(November 13, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: For arguments sake, even if we accept the historicity of Jesus, that would not offer a shred of evidence for any of the supernatural claims associated with him.
I'm currently reading J.P.Meier's second book, which raises this question. Now experience has taught me never to post before finishing a book, but I'm going into YOLO mode on this one.
JPM does a turgidly thorough job of analysing the various 'miracle' stories using the appropriate historical tools. Some are ruthlessly rejected as improbable, others as non liquet, but there is a solid core which is historically likely to have original roots to some sorts of incidents in Jesus ministry. This statement he believes can be made from the history independently of any religious POV. The earliest followers really did believe he did things.
What JPM stubbornly refuses to do, within the terms of reference set by him (a Protestant, a Catholic and an agnostic locked in a room and forced to produce an agreed statement), is to say whether these events were miracles or something else. He repeatedly reminds us that our worldview model will determine how we read the events- an atheist will interpret the reasons behind them differently to a believer. The beliefs of the earliest followers might be findable historically, but they may not be right.
Are there non-religious models that fit the evidence better than religious ones? There is a reason the earliest church thought Jesus did things that pointed to a particular religious model, and in brief, I would suggest that the hypothesis that is the most economical with the data is that the explanation given by the witnesses was the right one.
