Your condemnation seems to focus on choices the church made, which again gets convoluted with God (burning witches, heliocentrists and the Crusades had nothing to do with Biblical statements just the twisting of things by some disturbed men).
To be fair, Exodus 22:18 does tell us "You shall not allow a sorceress to live."
So, I'm not sure I would say that burning witches had nothing to do with Biblical statements.
ETA:
Apparently this was important enough to cover more than once.
Leviticus 20:27 reads, "Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death"
OK, and what I have been taught as "proper" Biblical teaching supported by many versus in the NT, is that once Jesus came we are under grace, not under the Law. Citing OT Laws that are no longer applicable after Messiah's coming is not proper exegesis of the Bible, and mentioned about that topic by the Quereshi paragraphs I quoted. The is the difference between the old and the new covenant. Once Jesus came, many things were different. He indicated what is still relevant like the 10 commandments, but also that much under Mosaic Law (which is what is covered in the two books and others you quote) is not. The way to understand this, and I get one can argue from an angle of a cruel joke, is that the Law is not given to save but to show the futility of man in living up to God's standards. It is impossible to follow the Law in it's entirety and since to God all sin is the same.
IMPORTANT TO ALL OTHER POSTS. PLEASE FOCUS ON THIS PARAGRAPH AS A REFERENCE GOING FORWARD. First, I will try to respond as I can, when I can. I've got about an hour this morning before I need to head to the farmer's market to get fresh corn for our Memorial Day BBQ and then may not be able to keep going, so I may abruptly end a post just trying to get in what I can. Second, I am fine explaining what I understand of a given piece of explanation/evidence, but if you are looking for everything to piece together in a complete and "beyond a reasonable doubt" whole, then we are never going to do that. Just as you indicated that divinity cannot rationally be proved at this time if ever, a lot of what is known is a piece of a puzzle, not able to stand on it's own for the giant case being built. I would certainly go after each piece I share and find your own view, but understand this is always a case on circumstantial evidence and not physical evidence. With that, if you do not adhere to the "rules" for circumstantial evidence then you will always have much larger problem with what is presented. But if you do, and understand at it's core that abductive reasoning is the process you follow and arrive at the most reasonable inference. The case as built goes in pieces, so the first piece that the gospels are reliable and trustworthy is part of whether later items like what Thallus has are even worth consideration, because continuing to debate the reliability after one set of circumstantial evidence shows that it is, is to not follow the rules of circumstantial and cold case process which will always leave you with a lot more unanswered questions. Third, I am providing a smattering of items, and even if I cited entire chapters that is still just a piece of what a given author had found and then he chose to include what he did. This may be the best process we have for this board, but it is going to introduce a lot of time involved in continuing to explain and add detail. Fourth, I am using as a necessity materials I have in my personal library or may find appropriate passages on the internet that I can reference, but not everything I have read, so this dilutes that pile of evidence as well. I'm using mainly 2-4 books that I think do a decent job of summing up some key evidence, but it is unlikely that one of them standing alone answers enough of things to get people there. This is an immense topic, one which a lifetime of study will not open all the details to, so expecting an open and shut case in a matter of weeks or months that may go on here is an unreasonable bar, but I'm happy to stay involved as long as there is interest. These limitations and boundaries are what constitute my responses here, so I wanted to get those out somewhere and not have to repeat them in every other reply I make.
So returning to the Law above, I'll add some color from John MacArthur's commentary on Romans.
"Strangely, most people do not perceive of God as being totally good. Instead of recognizing His gracious provision, patience and His mercy, they accuse Him of being insensitive and unloving for letting certain things happen (my insertion: taking Exodus 22:18 and man misconstruing it to now mean they can burn witches). 'How could God allow that little child to die?' they ask or, 'Why does God allow that good person to suffer pain and death and poor health and permit a scoundrel to enjoy health and wealth?' Some people judge God from an incomplete and human perspective, failing to acknowledge that, if it were not for God's gracious goodness and patience, NO human being would be alive.
Rather than asking why God allows bad things to happen to seemingly good people, we should ask why He allows seemingly good things to happen to obviously bad people. We could ask why He does not strike down many other people for their sins, including Christians, as He did with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts:5:1-10). ... The reason is Romans 9:22-23
The German philosopher Heine presumptuously declared, 'God will forgive, after all that's His trade.' Many people share that presumption although they might not state it so bluntly. They take everything good from God that they can and continue sinning, thinking He is obliged to overlook their sin.
Modern man looks askance at the Old Testament, finding it impossible from his purely human perspective to explain the seemingly brutal and capricious acts on the part of God that are recorded there. Commenting on the release of the New English Bible some years ago, Lord Platt wrote to the London Times (March 3, 1970): 'Perhaps now that it is written in a language all can understand, the Old Testament will be seen for what it is, and obscene chronicle of man's cruelty to man, or worse perhaps, his cruelty to woman, and of man's selfishness and cupidity, backed up by his appeal to his god; a horror story if ever there was one. It is to be hoped that it will at last be proscribed as totally inappropriate to the ethical instruction of school-children.'
Superficial study of the Old Testament seems to confirm this sentiment. Why, many people ask, did God destroy the whole world through the Flood, except for eight people? Why did God turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt simply because she turned back to look at Sodom? Why did He command Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac? Why did He harden Pharaoh's heart and then punish him for his hardness by slaying all the male children in Egypt?
Why did God in the Mosaic law prescribe the death penalty for some thirty-five different offenses? (My emphasis added) Why did He command His chosen people to completely eradicate the inhabitants of Canaan? Why did God send two bears to kill forty-two teens for mocking the prophet Elisha? Why did He instantly slay Uzzah for trying to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling to the ground while at the same time allowing many grossly immoral and idolatrous Israelites to live? Why did God send fire to devour Aaron's two sons, Nadab and Abihu, for making an improper sacrifice while allowing many other ungodly priests to live to old age? Why did He not take David's life for committing murder and adultery, both of which were capital offenses under the law?
We wonder about such things only if we compare His justice with His mercy rather than with His law. The OT must be understood from the perspective of the creation. Got told Adam Gen 2:16-17. From the beginning, therefore ALL sin was a capital offense.
Although by justice they deserved to die for eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve instead experienced God's mercy. ... In light of that provision is becomes clear that
demanding the death penalty for only about thirty-five (my emphasis) transgressions, as in the Mosaic law, was not cruel and unusual punishment but an amazing reduction in the severity of God's judgment.
... Periodically, God did dramatically take someone's ife to remind men of what all sinners deserve.
Every day we live we should thank the Lord for being so patient and merciful with us, overlooking the many sins for which, even as His children, we deserve His just punishment. The crucial question is not 'Why do certain people suffer or die?', but 'Why does anyone live?'"