several of the other famous cases, but no matter where you looked there was a skeptical side to each one, and with good reason. In conjunction with the application of reason, that was all I needed to be wary of any such claims.
Okay. From your earlier statement, you said that when you looked into various exorcism you found that there was a skeptical side to the cases you examined. So far that's all I've heard.
So, on what basis do you disbelieve in the reality of exorcism (and the accompanying reality of demonic oppression/possession)?
Ancient history is not about "actual" events, and nothing that far back is absolute. It's about piecing together the evidence as best as possible and based upon how much of that is accumulated, deciding how probable it is to be true. Doubt is a natural part of this process because if you have one piece of evidence that claims something extraordinary that was likely to be reported by other sources and is not, it's reasonable to question the validity of those claims.
Now you are confusing the subject with the method. The subject of ancient history is the events that historically occurred. The process of doing/studying ancient history involves piecing together evidence.
The question then is by what means someone determines what actually occurred.
My argument is that if an account seems to be supported by evidence, then it should be accepted as factual, concerning both extraordinary and non-extraordinary claims.
Your argument seems to be that ancient accounts that mention extraordinary events should not be believed because they makes claims that are extraordinary.
If this is your argument, then please support it. If this is not your argument, then please present an argument to me demonstrating how the extraoridnariness of a claim has any bearing on the veracity of a historical account.
And several of the people here who have spoken out against these types of ideas were once Christian. They once believed because they had a different standard of evidence. And I can't speak for others, but for me it had a lot to do with simply growing up.
I too grew up being taught a good number of things. In the process of growing up, I came to realize that various things I was taught weren't supported by rational thinking or proper evidence. I critically examined all of my major beliefs and considered the evidence for each.
Like you, my standard of evidence changed when I reached adulthood. However, many of beliefs were strengthened by the process of inquiry because I found there to be solid and sound evidence.
It's not because of who they were or who they associated with, it's because of how related their source. If today I was given two news stories written by anchors that were both from Fox News, I would still look elsewhere for a different perspective because even though they are still likely to not agree on everything, they are too closely related to count as independent. I would especially do so if I found they were filtering the evidence to fit their notions.
There's nothing wrong with looking for corroboration. However, one cannot logically dismiss an account or similarly-sourced accounts simply because of personal association.
Have you found a credible conflicting account that suggests the gospel-writers were lying? Have you found some basis for believing that the gospel-writers did filter or tamper with the true account of Jesus life?
If so, go ahead and present your case. I'm genuinely curious...