Q:Do we have documented prove of the calimed numbers of people being fed? Miracles are reported in books of faiths and like to know about the mentioned miracle from different resources?

A:

No independent, non-religious historical documentation confirms the specific numbers or the miraculous feeding itself. The claimed figures (roughly 5,000 men, with some accounts noting women and children in addition) come exclusively from the four New Testament Gospels.6

These are the primary sources:

• Mark 6:30–44 (often considered the earliest written account): The people sat in groups of hundreds and fifties on the green grass; five loaves and two fish were distributed; everyone ate and was satisfied; twelve baskets of leftovers remained; “the number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.”
• Matthew 14:13–21: Similar details, with the explicit addition that there were “about five thousand men, besides women and children.”
• Luke 9:10–17: About five thousand men; seating in groups of about fifty.
• John 6:1–14: About five thousand men; a boy provides five barley loaves and two fish; leftovers fill twelve baskets; the event is linked to Passover season.

The seating in organized groups is sometimes cited as a practical way the Gospel writers (or underlying tradition) could have estimated the number. The story is the only miracle (apart from the resurrection) reported in all four canonical Gospels.6

External and historical context

No contemporary non-Christian sources (such as Josephus, who mentions Jesus as a performer of “wonderful works” in a debated passage, or other Roman/Jewish historians of the period) describe this specific event or corroborate the headcount. Later Christian writers (Church Fathers from the 2nd–4th centuries) refer to it as historical within the faith tradition, and a traditional site near the Sea of Galilee (Tabgha) has a church and mosaics commemorating it from late antiquity, but these reflect Christian memory rather than independent verification.18

Modern assessments vary:

• Some Christian apologists and scholars highlight multiple independent attestation across the Gospels, “undesigned coincidences” (e.g., details about green grass aligning with spring/Passover timing in different accounts), and internal consistency as evidence that a real large-scale gathering and meal underlies the reports. They sometimes rank it among the better-attested New Testament miracles after the resurrection.1
• Critical historical scholarship often accepts that Jesus likely shared memorable communal meals with crowds (consistent with his broader practice of table fellowship) but views the miraculous multiplication as a theological development. Possible literary influences include Old Testament precedents such as Elisha feeding a hundred men with twenty loaves (2 Kings 4:42–44) or motifs of manna in the wilderness and military-style organization of crowds. Some see the number 5,000 as carrying symbolic weight (e.g., military or tribal associations in Jewish tradition).36

A parallel but distinct story of feeding about 4,000 appears in Matthew and Mark. Miracles of this type are, by nature, not subject to the kind of contemporaneous secular documentation available for ordinary historical events; acceptance rests on the reliability one assigns to the Gospel traditions themselves. No archaeological find or external census-style record quantifies the participants at this gathering.

Q:Other miracles are associated prophet Jesus like his miraculous birthday without father, story of birds, healing of sime diseases etc are theses also challenged equally? Are they supported by other faiths like Judaism and Islam ?

A: Yes, these miracle claims face similar historical challenges in terms of lacking independent, contemporary non-religious documentation outside faith traditions, though the degree of scholarly scrutiny and acceptance varies by claim. Critical historical methods treat all ancient miracle reports cautiously due to the nature of the sources (primarily religious texts written decades later). Confessional acceptance depends on the tradition.

Virgin birth (birth without a father)

This appears in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (not in Mark or John). Critical scholarly consensus generally views the historical foundations as weak or flimsy: the accounts are late (likely 80–100 CE), independent of each other in details, absent from earlier Christian writings like Paul or Mark, and tied to theological purposes (e.g., interpreting Isaiah 7:14, which in Hebrew refers to a young woman rather than necessarily a virgin).59

• Islam: Fully affirmed. The Quran describes Mary (Maryam) conceiving Jesus (Isa) by God’s command without a human father (e.g., Surah 3:45–47; 19:16–22). It compares it to Adam’s creation and stresses Jesus as a human prophet and “Word from God,” not divine.41
• Judaism: Not supported. Traditional Jewish views reject the virgin birth. It is seen as incompatible with messianic requirements of Davidic descent through a human father, and Isaiah 7:14 is understood differently. Some later polemical texts (e.g., Toledot Yeshu) portray Jesus’ origins negatively.51

Story of the birds (forming birds from clay and giving them life)

This is not in the canonical New Testament Gospels. It appears in the later apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (mid-to-late 2nd century CE), where the child Jesus forms sparrows from clay and brings them to life. Critical scholars treat it as legendary/non-historical, part of popular infancy stories rather than early reliable tradition.79

• Islam: Explicitly affirmed in the Quran as a miracle of Jesus by God’s permission (Surah 3:49 and 5:110): he shapes a bird from clay, breathes into it, and it becomes a living bird. It is presented as a sign for the Children of Israel.42
• Judaism: Not supported or acknowledged as authentic.

Healings of diseases (e.g., the blind, lepers, and similar)

These are widely attested across the four canonical Gospels (multiple independent sources and forms). Unlike the feeding miracle or virgin birth, there is broad scholarly consensus—including among many critical and non-confessional historians—that the historical Jesus was known in his time as a healer and exorcist who performed deeds regarded as extraordinary by contemporaries. Specific supernatural details remain matters of faith or debate, but the reputation for healings is among the better-attested aspects of his public activity.67

• Islam: Affirmed. The Quran states that Jesus healed the blind and the leper (and raised the dead) by Allah’s permission as signs (Surah 3:49; 5:110).41
• Judaism: Not accepted as validating claims about Jesus. Traditional sources emphasize that miracles alone do not prove prophecy or messiahship (e.g., views associated with Maimonides). Some later texts may acknowledge extraordinary acts but attribute them to other means (such as sorcery) or dismiss their significance for Jewish criteria.58

In summary: All these claims lack external secular corroboration from the first century and are evaluated differently depending on whether one prioritizes the religious texts or critical historiography. Islam accepts the virgin birth, clay birds, and healings (framed strictly as prophetic signs from God, without divinity). Judaism does not support them as authentic divine validations of Jesus. Christianity affirms the virgin birth and healings via the New Testament (while the clay birds story remains non-canonical). The challenges are comparable in evidentiary terms to the feeding of the multitudes, with healings generally facing the least resistance among critical historians as a category of activity.