OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.

[treshbond]

Yes but as far as I understand, neither the Aeneid or Iliad explicitly claim to be historical fact. Where as books like the gospel of Luke does.

I don't think either do. But does it matter? Just because a book claims that it says what happened doesn't mean it really happened.

True, but if what it claims to be true has corroboration from outside sources, doesn't that mean it may have really happened?

Also again, I am not aware of a great deal of editing having been made to the original manuscripts of the Bible, but changes made to translations. But even with translations can't they be examined in light of the probable agenda behind the alterations to determine what can be trusted and what can't?

That's called cherrypicking.

Please elaborate, I am not familiar.

---

Personally I don't have any problem with accepting the supernatural as 'possible', the issue is how 'probable' it is. Years ago the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was a supernatural concept, it ceased to become so when a means came about to test and measure it.

It is just as possible that what is considered supernatural now may become natural once the necessary technology (means to test and measure) is developed. Of course until that happens it is still super natural but just as with the orbit of earth, many began to believe it revolved around the sun before it was firmly established as fact.

Nonononono. No. We got the idea that the sun revolved around the earth because we thought God made us the center of the universe. And we found the opposite was true through science. It can't be compared. Resurrection, miracles, and rising to Heaven are not things that can be tested. They remain supernatural.

that may be true, but it wasn't purely superstitious, it is actually fairly reasonable when making a hypothesis to consider a number of different possible explanations for what is being observed. I think that before tools and systems of measurement were devised, thinking that the sun which perceptibly moves (and the earth which in many ways does not) means that the sun revolves around the earth is a logical thought.

The Resurrection, miracles and ascension are supernatural names which if observed and tested could possibly be accepted as natural once understood. The problem is that they have to be observed and falsifiable. That doesn't make them impossible, simply improbable. The question is how improbable